Tackling Climate Change: What We Need to Do.

Via on Mar 12, 2013
Common Sense
Common Sense

A “Common Sense Revolution”

Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine.

It was first published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution.

The phrase “Common Sense Revolution has been used as a political slogan to describe “common sense conservative” platforms in Australia and the state of New Jersey in the 1990s. However, it is most widely known as the name of the political movement which caught fire under the leadership of Mike Harris, the Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario from 1995 to 2002.

It was a time for people to be introspective and take a sober look at the politics of the day, government waste, the role of government, taxation, social services and public debt. There was a sense of urgency about setting the clock back to a more rational approach, about doing things right and doing the right things. Change was in the air! Change was needed!

Crisis of Confidence

We see that same level of urgency in the United States of America. A return to common sense—a Common Sense Revolution—is imminent. The most powerful empire in the world is being challenged from within. And maybe like Rome, the U.S. empire will fail and collapse. There are signs of domestic systemic failure— inequality, economic collapse, chronic unemployment, stagnation, political ineptitude and gridlock. America’s international problems are equally daunting— chronically at war, instability of oil supplies, target for terrorists, loss of credibility and the growth of China.

There’s a crisis of confidence in the heart of Americans. U.S. Citizens have lost faith in their politicians and their leaders. They no longer believe what mainstream media are telling them. They know fundamentally that something is not right. Their democracy is broken; their liberties are curtailed by an overzealous Homeland Security behemoth and the 1 percent own more than the bottom 100 million Americans combined.

Summer of Discontent—the Turning Point

Wildfires
Wildfires

Adding to current political and economic crises is the emerging realization that climate change is a very real threat that can no longer be ignored. Last summer, much of the country witnessed a heat wave never felt by anyone.

The disastrous Colorado fires, the unrelentingly scorching heat and widespread droughts have now convinced dozens of millions of Americans that climate change is real.

The summer of 2012 has done more to galvanize public opinion that climate change has already started than the world-wide campaigns by activists, organizations, scientists, climatologists and environmentalists combined.

Consumers are also feeling it with rising corn and soy prices which are sure to lead to much higher food costs in the future. Climate change is becoming an issue of far greater concern than that of terrorism, war, the economy, gay marriage, abortion, education and gun control. It’s the only issue that truly affects every single living thing on the planet.

Fred Krupp (Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of “Earth: The Sequel”) says that:

One scorching summer doesn’t confirm that climate change is real… what matters is the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather. But with more than 26,000 heat records broken in the last 12 months and pervasive drought turning nearly half of all U.S. into disaster areas, many climate skeptics are reassessing the issue.

According to a recent report in Bloomberg Business Week, a poll taken in July 2012 by UT Energy  shows that 70 percent of respondents now believe that climate change is real compared with 52 percent in 2010. Climate change deniers who say it’s not taking place fell to 15 percent from 22 percent.

Feeling the Fear

Fear is a powerful and primitive human emotion. It alerts us to the presence of danger and was critical in keeping our ancestors alive. The long trends are ominous! For the first time ever, Americans fear the effects of climate change. They wonder if the droughts will persist year after year; they muse over the crop failures, depleting water supplies and aquifers; they’re asking questions about how their children and grandchildren will deal with these conditions as they worsen.

Americans are seeing and feeling the symptoms of global warming like never before in recorded history. In recent years, interest in warming statistics has been overshadowed by more immediate concerns such as terrorism, war and a poor economy. Americans now are starting to feel the fear.

Scott Stenholm reports in Huffington Post that:

this summer has marked the dawn of a new era where a poor economic climate will not only pale in comparison to, but will be exacerbated by, actual climate. Global warming is literally cooking our lakes, rivers and oceans as evident when it was recently reported that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of fish have died as a result of water temperatures reaching as high as 100 degrees in Iowa and Illinois at an enormous cost to the fishing industry there.

Fear is a great motivator, it’s the ultimate motivator. As reported by Bill McKibben, in an email sent to subscribers of 350.org:

Just last week, the U.S. climate movement showed us just what it means to organize with courage, even when faced with foes like the fossil fuel industry. Across the country, protests rumbled the industry, and it looks like it’s just the beginning… doesn’t sound like a movement that is paralyzed by its fear. In fact, that sounds like a movement that is ready to end business as usual for the fossil fuel industry.

Photo: Jenna Pope | Forward on Climate Rally
Photo: Jenna Pope | Forward on Climate Rally

We’re slowly accepting that new thinking, combined with courageous political determination, rational bipartisan solutions and American willpower, will be essential to win the war on climate change. Nothing less than the American ingenuity typified by the Manhattan Project, in which the U.S. beat the Germans to the bomb and eventually won the war setting off an unprecedented economic boom, is required. A return to commonsensical solutions that address both climate change and its effects on economic health is fundamentally critical for success.

The Link to Common Sense

To ignite the forces of revolution you need to light a match. Occupy Wall Street provided that spark. Occupy has exposed corporate greed, lawless bankers, massive campaign donations choking the political process, a broken dysfunctional democracy, rising inequalities between the rich and the middle class, and an unsustainable debt load that will be passed on to future generations.

But to sustain a revolution, you need to build a fire. Fear of climate change may just be the fuel that feeds that fire. When fear is present, common sense solutions are sure to follow. One can either be immobilized by fear or motivated to take action. And a growing number of people are recognizing that the warming of the planet is caused by human activity. Fear can be quite paralyzing but can also lead to extraordinary courage in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds.

Seeking solutions that are logical and rational and making decisions that will have a positive impact on our environment is common sense. Rampant economic growth must be replaced by sustainable activities that will not rob future generations of their right to the same opportunities we have enjoyed. That too is common sense.

green peace extreme weather

Emerging Consensus

The recent emergent conservative view is evidence that common sense has a chance to succeed. In the same article, A New Climate-Change Consensus, Krupp establishes the emerging consensus:

Respected Republican leaders have spoken out about the reality of climate change… these views may turn out to be a welcome turning point. For too long, the U.S. has had two camps… one camp tended to preach about climate science … the other camp claimed that climate science was an academic scam designed to get more funding, and to strangle economic growth… constructive conversation rarely occurred. If both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion.

Proposition 1 – uncomfortable for skeptics, but it is unfortunately true: Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse—with profound damage to the economy—unless sustained action is taken. As the Economist recently editorialized about the melting Arctic: “It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them.”

Proposition 2 – uncomfortable for supporters of climate action, but it is also true: Some proposed climate solutions, if not well designed or thoughtfully implemented, could damage the economy and stifle short-term growth. As much as environmentalists feel a justifiable urgency to solve this problem, we cannot ignore the economic impact of any proposed action, especially on those at the bottom of the pyramid. For any policy to succeed, it must work with the market, not against it.

Richard Muller, Berkeley Physicist
Richard Muller, Berkeley Physicist

In a 2011 study, funded by climate-skeptical industrialists David and Charles Koch, University of California, Berkeley physicist Richard Muller (also a climate skeptic) confirmed that temperatures have been climbing over the past five decades.  His conclusion:

“You should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.”

A more recent analysis by Muller’s Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature research team has produced a new analysis of global temperatures over the past 250 years. The conclusion is that “climate change is ‘almost entirely’ due to greenhouse-gas pollution.”

Are we witnessing the beginning of an intellectual revolution?

Can we hope to see the emergence of common sense in our politics and economic systems now focused on perpetual growth? The fear of annihilation, our responsibility to future generations, the threat to survival are basic rudiments of the human species… Humans have been adapting to a changing planet for thousands of years but can we adapt to massive global climate change?

The successful revolution in the final analysis requires conviction of the need for change in attitudes and values. We are not there yet. But it might be a beginning.

In the words of the great Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi:

“The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation’s development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success.”

 

Like elephant green and enlightened society on facebook.

Ed: Lynn Hasselberger

 

About Rolly Montpellier

Rolly Montpellier is a blogger, writer, activist and the founder of BoomerWarrior.Org. BoomerWarrior is for the socially aware and politically conscious; for the change-makers and thought-provokers; for the light and young at heart; for anyone willing and courageous enough to move forward.

1,603 views

Appreciate this article? Support indie media!

(We use super-secure PayPal - but don't worry - you don't need an account with PayPal.)

Elephriends - Mindful Partners

190x1902-EJ-clothing

217 Responses to “Tackling Climate Change: What We Need to Do.”

  1. samitee says:

    I must take issue with several false statements in this article. Please set the record straight and research these talking points before spreading disinformation. "Last summer, much of the country witnessed a heat wave never felt by anyone." This is patently false. The heatwaves and droughts of the 1930s and 1950s were MUCH worse than anything we've seen in the last few decades. The drought of 1988 was much worse than any drought of 2012. Please research this.

    While the fires of Colorado last summer were certainly disastrous, they were not unprecedented like the media claims. The fire of 1898 alone was much more disastrous than last year's fires. That fire burned almost the entire northwest of the state of Colorado. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res… Please also see the fires of June 1890 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wZ5XAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wvMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6365,3344604&dq=fire+sangre+de+cristo&hl=en).

    There were something like 48,000 forest fires in 2012. That is the smallest total since the National Interagency Fire Center started tracking it in 2003. It is almost 25% below the mean and about one fourth of the 1938 total. And please don't argue about acres burned, that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions and much more to do with fire suppression.

    You quoted Fred Krupp in the article – "One scorching summer doesn’t confirm that climate change is real… what matters is the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather. But with more than 26,000 heat records broken in the last 12 months and pervasive drought turning nearly half of all U.S. into disaster areas, many climate skeptics are reassessing the issue." This is nothing but fear based propaganda. The idea that there were more than 26.000 heat records broken means nothing when analyzing how these temperatures were taken and also asking how many cold records were broken? Pervasive drought? Take a look at a map right now and look at all the record cold and snow the country is having. Droughts come and go, there is nothing record breaking about any of this, the facts say otherwise.

    "Americans are seeing and feeling the symptoms of global warming like never before in recorded history." This is more fear based propaganda. Quoting activists like Bill Mckibben who is wrong on almost every prediction he makes and silences debate at every corner is not helping your cause. Please re-examine your position and do some more research because this article is full of misinformation. "Emerging consensus" and "majority rule" is not how science is conducted.

    Stop scaring the children by engaging in irresponsible journalism and please check your facts before posting false information.

    • hmmann says:

      Being a latecomer to this debate, there are many comments to reply to, but I will begin with samitee’s first comments. In addition, due to space constraints, I will have to divide my first comment into two entries.

      Samitee said: “I must take issue with several false statements in this article. Please set the record straight and research these talking points before spreading disinformation. "Last summer, much of the country witnessed a heat wave never felt by anyone." This is patently false. The heatwaves and droughts of the 1930s and 1950s were MUCH worse than anything we've seen in the last few decades. The drought of 1988 was much worse than any drought of 2012. Please research this.”

      I think what Rolly was referring to is the fact that 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded in the US (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0). 34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows. 2012 is now acknowledged as the hottest year in US history by at least 1 degree centigrade, a huge difference between it and the next hottest year. There were more 100 degree plus Fahrenheit temperatures recorded than ever before in 2012. So, in terms of temperature, Rolly’s statement was not false, just poorly worded. However, in terms of extent of areas afflicted by drought considered severe or worse, the 1930s and the 1950s had some worse years than 2012, with 2012 ranking 5th. 1988 did not rank in the top 5 in terms of severity and extent (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2188).

      The drought of 2012 and the many other extreme weather events around the globe represent an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, a phenomenon predicted by climatologists decades ago (http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-dextremes-climatiques.pdf and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF0061… and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.497… and http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-… and http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past… and too many others to list).

      It just makes sense that as temperature and moisture are added to the atmosphere (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/… extreme weather events are more likely as increased atmospheric moisture favors more frequent and more severe flooding, and higher temperatures favor more rapid drying for, which in turn favors more droughts.

      • hmmann says:

        A number of factors converged to produce the “Dustbowl” of the 1930s. Drought in the southern, southwestern, and Midwest of the US is favored by La Ninas, when upwelling water causes much of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific to be relatively cool. Drought is also favored by warmer than average Atlantic mid latitude sea surface temperatures. Both phenomena act to alter the path of the jet stream causing fewer storms in the above-mentioned areas of the US (usually not all at once), and both phenomena were in operation during the 1930s drought.

        Also human influence played a role in the severity of the droughts of the 1930s. As Dr. Jeff Masters says in his blog: “However, the full intensity of the drought and its spatial extent could not be explained by ocean temperature patterns alone. Only when their model included the impact of losing huge amounts of vegetation in the Plains due to poor farming practices could the full warmth of the 1930s be simulated. In addition, only by including the impact of the dust kicked up by the great dust storms of the Dust Bowl, which blocked sunlight and created high pressure zones of sinking air that discouraged precipitation, could the very low levels of precipitation be explained. The Dust Bowl drought had natural roots, but human-caused effects made the drought worse and longer-lasting. The fact that we are experiencing a drought in 2012 comparable to the great Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s–without poor farming practices being partially to blame–bodes ill for the future of drought in the U.S.”

        Comparing the recent drought with those of the 1930s and 1950s is not really instructive, especially considering that the current drought may or may not be just beginning. It really depends more on La Niña – El Niña oscillation. La Niñas occurred in 1932, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1938, and 1939, and in the 1950s, La Niñas occurred in 1951, 1955, 1956, and 1957.

        Samitee said: “There were something like 48,000 forest fires in 2012. That is the smallest total since the National Interagency Fire Center started tracking it in 2003. It is almost 25% below the mean and about one fourth of the 1938 total. And please don't argue about acres burned, that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions and much more to do with fire suppression.” Samitee, would you please provide links to these statistics!

        From what I found, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, total number of wildfires in the US in 2012 was 67,774, with records dating back to 1985 (http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html). However, as you suggest, this was an unspectacular year for the number of wildfires. Samitee says that “And please don't argue about acres burned, that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions and much more to do with fire suppression.” However, I would take issue with that statement. Wildfire acreage is significantly and consistently greater in the last decade than the two decades before. (I seriously doubt that fire suppression technology and methodology has declined during this time span.) There are many reasons for this: the fire season is two and a half months longer than it was in the 1970s; as temperatures have been rising, the snow pack has been melting earlier; there has been significant and unprecedented snow pack decline causing a general drying of the Rocky Mountain area (http://www.opb.org/news/media/uploads/pdf/2011/snowpackpaper1.pdf); partly due to the warming temperatures, pine beetles have spread further and wider than ever before, killing large stands of forest and creating perfect conditions for the spread of wildfires. I submit that the warming is due to the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, an efficient absorber of the emission of infrared radiation from the earth. Solar radiation and cosmic rays cannot be correlated to the current climate dynamics of the planet. The number of wildfires is less important because their origin is predominantly by lightning strike, unintentional human starting of fire, escape of prescribed fires, or arson, none of which is relevant here.

        samitee said: “Quoting activists like Bill Mckibben who is wrong on almost every prediction he makes and silences debate at every corner is not helping your cause. Please re-examine your position and do some more research because this article is full of misinformation. "Emerging consensus" and "majority rule" is not how science is conducted.”

        Please provide references to you statement concerning Bill McKibben. And regarding emerging consensus, the consensus about climate change has been emerging for over 200 years, since scientists such as Fourier (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ) began to understand that gases in the atmosphere might trap heat received from the sun, and later, Tyndall discovered that CO2 in the atmosphere trapped infra red radiation (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm). The consensus has emerged over the past 200 years because the evidence has steadily grown supporting anthropogenic global warming! Any theory that evidence does not support will not survive the rigors of science, but anthropogenic global warming has not only survived, but thrived as an answer to the current climate change!

        • Your response provides much information in support of the predominant belief that climate change is real. You have brilliantly countered many claims made by samitee that the posted article was nothing but "fear based propaganda".

          Your thorough coverage of droughts – from the dustbowl of the 1930s to modern day conditions – leaves me concerned about the next decades. As you say, "The fact that we are experiencing a drought in 2012 comparable to the great Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s–without poor farming practices being partially to blame–bodes ill for the future of drought in the U.S.”

          Your material provided on wildfires contradicts the information provided by samitee. One's perspective is of course shaped by the information available at the time. Perhaps he/she did not have the right data is support of the the argument presented.

          Thank you for providing the many links (in part one of your response) about the frequency and intensity of storms as well as predictions made by climatologists decades ago, most of which are now a reality.

          Much appreciated.

          • samitee says:

            I am afraid we are at a standstill with anything regarding what Jeff Masters says. I'm not going to argue each of the points you've made in regards to Masters because there simply isn't enough room here to show you why Jeff Masters is not a credible source of information. I do urge you to research that matter fully on your own.

            The idea that farmers had an impact on the climate is simply laughable and not supported by any empirical data. I'm sorry but "Jeff Masters says" is just not good enough. He provided no material that countered mine (unless I missed it). Acres burned has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, it has everything to do with fire suppression. Please research these matters fully. Logic says that there should be MORE wildfires (if the CAGW theory is correct), but we see more than 3 times less than we did in 1939. Acres burned has to do with the condition of the forest floor (see fire suppression).

            I'm sorry but some of these claims are pure propaganda. I will do my best to provide rebuttals when I have more time.

          • hmmann says:

            If you are going to tell me that Jeff Masters, who has a doctorate in meteorology, is not credible, then I must assume you believe yourself to be credible. So please provide your credentials so we can be assured that you are speaking with some kind of authority on this matter. And do you not see how silly it is to argue in this fashion. I could do the same with any "expert" you refer to by just saying that he/she is not credible. We would just go back and forth with endless meaningless denials of each other's references. So, if you want to present a credible argument, you simply must offer some documentation as to why this person is not credible.

            Another source substantiating Masters; statements are found in this paper by Cook, Miller, and Seager, 2008: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/4997.full

            To call this hypothesis "laughable" without thoroughly investigating its merits is a reaction typical of someone who is thoroughly biased and either has not or will not consider other possibilities – a closed mind. You say "Please research these matters fully." But I would wager you have never even heard of this paper by Cook et al.

            As far as your statement "Acres burned has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, it has everything to do with fire suppression. Please research these matters fully. Logic says that there should be MORE wildfires (if the CAGW theory is correct), but we see more than 3 times less than we did in 1939. Acres burned has to do with the condition of the forest floor (see fire suppression)." and your original statement "There were something like 48,000 forest fires in 2012. That is the smallest total since the National Interagency Fire Center started tracking it in 2003. It is almost 25% below the mean and about one fourth of the 1938 total. And please don't argue about acres burned, that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions and much more to do with fire suppression. " you have offered no scientific references to back up your statements. The reference of the NY Times article offers nothing but an anecdotal recounting of the 1890 fire. It provides no scientific information about the wildfire year of 1890. If this is what you mean by "Please research these matters fully." then I know that you really don’t have any idea what it means to research to fully research a scientific matter!

          • hmmann says:

            Here are some excerpts from the paper by Cook, Miller, and Seager, 2008: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/4997.full

            "Recurrent periods of drought are a common feature of the mid-latitudes, including North America, modulated on interannual and decadal time scales primarily by the El Nino Southern Oscillation (1–6). Over North America, drier than normal conditions occur in the southwest and southeast United States when SSTs in the eastern tropical Pacific are lower than normal (“La Nina” conditions). Drought over North America is also tightly linked to warm SSTs in the North Atlantic, especially on decadal time scales (7, 8)."

