That warning was long overdue. Gentlemen dragging on the futile discourse have gained nothing; they have only lost respect, if they had any.

Mirza Arshad Ali Beg 

Kenneth. Do remind us who is old and who is in denial?

Very kind of you to show yourself as the example of a true denialist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Kenneth,

You are the one in denial! Don't you know the cost of not taking action against climate change?

Kenneth. Just repeating your denial. How many years have you been going on without any change?

---------

By Skeptical Science Graphics by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Climate still and will continue to change .

Yesterday North Korea wanted to try weapons and also wE in middle East and in other African countries and all emission from industries.

So no need to make conference about climate if the developed countries doesn't eAt to stop these war and to reduce their non friendly industries.

Regards

Totally agree with Henrik. We should care and look after our planet otherwise what's happened, everybody knows. We all know it is very difficult but we should try as the people of the World including the Govt.s of all countries..

Kenneth,

There is no need to reduce global temperatures below the 1 degree Celsius rise that exists at present. What we have to do is prevent temperatures rising to 4 or 6 degrees above preindustrial levels, which is what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuels as if there was no tomorrow.

Kenneth, denying denial is your speciality.

Perhaps you should make your own counter demonstration 22/4. One man with a "No"-sign.

https://www.marchforscience.com/event-details/

Data without reference that you created by yourself by adding text to newsclips?

The real data you deny looks like this. There is plenty of it so just go on.

It is your own homecooked number based on your unpublished theory that we could bury all that CO2 and pure fantasy that somebody is working on doing that. The 100 billion is a number you have dreamed up so you cannot give a source for that there is a goal to remove this amount.

The graph is showing temperature differences with time. It has nothing to do with average temperatures of the globe so it doesn't show it. If you have a need for that go find it yourself. Perhaps you can find a newspaper clip with a sourceless number.

Noam Chomsky explains here why we should all go on the march for Science, but most importantly Americans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY

These thousands of uninformed marchers are all wrong and only you know better. So sad you cannot write peer reviewed papers to explain all the errors in mainstream climate science. 

Both clips are sourceless. Both also don't say that you claim. It seems that you have again been adding your own text pieces into the clips. One reason that sources is required is to prevent such  manipulation.

Youtube is like paper. It can contain source information or not. The one provided by Alastair is obviously better than your homemade texts.

You chose the unscientific practice not to refer to the source so I could not read that you did not write. I am sure back then you were working as a scientist you knew how a reference to a paper needs to be formated.

Back in 1976 I went to Kindergarten and the thermometer that could measure the average temperature of the world was not among the available equipment. If you have lost your own data from this year it is just another example of poor scientific practice. You should always copy your data and keep the backup in a safe place.

What will the march for science do?

https://youtu.be/7OUxuG-AoK8

https://youtu.be/T3DX03RgbRo

why not?

It seems only you are interested in 1976. Talk to yourself about it.

You have not shown a reference that shows we are planning to remove this CO2. It is not the result but the calculation that is wrong.

Scientists Planning March On Washington To Combat Anti-Science Administration

https://youtu.be/oOfXecXKZSI

Kenneth scrolls up to see the question subject isn't temperatures but science denial in general and climate science denial in USA in particular. You are on subject in this and so am then I say you can bring all your old paper clips and homemade numbers with you to the nursing home.

Science is not politics...but climate science seems to be rapidly morphing into political science. In my opinion, this march is an example of group think at its best... If people march in the U.S because their research funding is under threat, how does that concern the rest of the World? Why not study the issue of climate change in our individual regions to find out what ought to be done rather than spend valuable time in the street promoting chaos?

If there should be any global march, it should be for legitimate concerns:

People should march against the destruction of lives in other countries (Syria etc) by occupation forces over lies and propaganda!

People should march to prevent their governments from starting WW3 and stop promoting terrorism around the World!

People should march to prevent the destruction of forests, the environment and community livelihoods by multinational companies etc.

