The IPCC has not measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter, especially ocean algae plant matter proliferated by unprecedented sewage nutrient overload pollution dumped daily.

More than 50 percent of world oxygen come from the oceans.
And I think there is more plant matter is oceans than there is plant matter on land.
So why has algae plant matter not been assessed by AGW-Kyoto-IPCC and CSIRO science?

Prime Minister Abbott is going nowhere with warming science until he and his government engage in real science, complete science.

Well, if the IPCC is backing away from placing us all under the authoritarian control of global agencies (in the guise of mitigation) , an awful lot of awful Greenies are going to be awfully dissatisfied.They were counting on AGW to give them an excuse to implement world govt and the redistribution of resources and population.

They will just have try a different poison arrow --but don't worry, the Greenies have plenty of poison arrows in their quiver.

That some believe the benefits of reducing emissions aren’t worth the costs of doing so, and that we should simply adapt, is not the IPCC message. To mischievously construe this as the message places a huge discount on anything the author of this article has to say, IMO.

Lilico's statement "Our first step in adapting to climate change should be to accept that we aren't going to mitigate it." is fatalistic and does not draw a line in the sand or set any goal on warming. Unlike dumb animals, we humans fully aware of our own demise (life is a terminal illness)and must be fatalistic about that, but I still don't think we are that stupid that we will not work to extend existence of our civilization.

How much do we trust the cost-benefit analysis anyway:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/policy-politics/lomborg-man-behind-ipcc-mutiny? then utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=673912&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

then: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/10/policy-politics/oldies-dont-believe-global-warming?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=679946&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

JF Aus, your hypothesis has more chance of explaining this http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends

Well Don, It's not either either but both.
Of course we need to mitigate against man made climate change as much as possible, but particularly, where that includes increased sustainable economic growth and better standards of living for all.
We should crack on with the development of large scale oil rich algae farming.
This could be kick started in the Murray/Darling basin, for almost innumerable reasons, some of which include facts like, algae production uses just 1-2% of traditional irrigated agriculture!
And that means, huge and vastly more reliable returns for all who depend on the Murray/Darling, inclusive of the environment.
And we should not continue to send millions of annual tons of biological waste out to sea, where it does nothing but harm to the marine environment!
Turning this stuff into energy, via Aussie innovation, [methane producing digesters and ceramic fuel cells,] will allow us to power every home for the lowest possible cost; and produce a salable energy surplus into the bargain, as well as endless free hot water!
The by products of this process include, carbon rich soil improving, thoroughly sanitized compost, rich in extremely expensive phosphates and nitrates, and reusable water eminently suitable for nearby oil rich algae production.
Some of which create ready to use jet fuel or diesel, that's child's play to extract!
Moreover, algae absorb around 2.5 times their body-weight in atmospheric carbon; and, under optimized conditions, quite literally double that size and absorption/oil production capacity, every 24 hours!
At least one industry expert is on the public record stating, these new fuel types, given scales of economy, could be retailed for around 44 cents a litre retail!
Adapt or mitigate?
Why not, but particularly, if both are one and the same and there's big bucks in it!
Rhrosty

Just let me get this straight. Don Aitkin has read a blog by Judith Curry who has read a newspaper article by Andrew Lilico and this is enough for him to write an article about.

He or she (it's not clear who) gives two wildly different estimates of global GDP costs of expected temperature increase, and then goes to write as though he or she has completely forgotten about one of them.

And Don doesn't notice this - or he thinks that's the right way to discuss an issue like this. Is this really the same Don Aitkin who was formerly VC of the University of Canberra?

jeremy, you are correct, still it will get worst... the trolls will come with their copy and paste comments fron ABolt and whatupwiththat......

or more likely they will come with actual data rational argument and logical thinking.

Now before any of you warmists vent just give me one skerrick of data that proves the link between increasing co2 and global warming.

If you can, you have a chance of me considering what you say.

I can supply you references to data showing increasing OLR, increasing DTR, expanding ice in the polar regions and stable surface temps for nearly 18 years. These are the things your lot of so called scientists at one time were claiming, with their modelling, as settled science and were actually directly the reverse of the now recorded actual data.

How do you explain that?

Jeremy and the mutt introduce the personal element into the proceedings which is the default position of the alarmists.

The comparison between adapting and mitigating AGW through keeping temp to a maximum of 1.5C increase first and foremost is a pointless exercise because AGW is a failed theory.

So who cares what the IPCC is now conceding since it has been the most aggressive and the source of all the false 'science' which has come out in support of AGW.

But, if for argument sake, you did do a comparison between the cost of adaption and of mitigation there is no comparison because Stern's so-called benchmark calculations are ridiculous.

Many sources show this including Nordhaus who has concluded that the favoured programs of Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern would cost the world more than unmitigated global warming. He found that global warming under a business as usual case would inflict damage on the world amounting to $22 trillion. Sir Nicholas Stern’s proposed course of action would reduce that damage to $9 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion, for a total cost to the world of $36 trillion, $14 trillion more than unmitigated global warming. Al Gore’s package of measures would reduce global warming costs to $10 trillion at a cost of $34 trillion, for a total cost of $44 trillion, twice the total cost of global warming.

Alternatively Lomborg in 'Cool It' showed doing nothing would cost 1 trillion but have benefits of 2 trillion while maintaining a 1.5C increase would cost 94 trillion for 11 trillion in benefits.

Like every other aspect of AGW the cost/benefit analysis is a joke.

Thanks to Don for another episode in the sorry saga of AGW.
The IPCC is still a long way from acknowledging the truth, namely that there is no scientific basis for AGW, and that statements asserting that human activity has any measurable effect on climate are without any published scientific foundation.

This may be a way to direct attention away from their unscientific approach to what they assert is a problem, and from the fact that although CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, we have not had the warming that the IPCC predicted would occur as a consequence of such an increase.

They may divert our attention from their failed predictions, but will we not question their assertion that warming will be harmful? Historically it has always been beneficial. Waarm climate has meant prosperous times for us.

Is it not time that we recognised the mendacity of the IPCC and took appropriate action? Our carbon tax was “justified” on the basis of lies propagated by the IPCC

Adapting to climate change real or imagined, man made or naturally cyclic, must include putting essential services underground!
I mean, how many times are we gong to rebuild or fix transmission lines due to flood, fire or tempest.
And how much better off would we all be, if people could keep their fridges/pumps etc going, call out in an emergency, or travel point A to point B in complete safety, during the height of the worse storm, flood or fire in living memory.
Bridges, road and rail are routinely washed away or made uncrossable by storms/storm-water; season after season! Ditto electricity services! One in one hundred events, seem to be happening every decade?
We bury gas, water and fibre to the home for sound economical and safety reasons. And if power lines are to expensive too bury, then our homes should be powered by gas consuming ceramic cells. The power bill could be halved then halved again, as the first consequence!
Sensibly located tunnels aren't compromised by vagaries in the weather, neither are submarines.
Fogs and snow storms can close airports and the Atlantic can whip up a perfect storm, yet the very fast electric train arrives on time in London or Paris, through the chunnel!
And the submarine just powers toward it's destination, with the usual armchair ride, while surface shipping is destroyed in literal millions of tons, by worsening storms.
Pragmatism is just not that hard, except for our valiant money wasting, penny wise pound foolish leaders; and or, those rusted on to either side of this ongoing, never ever resolved argument?
Wild fires consume all before them, except underground services. Grade 5-6-7-8 cyclones, can destroy most buildings and those sheltering in them?
But those sleeping in boam homes, can sleep safe in their beds untroubled, but particularly, if their essential services, water, sewerage, gas or electricity are delivered by underground means.
How many times are we going to rebuild roads, rail links and bridges, at great and increasing cost to the community, before we/they get the message and do it right once or the first time?
Rhrosty.

Luciferase,
Thank you for that link, this one.
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

Check where the big red arrows appear in the Gulf of Mexico, then see that the algae ridden dead zone is right there also. I think it is the biggest dead zone in the world. More on it via Google.
http://earthsky.org/earth/dead-zone-in-gulf-of-mexico-twice-as-large-as-in-2012

Algae, warm water, higher sea level in that area but not globally all at the same time.

I guess we should feel sorry for the warmers as the world turns its back on them, well at least the last remnants of the EU warmers.

This weeks selection of news on Europe is something we won’t hear about from the ABC or Fairfax, but that’s their and their readers problem.

It no longer matters what the UNFCCC/IPCC come up with, they are done.

CO2 credits anyone?

Putin Threatens To Turn Off The Gas - The Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2014

Europe’s New Energy Policy: More Coal, More Gas, More Shale, More LNG, More Wind - Reuters, 11 April 2014

Ukraine Shifts To Coal After Russian Gas Price Hike - Agence France Presse, 5 April 2015

EU Commission Announced End Of Green Energy Subsidies - EurActiv, 10 April 2014

Times Leader: Energy Security Is Now Europe’s Top Priority - The Times, 11 April 2014

Amid Showdown With Russia, Calls Rise In Europe To Start Fracking - The Washington Post, 8 April 2014

Reality Check: CO2 Emissions Have increased Since 2011 Despite Germany’s $140bn Green Energy Transition - The Daily Caller, 10 April 2014

In the real world in relation to climate change it doesn't matter a jot about who said what; climate change is happening.
The film Chasing Ice, through time lapse photography shows huge reductions in the size of glaciers in Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, Montana, and I understand they have now placed equipment in the sub Antarctic region.
Towards the end of the film there is the comment that of 1,400 glaciers in the Yukon area, 4 have increased in size, 300 have died, the balance have been retreating or have remained about the same in size.
Old expedition photos taken in the Himalayas going back to 1922 of glaciers have been compared to photos taken in the last few years. The glaciers there are in retreat also.

