Clyde just for you mate this will explain the so called cooling or none warming .

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

and it's been updated since i made the link .......ops your right we are the dummy's

---

Martin i think we can say dito to Clyde's remarks what do you think

No links
no charts
no science
only opinions
and very clever papers made to look like science

so i guess Martin we are the dummy's .......not!

---

well maybe i can look at it now IT WORKS

---

Oh christ CLYDE you serious !! ASSOCIATED PRESS you really believe that organisation .................wow , how about a real site not a news service mate and not a organisation like that give me a break mate .....

I give you a real link and all you can do is go to the news services

ok i'm a real dummy then as all the real sites are crap and we can only belieave the Press ok i'll remember that ....not

---

Major, at least we now know Martin is really incapable of critical thinking. When an Obama / NASA / JPL / Caltech pro warmer with dozens of pro warming papers in peer reviewed journals says it is a bit more complicated that that, and he tries to call BS on that pro warmer then we do know that his posting is 100% crying wolf. Martin will rush to emit gigatonnes of CO2 in an attempt to save a gram, because he refuses to admit, it is a bit more complicated than that. He and not the fossil fuel industry, is the real reason for global warming.

I suppose Martin will again refuse to realize the CV of the author was linked here and he didn't look, instead he screamed that the sky is falling.

---

He and not the fossil fuel industry, is the real reason for global warming.

Wrong, Gary the real problem is mankinds preprogramed propensity to value the short term over the long. As John Maynard Keynes said "in the long term we are all dead", so the logical conclusion is to get as much as you can in the short and intermediate term.

---

Plant a tree, make global warming worse ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

Trees!!!!!! :) You may already know how fond I am of them :) so fond in fact I made quite a few posts in the Climate Change Acceptance thread and had a long chat with Major Kong about them :)

The short answer to this problem is that we should not be cutting down our trees... we should be drastically cutting our nitrogen-oxide emissions instead.

...AND planting trees... :)

I know what Nadine said in her opinion post... but she didn't seem to address the above... which I couldn't help thinking was quite a glaring omission... so I might have to have a poke about to find out a little bit more about her :)

Now to other matters... :) I've been having a look at how this thread has been panning out :/ and think it's about time I popped in again very soon with some more responses :)

Her CV isn't hard to find.
http://environment.yale.edu/content/profiles/docs/nadine-unger-cv.pdf?1410806565
Seems very qualified and with a number of peer reviewed publications and conference invitations.

Sounds like a person who would run the numbers and not knee jerk an answer. It may be a surprising result, but that happens sometimes. Conventional wisdom isn't always right.

The climate is far more complex that warmist Gore's version and the fix will be even more complex yet but it may boil down to reduce human population to a manageable number as we won't be able to implement anything else with assurance of getting a fix.

Hi Gary :) Thanks for the above. I don't doubt her CV - I was just a little suspicious of what she omitted from her opinion piece and it seems I wasn't the only one... I haven't checked out the credentials of the many signatories to the rebuttal yet (and I have a very busy couple of weeks ahead unfortunately) - nor satisfied my curiosity as to her motivation for writing the piece - but I will try to find some time to do so :)

@Clyde

Although, I was wishing for a very long, multi-paragraphed reply from... Guess who?

erm... give up. Who? :)

He and not the fossil fuel industry, is the real reason for global warming.

Wrong, Gary the real problem is mankinds preprogramed propensity to value the short term over the long. As John Maynard Keynes said "in the long term we are all dead", so the logical conclusion is to get as much as you can in the short and intermediate term.

That is the problem in this case. Martin is willing to chase a gram of savings but not realize the gigatonne he spends to save the gram. IIRC he has called for adopting "green" things that in total are filthy dirty, because the total long term life cycle is filthy, but the here and now doesn't look that way. His focus is the next five seconds.

We will take one example: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/ethanol-facts.htm

Added in small amounts (typically one part ethanol, nine parts gasoline) to the gasoline that fuels our cars, it reduces greenhouse emissions like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Argonne National Laboratory reports an approximate 10-ton (9.07-metric ton) decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from the use of ethanol fuel in 2007 alone

Good right? Well, maybe not so good ....

According to Cornell University professor of agriculture David Pimentel, producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. According to his calculations, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon (3.7 liters) of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs [source: Health and Energy]. And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then, in almost all cases, to ship the product to collection points via fuel-powered transport, the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce this alternative fuel. That ethanol could end up containing less energy than the gasoline consumed to produce it.

So that savings, is really a joke and it releases even more CO2. Green at any cost.

That is the problem with non-science warmers. They will destroy the planet out of ignorance and screaming that the sky is falling.

---

Major, at least we now know Martin is really incapable of critical thinking. When an Obama / NASA / JPL / Caltech pro warmer with dozens of pro warming papers in peer reviewed journals says it is a bit more complicated that that, and he tries to call BS on that pro warmer then we do know that his posting is 100% crying wolf. Martin will rush to emit gigatonnes of CO2 in an attempt to save a gram, because he refuses to admit, it is a bit more complicated than that. He and not the fossil fuel industry, is the real reason for global warming.

I suppose Martin will again refuse to realize the CV of the author was linked here and he didn't look, instead he screamed that the sky is falling.

Don't worry, Gary (you too, CLYDE), I knew exactly what I was doing.

I set a trap for Martin, and he stepped right in it. Martin is now on record as claiming that a pro-warmist scientist (who was (2009 - 2011) also an Undersecretary for Science in the USA's Department of Energy in Obama's first term (Obama - the most pro-warmist US President that has ever been)) is spreading FUD.

Dr. Koonin wrote:

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries.

In spite of Dr. Koonin's statement that GHG-AGW is REAL, Martin still wants him to be brought up on criminal fraud charges for misleading the public??

Yes Gary i do agree with you on ethanol . It's not needed

There have been several engines invented that will run on just plain H2O and they have been around for at least 30 yrs but big oil has always mothballed them and so have the big car manufacturers .
There are other ways to make cars work .

I'm not 1 that think we can reduce all Co2 but we can defenetly reduce what we are putting out . And to not try is a crime in my opionion .

---

Major, at least we now know Martin is really incapable of critical thinking. When an Obama / NASA / JPL / Caltech pro warmer with dozens of pro warming papers in peer reviewed journals says it is a bit more complicated that that, and he tries to call BS on that pro warmer then we do know that his posting is 100% crying wolf. Martin will rush to emit gigatonnes of CO2 in an attempt to save a gram, because he refuses to admit, it is a bit more complicated than that. He and not the fossil fuel industry, is the real reason for global warming.

I suppose Martin will again refuse to realize the CV of the author was linked here and he didn't look, instead he screamed that the sky is falling.

Don't worry, Gary (you too, CLYDE), I knew exactly what I was doing.

I set a trap for Martin, and he stepped right in it. Martin is now on record as claiming that a pro-warmist scientist (who was (2009 - 2011) also an Undersecretary for Science in the USA's Department of Energy in Obama's first term (Obama - the most pro-warmist US President that has ever been)) is spreading FUD.

Dr. Koonin wrote:

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries.

In spite of Dr. Koonin's statement that GHG-AGW is REAL, Martin still wants him to be brought up on criminal fraud charges for misleading the public??

Oh dear! :) You people! :) There you go again... dragging me in to make an, as yet inadequately researched post utterly devoid of exploding urls to hurl about the place, when I should, instead, be going to bed :)

Re your link MK (Hiya!) I must say I was a little puzzled by Martin's reaction to it (which I'd read first) because as I started reading the posted article, it definitely seemed, early on, to be a well-constructed and laid out stall for GHG-AGW. However, progressing through the bulk of the piece that followed on from your above quote... I got the distinct impression that the goal of the stall holder was to put everyone off the product he had laid out for our perusal and that he was using some rather sweeping statements to do his undermining... which then got me wondering what a Center for Urban Science and Progress is exactly, and whether it's best suited to promoting or undermining things, and if so what things and why and - if they do both at the same time - which way round they do it in.

So... that's a lot of confused wondering for me to ponder on I'm sure you'd agree :) which I will go away and do :) But an interesting and thought provoking link - thank you :)

There have been several engines invented that will run on just plain H2O

Ah yes. I have a supply of the suppressed FISH Carburetors that would work well in your water-fueled engines.

Perhaps you are talking about the suppressed steam engines of old as well.

I've invented an engine that runs entirely on compliments. To start it you stroke the manifold and tell it how nice its injectors look today.

Prove it you say, i have proved it, i just said it.

Clarification: The above is entirely sarcasm.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

If you go to N.A.S.A i think it's Florida there is a big screen of the map of the world . The screen is split in 2 .
The top shows the current satellite pictures of the worlds weather
Underneath it is another satellite pictures of the worlds weather .But it is solely based on computer models

Guess what it shows ?

THE SAME BLOODY THING cloud for cloud warm front for warm front , cold front for cold front cyclone for cyclone

so computer models are not as inaccurate as they are reported

The only reason they are the same is because they are the same, one may say it's a computer model but it's the same live feed as the other probably extrapolated from Doppler radar we see every day on Channel 13 News and Weather (central Florida/Orlando)

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

2014/09/23 Climate Change Summary – Chair’s Summary

The purpose of the 2014 Climate Summit was to raise political momentum for a meaningful universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015 and to galvanize transformative action in all countries to reduce emissions and build resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change.

I asked leaders from government, business, finance and civil society to crystallize a global vision for low-carbon economic growth and to advance climate action on five fronts: cutting emissions; mobilizing money and markets; pricing carbon; strengthening resilience; and mobilizing new coalitions.

An unprecedented number of world leaders attended the Summit, including 100 Heads of State and Government. They were joined by more than 800 leaders from business, finance and civil society. This Summary details their most significant announcements.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

No william it wasn't a joke if you haven't seen or herd of them then my point is proven big oil and the big motor company's quickly suppress them you do know what make up water don't you

H2O is what again ?

---

The news services pick bits and they don't all ways print the whole article so if you use them then find the source article and post that not the news service link then i am quiet prepared to read them

---

No PJ when i have time i'll find it .

---

The news services pick bits and they don't all ways print the whole article so if you use them then find the source article and post that not the news service link then i am quiet prepared to read them

Glenn,

That news story CLYDE linked:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024601865_climateweatherstudyxml.html

has in its second paragraph a link to the study in question. To make it easy on you, here is the link:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract

To make it even easier on you, here is the abstract of said paper:

Abstract

Over the last century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ∼0.5–1 °C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST, and SAT, this study investigates northeast (NE) Pacific coupled atmosphere–ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86). We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century-long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with the strongest trends observed from 1910–1920 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900–2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

Sadly, it requires a subscription to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America to read the full paper. But then, if you are interested, you can always pay them US$10.00 and read it for 2 days.

And here's a screen grab of the summary page.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.