Kenneth, you have not shown a reference that shows we are planning to remove this "100 BILLION metric tons of CO2". The Hansen paper doesn't say it and neither does the Paris agreement. It is not the "100 BILLION metric tons of CO2" but calculating it which is wrong.

Anthony, The march is not to protest on lack of funding for science. The subject is lack on science based decision making by politicians. This leads to that government allow destruction of forests, the environment and community livelihoods etc.

I agree there is a troubling trend in USA to remove funding for science that disagrees with the government. Germany tried a similar policy in the 1930'es.

The reason remains the same - you have not shown a reference that shows we are planning to remove this "100 BILLION metric tons of CO2". The Hansen paper doesn't say it and neither does the Paris agreement.

The reference to Hansen et al you refuse to give seems to be: The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2(1). May 2008. DOI: 10.2174/1874282300802010217.

This fine paper is quoted more times than any paper you have produced. It clearly doesn't describe removal of 100 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere by carbon capture technologies. It is about reduced emissions. I  particular think this is illustrated by this statement: "There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, ..."

Regarding the 8 billion people it is not a problem to go from 7 to 8 billion if all would choose to generate energy by low emission technologies.

Article Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim?

Since James Hansen is the diversion subject there are two new video with him about climate change and the solution to it and they even mention the Danish progress on emission free energy generation.

https://youtu.be/Nc0QiP4D5IA

https://youtu.be/sLg7gDU_xXk

M. Hesam Shahrajabian,

Although CO2 may have a significant role in the climate system, using atmospheric CO2 to drive climate prediction models is illogical, given the numerous other causal agents and many complex feedback loops inherent of the climate system.

The most difficult task in understanding the workings of the climate system is to get the positive and negative feedback mechanisms right. If not, there is no point talking about prediction.

See the connection between aerosols and climate by Dr. Jim Haywood of UK Met Office (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq9Fa7AqGGQ )

You could use any linearly increasing quantity such as global terrorism cases or global cancer cases around the world, to drive the model and still arrive at the conclusion that the increase in acts of terrorism or cancer increases temperature and then project this linear trend into the future.

Therefore, the only way climate research can advance and produce reliable long term projections is to focus at the regional level, not based on global GC models, and using real data sets, taking into consideration the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms, not forgetting changes in solar irradiance, the energy source that drives the entire climate machine.

CO2 is just one of the positive feedback mechanisms which is also emitted naturally from the ocean to a very significant extent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

We all seem to be diverting from the original question.

Is science under threat because of the happenings in the U.S.? My answer is no. Science is under threat from the corruption of money (funding) and political meddling. Today, in the most critical scientific questions, he who provides the funds sets the agenda and scientists labour to provide results that fit that agenda and the media propagates these results world-wide and a new religion is born. Most researchers will follow the new popular trend until it becomes outdated and then a new one emerges and the vicious cycle continues. In the U.S., the are two major political parties; one supports AGW hypothesis (Democrats) and the other does not (Republicans). How is is possible that senators from both parties an their respective constituents (in general)  should hold such diverse opinions on the climate issue turning it into a polarized political debacle?  Obama undoes Bush's position on climate change; Trump demolishes 'position' on the issue etc. These same politicians are answerable to whomever or which ever corporations funded their political campaigns... Same scenario is observed in mainstream media. Fox is pro Republican and anti-AGW; CNN is Pro-Democrat and pro AGW. Based on their various agenda, they tell their masses of listeners what to think and not how to address the issues logically and critically. Universities are caught in between and in the confusion, the only place where one should expect sanity and where there is an actual scientific method ought to be pursued, is becoming more and more politicized. Critical thinking is becoming a thing of the past as it conflicts with objective of research financiers...

That, to me, is the biggest threat to science, coupled with the desire to conform with the popular position of the time.

