Antarctic Ice Sheet growing

[EternalOptimist]

I suspect an accumulation of energy in my braincase, due to an enhanced zealous desire to control, is more likely.

Expect more of the same, extreme rhetoric and wild claims is the new normal.

what are you on about now ?

[DodgyAgent]

I suspect an accumulation of energy in the climate system, due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, is more likely.

Expect more of the same, extreme is the new normal.

It really is a matter of opinion. The point is that any occurrence of any sort can be attributed to whatever cause an individual wants it to support

[pjclarke]

what are you on about now ?

Strange experience, being accused of control-freakery by someone who edits my words for me.

[pjclarke]

It really is a matter of opinion. The point is that any occurrence of any sort can be attributed to whatever cause an individual wants it to support

Quite. It is impossible unambiguously to attribute an individual extreme event to the warming; however a more energetic climate loads the dice in favour of more extreme events, hurricanes draw their energy from warm water, so if sea surface temperatures increase, storms tend to be stronger, even as reduced windshear may reduce the number that form.

What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events - Carbon Brief

[DodgyAgent]

Quite. It is impossible unambiguously to attribute an individual extreme event to the warming; however a more energetic climate loads the dice in favour of more extreme events, hurricanes draw their energy from warm water, so if sea surface temperatures increase, storms tend to be stronger, even as reduced windshear may reduce the number that form.

What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events - Carbon Brief

It is what they are paid to say after all. They could probably have said exactly the same thing 200, 2000, 20,000 years ago

[BlasterBates]

Obviously if there are climate cycles of 60 years and you compare the extremes with 30 years ago i.e. at the opposite ends of the cycle then you are going to find differences.

None of this is caused by AGW, simply because for most of the extremes you can find similar examples throughout history.

Hardly any hurricanes have hit the US coast in the last 6 or 7 years, because the Atlantic is moving into it's negative phase, as opposed to the numerous hurricanes in the late 1990's and 2000's when the Atlantic was in the height of it's positive phase.

A natural climate cycle.

We talk of biblical floods and droughts because in the bible many thousands of years ago, experiences of climate extremes were passed on from generation to generation. In those days it was the wrath of God, but nowadays it's part of the new green religion where mankind's "evil ways" are now causing the same kinds of extreme climate.

Me, I think God or misbehaving mankind have nothing to do with the climate.

[DodgyAgent]

Obviously if there are climate cycles of 60 years and you compare the extremes with 30 years ago i.e. at the opposite ends of the cycle then you are going to find differences.

None of this is caused by AGW, simply because for most of the extremes you can find similar examples throughout history.

Hardly any hurricanes have hit the US coast in the last 6 or 7 years, because the Atlantic is moving into it's negative phase, as opposed to the numerous hurricanes in the late 1990's and 2000's when the Atlantic was in the height of it's positive phase.

A natural climate cycle.

We talk of biblical floods and droughts because in the bible many thousands of years ago, experiences of climate extremes were passed on from generation to generation. In those days it was the wrath of God, but nowadays it's part of the new green religion where mankind's "evil ways" are now causing the same kinds of extreme climate.

Me, I think God or misbehaving mankind have nothing to do with the climate.

If I had to choose my money would be on God. The zealots of course have the advantage in that the climate changes all the time anyway.

[EternalOptimist]

Has anyone actually presented any science that proves, or even suggest, significant man-made global warming yet?

All i've ever seen presented is models - and models aren't scientific evidence.

It's important to realise that sceptics, like me, do not dispute the basic science that says that some gasses have a greenhouse effect. Without these gasses, the earth would be a frozen ball of rock and ice.
But not all gasses are equal, some are more plentiful and some are more powerful.

From a scientific point of view, you have to realise that something can be true, but so insignificant, it's hardly worth worrying about. For example, if I went and peed in the Ocean, sea levels would rise.
That is a fact. But is it worth worrying about ? of course not.

It's the same with carbon dioxide. No alarmist claims that CO2 will cause a problem. That's because it is not the most powerful, or the most abundant greenhouse gas.
What the alarmists claim, what the theory claims, is that CO2 will cause a bit of warming. This bit of warming will cause an increase in water vapour. Now, water vapour is the bogey man. It is a powerful greenhouse gas and it is abundant. This increase in water vapour will cause warming which will release more water vapour. A 'tipping point' will be reached. and the oceans will boil.

notice that the alarmists never mention the theory. They only mention the first bit, which is not in dispute. Notice they never mention the predictions made by the theory. Which have all failed.


Notice how they believe a certain course of action will cause the end of the world, but they carry on doing it themselves ! 40,000 of them will be flying to Paris soon.
not 40 climate scientists, not 400. not 4,000.
40 thousand !!

It's a jaunt. at our expense.

liars frauds and cheats, one and all

[AtW]

CBA to read whole thread, so just a quick question - is that ok if I get V12 motor?

[pjclarke]

notice that the alarmists never mention the theory. They only mention the first bit, which is not in dispute. Notice they never mention the predictions made by the theory. Which have all failed.

My dear chep, I am not an alarmist, however we discussed that topic in this very boutique ...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2117754

The no-feedback (just CO2) sensitivity is around 1.1C, the higher estimates do indeed include feedbacks, mainly water vapour. But, without feedbacks, you cannot explain, for example, ice ages, my sceptical friend.

As for failed predictions: here's Hansen 1988



Source moyhu: Hansen's 1988 predictions revisited.


Do stop making stuff up, there's a good chep.