Forme climate blame believers are better planet lovers:

*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of
demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by
corporations and trustworthy politicians

*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change
denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists
warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of
the Unions addresses.

*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate
change once.

Find me one, just ONE single IPCC warning that says a crisis
will actually happen, not just might and could happen. Not one of the IPCC
warnings are without “maybes” and 27 years of "maybe" means it
"won't be" a crisis.

No crisis, you say.

Mememine69 says the IPCC hasn't predicted a crisis. Well, they've predicted widespread extinctions, floods, superstorms, sea level rise, killer heat waves, crop failures, desertification, and the real possibility that parts of the planet will become uninhabitable for human life. Sort of sounds like a crisis to me....

I sure wish that I could be a warmist

Then I would be able to say anything I want and not have to worry about the facts.

Our you could say something new

Or just shut up altogether.

Father Theo

So as you say: "widespread extinctions, floods, superstorms, sea level rise, killer heat waves, crop failures, desertification, and the real possibility that parts of the planet will become uninhabitable for human life..."
Correct, they condemn billions of children to "extinctions" and crop failures and...THE END OF THE WORLD! Do you see the millions of good and honest people in the global scientific community ACTING like they condemned their kids as well to a CO2 hell? The exaggeration of "CRISIS" is astounding and all evidence points to it.
If you love the planet, you should be glad, not disappointed a crisis wasn't real after all. Did you want this misery to have been real for my kids? How dare you!!!!

You climate changers are the real NEOCONS of fear mongering

To you remaining fear mongers; none of you spineless climate cowards would still be shooting your mouths off like this still if there were real legal consequences in a real civilized society for issuing your CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children to your Reefer Madness of climate blame.

Everybody stop breathing!

The average adult expels 44,000 ppm of CO2 with every breath.
That is outrageous. We cause drought and floods simultaneously with every nasty exhale.

The poor oceans, getting so acid that they are still basic and absorbing all that heat from the air and storing in the bottom where nobody can find it, and then releasing it when nobody is looking to produce blizzards in the East and Europe. Everybody knows that if you put warm water on your stove it will turn to ice cubes in no time.

Maybe all that aluminum and barium that's being spread every day up in the sky will help if it doesn't kill us first.
http://www.canadaskywatch.com/articles/lecture/2012/12_03_law_professor_speaks_about_chemtrails.html

I sure with that I could be a denier...

Then I could ignore science, observation and the real world and live in a cozy blanket of lies and oil industry propaganda. A shame I'd be too angry and stupid to enjoy it, though.

mememine69

Making the world more livable & just for everyone's children is more important than anything, really. I see positive net benefit in becoming more self-sufficient, less polluting, less consumptive of finite resources.

A seeming desire to burn through what the earth provides, as quickly as possible, appears unjust for all inhabitants of the planet.

Sid, you are a "denier"

You deny that there are natural cycles in climate and try to pretend that a beneficial trace gas does it all by itself.
That is delusional.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/rise-of-the-natural-climate-cycle-deniers/

so woodworker

ever fed belt ammo for a machine gun? Because if our hardiness zone moves north you can bet the southern practical limit of agriculture will too. We're going to need you at the border, it's hard work cutting down millions of starving refugees. Or did you think they would share?

@NickS

You are attacking the messenger instead of the the message again.

Try saying something about the science. Take individual points and refute them, or add additional science observations that are both relevant and counter the observations made here.

Come cruc, that's all I've been doing here

Unlike some, I back up what I say, whereas I've noticed your tendency to bloviate and like Hak, make stuff up as you go along.

You can't pretend any more that CO2 has enough effect on temperature to change weather. Just look at the evidence
IPCC's 'Gold Standard' Temperature Dataset Authenticates Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/ipccs-gold-standard-temperature-dataset-authenticates-global-cooling-over-last-15-years.html

Latest Empirical Evidence: The Abysmal Prediction Failure Of Taxpayer Funded CO2-Based Climate Models
Taxpayers have spent billions on CO2-driven climate model "science," which the empirical evidence now suggests was like pouring money down a rat-hole....the abysmal prediction failure of CO2-centric models is simply fact - are there actual scientific models that can replace this current wasteland of biased AGW climate research?"
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/empirical-evidence-abysmal-prediction-failure-taxpayer-funded-co2-based-climate-models.html

The data proves that the climate hysteria is wrong....but don't let that stop you from calling people who point that out "deniers".

your posts are like the articles Cruc,

very lucid and logical exposition. They help educate and encourage proper process of thought in those that actually read them, a public service indeed.

