Australia suffers most extreme warming

As I have said - there is a whole world wide community that is sifting those reports for ANYTHING that will discredit the IPCC. Find something and it is instant international fame. Yet with all that activity no-one has managed to come up with anything - just maybe because there is nothing to find…..

 

You clearly haven't looked...

 

Maaaaate! I have read nearly every denialist blog on the net

NOTHING!

NADA

ZILCH! As far as evidence that there is vast manipulation of data. Sure they managed to find a couple of errors - glacier melt was not referenced or researched as well as it should have been but given the hundreds of papers and reports all one can say is "If that is the BEST they can do………"

 

I suppose a good analogy would be eating unhealthy for years without realising the underlying effects until you have a heart attack and caused too much irreparable damage! It's all good I only eat a Big Mac, chips and coke 3 times a week! I'm only young and it hasn't harmed me, I'm all good!
Reminds me of the very same stupid and reckless attitude! Uncle billy has smoked ciggies all his life and he is all good, he has only got slight COPD at the age of fifty....she'll be right mate!

 

Blogs? try searching for some SCIENCE. I know why you started on the sea level rise because you didn't want to discuss the rather inconvienent facts of NO WARMING since around 1998 and the expanding Arctic ice which is supposed to be shrinking.
You think you are on safe ground with sea level rise but you are not. Try reading some of those proper scientific papers you referenced and you will find there is quite a bit of criticism of IPCC claims. Particularly with sea level rise, yes sea levels have been rising but they have been rising for over 400 years, since the 'little ice age'. The claim that agw is causing the rise is wrong and the claim that agw is eccelerating the rise is not well supported because warming has stopped but sea levels continue to slowly rise also there are many, many other factors affecting sea levels. Thermal expansion from heat absorbed from the atmosphere is only a minor factor and only affects the sea down to a maximum depth of 100m.

 

Was any other astral phenomena that effects the planets weather systems like the sun & moon referenced in their reports? NO. Did they put in their reports that the moon is moving away from the earth, and they don't know what effects that will have on the weather system? NO. We need to manufacture false date to blame human beings for creating climate change due to carbon polution, because our bosses need a quick tax money.

 

It is interesting that even though man cannot cure the common cold they believe they can change nature to suite themselves. Just throw plenty of money to the right people and they will not only convince you that it is manmade, they will change the climate to be compatible to man. BUT don't get in their way or they will spend that money trying to convince the rest of the world you are a 'denialist.'

What is interesting is that all these religious zealots believe it is only the amount of money that is needed to change the climate; their solutions actually do nothing to reduce the emissions, just simply abate it while creating MORE.

 

Sure - link to some. And please this time do not get your "science" from blogs like Joannova because I can pretty well guarantee that they will be crap. Wattsupwiththat probably has some of the best referencing - even if it is cherry picked and Poptech has a huge list of so called denialist research papers but be careful he has padded the list with a lot of research that says the opposite of what he is claiming they say.

Something you have failed to verify - that either there is no warming (and mate please go there because am I ready for you to do so!) or that the Arctic ice is shrinking (remembering there is a DIFFERENCE between sea ice and pack ice

I never said that there was not controversy - just that Morner was wrong

Oh! And I would like to know how you get thermal expansion WITHOUT global warming hint hint - guess where all the heat has been going?

- - - Updated - - -

Wow someone who seems to think scientists are "changing nature to suit themselves" when in fact they are researching changes in the biosphere

 

I don’t have the patience to convince someone their hair is on fire anymore. There are so many fundamental factors of pure science that have not been taken into consideration regarding the climate change/global warming scare campaigns that we are being bombarded with on a daily basis.

For someone to suggest a scientist is not above fabricating and falsifying data, when their employment and careers are in peril, is similar to a childlike naivety.

I have to laugh also, when it seems climate change is represented by how much money climate tax dollars can make, rather than doing anything serious to stop it.

I always wonder what the Australian $10billion carbon tax donation to the UN was going to accomplish for Australians to reduce their reliance on carbon.

