TH3

You are right (happy?)....you have caught up with me...I did not want to include the link because the thermometers reporting this information are apparently are not only part of a large left wing conspiracy but they are also inflating their numbers....if they weren't reporting higher and higher numbers the science community would think there is nothing to see and unplug them. Your aim on shooting the messenger is excellent!

You are right...its cold out.

January 2014 fourth warmest on record - Globally of course.

So - When a single Russian astrophysicist (not even...gasp....a climate expert ) publishes a paper calling for global cooling it is taken as proven fact....are you sure that he is not simply part of a complex conspiracy involving his quest for further funding working in concert with the carbon industrial political complex?

WTF are YOU talking about?...You guys are truly pathetic....CO2 levels go from 230 to 400 PPM which can be DIRECTLY traced to man made use of FF....global temps go up 2 degrees F parallel to the CO2 rise...I am not making the case for anectdotal evidence which kills me because this thread is full of pictures showing the arctic ice cap frozen.....PROOF! GW not happening anymore!! Ice Breaker frozen!! Its cold outside!!! Its ALL FALLING APART!!! EFF you

Not a creationist...OC what you are saying is the data and positions in the article have no merit as they are fabricated by the authors to perpetuate a mass global conspiracy of academics and politicians to amass power and money. This conspiracy is amazing - taking advantage of a correlation of a man made rise in CO2 levels with a spike in global land and sea temps. All behavior is self serving...and there probably is an element of it in GW science....as there is in negating the science behind GW as done by the Fossil Fuel Industry (no!....smoking does not cause cancer circa 1960's). That being said - I looked at the article and others...there has been a deceleration in air temps rise in the last 15 years - although 2013 was the hottest on record. While the rise in air temps have shown a decel, ocean temps continue rise at a static rate and the hold much more energy that air - so in terms of total global energy storage - that continues to rise. As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - I don't see anything falling apart. I think it is quite micro - "the pause" - to make a claim that the whole of science behind GW is "falling apart" - and as long as total global "heat" continues to rise at a predictable and historically fast rate...what exactly is falling apart? What is easily proven is the total energy storage on the planet continues to rise but precipitants of this are not easily or totally predictable. Makes sense to me.

Thought I was an "idiot" a " turd" and also a "s/;;(ty" engineer. I get what you guys are saying..... I just don't agree with it.

How is that?

134 years

2013 warmest on record...to quote Texas Ranger "someone didn't love you enough when you were a kid"

AFA "flashing credentials" (not your post - but someones): People questioned whether I actually had an engineering degree = so I responded. AFA MBA's: I felt I needed the business education to get where I wanted - so I went back to school to augment my engineering degree. I cannot answer to your personal observations. AFA various observations on "pauses" etc: http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2013/11 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). How we got these rising temps is up to discussion. Again - I don't understand whether your point is - or others on this board - the rising temperature is not actually happening or whether it is happening and man has nothing to do with it. My take is that it is happening and human/fossil fuels is the cause. I also maintain that until there is a cost effective alternative to carbon - we should keep using fossil fuels.

I am an engineer...BSME Clarkson....MBA too..although I have never been a "practicing" PE. Did not read all of it. Seriously not sure what response you are looking for...you contradict yourself so much its tough to even understand what your point is and how you got there.

Light a match

No.

Hey Vizzini....I surely cannot battle with your dazzling intellect....I guess I don't have either the IQ or the paranioa to connect the dots between a spike in global temperatures that parallel the rise in fossil fuel use and CO2 concentration that the "left" and academia have somehow collectively conspired to leverage this set of happenstances into greater and greater control of our lives. Wow...just wow.

I am not sure where and when that happened - but I if we are picking shirts and skins - I have always been on the side that humans burning fossil fuels is likely the cause recent upticks in global temperature - if that was not clear - there you go!

