'Researchers show that high ancient shorelines do not necessarily reflect ice sheet collapse millions of years ago From the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research: For decades, scientists have used ancient shorelines to predict the stability of today’s largest ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica'
'Hansen also spoke of the climate sensitivity, making the bizarre claim that our understanding is based on paleoclimate rather than models and speaking of the excellence of the data in this area. This is mind-boggling, since these datasets contain so little information that they can barely constrain the climate sensitivity at all...He also tried to blame the standstill on aerosols, ignoring the fact that the IPCC's best estimate now finds that their effect is small, and he described heat going into the oceans as 'a detail' and 'a diversionary tactic.' Quite disgraceful.
'Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment. The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.'
'Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger.' -- 'Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.' -- 'We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years.'
'The sea level scare is just another money making enterprise, as evidenced by the increase in airport expansion, among other things'
Dr Darko Butina: 'What you find is a scientist who never worked in field of photosynthesis comes with this preposterous idea that tree rings = temperature, and his best mate with PhD in mathematics publishes the paper about CO2 being a 'knob of the Earth's thermostat'. So, who would you trust when it comes to CO2: 9 climate scientists who spend all their time playing silly-numbers games on their computer or 1 experimental chemist who has actually worked with CO2?'
A new review paper from SPPI and CO2 Science finds the growth rate of atmospheric methane has significantly decreased over the past 30 years, the opposite of IPCC predictions. Separately, a new paper finds, "Warming may not release Arctic carbon – Element could stay locked in soil, 20-year study suggests."
'The earth may warm at a slightly slower rate in coming decades than scientists were predicting six years ago, according to a paper published on Sunday by researchers from Oxford university, Nasa and nearly a dozen other institutions.'
Rebuttal to NYT: 'Global temperatures have not increased for 16 years and counting' -- 'Consequently, many peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published lowering the so-called 'climate sensitivity' to CO2 to a mere 0.5-1.6C per doubling of CO2, less than half of what was previously believed' -- 'Many peer-reviewed scientific papers have demonstrated that CO2 is greening the planet. One published last week noted an 11% increase in green cover over arid areas due to CO2 fertilization over the past 30 years' -- According to the NOAA 2012 sea level budget, sea levels are rising at a mere 1.1-1.3 mm/yr, less than 5 inches per century, less than the average rate of rise over the past 18,000 years. According to a paper published in the Journal of Climate by JM Gregory et al (with 14 other top international sea level experts) in Dec 2012, there is no evidence of an anthropogenic (man-made) influence on sea levels, and no evidence of any acceleration of sea level rise over the 20th century' -- 'According to a 20-year study published last week in Nature, warming of the Arctic may not release methane & CO2, carbon will remain locked in soil' -- 'The UN IPCC SREX report concluded that there is no evidence that warming is increasing extreme weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. and no evidence of a human fingerprint on such extremes. In fact, the data shows such extremes have decreased'
'To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions -- Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie...This whole story is predicated on lies, and they just seem to get bigger and bigger, there doesn’t seem to be any limit to the gullibility of those involved and those pushing it. Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.'
'What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process...New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable' -- 'The number of papers is a proxy for funding': 'As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned'
NYT's Justin Gillis writes article 'largely dedicated (although begrudgingly) to facing up to the possibility that mainstream estimates (i.e., those produced by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of climate sensitivity are too large'
Cederholm, who has campaigned together with the likes of Bill McKibben, will bless the taxpayer subsidized solar panels installed on a church Dover, MA -- 'Using solar energy decreases our use of fossil fuels, and thus our contribution to global warming,' said McKone-Sweet. 'It is a way to live our faith by caring for those who will be affected by the extreme weather global warming causes.'
Happer's key points: 400 ppm of CO2 is nothing special, 1,000 ppm of CO2 would be beneficial for the productivity of agriculture – which has already gone up a little bit, thanks to the slightly increased CO2 levels. The Earth has seen concentrations as high as 4,000 ppm or higher. It wasn't during the era of humans – but the era of humans is a tiny fraction of the Earth's history and when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm, our primate ancestors – whose physiology and climatic preferences don't really differ from ours – were already alive.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: 'Morano notes that: • CO2 is just one of hundreds of factors governing temperature and climate. • From geology's long-view perspective, current CO2 levels are remarkably low. • Peer-reviewed studies have shown that ice ages occurred when CO2 levels ranged from 2,000 ppm all the way up to 8,000 ppm; that temperatures comparable to today's prevailed even with CO2 levels 20 times higher; and that CO2 rose as high as 425 ppm nearly 13,000 years ago — when humanity couldn't possibly have influenced climate. • Ice-core data show temperatures rise hundreds or thousands of years before CO2 levels rise. • And there's considerable evidence that climate drives CO2 levels, not the other way around. That the Chicken Littles cluck so loudly over 400-ppm CO2 levels despite such damning evidence against their case reveals them for the science-twisting, anti-growth political opportunists they are. Experts at doctoring evidence to fit their preordained conclusions, they're now simply ignoring the inconvenient scientific truth about CO2.'