My stance is, we know very little of what is going on in this unholy alliance between agenda-based funding, political games, the media and science. Moreover, we know even less about the climate system to claim that it can easily be predicted...

Kenneth. Your source lacks the removal of wast amounts of CO2 by technical methods at extreme costs. It is your own dream which you have mentioned hundreds of times on RG. If you cannot prove any realism in it quit talking about it.

The March in Copenhagen.

http://www.marchforscience.dk/copenhagen/

Costs I: It is free to march.

Costs II: The cost of this non-existing technology you claim you have concluded exist based on James Hansens paper is nothing. "There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now..." (Hansen et al. 2008, The Open Atm. Sci J. 2(1).)

Costs III: The cost of changing to low-emission energy generation is bearable if it is spread out over a few decades. This seems to be Hansens position too. Perhaps you should check a fresh newspaper to see that the world selected to do. 

https://youtu.be/sLg7gDU_xXk

It confirms my quote from Hansen et al., 2008. The large scale negative emission technologies still doesn't exist. Therefor you can leave the issue of cost until a realistic method is developed.

Kenneth illustrates well science denial. Still the subject is the march. 

Sirs,

please resorting to name-calling and trying to belittle a fellow researcher is exactly what science should not be about. That said, I wish we could stop considering what Hansen and other great researchers have done, as well as the IPCC,as ultimate truth. What research have we done or are we doing on the subject personally? We can all disagree on alot of things and healthy skepticism is what drives scientific progress. In contrast, unanimous conformity or consensus on a scientific subject as complex as the climate system will destroy the very foundation of what science is all about. About this march, is it represented by a scientists irrespective of their positions on the climate question? If yes, we all, especially those of us students who are for scientific integrity and not taking any sides, should be at the forefront. BUT, if just one perspective (that of human-induced catastropic warming) is represented, then my critical mind tells me that probably, a party line is being advanced. In that case, science is not at risk; what is at risk could be an ideology or an agenda...

Anthony. This is a typical behaviour from Kenneth whenever he is in a corner. It has happened many times before. He cannot produce data or reference for his claims or the claims leads to unexplainable contradictions. Then there is just age old solutions which in Socrates words is: "When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser".

The subject of the march is not that we should all agree, but that scientific evidence should be respected: Data and citations over belief. 

What next Kenneth! Perhaps you and the five other denialist show up and march the opposite direction. 

What next real scientists! The march is today so real scientist around the world are busy preparing signs and banners. In Australia and New Zealand the march already started. Looks like nice weather :-)

Live coverage from the marches by Nature.

http://www.nature.com/news/gearing-up-for-the-march-for-science-1.21853?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews

Marches in Europe start now!

What next Kenneth! Perhaps you march backwards and explain everybody at the march how they have been brainwashed.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/356971-what-are-the-health-benefits-of-walking-backwards/

http://www.healthline.com/health/fitness-exercise/walking-backwards

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/12/14/walking-backward.aspx

March through Kampala. Looks the sun is there too :·)

Kampala March is hilarious... they can't even muster their energy to maintain their roads but they are happily swimming across puddles with the intention to save science... Mind control at its best

Poor people with an opinion. Seems suspect.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm

We are facing a strong heat stroke in Karachi, Pakistan for the last two years. Temperature remain within the range of 40-45 oC but no one is able to tolerate the sharp heat stroke. The temperature increase is 0.8 oC during last 200 years but the climate change is too high and upexpectable. What do you think about it?

Good to see so many people enjoying themselves in support of science. I though, am busy seeking for answers. I will continue to pursue scientific integrity and openness of mind to hopefully make a little contribution to this challenging question of climate change.

To go back to the original question, I think it needs to be clarified: the march is organized and run by those who believe the climate is changing and human Co2 emissions are largely to blame. And, if nothing is done to reduce CO2, catastrophic temperature rise of +2oC is imminent with very tragic consequences. If Co2 emissions are reduced to pre-industrial levels, this catastrophe could be averted and the temperature would be 'stabilized'.