I am not a climate scientist but: Humans have burned everything they can cut down, dig up and suck out of the ground from day 1. This process has lead to making pretty much every humans life quantum leaps better than 100 years ago when oil was first distilled. This burning has almost doubled CO2 concentrations in out atmosphere. Double the CO2 concentration in an aquarium - put it in the sun and the temp goes up more than the norm. This correlates with what we see in our climate both on an observant basis and on an anecdotal basis. This all seems logically "proven" to me. Stop using fossil fuels = turn back the clock 100 years and reduce the human population through starvation >> not going to happen so worthless to even discuss. That is why I think Al Gore and and GW "movement" are off. Grant them that humans and CO2 are causing global warming...OK...what are the alternatives and the results?. There is no result right now that results in greater benefit to humans than continuing to use fossil fuels. The ideal solution to me - and everyone - would be cost competitive non CO2 energy. I think the Federal govt is mistaken to fund solar companies etc that build non cost competitive solutions - all it does is create angst for this technology and it makes no sense as they have no viable business model. That being said - I would be for Fed $ research and development for future energy solutions. We do this for many things - health care.... I think ultimately if you could fully develop nuclear power and add higher efficiency solar power panels (which don't exist yet) with high density energy storage (which also doesn't exist yet) - you have the energy volume access and might have a chance to saw off the cost and ease of use of fossil fuels. Until then - fossil fuels are the way to go.

Oooh - got me but good....Told you I am not an advocate of Al Gore or the movement to stop fossil fuel use....I just believe that CO2 use is warming the planet, the planet will survive just fine, rising temps will cause some problems for the human race - but those problems are far less than stopping the use of fossil fuels/CO2 with the caveat that acidification of the oceans could really really suck

So I am a "little man" and a "turd"....sheesh...name calling...really? 1. There are few independent media sources - The Weekly Standard is not one of them - in fact I am not sure who is. The guy has a point that academia is funded to a point - by people who support the researchers views. Lindzen is just another one of them - he gets his $ the same way. 2. I don't get what you guys are trying to posit - are you saying the earth is not warming? Are you saying it is warming but it is not man? Are you saying it is warming and a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?Are you saying it is not warming but nevertheless a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure? 3. A picture is not evidence of anything - you know that - 2013 was the hottest ground temp in the US - November was the hottest air temperature on Earth on record. As smart guys you should know how to draw lines on a graph and to get good information - one doesn't draw a line for the last 20 percent of the data - but rather draw a line for a trend for 100 percent of the data - kind of makes the 15 year "pause" less of a point. 4. Further - everyone knows that water holds much more energy than air - I think air is 2 percent of the climate energy and water is 98 - and both are components of climate - so one has to add water temp to the total energy contained in our climate - so add both of those components and the trend is unchanged. Everyone can read data etc...and everyone can choose to mix in politics to explain the current state of affairs. I see it as this: The earth has warmed - the data shows this and we all have seen anecdotal evidence of warming - I live in southern Erie county and did not use my snow blower once last year - this year of course is different - nevertheless - farmers can tell you that the growing season is 2-3 weeks longer than 20 years ago. The shellfish industry can measure the Ph levels and see how it is reducing the strength of the shells of their harvest - and you can directly show how the new levels of CO2 are changing the oceans acidity. Not rocket science - high school science. One can say the earth always warms and cools and choose to classify this warming as nature. One can also choose to say that this warming is particularly fast with past warming and cooling trends and research it. Well - humans have pretty much doubled the CO2 concentration in the last 100 years - you can calculate this by how much coal and oil we have used and you can measure it. And - again - a high school science project of an aquarium with differing before/after CO2 levels will show a mimic of our own atmosphere. Now one can chose to view this through a political prism - I have no answer for that

