Man coastal temps . what are we talking about here . 10 miles off the cost and 10 miles inland and that proves what no warming from man . Where are the biggest city normally situated ......so the air could be warmed by the city of L.A ? and does not man live in that city .

Maybe you can tell me then why the waters around Tasmania over here now have warmer waters and new fish from warmer water up north and why the kelp forrest are all but gone . Seeing as they needed the cooler waters from the south to grow .
But lets see what happens this summer down here when the El-nino starts to form again

Or maybe you can explain why there has been more cat 5 cyclones in the last 30 yrs .
1900-1960 5 how many since then and has the freqancy increased .

---

Oh one thing not many people live in tazzy and it is known for it's pristine environment.

I also noted that paper removes indices by what it calls regression ?
And where is this independent info coming from .

Sounds a bit to convenient to me .I'd call that fiddling the numbers to suit what i want .

oh well just take that info out as it doesn't match our objective .

and we won't tell where this independent info comes from as the normal info collected by the organisations we can't use as it will not reach our objectives either

who wrote it ?

---

yes i agree with that there are crack pots on the warming side too

---

yes i agree with that there are crack pots on the warming side too

There are. And they are the ones with the voices in the media.

---

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...

Is this some game of deliberately not reading the entire article? Or a lack of understanding?

Note from that article:

... the study’s authors agreed.

“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”


So... We have some interesting local variation that can oscillate to greater extremes than the global average.

Note that we already know that on a larger scale for such as El Nino - La Nina oscillations.

Despite the natural oscillations, the global average heating is still being driven upwards easily measurably so by our equally easily measurable addition of industrial CO2 pollution into our atmosphere.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

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 :)

Hiya Anniet!

To answer your questions (though perhaps not in the order you asked them)...

What is the 'Center for Urban Science and Progress'?

A link describing it:

http://energy.gov/contributors/steven-e-koonin

As to your concern that:

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...

I am sorry, I don't read it that way at all. Dr. Koonin (at least to me) is making a GOOD case that much more research is needed into certain aspects of GHG/AGW so that we can make sensible public policy. Dr. Koonin also makes a good case that we will likely need a LOT more computing power to adequately model the climate. He also says that the whole fracas between the rabid Deniers and the rabid Warmists is counter-productive.

I happen to agree with all of these points.

One of Dr. Koonin's papers (Dr. Koonin convened the study and was one of the two lead authors) on the subject of climate:

"Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0907.5140

The PDF of the entire paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0907.5140v2

A quote from page 11:

The recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with “very high confidence” that anthropogenic accumulations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere are affecting the Earth climate.6 AR4 also documented a range of scientifically measured impacts on human and natural environments due to the current warming. As anthropogenic GHG concentrations continue to rise, their environmental impacts will increase.

However the sensitivity of the climate system to continued increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations remains significantly uncertain. AR4 placed the “likely” (66% likelihood) global mean temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels at between 2ºC and 4.5ºC, while also noting that “values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.”7 This very broad range means that it is not currently possible to define a “safe” level of atmospheric CO2,8 because the future rate, magnitude, and distribution of climate change impacts are all far from certain. There is no guarantee that the previously observed trend of gradually intensifying consequences will continue. Indeed, the significant reduction in arctic summer sea ice coverage during the summers of 2007 and 2008 (~30% lower coverage than predicted by recent linear trends)9 highlights the possibility that non-linear feedbacks in the climate system could accelerate these impacts.10,11

It is possible that international efforts to stabilize CO2 concentrations will be sufficient to prevent or delay the worst climate impacts, that the world will warm only another 2°C or 3°C, that ice sheets will melt slowly, and that most of the consequences will be gradual, allowing smooth adaptation by human societies and natural ecosystems. However, it is also possible that even with concerted near-term efforts and cooperation on emissions reductions, the climate system could change quickly and unexpectedly, or could change smoothly, yet with consequences that are both severe and unanticipated. For example, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disappear more rapidly than currently projected and the impacts of a warmer world on humans and natural ecosystems — ranging from rapidly increasing sea level to more frequent and stronger storms — could be more severe than current median predictions.12

It is rather bizarre to see the warmists turning on one of their own. Much of the criticism of Dr. Koonin's Op-Ed in the WSJ has been over his statement that the climate's sensitivity to CO2's roughly doubling is approximately equal to the climate's natural variability.

