kim, the trade in proper guano was quite lucrative too, scraping crap for sale to the highest bidder.

Now that everyone from that race baiter in the white house and every other world leader to all the economic and business experts who said the universe would collapse in on itself if we voted Brexit have been proved to have absolutely no credibility what so ever, how do you think the plebs will react next time some UN moonbat says we have to tax you more to save the planet from catastrophic man made global warming?

JAKARTA—
Rising temperatures caused by climate change may cost the world economy over $2 trillion in lost productivity by 2030 as hot weather makes it unbearable to work in some parts of the world, according to U.N. research published Tuesday.

Voice of America

http://www.voanews.com/content/global-warming-cost-two-trillion-dollars-lost-productivity/3424781.html

Kim,

You mean 'complicit'

HTH.

GC,

You posted that Jim Hansen predicted that Manhattan would be underwater by now, and that Inconvenient Truth was withdrawn from UK schools.

Both untrue. Your tasteless equating of environmentalists with Nazi apologists might carry more weight if you acknowledged your own factual errors. Heck, in a parallel universe you might even apologise for repeating denier lies without exercising due diligence. You could even describe yourself as a 'sceptic' with a straight face.

Regards,

PC.

Phil Clarke, as Climate Science has over cooked the science, and the Climate does not seem to take a blind bit of notice, could you correct Mann and his hockey stick?

Perhaps you prefer Hansen and his Death Train analogy? Or that coal fired power stations are factories of death? What about your own use of the word 'Denier'?

When it comes to two faced double standards of hypocrisy, you really are bleeding the Green Blob dry.

Perhaps you would like to list the corrections required, along with the necessary balancing documentation for Gore's work of scaremongering to be shown in schools? Do remember it was supposed to be educational, not propaganda. It was propaganda, and misleading.

As you demonstrate no scepticsm at all about claims made by the Green Blob, why do you think I should pay any attention to your attempts to Dictate? The Green Blob's ability to Dictate UK Energy Policy is now in decline at last. Whether the US follows in quick succession is still unclear. Other EU Countries are now having serious doubts as the claims fail to materialise, and Energy shortages loom

It is sad that other genuine scientific research may be caught up in Brexit, but austerity in Climate Science is overdue, along with Green Blob self interest groups.

Of course Al Gore doesn't care, he has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of his inconvenient untruths.

If Climate Science had come up with some evidence to match the hype, I would not be posting on Climate Science at all.

Whatever happened to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory which was launched with great fanfare and as going to confirm that mankind was responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions? As I recall the first results published were embarrasing for the cause in that they demonstrated that emissions from tropical rain forest and warm ocean waters were more pronounced than those from industrialised areas.

Have any more results been published? Does anybody have a link to the results/

Glebekinvara, I think the first one is monitoring the Pacific Ocean's CO2 emissions from the bottom up. The second one went belly up, and the whole project went a bit t!ts up.

Whether NASA have kept a record of the carbon footprint of these attempts to monitoe carbon emissions is unclear.

Glebekinvara

The project has a data sharing page here:

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/datareleases/First_CO2_data_from_OCO-2

Where did you get the idea that manmade CO2 emissions should be larger than natural ones? The problem is that manmade emissions push the natural system of sources and sinks out of equilibrium. By only a few %, annually but given CO2's long residence time enough to give a net forcing.

Phil Clarke

Thank you for the link. I'm slightly perplexed that the info released to date only covers "Averaged CO2 concentrations from OCO-2 for the period November 21-December 29, 2014." Why only a period of a little over 5 weeks that is now over 18 months old? Does anyone know?

Also, while it seems to be disarmingly honest, the comment on the website that: " Elevated CO2 concentrations are evident over the region of biomass burning in central Africa, and over land masses in the northern latitudes, where the plant life has become dormant in autumn and has ceased to absorb CO2. The limits on OCO-2 observations at high latitudes to the north and south are imposed by the required Sun angle for data acquisition" suggests serious limitations which, while not making the exercise pointless, do significantly reduce its utility in my view.

Phil Clarke, as Climate Science has over cooked the science, and the Climate does not seem to take a blind bit of notice, could you correct Mann and his hockey stick?

My interest in a study from 17 years ago is limited. When I want a modern paleoreconstruction I turn to PAGES 2K.

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years

Perhaps you prefer Hansen and his Death Train analogy? Or that coal fired power stations are factories of death? What about your own use of the word 'Denier'?

I agree with much of Hansen's scientific conclusions, I wouldn't always endorse his use of language, any more that I would expect you to defend Chris Monckton wide-eyed accusations of genocide.

denier
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪə/

NOUN

A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:

Oxford Dictionary.

Perhaps you would like to list the corrections required, along with the necessary balancing documentation for Gore's work of scaremongering to be shown in schools? Do remember it was supposed to be educational, not propaganda. It was propaganda, and misleading.

It was by way of a polemic, making a case. The nine points that the Judge deemed should be called out as departures from the mainstream are listed on the wiki page for the case, along with responses from Gore's team. As a Gore spokesman observed..

Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up

As for balance, Monckton attempted to get the movie 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' also sent to schools, I don't think he got very far. That movie, of course, contains rather more than 9 errors.

As you demonstrate no scepticsm at all about claims made by the Green Blob, why do you think I should pay any attention to your attempts to Dictate?

A suggestion that you correct errors is 'dictating'? What a delicate flower. If you can find anything I've posted that is in error, I'd be only too pleased to correct and retract.

Of course Al Gore doesn't care, he has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of his inconvenient untruths.