Quoting "there's no reasonable consensus on WHAT impact humans might or might not be happening. Yet now we're supposed to believe that changes that took thousands of years in the past will now take place in 10 and primarily due to humans? And we're supposed to believe this based on a tiny spec of data relative to the planet's lifecycle? That's just silly and naive. T. When your cause's #1 spokesman has been proven to be full of sh-- and the only 'solutions' being proposed by politicians are nothing but more money grabs against US taxpayers, how can you still claim it's about science or be surprised when people who aren't lemmings refuse to jump on the bandwagon? And finally, if you aren't prepared to offer a solution, than what's the point of the debate? And the only solution (assuming you believe humans are the problem), is obviously to dramatically reduce the number of humans. And if you're too PC to suggest a solution for that, then you're simply burying your head in the sand anyway" Unquote 1. There IS reasonable consensus - at least from what I see there is. 2. Well - the change in temperature IS the notable aspect - temperature changes that have taken 1000's of years now are occurring in 100...why is that? 3. I don't have a cause - I am just an observer - Al Gore is not my guy - nor is the GW "industry". In no way am I suggesting that human kind change its ways...it can't - I don't believe that temp changes are the end of the earth's goodness...after all temp change has been part of earth since year one. I think humans have the most to lose as the temp changes...but that's the way it goes. I DO think that if the effects of carbon acidification in the oceans continue (as they are now seeing in the shellfish industry) - that is going to be a real bummer. 4. I don't propose reducing the human population - please don't put words in my mouth. 5. I also can't stand ridiculous stances on GM foods - after all - they have been genetically modified for eons - how are we to feed everyone adequately? You are not going to do it with free range chickens and maize. My "solution"? Nobody wants to hear anyone else's "solution"....as I said before - humans are just animals with a decision making time horizon of the next 3-5 years really - let alone a lifetime or our kids lifetimes. After all we don't seem to have any qualms spending our kids money (and that's on both parties). Sooner or later it will become more evident that we are sick of paying people to rebuild their homes on the ocean front....sooner or later the climate will move planting zones northward....but none of this will happen so quickly or saliently that humankind will find it necessary or a worth it to stop using fossil fuels - unless something else is cheaper and easier to use.

The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way

Whelp, I think we are just another animal living on this planet....and animals have proven to have a planning horizon only as far as their lifetimes. We have 7 billion people on this planet that depend on fossil fuels to survive...to end man made additions of CO 2 to the atmosphere you would have to accept the aspect that this would entail reducing the human population significantly...this would not happen....so - as I said we are in for a great experiment....Climate has changed tremendously and very recently and creatures have evolved to the new conditions...the animal with the most to lose is probably us....clearly if sea levels rise those living close to the oceans are gonna fight and ulitmately move inland....the great breadbasket of our central plains is going to move northward...ski areas are going to go bust...Phoenix might just become too friggin hot to live....things like that....adapt and move on. As I look at it though...I really think the real bummer is the acidificationof the oceans....the lakes in the Adirondack Park went dead...as in NO fish in the 70-80's from acid rain produced by the coal plants west of their location...as a frequent visitor to their one could really see the damage...Losing the oceans on such a scale would be genuinely disasterous....you can already see the this effect on the Pacific Northwest shell industry...

As far as spelling, I use an Ipad which stinks and I don't have my eyeglasses...shoot the messenger huh? As far as credibility, I have none as I am not a climate scientist...are any of you? if 97 percent of them agree on something and their premise seems plausible...I am going with the 97. The majority here seem to think that their basic premise is wrong. As far as saving polar bears...I made no such claims that we are ruining the planet. Earth has undergone vast and recent temp fluctuations as recently as 15000 years ago where I sit here was under a mile of ice. The earth will survive just fine. I do however think two things about global warming are going to be a bummer. The first is the acidification of the oceans as they absorb CO2...I actually think that might be the biggest aspect no one really talks about. The second factor is this...human population is optimized for the current climate conditions...where we plant food, where we live...etc....as the climate changes this will change and reoptimization is going to be expensive and not unpainful. We have already begun to see the start of this. At the end of the day, this century or whenever...I don't believe there is a thing we can do to change this great experiment...the entire state of humanity is built on fossil fuels...eliminate them and drop your population by 90 percent...at least....

Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you? The thing about the truth is.....it is always true.

So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change? The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning.