[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2016-April-04, 11:34, said:

Thanks for the link, which makes perfectly clear the need to get emissions under control.


So the gain was slowing between 1992 and 2008. The last I looked, we've reached the year 2016.


Or sooner, but the trend is clear. As you've made clear once again, only the most irresponsible people now deny that action must be taken to slow emissions.

Yes, the Arctic is currently loosing ice mass faster than Antarctica is gain ice mass. The questions is much longer this trend can be maintained.

https://www.google.c...ze5UFN4mDNpM%3A

[blackshoe]

Hm. Will the shift of ice mass from north to south eventually cause a catastrophic reversal of the orientation of the poles?

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 12:44, said:

Hm. Will the shift of ice mass from north to south eventually cause a catastrophic reversal of the orientation of the poles?

Only if a large amount of research funding money is being offered to demonstrate that that is the case.

[PassedOut]

Big day tomorrow: How Earth itself has dramatically upped the stakes for the Paris climate accord

Quote

The first three months of 2016 have been the hottest ever recorded, and by a large margin. Greenland’s massive ice sheet melted more this spring than researchers have ever seen. Warming seas are turning once-majestic coral reefs into ghostly underwater graveyards. And scientists are warning that sea levels could rise far faster than anyone expected by the end of the century, with severe impacts for coastal communities around the globe.

That grim drumbeat of news will loom over the United Nations on Friday — Earth Day — when officials from more than 150 countries gather to sign a landmark agreement aimed at slashing global greenhouse gas emissions and slowing the warming of the planet.

It simultaneously will be a moment of understandable celebration and sobering reality.

The first step, even if a small one...

[Al_U_Card]

How much ghg did those "officials" generate by their pointless presence? Won't somebody think of the planet! (Use Skype or since we will soon have to rely on "renewables" perhaps a message in a bottle will have to do....)

[y66]

Humans Are Not Like Slowly Boiling Frogs … We Are Like Slowly Boiling Brainless Frogs by Joe Romm.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting if somewhat fallacious analogy to being told the sky is falling and when it doesn't today, accepting the answer of tomorrow....every day thereafter.

Computer models, climate ignorance and guilt. One heck of a combo.

[Al_U_Card]

On the eve of Climate Hustle's one-day movie debut, here is Marc Morano, up close and personal.

[y66]

Climate scientists are now grading climate journalism

Quote

While the internet puts information at our fingertips, it has also allowed misinformation to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of many of those whose opinions and votes will determine the future of the planet. And up to now scientists have been on the back foot in countering the spread of this misinformation and pointing the public to trustworthy sources of information on climate change.

Climate Feedback intends to change that. It brings together a global network of scientists who use a new web-annotation platform to provide feedback on climate change reporting.

[Al_U_Card]

It brings together a global network of scientists who use a new web-annotation platform to provide feedback on climate change reporting.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me..... lol

Now if only they could spend some time on making models that could actually replicate past, present or (hopefully) future climate conditions with even minimal precision and accuracy.

"Any theory that doesn't agree with observation (experimentation) is WRONG." Richard P. Feynman

[Al_U_Card]

Giving new meaning to "quality" control.




Worse yet, those 2001 values had already been "quality" controlled in much the same way....cool the past and warm the present.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-May-10, 05:13, said:

Giving new meaning to "quality" control.

I quite agree! Realclimatescience (from geology graduate Steven Goddard) is one of the few sceptical sites to attract heavy critiscism even from within the sceptic community, with, for example, theunhivedmind describing a piece he did on sea levels as "misinformation". The same holds true with his specific claims regarding temperaure manipulation, with Anthony Watts simply saying he is "wrong". Politifact went further rating the claims "pants on fire". It was good of you to post this with the appropriate warning regarding the "quality" of the data. From past experiece, I might have expected you to treat the graph as meaningful.

[Al_U_Card]

SG cherry-picks to make his point(s) that you cannot trust the climate science establishment. From Santer's coercion of the 1995 SPM to totally reverse the actual science to say that there was an attribution footprint,to the reality of climate refugees (there aren't any) to Hansen's latest rant, man's influence on climate is minor and specific. CO2 is of little consequence and is certainly not the driver that man can use to adjust the weather, despite the establishment's concerted continuous attempts to do so.
Every time you look behind the curtain, nothing is as they pretend.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-May-10, 16:22, said:

SG cherry-picks

I hope you would join me in denouncing those on both sides that cherry pick in this way. It is not science and has no place in the debate.

[diana_eva]

Hrothgar cool off pls.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-11, 02:30, said:

I hope you would join me in denouncing those on both sides that cherry pick in this way. It is not science and has no place in the debate.

I heartily concur. One of the starting points and problems with the "debate" such as it is. What most alarmists hype is just that, alarmist hype. RCP 8.5 scenarios full of so much conjecture and far-fetched conditions as to make them worthless, without it, well, it's just not alarming enough.
Reading Climate etc. and Climate audit are breaths of fresh air and most illuminating concerning the factual presentation of most climate science.
A lot of good will from many well-intentioned people is being wasted on what is at best a fool's errand and at worst a total waste of time and energy (As far as altering planetary climate is concerned.)

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-11, 02:30, said:

I hope you would join me in denouncing those on both sides that cherry pick in this way. It is not science and has no place in the debate.

Back in a previous incarnation of the threat, Al-U-Card openly admitted to deliberately posting information that he knew to be false and that he was justified in doing so because the warmists lie all the time.

Why would expect anything better from him?

[Winstonm]

This must be natural causes? And this has nothing to do with it?

[PassedOut]

April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs

Quote

April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.

The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.

It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”.

Figures released by Nasa over the weekend show the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980.

It all but assures that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, and probably by the largest margin ever.

So it turns out that if we trap more and more heat, the earth gets hotter and hotter. What a surprise!

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2016-May-11, 10:06, said:

This must be natural causes? And this has nothing to do with it?

Yes, I had been discussing this elsewhere. Apparently, the Guardian (and others) have run with this story under the auspices that it was cause by climate change. The author of the study, Dr., Simon Albert, says this, "largely misinterprets the science." Small islands are constantly surfacing and submerging due to factors completely unrelated to climate change. Several other islands have been negatively impacted by overdevelopment. I guess this could fall under the recently-discussed cherry picking issue of focusing on only those few islands submerged.