Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[BlasterBates]

pjclarke if yoú´d bother to look at the imagery youll see plenty of ice, it´s just broken up. There is broken up ice where there was previously open water, I call that an increase. That ice is completely ignored in the graphs you show. Anyway we don´t really need to argue, nature will take it´s course and prove the "Warmists" wrong. The sun has gone quiet and everyone knows it´s going to cool down.

The next few years ae really going to be quite interesting. Expect a lot of squirming and theories dotting about to fit reality.

[IR35FanClub]

Out of that 33c we are producing the square root of fck all, and even if we were warming the planet a little, it will only be to the benefit of mankind

I keep telling you - stop generalising on what has been printed in the press and on forums and do some reading. A doubling of CO2 - which we are heading for, based on the expected burn rate of known fossil reserves, will cause between 2 to 5 degrees of warming. 2 shouldn't be too bad. 5 would be uncomfortable.

If I was an alarmist I could say all sort of bad things might happen.
As a denialist, I could say nothing bad will happen.

As a sane person, [who isn't on one side, or a religious convert who believes in the existence of a unknown entity], I'd say it's best to not get into a situation where we don't know what will happen. The planet hasn't undergone such a rapid temperature change as far as I know (will have to go and read some more), so although the planet has been hotter and cooler in the past, it was under normal millennial cyclical shifts, not a forced CO2 change over a few hundred years.

Will plants adapt quickly enough to follow the tropics, will invisible micro-organisms that break down soil nutrients be adapted to their new found climate.

No one knows, but these are the question that need to be asked, and answers found.

Another question to ask - do sudden changes in CO2 like volcanic eruptions lead to species extinctions. I think the answer to that is yet, but more to do with dust blocking the sun than CO2 warming.

And that is what science is about, asking questions and then finding the evidence to prove one way or another. And I seem to have difficulty getting that across to people - its not their opinion that matters, it's what has been proved an disproved in scientific circles.

[EternalOptimist]

Thats right. so let us look at the question and the evidence.

q. if co2 goes up fast, will temperatures also go up ?

e. co2 has gone up fast, temperatures have not gone up for 13 years

[IR35FanClub]

I apologise to those who follow the GW religion but surely one opinion is as good as another particularly as there have been many well publicised cases of GW scientists faking data.

When you say many, do you mean the UEA debarcle, which wasn't a case of faking data, it was the media misleading what someone had done in their code, a bit like if you said you had "frigged" some code, and they published - look they are frigging the code - it says so in an email. Without actually knowing what frigging code means. ie. Manipulating some numbers because of an deficiency elsewhere in the system that will take too long to sort out through a normal cycle of design and code.

What this was was a co-ordinated attempt to reduce the impact of the climate conference happening within a week or two, a) hack some data, b) make up some nonsense about what it means, c) release it just before a major climate conference so your government cronies who have been paid off as well have less need to negotiate a decent settlement.

I've read the full line by line code of what happened in "Climate gate" it was all bollocks, and yet people still remember it in the news and say "but all the data is made up anyway". So the intended consequence was exactly as require. FUD tactics. Nothing new. But it's not about a competitor's product.

[BlasterBates]

I keep telling you - stop generalising on what has been printed in the press and on forums and do some reading. A doubling of CO2 - which we are heading for, based on the expected burn rate of known fossil reserves, will cause between 2 to 5 degrees of warming. 2 shouldn't be too bad. 5 would be uncomfortable.

really

Apocalypse not (?) | Climate Etc.

In earlier times, future apocalypses were articulated by religious ‘seers.’ In the 20th century, science and models are driving apocalyptic predictions. On one hand, increasing understanding of the natural world and social systems should improve the basis for such predictions. On the other hand, this improved understanding and the explosion of numerical modeling and predictions provides fuel for the technically grounded apocaholics.

A great comment from Prof. Judth Curry and sums up what most of us think about those predictions.

[IR35FanClub]

Thats right. so let us look at the question and the evidence.

q. if co2 goes up fast, will temperatures also go up ?

e. co2 has gone up fast, temperatures have not gone up for 13 years

Oh dear, you just made a school boy error in a climate argument. Never bring up this subject ever again.

Climate change isn't about what happened in the last 10 or 20 years. Thats just weather.

We are discussing long term trends. It's a bit like saying, sales have been flat for the last 6 weeks, (when it's March). It means nothing.

Has global warming stopped? | Carbon Brief

[DodgyAgent]

Oh dear, you just made a school boy error in a climate argument. Never bring up this subject ever again.

Climate change isn't about what happened in the last 10 or 20 years. Thats just weather.

We are discussing long term trends. It's a bit like saying, sales have been flat for the last 6 weeks, (when it's March). It means nothing.

Has global warming stopped? | Carbon Brief

So what has been the trend for the past 5000 years then?

[IR35FanClub]

Real Climate is a blog which represents the opinions of some scientists. If it´s so overwehleming why does Professor Judith Curry a respected climate scientist accuse them of fraud.

Care to explain that or provide a link. Have googled and not found anything...

I've used realclimate in some links as they seem to do better than most in explaining quite technical reports to the layman.

[EternalOptimist]

Oh dear, you just made a school boy error in a climate argument. Never bring up this subject ever again.

Climate change isn't about what happened in the last 10 or 20 years. Thats just weather.

We are discussing long term trends. It's a bit like saying, sales have been flat for the last 6 weeks, (when it's March). It means nothing.

Has global warming stopped? | Carbon Brief

oh dear, professor phil jones (high preist of cagw) does not appear to agree with you

'Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models.'

[EternalOptimist]

Oh dear, you just made a school boy error in a climate argument. Never bring up this subject ever again.

Climate change isn't about what happened in the last 10 or 20 years. Thats just weather.

We are discussing long term trends. It's a bit like saying, sales have been flat for the last 6 weeks, (when it's March). It means nothing.

Has global warming stopped? | Carbon Brief

of dear
this fellow is supporting an opening thread about a seven year observation 12-07 - 05

then doesnt like others looking at a 13 or fifteen year series.


what a travesty