The mass of the ice sheet in the Arctic area has been breaking down in an exponential manner. Those pesky computer models suggest that there will be ice free days in 2075; whereas, observation and measurement suggest there will be ice free days within the next couple of years.

A recently published paper (2014) by Lance Lesack in relation to the McKenkie River wrote about average temperatures having risen to 3.2 C degrees for Spring and 5.2 C degrees in Winter. Once again there is comment about rapid melting.

After all the difficulties experienced in the USA, a further cold snap has been forecast for the immediate future; presumably via the Polar Vortex. It makes sense when taking into account how sea breezes and katabatic winds develop; except jet streams operate at a higher level.

Clearly, it is warmth and melt water that is causing the break down of glaciers and ice sheets.

The IPCC Report talks about the need to take mitigating action.

imajulianutte, Tyndall in the late 1850s showed a relationship between CO2 and warming. Though, I gather that a relationship had already been established prior to Tyndal. Figure 3 from site below shows a relationship between CO2 and warming. Current data in relation to CO2 shows that it has reached 405 ppm, though you would probably realize that it does fluctuate.
Last night I was watching a clip where Plimer was saying that there had not been a relationship between CO2 and temperature for millions of years. The British Antarctic Survey shows a definite relationship; a 800,000 year time frame is probably enough time to show a trend.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

But, as noted in my last post, observations and up to date data show climate change is happening.

There has been an association of drought and the Syrian civil war. There has always been drought except the impacts have been increasing. Displaced farmers through drought from 2006 moved to cities and felt they got a raw deal, it has been seen to be a factor in stirring up trouble. Extreme weather can have an impact on serious conflict.
Bread basket areas in the USA, Britian etc have been impacted and while there may, or may not be an association with climate change; it demonstrates impacts of extreme weather experienced lately.

Two factors happening now, may not bode well for the future,some sun spot activity has been noted recently. The sun spot activity had been in a dormant period and as a result our climate should have been cooling, instead the climate had been warming. The other factor is that an El Nino event appears as though it is imminent. El Nino is cyclic and there has been some activity in the Pacific showing an El Nino event will be occurring later in the year.

The point of my post was that that the IPCC now conceded that adaptation was important. I didn't say that it had abandoned mitigation. Indeed, I said that it hadn't (that's what 'No' in my post meant). So I didn't mischievously construe anything.

I'm not at all full bottle on algae farming, but am reading. The forms of mitigation that have been proposed so far will do nothing discernible to reduce temperature, which is what this whole AGW scare is about, and I am still waiting to see (i) that there is a strong link between carbon dioxide accumulations and global temperature, since there hasn't been any obvious link for the best part of two decades, and (ii) that more warming is actually bad for living things in general.

Don,
How can AGW IPCC science be taken seriously if ocean algae plant matter proliferated by nutrients dumped by humans and natural algae is not included in the science?

"The point of my post was that that the IPCC now conceded that adaptation was important."

"Conceded"? Do I "concede" 2+2 =4, or is it just Blind Freddy fact? All we can do in the face of the already built-in projected warming is to cope. That the IPCC indicates what it is, precisely, that must be coped with and planned for by policy-makers is not a "concession", it's a fact.

Such spurious nuances of language are used as weapons and that the doubters take every such opportunity is what makes them deniers. To base an article on a turn of language and on the opinion of others doing the same (Lilico) is vacuous. I'm with jeremy on this and his other points.

Luciferase, a couple of things I have noted about climate change deniers is that they try and ignore what is happening at present; and they try to keep making comments about the past. Or, often they try and present completely wrong information; Bolt with his article on Tuvalu, and Bellamy has been trying to argue that glaciers have been increasing in size.
The article that I posted in relation to the British Antarctic Survey shows a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature. Judging by the references used the article was published prior to Heartlands, IPA etc getting worried about the impact science was having on their mining activities and profits.
Yet, having posted an article about the relationship between CO2 and temperature; Don continues to write "...and I am still waiting to see (i) that there is a strong link between carbon dioxide accumulations and global temperature...." What references do you use Don? The relationship between CO2 and temperature was sorted out in the Nineteenth Century and continually recognized since (except by deniers).

Deniers pretend that nothing man does industrially has any impact on the planet; deforestation a climate change determinant is a huge matter in the Amazon (droughts 2005, 2010); the Indonesians are taking out forests to grow palm oil plantations, and burning the residues creating peat fires that can continue for long periods.
JF Aus is right about algae problems, but warming and nutrients need to be in place for it to become an issue. JF Aus puts the cart before the horse. Acidification caused through CO2 and H2O mixing to create a weak acid is another matter. These are matters that are also happening not merely academic. Climate scientists either going out in the field or processing data obtained arguably are not involved in academic studies.

If there is a relationship between co2 and temperature how come with increasing co2 average surface temperatures are not rising as all you terrorist models predict?

If your quoted paper does link the two shouldn't temps now be rising?

Or are you going to deny the 'pause' too?

Yes, ant, you represent yourself as reporting on the real world, and then deliver another load of baseless, alternate reality assertions.

Remember that when you were asked for science to back your support of the AGW fraud, you referred us to a site which made the same baseless claim that human activity was causing warming but put forward no science to justify the assertion.

Firstly, you can produce no reference to science showing any measurable effect of human activity on climate.
Secondly, when you say climate change is happening, you do not make it clear whether you are speaking English, or relying on the weasel worded, baseless definition of the phrase put forward by the mendacious IPCC.

In plain English, climate change is occurring. It is fraudulent to represent, as the IPCC does, that AGW has any scientific validity.

You have not clarified, ant, whether your support of fraud arises from ignorance or dishonesty, but you seem to be past the point where you might plead ignorance,

It is well recognized that glaciers advance and retreat continually, which is why the fraud backers mention the retreats and ignore the advances. There is nothing new in dramatizing the melting of ice at the poles. It is standard procedure for the fraud backers.

There was some comic relief in the clown, Chris Turney, causing the ship to be stuck in the ice, at the South Pole, that he represented was melted, but this was at great expense to taxpayers. It is to be hoped that some action will be taken in respect of his incompetence or dishonesty

dear ant

here is a quote from your cited report

'This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback).It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, but the tiny changes in climate this should cause are amplified, mainly by the resulting increase in CO2, and by the retreat of sea ice and ice sheets (which leads to less sunlight being reflected away). Looking at the warming out of the last glacial period in detail, we can see how remarkably closely Antarctic temperature and CO2 tracked each other.
Photo
Fig 4: Close-up of deuterium (temperature proxy) and CO2 from the EPICA Dome C ice core over the warming from the last glacial period.(7)
It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit cause an initial small warming.'

You are right there is a link between temp and co2 but ...

lol here it says quite clearly co2 rise follows temperature rise. ie co2 does not cause temperature rise.

lol and all this proves is that we have had warming periods before industrialisation.

That is the exact opposite of all your terrorists modelling.

Cannot find Tyndall but I suspect he'll confirm this.

You have quite made my day.

I'm off to have a beer or two ... quite chuffed. Thank you for your revelations.

imajulianutter,
It's beer and CO2 that are intimately linked.
There is a link between temperature and everything.
Especially with cold beer on hot days.

However, how can sea level rise occur in one area and not everywhere, when CO2 is everywhere?

Dear ant,

I note this last month was the second lowest April figures for Arctic Sea Ice Volume since records began in 1974.

I wonder what next month will bring.

imajulianutter, the article I provided stated a few times that there is a co-relation between temperature and CO2.
"This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback)."

Also, the bit left out by imajulianutter "But for most of the 6,000-year long ‘transition’, Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change...."

The very official American site states
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up."
From

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

SteeleRedux,

Arctic sea ice volume :-
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral.png

Dear ant

Are you telling me this article says the initial temp rise followed an increase in co2.

If you are either the article contradicts it self, your comprehension abilities are retarded or you cannot accept the truth even when empherical evidence (not modelling ) presented by people you think support warming actually contradicts all the terrorists modelling.

Ant where ever you are no amount of backsliding or obsfaction can change the statements in your cited authority that the rise in temp was followed by a rise in co2 and that the initial heat rise was caused by solar and planet influences.

Now go back to the question I first asked and ask yourself why you are fooling yourself.

Leo, remember Andrew Bolt and Tuvalu.
No doubt you did not look at the site I provided on another thread where Monckton’s arguments were shredded.
David Bellamy, a climate change denier has argued that glaciers are increasing in size, all the evidence points to him being completely wrong. Is he committing fraud Leo in making statements that can be objectively shown to be wrong?
You keep suggesting fraud is taking place based on “climategate”, where stupid politics got in the way of proper science. A few scientists were involved with this debacle. Monckton and Watts have been caught out making false claims, by your logic Leo they are committing fraud. Are ice sheets, temperature in the Arctic region, and glaciers showing fraud Leo, they do are not behaving like deniers suggest they should?
The thing is Leo, that there is a truck load of papers supporting climate change; in comparison there are only a handful of papers that deny anthroprogenic climate change. Your comment about supporting fraud is really quite farcical.

Has it occurred to you that a number of climate scientists are Christians, Professor Hayloe being one.