It seemed Australians businesses and families were making the UN bureaucrats wealthy, but making themselves poorer, without accomplishing anything worthwhile here in Australia for Australians where the $10billion carbon tax revenue was being generated.

Gee -Whiz, someone was going to make a killing off that snow job

 

Baby, pack ice is sea ice. It is lumps of frozen sea water (sea ice) that has packed together. The important thing is the area of ice and it has been increasing at both poles over recent years.

Yes indeed, that is the problem. There is much controversy amongst our learned scientists, they don't all agree. So from that we can assume there are many questions and observations with no clear, provable answers.

If you care to read some of your own references you will find there are many sources and forces of energy that heat and cool the oceans.

 

No, it is not the same it is the difference between new ice and old ice but hey!! you have yet to prove any of it is more



Yeah SUUUUURE! it's growing!!

Soooooo, next time you want to use the excuse "group think" to explain away why so many scientists agree that it is happening………? The truth is we ARE seeing sea level rise, and some complicated interactions between land mass, ice mass, gravity and tides means that it differs throughout the globe but it is definitely rising

Yes there are and none of them explain the observed evidence of ocean warming other than anthropogenic global warming, but if you found a paper that DOES say that please point it out

Oh! some pictures to think on

 

Arctic sea ice extent growing. From the Danish Meteorological Institute and note that they say the total estimated ice area is underestimated...

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Antarctic ice area at record levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html

But is it anything unusual anyway?

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

 

It works well doesn't it, The money being floated about is interesting but when they provide evidence of their claims (such as the Religious Zealots of sea ice ) the should realise that comparing the actual observations to the simulations only demonstrates the wishes to fabricate the reality of what is occurring.

IT just amazes me that they continue to believe they can continue to influence nature when they do not even know how it works. These religious zealots simply believe that man is such a great force they do not realise that Nature cares nothing of man and when the time comes man will not be able to survive. WHY??? Because rather than working to adjust to nature, man is trying to make nature adjust to him... Stupid when you realise how inconsequential man is to the universe

Billions spent to make man believe the mantra of Global warming and what is needed to head it off. Carbon taxes and aid payments set to supposedly reduce emissions yet their own modelling shows emissions will actually increase. Sure plant a few trees that will offset the emissions, UNTIL the emissions are so high there is not enough land to plant any trees. BUT nothing to actually address the emissions but taxes.

IF these people where truly about reducing the effects of man in nature as they clearly proclaim to be direr, then they would follow direct action of reducing emissions (which they do not) as they actually DO reduce emissions rather than taxing people to pretend they are doing something. BUT no, they claim ‘ that costs too much’ . So in other words they want to pretend there is an imperative to reduce emissions or the world will die, but not at too great of an expense… OR is it that direct action does not pay the people who proclaim it to be such a great imperative???

The money is flowing to these people and other religious zealots are going to continue to make sure they get as much as they can. A lot of people are going to make millions out of this before it is shown to be a fabrication and man cannot influence nature as they want to proclaim.
.

 

I’m simply staggered, that some people have such a childlike naivety, that they stubbornly refuse to use critical analysis when they are dealing with real life situations and circumstances to problem solve. Its not logically possible to obtain a factual conclusion to any problem without using both positive and critical analysis.

Claiming the evidence and data produced by human scientists is absolute, is a nonsense in itself, and anyone with half a brain should know better.

Scientists are correcting their own data and theories on a daily basis, and now these climate change advocates want me to believe the data and information produced by these scientists stating human beings have caused the planets climate change, is suddenly correct and absolute. LOL

Don’t they understand that Gore started all this rubbish as a way of making money for himself? Then everyone else (including the Governments) jumped on his “coat-tails” as they could see it was a lucrative money spinner, because you could say something was happening and blame someone using corrupt data, and make heaps money in the process.

Gee Whiz Garry, do you really need a high IQ to understand that this is all about making money, and not about the environment.