In the section of Dr. Koonin's paper I just quoted, the sensitivity is listed at 2C to 4.5C (I have also seen it reported as about 2C to about 8.5C, with a most likely value of about 4.5C).

The natural variability of the Climate: A small amount of research into this will show you that, over the last 2000 years, the climate has varied naturally between about +2C above the 2000 year average (the Medieval Climate Optimum) to -2C below the same average (the Little Ice Age). This gives a natural variability in climate of 4C over the last 2000 years.

In other words, Dr. Koonin was correct when he claimed that the climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is approximately equal to the natural climate variability (about 4.5C vs. about 4C).

Other criticisms can similarly be answered. If you have something specific, please post it, and I will try to answer it.

Dr. Koonin was also correct when he said we need to nail down a much closer value to the climate sensitivity to CO2.

There are 4 possible responses to the problem.

1. ignore it, and possibly all 'cook'.
2. cut out some of our CO2 emissions.
3. cut out some of our CO2 emissions and try some of the somewhat risky 'climate engineering' projects outlined in the study from Dr. Koonin I linked above.
4. stop ALL CO2 (and other GHG) emissions and 'return to the balance of nature'.

1. is not desired because we might all cook.
2. might be enough. maybe.
3. might be necessary. but it can also REALLY mess thing up.
4. is not desired. it would mean the death of over 99.95% of humanity.

So the real choice is between 2. and 3., and how much of both (or either) we do. In order to make a reasoned choice between the two, we need to know the climate sensitivity to CO2 to a much closer value so that we can make a risk assessment and decide how much CO2 emissions to cut and whether or not to also include any 'climate engineering' efforts.

This is the part of the science, the important part of it, that is NOT settled. We don't cut enough, we still cook. We cut too much, and we have damaged our economy without reason. We need to know how MUCH to cut, and as of now all we really have on this is a few guesses.

yes i agree with that there are crack pots on the warming side too

There are. And they are the ones with the voices in the media.

Agree 100%.

The Media, and others, keep on Reporting every crazy, 'EVERYTHING happening is because of Man Made Climate Change' (MMCC): IE: OMG!!!!! There are too many crabs on the beach!!!! MUST be because of MMCC!!!!

The other side: We CAN'T be causing ANY Problem.

Can both sides get rid of their Crazy's, and let's have a Mature, non-name calling, discussion?

You hit the nail on the head here, CLYDE!

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...

Is this some game of deliberately not reading the entire article? Or a lack of understanding?

Note from that article:

... the study’s authors agreed.

“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”


So... We have some interesting local variation that can oscillate to greater extremes than the global average.

Note that we already know that on a larger scale for such as El Nino - La Nina oscillations.

Despite the natural oscillations, the global average heating is still being driven upwards easily measurably so by our equally easily measurable addition of industrial CO2 pollution into our atmosphere.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin,

You responded to my post. Just WHO are you saying "isn't reading the entire article"? Just WHO are you saying has "a lack of understanding"?

Me?
Glenn?
CLYDE?
Yourself?

Who?

CLYDE linked a news story about a scientific study.
Glenn wished to see the study.
I pointed out the link to the study in the news article and helpfully provided Glenn the link and quoted the abstract. Sadly, the study itself was behind a paywall.
The Simonator then helpfully provided a screengrab of the summary page of the study.

In CLYDE's post
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74943&postid=1576543

he said:

The rise in temperatures along the West Coast over the past century is almost entirely due to natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study. But that doesn’t refute the idea that humans are contributing to global climate change, the authors say.

Once again, who are your comments directed to? Please answer this question. Failure to do so would cause a reasonable person to believe that you persist in your denial.

... Dr. Koonin was also correct when he said we need to nail down a much closer value to the climate sensitivity to CO2.

If that is the case, then how can we possibly justify continuing such a reckless gamble with our environment and entire planet for the sake of continued industrial pollution? All the more so when alternatives to that pollution are already viable.