I think it is a legitimate position and march,

But this position is not representative of science. It is not even endorsed by a good majority of climate scientists and atmospheric physicists who believe that the climate is changing but CO2 is not the dominant culprit; the proponents of this position are derogatorily styled climate or science deniers.

Real scientists celebrate skepticism and work together to settle differences amicably and honorably. This is what is needed in climate science, not a one-sided march, styled 'the march for science'. What we need in order to advance is: healthy debates in auditoriums and lecture halls in forums like this. It is a shame that we can't even predict what the climate will look like a year into the future; we are still unable to figure out what causes El Nino/La Nina and decadal-multi-decadal modes of climate variability. But we are stuck on one variable (CO2) among a multitude of other variables that could potentially influence temperature and climate on Earth to an equal or even a greater degree. 

Henrik,

Maybe you, Kenneth and other scientists on this forum could look at my ongoing project on the phase relation between solar irradiance and sea surface temperature. I am linking an update here in which I have also looked at the phase relationship between TSI and NOAA Nino Index 3.4. Based on my results, I think I have found a simple way to predict temperature as well as ENSO. This study seems to challenge the notion that the sun-climate link is very weak. Please review and comment. This is an ongoing project and all suggestions are welcome.

We could start work together constructively as scientists do, and not just relegate ourselves to our little comfort zones. At the end, we could agree or disagree.. and maybe accept a new finding or cling to our previous positions. That is honourably... and that is how science works.

Thanks

https://www.researchgate.net/project/New-Perspectives-on-the-sun-ocean-climate-connection-and-long-term-climatic-predictions-in-the-East-Asian-Monsoon-Region

Dr Shahrajabian and Dr Khan. The average temperature in 2016 had increased 1.1 °C since the late 19th century according to NOAA(source in link). The 0.8 °C is an old number that was in the newspapers Kenneth read some years ago.

However, this is just an average and extremes have developed much more as you experience in your high summer temperatures. Similarly, Greenland and the Kara Sea experienced 5-10 °C higher temperatures this summer which caused most of the sea ice to disappear in the Kara Sea.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

Shahrajabian and Abdul,

Take a good look at the graph below from my ongoing project. You are both right it is getting warmer. But it will get even warmer in the coming years. The cause however seems to be the increasing intensity of the 11-year solar cycle. The amplitude of each cycle has about doubled since 1958 with the exception of cycle of 1965-1976, although the general trend of TSI has flattened. This weak cycle, coupled with the intensifying minima resulted in the so called warming pause. This result could only be achieved after I calculated the maximum phase lag of solar irradiance and SST and found it to be 40-43 years.

Based on this, I have made some climate predictions up to about 30 years into the future. Check out my project in the previous comment.

Anthony, I am a chemist so I am not sure I understand your graph. It seems you predict that 2014-2016 should have be colder than 2013, but 2015 and 2016 were very hot years. Could that be because these years vere El Nino years or is El Nino part of the cycles you analyse?

Again I am not sure I understand the graph, but the years 2018-2024 you predict will be even hotter due to the sun. That's very troubling.

Kenneth, once again. There was no hiatus starting in 1998. The temperature increase steadily.

As we have discussed this many times before I know you are unable to show any proof there was less arctic sea ice in the 1920'es than now. Check the sign :-o

"Thousands Join 'March for Science' in Chicago

Authorities estimated that more than 40,000 people were in attendance, exceeding organizers' expectations for the rally, which coincided with Earth Day and was one of more than 500 planned worldwide."

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/march-for-science-chicago-420155254.html

Henrik,

As you can see, the hiatus was very real. Karl et al. 2015 just tweaked their reconstructed data to show the contrary because according to their method of science, when the observations don't correspond with model results, the observations must be wrong, not the model. Numerous distinguished researchers have studied the hiatus globally and regionally, and about 60 possible mechanisms have been suggested. From my graph, you kind of have the explanation needed.