My first question in the carbon emissions debate was: “How is buying and selling carbon credits on the stock exchange going to reduce carbon pollution”?

I agree with your comments 100%. These climate change advocates rant & rave how serious climate change is, but only serious enough to tax, and not serious enough to do anything else about.

I know that if climate change was as serious as they claim it is, then they would be doing more to stop carbon pollution than just putting a tax on it. Governments around the world including UN bureaucrats would be demanding a STOP to carbon pollution immediately, if the planet was being seriously threatened. I cannot see them putting their arses at risk if something serious was going to happen due to climate change.

To suggest that an insignificant little organism like humanity has the ability or knowledge to control a planets entire natural system is sheer fallacy.

 

Whats wrong with these pictures? Oh, thats righ. None are real photo's. I suppose I could make some of those computer generated photos given enough time, but it wouldn't mean they are representing the truth

 

Wow that has be close to the most decrepit rebutting of any argument I think I have ever seen

 

Your first mistake

 

Okay - not as good at this as Mannie D and the others but here is the thing Very different to have some new frozen water (sea ice) to losing what has been there for centuries

Now this first link is to data from 2005, Six years worth, Not a long time scale eh? When you see that it is automatic alarm bells for cherry picking. It is also data from ONE satellite - and even then it does not really show want you want it to

Please to be accurate we want multiple data from multiple sources looking at multi-year ice as well as ice extent -

Here is a graph that shows more than the last six years



Like the Wiki graph I posted earlier you can see the clear downward trend over decades

Let us look again at that idea of multi-year ice or continental ice

the article also explains areas versus volume - a VERY good point

http://theconversation.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing-19605

You might find it an interesting read because it IS honest and tells you we do not understand all the dynamic

It's a blog……

Don't think you read this one because it negates many of your points - and it is a word for word copy of the one I quoted previously

You post a link to only 6 years of data and in the SAME post try to point out that 80 years is not a long time frame for examination of the phenomena??

 

This is when you KNOW Global Warming is a reality.

The Pentagon on Friday unveiled a new strategy to defend the Arctic region from security threats as Russia builds up cold-weather forces in the region and China prepares to claim resources.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a speech in Canada that melting northern polar ice is opening new sea routes and that is increasing the risk of a future conflict and competition for energy resources,

The comments at an Arctic security conference come as Russia is preparing to deploy two Arctic brigades and bolstering military bases in the region.

China meanwhile also is seeking access to new oil and gas resources that are becoming more accessible in the polar region.

Hagel, in a speech to an international security forum, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said “the Arctic region is peaceful, stable, and free of conflict.”

“Our goal is to help assure it stays that way,” he said. “Ultimately we envision a secure and stable Arctic where all nations’ interests are safeguarded and where all nations work together; they work together to address problems and resolve differences.”

Hagel outlined an eight-point plan for U.S. security objectives in the polar region.

The main goal is to “remain prepared to detect, deter, prevent, and defeat threats to our homeland,” he said, adding that “we will continue to exercise U.S. sovereignty in and around Alaska.”

Another goal is to ensure that as northern sea routes open in the future the United States is prepared to maintain freedom of navigation.

Melting polar ice has opened a northern sea route to shipping, mostly by commercial freighters. Ships transits along the route that stretches to both the northern Atlantic and Pacific oceans are expected to increase tenfold this year compared to last year, Hagel said.

Also, at least one-fourth of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas resources is said to be located in the largely frozen Arctic Ocean. The ocean includes both international waters and ice and areas that are part of 200-mile economic exclusion zones of several states.

Warmer global temperatures in recent years have created more open passages that early 20th century explorers had called the Northwest Passage for trade between east and west.

Hagel said growing access to the Arctic has created “a flood of interest in energy exploration [that] has the potential to heighten tensions.”

The U.S. military has been operating in the Arctic for decades. Currently more than 22,000 troops and 5,000 guardsmen and reservists are based in Alaska. Pentagon Arctic capabilities include ski-equipped C-130s and nuclear submarines.