There are 4 possible responses to the problem.

1. ignore it, and possibly all 'cook'.
2. cut out some of our CO2 emissions.
3. cut out some of our CO2 emissions and try some of the somewhat risky 'climate engineering' projects outlined in the study from Dr. Koonin I linked above.
4. stop ALL CO2 (and other GHG) emissions and 'return to the balance of nature'.

1. is not desired because we might all cook.
2. might be enough. maybe.
3. might be necessary. but it can also REALLY mess thing up.
4. is not desired. it would mean the death of over 99.95% of humanity.

Don't see how you arrive at the extreme of your "4" there unless you are implying that we should all stop breathing!

Rather than just reducing some of our industrial and farming CO2 output, we can cost effectively change our ways to create an industrial balance.

The arguments are that we can already do that for less cost than carrying onwards with the destructive pollution...

... We don't cut enough, we still cook. We cut too much, and we have damaged our economy without reason. We need to know how MUCH to cut, and as of now all we really have on this is a few guesses.

And there looks to be the latest argument from the Fossils to have the excuse for them to pollute unabated for as long as possible...

Meanwhile, the pollution created gets ever more expensive to clean up the longer we allow the Fossils to procrastinate on us...


Hence all the recent demonstrations around the world to overcome the Fossil-fuel lobbying?

There is a reason for the spate of FUD articles being sponsored at the moment...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Once again, who are your comments directed to? Please answer this question. Failure to do so would cause a reasonable person to believe that you persist in your denial.

Major, Martin seems to have a thinking pattern similar to any extremist, e.g. ISIL, where nothing, even truth, can change their belief. Anyone who isn't chanting the sanctioned mantra is seen as enemy.

For humanity to evolve the ability of human brains to fall into such thinking patterns will have to fall by the wayside.

---

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...

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

Is this some game of deliberately not reading the entire article? Or a lack of understanding?

Note from that article:

... the study’s authors agreed.

“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”


So... We have some interesting local variation that can oscillate to greater extremes than the global average.

Note that we already know that on a larger scale for such as El Nino - La Nina oscillations.

Despite the natural oscillations, the global average heating is still being driven upwards easily measurably so by our equally easily measurable addition of industrial CO2 pollution into our atmosphere.

Who?

To whoever! The "he said she said" trolling diversion is irrelevant.

I care not about the messenger.

The message for that one on this thread was the claim/implication by whatever poster that for the sake a local variability, that somehow overruled the steadily increasing heat increase for the rest of the world. A too-quick a glance could give that impression.

Upon more complete reading:

All good interesting stuff, but as the authors themselves rightly feel compelled to directly state for the sake of the blind obvious: The local unusually large variability they have studied for their one small locality in no way detracts from the continuing GLOBAL warming that continues from our industrial pollution for the rest of the world.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Major, Martin seems to have ...

OOooooooer...

Gary C: You are getting very personal there in that you claim to know my thoughts the best...


Very sorry, but you're not my type ;-)


You could try the opening gambit of trying to have:

A Conversation?


You can then build up to the heady heights of:

A Discussion?



Only then may you progress from being a Troll.


Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hence all the recent demonstrations around the world to overcome the Fossil-fuel lobbying?

Are they demonstrating inside China? Are they demanding China STOP their vast increase...

Oooer... Such an old distraction.


This is where technology and politics come into play.

China already leads the world in Wind power and Solar power. So much so that the USA is feeling the home lobbying pressure to put "import tariffs" on importing such high tech from China!


Also note that the rampant pollution China is suffering is now turning around at least some of the rampant corruption in their system that has allowed such pollution. There has even been for China the unheard spectacle of demonstrations against the worst of the pollution...

We may well already be seeing the start of China going green and cleaner...


We have a long way to go. However, this is one where there must be a political lead to overcome the present entrenched Fossils 'corrupt' lobbying.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Major, Martin seems to have ...

OOooooooer...

Troll.


Good luck,
Martin

Thank you Martin for proving what KSWN, Gary, and I have been saying.