“But in the fall of 2009, Hayhoe and her husband, Andrew Farley, published a book titled A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, and a fact she’d always kept out of her professional life was suddenly very public. Hayhoe and Farley are evangelical Christians, and Farley, an associate professor of applied linguistics at Texas Tech, is also the pastor of a local church.”
Strange people to be committing fraud, Leo.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/for-katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-not-a-leap-of-faith/

Professor Hayhoe features in the film Years of Living Dangerously

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/11/hollywood-celebrities-climate-change-years-of-living-dangerously

imajulianutter, there are any number of references to John Tyndall, here is one

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal

It is interesting that in 1938; Guy Callender, stated that global temperatures were rising due to CO2 levels increasing. Most scientists didn’t agree with that view at the time. It was in the 1960s that Charles Keeling began to measure CO2 levels from Hawaii. You quibble about a few sentences, but the association between CO2 and temperature was stated.

Further grist for the mill:
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/old-news-for-carbon-dioxide-new-threats-for-climate-change/

Don,
Algae farming is what we need to be doing for numerous reason!
The very first of which is peak oil!
The second is because the production is endlessly sustainable!
It can be grown in salt water, as salty as sea water; in fact, I believe the bio-diesel farms in our northwest, are doing just that.
We don't need arable land per se, given the best production is virtually hydroponic, and just doesn't need arable land.
Some types are up to 60% oil.
The oil can be harvested as a ready to use product, by filtering out some of the live material, then sun drying it, followed by a very rudimentary crushing.
The ex-crush material may be suitable as very high protein fodder, or eminently suitable, as source material for ethanol production.
Currently, ethanol production creates an energy debt; however, if it relied exclusively on waste, that would no longer be the case!
Algae absorb around 2.5 times their body-weight in Co2, and under optimized conditions, double that and their oil production capacity every 24 hours!
If they so good, why isn't everyone doing it?
Well, maybe they're just too dumb; or, it could take a decade, if one starts from a low production base, just to grow enough seed material, to support the required economies of scale!
That then includes mandatory government involvement and outlays, to simply establish/support an indigenous industry.
What better use for the remaining save the Murray money?
Some might even argue, if we were not lead by self serving fools/responsibility duck shovers, we would already have and be benefiting from this industry, instead of importing expensive foreign oil, at a cost of around 26 and rising, annual billions.
A number that could be more than halved, if we just had the smarts to grow specific oil rich algae here!
The yanks who have a huge head start, prefer our native algae!
Why don't we?
Rhrosty.

Thanks Luciferase for your references, deniers mostly don't read references I have found.
The first provides Dr Shakun's study; the second one provides information through an interview process about his study. Eighty studies from different parts of the planet were analysed by Dr. Jeremy Shakun and his team.
Dr Shakun stated “Global temperatures are following CO2.” There is no ambiguity in that statement; indicated by the studies he used (80).

An article in Nature describing the same study stated: "The team found that CO2 levels were more important than any of these factors in driving warming." There is no ambiguity there either, they had looked for factors other than CO2.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393

Deniers might like to explain why climate change is happening so quickly in the Arctic region.
They might like to explain why 16 kilometers of glacier has been lost from one glacier in Greenland in one year is of no concern.
They might like to suggest why "ice streams" are of no importance. They might like to explain why ranges in temperatures of up to 40 degrees C in particular areas is of no concern.
They might like to explain why pathogens in water are of no concern to the Inuit of Northern Canada brought about by warmer conditions.
They might like to explain why average temperatures being significantly higher is of no concern.
They might like to explain why inducing feedback systems is of no concern.
They might like to explain why the climate being awry in the Arctic area is of no concern.
They might like to explain why the death spiral figure referenced by Poirot is of no concern.
They might like to explain why stormy weather in the Arctic region is now a worry.
They might like to explain why warming perma frost is nothing to be worried about.
They might like to explain why glaciers retreating in the Himalaya is of no concern.
These events have slowly been incrementally developing over decades.

Yes, ant, your effort to divert us from the fact that you have failed to produce any science to show any measurable effect of human activity on climate is as desperate as it is obvious .

You show incredible ignorance in your earlier post in assertions based on a false belief that correlation is proof of causation. In the real world, the rise in CO2 content in the atmosphere has not resulted in the fraud-backers predicted rise in global temperature

Andrew Bolt is correct about Tuvalu. You have made baseless inferences that Bolt was wrong, with nothing specified to support your false statements Where in your view, was he wrong?
If you had any respect for fact, you would not have referred us to the ridiculous greeny video asserting sea level rise at Tuvalu, which they made at a time that the sea level at Tuvalu had actually fallen. As is your habit you tried to justify this fraud when it was made obvious that they were lying.

We are still waiting for you to set out your justification for backing the AGW fraud. We accept that you have no science which shows any measurable effect by human activity on climate, so please set out your basis.

Leo, a film clip showing water going through people's houses after Bolt stated there was no such problem reflects on Bolt.

My last post was about 80 studies that stated that CO2 shows a direct link to temperature increasing. That is, CO2 being the active part prior to warming.
In the study that I had provided originally it did state there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature creating a feedback system.

Leo, you cannot answer the matters I put out in my last post. The problem for you is that you are not able to answer them. They have not been contrived by me, its what is happening in 2014.

What is your answer to the warming that is happening Leo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw

The clip can be copied and pasted.

No flooding in Tuvalu, Leo.

It doesn't matter what else you say you totally undermined your own claims of AGW. Faced with a truth from your own authority you cannot let go of your disproven belief.

That is nuts.

Is the British Antarctic Survey no longer a reliable authority?

Can I now assume anything they say is also unreliable?

I note you also evade not only the evidence presented by your own cited authority but you also evade my questions.

Ant you are pathetic and the more you try to evade the findings of your cited authority the more pathetic you look.

More grist,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
CO2 concentration has risen at an unprecedented rate? Why isn't it caused by man if nothing else explains it?

If temperature leads CO2 concentration, I wonder why a recent temperature hiatus has not caused a hiatus in CO2? If CO2 concentration leads temperature where has all the heat gone? http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.htm

“No flooding in Tuvalu, Leo.”

Correct, ant, but the greenies contrived a video to falsely pretend that there was, and still had time to rip out an old tree that proved that there had been no sea level rise at Tuvalu. Their skills have expanded since the days when they just put a plastic bag in the mouth of a dead marine animal they found, and photographed it.
As I said correlation n does not prove causation, unless the scientist is a fraud-backer, and the same principle applies as when a hot day will prove global warming, while a sattelite photo of countries frozen in snow and ice is just “weather.
You can certainly find some rubbish on the web, ant, but it has the same effect as your own rubbish. Thinking persons do not believe it. We do not have global warming, which is the reason that the fraud backers every year proclaim “hottest year on record”. They are desperate for a warming trend.

Remember the Climategate miscreant, Professor Phil Jones, and his email: “ We can’t show global warming, and it’s a travesty that we can’t” Under cross examination he said that there had been no global warming since 1995? That makes it 19 years since warming stopped, if you believe him, because there has been no warming since he was questioned.

But you have found a site, haven’t you, ant where they say that human emissions are causing melting of the ice at the poles.This is scaled down from the nonsense of a few years ago, when the ice was melting so fast that the scientists were having difficulty keeping up with their observations. I heard it on the ABC, that unceasing channel of AGW fraud.
Do you really believe this garbage which you inflict on us?

Imajulianutter and Leo, a bit hard to argue against 8o sources that are showing that carbon dioxide is the agent causing warming.

John Tyndall indicated there was a relationship between carbon dioxide and warming about 150 years ago.

You can’t answer the various questions I have asked about what is happening in 2014?

You might like to add why the methane being voided by the tundra and sea beds is of no concern

Please provide references to show that what has been happening in the last few years is wrong.

Until you show that the warming is caused by human activity, ant, everything you state is irrelevant.

It is hard to believe that you are s stupid as you pretend to be , to avoid the basis of this discussion.

If ever you supply the basis of your support for AGW, then it will be appropriate for you to ask questions. You have provided no science to support your assertion of any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You have no current status in the discussion other than as an unresponsive humbug.

It is easy to argue against 80(or 800) of your sources, ant, which say that CO2 causes warming. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, while global warming has stopped. You are putting assertions against a reality which shows them to be wrong

Not wishing to rain on anyone's parade, but I have to wonder if climate change is really going to matter much over the longer term, since the use of organochlorides, organophosphates, PCB's and other 'wonder' chemicals in households, industry and agriculture is proving to be so deleterious to human and environmental perseverance that we may well be heading for 'game over' for life as we know it long before any change in climate could herald a similar level of self-destructive potential.

Don't believe me? Take a look at China's production of Dicofol from DDT and current potentially related increasing levels of DDT in the environment, with widespread destructive consequences including wide-ranging impacts on sexuality, sexual reproduction and immune system functioning, as well as on rates of cancer and other serious illnesses and of birth defects and miscarriage.
So many chemicals, and their derivatives, including DDT, are now so common in breast milk as to threaten to overturn, or even reverse, the benefits of breast-feeding.
Breast milk becoming a toxin?
Food supply causing sexual dysfunction?
Try Google.

Sorry about the divergence from the main topic, but so much of the article and commentary content is just so much samo, samo.

I agree, Saltpetre, but I think you should start a new thread rather than naughtily diverting this one.

One poster here must be a computer generation as it's automatic response shows no evidence of having the artificial intelligence to absorb input data provided to it in abundance. Like most computers, I suppose, it's only capable of having information punched into it.

The science is settled, AFAIAC, so I'll butt out and leave the hopeless task of reprogramming 'puters with under-sized chips to others.

Nutrient pollution is not being seen and generally understood as being dangerous and devastating like DDT for example. Yet nutrient pollution from sewage dumped daily is having far more serious socio economic and environment impact than DDT is has had.
Adapt says the IPCC. Adapt to what, adapt to CO2?
CO2 may well be an indicator of warmth occurring in specific areas but that does not show CO2 causing damage?
I think anything preventing whole world ocean seafood/protein from breeding/repopulating will have far more immediate impact than believed impact from CO2 or DDT

Just words are not enough Luci.