With regards to 2015-2016 being the hottest years, I think that is just not accurate. An indication of strong warming is the number of forest fires and heat strokes globally. How many can you count during this period?

To be fair, 2016 marks the beginning of the new strong SI  cycle, and the end of the recent hiatus. This was marked by the strong El Nino whose warming effects linger on.

Henrik, watch the graph: from the 1950s to 1977, there was a cooling and the world freaked out over predictions of a coming ice age. As you can see, this cooling was driven by two very weak solar irradiance cycles from about 1910-1933.

Therefore, when it is a deep cooling cycle, there is euphoria over a coming ice age and when it is intense warming, there is an out-cry over impending doom from heat.

Watch what  the story will be when the expected warming from 2017-2024 sets in.

My results can only be understood if you have a prior understanding that in the climate system, on continental surfaces, solar radiation is absorbed by the soil; in the ocean, it is absorbed in the first few metres below the surface.

Therefore, while the ocean and land are heated from the top, Sensible Heat is  transmitted to the troposphere from below, especially via convective (evaporative) transfer. Therefore, the atmosphere is largely heated from below, predominantly from the ocean surface which stores vast amounts of heat.

But due to the ocean's thermal inertia, it takes quite a while for ocean temperature to change as it is heated by the sun. This is what causes the extensive phase lag between solar irradiance and ocean surface temperature. In the South China Sea,  the maximum lag is found to be about 41 years.

Article A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect

El Nino (represented by major peaks in the figure ATTACHED) seems to occur twice: at the Onset of the positive phase of each 11-year solar irradiance (SI) cycle and at the End of the same cycle. The intensity of El Nino seems to be directly proportional to the amplitude (peak) of the SI cycle. In contrast, La Nina (represented by troughs in the figures below) generally coincide with the negative phase of the 11-year SI cycle.

Dr. Shahrajabian and Abdul,

Please reach out to you governments and let them know they ought to be preparing for more intense warming in the coming years. El Ninos and La Ninas stronger than anything we've seen so far will occur in the coming 3 decades.

see attached figure

There is a rich body of literature examining natural population fluctuations on a temporal scale and the anthropogenic impact. Worth taking a look at: 1) Roemmich, D, McGowan J. 1995. Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California Current. Science. 267:1324-1326. 10.1126/science.267.5202.1324 Abstract 2) Baumgartner, T.R., Soutar, A. & Ferreira-Bartrina, V., 1992: Reconstruction of the history of the Pacific sardine and northern anchovy populations over the past two millennia from sediments of the Santa Barbara basin, California. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries (CalCOFI) Investigations Report33, 24–40. http://www.calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v33/Vol_33_Baumgartner_etal.pdf.[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

3)http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030110/full/news030106-13.html

4) Chavez, F. P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E. & �'iquen, M. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, 299, 217 - 221, (2003). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |

5)http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/11035897.2013.773066?scroll=top

     I am not an expert in many of these issues. I do not have either enough scientific bases to write now about the environment, political science or sociology of science. 

     Perhaps the best two political issues that we should accept –not as scientists this time but as human beings- are in the first core principle of the march of science:

             1.“Science that serves the common good. (…).

              2. We must protect the rights of every person to engage with, learn from, and help shape science, free from manipulation by special interests”,

      ...see https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision/ 

     We should improve the legislation to stimulate and protect all human scientific activities –not just the activities of scientists- to make them serve the common good of all the known living beings.

     This could be a first, practical, step. 

     These might be the more important principles of an international ethics for a global science...if we involve more political issues, they can divided us.

     Nations, organizations or individuals that embrace these principles should have our support… 

     They can be the proposal of those who were active in the march for science, to the rest of people and researchers that did not participate in it.  

     We need principles beyond any particular interest of us, as “full-time” researchers.