            "La Nina conditions, with additional forcing from warm Atlantic SSTs, have also been implicated as the initial causes of the 1930s drought known as the “Dust Bowl” (1, 2, 4), with some speculation that soil moisture feedbacks may have amplified the drought (1). "

            "the Dust Bowl differed in important ways from the canonical La Nina drought pattern (Figs. 1Left) (11). These differences include the anomalous warmth and the intensity of the drought, given the modest size of the La Nina SST anomaly observed during the 1930s, and the movement of the drought center from the southwest and Mexico into the Central Great Plains. Models forced with observed SSTs during the 1930s produce a drought (1, 2, 4) that is centered too far south and fail to replicate the near continental-scale warm anomaly centered in the northern United States (Fig. 1 Center). This implies either some deficiencies in the models or, alternatively, some missing physical processes."

            "One hypothesis regarding the atypical Dust Bowl drought pattern invokes large-scale changes to the land surface during this time period. During the 1920s, agriculture in the United States expanded into the central Great Plains. Much of the original, drought-resistant prairie grass was replaced with drought-sensitive wheat. With no drought plan and few erosion-control measures in place, this led to large-scale crop failures at the initiation of the drought, leaving fields devegetated and barren, exposing easily eroded soil to the winds. This was the source of the major dust storms and atmospheric dust loading of the period on a level unprecedented in the historical record (e.g., refs. 12–15). We hypothesize that the dust storms and the loss of vegetation amplified the La Nina forced drought and caused the anomalous pattern of temperature and precipitation. Changes in climate and weather have been linked to vegetation changes and soil dust aerosols for other regions of the world (16–18), and the importance of land surface feedbacks during the Dust Bowl has been suggested previously (1, 5, 19)."

          • samitee says:

            Well, that doesn't really make much sense, considering I was once on the side of CAGW theory and have only become a skeptic after intense research and keeping an open mind. I would think that someone who is open to hearing the other side of the debate would be considered open-minded. As far as Maseters goes, his credentials are of no concern to me. What matters is what he says. So, let's just take a look at just a few of Jeff Masters' wild claims.

            On Nov. 16, 2012, Masters said: "If we continue on our current path of ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, the hotter planet that we will create will surely spawn droughts far more intense than any seen in recorded history, severely testing the ability of our highly interconnected global economy to cope. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comm

            On the same day, Nature Magazine published this study where they said: "“Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated,” the study authored by Princeton researchers Justin Sheffield and Eric Wood and Australian researcher Michael Roderick says. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” Oops. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/f

            Last July, Masters wrote: "St. Louis is seeing some unbelievable heat this summer: On Wednesday, the city hit 108 degrees, Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters said. “This marked the 11th day this summer in St. Louis with temperatures of at least 105 degrees,” he says, “beating the old record of 10 such days in 1934.” The nearest USHCN station to St. Louis is at Warrenton, Missouri. According to the station data, there were 11 days of temps above 104 and two days of temps above 109. The average high that month was 101.23. That station saw 16 consecutive days of over 100 degree temps. July 2012 had no days over 110 and the average maximum was 99 degrees – more than two degrees cooler than 1936. July 1936 was much hotter in St. Louis than July 2012, but facts don't matter to Masters. He's trying to save the world. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSUS/

            On June 25, 2012, Masters wrote: "The remarkable heat wave that affected Colorado on Saturday and Sunday has tied the all-time heat record for the state. According to wunderground’s weather historian Christopher C. Burt, Saturday’s 114° reading in Las Animas tied for the hottest temperature ever measured in the state of Colorado. Two other 114° readings have occurred in Colorado history: in Las Animas on July 1, 1933, and in Sedgwick on July 11, 1954." http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comm

            In the real world of empirical data, NOAA says that the record was 118 F on July 11, 1888 in Bennett, Colorado. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxt

            Masters also wrote: "In Fort Collins, the mercury hit 102° on Sunday, just 1° below the city’s all-time hottest temperature of 103° set on Jul 21, 2005. The heat did no favors for firefighters struggling to the contain the massive 81,000 acre High Park fire fifteen miles northwest of Fort Collins. The fire is the second largest and most destructive wildfire in Colorado’s history, and is 45% contained." The official high temperature in Fort Collins the day in question was 101F, and according to USHCN it was 102F on three days in 1954 and one day in 1925. Does he not know how to use Google? As far as the fire he was referencing is concerned, it as approximately 1% the size of the 1898 fire.

            On Aug. 12, 2011, Jeff said that the ice in the Arctic was going to melt like crazy during the third week of August and set a record low for the date. "Arctic sea ice extent, currently slightly higher than the record low values set in 2007, should fall to to its lowest extent for the date by the third week of August…" http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comm
            That of course, didn't happen. He can't even get a 7 day forecast correct and yet we're supposed to believe he can predict what will happen in 10, 50 and 100 years.

          • samitee says:

            In this ridiculous article, Masters says that heavy snowstorms are caused by global warming. “If the climate continues to warm,” he added, “we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where it’s too warm for it to snow heavily.” Of course this winter destroys that claim into a million pieces. But besides that fact, the region he was talking about at the time had far below normal temperatures during that winter. Winter temperatures in the US have been plummeting over the last 10 years or so. Snow is normally associated with cold winters, not warm ones. The snowiest winter in the Northern Hemisphere was 1978, which was also the coldest winter on record in the Eastern US. December 2010 was the second coldest on record in England, where records extend to 1659. Masters has no clue what he's talking about but he has to continue making such ridiculous claims to keep his funding and his job. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3

            In 2007, he blamed the late, warm winter on a lack of polar ice. Later, he blamed the cold, early, snowy, winter on a lack of polar ice. http://www.onthesnow.com/news/a/2904/whither-the-

            On June 26, 2012, Masters predicted that the High Park fire would burn for four months, well into winter. A week later, it started raining and the fire was mostly extinguished. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comm

            Masters links tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and storms to Global Warming without providing any evidence whatsoever. Pure speculation on the part of Masters, but analyzing the data shows quite the opposite. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/dr-jeff-mas

            In 2010, Masters claimed that SSTs were the hottest ever, and yet sea levels plummeted. Go figure.

            More ridiculous claims by Masters rebutted – http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/one-in-15943

            At one point, Masters said that heavy rain is caused by warm temperatures. Which would be silly and laughable if it wasn't so stupid. I'm happy to post a few dozen more examples of Masters ridiculous claims if you like, just let me know.

          • hmmann says:

            If you have any understanding of how Arctic amplification has affected the physics of heat exchange between the tropics and the Arctic, you would not make such statements as "In this ridiculous article, Masters says that heavy snowstorms are caused by global warming." To gain a better understanding of what is happening, I invite you to read Francis and Vavrus, 2012, Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs

            Largely because of the dramatically increased Arctic sea ice melt, and terrestrial polar snowmelt, Arctic albedo has dramatically decreased in the last few decades, causing the Arctic to warm at least twice as fast as tropical to mid-latitudes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/f… and http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2… This has caused the thermal kinetic relationship between the poles and the tropics to change. There is less difference in average temperature between the two areas, which is one of the major engines that runs weather. The reduction in this difference has caused a weaker zonal flow, or a slowing of the jet stream. A slower moving jet stream has greater Rossby wave amplitudes, meaning pressure ridges and troughs, which are controlled by the jet stream, extend further north and south. As the jet stream moves slower, it becomes more susceptible to blocking patterns, which tend to cause these pressure ridges and troughs to get stuck in place. It was one of these high-pressure ridges that basically got stuck in place in the midwest that caused much of the 2012 drought. Really, that drought would never have happened to the extent that it did were in not for the changing dynamics of tropics to poles heat exchange, which is happening because of global warming. In addition, cold-air, low-pressure troughs have extended far south due to the increased amplitude of Rossby waves (jet stream meanders), and have also gotten stuck in place, causing Arctic winds to push far south and become stuck in place. Mixing with air made more moist by global warming (5% more moisture in the air since the 1950s, Santer et al., 2007) causes huge amounts of snow to fall where this trough is situated. What is interesting, and seems to be unreported (or under reported) in the media, is that the Arctic region has commonly been experiencing temperatures 20 to 25 degrees above average during the blocking in place of these cold snowy waves in the US and Northern Europe. The warmer temperatures in the Arctic causes air to expand, increasing its pressure, and causing much of this relatively cold (certainly colder than mid latitudes) air to move south into the US and Northern Europe, causing colder than average winter temperatures. And, as I described earlier, this weather pattern can get stuck in place, causing the season to be colder than average. So, ironically, it is because of global warming that there are cold winters in the US and northern Europe, and Masters is right to describe that.

          • samitee says:

            Once again, we find ourselves in the same place as before. You are bringing in so many variables that are just out of scope to be debated/discussed over a webpage. The argument is that the Arctic is melting at record levels which is simply not true. I have illustrated why this is the case, the main point of my argument being that all of the data sets are using 1979 as their starting point, a convenient starting point when trying to show a warming trend. I have shown you from the IPCC's own satellites that ice extent in 1974 was much higher and if we were to use that year as a starting point, the averages would be much lower and that would put our current melt in a different light when comparing to the average. In fact, it's not unprecedented at all. Furthermore, I have given you historical data that shows other periods of time in history where Arctic ice was low, similar to what we see today. These are the main points regarding Arctic Ice being debated here and yet you continually ignore them and muddy the waters with a lot of stuff that really has nothing to do with the original claim. If you want to debate this point, by all means do so, but please stick to the topic at hand. Arctic ice is at a low ONLY WHEN COMPARING TO THE 1979-present average. Prior to 1979, you will find other years with similar melt seasons as we see today. This is a simple scientific fact that I've supported with raw data. Why you continually ignore this main point of the argument is beyond my understanding. Please try to stay on topic.

          • steven mann says:

            I am not ignoring your data. But your own data does not show that historical Arctic sea ice cover was anywhere near the sea ice minimums that we are experiencing today.

        • samitee says:

          Regarding your first two paragraphs. I am sorry, but there are TOO MANY ridiculous things that Jeff Masters has said over the years to take him seriously. He is not a reliable or credible source of information. You need to provide the readers with raw data so they can dig a little deeper for themselves. Regardless of the factors of the Dust Bowl which can certainly be debated by climate scientists as to amounts, degrees, etc., the fact is that the Dust Bowl was much worse than anything seen in 2012 or any year recently. There will always be an infinite number of variables involved in weather and climate events, the fact that you are pointing out variables that contributed to the Dust Bowl is completely irrelevant. The point of the matter is that we are not witnessing anything unprecedented or "worse than before" as claimed, and I could certainly bring up a dozen of variables that contributed to 2012's heat wave but that is besides the point and actually helps to illustrate the point. The climate is so dynamic and there are millions of variables! Saying carbon dioxide is in control is a leap of logic and not supported by real world evidence. But the main point of this section is that the original statement of "droughts like never before" is simply false.

          You said: "Comparing the recent drought with those of the 1930s and 1950s is not really instructive, especially considering that the current drought may or may not be just beginning. It really depends more on La Niña – El Niña oscillation. La Niñas occurred in 1932, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1938, and 1939, and in the 1950s, La Niñas occurred in 1951, 1955, 1956, and 1957."

          Actually, it is instructive in order to counter the simple claim that we are having more extreme weather events today than we ever have and I've certainly countered that point. The variables such as El Nino or La Nina do not matter, as there are variables today and there will be more tomorrow. There are likely many variables that scientists don't even know anything about in relation to the climate. Most of their predictions have failed miserably and yet you continue to listen to them and what the computer models say, rather than look at the actual data. Why?

          From what I found, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, total number of wildfires in the US in 2012 was 67,774, with records dating back to 1985 (http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html).

          I stand corrected, your number is the correct one. But the points still stand compared to the averages, etc.

          As far as your reply about acres burned: You are again obfuscating the issue by adding variables. The simple claim is that wildfires are on the rise and are worse than they've ever been. The simple fact is that this is a false statement, not supported by any data or statistics. If you want to claim that excess carbon dioxide causes LARGER fires, then go right ahead, but that's not the point we're debating and doubt you'd be able to make that claim anyways. You do make good points regarding the fire season, snow pack etc. but they do not make true the claim that we are having wilder, worse, more, larger fires. It is simply not true and you have not provided any data to support these claims. Any reader can go see for themselves at the National Interagency Fire Center's website.

          Again, temperatures have not been warming in 16 years. The IPCC admits this, so a lot of what you've said is nullified completely within the last 16 years.

          Now onto this silly matter of pine beetles (cause by global warming, just like everything else). Once again, you can find many instances of massive pine beetle infestation in the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and pick any other decade you like. The pine needle issue is a much larger issue which has to due with fire suppression. There is no proof anywhere by any scientist that any of this has to do with carbon dioxide.

          In the 70s, scientists understood that pine beetles and allowing fires to run their course served a purpose. This was before man started meddling in the affairs of nature and thus directly causing the larger fires of today mostly due to fire suppression. Please research more about fire suppression. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CQgqAAAAIBAJhttp://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_a

          I would suggest that the number of wildfires is what is actually important and acres burned an afterthought, if trying to prove global warming theory. The conclusion is simple though … you have not illustrated that we are having more or worse fires due to a warming/cooling planet than say 50, 100, 150 years ago, which was the original claim.

          • hmmann says:

            If you want data and statistics, then I advise you to read the literature on the subject. I am providing you with some articles to digest. Take a look at Schoennagel et al., 2004 http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xm… , who reported that since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr. Or Westerling et al., 2006 http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream… , who reported that the forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986. In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006; http://www.uoguelph.ca/~mrtlab/mrtlab/Publication… ).
            A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Westerling et al., 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a spring- summer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004; http://se-server.ethz.ch/staff/af/Fi159/G/Gi070.p… ). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/kit… and McKenzie et al., 2004; http://frames.nkn.uidaho.edu/documents/catalog/sp… ), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices.

          • samitee says:

            I will gladly take a look at these articles, but again, you seem to be obfuscating and distracting from the original points. Once again, "acres burned" cannot be directly attributed to carbon dioxide. There are other factors (some of which you've mentioned) that contribute to acres burned. While I do agree there has certainly been some warming in recent decades and that warming would naturally encourage wildfires, there has not been any evidence that any of this is linked to man made carbon dioxide which is a tiny fraction of a percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to begin with. It's quite the leap of logic and you now seem to be talking in circles.

          • samitee says:

            Of course there is also the inconvenient matter that the planet has not warmed in the last 16 years which you conveniently and continuously gloss over. That alone pretty much debunks any of your global warming fire theories.

          • hmmann says:

            Try taking a look at this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&fe

          • samitee says:

            "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…"

            This is a well established fact. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-

          • hmmann says:

            It is a well established fact that there have been many stair steps in the over 100-year trend of global temperature rise. The hottest year in history was measured in 2010, with 2005 being the second hottest. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob… The slow down you call a pause has no statistical significance. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 and that is a fact! There is still more heat , about 0.6 Watts per square meter, entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it! http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-

          • hmmann says:

            I suppose it might seem like I am talking in circles if you don't read the article and see the data presented and the analyses given. Clearly, you have not.

          • samitee says:

            Only because you are ignoring the specific points and bringing up so much that is outside of the scope of this debate. I'm trying to focus on specific claims made in the article that are simple and easily refuted, without getting granular and too detailed. I feel I've made my case for specific claims and you've mostly ignored them and continue to deflect the argument. So yeah, I haven't read the articles yet but I will definitely have a look and will read what you've posted, provided they are in context and have something to do with the bullet points of my arguments and what's written in this article.

            In the meantime, did you still want to claim that this Arctic melt we see today is unprecedented? Or that the drought of last year was "never felt by anyone before" ?

          • hmmann says:

            I consider any data that defends anthropogenic global warming to be relevant to this debate. I have never considered restricting the debate to wildfires. I defend what Rolly posted. One of the topics he posted was Mueller's contention that the globe is warming and humans are doing it. To me, that opens the debate to AGW in general. I have brought up numerous points that I don't believe you can refute. Remind me what I am ignoring, but remember, many of the articles I cited refer to precisely points in the debate. If you have not read them, of course you would accuse me of ignoring specific points.

          • hmmann says:

            samitee's comment: "Now onto this silly matter of pine beetles (cause by global warming, just like everything else). Once again, you can find many instances of massive pine beetle infestation in the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and pick any other decade you like. The pine needle issue is a much larger issue which has to due with fire suppression. There is no proof anywhere by any scientist that any of this has to do with carbon dioxide."

            Insects and diseases are a natural part of ecosystems. No one denies that in forests, periodic insect epidemics kill trees over large regions, providing dead, desiccated fuels for large wildfires. But these epidemics are related to aspects of insect life cycles that are climate sensitive, affected by the warming climate (Williams and Liebhold, 2002; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.14… ). Many northern insects have a two-year life cycle, and warmer winter temperatures allow a larger fraction of overwintering larvae to survive. Due to warming climate, the mountain pine beetle has expanded its range in British Columbia into areas previously too cold (Carroll et al., 2003; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.14… ).

            And this excerpt from Regneire and Bentz, 2008; http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-36pap
            “Since the early to mid-1990s, an outbreak of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) has reached unprecedented levels in terms of acreages and numbers of pine trees, in particular lodgepole pine, killed throughout its range, most notably in Colorado and British Columbia. The MPB is also causing very high mortality among whitebark and limber pines at high elevations. Historical records from the past 100 years suggest these ecosystems have had pulses of MPB-caused mortality but not at levels currently being observed. Since 2006, MPB has extended its range into the Peace River area of north-central Alberta. Climate change may well be involved in this recent northeastward and upward range expansion.”

            And this from Kurtz et al., 2008; http://www.sysecol2.ethz.ch/Refs/EntClim/K/Ku076….
            “In the worst year, the impacts resulting from the beetle outbreak in British Columbia were equivalent to 75% of the average annual direct forest fire emissions from all of Canada during 1959–1999. The resulting reduction in net primary production was of similar magnitude to increases observed during the 1980s and 1990s as a result of global change5. Climate change has contributed to the unprecedented extent and severity of this outbreak6.”

            Data provides ample evidence that the mountain pine beetle and other forest insect pests have expanded in North American forests due to the warming of climate. The difference between you and me is that you go to local newspaper reporters to "fully" research the matter, whereas I follow the scientists who actually do work in the field, collect the data, and analyze it.

        • samitee says:

          samitee said: “Quoting activists like Bill Mckibben who is wrong on almost every prediction he makes and silences debate at every corner is not helping your cause. Please re-examine your position and do some more research because this article is full of misinformation. "Emerging consensus" and "majority rule" is not how science is conducted.”

          Go try to post something on Bill McKibben's twitter page that is in conflict with one of tweets. A simple fact, statistic or what have you. Do it a few times and he'll ban you. He won't debate with anyone, he resorts to name calling and gatekeeping. He makes wild and ridiculous claims that can easily be refuted on a weekly basis. I don't have time to go through all of his statements and make my claim against him, I'm more concerned with the data.

          But since you asked, here's just one example:

          On Aug. 2nd, 2012, Joe Romm, Bill Mckibben, and other doomsday warmists exposed their collective ignorance when they posted about this event: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/02/63021

          In a nutshell, the melted lamps were from a nearby trash fire and these clowns tried to blame it on carbon dioxide.
          McKibben tweeted: “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture…” That tweet was later deleted.

          Please do not fall into the trap of the antics of the likes of Jeff Masters, Joe Romm and Bill McKibben. McKibben is an activist with a clear agenda to push. He doesn't even have the basic understanding that glass doesn't melt at 114 degrees F. He contradicts himself constantly and is always moving goal posts. He is constantly pushing alarmism and fear. Readers of this website should be able to discern this easily. If you want more examples, I'm happy to give them to you but I'd rather focus on the data, these guys are not credible.