Back a few pages here you posted a chart you claim shows AGW sea level rise.
On closer examination from another point of view that chart shows the highest temperature as being exactly where the biggest dead zone in the world is occurring.
That algae plant matter associated dead zone with warmth has apparently not been measured and assessed in AGW science, so how can AGW science be 'settled'?

And you do not reply about that. Processor problem maybe.

Leo wrote “ The CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, while global warming has stopped.”
Glaciers and sheet ice are disappearing at a huge rate Leo because it is getting colder?
Poirot, gave a reference to a figure showing the “Death Spiral” of the Arctic Sea beginning in 1979.
Submarines and satellites have been used to gain those measurements. Submarines had been used to calibrate the satellite measurements.
A couple of months ago some climate scientists specializing in the Arctic region expressed concern as they predict that an El Nino event will fracture the Arctic ice sheet.
The Arctic region is important as it determines climate elsewhere.

There had been a bump in temperature in 1998, but since that time temperature records have been continually set.

There had been a major El Nino event in 1997-1998, a quote from below site…” The warm water just below the ocean’s surface is on par with that of the biggest El Niño ever recorded, in 1997-98.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/07/el_nino_2014_2015_forecasts_show_it_could_grow_into_a_monster.html

It is interesting that it is warmth brought to the surface in the Pacific that creates an El Nino event, isn’t it Leo. The Bureau of Meteorology says there is a greater chance than, 70% of an El Nino event; elsewhere a 75% chance, and a 80% has also been predicted by others. A +6 degree C has been noted in the Pacific which was the temperature measured prior to the 1998 event.

Saltpetre, is right there are other matters of concern, the hole in the ozone layer is increasing again through discharge of chemicals similar to CFCs; there was an article in the Guardian about it a few weeks ago.

You're such an annoyance ant but typical of the chicken littles of AGW.

How did cyclone Ita go for the alarmists; it was going to be the end of the North QLD coast; how did that go ant?

SST has been flat since 1980 as has OHC in the Tropics and there has been no Modoki upward trend:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.502/abstract

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/the-201415-el-nino-part-2-the-alarmist-misinformation-bs-begins/

The highest ice levels in the Arctic were in 1979 and the lowest 1974.

AGW is such a lie; but keep your shrieking up ant; it's what alarmists do.

The irrelevance of the substance of your post, ant , makes it clear that you have no science to justify your baseless assertion of AGW.

Ice melts and reforms all the time, so to find some melting ice and assert that it proves global warming is puerile. Global warming stopped at least 17, but probably 19 years ago. The increased CO2 content in the atmosphere is not causing warming. Even if it were, there is no basis to assert that the increased CO2 arises from human activity.
It must have been cold, to freeze the ice at the South Pole in which the ship carrying the fraud backing scientists was iced in, while they were asserting that the ice had been melted by global warming caused by human emissions. Have you no sense of how stupid you make yourself appear, by endorsing the AGW fraud?

The El Nino event is part of a natural cycle, and has no relevance to AGW, if that is what your idle question is implying.
You say:” There had been a bump in temperature in 1998, but since that time temperature records have been continually set. “. In what alternate reality was that? In the real world, there has been no warming since 1998, only cooling.
You are dead in the water, ant, but your output of nonsense is unabated. Please face facts, and stop wasting everyone’s time

cohenite, you blokes are not getting any traction in relation to whats happening in the Arctic region and getting a bit feisty. You are not able to find any real references that knock what I have written, I've been describing what is actually happening. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre shows a graph indicating you are completely wrong about 1974 being a record low year for ice cover. Their graph goes back to 1953.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

cohenite, could you give your reference for 1974, logically it doesn’t make sense due to the thickness of the ice in the 1970s and the thickness and lack of mass now.

Nobody to my knowledge has made any inferences to Cyclone Ita, it is the cyclone season still.

Watts is no scientist, he has made statements about other climate matters that were found to be wrong. Measurement of temperature was one matter where he came a cropper.
BOM has been making predictions about El Nino events for some years. From memory it was about a month ago they stated that the possibility of an El Nino event happening was 50% they have since increased that percentage.

Leo, ice does melt and reforms, but David Bellamy was made to look a fool in a debate when he pushed that view.It being a case of more ice being lost than is reformed.
You don’t have any answers because a breakdown in the amount of sea ice in the Arctic is happening.
Anybody that has gone to references I have given would know that to be true.
Even a tourist brochure from Greenland states that the glaciers are retreating.

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg

Give up on the ice, ant, it has been done to death over the years, and everyone knows that it is nonsense. Year after year we were told that the Arctic ice would melt, until some clown believed it and had to be rescued when he was iced in, because the ice had not melted as stated by the Climate Liars. If you followed Bolt, you would know about it and not try to put this nonsense over people who keep themselves informed, and avoid the nonsense sites which occupy your time.

Even you, determined as you are to be immune to facts, must know that the fraud backing scientist Turney caused a ship to be stuck in the ice at the South Pole because he proceeded as if the nonsense he talked about melting ice were true.

You have a perfect record, ant. In all of your posts you have managed to avoid inclusion of anything sensible or informative. This must have required meticulous care, but I am sure your aversion to facts stood you in good stead.

Good try with your reference cohenite, wordpress does not exactly stand up to the official site that I provided. One site I visited suggested that "Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym; it was less than polite about him.
But, here is another site that critiques Goddard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0921/While-Arctic-melts-Antarctic-ice-hits-record.-Is-warming-debunked

Is the Christian Science Monitor likely to lie, Leo?

The ship being stuck in Antarctica has nothing to do with whats happening in the Arctic, Leo.
You haven't come up with any references that show that climate change is not happening in the Arctic.

Leo, you might like to explain why this tourist brochure is wrong when it states "And, unfortunately, these changes are more extreme than ever. The inland ice is melting and retreating at an unprecedented rate. Global warming is leaving its mark."
From
http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima.aspx

Not all his postings have been devoid of truth, Leo

the following link provided by ant actually told the truth. it states clearly warming preceded co2 increases.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

Even though he posted it as an authority on climate change he now chokes on it's truths and has been frantic to bury it under claims made in an avalanche of links. I haven't the time to read them all, nobody has, and I suspect, on the evidence of his damming recent citations, neither has ant.

He really has shown the intellect of an insect.

Treasurer Hockey should be increasing the budget for science in order to carry out complete science that includes ocean plant matter in climate science.

Complete science should include due diligence assessment of all matters raised at this link:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.html

If relevant real science is not carried out there will be numerous ongoing and worsening social and economic consequences for Australia.

I decided to check all five links ant posted.

ONE:
http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393

'..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming.'

TWO:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/07/el_nino_2014_2015_forecasts_show_it_could_grow_into_a_monster.html

'Ita is one of the latest-forming Category 5 storms in Australian history,'

THREE:
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

'... the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability'

FOUR AND FIVE:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0921/While-Arctic-melts-Antarctic-ice-hits-record.-Is-warming-debunked

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima.aspx

Both are very general, are written by journalists and contain no evidence supporting AGW.

Now ant give me those other 75 of the 80 links you claim are evidence supporting AGW. I don't want just a few I want to see all of them.

A rich vein that Christian Science Monitor with links For Leo JF and IMJ like http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere
and http://www.livescience.com/21980-global-warming-skeptic-turnaround.html
and http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
and http://www.livescience.com/17144-climate-change-skeptics-skeptical.html
and more!
What a suppository of knowledge!

I realize IMJ hasn't the time to inform himself about anything, which accounts for his uninformed opinion, but how about you other guys/gals?

The primary link was NOT to Goddard but to the IPCC FAR!

I included the Goddard link which had the FAR graph showing the 1974 low point.

Typical alarmist; even when you link to the IPCC they don't believe you.

Tell me Lucifarse

what exactly are those links supposed to tell me.

Are they links that give evidence of AGW like the links ant gave us that debunked his own beliefs. You know the ones that he now wants to run away from?

'I realize IMJ hasn't the time to inform himself about anything, which accounts for his uninformed opinion, but how about you other guys/gals?'

Well this assertion on all the evidence is just so wrong. I read every link ant supplied with the view to assessing and informing myself.

And didn't they do that ... particularly items one, two and three
which said:
'..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming.'

'Ita is one of the latest-forming Category 5 storms in Australian history,'

'... the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability'

Do you think ant uninformed because I seem to have read the detail in the links he posted? If he had as a warmer terrorist I doubt, if he had any brains, he would ever cite the above as evidence supporting AGW. Don't you think?

And rest assured Lucifarse I shall read the links you have provided as well. I do have the time and now very much the inclination. For your sake I hope they actually have evidence that proves AGW and don't contain evidence debunking AGW ... like ant's links.

I predict now ant won't post those other 75 links either. He'll have to read and understand what they say first because he knows I will read them. But he's slow so it might take a year or two for him to complete that exercise.

When the insults start to be hurled out it a clear indication that the deniers are not able to answer questions asked about what is actually happening. Fire away fellas, anybody reading your posts will realize you are not able to come close to answering questions I have asked earlier about what is really happening. The last resort of deniers is to abuse to try and maintain their conspiracy theory; but it is possible for most to see through that strategy.