Please write us your opinion in: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_march_for_science_political_Should_we_participate

Kenneth [Citation needed]

"Sea ice disappeared in the 1920s Henrik"  

No proof!, [Citation needed].

. 

"the "hiatus" that has taken place for over 20 years"

Data shows temperatures keep on increasing! Show some data that doesn't leave out the last years. For your information it is 2017 now.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/CUSTOM_GRAPHS/dda6a7d6-5f37-42e5-9f35-25f6ba98f97e/graph.png

Once again. There are no proof in your newspapers. The wind pushes the ice along the Canadian coast or coast of East Greenland, but it is there just the same.

The graph looks that you constructed it yourself in excel. It is very unlikely you could get it past any peer review. A clue to that it is a homemade quack figure is that it is extremely unlikely that the global temperature has been above 57 °C for more than 40 years without anybody noticing it as this is hotter than humans can survive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing#Homebrewing_kits

Changing the unit doesn't change that the graph is proven to be a fabrication. Obviously NASA are aware there is a difference between °C and °F and reviewers would have picked up any blunder like than. You labeled the graph as "NASA/GISS, NOAA" but they have ceased to calculate world averages temperatures and changed to making world temperature anomalies. Therefor I suspect you created the numbers yourself. So, if this isn't readings from the thermometer in the window of a Washington nursing home give a reference to the exact source of the data or we all know it is a falsification.

The new-old clippings from newspapers still lacks the name of the newspaper they were printed in, data of publication and page number(s). As you are aware the descriptions of the ice situation in the new-old clippings are similar to that has been common in the arctic the last decades. 

The paperclips describes that has been seen for decades in arctic seas. Thus nothing similar to the loss of sea ice seen the last few years.

If you add the NOAA anomalies to estimates of global temperatures from a year in the past it should add up. From 1997 to 2016 NOAA has the difference at +0.41 °C (0.93°C - 0.52°C) and NASA +0.50 °C (1.20°C - 0.70 °C). Your excel show a lower temperature in 2016 than 1997. My source is in the links below that contains the numbers for each year. Exactly that data did you use?

NASA:

1997,0.70

1998,0.86

1999,0.64

2000,0.64

2001,0.77

2002,0.85

2003,0.84

2004,0.76

2005,0.91

2006,0.85

2007,0.88

2008,0.76

2009,0.87

2010,0.94

2011,0.82

2012,0.85

2013,0.87

2014,0.96

2015,1.08

2016,1.20

NOAA:

1997 0.52°C 

1998 0.63°C 

1999 0.44°C 

2000 0.43°C 

2001 0.55°C 

2002 0.60°C 

2003 0.61°C 

2004 0.58°C 

2005 0.66°C 

2006 0.61°C 

2007 0.61°C 

2008 0.54°C 

2009 0.63°C 

2010 0.70°C 

2011 0.58°C 

2012 0.62°C 

2013 0.66°C 

2014 0.74°C 

2015 0.90°C 

2016 0.93°C 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1997-2016?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1998&lasttrendyear=2017

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/customize.html

Your own link explain very well the reason to use temperature anomalies rather than a global average temperature.

It is silly that I calculate this for you but using NOAA anomalies 1998 0.63 °C and 2016 0.93 °C the increase is 0.30 °C so the estimate you get 15+0.3 °C = 15.3 °C. It is silly and useless because the difference of  0.30 °C is very precise and reproducible while the 15 °C it is added to is imprecise and depends on how one select to weight different weather stations influence on the average and comparing year to year suffers from measurement stations are moved or added all the time. So the temperature in 2016 could just as well be 14 or 17 °C, but we know it is 0.3 °C higher than 1998 disagreeing with that your excel figure show.

Agrees well with that I said. Between 14 and 17 °C. Because the global average is difficult to calculate without millions more weather stations and we will not build these because the global average temperature has no scientific interest.

Again 3 clippings without proper references.