          The consensus you speak of is a mainstream consensus. There are hundreds, probably thousands of scientists out there that do not believe in this silly theory. The theory was not developed 200 years ago, it is a modern theory that has not been proven by the scientific method. You are obfuscating a bit. With respect, you are kind of sounding like Time Magazine with lots of fluff but no real meat.

          • steven mann says:

            samitee's comment: "The theory was not developed 200 years ago, it is a modern theory that has not been proven by the scientific method. You are obfuscating a bit. With respect, you are kind of sounding like Time Magazine with lots of fluff but no real meat."

            Clearly you don't know the history of the theory of global warming. But you can get an accurate history of it here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

      • samitee says:

        Thank you hmmann for the response. It will take me some time but I will respond to your points as I get to them.

        Firstly, Rolly was not referring to the alleged "fact" that 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded. Rolly was specifically stating that the "country witnessed a heat wave never felt by anyone." This is a false statement, so I referred to droughts and heatwaves of the past to counter this argument. The Mississippi River almost dried up in the drought of 1988. I recommend researching the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. You'll find it was much more devastating than any droughts we see today. Your point about 2012 as the hottest year ever is an entirely different matter alltogether. But, since you brought it up, let's have a look at that dubious claim and expose it for the fraud that it it.

        Let's start with your talking points and the linking to the NY Times propaganda piece (as they obviously have a vested interest).

        1. "34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows. 2012 is now acknowledged as the hottest year in US history by at least 1 degree centigrade, a huge difference between it and the next hottest year." 1936 had the most 40 C+ max temperature readings in U.S history. 1936 also had the most readings below -30 C. Niagra Falls was frozen solid in February of 1936. There were thousands of death from the heat of the summer of 1936.
        Examples – http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ueUsAAAAIBAJhttp://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/34951654?… http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DrAwAAAAIBAJ

        It is a common misunderstanding that 2012 is the "hottest year ever", especially considering that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 16 years (nullifying the CAGW hypothesis). The main reason for this is simply "fudging numbers" or "cooling the past". You've linked to Jeff Masters who is NOT CREDIBLE. He is an activist that fudges numbers in his favor to push a specific agenda.

        The fact is, USHCN and GISS have been tampering with the numbers in order to cool the past and continue showing a warming trend. The measured daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. But USHCN puts the data through a "series of adjusments" before releasing the data to the public. These adjustments change it from a cooling trend to a warming trend. An example of an adjustment that is NOT made, is one for UHI which would result in an adjustment downwards in the modern era (so they don't bother). This is wy the NY timees tells you there is a 1 degree C increase when in reality there is not. Please research these matters by looking into the data instead of linking to the NY Times or Jeff Masters. I cannot spend too much time on this issue, in order to focus on the original points and counterpoints of the article and responses. But if you are really interested, I can try to hunt down the examples of data tampering for you to see for yourself. You can maybe start by researching John Daly's work.

        As to your next post about "an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events", you are linking to a bunch of people who make predictions but not bothering with data. Can you please show me that there are more hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, droughts, snowstorms, etc, than there were 50, 100, years ago? I can certainly very easily show you that this is not the case. Next you are inferring that they are "more likely" to happen because of atmospheric moisture. So which is it? Are we having more extreme weather events now or is it just more likely (potentially)? If the former, please state your claim. Here are a few of my examples for you to counter. Please focus on specifics of my rebuttals to Rolly versus moving on tangents and then not even bothering with data.

        US Annual F3+ Tornado Strikes – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tor

        Hurricane Strikes vs CO2 – http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist185

        Fires – According to National Interagency Fire Center, 2012 had the 4th lowest fire count on record since 1960. There were more 180,000 fires in 1939 compared to 50,000 in 2012. The single worst wild fire in U.S. history in both size and number of people killed was the Great Peshtigo Fire which burned 3.8 million acres and killed at least 1,500 in Wisconsin and the Upper Michigan in Oct 1871. The second worst fire was Great Fire of August 1910, 3 million acres of fire.

        I can list many many more examples if you like. The NY Times talking points simply have no basis in any form of reality that's backed up by empirical data (non-adjusted). If you dispute this and believe that there are more extreme weather events today than 50, 100, 150 years ago, please show me. I'm not interested in theory and modeling, I want to see real world evidence.

  2. Thank you for posting your comment and the link to the 1898 NYT article. The other link provided does not work.

    In the same way that I have quoted from newspaper articles, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on a report from 1898 to dispute the fact that global warming is happening. While it is true that one cannot look at specific events – a drought, a flood, wildfires, super storms – to claim that we are heading for an unparalleled climate crisis, the frequency and intensity of such events are undeniable. To pretend this is not happening is having one's head in the sand.

    When 99% of scientists and climatologists agree what we are facing a warming of the planet and that an increase of 2 degrees will have disastrous impacts for our planet, then what you call fear-based propaganda is in fact factual and realistic. The denial industry spends millions annually to discredit scientific findings and generating misinformation. And you claim that what Bill Mckibben, James Hansen and many others are doing as nothing but propaganda.

    As for the children and grandchildren, what will you tell them in a few decades when they face the dire consequences of our inaction?

  3. samitee says:

    Once again, science is not done by consensus. The claim that 99% of scientists and climatologists agree that we are facing a warming of the planet and that an increase of 2 degrees will have disastrous impacts for our planet is dubious. Do you have a source for that claim? You speak of the "Denial Industry", what about the "Fear Industry" ? It goes both ways. Mckibben, Hansen et al have no data to back up their claims. They continue to move the goalposts when their claims fall flat on their face. Are you aware that the IPCC has recently admitted (finally) that there has been no warming on the planet for the last 16 years? As for the children and grandchildren … again with the fear based propaganda? Do it for the children? Come on, don't you see how laced with fear all of this is?

    Finally, regarding the 2 articles I posted, I posted them to specifically counter your claim about Colorado Fires. I did not post those articles to prove that global warming isn't happening. Nobody needs to prove that such a claim isn't happening, only the scientists who put forth that theory are responsible for proving it's actually happening. Based on their own standards, they've failed and proven their own null hypothesis. Are you aware of this? The articles I posted were in specific reference to your false claims about Colorado Fires. We are not having more or worse fires, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, cold/snow etc. than we have in the past. Sea levels are not rising. The Arctic has more ice today than it did 5 years ago at the same time. Antarctica has more ice than it has ever had in the satellite era. These are EASILY proven facts. Of course there has been some natural warming in recent decades but nobody has even come close to proving that it has anything to do with carbon dioxide. The claim itself is pretty silly when examined closely. These scientists ignore things such as UHI in their calculations. They don't take other factors into account with any reasonable measurements either (such as cloud systems, cosmic rays, or even the sun). Please research some of these facts before spreading more CAGW propaganda.

    • hmmann says:

      samitee, perhaps you might read this tract by Dr. Jeff Masters: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comm

    • hmmann says:

      samitee said: “I did not post those articles to prove that global warming isn't happening. Nobody needs to prove that such a claim isn't happening, only the scientists who put forth that theory are responsible for proving it's actually happening. Based on their own standards, they've failed and proven their own null hypothesis. Are you aware of this?”

      I don’t know where you came up with this, but if you believe science has the capability of measuring global temperatures, then you must believe that the planet has warmed about 0.8 degrees centigrade since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Anthony Watts and his team of deniers tried to prove that US temperature records are unreliable (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf). NOAA convincingly debunked Watt’s assertions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf). I invite you to read the rebuttal by NOAA.

      • hmmann says:

        What follows here are a series of comments describing why climate scientists, in the 2007 IPCC publication stated that there is 90 to 99% confidence that the globe is warming and humans are the cause:

        The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased considerably in the last 150 years. Climatologists are confident that CO2 has increased from about 270-280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to the current level of about 395 ppmv. Ice core data from Antarctica suggest that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely higher now than at any time in the last 800 ka (ka = kilo annum, or thousand years) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal…ture06949.html). There have been 8 glacial cycles since then (http://www.labmeeting.com/paper/6497…rctic-ice-core) consisting of glacial and interglacial periods. We are now in an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged between 180 ppmv during the coldest times of the glacial epochs, to about 280 ppmv during the interglacial periods. The last glacial period ended approximately 11.65 ka. At that point, there was a dramatic warmup at the end of the Younger Dryas stadial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadial), continuing for about 1.5 ka (preBoreal Warmup). From that time period until about 1850, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remained near approximately 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In the late 1800s, the concentration of CO2 began to rise, reaching 300 ppmv some time around the late 1930s, and is currently about 389 ppmv (http://co2now.org/index.php/Current-…id=22&Itemid=1. (The average CO2 concentration for 2009 may be slightly lower.)

        Couple that with the continuous measurements of CO2 not only at the Mauna Loa station, but also numerous stations around the globe (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/…heric_co2.html; and NOAA carbon cycle measuring stations: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/site/map1.html) which show CO2 concentrations now nearing 390 ppmv, and scientists are extremely confident that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has dramatically increased over the past 150 years, after it had been fairly stable for approximately 10 ka.

        • samitee says:

          The IPCC is simply not credible! Their 2007 predictions have failed miserably. I'm not going to get into the politics of this. I am unable to get into a debate on these points, as they are simply not related to the points of the article or my counter points. Everything you've written here can easily be debated.

          • hmmann says:

            samitee's comment: The IPCC is simply not credible!"

            I would say you are literally delusional, completely full of hubris , or just plain ignorant, to make a statement like this. Earlier I asked you for you credentials because of a hubristic statement you made. I noticed you did not provide that. Even if you have a PhD in climatology you would still not be qualified to make such a sweeping statement about a report that is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors of various disciplines and sub-disiplines, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Of course, putting together a report that is thousands of pages of documentation is not going to be perfect. There never has been a perfect document of such magnitude. But if you are singling out the very few mistakes found in the IPCC AR4 report to completely negate this work, then you are truly out of touch with reality!

          • samitee says:

            I would say you are now approaching the line of attacking me and resorting to ad hominems (likely because you simply do not have all of the facts). I don't play that game, sorry. If you want to trust the IPCC just because they are an authority, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. But there are some of us out here that understand how corrupt the IPCC and the entire peer reviewed process was. For those that don't, start with the Climategate e-mails. Their own e-mails convict them. Will you invest the time it takes (months) to investigate these matters? Probably not, so it's probably best for you to stick with the fear based IPCC. All of their predictions have failed miserably, but go ahead and keep defending them. We'll see how much warming there is 20 years from now and who will have the last laugh. :)

          • hmmann says:

            You make the mind bogglingly blanket statement that the IPCC report isn't credible. There are literally hundreds of thousands, no millions of man-hours of field work and research from a highly diverse collection of scientists trained at the best institutions of higher learning the world has to offer that goes into that report. For you to just so casually dismiss such a body of work tells me you have not the slightest clue of what you are talking about. You have not a clue about all the science that went into making this report. If you are saying it's all just politics you are utterly unrealistic and make no acknowledgement of the huge amount of effort that went into it. Sorry if my earlier statements border on ad hominem, but I just have to catch my breath as to your hubris and complete lack of understanding about this document.

      • samitee says:

        Nobody is claiming that there hasn't been some warming. The planet's climate is always changing. .8 C (if true) of warming is hardly cause for concern when looking back at world temperatures during different intervals of the past few hundreds and/or thousands of years. Stop with the alarmism already! I've read both the surface station report and the rebuttal by NOAA. Perhaps you should do some more research into the actions of NOAA, including data tampering. NOAA refuses to release some of their data for analysis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/16/another-doc

        At this point it seems that we'll just have to disagree on credibility at some points. But since you brought up Anthony Watts, perhaps the readers of this blog might like to hear his side of things as it relates to a few of these issues. One report and a rebuttal is hardly the end of things, the project, analysis and debate has continued on since 2009, perhaps you should get up to speed. Here's just a few. Naturally, it would take a long time to catch up, and thus the nature of being misinformed.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/noaas-janushttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writeshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/noaa-strivehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/20/noaa-establhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/10/unique-pape

        And really, "team of deniers" ? It's hard to take this discussion seriously with such silliness. Once again, I'm trying to stick to the original points and counterpoints and not fall too far off on tangents. I am happy to address some of these issue you've raised and you do make valid points.

        • samitee says:

          I'll repeat this point because it's worth understanding. The IPCC launched its own satellites in 1974. NSIDC conveniently ignores pre-1979 satellite data and instead chooses to use 1979 (peak ice) as their starting point. This supports the idea that the Arctic ice is melting due to the actions of evil humans. Fortunately, the 1990 IPCC report captured the pre-1979 satellite data, revealing how NSIDC is cherry-picking their 1979 start date at a time of maximum ice. You can see the full report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_

          Arctic sea ice coverage today is almost identical to the same date in 1974. This is the simple fact I am disputing from this article which you have conveniently glossed over and instead have muddied the debate with a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the points I've mentioned. You've kind of derailed the debate. Consider this my attempt to bring it back to the bullet points. Arctic ice (as you can clearly see) is just about the same as it was in 1974 for this date. To deny it is to deny the data.

  4. I suppose I could spend a lot of time providing sources for my claims about climate change risks but you will simply counter with facts of your own to disprove what I'm saying. But that is the nature of debate is it not? There are enough facts and statistics to allow anyone to make a case for or against any issue.

    That said, I will simply dispute your false claim that sea levels are not rising. Sea levels in California – "California's sea levels could be a foot higher in the next 20 years, two feet higher by 2050 and over five feet higher by the end of this century, according to a National Research Council report."

    "Sea levels on the East Coast, from North Carolina to Boston, are rising much faster than the rest of the world, according to the US Geological Survey."

    On Arctic ice, your claim that there is more ice is ludicrous. There are dozens of report and photographic evidence about summer ice melt being the most extensive ever seen. "According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) summer melts on the Arctic ice sheet have been recently breaking records and once the glaciers are gone, they're unlikely to come back."

    The evidence is there for you to see.

    • samitee says:

      In the interest of spirited, friendly debate, it would be helpful to respond to the specific issues raised rather than counter with something that is irrelevant to what I'm presenting.

      1) For starters, I said nothing about Arctic melt in the recent summers. I simply stated that there is just about the same (if not more) ice today as there was the same time 5 years ago. Do you disagree? Secondly, regarding the claim that summer melts are "recently breaking records", this is patently FALSE. The records broken are only in the modern satellite era (satellites launched in 1979), but we do have data that goes back further than that, satellite and otherwise. 1979 was the year of peak ice in the modern era and one of the coldest years since the 1920s. Don't you think this is a convenient starting point for illustrating a warming trend? The fact is if you go back to 1974, you'll find just about the same amount of summer ice as existed in the summer of 2012. I challenge you to dispute this fact. You are quoting individuals or organizations that are conveniently choosing 1979 as a starting point for their dataset. Did the world begin in 1979? There is PLENTY of documentation that goes back even to the 19th century that shows the Arctic during periods of very low ice (much like we see today). Furthermore, none of this warming has been proven to be caused by carbon dioxide, certainly not the fraction of a percentage emitted by humans. What about all of the other variables such as cloud and ocean systems, cosmic rays, ENSO, and the Sun? And many others? The current ice extent in the Arctic is not "unprecedented" and anyone with a Google search bar in their browser can verify this for themselves. Additionally, we've been bombarded over the last few years that Antarctica is the fastest warming place on earth. Suddenly, it's now the coldest place on earth and experiencing record amounts of ice extent in the satellite era. Your own US Geological Survey says that 90% of the world's ice is contained in Antarctica, yet the warmists focus on the Arctic because it's currently melting. It's a laughable joke, unfortunately.

      2) I had previously asked you for specifics regarding the claim that "99% of the worlds scientists and climatologists agree …" Can you provide the source for this? Usually it's a talking point that's thrown about without any real understanding of where that figure came from. I happen to know that the claim comes from a survey of about 80 scientists or so which certainly isn't a large enough sample of the world's scientists. Secondly, the percentage is 97%, not 99% (of the handful of scientists surveyed). Thirdly, the questions asked in the survey are skewed in a specific direction. It is largely a myth that 97%/99% of the world's scientists agree on anything. But if you could provide some background or a source for this quote, I'm sure your readers would appreciate it.

      • samitee says:

        3) This ridiculous claim that "California's sea levels could be a foot higher in the next 20 years and two feet higher by 2050 and over 5 feet hire by the end of the century?" First off, the use of the word "could" is disingenuous at best, and downright misleading at worst. The implication that this thing "could" happen also implies that it just as well "can't" happen. Most of these types of claims will always use creative language such as "if, then" "might" or "could".

        Where is the data and science to back up such a wild claim? You've quoted the US Geological Survey but where is the actual science and data? Or is it automatically true because they are an authority on the matter and need not provide a basis for such tall tales that are obviously based on fear and not science? Let's take a look at some sea level data in California.

        Sea level has actually been dropping in California since the start of satellite measurements 20 years ago. The best available science shows that there will continue to be no sea level rise in California. Satellites actually show us that sea level has remained flat or falling along the entire Pacific coast of the United States. Here's the data so you can see for yourself. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/ssh_an

        The following data comes directly from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (psmsl.org) Here are just a few examples:

        Northern California Sea Level Rise – http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.p
        Crescent City California Sea Level Rise – http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.p
        Alameda Tide Guage shows no sea level rise over the last 50 years – http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437….

        Neither tide gauge in San Francisco Bay shows any sea level rise for the past thirty years.

        CU Satellite data shows that global sea level rise rates have dropped by almost 50% over the last seven years.

        Sea Level has remained mostly flat in California for the last 140 years. Suddenly it's going to rise over 5 feet in the next 100 years? With all due respect, this is nonsensical and not supported by any empirical data. Sea level changes in terms of mm or cm. Perhaps inches at the most. There is no indication from past data/trends that sea level is rising or accelerating in rise. I challenge you to provide data that is a level deeper than "The USGS says". Here is an animated gif that illustrates quite nicely the difference in sea level in La Jolla, CA in 1871 and today. As you'll see, there is very little (if any) sea level rise (142 years). http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/

        There has been no sea level rise in Santa Cruz for at least the last 30 years. Here is the tide guage data so you can see for yourself. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1352

        There has been no sea level rise in Los Angeles for the last 30 years. Here is the data – http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/377….

        Sea Levels in Baja California are trending downward. Here's the University of Colorado satellite data – http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/ssh_an

        According to OceanObs, most of the US has seen little or no sea level rise over the last 20 years. Sea level is declining across the entire west coast. Some areas off the east coast have seen sharp drops in sea level. This idea that sea level will suddenly rise a foot over the next 20 years or five feet by the end of the century, let alone rise at all is simply ridiculous (without a MAJOR climate event taking place). Even if sea levels did rise by 5 feet, do you know anyone who lives within 5 feet of sea level in California? This idea that California may fall into the ocean is pure fear-based propaganda and not supported by any empirical data, only computer models and what-ifs.

        Satellites show that the entire US coastline has experienced below average (3mm/year) sea level rise over the past twenty years. Assuming sea level will rise any faster than that goes against all aspects of the scientific method.

        People have been claiming all sorts of doom and disastrous scenarios about sea level for a very long time. Here's just one silly example – "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” –Noel Brown (1989), ex Director of the UN Environment Program.

        As usual, all speculation, all doom, not supported by any actual measurements, empirical data or science.

        The evidence is there for you to see.