When tourist brochures are agreeing that climate change is happening then it becomes a bit hard to say nothing is happening. What is your take on the matter, imajulianutter?
Earlier imajuliannutter you wrote about not being able to find anything about Tyndall; not surprising really, as he found the relationship between CO2, sunlight and warming 150 years ago.
Some misrepresentation going on as well in relation to Dr Shakun, it had been his team that had assessed 80 studies that show a relationship between CO2 and warming. I believe in what science is saying rather than conspiracy theories that defy logic posited by deniers; especially when climate change is happening.
Climate change is an inconvenient truth for fossil fuel mining companies.

cohenite, sought to muddy the waters by bringing up cyclone Ita, then imajulianutter, raises it again in a later post. It is the cyclone season. But, it demonstrates the technique of obfuscation.

The humdinger is providing a graph by Goddard, when challenged about it was attributed to the IPCC FAR (1990) by cohenite.
I did check chapter 9 which discusses glaciers and ice sheets, but it does not show the graph that Goddard is meant to have gained from there. Perhaps it might be elsewhere in the IPCC FAR report. Perhaps you can find it for us cohenite. But it defies logic as it has taken 35 years to reach the stage where the ice sheet is now; very old ice has been expelled since 1979, it would not have been in existence if 1974 had been a record low year.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

ant

you started calling me a 'denier'. Mate I've never denier climate change or the holocaust. Like to apologise for your passive aggressive nasty inferences?

'You are not able to find any real references that knock what I have written,...'

Are you not aware of the post where I pointed out your authoritative link totally debunked AGW or were you just lying to avoid confronting your beliefs?

pathetic ant

CO2 sceptics, AGW sceptics, global warming sceptics, climate sceptics, sea level sceptics and sceptics about just about everything, are all different.

When discussion occurs such as on this thread, comment seems to become general. Generalizing I think is confusing the discussion.
Maybe it's best to explain this way.

A few pages back there was comment about Tuvalu sea level running into houses. In context that sounds like AGW is the cause, but when you think beyond that house flooding and think specifically, for example about where the extra/higher water came from, it becomes obvious something is incorrect with AGW "settled" science.

AGW science declares sea level rise is occurring due to polar and glacial ice melting more than usual, but how does that melted water reach and rise only at Tuvalu? Why is equivalent sea level rise not being seen and measured at Tasmania and elsewhere globally?

I think there is need to at least keep an open mind at this stage and also suspend all costs associated with AGW, albeit incomplete AGW science.

A number of possible causes of sea level rise at Tuvalu are not even included in AGW science and debate.
There is now less coral rubble in the SW Pacific because living coral that generates rubble is mostly now all dead, generally, I see it with my own eyes wherever I go in the SW Pacific.

I also see that surging ocean waves can now reach further inshore with more strength because a majority of reef surface is now relatively smooth because jagged live coral is now dead and often covered with slippery algae, less drag on the water.

Plus, huge areas of SW Pacific seabed have sunk down due to tectonic plate activity but this is also not included in news and debate about sea water inundation at islands in the SW Pacific.

There is need for truth. Adaption and mitigation are useless words if the real cause is not being seen.

Something for JF http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

IMJ, if you do look at a link it must be a quick skim to pull out only the words you find useful to mount your prejudice.

For example,re ONE of the FIVE points you made in your post above, where you pulled out "..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming." it follows on to say "But, by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases." Then you go on to demand from ant "give me those other 75 of the 80 links" so you can deal with them one by one! What 80 links?

IMJ, I could go on to your points TWO, THREE etc. but I won't waste the keystrokes on someone who can't understand a post let alone a scientific article. I stand by my comment regarding your uninformed opinion and wonder how you went at http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere

You should stick to the political and current affairs topics where uninformed opinion is spouted daily and prejudice has at home.

imajulianutter, says I don’t have any brains; all I’m doing is using the science that thousands of scientists are presenting; on that basis imajulianutter is suggesting that he knows more than those thousands of scientists.
iImajulianutter, suggests that it is just climate variability that is causing the ice sheets in the Arctic and various glaciers in different parts of the planet to be melting. It is just a bald statement that climate variability is happening with no explanation. Where is the evidence for such a statement?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, answers some questions in relation to climate change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html


I placed this in Google, “proof that climate change is not happening.” Some of the responses, some coming from; more news for proof that climate change is not happening

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_out_of_10855_scientists_agree_man_made_global_warming_is_happening/
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-statistical-probability-that-climate-change-is-natural-is-01-percent
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/353985/scitech/science/global-warming-has-not-stood-still-greenhouses-gases-at-record-high-wmo-chief
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/01/daily-mail-telegraph-climate-change_n_5067817.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/climate_change_really_is_happe.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579498721229249160?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303663604579498721229249160.html
http://gothamist.com/2014/04/14/elizabeth_kolbert_climate.php#.
http://gothamist.com/2014/04/14/elizabeth_kolbert_climate.php#.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

Where it has been stated that climate change is not happening the matters have been dealt with some time ago.

Note carefully what was placed in Google.

Perhaps, iamajulianutter might like to suggest when the last time in the planets history there was CO2 levels of 400+ ppm ( just lately there was a reading of 405ppm).
It’s about time that imajulianutter, Leo, and cohenite brought out some real evidence that climate change is not happening

Have to correct you here, ant, before you're jumped on, where you say, "Perhaps, iamajulianutter might like to suggest when the last time in the planets history there was CO2 levels of 400+ ppm ( just lately there was a reading of 405ppm)."

Perhaps you mean in "human" history. 500 million years ago ten times the current levels existed.

See the Marcott graph for the human history record.

Luciferase, You say, Something for JF http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

In that link I do not see any mention of warmth in ocean algae plant matter causing sea level rise, such as at the Gulf of Mexico dead zone area as per earlier comments.

How does gravity make such a significant temperature rise only at the dead zone area and not along the coast where there is no dead zone?

How can science determine gravity is the cause of sea level rise here and there following ice melt, when photosynthesis linked solar warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been measured and assessed?

Categorically warm water areas of ocean are higher than nearby colder water. Also, streaming warm water flows such as in the East Australian Current are convex shaped like an optical lens, deeper and higher in the about the middle of the warm stream.

I think AGW science has to start again and include all sources of ocean warmth and not just focus on CO2, in order to "settle" the science, to complete the science.

Further, if only a relatively small amount of polar ice has melted and has already altered gravity enough to cause a 9mm sea level rise at the Gulf Mex dead zone area, what might be the rise there be when all the ice melts as per AGW science? Several metres? Ten metres or more? I think not.

I think evidence of substance indicates nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing that dead zone area, and the algae is causing the surface water to be warmer, and that warmth is causing a rise in sea level in that area ( as per URL evidence I posted earlier in this thread).

Do you have any reference to any science to prove me wrong on this dead zone - algae - warm water - high water situation?

JF, I don't know why I bothered.

What makes you a denialist rather than a doubter is your absolute insistence that your thought experiments have more validity than actual research by the most august, trusted and competent scientific bodies in the world.

The reason you may have difficulty finding research carried out on your pet hypotheses (e.g. algae causing the global sea-level rise, good grief!)is that they're implausibly stupid and scientists aren't interested in testing them.

Sorry to have to break this to you, JF, but it's time someone did.

This is my final response to you JF, on any topic, even in jest (which you don't get anyway). Best wishes, happy dreams.

Google did not know what you were talking about, ant, and neither do we. I asked you to specify whether you were talking English, or using the scurrilous weasel worded definition of climate change put out by the IPCC. Let us know. Of course, if you do not know what you are talking about, you will not be able to answer, and we will understand.

Who are these”thousands of scientists” of which you speak. You sound like that clown, Kevin Rudd, when he was lying about climate.

It's good to observe a CO2 obsessed individual, unable to show any evidence to prove or even indicate increased mass of solar-warmed ocean algae plant matter is not warming areas of ocean.

I think real scientists would be testing warmth in algae.
Why would real scientists ignore algae inundating waters where ice is reported melting more than usual, massive areas of algae that was not even known about at the date Kyoto - AGW agenda took place?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

It's a pity Lucy, that you drop out when unable to answer reasonable questions.
And exactly where did I say algae is causing global sea level rise? But I am happy you can see evidence it is causing areas or seawater to rise (difference between areas and global).

You have not broken anything to me Luci, you just use words stating your own opinion.
You show no evidence at all to prove my opinion and evidence I present to be incorrect. None

JF Aus, I lived for something like 16 years next to a rivulet. As the waters became lower and warmer in Spring/Summer algae would begin to appear. When the water became cooler from Autumn onwards the algae would begin to disappear. The warming preceded the growth of algae. So your concern about algae might be a secondary proof that global warming is happening. But, it also displays a concern about what is being flushed into waterways.
The ocean is a carbon sink; also it is interesting that carbon molecules can be identified in relation to their source as indicated by:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

Leo, you stated that "Google did not know what you were talking about, ant"... how many more home goals are you going to provide?
Just out of interest when away overnight I tried to google “proof that climate change is not happening.”; it is funny how I basically came up with the same result using an ipad instead of a laptop.

Leo, when will you be providing references to show that ice sheets, glaciers and tundra is not retreating or melting?

See ant you' ve done as I predicted. You have only supplied 12 of the outstanding 75 links you said supported your view.

As I said pathetic ant pathetic.

Go sit on the dunces corner and count to 75.

Another prediction ant will say he didn't say that there were 80 sources supporting AGW.

And with that I would agree. There are no sources proving AGW so it is impossible for him to supply any.

Any guesses why ant won't supply links to Tyndall?

Lucifarse

Go to the original link provided by ant. It totally debunks the claims you are making in you silly response.

It clearly says co2 increases after temp increase. It was an authority ant selected.