The word Troll is differently connotated here:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The word Troll is differently connotated here:)

What? They've hit some sort of accolade of distraction with that?

:-o

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The word Troll is differently connotated here:)

What? They've hit some sort of accolade of distraction with that?

:-o

Didn't know that post was going to come through with Carolyn's hiccup:)))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

KWSN - MajorKong

I have just read the article and i noticed this ...

It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

So please read carefully what is said and don't listen to the extremist deniers

Martian polar ice caps advance and recede in time with our own.."In time with
our own", must be a connection here???

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

You could try the opening gambit of trying to have:

A Conversation?

I tried that a couple years ago, you screamed troll at me.

You don't seem to want to have a conversion or discussion, you seem to want to have a flock of unthinking converts repeating a mantra and not allowing any information, no matter how true or from what highly respected source, to interrupt your mantra. Even today you said you don't care what the source of information is. To have a conversation your mind can't be hermetically sealed and from what and how you post here, it appears as if yours is.

continuing such a reckless gamble with our environment and entire planet

Ready to realize what those words of yours actually mean? They mean finding a solution that no future human can undo. That apparently is more than you can stomach.

---

ML1 Screaming TROLL; FUD; CORRUPT; DIRTY; FOSILL FUELS; PROFITS etc etc etc.


World Rolling 'its' Eyes at Warmist Extreme Screaming and OBlabby Moving HIS Lips Again at Da U N or AnyWheres - HO HUM. Beat Dat Ocean Rise Drum

HO HUM. Feed Me Dat GOoD 'ole CO2

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

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...

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

Is this some game of deliberately not reading the entire article? Or a lack of understanding?

Note from that article:

... the study’s authors agreed.

“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”


So... We have some interesting local variation that can oscillate to greater extremes than the global average.

Note that we already know that on a larger scale for such as El Nino - La Nina oscillations.

Despite the natural oscillations, the global average heating is still being driven upwards easily measurably so by our equally easily measurable addition of industrial CO2 pollution into our atmosphere.

Who?

To whoever! The "he said she said" trolling diversion is irrelevant.

I care not about the messenger.

The message for that one on this thread was the claim/implication by whatever poster that for the sake a local variability, that somehow overruled the steadily increasing heat increase for the rest of the world. A too-quick a glance could give that impression.

Upon more complete reading:

All good interesting stuff, but as the authors themselves rightly feel compelled to directly state for the sake of the blind obvious: The local unusually large variability they have studied for their one small locality in no way detracts from the continuing GLOBAL warming that continues from our industrial pollution for the rest of the world.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin,
Surely you realize that a better understanding of regional climate helps with our understanding of global climate. A better understanding of global climate helps with our understanding of CO2's (and other GHGs) contribution to Global climate.

The better we understand regional oscillations, the better we can pick out and measure GHG's contributions to climate change.

The better we can measure GHG's contributions to climate change, the better we can determine the climate's sensitivity to increasing CO2.

The better we can determine the climate's sensitivity to increasing CO2, the better of an idea we will have of just how much we will have to cut GHG emissions and possibly use other measures.

Understand now why this study is *important*?

The problem is that, over time, science and technology have enabled both the human population and the standard of living of said humans to grow well beyond the capacity of the planet to adequately deal with. One or the other or both are going to have to be reduced to solve this problem. There are no magic solutions. And none of the real solutions are going to be very... popular.

There are 3 positions on this issue.

1. The big-oil-deniers: There IS no problem.

2. The rational-scientific position: There is a problem with no easy solutions. Let us think about it and do some research, and we will get back to you with the best solutions.

3. The psuedo-religious fanatic warmist position: We have unquestioned faith in EVERYTHING Saint AlGore the Politician and his Disciples tell us about how, unless we do everything he tells us and absolutely do all his holy commandments, we all all doomed to perish in the fires of GHG-H3ll! Any deviation from His most Holy pronouncements is Heresy, and must be punished by the State. We Believe that Saint AlGore will get the magic Green Fairy to wave her wand, slay the Demon "Big-Oil", and lead us all into an utopian age where we will all live happily ever after.

I am in group 2. Which one are you in?