        • hmmann says:

          Solar variation and cosmic rays have very poor correlation to global temperature change. Cosmic rays have been shown to have a negligible effect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691). The highest total solar irradiance since it has been recorded was the solar maximum of 1958, right smack in the middle of the temperature flatline of the 1945-1975 period. Since temperatures have rapidly risen, total solar irradiance has decreased — a terrible correlation and clearly not the reason temperatures have risen!!

        • Steven Mann says:

          samitee apparently searched the data files for the least impressive data points, in terms of sea level rise, he/she could find. Take a look at these from the same data files:
          http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.phttp://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/245…. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/717…. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/256…. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/158….

          Of course, I did the same thing, I searched for the best examples to demonstrate sea level rise. But the point is, yes it has dropped at some points along the California coast, but it has also risen significantly in places. And if you go to the same website that samitee makes his claim about Baja California (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ ), you are immediately presented with a global sea level graph indicating significant and nearly continuous sea level rise.
          The only California tidal gauge data that extended as far as samitee’s statement ‘Sea Level has remained mostly flat in California for the last 140 years.’ is San Francisco, Station No. 10, which is first in my links to stations above. It is clearly anything but flat, showing a fairly consistent rise over the span of about 140 years. It has leveled off in the last 20 or so years, but the long-term trend is definitely up. Whether it increases 2 feet (~600 millimeters) in the next 37 years, when it has risen only ~200 millimeters since 1854, is extremely doubtful. Clearly, there would have to be wild acceleration of the trend for that to happen, and the trend for the last two decades do not suggest a wild acceleration.
          Nevertheless, there is concern for an increase in the rate of sea level rise. Much of the recent average global sea level rise is steric, or thermal, as opposed to eustatic sea level rise. NASA shows the recent rate of global sea level rise to be 3.18 mm per year ( http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaLevel ). Sea surface and near surface temperatures (down to about 700 meters) have continuously risen for decades, and the volume of water expands with added heat. We now find that deeper water has also increased in temperature, which is where much of the concern lies ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50… ). (That deeper water temperature rise is the main source of Trenberth’s intentionally misunderstood statement in the purloined “swifthack” emails about it being a travesty that climate scientists were unable to account for the lack of warming despite heat continuously being added to the earth’s oceans and atmosphere.) Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters. World Ocean Experiment Data collected since the 1980s has provided data indicating the oceans are warming down to depths of 6000 meters ( http://www.livescience.com/28248-deep-ocean-warmi… ).

          But much of the concern is that eustatic sea level rise is projected to dramatically accelerate in the 21st century (http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEO4420/h07/papers/Meier%20etal%202007.pdf ). If global temperatures continue to rise, Rahmstorf (2012, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/… ) says, “the bulk of long-term sea level rise may be expected to come from ice melt.” Schaeffer et al., 2012 are in accordance with that assessment ( http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/ful… ).
          In addition, if thermohaline circulation along the east coast of the US continues to slow, sea levels there could rise much faster than the global average of 3.2 mm per year (http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/Hotspot%20of%20accelerated%20sea-level%20rise%20-%20USGS%206-25-12_tcm3-33215.pdf ).
          As for the statement about entire nations being wiped off the face of the earth, I would guess Brown is referring to South Pacific Island nations. The following descriptions provide some description of their current plight:
          The Carteret Islands are part of Papua New Guinea, located on the Pacific Plate adjacent to the Solomon Sea Plate. In that area, the Solomon Sea Plate is actively being subducted beneath the Pacific Plate. The resultant tectonic motion of Papua New Guinea is a slight upward warping due to these local compressive forces (http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/14.pdf). Therefore, the sea level rise Papua New Guinea is experiencing cannot be attributed to local tectonics. Here is a report for sea level change for Papua New Guinea from the Global Sea Level Observing System with data from the Australia Nation Tidal Facility: http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/publications/docume….

          As for Kiribati, please refer to this work also found in the Global Sea Level Observing System and data from the Australia Nation Tidal Facility: http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/publications/docume…. For Tuvalu, the same research organization applies: http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/publications/docume….

          Here is an article abstract from Marine Geodesy by Singh et al., 2001 concerning the Maldives :http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713833239~frm=titlelink, and another article abstract by Woodworth, 2005: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/….

      • hmmann says:

        smite said: "The fact is if you go back to 1974, you'll find just about the same amount of summer ice as existed in the summer of 2012. I challenge you to dispute this fact."

        I challenge you to support that assertion. Where is your evidence? What publications confirm this?

        Tell us about satellite data that precedes 1979!! And then tell us about the other data!! You have made a lot of unsupported statements!! Show some support!!

        • samitee says:

          The IPCC's 1990 report confirms it. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_

          Arctic Ice is just about the same as it was in 1974 around this time of the year. But again, you are relying on scientists whose world began in 1979 (the year of peak ice). So, with that starting point, yes you will see a warming trend. But that is obviously arbitrary and it's done on purpose to confuse good people like yourself.

          • hmmann says:

            From Section 7.8.2 page 224 of the IPCC 1990 assessment report

            “Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.”

          • samitee says:

            I appreciate that you are addressing my point and putting forth an argument for debate that is very specific so that we can discuss it in a reasonable manner over cyberspace. I can engage with you this way, specific points back and forth on each. Pulling the argument to a high level is not appropriate for this medium of communication, imho. What is appropriate is to focus on the topics of the article and debate those. This is what I'm trying to do and engaging with you on all the other stuff you are bringing into the discussion (mostly irrelevant to the main points of the article) is unfortunately too far out of the scope of an internet conversation and I don't even know where to begin to discuss some of what you've posted that is far outside anything discussed in this article. Obviously those would be much longer, larger and more complex conversations. It's impossible to engage in such high level expansive conversations and massively detailed discussions over this medium. Moving the conversation to a high level in that way is muddying the waters and steering the conversation away from the direction of the specific points of the article. It's distraction and frankly it resembles the tactics of a shill. I would love to be able to debate with you point by point in a friendly manner where we can focus on an issue and do some back and forth. Maybe we can learn something from each other. So let's look at what you've posted from the IPCC.

            Firstly, you are talking about sea-ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. I am talking about the Arctic. So what you are pulling from the IPCC report does not address the amount of ice in the Arctic. Those statistics are in reference to sea-ice extent in the entire Northern Hempishere.

            Secondly, from the same IPCC report, you will find this graph:
            http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/

            As you can clearly see, as stated in my previous point which you responded to above, 1974 has the lowest ice extent by far, and 1979 has the highest, by far. 1979 was one of the coldest years on the planet since early in the century and is considered the year of "peak ice" in the modern era. It is the perfect starting point for anyone who wants to illustrate a warming trend. Do you disagree with this? Secondly, did you read the link I posted about Historical Arctic Sea Ice? Is it not 100% clear that I am correct on this point or are you just basing everything on what the scientists and IPCC are saying? If you haven't, I'd suggest you do, there's a lot of excellent information there.

            Please look at this map from August, 1938. You can find a bunch of old ice extent maps on the DMI's website. http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/

            This map shows the Northwest Passage nearly ice free. Compare it to summer of 1996 when the same passage was frozen up. You will find a lot more ice in Aug of 1996 than Aug of 1938. This is of course just one of many examples you can find by looking at old historical documents and newspapers versus modern day corruption and propaganda. I don’t trust any of the pre-satellite ice or temperature data being published now. They appear to be corrupted political documents rather than historical ones and in many cases they appear to completely contradict historical records. This is known as data corruption, tampering. It's also called fraud. ….continued …..

          • hmmann says:

            samitee's comment: "Secondly, from the same IPCC report, you will find this graph: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/…. "

            I have a copy of the IPCC 1990 report and I could not find that graph. There is no way to prove that this graph came from a legitimate source. Would you mind telling me where in the report it is? I at least provided the section and page where I found the information. Would you be so kind as to do the same?

            BTW, the entire IPCC 1990 report is downloadable. I suggest you download it.

          • samitee says:

            The data comes from NOAA. Figure 7.20.

          • hmmann says:

            samitee's comment: "Please look at this map from August, 1938. You can find a bunch of old ice extent maps on the DMI's website. http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/…. "

            Again, no identification. How do I know it's legit? How do I know this is not corrupted or massaged? IN other words, you claim certain maps are fraudulent. Can you prove that this map is not fraudulent?

          • steven mann says:

            In addition, that map was done in August, near the seasonal minimum of September. The seasonal minimum has gotten later and later due to longer melt seasons http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.htm… . So this August map might have been at a minimum. It doesn't even come remotely close to the minimum of 2012 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-… .

          • samitee says:

            Yes, there was less ice in August of 2012 than there was in 1938. But you can find years (such as 1996) where there was more ice than there was in 1938. The point is, the recent melt and warming trend in the Arctic is not unprecedented at all.

          • steven mann says:

            It is historically unprecedented! There is no other year even close to 2007 through 2012! And it is rapidly deteriorating as Arctic ice has already started cracking up, something it has not been recorded to do at this time of the year. http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/03/arctic-ic

          • steven mann says:

            The sea ice extent of 2007 and 2012 is far far less than any of those maps on wattsupwiththat.com, and the downward trajectory is accelerating. In addition, the sea ice melt season has lengthened an average of 6.4 days per decade ( http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/longer-… ), suggesting that the date of maximum sea ice melt back in those years was in August. And as I said, ice is currently beginning to form major cracks in some areas, something it has never been observed to do when it is near its maximum extent. And also, there is unfortunately no record as to sea ice volume at the times those maps were produced. New (a year or less in age) ice is far more vulnerable to breaking up and being swept out of the Arctic. Multi-year ice has been rapidly decreasing rapidly and at an accelerating rate http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html .

          • samitee says:

            I'm willing to bet that you didn't even read the full and lengthy article packed with TONS of information about the Historic Variations of Sea Ice. You are missing the point entirely. You are using 2007 – 2012 as a very selective period when you can verify with all the maps in the two links I sent you that the modern satellite measurements and climate alarmists talk of "unprecedented" melting is purely and simply false. 2007's melt was mostly due to Arctic winds (not warming) which NASA has admitted. Sea levels are not rising, the Arctic has gone through this many times in the earth's several billion year history. Read the historical records and stop being a victim of fear propaganda.

          • hmmann says:

            I will concede that the article by Tony B in “The Air Vent” is an impressive, well-written and well-researched article. He makes a very good case for significant natural variation of Arctic sea ice. I don’t believe any climate scientist has denied that natural variability has played a significant role in global temperatures, or temperatures of the Arctic Polar region. There are many references as to the possible impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, caused by variations of thermohaline circulation, on weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/papers-on-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-climate/ ).

            However, having said that, there are apparently changes in Atlantic waters that are reversing a multimillennial scale trend in the Atlantic Ocean. Spielhagen et al. published the paper Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450 ). In their study, which presented a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, they find “that early-21-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.” And according to an article entitled Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling by Kaufman et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.a… ), proxy temperature records from poleward of 60° N indicate pervasive cooling in the Arctic from 2000 years ago, through the Medieval Climate Anomaly, the Little Ice Age, and into the Industrial Revolution. Arctic waters experienced this cooling trend until the recent reversal evidenced by rising air temperatures and a decline of the sea ice cover. This cooling trend reversed during the 20th century, with 4 of the 5 warmest decades of their 2000-year reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000. Neither of these articles discount natural variability, they just document an abrupt reversal of a millennial-scale trend of the cooling of Atlantic waters beginning about 150 years ago.

            The warming in the 20th Century contrasts sharply with the preceding cooling trend (the Kaufman et al. study covered from 2000 years ago to the present), which if projected into the 20th century, Arctic summers would have been expected to be -0.5° C cooler than the average temperature for the years 1961-1990. This cooling corresponds to the slow reduction in summer insolation at high latitudes, in turn corresponding to the slow decrease in the earth’s tilt relative to the plane of the orbit of the earth around the sun. Today the tilt is 23.5° and slowly “straightening up,” and is progressing towards its minimum tilt of about 22°. The less the tilt, the less summer heating the high latitudes get, thus increasing the chances of northern ice surviving during the summer. If ice survives the summer, then ice sheets can build up, possibly advancing southward and causing another ice age.

            In addition, the current eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun is only about 1.7%, so its insolation effect is quite small. The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun varies from nearly zero to almost 6%. The eccentricity of earth’s orbit is currently increasing, thus nudging earth toward building ice sheets in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, both insolation effects are pushing earth toward the next natural ice age.

            So, to summarize, we should be heading into another ice age, but that process has been interrupted by anthropogenic global warming.

          • hmmann says:

            Continuing on:

            Water from the Atlantic Ocean moves into the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait. Spielhagen et al. investigated planktic foraminifers in a sediment core from western Svalbard continental margin, strategically situated in the path of Atlantic Water inflow to the Arctic Ocean. Two methods of temperature reconstruction were implemented: one using the SIMMAX modern analog technique applied on planktic foraminifer species counts to calculate temperatures at 50-m water depth, and the other using Mg/Ca measurements on the species Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (sinistral).

            In sediments in the core dated before 100 years ago, 10 to 40% of all planktic foraminifers were subpolar species. However, in the youngest sediments reflecting the past ~100 years, there has been a steep increase in subpolar species and an unprecedented inversion of the subpolar/polar species ration, reaching 66% subpolar specimens in the surface sample. The high percentage of subpolar species indicates a strongly increased influence of warm Atlantic water moving laterally from the Norwegian Sea.

            Results from the SIMMAX and the Mg/Ca measurements allowed for the quantification of temperatures for the last 2000 years. Both methods reveal a warming in the last 120 years of approximately 2° C in the uppermost Atlantic waters of the Fram Strait (Arctic Gateway) over the highest temperatures of the preceding 2000 years.

          • hmmann says:

            Norwegian scientists offer substantiating data and analysis of the Spielhagen et al. paper. The Hald et al., 2011 paper comes from a group of Norwegian scientists from Tromso University. The title to their paper is "A 2000 year record of Atlantic Water temperature variability from the Malangen Fjord, northeastern North Atlantic". Here is the link http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/13/0… and abstract to that paper:

            ABSTRACT:

            A high-resolution sedimentary record from the subarctic Malangen fjord in northern Norway, northeastern North Atlantic has been investigated in order to reconstruct variations in influx of Atlantic Water for the last 2000 years. The fjord provides a regional oceanographic climatic signal reflecting changes in the North Atlantic heat flux at this latitude because of its deep sill and the relatively narrow adjoining continental shelf. The reconstructions are based on oxygen and carbon isotopic studies of benthic foraminifera from a high accumulation basin in the Malangen fjord, providing subdecadal time resolution. A comparison between instrumental measurements of bottom water temperatures at the core location and the reconstructed temperatures from benthic foraminiferal δ18O for the same time period demonstrates that the stable isotope values reflect the bottom water temperatures very well. The reconstructed temperature record shows an overall decline in temperature of c. 1°C from c. 40 BC to AD 1350. This cooling trend is assumed to be driven by an orbital forced reduction in insolation. Superimposed on the general cooling trend are several periods of warmer or colder temperatures. The long-term fluctuations in the Malangen fjord are concurrent with fluctuations of Atlantic Water in the northern North Atlantic. Although they are not directly comparable, comparisons of atmospheric temperatures and marine records, indicate a close coupling between the climate systems. After AD 1800 the record shows an unprecedented warming within the last 2000 years.

          • hmmann says:

            And please samitee, please don't try to tell me these scientists are corrupt as a defense to your faltering argument. That is a very weak-minded comeback, one that if I wanted to conduct this argument at a juvenile level, I could use myself in regards the contrarian community.

          • samitee says:

            There are a handful of top scientists who control the information and have subverted the peer review process. Their e-mails confirm this, you really should go read them. As for the rest of the industry, no I am not saying they are all corrupt, but they are using bad datasets in many cases and relying on "adjusted numbers".

          • hmmann says:

            I have read the swifthack emails. The contrarians took them out of context and placed their own agenda-ridden interpretation on them. The scientists involved have been exonerated by several independent investigations. You, on the other hand, offer no real proof of any kind of conspiracy.

            In addition, the few scientists involved DO NOT have the clout you simplistically attribute to them. The so-called "climate gate" emails are a last gasp desperate effort by deniers to head off the growing body of evidence supporting human-induced climate change.

            I am sorry you are so suspicious of our scientific community. I am sorry you simplistically resort to the simple answer of corruption of the scientific community instead of really trying to think through the scientific evidence to arrive at where you stand on this issue of extremely vital importance.

          • samitee says:

            Swifthack? Do you have any proof that someone hacked in the e-mails? More likely than not, someone leaked them and thank god for that person otherwise the rest of us would still be in the dark. The e-mails are not taken out of context, you really should go read all of the context for yourself (since it's clear you haven't) instead of relying on "independent investigations" to tell you which way to believe. C'mon, give me a break, those investigations were complete whitewashes.

          • samitee says:

            It's not the simplistic answer, it's what the evidence shows.

          • hmmann says:

            It is clear we have reached an impasse. You choose to believe the fossil fuel industry funded propaganda machine, and I believe the scientific community who you believe is a bunch of corrupt liars. You say the evidence shows what you say and I think what you say is full of shit!! You say the investigations are whitewashes, but I really don't think you read them and are jumping to very strongly biased conclusions. So here we stand, neither giving an inch on this. So there is really no reason to continue this back and forth.

          • samitee says:

            I believe we have. The fossil fuel industry (as evil as it is) is certainly not behind any massive campaign, they have just as much to gain out of global warming tech as anyone else. Take a step back and look at this as corporate and government working together to fleece the people. When the Arctic and everything else is normal in 5, 10, and 15 years, I'm sure the same scientists that have been wrong about everything in the last 3 decades will come up with some new nonsense as to why they were wrong before but now they're right and that we need to give them trillions of dollars to save the planet while destroying the lives of millions of children worldwide (mostly in 3rd world nations). and you'll listen to them.

          • hmmann says:

            Blah, blah, blah! Sorry, but that is an utter crock of shit!

          • samitee says:

            And there you have it. Let the reader witness the attitude of most fear mongering warmists. It's always doom and gloom, the world is always ending and YOU must pay for it.

          • Steven Mann says:

            It's not doom and gloom if we can do something about it, which will never happen if we adopt your stance.

            I said it's an utter crock of shit because the fossil fuels industry has nothing to gain with AGW. They stand to loose revenues from all the hydrocarbons left in the ground undeveloped, which is their bread and butter. If they are not allowed to develop that which they have hundreds of billions of dollars (probably more like trillions of dollars) invested in, and they have indicated they plan to develop, then how are they to benefit?

          • samitee says:

            tsk tsk now. No reason to get angry.

          • samitee says:

            Unprecedented over the last 2000 years? Can you kindly point me to thermometer measurements from 1000 or 2000 years ago that supports this claim? Once again you are pointing to articles that are pushing the mainstream agenda but you are not directly linking to the data itself. You are relying on assumptions made and data that has undergone "adjustments". But let's just assume everything you say is true. If the trends suddenly reverse themselves and Arctic Ice recovers over let's say the next 5-10 years. Will you then admit that this was all a bunch of baloney? Or will you move the goalposts again when the scientists come up with some new explanation as to why global warming causes more ice in the Arctic and that too much ice/snow and we'll all freeze to death?

          • hmmann says:

            Oh my god!! Climate deniers claim you can’t trust thermometers because they change locations or are too close to warmer urban environments. They have tried and failed to disprove millions of temperature observations all over the world. But now you want thermometer measurements from 1000 to 2000 years ago. If there were thermometers, and they agreed with climate scientists, you wouldn't believe them anyway…so what's the point?!?