Lol you blokes clearly are not up to defending your faith. You need to get experts to help you out.

You're so tedious ant; cyclones are decreasing in Australia as even a cursory look at BOM would show:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

I haven't muddied anything and I can't help it if you cannot find the FAR graph [clue Arctic sea ice NOT sheet ice or glaciers].

The Shakum paper you are referring to is junk as I explain at number 7 here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-ten-worst-agw-papers-by-cohenite.html

Keep putting them up ant and we'll keep knocking them down.

Crickey has come out with Part 1 of a dozen climate change deniers.
Plimer was one person discussed in the article of yesterday. Hundreds of schools received copies of his book published in 2011, sent to schools by the insidious IPA. The Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency saw the need to send material to school to correct what Plimer had written.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf

imajulianutter,your not able to use google? You mentioned in another thread that you were not able to find out anything about John Tyndall
A quote from you prviously … “Cannot find Tyndall but I suspect he'll confirm this.”

This is the reference I provided:

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal

A quote from reference previously provided …”Tyndall's paper identified carbon dioxide and water vapour as key components of the atmosphere which trap radiant heat energy in the Earth's climate systems….”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Here is a quote from the nasa reference above ..."Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities...."

ant, you are a true believer; you actually believe the planet is going to be ruined by AGW. Nothing would convince you otherwise.

I find your comments about Plimer, a good man, and his book being distributed in schools to be repugnant; and hypocritical given this disgrace:

http://www.andysrant.com/2014/01/academic-imaginary-cagw-should-be-taught-all-students-from-primary-school.html

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/04/Education-reducedportrait-5.pdf

AGW, as all propaganda does, targets children and in various insidious and unethical ways AGW has inculcated children with its deceit and lies.

As part of that you deserve the same opprobrium.

cohenite, you gave a reference by the discredited Goddard, which you then attributed to the IPCC, please provide the reference; though, Goddard’s reference to IPCC doesn’t exist does it?

I'm not sure why you are bringing up cyclones; cohenite, except you seem to be trying to verbal me.
Your original comment was …” How did cyclone Ita go for the alarmists; it was going to be the end of the North QLD coast; how did that go ant?
My response was …”Nobody to my knowledge has made any inferences to Cyclone Ita, it is the cyclone season still.”
Which is a pretty neutral comment, the cyclone season lasts till the end of April.
You then retort later with …”"You're so tedious ant; cyclones are decreasing in Australia as even a cursory look at BOM would show:"

You have to be joking in relation to the reference you gave; political groupings and blogs do not stand up against peer reviewed science.
John Tyndall found a relationship between CO2 and warming 150 years ago, a couple of references have been given above .
To discredit scientific papers you really need to be working in the appropriate field.

Who discredited Goddard? You or one of your ilk? Give me a break; being discredited by AGW advocates is a badge of honour. How can something as phony, false, ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, deceitful and misanthropic as AGW claim any moral high ground at all? The answer of course is it can't.

You keep harping on about Tyndall ant; no one disputes that CO2 is photoluminescent; laboratory tests prove that; but like the models which AGW rely on AGW cannot comprehend that what happens in the computer and the lab simply doesn't happen in reality.

There is a mountain of evidence from the real world which shows CO2 radiation absorbing properties are defeated or vitiated by other atmospheric components and processes which is why the models have grossly failed.

Read this:

http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Polynomial_Cointegration_Tests_of_the_Anthropogenic_Theory_of_Global_Warming_Nature_Paper091209.pdf

Understand the paper and you'll understand my point about laboratory and model results being contradicted by natural process.

Ocean algae plant matter takes up CO2 and CO2 has radiation absorbing properties, yes? While those properties may be defeated in atmosphere, what period of time is required to defeat those properties in water?
Four or five hours, perhaps?

Surely radiation absorbing properties of natural and unprecedented sewage nutrient proliferated ocean and fresh water algae plant matter should be measured and assessed in AGW science.

You must be pretty upset with Plimer's book being sent to hundreds of schools by IPA; cohenite. Your reference doesn't relate to Australia; it looks as though it is British. I agree propaganda should not be sent to schools.
The material sent to schools from the Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy was for teachers who were given information so they could correct any views that students might raise in relation to climate change. The matter of concern really is about the IPA sending propaganda to schools, Crikey explained that the DCCE was wanting to correct misinformation.
You question the terms I use; for example, "ice sheet",copy and paste

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ice+sheets+melting&rlz=1C1NOOH_enAU522AU522&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=FU1OU4yLEoXtkAXBwoHYBA&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

There are captions with each photo, map, and diagram.

I hadn't mentioned the Andes in relation to glaciers retreating before

http://www.nature.com/news/melting-in-the-andes-goodbye-glaciers-1.11759

It’s a matter of goodbye glaciers in the Andes, though ground water might still be available to the population.

A film about glaciers in the Himalaya, a melting glacier in Montana is mentioned.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/

The glaciers in the Antarctic area are more contentious some glaciers are retreating while others are quite stable.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/antarctic-glaciers-nearing-collapse-20140331

http://www.livescience.com/42622-pine-island-glacier-retreating.html

Glaciers are retreating in Africa too

http://io9.com/5886047/there-are-still-glaciers-right-in-the-middle-of-africafor-now

There has been retreat of glaciers in Russia as well.

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/psysh-glacier-retreat-western-caucasus-russia/

A comment being " The Caucasus region has been experiencing widespread significant retreat (Shahgedanova et al 2009), with average retreat of 8 m per year due in large part to increased summer temperature."

There are melting glaciers in Greenland, Iceland, Canada, Alaska, Montana, the Andes, the Himalaya, Norway, Russia, and Antarctica as well.
It is reasonable to conclude that warming is happening when pretty well everywhere around the planet glaciers are retreating, there are some exceptions. For example out of 1,400 glaciers in the Yukon 4 have increased.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171434/Satellite-study-Asian-mountains-glaciers-NOT-melting--actually-gaining-new-ice.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Glacier

http://new.aig.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AIGnews_Aug09.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/#more-15589

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200801121040.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_in_Spain_%28Pyrinees%29.htm

Keep going ant; you'll come up with something some day.

Cohenite,

This discussion is not useless.

Look, I am not in this for profit. I delve into relevant matters because change to ocean ecosystems is causing seafood shortage and malnutrition and disease amongst seafood dependent Pacific Islands and other people. Some of those people are long term friends of mine. So I am asking for your help with some answers. Example.

As the oceans are a sink for CO2 and as CO2 has radiation absorbing properties, do you know of any scientific reference to warmth in CO2 being taken up in ocean algae?
Apart from on OLO, have you seen or heard anything at all on the subject?

My focus on warmth in algae has been on increased matter retaining warmth for an increased period of time in water.

Now it seems radiation absorbed in CO2 may be adding a slight degree of warmth to living ocean algae matter.

The basic experiment I did with dried pea soup vegetable matter from the supermarket, showed warmth being carried for about 5 hours into hours of night, whereas clear water cooled much quicker.
That approximately 5 hour increase tallies with what I learned 50 years ago about stock troughs carrying warmth into the night

Since discussion on this thread I am now wondering if a slight degree of CO2 associated warmth in living algae may last longer than say 5 hours, following sunset.

I think warmth in ocean algae is important as ocean warms atmosphere, perhaps more and more into hours of night, but not all atmosphere of the globe at the same time.

(that AGW global inference is too general and I think that is causing at least some or the friction between warmists and sceptics)

Just had a peak at one of Cohenite's links:
<<Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing>>

My first reaction was Wow! if this is true this alone should debunk AGW.

Then I remembered AGW's old get-out-of-jail card:
If it is too hot it's AGW
If it is too cold it's AGW
Unless, it is Goldilocks-like its evidence of AGW.

What's the betting that AGW.10 will have the line:
"Yes, the glaciers are growing but, that's all because of extreme weather"

Cohenite, I have mentioned a couple of times that there have been some glaciers that have increased in size ( wrote about the 4, 300 out of 1400 previously). But the vast majority have been retreating or have died. “Glacial retreat is being observed in North America and throughout the world, and many glaciers have completely disappeared in recent decades. About 150 glaciers were observed in Glacier National Park, Montana in 1850, and about the same number in 1910 when the Park was established. A survey of the Park in 2010 revealed only 25 glaciers.” From http://www.thisisclimatechange.org/glacial-retreat/
From your own reference…”The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Glacier
Previously you referenced a paper by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz, about greenhouse gas forcings being temporary; however, whether that is the case or not, should greenhouse gases continue to increase as they have been, then it is rather an academic argument.
You use Watts again as a reference; he has no qualifications, and has been debunked a number of times.
Your Hindi source suggests particular geographic circumstances.
Glaciers have been retreating in New Zealand … http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7279904/Our-frozen-assets-slowly-melting-away

As you used Wikepedia, here is an over view of what is happening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Alaska
The big but though is that the two largest stores of ice by far are in Greenland and Antarctica, and a combination of all the other glaciers makes up a small overall percentage of ice in comparison.
http://digitaljournal.com/news/environment/greenland-s-jakobshavn-glacier-retreating-at-record-speeds/article/369185
There is a total of 99% of all land locked ice contained in Greenland and Antarctica.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/05/16/world%E2%80%99s-melting-glaciers-making-large-contribution-sea-rise
Like so many things that deniers try to present in a linear manner, there are seasonal and yearly fluctuations, trends are noticed over a number of years.
Here is an oversight of glacial measures for 2011/2012
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html
In 2014 ice sheets are retreating in Greenland, as has been noticed for anumber of years..
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113096781/climate-change-causes-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-031714/
cohenite, have you found that reference Goddard attributed to IPCC, yet?