That IS why you are making them I trust, you seem above the crude baiting I entertain myself with.

:) I like how you think, OO

I too believe in justice. I've often said that all those who opposed stem cell research should have their names registered and be denied any treatments developed from it.

When in doubt, psychologize!

The last act of a desperate meme pusher is to explain the truth teller as having some kind of psychological fault.

First, OO. my position is that climate change is entirely natural and climate changes have always happened and always will.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

So you set up a straw man, "those people on this site who continue to deny climate variation",
and I knocked it down, so excuse me while I take a leak!

Hakuin, you are a fool

http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/28/a-14-trillion-extortion-for-a-global-warming-scam/

@NickS

Do you know what the differences are between reproducible laboratory tests, and measurement data sets? The first is science fact, the second is statistics. Both are valid tools in the scientific process, but the first is fundamental and the second is interpretive. In large systems, the second is often used to lead to discoveries in the first.

You seem to be denying the validity of the lab tests, based on interpretation of measurement sets. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Climate change is happening. The arctic summer ice is shrinking, along with many other external indicators (data sets) supporting this.

So look for explanations. Fundamental science supplies some of the clues, but we need to extrapolate to a global scale. For that we need climatology.

Climate models can (and do) project these changes forward. They aren't perfect. But they are pretty good for a system with this many variables (feedback loops and dampers and chaos theory). One thing it that cannot do, is estimate the relative effects of recent human activities on the overall climate model. We have no real idea if it is a negligible or major contributor to the changes the data sets are showing.

So what do you do? Deny the validity of the fundamental science? When any competent physics student can prove it? Deny the measurements in the data sets? Or look for narrower data sets? Or alternate interpretations of the data sets?
I'm still not quite sure "what" you are denying. Are you denying the fundamental science? Or that the arctic summer ice is shrinking? Or that man's activities have at least some contribution to the changes? It might help if you were more specific. I promise to listen, if you stop attacking the messenger.

The Crucible, no the Bloviator-In-Chief, maybe!

Bugger denial!

I positively suggest that climate change is natural, but weather modification is REAL!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

Ok nick

The Pentagon is using weather to make war on America's enemies.... like all those American states hit by hurricane, tornado, drought and forest fires.
There, everyone agrees with you. Now, why are you posting in an article about anthropogenic climate change? Did you get tossed out of the chemtrails forums for calling people names and endlessly reposting the same stuff?

Maybe you should take a breath and reconsider your social interaction techniques. I mean, have you ever once convinced anyone to come around to your way of thinking? That IS why you do this, right?

And you, Story,

Are a big poo-poo head! :)

Yeah, they make war on their own too

That's hardly surprising when one reviews the experiments done on the US population over the years, especially by the military.
How about this for instance
http://climate-connections.org/2012/09/24/breaking-news-secret-us-military-testing-of-radiological-materials-on-poor-and-minority-communities/

Just because it is "unthinkable" doesn't mean it hasn't been done or is being done.

People who suggest others do things

Should lead by example. As I understand it, the Tyee will consider any worthy content submitted. I am quite confident Mr. Beers is at his happiest when he takes home a large stack of manuscripts to fill his forlorn, empty weekends. Really, you'd be doing him a favour.

Great idea Snert

Too bad sea levels are not cooperating.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/sea-level-falling-outside-suzukis-window/

No they're not

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm

The article is incorrect

Sunlight then water vapour are still the primary forcing influences on the climate with CO2 far down the list. Many models hint that land use changes (reflectance changes) are a greater influence than CO2 on the regional and wold climate.

citation,

sask?

Reefer Madness

Now we have the arm chair amateur wanna-be climatologists in the debate.

here's mine sask;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

More data refutes 'Climate Change' canard

'Global warming less extreme than feared?'

[Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.]

http://tinyurl.com/adboboe

Pathetic reference

"Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

"That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

"The following are among the blog’s numerous falsehoods and libels:"
see the 12 falsehoods and libels here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/
The article ends with:
"One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won."

kul, read you rown article

Climate issues must be dealt with

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

:) oh nick

more flies with honey!

aheh hehe heh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

you couldn't write this stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I

great source nicky! Think he could cure me?

Crucible Snert & HAARP

Kinda fun to read the comments here and previous, then again...

Crucible, I think your analysis is better than most. no point in trying to debate Nick S. though, bin down that road before. Won't change.