            And speaking of assumptions, you continually assume there is an agenda behind every science article I have linked to, but you have not the slightest bit of evidence confirming that! It's just what you want to believe. But I am sorry samitee, just believing it doesn't make it so.

            Again we are left with your argument of time will tell, and I guess, if I am going to continue to debate with you, I have no choice but to go along with that proposition. But I have to tell you that I am growing weary of your totally unsupported accusations, your outlandish opinions, and your sophomoric assumptions. I am finding this discussion less and less useful – for either of us.

          • steven mann says:

            Research by Dr. John Yackel of the University of Calgary and with the Cryosphere Climate Research Group suggests that the sea ice minimums we are now observing in the Arctic are the lowest they have been in perhaps a million years ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/1209… ).

          • samitee says:

            You have to understand that some of what you are reading has political agenda behind it which is filtered to our esteemed universities. The result of this is corruption (perhaps even unwittingly) and propaganda. Institutions that were once trustworthy (universities, science) have now been corrupted via politics and global agendas. Please research the history of propaganda. Watch the BBC Documentary "The Century of Self" and learn about psychological warfare (which is what this is) …. Read their own e-mails which expose them.

            For anyone who cares to read a snippet about ice in 1940. Compare it to 2012 Compare the propaganda to today. "Is it getting warmer in the North Pole?"
            http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62428921?…

            One last thing, if you want to say that 2007 – 2012 has seen a lot of melt, I would agree with you. I wouldn't say it's all due to warming, there are other reasons. But again, that's a 5 year window you're looking at which is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Tell me … hypothetically speaking, if this summer had normal or above normal ice in the Arctic … say it even broke the record for the summer. What will you do then? Will you admit they have no idea what they're talking about? Or will you move the goal posts and listen to them come up with new stories, variables and lots of goal post moving? I am genuinely curious.

          • Steven Mann says:

            To me it seems that those who have the real political agenda are the fossil fuels industries. The AGW theory has been developed over a period of nearly 200 years (beginning with Fourier) long before politics entered the picture. It was a theory that was laughed at by climate scientists for decades after Svante Arrhenius, in 1896, calculated how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. But as the evidence mounted in its favor, more and more scientists were convinced of its legitimacy.

            It seems pretty clear to me that only in the last 15 years or 20 years, when the fossil fuels companies became fearful that well over $20 trillion in revenues were threatened by the progress of this theory that the denier (or contrarian) community began to develop. I would say that tens of trillions of dollars in potential revenues by the fossil fuels industry, who have a long and sordid history of political machinations and their contemptible results (Anthony Sampson, 1975), is pretty strong motivation to follow the Hill and Knowlton propaganda model to successfully protect their business interests and prodigious profits, a model successfully adopted by the tobacco industry for many years.

            The fossil fuels companies created and funded front groups and think tanks run by "scientists" the same way the tobacco companies did to create doubt in the minds of the public, who has been and is now, understandably, not schooled in the science of the issue. Some of the same scientists used by the tobacco companies have been used by the fossil fuels companies, such as Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer. Some of the think tanks were also used by both industries, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project). It seems to me that they have been pretty successful in swaying a great many people in the direction of their best interest, that of denying AGW and blunting efforts to attack the potentially catastrophic problem.

          • samitee says:

            This is a very simplistic way of looking at the world. Yes, there are oil interests at stake and there certainly is an agenda from the oil industry but believe it or not, that agenda is to support AGW. It's easy to say "oil money" but the reality is a lot more complex. CAGW theory is a 100 billion dollar industry with all sorts of different interests involved including corporate, banking, etc.

          • hmmann says:

            How can you accuse me of having a simplistic way of looking at the world when you yourself are constantly harping on the corruptness of scientists involved in climate research, while offering precious little verification? If you just compare money amounts as inducement to corruption, I would say that tens of trillions of dollars the fossil fuels industry stands to lose easily trumps the paltry amount you state (where you came up with that figure is anybody's guess). Aside from the tobacco and fossil fuels industries, other industries have used this same approach to blunt the efforts of research they perceive could damage their financial health, such as the CFC industry, the asbestos industry, and others. So the precedent and methodology have been set, and the global warming propaganda push by contrarians show all the hallmarks of this type of defense mechanism.

          • samitee says:

            Precious little verification? There are several hundred thousand e-mails waiting for you to read. Compare the amounts of money spent by the fossil fuel industry to the side pushing the agenda. You'll find the skeptic side pales in comparison.

          • hmmann says:

            BTW, did you ever read John Mashey's report "Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report"? http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholar

            The report, that received Stephen McIntyre's blessing, was found to largely perjured from one of the very people attacked by McIntyre and the denier community, that of Professor Raymond S. Bradley, the same Bradley of Mann, Bradley, Hughes – the hockey stick. Wegman et al. took Bradley's words from the text book he wrote and twisted them to suit their needs, much as the "Swifthack" emails were taken out of context and altered for maximum negative impact in what appears to be the modus operandi of the denier community. Unfortunately, the media barely mentioned the event, which exposed how the denier community works. But nevertheless, they were caught red-handed. In my opinion, the denier community has also been nailed pretty badly in the way they handled the stolen emails too!

          • Steven Mann says:

            I guess you could say 'Time will tell.' But what if we don't have the time to wait on this. What if our window of opportunity to perhaps deal with the Arctic sea ice melt will close within the next few years while we were waiting to see who is right on this. What if, because we waited, the Arctic sea ice melts entirely during late summer, allowing atmosphere to warm to the point where methane hydrates, shallowly buried on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, begin melting in large quantities. The increase in the ventilation of methane gas from melting hydrates might be able to pump enough methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, into the atmosphere to warm it further, loosening more methane hydrates, warming the atmosphere even more…and so on. Well, it is possible we are already beginning to see that happen now. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.a

          • samitee says:

            What if, what if, what if? All I hear is FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. That should be a major red flag for people trying to understand these issues. One side is based on a lot of fear mongering. Even if Arctic Sea Ice melted completely (which it won't), that is 1-2% of the world's ice. 90-95% of the rest of the ice is in Antarctica, which is currently seeing record level amounts of ice. So, why the alarmism on 1% of the world's ice, when the rest is gaining?

          • samitee says:

            The downward trajectory is accellerating? Ice growth in the Arctic since mid September through the end of January has shattered the previous record. We are now into the second-third week of meteorological spring and Greenland is experiencing record cold. 2 weeks ago the temperatures reached within 6 degrees of the coldest temps ever recorded in Greenland. Since last summer when NASA and the media freaked out about 1mm ice melt in Greenland, over 100mm of snow has accumulated and not a word about it from NASA. Greenland temps a week or two ago were almost 100 degrees below freezing. I haven't even looked at today's temps.

            The doomed Arctic now has the most ice measured in the last five years and below avg temperatures.

            Stop with the alarmism, please.

          • Steven Mann says:

            I have already explained to you what conditions are currently operating to produce extreme cold and hot weather, but you probably didn't read it. Cold weather is commonly trotted out as proof that global warming isn't happening, and many in the gullible public are taken in by that. But weather is not the same as climate, and the trends are compelling. I would say better to be safe than sorry.

          • Steven Mann says:

            There is virtually always significantly more accumulation of snow in nearly all of Greenland's interior than melting. Nobody would argue against that point. As the snow accumulates, it compacts and plastically flows to glacier ablation zones. So to say that there has been more (even two orders of magnitude more) accumulation than melting is basically a red herring.

            The fact is that Greenland's glaciers are retreating at an accelerating pace as described by glaciologist Dr. Mauri Pelto of Nichols College in Massachusetts in "From a Glacier's Perspective." Scroll down a little on this website where Dr. Pelto keeps us up on developments of glaciers around the world to see a list of Greenland's glaciers. You can click on any glacier listed for Greenland to see that they all have a negative mass balance, becoming more negative at accelerating rates. http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/category/glaci

          • Steven Mann says:

            Perhaps you would consider looking at this paper by Francis and Vavrus, 2012, which explains why we are experiencing such strange weather in the last few years. They explain how faster warming in the Arctic (Arctic amplification) is reducing the potential energy between the tropics and the Arctic, decreasing the velocity of the jet stream, causing an increase in the amplitude of jet stream wave forms (Rossby waves), and causing jet stream waves to become more vulnerable to blocking patterns. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs

          • samitee says:

            Most multi year ice is lost during the winter, not the summer. The ice gets blown by strong winter winds out into the North Atlantic Ocean where it melts. During the winters of 1988-1996, most of the multi-year ice was lost. If you look at MYI in recent years, you'll find it's on the rise (1,2 and 3 year ice).

          • steven mann says:

            Multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is experiencing an unprecedented and rapid decline: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-… And look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYEZ9H63zA

            And this from the NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            "While multiyear ice used to cover up to 60% of the Arctic Ocean, it now covers only 30%. There is a slight rebound in the oldest ice (4+ years old), a remnant of the large amount of first-year ice that formed during the winter after the 2007 record minimum. However, most of that new ice has not survived through the subsequent years. The oldest ice now comprises only 5% of the ice in the Arctic Ocean. This is a slight uptick from last winter’s record low of 3%, but still far less than during the 1980s when old ice covered roughly 25% of the region."

          • samitee says:

            Yes, it's less than the 1980s? So what? How is it compared to the 1930s? 40s? 50s? 60s? Stop with this silliness.

          • steven mann says:

            Show me the thickness data from those decades.

          • samitee says:

            How about you show me some data that proves that today's ice extent is less than it was in any of those decades instead.

            Or any decade in the 18th and 19th century. Good luck.

          • Steven Mann says:

            Samitee, here is what I suggest for natural variation of polar climate. To some degree there is a see saw effect (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2002/00000035/00000001/art00073 and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5386/61.sho… ) in that when the Arctic goes through a warming period, the Antarctic experiences a cooling period, and vice versa. This could be due to changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09… and http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/clark… a phenomenon I have already mentioned and have provided references. Currently, the AMO could be in a relatively strong period where more heat is transferred from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere by thermohaline circulation (THC) than when it is in a weak period, although there is much noise in the data and the signal might be subtle. In addition, data is largely proxy data before continuous measurements provided by an array of floats.
            In a weak period, the Antarctic is relatively warm and the Arctic is relatively cool, because less heat is transported north by the THC. There is evidence that when the Arctic was going through a relatively cooler period during the 1940s through the 1970s, the Antarctic was going through a relatively warmer period where southern hemisphere sea ice extent was relatively low https://data.aad.gov.au/analysis/crc/eceawiki/fil… . What I believe is happening is that since the onset of AGW, in each cycle the climate is warmer than the cycle before, the warm phases are warmer and the cool phases are less cool with each succeeding cycle. The sea ice extent in the current warm phase of the cycle in the Arctic is lower than any past sea ice extent, and with warming waters flowing into the Arctic, sea ice could well vanish completely during the late summer season. I must admit however, that it is also possible that we might transition into the cooler phase of the Arctic cycle in the coming years. Having said that, I believe that warming is intense enough now that even the cool phase of the Arctic cycle will have lower sea ice extent than preceding warm phase.
            This situation has interrupted the long-term decline in global temperatures that are being induced by the Milankovitich eccentricity and obliquity cycles. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/glob… These momentum of these cycles have acted to push the globe into the next glacial phase due to the earth’s orbital changes around the sun, but the strength of the anthropogenically induced increase in greenhouse gases has interrupted the natural process.
            So, as anyone somewhat knowledgeable of climate science, I acknowledge natural variation in the highs and lows of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent. However, you cannot explain away the fact that planktic ratios and Mg/Ca ratios indicate an unprecedented warming of Atlantic waters flowing into the Arctic http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450 , and that the earth was gradually cooling before this interruption. That is observational data, not just some scientist waving his/her arms, and you cannot just wish away this data. There is too much evidence supporting the idea that the planet has been cooling for the past few thousand years, since the Holocene Climate Optimum, but that cooling has been interrupted by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are now warming the atmosphere. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.a

          • samitee says:

            I'm sorry, but you are just wrong and you really have no idea what you're talking about. Stop quoting articles and look at the data. Multi-Year ice is increasing over the last few years. This is a fact.

            The amount of 3+ year old ice is up from 7% in 2011 to 10% in 2013. There is more 3+ ice now than there was five years ago.

            The amount of 4+ year old ice is up from 3% last year to 5% this year. There is 60% more 4+ ice than there was last spring.
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/04/F

            At this point it's clear that you are either completely ignorant about the Arctic or you are deliberately spreading disinformation. Try harder.

          • steven mann says:

            Nevin at the "Arctic Sea Ice" has helpfully provided a table taken from PIOMAS data that shows >2m sea ice has declined dramatically over the years, especially the last few years: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01

            And the very data source you used above, the NSIDC, states "While multiyear ice used to cover up to 60% of the Arctic Ocean, it now covers only 30%." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            I would say that you are the one desperately trying to spread disinformation, even the data sources you refer to clearly bring that out.

          • samitee says:

            Certainly not. I would say you need to do some more research. PIOMAS data is unreliable and there is PLENTY of information about this on the web. When I believed in this nonsense, I would constantly site PIOMAS until I did some further research and realized that PIOMAS is unreliable. I encourage you to do the same. Secondly, the statement that multiyear ice used to cover up to 60% of the Arctic Ocean and now covers 30% is true, but really means nothing because you're going by 1978-79 peak ice as the starting point. That's called cherry picking. Also, Multi-Year Ice is on the rise over the last 5 years. Do you disagree with this simple fact?

          • steven mann says:

            It's only unreliable if you don't like what they say. Why don't you prove the unreliability rather than just spouting that they are unreliable. Show me the ice thickness data from earlier years.

            Completing the paragraph whose first sentence I quoted from the NSIDC – http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ – "There is a slight rebound in the oldest ice (4+ years old), a remnant of the large amount of first-year ice that formed during the winter after the 2007 record minimum. However, most of that new ice has not survived through the subsequent years. The oldest ice now comprises only 5% of the ice in the Arctic Ocean. This is a slight uptick from last winter’s record low of 3%, but still far less than during the 1980s when old ice covered roughly 25% of the region."

          • samitee says:

            Here you go: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=piomas+is+unreliable

            Once again, I will not argue that the ice is less than it was during the 1980s. But as I have said at least a dozen times on this page, this means nothing because 1978-1979 was the year of peak ice. You are choosing an unbelievably convenient starting point to illustrate a warming trend. The Arctic is fine and in 20 years you'll look back and laugh at this.

          • hmmann says:

            PIOMAS has been thoroughly validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites.

          • Steven Mann says:

            I provided data back to 1953 ( http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/mean_anom… ) which showed that 1974, the year you claimed was the same as 2012 in sea ice extent (samitee's quote from 4 weeks ago: "The fact is if you go back to 1974, you'll find just about the same amount of summer ice as existed in the summer of 2012. I challenge you to dispute this fact."), in fact had far greater sea ice extent than 2012. You are dead wrong but cannot admit it!

          • steven mann says:

            BTW, thanks for showing a fairly consistent decrease in multi-year Arctic sea ice from the NSIDC graph!

          • samitee says:

            Do you need a lesson on how to read graphs? Do you not see the large uptick that starts at about 2007 at the right side of the graph? blue for 1-2 year old ice, green for 2-3 year old ice, and yellow for 3-4 year old ice? Of course that ice will continue to get older over the next few years. Are you claiming that ice since 2007 is not on the increase? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/04/F

          • Steven Mann says:

            It is pretty easy to see that ice less than one year old, the newest and thinnest and easiest to melt and break up and transport out of the Arctic, has been pretty steadily gaining as a percent of the total ice in the Arctic Ocean. Yes, there is an uptick in ice older than 4 years, much as there have been brief upticks before, only to continue the long decline, which looks to me to be a pretty definable trend. During a 20-year span, mean thickness of ice over the Arctic Ocean thinned from 2.6 meters in March 1987 to 2.0 meters in 2007 (Stroeve 2008). And according to Polyak et al., 2010 http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_… the recent losses in Arctic sea ice have no parallel going back many thousands of years. This follows closely to other articles I have referenced for you, articles that base their conclusions on observable data. There are several hundred indicators described and data cited in the Polyak et al. article.

          • samitee says:

            As of April 10th, Global Sea Ice Area is the 8th largest on record. Here is the raw data so anyone can check for themselves. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeserie

          • samitee says:

            You are a silly person. If you looked out the window and it was raining and the scientists told you it wasn't, you'd probably believe them over your own lying eyes.

          • steven mann says:

            You resort to the ad hominem that you said you don't do. Thanks for the insight into who you really are (you apparently lie even to yourself). You accuse me for being a silly person despite that fact that I have consistently backed up my statements with scientific articles and data. But then coming from someone who has a clear enmity and distrust for climate scientists, I guess I should not be surprised.

          • samitee says:

            Well, I shouldn't have called you a silly person, I apologize. You have consistently backed up your statements with mostly scientific articles and not actual data. When you have, you have used data such as PIOMAS which is unreliable. If you would research this further, you would come to understand this, but you rely on credentials of other people instead of looking at the details yourself, which is fine. As far as distrust from climate scientists, go read their e-mails and come back and tell me they are trustworthy. Please :)

          • Steven Mann says:

            I accept your apology, and I apologize for making statements earlier that could be construed as ad hominem. I will say you have brought up many legitimate questions that I have striven to explain or answer. You say I resort to unreliable information such as PIOMAS. I maintain that PIOMAS has been substantiated with naval submarine observations and oceanographic moorings. You say that I have provided mostly scientific articles and not actual data. But those articles are based on analysis of data collected in the field.

          • Steven Mann says:

            samitee, I thought this blog post might be of interest to you:
            http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/11/pesky-reality

          • Steven Mann says:

            And this article by Kinnard et al,. 2011 – http://labs.ceazamet.cl/ceaza/docs/1343273271.pdf

            Quote:

            "Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres
            less than it was in the late twentieth century…"

            And this reconstructed sea ice extent for the last 1,450 years:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1-kinnard201

          • Steven Mann says:

            Here is an overlay of the August 28, 2012 sea ice extent on the August 1938 sea ice extent:
            http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7694/asiaug201

            Notice any differences?

          • samitee says:

            I have now supported my statements. I have shown you the evidence from the source you consider the most credible (and, ironically probably the least). I have shown you the ice extent in 1974 and 1979 from the IPCC's own satellites. I have shown you Historical information about the arctic including old maps. Now, please tell me, do you still think the Arctic is melting more rapidly than ever? Do you still think Arctic melt of today is "unprecedented?" If so, is it just an IPCC error and all that historical data I showed you is wrong? " ? Do you still think it's fair to choose 1979 as the starting point? Do you still believe that the Arctic will be ice free coming soon? As a genuine question (not meant to be snarky), have you ever considered that you might perhaps be a victim of fear based mass media and military/government propaganda and psychological warfare?

          • steven mann says:

            You are so primed and ready to argue that it appears you saw what you wanted to see in my earlier post. I have been waiting to see if you might catch it, but I can't wait any longer. Here is my earlier post of the quote from the IPCC 1990 report again:

            “Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.”

            Sea ice extent was apparently reduced in the early 1970s actually supporting, but not confirming your statement. But wait a minute, the IPCC is corrupt and fraudulent, so we cannot trust what they say…er…uh…except when they agree with what you say!?