The link below sums up the situation quite well. The vast majority of glaciers are melting. No ifs not buts it is simply a fact. It also accounts for at least half of the current sea level rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png

There you go again ant.
The link you gave was an article in a warmist magazine about Tyndall.
All it says is that Tyndall maintained co2 and water vapour maintained the heat within the earths atmosphere.

Nobody disagrees with that.

What I want to know is whether, as you seem to hold, is that Tyndall found and proved AGW, the relative import of co2 and water vapour and whether temp rose ahead of co2 levels or vice versa.

Your link lacks any scientic basis or explanation and is not a link to Tyndall. Like I said I can't find links to Tyndal. Of course there are links to articles (biased) about him.
As usual your links are irrelevant or moronic.

And ant have a good thorough read of that second link you provided about Tyndall before I start quoting from it.

If it were not so contradictary of your point of view I'd laugh. No I am laughing and am now earnestly looking for his views on climate change. If they are as accurate but more detailled Tyndall will be regarded as a denier.

Lol Easter is going to be busy with this quest.

Why CO2 CANNOT DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE. Carbon dioxide poses no threat at all to the planet. While many scientists can tell all about what carbon dioxide emissions are currently doing to the planet and what the alleged outcomes will be in 50 or 100 years time, the reality is that many climate scientists have not studied carefully enough, carbon dioxide its properties.

This is where the whole discussion over climate change has gone wrong. CC scientists can postulate all they like about global warming, but if you don’t understand how carbon dioxide works, then you are not an expert and you know diddly squat about climate change.

When one studies carbon dioxide it becomes apparent that carbon dioxide of itself cannot drive climate change. Despite the increasing levels of CO2 over the past two decades, data shows that global temperatures have gone sideways - and not risen as predicted by consensus science computer modelling (GCM’s).In terms of `greenhouse gases’, of every 85,000 atmospheric molecules, 3,400 are water vapour molecules and 33 are carbon dioxide, of which 32 are naturally occurring. Just ONE molecule is anthropogenic in origin.
Based on these figures, it’s impossible for carbon dioxide to be the major `greenhouse gas’ or to be the dominant influence on climate change.

There are also other factors needed to be considered. Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist has published a paper which clearly shows global warming is not being driven by human CO2 emissions. Excessive amounts of CO2 do not increase global temperatures. Once CO2 reaches 50ppmv its maximum impact on climate has been achieved.

Once CO2 levels rise about 50ppmv (currently it’s 398) its impact is logarithmic, or to put it another way, you would have to raise CO2 to extraordinary levels to get a slight increase in overall temperatures. To raise global temperature by 1C you would need to raise CO2 levels to over 600ppm. Even it mankind burnt all so called `fossil fuels’ tomorrow (which isn’t going to happen), the CO2 level would rise to 550ppm – which is far below the 1,000ppm of the dinosaur era

Warmy you say:

"It also accounts for at least half of the current sea level rise." Consider these 2 papers;

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf

The Ablain et al and Cazenave et al papers which I link to above have looked at sea level rise and factored in thermosteric and mass measurements [ie from increase in the water content]. The 2008 Cazenave paper looks at the period from 2003-2008 and finds a decomposed [into the steric and mass components] sea level rate of increase of ~2.3mm pa. The 2009 Ablain paper looks at the period from 2005-2008 and finds a rate of increase of ~1.3mm pa.

During the 20thc the rate of sea level increase was ~ 1.8mm pa. But there were periods when the rate was more and when it was less, even negative, arguably in correlation with PDO phase shifts. This is exactly what we are seeing since 1992. From 1992-2003 we saw a rate of increase greater than average; from 2003 we have seen a rapidly decreasing rate of increase, again arguably in correlation with PDO phase shift.

Thermosteric sea level increase is from ocean heat expansion; this hasn’t been happening since ~2003 as measures of Ocean Heat Content show a cooling sea.

And since global temps have been flat for 17 years it makes you wonder how there can be any melting of land ice to supply the mass component of sea level rise either.

ant

is this an example of your lack of comprehension skills?

'imajulianutter,your not able to use google? You mentioned in another thread that you were not able to find out anything about John Tyndall
A quote from you prviously …'

that is not the same as

'“Cannot find Tyndall but I suspect he'll confirm this.”'

imajulianutter, something noticeable is that you scorn, mock, scoff and insult; yet, you bring no evidence forward. You say you are not a climate change denier though you provide no evidence. The conclusion reached might be that you are a troll or believe that quite rapid natural climate change is happening. You set yourself up as an expert but do not provide any evidence as to why your opinion has any validity. You show no respect for the scientists who have gathered data over many years often in less than favourable conditions.
At least cohenite and Leo Lane do provide references from their denier’s camp.

References showing relevance of CO2 in atmospheric warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.U1BbifmSw1I
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html#.U1BeHfmSw1I

cohenite, Figure 2 in paper referenced below shows a rise in sea levels.
http://elib-v3.dlr.de/84058/1/eps_pp_energy_env_2009.pdf0.pdf

Greenland and the Antarctic possess 99% of land based ice, there is significant retreat in Greenland of glaciers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316152955.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier
http://www.egu.eu/news/100/greenlands-fastest-glacier-reaches-record-speeds/
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.html

cohenite could you provide Goddard's link to the IPCC.

Cohenite,
You say, “There is a mountain of evidence from the real world which shows CO2 radiation absorbing properties are defeated or vitiated by other atmospheric components and processes which is why the models have grossly failed.”
Accordingly I have a query. How about answering?

If ocean algae plant matter absorbs CO2 and if CO2 has radiation absorbing properties even for a short period of time, would radiation be absorbed by CO2 within underwater algae plant matter, and would such absorbed radiation warmth in CO2 within such underwater algae, be defeated when absorbed by the actual plant matter?

Surely it is best to understand and model exactly what type of adaption and mitigation is needed, if any.

ant, how about you help with the question of whether or not there is radiated warmth in CO2 in ocean and lake algae.
After all it was your comment that brought radiation in CO2 to my attention.

Surely Australians can work as a team toward achieving a good future.

ant

if you say challenging the links you provide as proof of climate warming, which in fact support the reverse, is scorning, mocking, scoffing and insulting, then so be it.

I do believe in climate change but not that co2 increases cause it.

Why do I have to provide proof when you provide it for me?


'It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit cause an initial small warming. But for most of the 6,000-year long ‘transition’, Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events. We see no examples in the ice core record of a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature.'

There even your authority says the records show temps started to rise before co2. It even acknowledges the extent of the rise. Then of course, as terrorists do, it goes on to try to disguise that recorded truth with weasel words and 'modelling'.

Why don't you believe your own propagandists?

So if co2 didn't cause warming and all the evidence now points to a pause in temps while co2 levels are still increasing how can this part of that statement be true?

'a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature'

Why can you not understand that logic?

As it stands you don't believe your own authorities and defy logic.

Why wouldn't you expect to be scorned, mocked, scoffed at and insulted for adopting such an idiotic position.

cohenite, you say as do many deniers that temperatures stopped increasing after 1998; sorry the evidence is not there, there is also some information in relation to oceans continuing to warm using a hyperlink to a 2008 reference

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.U1B92fmSw1I
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

cohenite, in my last post I gave a reference to glaciers in Greenland, here is a quote from one of the references …
“The new result focuses on ice loss due to a major retreat of an outlet glacier connected to a long "river" of ice -- known as an ice stream -- that drains ice from the interior of the ice sheet. The Zachariae ice stream retreated about 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) over the last decade, the researchers concluded. For comparison, one of the fastest moving glaciers, the Jakobshavn ice stream in southwest Greenland, has retreated 35 kilometers (21.7 miles) over the last 150 years.” The reference is dated March 2014.
The Jacobshavn glacier is around 16 ks wide and up to a 1,000 meters in height; "... in the summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 17 kilometres per year, or over 46 metres per day." The quote taken from one of the other references provided earlier.

Factual material that does not rely on theories or computer models

Temperatures have been rising and anomalous in the Arctic region something you do not seem to be able to accept.

Idiot, moronic, mocking, scoffing, scorning and other such inference are off topic, waste time and hurt some decent people.

i really CANT BE BOTHERED CATCHING UP..ON THE DEBATE
BUT A POINT WAS MADE RE ICE MELTING..AND ALGAE BLOOMING
THE THING IS..WARMING OF THE OCEANS..IS CAUSE THERE is more heat warming the oceans..[right?}

well algae is turning the light off/blocking the sun-light/heat
like an umbrella turning that energy into carbon capturing life.

ie THE EARTH COMPENSATES c02/SATURATION/is/BY 'BLOOMING'

NOW GET Over this man made delusion
that has one cure triple the cost of energy..AND GIVE POLLUTERS A NEW new industry/PRODUCT..to increase their 'productivity'..read energy wastage.

READ THIS AND WEEP
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=light+bulb+conspiracy

YA DRINK YA SOY LATTES/[GROWN ON smashed AMAZON FORREST]
YA EAT YA BIO ORGANIC PAlM OIL..FROM YET OTHER LIVING BIOTA
YA DOWN ON MEAT EATING yet think nothing of murdering many/endless living seeds to make ya fake meat/ya fake milk and ya fake feel good soy latte

let ye without sin
not throw anymore stones.
yes pollution is bad/sending us broke so govt can prop up industry..is insane/

we near destroyed this earth to get here.
this greedy re-industrialization is that step too far that kills us.

get it its life and death/if green wins
we all dead/when the pole shifts..and sunlight goes away..for a year and one day..and cyclonic winds will rip apart the wind array/to save the earth your willing to kill it..its insanity..and a cant be bothered back tracking to who said what.

its you greenie types that want solar in-dust-wry
that want wind industry..that want electrick/cars
that want/..them 10 DOLLAR LIGHT BULBS THAT BURN OUT AFTER 60 HOURS USE

one under god,

With so many apparent dislikes, what do you eat?
I like a good mature grass fed steak, absoutely without sauce.
A2 milk, organic butter and soil-grown vegetables as well.