Gore donated the prize money from the Nobel Peace Prize (I reproduce the citation below for your enjoyment), and all the profits from his Oscar-winning film and books to an educational charity. His wealth is his own concern, however I would expect that his board membership at Apple and his large holdings in Google render any profits from his climate-related activism fairly unimportant in the scheme of things.

If Climate Science had come up with some evidence to match the hype, I would not be posting on Climate Science at all.

I really don't think a lack of evidence is your problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

Phil

I always respect your diligence and sincerity, even though I disagree with you profoundly over the main issues we discuss on this website. But two quotes from your last contribution don't do much for your argument or your credibility:

1. "during the period 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years".

Wow! In NEARLY (how nearly?) 1,400 years? Even assuming that statement is correct (a big if), 1,400 years is the blink of an eye in the life of a planet which is 4.5 billion years old. And yet, on the basis of that, we are expected to spend trillions on destroying our industry, further impoverishing our poor, and relying on unreliable energy production.

2. "Al Gore['s] wealth is his own concern, however I would expect that his board membership at Apple and his large holdings in Google render any profits from his climate-related activism fairly unimportant in the scheme of things."

I suggest you google "Al Gore carbon trading" and I think you'll find you're wrong about that.

Heh, Phil, no, I meant 'implicated'.

Sure, bring up Hansen. It is the fallout from his magnificent obsession and extraordinary delusion with which you are dealing. In 1988 he even blamed the heat wave in Washington on 'global warming' claiming then that models had regional skill, something they still lack. We know the windows were left open to the Congressional hearing room so that the participants would sweat, and yes, we saw him sweat. He may yet end up a sympathetic fella, for he has been more fooled than fooler. Even you, you poor fool, could use a little sympathy. There are so many like you.

The only thing he's been right about is the need for nuclear power, and he comes at that belief backwards, from an unnecessary fear of carbon dioxide.

You are naive, and bright, though well propagandized. Try some research of your own.
================

Also, Phil, your natural system of 'sinks and sinks' are rapidly re-acquiring equilibrium, see coccolithophores. Increased atmospheric CO2 recruits previously underused sinks, and that is what is happening. So your fears of a long term effect from anthropogenic CO2 are unfounded, except, of course, in the propaganda course to which you are devoted.

Bear in mind, too, that our anthropogenic aliquot of atmospheric CO2 has been a huge boon to the biosphere, presently feeding an extra billion people from the fertilization. The warming, too, will be mild and beneficial, extending the growing season and locales. These together with the massive social benefit from the past use of fossil fuels combine to make the 'social cost of carbon' a negative. Fossil fuels have been, are, and will continue to be of immense benefit to human society, to the whole biome, and by Gaia, to the Earth itself. It's high time some of that nearly permanently sequestered carbon makes it back into the cycle, and starts being increasingly useful to chlorophyll. We'll miss the increased CO2 when it is gone, and miss it desperately. We'll have to artificially increase atmospheric CO2.

Research the carbon cycle. This present imbalance is minor, and the resulting rise in atmospheric CO2 is so far giving us a rise in temperature that is undifferentiable from natural temperature rise, read either undetectable or unattributable.. Relax, and thank the coccolithophores. The rest of the plant kingdom regards them as being selfish, so they could use a little appreciation.
==================

Carbon falling, literally, out of the cycle, is unsustainable. Embrace renewable carbon.
==========

The energy in the catastrophism is unnecessary fear and misplaced guilt. These have been used since ancient times by shamen invoking the weather gods. The points above merely relieve the fear and guilt so ignorantly invoked.

You would have made a great prehistorical shaman, Phil. A little more smoke, and intoxicating rhetoric might add dimensions to your schtick.
==================

Radical Rodent, I believe the peculiarity you note in the carbon dioxide curves to be related to the recruitment of underutilized sinks, possibly the recruitment of new ones, too.
=======

Heh, to slightly modify a recent slogan, 'lock her up', we might add for Gore 'lock him up'. He, however, is already locked up in his own delusions, as seems Phil. Pity seems more appropriate to me than incarceration. It might be a more effective remedy for the illness.
============

Kim Coccolthophores have beem much greedier in the past. During the Upper Cretaceous they invaded shallow shelves in addition to the deep ocean. Their remains formed chalks that spread the full length of North America, across Europe from Ireland to the Caucasus (I have collected fossil sea urchins from white soft chalks in the Crimea identical to those I collected as a boy from the North Downs) and over much of Australia. This period of time was marked by high CO2, high temperatures and sea levels. Since then the Earth has more or less irregularly cooled and the coccolithophores drastically declined (except in Australia).
The proliferation of the coccolithophores must also have recorded high nutrient levels, which I don't believe occur today. So we may be safe from the curse of the E. Huxleyi.

Yes, St, the sun and the biome conspire to almost irreversibly sequester carbon in the earth's crust in the form of carbonates and hydrocarbons. We are releasing the easy carbon, and it's about time.
================

Kim. You give us too much credit. Our use of concentrated hydocarbons is the tiniest fraction of the various forms of stored carbon in sedimentary rocks. The biome conspires indeed to sequester vast quantities of CO2 within the Earth, much more than we can ever use. We also temporarily remove the deadly pollutant whenever we create quicklime and cement.

Supertroll 6:23, so rather than burials or cremations, should we all be encased in concrete? (preferably after death)

golfCharlie. You can if you want. I intend to be consumed by hot flames as soon as possible in order to add my carbon dioxide fertilizer to the atmosphere with the hope that at least a few molecules will be sequestered in giant sequoia trees. Much though will go into those damn coccolithophorids.