            However, this statement from the IPCC does not suggest that sea ice extent was anywhere close to as reduced as the 2012 minimum extent. Furthermore, sea ice volume, which measures not just extent, but also thickness and provides info on multi-year ice versus one year ice – which is far more vulnerable to breaking up and removal than multi-year ice.
            http://www.washington.edu/news/archive/relatedconhttp://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org:8080/bitstreamhttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-http://cires.colorado.edu/events/rendezvous/2007/

            The State of the Cryosphere website from the National Snow and Ice Data Center has a graph that shows that even though there was a reduction in sea ice extent from 1972 through 1975, sea ice extent was still above monthly means throughout the entire period, far greater extent than in recent years, which have been significantly below the monthly mean since about 2000.
            http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

          • samitee says:

            See the proof I posted above. That should put the issue to rest. Unless you disagree with the historical record and maps?

          • Steven Mann says:

            The historical records you posted showed the sea ice minimum in the Arctic to be far greater than what we are seeing now.

          • samitee says:

            ….back to my point.

            Let's look at some of the absurdity from the IPCC.

            From, 2001 (3rd assessment report), 15.2.4.1.2.4. "Ice Storms – Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms."

            2007 – IPCC predicted heavier rainfall for East Africa as temperatures warmed, not less. Go to Somalia and see for yourself if this is true or not.

            The 2007 IPCC report was full of mistakes, like the claim that Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035. Such utter nonsense that is not based on any form of science whatsoever.

            What you need to understand is that all of this is based on computer modeling and assumptions, NOT real world evidence and empirical data. They hand pick and feed the variables they want into their algorithm to spit out a pre-determined conclusion that fits the agenda. Please learn more about what climate change legislation does to the third world and how it is a crime against humanity and the environment. Please learn to spot propaganda.

            Do yourself a service. Go read the ClimateGate e-mails (they just released the rest of them) and see a handful of top scientists exposed. Read about manipulating data, controlling and corrupting peer review, the selective thermometers, gatekeeping, bad data, excluding other scientists from debate and journals, infighting, data "adjustments" and media/PR involvement to push a very obvious political agenda. Read about how they created the hockey stick and engaged in smear campaigns against scientists who disagreed with their findings. They've been committing crimes and science has been corrupted. THEY STILL REFUSE TO RELEASE ALL OF THEIR DATA AND METHODS FOR INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY. THIS FACT ALONE PROVES THEY ARE NOT CREDIBLE. From day 1 this theory has been far fetched, a real leap of logic and yet we all fell for it. But once the veil is lifted, you'll wonder how you ever believed such nonsense in the first place. But it takes TIME to research all this stuff.

            Anyhow, that is all extra commentary. If you wish to continue debating this specific topic of Arctic Ice, historical data of Arctic Ice, 1979 peak ice starting point, etc., please do. But please also understand that if you link me to a paper that is based on a corrupted peer review process, computer modeling, inaccurate datasets, excluded variables, temperature "adjustments", I likely won't read it.

          • hmmann says:

            You keep bringing up the so-called "climate gate", or more appropriately dubbed "swift hack." Everything about this smacks of a set up. The hacker, possibly in league with Stephen McIntyre, released the emails right before the Copenhagen summit in order to do the most damage possible, not to find and truth. The emails were quote mined to find the most damaging lines. The denier community plastered the supposedly damning lines from the emails all over the internet, and Faux Noos ran with it. They not only picked a few choice passages and even deleted some of the words in those passages to make them look even worse. A prime example was the "hide the decline" passage, where blogs ran with Phil Jones email saying "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." This was shortened to "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline." Of course, just looking at the last sentence makes it look like Mike's trick was to hide the decline in temperaures. But that was not at all what Mike's trick was. Tree rings follow temperatures up until the early 1960s, at which point they decline, but temperatures continue to rise. So it was just a statement about how to compare proxy data with instrumental records. The word trick was used as just a clever approach, but the denialosphere never bothered to question the climate scientists as anyone who is fair would do. No, they doctored what was actually said and put their own interpretation on it and blared it all over the internet and Faux Noos (whose stock is 7% owned by the Saudi government, second largest shareholder next to Rupert himself. The Saudis are one of the most vocal critics of AGW…I wonder why?). Funny how the "hide the decline email was sent in 1999, just after the hottest year in history up to that point – 1998, the year skeptics love to point to indicating there has been no warming in the last few years. Seems like an odd time to be talking about a decline, doesn't it.

            Of course, people will see what they want to in all of this. The fact that the scientists were exonerated by independent sources means nothing to the denial community, who refuses to this day to even hear what the scientists themselves have to say in their defense. There has never been any fairness there, only more propaganda consisting of lies and half truths.

            The emails do not show that data was manipulated, they do not indicate how just a few scientists could corrupt peer review (they simply don't have the clout to pull that off despite what you might believe about that). If anyone has the motivation to present distorted fraudulent data, it would be those on the payroll of the fossil fuels companies, who have literally tens of trillions of dollars at stake in this debate and have spent lavishly to promote and finance their lackeys and fake scientists.

          • hmmann says:

            The IPCC admitted their mistake: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20… But for the size of the document, there are remarkably few mistakes!

            "Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. " — I agree!

          • samitee says:

            one mistake? hahahaha. wow.

      • hmmann says:

        Cloud and ocean systems do not add heat energy to the planet, therefore, they will not cause long-term temperature rises as we have seen over the past 150 years.

        • samitee says:

          Cloud and ocean systems have everything to do with the climate as anything else, and certainly more than a fraction of a tiny percent of carbone dioxide or anything that man is doing.

          • hmmann says:

            The point I was making is that they do not add radiant energy to the earth's climate system. They are both feedbacks to climate forcings, such as changes in solar energy or artificially induced changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And BTW, CO2 is ordinarily a feedback too. But this time it's concentration has been artificially changed, making it a climate forcing (which has probably never happened before in the entire 4.6 billion year history of the planet). You can't expect the chemistry of the atmosphere to be altered and no changes in climate to occur. After all, without greenhouse gases, the planet would be 33 degrees centigrade cooler than the average current temperatures, which would freeze water and make life as we know it impossible. If you decrease greenhouse gases, you expect cooling; conversely, if you increase greenhouse gases, you expect warming, which is just what we are getting.

          • samitee says:

            The Sun drives warming. not Carbon Dioxide.

          • Steven Mann says:

            If it were only the sun driving the earth's climate, then we should be cooling now as the total solar irradiance has decreased since it's solar maximum in 1958.
            The sun reached its peak of solar irradiance during the 1945-1975 flatline. Since temperatures have been increasing, since about 1975, total solar irradiance has decreased. Again, if the sun were the only driver of climate, we should be experiencing cooling, which is not happening!

          • samitee says:

            I never said it was the only driver of climate.

          • steven mann says:

            So, let's here it from you, what are the drivers of climate, and how are they causing the planet to warm? These drivers of climate must be able to explain why there is more radiant energy entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. There is about 0.8W/m^2 more energy entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyB

            From NASA:

            "The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming."

            And whatever is driving the change in climate must also answer the fact that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming, which should not happen if warming is from the sun – http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/… (Note that one of the authors here is Dr. John Christy, a well known skeptic of AGW.)

            It must also answer why there is a decrease in outgoing radiation in the same part of the spectrum as that absorbed by CO2, but not by any other gas in the atmosphere – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/a… and http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/index.htm (you must search for the Chen paper at this website)

            It must also explain why there is an increase in downward directed longwave radiation – http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jli/pdf/puckrin2… and http://www.juergen-grieser.de/publications/public… and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD

            These phenomena are documented to be occurring and a solar model for warming cannot explain them. So what is causing these phenomena? We already know an answer that unifies the diverse phenomena that are occurring with climate change, but you don't want to hear it.

  5. Thank You Samitee for posting your points-of-view. I was debating on whether or not I wanted to walk into this one, and was gratified that yours is the first reply.

    Not only do I fully agree with you, I also feel there is a VERY strong likelihood that we are actually on the verge of going into a new mini-Ice Age. (Let's hope it's mini, anyway!) There are RECORD cold, snow and ice events in many places around the world, yet the media in the USA reports little if anything about it. And we are actually late for the 11,500 year ice-age cycle, to boot. My favorite website on this issue, http://www.iceagenow.info, documents this kind of stuff extensively and daily.

    The figure of 99% of scientists agreeing on global warming has been thrown around for years. Yet there are several HUNDRED climatologists and astrophysicists who disagree, and either way we have been neutral or on the way down in temperatures., just like the latest reports from the British Meteorological group and ASA have had to publicly admit. And the United Nations, I believe, said there are only 2,500 scientists in the world who are fully focused on these issues. So even if it's only a couple of hundred are "skeptics", that's WAY more than 1 percent!

    And DOZENS of climate related scientists have reported that when they started to speak out against the human caused global warming theory, they were threatened with loss of funding or jobs. (That's if they worked for a government agency, university or company receiving funds from government.)

    Everyone loves to point their fingers at oil companies having profit motives, and yes, oil companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to study global climate change. Yet the governments of the world have spent nearly 80 BILLION dollars, and with the overt agenda of proving global warming, not for finding the truth from a neutral starting point. PLUS, the oil companies have vested interests in what real and true, because they are the ones who are investing many billions of dollars in infrastructures. If they are too far wrong in their conclusions, they will lose a lot of money.

    Even though I think the oil companies deserve a lot of blame for having bought out the political processes at the federal & state levels back in the 1920s and 1930s, and insulated themselves from TRUE market forces (which have NOT been in significant operation in decades in our country when it comes to big business) by securing government protection.

    But a LOT of scientists, researchers, and so forth are going to have to get a new line of work if the global warming thing is not pursued. So they have a vested interest in keeping the tax payer-funded gravy train going. More so than oil companies. The interesting thing is, most of the privately employed climate scientists I know of who actually make a living selling their data to businesses who MUST have accurate forecasting to stay in business, are mostly predicting far lower temperatures for at least a few years, maybe decades.

    Even Tom Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, claims that the human caused global warming theory is a total scam. But he left The Weather Channel long ago, so they stick with the party line.

    Plus, Al Gore owns an consulting firm that will make HUGE amounts of money if the carbon trading treaty & tax goes through. That's why some of the so-called right wing business people have started talking about climate change, because they figured out how to make a lot of money off of it, some of them by becoming clients of Al Gore. …

    And his movie, Inconvenient Truth, was so full of half truths and un-truths it is NOT funny. This is why Al Gore will NOT publicly debate ANY one who does not believe in global arming, because he can NOT win. Courts in England found nine major untruths in the movie, and I have a document describing, in detail, about 35 significant inaccuracies in the movie.

    For me, since I've been reading about this stuff since 1981 or so, when the national news magazines like Time and Newsweek were warning us that we were all going to die of global … COOLING! … the other side of the story has always been significantly censored out of the mainstream media, depending on what is Politically Correct at the time. Like when it was discovered that the hockey stick chart in Al Gore's movie showing skyrocketing temperatures was shown — by amateur mathematicians to start! — to be a complete fraud. Or the Climate-gate e-mails that were leaked showing that the pro-global warming scientists were admitting to each other that they had to hide the actual data to keep the story line going their way.

    And as you know, Samitee, ALL of this is heavily documented, but is not reported in the mainstream media or from the mouths of most politicians, who stand to gain a LOT from their financial sources if the carbon tax treaties & taxes get passed.

    I could go on and on for hours, because there is SO MUCH evidence that the media and our politicians ignore or are in denial about, but I have to get back to work.

    Thanks Again for Posting
    David Scott Lynn

    • OOPS! I put a comma after http://www.iceagenow.info … so that link will not work. SORRY!
      ~DSL

      • Thanks David for your comments. As I have indicated in my reply to Samitee's latest comment, I plan to research the links and information provided and get back to both of you in a few days. See my reply below.

    • hmmann says:

      Let's see, we know the earth has warmed about 0.8 degrees centigrade; we know that global temperatures began their rise about the same time as humanity began adding large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know CO2 absorbs infra red radiation emitted from the earth's surface; we know that less infra red radiation of the spectral wavelength absorbed by CO2 is leaving the top of the atmosphere; we know that there is increasing amounts of infra red radiation returning to earth, which would be expected with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but not with increased solar luminosity; we know the lower stratosphere is cooling, which should not happen if warming of the earth's surface was being caused by increased solar luminosity; we know Arctic sea ice is melting away (and we know it wasn't anywhere close to this bad in 1974 as samitee said; I've noticed he hasn't offered any references to back up his assertion); we know that nearly all the planet's glaciers are receding, many at a rapidly accelerating pace; we know that the total solar radiation of the sun has been decreasing while the planet has been heating up; we know that cosmic rays have a negligible impact on climate; and there is a huge amount of additional evidence indicating anthropogenic global warming is happening!!!! None of these HUNDREDS of climatologists you spout off about have offered any kind of satisfactory alternative explanation for why these phenomena are happening!! THAT'S BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION THAT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINS ALL THESE PHENOMENA – ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!!

      • samitee says:

        There's really no reason to scream. We know the earth has MAYBE warmed about .8C, which means nothing. We know that it has been slightly cooling for the last 16 years. You can repeat talking points as much as you like, I will only be able to focus on the points of the original debate. This is all obfuscation and there are certainly dozens and dozens if not hundreds of other variables that you haven't mentioned. For the purpose of a website debate, all of these issues can't be debated point by point. But I will continue to try and focus on where you did address my previous posts.

        With all due respect sir or madam – You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about when it comes to the Arctic. Please read this and learn a few things before you continue to spread misinformation.

        Historic Variation in Arctic Ice – http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/histo

        As you can see, for those of us who understand that the world didn't begin in 1979, there is nothing unusual about Arctic ice today.

    • hmmann says:

      David said: “And DOZENS of climate related scientists have reported that when they started to speak out against the human caused global warming theory, they were threatened with loss of funding or jobs. (That's if they worked for a government agency, university or company receiving funds from government.)”

      David, please provide some documentation for this. From what I know, it’s been the exact opposite, the government, at least during the Bush administration, harassed, intimidated, threatened, censored, and suppressed climate scientists that expressed or wrote pro-anthropogenic global warming evidence and/or documentation. This was described in detail in the Union of Concerned Scientists document “Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science.” http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications

      • samitee says:

        I'm with David on this one. The Bush Years were some of the highest AGW propaganda years. Don't fall into the left/right illusion, this is clearly a corporate and government profit agenda.

        • hmmann says:

          So I offer documentation, not an opinion. You only offer your biased opinion.

          • samitee says:

            You've offered nothing but propaganda. Try harder.

          • steven mann says:

            On the contrary, you've offered nothing but propaganda!

          • steven mann says:

            Oh, wait, let me take that back, you have offered your opinions, lot's of opinions – empty and hollow.

          • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

            samitee and David – not surprisingly, I'm on the hmmann side of the debate. hmmann has provided sound scientific arguments in support of a climate change emergency facing the planet.

            I'm not a scientist but I do understand the difference between his/her documentation and your propaganda.

          • samitee says:

            You don't have to be a scientist to verify these things for yourself. Did you disagree with all of the data I posted regarding Sea Level in California? (Just choosing one example). Are you choosing to go against the data I've shared with you? Do you still believe that sea levels are rising in California after having looked at this data? The data I've posted clearly shows that sea levels are not rising by any alarming rate in California and certainly not going to rise a matter of a few feet. Do you disagree?

          • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

            I choose to look at these two reports by the National Research Council
            http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other
            http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-

          • samitee says:

            I see. So even though you have seen with your own eyes that there has been zero sea level rise in La Jolla, California (as an example), you will choose to believe a report that says sea levels have risen 7 inches and that tide gauges are reporting accelerating sea level rise. When given the raw data that shows the opposite, you still choose to believe the report instead of the raw data or your own eyes. The methods of the report or the data that they used is irrelevant. What they say goes, is that how it works? I have shown you point blank that sea levels are not rising in California and you choose to believe the report versus the actual measurements? This does not compute for me … but in any case. You are free to believe these reports if you like, I'll stick with the raw data and real world observations.

          • steven mann says:

            As I showed earlier, samitee is very picky about the data he has presented. The San Francisco tidal gauge data shows a fairly consistent sea level rise for the last 140 years, but he did not show that data site. However, I agree with him that it does not appear sea level will rise a few feet in the next 35 years or so. Nevertheless, there are huge piles of data showing that ice melt is rapidly increasing over most of the globe. And sea temperatures down to even abyssal depths is increasing. So both eustatic and steric sea level drivers are increasing at an increasing rate. So sea levels are increasing at increasing rates.

          • samitee says:

            Over most of the globe? Are you aware that 90-95% of the world's ice is in Antarctica? Antarctica is currently seeing the most ice ever recorded in the satellite era. It is breaking all sorts of records. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Clearly not.

          • steven mann says:

            So, let's here it from you, what are the drivers of climate, and how are they causing the planet to warm? These drivers of climate must be able to explain why there is more radiant energy entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. There is about 0.8W/m^2 more energy entering the top of the atmosphere than leaving it. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyB

          • steven mann says:

            for your convenience, I'll just go ahead and quote from the article:

            "In a landmark study, published on 30 November in the journal Science, the researchers show that melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has contributed 11.1 millimetres to global sea levels since 1992. This amounts to one fifth of all sea level rise over the survey period.

            About two thirds of the ice loss was from Greenland, and the remainder was from Antarctica.

            Although the ice sheet losses fall within the range reported by the IPCC in 2007, the spread of the IPCC estimate was so broad that it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates are a vast improvement (more than twice as accurate) thanks to the inclusion of more satellite data, and confirm that both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice."

          • steven mann says:

            From National Geographic – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/1

            National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

            This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

            If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

            So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

            That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

          • samitee says:

            Really? Because last year, NASA's top climate scientists and political activist with an axe to grind James Hansen said that Antarctica was the fastest warming place on earth, despite the fact that it has cooled more than half a degree since 1998. So which is it? Is it the fastest warming place on earth or is it not warming up as fast as other places? Silly NASA scientists can't even keep their B.S. stories straight and you believe them because they have credentials. Please stop with this nonsense.

          • steven mann says:

            I believe he was referring to the article by Bromwich et al., 2013 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/nge… entitled "Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth."

            BTW, where is your data corroborating a >0.5°C drop since 1998?

          • samitee says:

            Actually, he was referring to Base Bernardo O’Higgins which is at the is rthe tip of the Antarctica Peninsula. Hanen and NASA say this is the the fastest warming place on Earth. Weather Underground has records there going back to 2004, which show that the base has cooled about one degree since the start of records. Keep trying.

          • steven mann says:

            Interesting how you cite a data source that employs someone you accuse of being not credible, Jeff Masters, when it suits you.

          • steven mann says:

            Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are the one not trying hard enough.

          • samitee says:

            I cited whether underground because YOU consider Masters credible.

          • steven mann says:

            But you don't trust the scientists who actually do the field work and data compilation?

          • samitee says:

            Whether or not I trust them is

            a) a complex question that's impossible to answer in such a short space on this website. It's not a simple yes or no.
            b) irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

            I just showed you that the section of Antarctica which NASA and Hansen claimed is the fastest warming place on the planet has seen 1 degree cooling since 2004 from a source that YOU consider credible. Antarctica is breaking all sorts of ice records this year. It has the most ice it has ever seen in the satellite era. And yet you cling to some idea that it's melting rapidly, for some unknown reason.

          • samitee says:

            Once again. The raw data which you continue to conveniently ignore shows that Global Sea Ice Area as of April 10th is the 8TH LARGEST ON RECORD. Save the file and plot the graph for yourself.
            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeserie

          • steven mann says:

            Here is an interesting read for you from the British Antarctic Survey: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/

          • samitee says:

            No, they're not. Try harder.

          • samitee says:

            In this article, scientists say that sea levels could rise 1000 meters! An entire kilometer! Imagine that! What utter nonsense. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/apr/29

  6. samitee says:

    Thank you David for your thoughtful response. Naturally, I agree with everything you said with one exception which is the prediction of a new Ice Age. I don't think scientists can predict anything of the sort related to the climate, any better than they could in the 1970s. That decade saw massive propaganda regarding "A New Ice Age". Google a June 1974 article from Time Magazine entitled "A New Ice Age" as one of many examples. This fear based climate propaganda has been going on for over a century. I can point to dozens and dozens of newspaper articles from the early 20th century warning mankind of the rapid ice melt of the Arctic, death to the animals, melting of glaciers, rise of sea level, etc, etc… Today's fear based propaganda from the media and scientific community or anyone who claims that "the debate is over" is no different. People like Tom Coleman who you mentioned (and others) are shunned and ostracized if they don't tow the party line but thankfully we have credible scientists that are working hard to show the public the truth on such matters and not rely on government entities with clear agendas to push. Climategate 3.0 e-mails were released today, coincidentally. More nails in the coffin for this ridiculous theory. But yet the public at large is still very ignorant when it comes to climate change and I'm afraid the media is the main reason. I believe it's important to challenge journalists and writers who assume they understand the issue but are really just victims of propaganda.

    I'd like to add a point number 4) since it was brought up earlier and I missed it in my rebuttal.

    4) "Sea levels on the East Coast, from North Carolina to Boston, are rising much faster than the rest of the world, according to the US Geological Survey."

    Why do the tide gauges not confirm the USGS study? The short answer is the because the USGS study is B.S. Let's use North Carolina as an example (since you mentioned it).

    According to University of Colorado data, <a href="http://(http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)” target=”_blank”>(http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) sea level along the NC coast is rising at a rate of approximately 1.4 mm/year. This is less than one half of the measured global rate of 3.1 mm/year. At this rate, over the next 88 years, sea level would be expected to rise five inches in North Carolina (assuming the rate stays constant of course). But the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission released a report which says that NC will experience ONE METER of sea level rise over the next century. Now, let's be realistic here. You do not have to be a scientist to understand that this would require an acceleration of 800% over the current rate of sea level rise. Unless an asteroid hits Greenland, this is simply not going to happen. It's basically impossible. It should be straightforward that there are vested interests in reporting misleading information such as this. Keep in mind that this doesn't account for any change in land level movements either.

    Rather than relying on what government entities are stating and then publishing those statements as fact which readers believe, perhaps an attempt to analyze actual station data would be a more responsible form of journalism. Repeating information from government sources without checking the data or questioning methods of biased studies is not real journalism. I'm not trying to engage in any mudslinging but almost every point in this article supporting climate change can be easily demonstrated as false and certainly debated fiercely with science and real world evidence.

    What if we look at other intervals? If you look at station data from Wilmington, NC as an example, you will see rising and falling sea levels since 1962 but there is no long term trend in either direction, certainly not in the order described by alarmists. Sea levels have been falling since 1998 and only rising at .5mm since 1990 (Wilmington station). To claim otherwise is to either be ignorant of the facts or engaging in poor journalism. Take a look at the NOAA's own chart from Wilmington and you will see that sea level is not rapidly rising, but apparently facts don't matter when you're trying to save the world from carbon dioxide. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend

    Furthermore, the BEST Muller/Muller study has all sorts of problems with it and has been discredited, debunked and rebutted thoroughly. It is clearly a case of poor data used and incorrect assumptions made. This has been written about all over the web. A simple Google search will provide a lot of information regarding the problems with the BEST study. Even one of the authors of that study has since come out to explain the problems with the assumptions made and conclusions reached. It should not be relied on as any sort of authority on the matter. I'll gladly provide some info on this if anyone is interested…continued in next post…

    • samitee says:

      Additionally, you made this claim … "While it is true that one cannot look at specific events – a drought, a flood, wildfires, super storms – to claim that we are heading for an unparalleled climate crisis, the frequency and intensity of such events are undeniable."

      Actually, yes…one can deny that the frequency and intensity of such events are on the rise. This is a silly statement that has no basis in fact. Show me that there are more and larger hurricanes today than there were 50, 100, 200 years ago? Show me that there are more fires, droughts, tornadoes, etc. and that they are not only higher in frequency but magnitude as well. Prove your claims. I suspect you won't be able to, only because I was under these same assumptions at one point and then after actually researching these matters deeply, I realized I had been duped. The plain facts are that none of the weather we are experiencing today is any more "extreme" than 50, 80, 100, 150 years ago. If you disagree, please state your reasons why and back it up with evidence. Please give examples to your readers and support them with raw data instead of "The USGS/IPCC/NOAA/NASA says" and thus it must be so.

      Here is the correct link from my earlier post regarding June 1890 fires. http//news.google.com/newspapers?id=wZ5XAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wvMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6365,3344604&dq=fire+sangre+de+cristo&hl=en

      I would also like to take issue with the author's use of the term "denier" which is really an insult to the intelligence of any human being taking these matters seriously. Using that MSM buzzword "denier" is a subtle attempt to smear anyone who disagrees with a handful of highly paid government scientists and politicians as crazy people, conspiracy theorists, in bed with BIG OIL, etc. and to align them with the likes of Holocaust Deniers. This is absolutely improper, disrespectful and a form of yellow journalism. I'm not implying that you are engaging in the use and implication of this word knowingly but it is one of those "catch phrases" used by the mainstream media that you should avoid in your own writings. Please give respect to the other side of the debate and stop marginalizing people who disagree with you. I'll be happy to continue to engage in friendly debate if you want to address or comment on any of the data I posted. Also, since it's your article, isn't it responsible for you to include sources to the claims you make when engaging in debate with your readers? You are quoting articles that are making wild and inaccurate statements and unwittingly pushing downright propaganda without showing the data/methods of their studies and how they reached their conclusions. With respect, thank you.

      • hmmann says:

        From the post above:

        "Additionally, you made this claim … "While it is true that one cannot look at specific events – a drought, a flood, wildfires, super storms – to claim that we are heading for an unparalleled climate crisis, the frequency and intensity of such events are undeniable."

        Actually, yes…one can deny that the frequency and intensity of such events are on the rise. This is a silly statement that has no basis in fact. Show me that there are more and larger hurricanes today than there were 50, 100, 200 years ago? Show me that there are more fires, droughts, tornadoes, etc. and that they are not only higher in frequency but magnitude as well. Prove your claims. I suspect you won't be able to, only because I was under these same assumptions at one point and then after actually researching these matters deeply, I realized I had been duped. The plain facts are that none of the weather we are experiencing today is any more "extreme" than 50, 80, 100, 150 years ago. If you disagree, please state your reasons why and back it up with evidence. Please give examples to your readers and support them with raw data instead of "The USGS/IPCC/NOAA/NASA says" and thus it must be so. "

        Here is a NASA graph indicating an increase in the distribution of measured (observed, not modeled) summer temperature. The graph indicates that temperatures have shifted in the direction of hotter extremes: http://www.farmingfirst.org/2012/08/nasa-study-li

        So, we know there is more heat in the atmosphere. Santer et al., 2007 have shown that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Anyone who has even slight knowledge of meteorology knows that when you add heat and moisture to the atmosphere, you increase the fuel available for higher energy events. So basic atmospheric physics tells us that the potential for higher energy events is greater now than it has been in the past. The extra heat in the atmosphere also provides more energy for more rapid evaporation, favoring the development of drought conditions. The increase in the last couple of decades of extreme weather events suggests that this increase of heat and moisture is beginning to effect our weather.

        Do either David or Samitee dispute that putting more heat and moisture increases the potential for higher energy weather events? (BTW, sorry samitee for the autocorrection spelling which I can't seem to undo; I am not intentionally spelling your user name smite).

        • samitee says:

          Once again, you are deflecting. I can get into the observed summer termperature if you like but that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the point being argued. We are discussing "extreme weather events" such as hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, etc. We are not discussing total atmospherice moisture content over the oceans. We are not discussing summer temperatures, extra heat in the atmosphere, rapid evaporation, etc.

          We are simply debating the point that there are more extreme weather events today than there were 50, 100, 150 years ago. If you have data that supports this claim, please provide it. So far, you have not. Please try to stick to the points.

          • steven mann says:

            No, this is not deflecting. Increasing moisture and heat in the atmosphere does increase the odds of extreme weather events, such as precipitation events. the additional heat favors extending droughts due to more intense evaporation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you didn't get the connection.

          • samitee says:

            It is absolutely deflecting. Increasing odds is one thing but what about observed conditions? Have we observed increased extreme weather events compared to say 80 years ago? Of course not. The simple fact is that there are no more or worse hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, floods, fires, etc than there were say 80 or 100 years ago. So you can keep your odds, I'll stick with the observations in the real world.

          • hmmann says:

            Yes, scientists have observed increased extreme weather events compared to 80 years ago. Show me the evidence otherwise! In the meantime, try reading this report by Coumou and Rahmstorf, 2012: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-

          • hmmann says:

            I'll stay with the science and you can stick with your newspaper reports.

          • hmmann says:

            I will back up a little on this one. There was a relatively high number of extreme weather events 80 to 100 years ago as depicted in this graph published by NOAA: http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11

            There definitely a higher number of extreme weather events in the last decade than were recorded 80 to 100 years ago, but I would say that it appears to be a statistically insignificant difference.

            Having said that, I still contend that atmospheric physics tells us that if heat and moisture are added to the atmosphere, the potential for more frequent and severe extreme weather is in place. I believe we are beginning to see that as depicted on the graph.

          • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

            The graph shows that 2010 reading is higher than 80-100 years ago. It will be interesting to see what the graph will look like in another 5 years. Will the spiking continue past the 45 degree mark. I think we all know the answer to that.

          • Steven Mann says:

            The NOAA graph shows a low number of extreme weather events during the period extending from the 1940s to the 1970s. During the 1970s, extreme weather events began to increase and have been increasing ever since, reaching a high mark in 2012. It is possible 2012 is a statistical outlier. Nevertheless, the trend from the 1970s is unmistakable. Certainly, it bodes ill for us all if the upward trend continues.

    • hmmann says:

      smite said: "I don't think scientists can predict anything of the sort related to the climate, any better than they could in the 1970s. That decade saw massive propaganda regarding "A New Ice Age". Google a June 1974 article from Time Magazine entitled "A New Ice Age" as one of many examples."

      This is utter bullshit!! As the paper "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1) points out climate scientists understood the cooling effects of sulfate aerosols, which the industrialized world was pumping out in massive quantities at the time (much as the Chinese and the Indians are doing today), but they also knew the warming effect of CO2, and that CO2's residence time in the atmosphere is far longer than sulfate aerosols. They also understood that the Northern Hemisphere, where by far most of the sulfate aerosols had been produced, had cooled more than the Southern Hemisphere (you can see this on Northern and Southern hemisphere temperature graphs of the last 100 years (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif). Peterson et al. point out that a review of climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false and is a result of selective misreading of the texts by both some members of the media (Time and Newsweek) at the time and by some observers today. So, THE GLOBAL COOLING MYTH IS FALSE!!

      • samitee says:

        The Global Cooling myth is not false. The 1970s saw just the same amount of "Ice Age" propaganda that we see today with Global Warming. You are linking to a silly paper by Peterson Connolley and Fleck that is meaningless. I never said there was a consensus, the consensus is the part they're arguing. I have simply stated that the 1970s saw a period of massive propaganda pushed forth by scientists, media, etc. regarding a Global Cooling and threat of a New Ice Age similar to what we see today regarding Global Warming. Again, you are deflecting and trying to turn the debate into something it's not.

        Just have a look at these magazine covers: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Glhttp://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/0http://thetruthpeddler.files.wordpress.com/2010/0http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/0

        Same propaganda, just a different twist. How can you deny this?

        • hmmann says:

          Climate scientists didn't push forth this “massive propaganda” as you refer to it. As it is clear that you didn't read the paper by Peterson et al., blithely dismissing it as silly, (belying your statement that you are open minded), I will provide you and other readers with a few excerpts from their paper:

          Quote

          “…the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.”

          Your provided of magazine covers gives a perfect example of the media’s misinterpretation of the science. Thank you for providing them. Just remember, that was the sensationalistic media, not climate scientists.

          If you had read the article, you would know that back in the 1960s, climatologists presented their ideas on how fossil fuel emissions of CO2 would affect the climate to then president Lyndon B. Johnson, who had asked the members of his President’s Science Advisory Committee to report on the potential problems of environmental pollution. At that time, climate change was not on the national agenda, not a political issue at all. But in an appendix to the environmental report they said “emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could rapidly reshape Earth’s climate.” (Revelle et al., 1965; http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira… )

          Quote:

          “By the early 1970s,..the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood (Mitchell, 1972) [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/... ]…It was not long, however, before scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell’s trend found that it was not necessarily a global phenomenon. Yes, globally averaged temperatures were cooling, but this was largely due to changes in the Northern Hemisphere. A closer examination of Southern Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading in the opposite direction (Damon and Kunen, 1976).” [ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4252/447.ab... ]

          So climate scientists knew that there was cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, but climate continued to warm in the Southern Hemisphere. This can easily be seen on the GISS global temperature graph seen here: [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A... ] Clearly, there is no natural phenomena known that would cause one hemisphere to cool and the other to warm. Do you know of any natural phenomena that would do that? So it was very clear to climate scientists that the cooling was anthropogenically induced! The mechanism was the high production of sulfate aerosols from the large-scale burning of coal in North America and Europe from the post war years until gradually new scrubber technology was phased in at coal fired plants. So the vast majority of aerosols were produced in the northern hemisphere, which saw by far a greater influence on its temperatures.

          • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

            The information on the graph is undeniable. Some 50 years ago, the global warming debate was starting to take shape. Now it is called climate change which is really a euphemism for the climate crises we are now starting to witness. Of course climate is always changing as deniers claim. But those same deniers cannot "deny" that global warming is taking place an at alarming rate.

  7. samitee – My first reaction is to want to disbelieve what you're saying because I really do believe that our planet is in peril. However, I will not just ignore your response to my article. I will review your comments and follow the links you have provided. I too am searching for the truth.

    I am not able to do that for a few days. So please be patient. I will return to this. Can I ask you what your background is – researcher, scientist, ????? In other words, what are your credentials. (If you don't mind sharing that information)

    Thanks for your comments.

    • samitee says:

      Rolly,

      Thank you for the thoughtful response. I also believe that the planet is in peril and I do consider myself an environmentalist. This is why the CAGW theory hits home with me. It diverts resources in the hundreds of billions, money that is needed to combat real problems, especially in the third world. These problems include things like lack of electricity, clean drinking water and other issues that are directly related to poverty as well as the environment. I would rather see that money go to solving some more pressing issues (deforestation, water and air pollution, etc), than some make believe issue about the world's climate that was thought up by a bunch of elites as another way to steal money and profit off of an artificial economic sector. I would bet we all want the same things when it comes to the environment and the planet, I simply disagree in the weather/climate aspect of things and there are many many well respected scientists on this side of the fence, they just don't get the airtime and are sidelined and labeled as "Fringe", "Deniers", etc. which is sophomoric if we are talking about science.

      • hmmann says:

        Samitee said: “I would rather see that money go to solving some more pressing issues (deforestation, water and air pollution, etc), than some make believe issue about the world's climate that was thought up by a bunch of elites as another way to steal money and profit off of an artificial economic sector.”

        Why don’t you offer some documentation for your claims? You are making unsupported claims that climate scientists are liars and opportunists. This goes beyond insulting to slander. If you are going to make accusations such as this, which to me appear to be wild accusations, the least you could do is offer legitimate documentation or some kind of proof!! Otherwise, you, samitee, are the liar!!

        • samitee says:

          Go read their e-mails. ClimateGate 1, 2, and 3. There's plenty of documentation there. I'm sorry if I can't hold your hand through the entire process, but the information is out there. Does that mean ALL scientists are liars? Of course not. But there are clearly a handful of scientists (at the top) who have vested political, financial conflicting interests and are involved in pushing an agenda, controlling science/debate/data, and silencing opposition. If you really care about the environment and the planet, you'll do yourself a service and read their e-mails. Their own words prove many of them as criminals.

  8. Auki says:

    Samitee is in denial. Her (his?) arguments are fear based and she is using her shrewd intellect to try and convince herself and other ej readers that climate change isn't real.

    Climate change and the dire threats of climate change are all to real… but I'm not going to waste my time and energy trying to convince the likes of Samitee and other climate change deniers. It would be like trying to convince an alcoholic that they are an alcoholic. Only hitting rock bottom will break the denial patterns of an alcoholic, or for that matter, a climate change denier.

    Those of us who aren't in denial about the reality of climate change need to get on with learning how best to adapt and cope with the increasing perilous situation that is unfolding on this planet.

    • samitee says:

      Fear based? Hardly. I'm not the one pumping fear into the hearts of the public about wild tales of climate doom, rising sea levels, and such. I have simply posted data to counter the false claims in this article. If you disagree with the data and analysis, please state your claims. Otherwise, you are really doing nothing than repeating fear based talking points such as "dire threats" which are simply not backed by science. I was on board with the theory of CAGW for a long time but the problem is, the data does not support most of these wild claims by politicians and scientists whose jobs and funding rely on pushing this agenda. Climate Change is real. The climate is always changing and has been for millions of years. CAGW theory is something entirely different. Once again, please focus on the details of my arguments and feel free to rebut specifics rather than just saying you disagree without any support for your arguments. Your post is much more fear based than anything I've presented on this page.

      • samitee says:

        It should also be pointed out to the readers the approach of the comment above. Calling someone a denier and then equating that person to an alcoholic and peppering with talking points and catch phrases laced with contempt. The reply is essentially "This person is crazy, climate change is real, and that's the end of it." It's a shame that we cannot have a dialogue about science, data and facts. The discerning reader can surely separate a civilized discussion from an emotional reply that attacks someone who disagrees with the "status quo" so to speak. A little comedy or sarcasm here and there is one thing, but to come here with such a silly response after I've taken time to actually start a civilized debate about specific claims is rather sad, especially for such a wonderful website as this one.

      • hmmann says:

        The climate change that is happening now cannot be accounted for by natural variation! temperature has been rising, but total solar irradiance has been decreasing and cosmic rays cannot be correlated to temperatures. This is not a wild claim, but is a science based diagnosis.

  9. Auki – I appreciate your supporting comment and I agree with your analogy to the alcoholic. But I have checked the data sources provided in the links by samitee and will get back to him/her in due course.

    The evidence is all around us – you're right.

  10. samitee says:

    TODAY – Arctic ice area is at a ten year high for the date, and has blown away the previous record for ice growth by more than half a million km^2 (in the modern satellite era).

    You can see the raw data here – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeserie

    Obviously, this means nothing when comparing to the average, we are still below the mean. But remember, that is with 1979 (the year of peak ice and the coldest year in the United States in the last 80 years) as the starting point. Convenient for showing warming trends and keeping averages where you want them, no? :)

    It also shows that last year's summer melt was extreme (thus winter ice growth is so high). But if you go back further than 1979, you will find plenty of years with similar summers and similar Arctic melt conditions as we see today.

    • hmmann says:

      samitee said: "But if you go back further than 1979, you will find plenty of years with similar summers and similar Arctic melt conditions as we see today."