Hagel urged international states interested in the Arctic to cooperate and work together for a “peaceful and secure region.”

“Throughout human history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier,” he said. “And time after time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict.

We cannot erase this history, but we can assure that history does not repeat itself in the Arctic.”

Russia since 2011 has launched a significant military buildup in the northern polar region and U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring the military activities and the buildup of forces.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced last year that Moscow’s naval forces would add 51 warships and 16 submarines to its forces by 2020. The buildup is needed to protect “national economic interests, in particular in such regions as the Arctic,” Putin said.

Russia announced in July that it would deploy two Arctic brigades of troops by 2015 and in September launched the first military training school for Arctic military operations. The training will prepare troops to fight in extremely low temperatures and winter darkness.

Military equipment for the training includes the use of snowmobiles, off-road vehicles, and tracked armored and utility vehicles.

Other military developments include the establishment of new military bases on Russia’s northern coast and construction of what is expected to be the world’s largest nuclear-powered ice-breaking ship. Moscow also plans special military patrol aircraft for the region.

MiG-31 jets are set for deployment at a base on the island of Novaya Zemlaya, near the Barents Sea, by the end of the year.

The Russians, according to U.S. officials, view the United States as a challenger for resources in the region. “The clash for the Arctic and its natural resources and capabilities is escalating,” retired Gen. Leonid Ivashov said in June 2012.

Meanwhile, China signaled its stake in the northern sea route in August 2012 when its icebreaker, the Xue Long, completed a 10,000-mile journey from Qingdao to Iceland across the polar route.

A U.S. official said China has a growing interest in the Arctic and is seeking a polar route. Beijing is increasing support for Arctic initiatives and recently funded an Artic Institute at the China Ocean University.

The Chinese also have leased space at North Korea’s Chingjin port as a foothold for access to the Artic.

China also is investing in ice-breaking ships.

The Chinese could use the northern route to shorten the shipping route for goods from China to Europe by avoiding the much longer route through the Suez Canal, Indian Ocean, and Southeast Asia.

A Chinese military think tank published a report in 2011 that outlined China’s naval expansion to increase its area of operations to include the Arctic, as well as the Indian Ocean.

The report said Chinese military forces “should be able to operate effectively in the area roughly between 55th parallel of north latitude and 35th parallel of south latitude and between 50 degree east longitude and 165 degree east longitude, as well as in near-earth space.”

“Only then can we reliably protect our country’s territorial sovereignty and our rights and interests in our exclusive economic zone, maintain stability within our country, and have the capability to remove the threat of separation,” the report said.

“At the same time, we can consolidate the existing security border to the north, and can, to a certain degree, support our country’s position on rights and interests in the Arctic.”

Alarmed by recent Russian military moves in the Arctic, several Nordic states are taking steps to bolster military capabilities in the region.

Norway added $355 million to its defense budget for “high north” military activities and announced it is creating a special military unit for the Arctic while moving substantial forces northward.

Denmark also is increasing its military presence in the Arctic and set up a Joint Arctic Command in Greenland.

Sweden and Finland also are focusing defense policies on the Arctic.

Senior defense officials who briefed reporters sought to play down Russia’s growing claims and military activities in the Arctic.

Asked about U.S. interaction with Russia’s military on the Arctic, one official said “based on current postures, we don’t have a lot of direct interaction with the Russian navy on—in the Arctic.”

A second official said the new Pentagon strategy foresees a “relatively low level of the military threat in the Arctic.”

“And that we don’t see that changing in the near term,” the official said.

As for working with Russia’s navy “we’re looking for a cooperative partnership with Russia,” the official said.

“The strategy also does recognize national security interests of the United States in the Arctic, and that does include strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and ensuring freedom of the seas,” the official said.

Military and intelligence officials in Sweden have said Russian military activities and activities in the Artic are a security concern.

Jakob Scharf, chief of Denmark’s Police Security and Intelligence Service, has identified the Arctic as a growing espionage target.