As to Nick's reference to Prof. Michel Chosudofski (an economist, not a climate scientist), and his HAARP article, it's essentially a red herring.

Yes, it exists in Alaska and it has military applications in terms of detection and disruption of electronic signals, (far less significant than solar flare effects, but important in space warfare). Weather manipulation is an important but remote physics and political possibility, but climate change, hardly. Nukes would get launched.

So why did the CIA & the US DofD release it to Raytheon Corporation? These are the same guys that promoted Reagan's Star Wars program.

Very little real detail in the article. The molecularly very thin ionosphere is a long way up from the troposphere and lower stratosphere where weather and climate events occur, and these separated by the mesosphere.

I noticed the LIDAR item on the map. Very cool technology, even personal portability. Had the privilege to see it used during the 2010 winter Olympics, the one that had to have snow trucked up to Cypress Bowl in February for the events to take place :-)

As I said, HAARP is a red herring, at least until the "AF 2025 Final Report". For now about as scary as Hydro's smart meters.

Good point, Snert, but patience, I'm sure that adaptation and remediation will be the topics of the last couple of pieces.

We are very lucky here, as evidenced last summer (and to a lesser extent previously) across the continent. In the meantime, if I could afford it, I wouldn't buy, long term, in Richmond, Penticton, Red Deer, etc. Water, water.

New agricultural regions further north, hardly. Such can only produce along river valleys. (dams, fracking, etc.?)

The Boreal forest has leached, acidic, nutrient poor Podzols, nothing like the prairie rich, dark Chernozems that take thousands of years to develop, but only a couple of days to blow away, as during the Dust Bowl. As to permafrost...

Better to preserve what we've got than risk our future on a roll of the global casino dice.

Monckton was an invalid and now he isn't

So what ever he used obviously worked.

He has devoted an enormous amount of time and effort, at the age of over 60, to what for many people requires years of study when they are less than half Monckton’s age. Sorry, but Monckton does not a villain make. He is a professional journalist who gets up the noses of the Climateers.

Now let's contemplate a real villain who admitted changing the 1995 IPCC Report when interviewed by Jesse Ventura. The story is commented on by heroic Chris Monckton, which ought to get up your nose,Hak.
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report/

and there is the nub of it

"Monckton was an invalid and now he isn't

So what ever he used obviously worked."

work on that nick, work on that :)

Straining at gnats and passing camels

You manage to ignore the real tipping point in Climate Science. It went off the rails when Santer changed the report all on his own and claimed a "human fingerprint" on climate was found, when in fact the 5 committees whose statements he deleted had said there was no human connection.
The Climateers been passing camels ever since.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/22/madrid-1995-was-this-the-tipping-point-in-the-corruption-of-climate-science/

@Sask

An astute comment. Atmospheric H2O is indeed the major active forcing agent. But as discussed in the first 2 articles, H2O content is localized, and highly variable. In contrast, CO2 sticks around, and nudges the temperature up slightly, which in turn allows higher H2O concentrations, which nudge it higher, which allows more H2O, and so forth. It only takes a localized temp drop to reduce that H2O content back down into it's "lower" levels. CO2 is unaffected by that same temp drop. The presence of CO2 moves the "lower" H2O level up a notch, which starts the H2O feedback loop off at a higher, and faster, level.

It's not the CO2 that directly causes the predicted warming (although it does), it's the effect that the CO2 has on the lower end of the H2O content cycles.

Your comment about sunlight and land use/condition is also interesting. It too has an effect on our climate. It's also part of the climate models. It's one of the many factors that makes it so difficult to estimate or predict the exact effect things like human contributed CO2 have on the overall picture.

One interesting thing about these climate models, is that they allow us to set the "data" to a point in the past, and run the "predictions" forward to the present. Match them up with real results to see how the model does. 10 years ago they weren't very good, but they are getting much better.

Another thing they allow us to do is "tune" for various variables, like volcanoes, strong/weak ninos, land use scenarios, various chemicals, etc. For the most part these are "what if" scenarios, but when you have a relatively good model you can do the same kind of "time set" backwards and run forward with different combinations. See what "would have happened without". One of the things that jumps out of these runs, is the effects higher CO2 has/had on the long terms results.
What isn't known, in fact it has scientific term called "uncertainty" (which has a more precise and slight different meaning when used this way) is the effects human produced CO2 has in the overall picture.

"...it's far, far worse"

http://tinyurl.com/b75gyle