      Why don't you offer any documentation supporting your statements? Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been declining at an accelerating pace. It is entirely possible that we will have late summer ice-free conditions this decade, way ahead of even the most pessimistic modeling. According to researchers, the Arctic has been at least partially ice covered for the last 13 to 14 million years http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_

      The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached a new record low in 2012 of 3.41 million square kilometers, 49 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and 18 percent below the previous record in 2007 http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html. The data supports a decline far faster than anyone imagined even just a few years ago. For you to suggest that this decline is ordinary or natural is simply out of touch with reality. I would call it willful ignorance!!

      • samitee says:

        I have offered it in previous posts and here it is again.

        The IPCC launched its own satellites in 1974. NSIDC conveniently ignores pre-1979 satellite data and instead chooses to use 1979 (peak ice) as their starting point. This supports the idea that the Arctic ice is melting due to the actions of evil humans. Fortunately, the 1990 IPCC report captured the pre-1979 satellite data, revealing how NSIDC is cherry-picking their 1979 start date at a time of maximum ice. You can see the full report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_….

        So when you hear about "record lows", please understand that these "broken records" are only records within the specific timeframe of 1979 to the present. "Below the 1979-2000 average" MEANS NOTHING! Let's start at 1974 and see what those averages look like! Stop cherry picking by choosing 1979 as the starting point for all of your arguments.

        • steven mann says:

          Here is that article by the NSIDC on the State of the Cryosphere that shows monthly mean sea ice extent dating back to January 1953. The graph shows that even though there was a reduction in Arctic sea ice extent from 1972 to 1975, the sea ice extent was still significantly above the 1981-2010 monthly mean in those years. It has been consistently significantly below that mean since 2000.
          http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

  11. @LazarLA says:

    Rolly, Your article is excellent, thank you.

    I always appreciate a fact based, well-sourced and thoughtful analysis and I share your sentiments and concerns about our inaction on what is likely the greatest challenge humankind will face.

    I'm not so impressed, however, with the arguments submitted by some of your responders. They appear to be straight off of well-known climate denier blog WUWT (operated by a former TV weather personality) There are far too many arguments for me to respond to here, so I'll just stick to 5 main points, listing my sources at the bottom.

    I'll provide my response in a separate post.

    • Larry – Thank you for the comment/response.

      I was not familiar with the WUWT blog until now. Quite the collection of mostly useless material. It only tells some the truth some of the time, appearing to be credible on the one hand, but lacking honesty on the other.

  12. @LazarLA says:

    Response continued.

    1. IT'S REAL: Carbon Dioxide is a heat trapping gas, acting like a blanket over the earth. More carbon dioxide = a thicker blanket. Right now, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are the highest in at least 650,000 years, and perhaps even 5 million years. Temperatures are also high, and increasing. The rate of increase is higher than they have over the past 11,000 years, and as a result fo the increasing temperatures, glaciers and icecaps are melting and sea levels are rising.

    2. IT"S US: Humans burn oil, coal and gas for energy – and we burn a LOT of it. Burning fossil fuels takes carbon that was safely underground and puts it into the atmosphere. So far, we have added about a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    • @LazarLA says:

      3. IT'S BAD (and will get worse): Droughts, floods, heatwaves, storms and forest fires are increasing in intensity and quantity. These climatic events, let's call it "climate chaos" , will continue to get worse as the amount energy in the atmosphere increases due to the heat trapping effects of carbon dioxide.

      4. There is broad SCIENTIFIC AGREEMENT (Industry, Religion and the US Military agree too).
      Science:
      -34 National Academies of Science across the world
      -All accredited scientific agencies (about 200) that have anything to do with climate or atmpshere (there are NO dissenting organizations)
      -Between 95% and 98% of practicing climate scientists (according to 3 different studies)

      Industry: All major oil companies, all major automobile manufactures, Dow Chemical, Walmart, Coca Cola and many, many others.
      Religions: All major developed religions, including Catholicism, Islam and Judaism,
      US Military: All branches of the US military

  13. @LazarLA says:

    5. We CAN FIX IT (if we act now): We have to get off of fossil fuels and move to a clean energy system. The sooner we do it, the better for our climate system, our health, our economies and our national security.

    re the deniers above, I'll simply repost the words of Ethics Professor Donald Brown:

    "Words fail us about how to characterize the magnitude of the harm that is being done in the name of ideology. It is too absurd on its face to think that any reasonable observer can seriously conclude that climate change science is a hoax or that the consensus view that humans are causing climate change has been debunked.: in fact we are looking for the right metaphors to simply describe the sheer harmfulness of what has been happening.. We would appreciate ideas on this issue. Only poets can approach this task until we come up with the right metaphor.”

  14. hmmann says:

    The rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide has dramatically increased during the last 150 years. During the last ice age, the fastest rate of CO2 change was on the order of 30 parts per million by volume per millennium (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten…t/291/5501…. The current rate is approximately 1.8 ppmv per year, or approximately 1,800 ppmv per millennium. So the current rate exceeds fastest natural rates of CO2 change by about 60 times.

    In addition, since Charles Keeling began recording CO2 concentrations in 1958, the rate of CO2 increase has increased from about 0.7 ppmv per year to the current rate of about 1.8 ppmv per year.

    • hmmann says:

      Scientists are confident that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is due to human activity (principally from fossil fuel use, coal burning, and deforestation). In the 1950s, when scientists were first investigating the capability of the decay of the carbon isotope carbon-14 (C-14) to age date ancient materials, Hans Suess, an Austrian physical chemist, discovered an anomalous decrease in the carbon-13 and carbon-14 isotopes in tree rings (Suess, 1955, Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood, Science p 415-417). This corresponded to the use of fossil fuels, which contain no C-14 and less carbon 13 (C-13) than air. C-14 is radioactive and has a half-life decay rate of 5,730 years. Therefore, since fossil fuels are millions of years old, the C-14 that was in them completely decayed millions of years ago. Since fossil fuels have no C-14 in them, the emission of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels should therefore, decrease the C-14/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere. Atmospheric C-14, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954 (This became known as the Suess Effect.), when nuclear bomb tests started to inject C-14 into the atmosphere. This observed isotopic trend fits CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. However, the trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean.

      In addition, there is about 2% less C-13 in plant material than in the atmosphere because plants prefer C-12 over C-13 and are more likely to incorporate it, for example, tree rings.(Suess, 1955; Park and Epstein, http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/36/2/133; Francey et al., 1999, A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2, Tellus, 51B, 170–193) Since fossil fuels, which humanity has been burning in earnest since the beginning of the industrial revolution, are also derived from plants, they too have a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels lowers the isotopic ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere. Even though plants prefer C-12 over C-13, they do take in C-13 at a predictable rate, and they track the changes of the carbon isotope ratio in tree rings. Scientists have been able to make graphs based on the C-13/C-12 ratio in tree rings going back thousands of years. It has been shown that the present ratio is lower than it has been over those thousands of years. The ratio declines just as CO2 levels began to increase around 1850, which is what would be expected if the increased CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning.

  15. hmmann says:

    On top of the isotopic evidence, we also know from historical records of human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests at a rate that far exceeds anything before. Scientists know that the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests injects CO2 into the atmosphere. The amount of fossil fuel burning and the amount of land deforested is well accounted for. The rate of CO2 production from these processes injects CO2 into the air faster than natural sinks for CO2 can remove it.

    • hmmann says:

      The increase in greenhouse gases changes the earth’s radiative energy balance. Taking into account the spherical shape of the earth and the earth’s albedo, the energy flux absorbed by the earth is 239.7 W/m^2. How much energy does the earth have to dissipate to maintain the energy balance? Answer: 239.7 W/M^2 (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students…tionBudget.pdf; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert…rTrenberth.pdf). How does the earth get rid of that much energy? By emitting radiation in the infrared part of the light spectrum at the top of the atmosphere. What are the major absorbers of IR radiation, water vapor (~75%) and CO2 and CH4 (~25%) (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract). Water vapor remains at a pretty constant mass in the atmosphere, as precipitation and evaporation are essentially in balance. But because CO2 is non-condensing and has a long residence time in the atmosphere (http://www.pcsn.ca/pubs_2007/Montene…t.,%202007.pdf; http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/r…plications.pdf, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.ab… it’s concentration in the atmosphere been rising steadily over 150 years. Before that CO2 was essentially in balance in the atmosphere. But since the industrial revolution, CO2 has been added to the atmosphere much faster than it returns to earth (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252). It just makes sense that as the atmosphere accumulates more CO2, that more IR radiation would be absorbed and returned to earth, causing it to warm. The combination of graphs from different groups of scientists studying climate and paleoclimate independently supports that contention (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki…Comparison_png).

      • hmmann says:

        I just realized that these links will not work in their current form, so here is a list of some of the links to those references:
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.a
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.a
        http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:1000_Ye

      • hmmann says:

        According to radiosonde and satellite data, the earth’s surface and the troposphere are warming, but the stratosphere is cooling (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). Data from many contributors, including the
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        National Center for Atmospheric Research
        University of Alabama at Huntsville
        Yale University
        Remote Sensing Systems
        U.K. Meteorology Office
        University of Maryland
        U.S. Department of Defense
        University of Michigan
        MIT
        NASA

        have confirmed that globally:

        Surface temperature has increased at a rate of about 0.12°C per decade since 1958 (temporal extent of balloon data), and about 0.16°C per decade since 1979 (temporal extent of satellite data);

        In the tropics, temperature has increased at a rate of about 0.11°C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13°C per decade since 1979;

        Tropospheric temperature has increased at a rate of about 0.14°C per decade since 1958 according to the two balloon-based data sets, and since 1979, estimates of the two balloon and three satellite data sets range from about 0.10 to 0.20°C per decade,

        In the tropics, temperature increased at a rate of about 0.13°C per decade since 1958 according to the two balloon-based data sets, but since 1979, estimates range from 0.02 to 0.19°C per decade based on the two balloon-based data sets and three satellite data sets

        But temperature in the lower stratosphere has cooled at a rate of about 0.37°C per decade according to the balloon data sets

        Since 1979, estimates of this decrease are about 0.65°C per decade for the balloon data sets, and from 0.33 to 0.45°C for satellite data sets.

        According to the model for a warming earth due to increases in solar irradiance, the lower stratosphere should be increasing in temperature, which isn't happening. According to the model for anthropogenic global warming due increased greenhouse gases, the stratosphere should be cooling, which is happening. So the fingerprints of the dynamics of warming support anthropogenic global warming by increased greenhouse gases, not from solar variation.

        • hmmann says:

          Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in all directions, most strongly at 15 microns wavelength, much of which returns to earth. So, as the density of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, two things should happen: there should be less infrared radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere, particularly the band around 15 microns, and there should be an increase in the amount of infrared radiation returning to earth.

          The first of these conditions is described in the following explanation from the book “Climate Change” by W. J. Burroughs:

          (See Figure 2.3 here: <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=396wYGZIY7AC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Burroughs+1991+figure+2.3+atmospheric+spectrum&source=bl&ots=XsaDNSKuT9&sig=Shj1T7VoKK9ZvJoxdJsI5rLWDn0&hl=en&ei=7OgPS47HB9CUtgeZwbTDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Burroughs%201991%20figure%202.3%20atmospheric%20spectrum&f=false&quot; target="_blank"&gt <a href="http://;http://books.google.com/books?id=396wYGZIY7AC&amp;…” target=”_blank”>;http://books.google.com/books?id=396wYGZIY7AC&amp;…

          Quote:

          "The impact of the most important radiatively active trace constituents shows up clearly in the spectrum of terrestrial radiation observed from space. This spectrum holds the key to understanding how changes in these important trace gases exert control over the climate. Taking the example of the CO2 band centered around 15 µm, the curve shows that, where this gas absorbs and emits most strongly, the radiation escaping to space comes from high in the atmosphere where the temperature is low (typical ~220 K). Where the atmosphere is transparent on either side of the CO2 band (often termed atmospheric window regions), the radiation comes from the bottom of the atmosphere or the Earth’s surface, which is warmer (typically ~287 K). This means that, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, owing to human activities, for example, the band around 15 µm will become more opaque and effectively broaden. This will make no difference where the absorption is strong. But, in the other parts of the band the increase in absorption and emission will reduce the amount of terrestrial radiation emitted by CO2 to space as more of it will come from the cold top of the atmosphere. But, for the Earth’s energy budget to remain in balance, the amount of terrestrial radiation must remain constant, so the temperature of the lower atmosphere has to rise to compensate for the reduced emission in the CO2 band. This is the basic physical process underlying the Greenhouse Effect. It applies to changes in the concentration of all radiatively active gases, and is central to how the temperature of the Earth adjusts to the amount of energy received from the Sun."

          So, as Burroughs describes, there should be a reduced amount of radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere around the 15 µm band. As described in an issue of Skeptical Science <a href="http:// (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=70)," target="_blank"> <a href="http://(http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=70),” target=”_blank”>(http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=70), researchers found less radiation escaping at bands absorbed by greenhouse gases in 1997 than in 1970 (Harries, et al., 2001; Griggs et al., 2004, extended the period to 2003; and Chen et al., 2007, extended the period to 2006).

          As described by Chen et al., 2007:

          Quote:

          "Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997, and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentrations changes. In this present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006… "

          The second effect, an increase in downward directed longwave radiation, was also covered in the Skeptical Science blog. The latest of the articles referred to in the Skeptical Science blog post was by Wang and Liang (2008; <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract)" target="_blank"&gt <a href="http://;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD…” target=”_blank”>;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD… who found that data from about 3,200 meteorological stations around the world indicated an increase in downward longwave radiation of about 2.2 Wm-2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. They suggested that these data resulted from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.

          So it appears that both conditions have been occurring in the atmosphere for at least 3 or 4 decades. These phenomena provide clear additional reasons why climatologists are very confident that the activities of humanity are causing the planet’s temperature to rise.

  16. rabiddoomsayer says:

    It is warming, that we are getting record global temperatures in a non El Nino period should scare us all. It is us, based on the natural cycles we should be cooling we should be entering a mini ice age. It is going to be bad, 2 degrees is not safe but we will not be able to keep within a two degrees of preindustrial temperatures.

    You can cherry pick data, change measurements, but that does not change the reality. Take the number of fires you need to know how that statistic is prepared, go look it up, merged fires count as one fire. Then consider the area burned, worst ever? Looking at one thing can give misconceptions, look at the total picture.

    Consilience is where different lines of evidence point to the same conclusion. It is not only the tens of thousands of scientist working directly on climate, there are the many related fields where climate change is obvious. There is still real debate, on how bad it will be.

    Expect the picture to get worse. We have changed climate forcing well over an order of magnitude faster than anything in the paleo climatic record and yet we expect the resultant changes to be slower. There are very worrying signs that the rate of change will be faster than important parts of the biosphere will be able to cope with.

    • The debate is not whether or not we are facing severe climate change crises in the coming decades. The only debate is how do we best mitigate against it. Is it by being in denial, clinging to hope, praying for a Godly intervention or using the known technologies – solar, wind, tidal, geoengineering, conservation, etc – to urgently effect the changes needed. The evidence on the ground is convincing.

      Thanks for your comment

      • rabiddoomsayer says:

        Preparation and mitigation are so very urgent. But if we continue to refuse to see how bad it will be, then our preparations may come to naught. Take sea level rise, many are still quoting the IPCC Report than only considers thermal expansion already we know that is a considerable under estimate, the ice sheets are loosing mass and will contribute much more than that over the next century.

        • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

          Of course IPPC data needs correction and updating as additional research and facts on the ground become obvious. But when that occurs, deniers jump all over the IPCC reports as unreliable. If anything, many of the IPCC findings and conclusions were dumbed down to accommodate the diverging views of scientists from around the world – call it political expediency.

          In many cases, the evidence now shows that some IPCC conclusions have been understated.

      • samitee says:

        Again with the denial word and the fear? Crisis ? This is not how you do journalism or debate!

        • hmmann says:

          Climate change is real and has been measured. The cause is clearly an increase in the atmosphere of infrared absorbing greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Natural variation cannot account for the rise in global temperatures!

  17. Judy Anderson says:

    Thank you for the post. I think we can keep it quite simple. Data are coming regularly from around the world confirming this this is a significant warming. Check out NOAA too. The good news is that conserving energy will help the US and we know that coal is hugely polluting even if you don't care about the climate. It's health and the economy.

  18. grmcpherson says:

    We've triggered ten self-reinforcing feedback loops, nine of which are irreversible. They lead us straight to near-term human extinction. Study the evidence: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-su

  19. Judy – you're right about the data. As years go by, the supporting data is overwhelmingly showing the environmental degradation of the planet. And even if all the data turned out to be wrong, does it not make sense to want to improve the air we breathe, the water we drink, the oceans from which we eat the fish. It's not just about the climate as you say. There is a huge economic potential in moving to the next generation of energy to replace our dependency on destructive fossil fuels.

    Thanks for the comment

    • samitee says:

      Actually, you're wrong about the data. Even 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." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-

      • hmmann says:

        It really doesn't matter what Pachauri says, the decade from 2000 to 2010 is the hottest on record. 2010 is the hottest year on record. The rate of temperature rise has slowed, but there is no real pause, just the slow down. No climate scientist has ever said that natural variation does not affect temperatures. However, the natural variation is highly likely to be temporary.

        • samitee says:

          "highly likely" according to the same scientists that get all their other predictions wrong? 2010 is only the hottest year on record if you're using their adjusted numbers. Otherwise, it's probably not even in the top 10. If you want to rely on adjusted data, by all means.

      • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

        You are simply cherry-picking from everywhere to deflect the debate. Start looking at the facts.

  20. samitee says:

    The millions of man hours, field work and research at the massive effort you speak of is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the IPCC said in its reports, the computer models, their predictions and then what actually happened. If one takes the time to study the information in length, one will find that nearly all of the IPCC’s predictions as well as Hansen’s scenarios A, B, and C have fallen flat on their face and proven to be massive failures. Even their own leader admits there has been no warming for 16-17 years, a fact you continue to conveniently ignore.

    • hmmann says:

      The millions of man-hours is irrelevant because samitee says so. And what samitee says we must believe. Sorry samitee, but your arrogance does not convince anybody here! As I said, the last decade has been the hottest ever recorded.

      • Rolly Montpellier boomerwarrior says:

        Samittee – you have lost the debate. Clear winners are hmmann, grmcpherson and others who have commented.

        I suggest that you look closely at the information presented. We believers need to convince many like you, who have chosen to deny the reality of what awaits future generations.

        You need to switch sides before it's too late.

  21. steven mann says:

    Oh, and the cosmic ray hypothesis doesn't explain those phenomena either.

  22. "Their own leader?" Whom might that be?

    Read my lips: Global warming is real. It's man-made. And it's the worst threat civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war.

  23. Nick Palmer says:

    “Even their own leader admits there has been no warming for 16-17 years”

    There has been no surface warming since the giant El Nino pulse of 1998 put a lot of ocean heat into the atmosphere, thus creating a surface temperature high point for deniers/sceptics to cherry pick so they can claim there has been no warming for 16 years or so.

    What there has been is a continued, and roughly as expected quantitavely, trend upwards in global warming which aggregates ocean, land and atmosphere temperatures.

    Only the dishonest would point at 1998 and edit out any other considerations of heat gain elsewhere, apart from the surface records, to construct their misleading propaganda that “global warming has stalled for 16 years”. Unfortunately, there are too many dishonest and/or ignorant types around.

    Samitee. Check out what Pachauri actually said in context, rather than what was reported.

Leave a Reply