“There is a significant increased focus on the Arctic from a number of countries, and this is because the climate changes and the development in the Arctic region, such as for example rare earths, rare metals and natural resources,” Scharf told the Danish news outlet Berlingske Online.

Norway’s intelligence service also said foreign spy agencies have stepped up spying in Scandinavia that is focused on the Arctic.

“I can confirm that we, like our Danish sister organization, see greater intelligence-gathering activity in this area,” said Martin Bernsen, spokesman for the Norwegian Police Security Service. “We see individual countries actively trying to consolidate their position in the Arctic.” He was quoted in the Norwegian news outlet Aftenposten.no in October 2012.

According to U.S. officials, Chinese intelligence is stepping up spying activities directed at the Arctic from officers based at the Chinese embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland.

The eight countries that make up the Arctic Council—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States—recently admitted China as an observer despite opposition from many of the European members.

The Chinese were given the observer status at the behind-the-scenes urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of the Obama administration’s conciliatory policies toward Beijing.

If China gains full membership, Beijing is expected to seek to use its access to influence international claims on energy deposits, according to observers.

China’s military also runs the Chinese Institute for Polar Research (CIPR), based in Shanghai. The Institute is part of the PLA scientific intelligence group that conducts maritime research and also runs PLA Navy spy ships.

According to the Paris-based Intelligence Online news outlet, China has three polar stations in Antarctica and one station in the Arctic—the Huanghe Zhan research station in Ny Alesund, on the island of Spitzbergen on the international archipelago of Svalbard, administered by Norway.

“Mirroring China’s space policy, China’s military wants to consolidate its presence at the polar ice caps to make sure its voice is heard during negotiations into the new maritime routes between the U.S, Western Europe, and Asia that are opening up because of global warming,” the newsletter said.

LINK....http://freebeacon.com/polar-cold-war/

The latest info on this is that the U.S. Navy will NOT retire the CVN-68 USS. Nimitz Nuclear Aircraft Carrier and will upgrade it and use it for Arctic Ocean Patrols until all 3 Ford Class Stealth Carriers....CVN-78 Gerald R Ford....CVN-79 J.F.K.....CVN-80 Enterprise are built and at sea.

When the U.S. Military is spending Billion preparing for Global Warming.it is no longer a theory but a FACT.

AboveAlpha...

 

A friend of mine got his Phd in 2008 working for the US military developing and building instruments to remote sense the thickness of ice and snow in the northern pole region

 

The U.S. Military has Networked IBM Supercomputers that run simulations 24/7 365 days a year and the U.S. Military KNOWS that Global Warming is causing major shifts in U.S. Force Deployment and especially the U.S. Navy.

Having a Nimitz Class Carrier Group specially refitted to do Arctic Patrols is a Major Force Projection and would keep everybody in line.

China talks about being all warm and fuzzy and everyone's buddy but every chance China get's when the U.S. is not looking they take whatever they want from whoever they can.

AboveAlpha

 

Well with the North West passge opening up means Russian and Chinese Pacific naval units can transit into the Atlantic with relative ease

 

As far as Chinese or Russian ships being any kind of threat to the U.S. and Canada....not really as we have joint U.S./Canadian Bases with a lot of American made War Planes that could easily blow such ships out of the water.

The problem would be more about everyone attempting Territorial Ocean Floor Claims for Oil Drilling.

AboveAlpha

 

This does not confirm or deny the science of climate change in any way does it?

Actually, the point is not that climate change is real or not. Fact is climate changes all the time and that warming and cooling is always occurring. However, in no way does it demonstrate that MAN is the cause of climate change and that MAN can change this in anyway at all. In fact it clearly demonstrates that the US are preparing to adapt to climate change not simply believe the religious zealots who firmly believe MAN can head it off. In fact in no way does it show that CO2 is the main driver of climate change either, or has the religious zealots change that one??? I heard a rumour but could not be bothered chasing it up.

 

If not man then what? If not CO2 then what?

Climate, like underpants does not change by itself