Ocean algae seems to like N&P and iron.
If nutrition is not adequate then algae will not thrive and bloom.
Evidence of substance indicates that if unprecedented human sewage nutrient loading dumped daily was not all over the place these days, there would be less nutrient loading and less algae.

I just put my hand on top of algae in a sunlit pond and could easily feel distinct warmth compared to cooler clear water right alongside.

It is not a matter of being a greenie or warmist or sceptic in order to have an open mind and common sense.

ant, it's in FAR; I can't believe someone who throws around so many links from SKS like you do can't find it.

Sea level rise is declining ant; as I showed; how can alleged sheet ice and glacier melt be increasing sea level when it is declining?

I come across people like you who kitchen sink references from the usual alarmist sites without a clue. Think about what you're linking to.

So, I repeat, if all this melting ice is going into the sea why isn't sea level rise increasing and why is the steric component of sea level rise non-existent if heating is melting the ice?

And how is the sheet ice melting when the temperatures in Greenland and the Antarctic don't exceed 0C?

cohenite, in a past post I have indicated that I have searched FAR.
I think your Goddard has been trying to pull wool over people's eyes.

Please provide the particular IPCC FAR reference, I believe you are unable to do so.

cohenite, when you consider the enormity of seas and oceans a large volume of water is required to raise water levels.
A recently published book certainly says water levels are increasing so do large numbers of other references:

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/69.full

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-future/sea-level

JS Aus, I typed into Google "impact of algae on CO2"

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/algae.php

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/11451/1/m373p285.pdf

http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html

From what I can gather algae is more likely to take up CO2 than be a problem.

You're a funny little thing ant; or you would be funny if AGW wasn't such a gigantic, corrupt imposition on the peoples of the world.

The Graph is in FAR; I'm looking at it now:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg

It's in here ant:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

ant says:

"A recently published book certainly says water levels are increasing"

Yes they are ant, but at a DECREASING rate; if AGW were real as you say they would be increasing at an INCREASING rate.

You do know about rates and changes in rates don't you ant? Once again the evidence against AGW is there before your eyes but like the good little worker you are you just keep plugging up that leaky vessel called AGW.

Cohenite, you say, ".......the temperatures in Greenland and the Antarctic don't exceed 0C?

So why is it so that temperature in Greenland is officially reported to have reached a highest ever recorded high of 78.6F ?

I think I understand a likely cause other than what is stated at the following link, but it's not due to CO2 emissions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/01/greenland-soars-to-highest-temperature-ever-recorded/

Over the last hundred years or so sea levels have been rising at about 1.7 mm per year according to the tide gauges. Now around 1993 we started to use satellites to measure sea level rise and surprisingly a rate of 3.4 mm per year was measured. The conclusion was this rate could not be explained by estimating the amount of ice melt plus and the increase due to thermal expansion. Previously it was estimated that of 0.7 mm/yr was due to ice melt and 0.4 mm/yr was due to thermal expansion for a total of 1.1 mm/year. Thus should make it fairly obvious that a figure of 3.2 mm per year was not likely to be maintained at least in the medium term and indeed in 2010-2011 global sea levels actually fell.

The factor that has to be taken into account in the short term is where does the rain fall. During La Nina events much of Australia receives heavy rainfall which is enough to reduce sea level by a several millimeters and conversely during El Nino events sea level rises faster than normal.

Now let us consider if it is possible that the sea level could have been rising at 1.7 mm over previous centuries? the answer is obviously no as it would put most of the ancient ports under 2 or 3 meters of water which is simply not the case. So It is clear that dramatic warming has taken place over the last century.

Ice will continue to melt unless temperatures actually start to fall simply because the high latitudes have warmed by up to 3 degs in many places, and these places can no longer sustain ice over the summer months so we can expect the accumulated ice from previous decades will gradually disappear.

Thanks JF; I did mean temperature over the ice sheet not on the coast of Greenland but anyway.

Warmair; read my post above about the Ablain and Cazanave papers in respect of sea level rise which is DECELERATING. The study of the Amsterdam sea level record, the longest in the world also shows no acceleration:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DcXZF9vogtkC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=Amsterdam+sea+level+1.5+mm+year&source=bl&ots=Yhhn5foHpN&sig=rvIIke0luHll2Dl5RBBsd9uxEkk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJd6Ua3dFqrpiwLw8IDQBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Amsterdam%20sea%20level%201.5%20mm%20year&f=false

Researchers from Southhampton find after a historical comparison that current sea level rise, while high is still within natural parameters:

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2013/dec/13_223.shtml

In Australia, Morner and Parker find no acceleration of sea level rise and official IPCC rates to be exaggerated: see Figure 3:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf

Morner and Parker confirm Watson and Houston and Dean's papers:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?prevSearch=[AllField%3A+houston+dean]&searchHistoryKey=&&

Incidentally according to NOAA over 10 years from 1993 to 2003 the sea level rise due to thermal expansion [steric] is 4 mm from a direct measurement and 16 mm from the computer modelling studies of the IPCC reports.

Like every other aspect of AGW warmy, sea level rise is riven with contradictions and exaggeration.

here wego again
OH FOR FREAKS SAKE
im watching some program..[the tipping points]
they talk of brown smoke..[that is heating the atmosphere
but cooling the oceons..[as usualy the greenies trick the data]

but lets move on/this brown smog/cloud whatever
is caused by cooking fires..so they have invented a super efficient 'stove'..that looks like its made from a 4 gallen coffie can..they could make cheaper than a bucket[say 4 buCKS..TOPS]..TO MAKE IN INDIA

..BUT WAIT.. its raising money for this poor lady unable to buy a 5 dollar stove..[how you may ask]..well the tin can is hooked up to a phone

YEAH THATS RIGHT THESE POOR FOLKS CANY BUT A 45 DOLLAR STOVE
SO WE SELL THEM A 50 DOLLAR?..PHONE..BUT WAIT..IT GETS BETTER
THE PHONE GOES INTO THE TIN CAN..sorry cook stove..via a sensor
that hooks up to the phone/that hooks uP TO?,,SAY A SOLAR CELL

THAT HOOKS INTO THE PHONE SYSTEM/VIA THE CELTOWER..TO GO TO USA
SO THEY CAN SELL THE HEAT CREATED BY BURNING DUNG IN THE POT..INSTEAD OF THE OLD OVEN

NOW BY TONIES DIRECT ACTION..we could give them a billion stoves
at 5 BUCKS A STOve..and buy more carbon abatement/wholesale/than 500 moblie phones ringing home

but it was so STUPID..i just had to note it
5 billion tony..we build the stoves gift em to india
run the numbers buying mobile phones with carbon credits/mate thats insane

ps the solar charger..could be making methane stoves
but see how these eletes waste the crapp..out of our hard earned carbon debt.

direct action
or nuthin

hangem high/6 million can return normality to india
forget carbon credits[ps also im noting the highest cause of death is lung cancer/[from woodsmoke]]..stop the woodsnoke..and the cancer rate drops/then the mongels will say the drop in luncg cacer was cause of the stop smoking sin taX AND THE PHOTOES OF DEAD PEOPLE WE MUST SUFFER THROUGH BECAUSE OF THE SAME CARBON NATZIES THAT SOMEHOW MADE COOKING AN ONLINE CASH COW

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf
I have to say one of the funnest links I have seen in good while.
I am sure the good people of Freemantel will be intrigued to hear that they are sinking at a rate of 1.4 mm per year LOL.
Anyway although it is not really necessary here is a link that details some of the problems with the the Moerner-Parker paper.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/a-mournful-application-of-care-and-skill/

one under god,
Sir Richard Branson comes to mind on reading your account above. He has a system similar to the phone in the can in India. With Sir Richard you buy a ticket and sit inside one of his Virgin containers with your phone turned off. Then you can even fly to America with no concern for carbon, as long as you have been sucked into the AGW trading scheme and have paid for 'emissions' when buying your ticket online. I wonder who gets all that money.

cohenite, an interesting article about how Taylor through Goddard was critical of NOAA

http://deepclimate.org/2012/06/21/heartlands-james-taylor-hits-new-low-with-defamatory-false-accusations-against-noaa/#comments

But Goddard did obtain a graph from IPCC FAR 1990, my apologies.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

Measuring the volume and mass of ice in the past has been very difficult until satellites were used in 1979.
Sea ice levels were meant to be low in the 1920s and 40s, there were no mechanisms to measure the extent or volume of ice; but the levels were not as low as 2012.
In 1979 there was perennial ice, by 2012 that ice had been lost; the mass and volume of ice had changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2nruCRcbnY0

Copy and past.

An interesting Blog in relation to Heartlands ( representing mining interests)they are wishing to change the curriculum in American schools.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/heartland-institute-hey-kids-have-a-smoke-and-denial/

Dear Ant, that latest link of yours, copied below, really tells it all.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

I wonder what response Cohenite may have to that.
The data appears most compelling.
Good luck with your quest to convince, or at least to open the minds of, those who refuse to recognise possibility.

Take human activity out of the equation, and what credible explanation remains?
(God's will, or orbital decay? Too much 'hot air' expended on the subject, maybe?)

haven't you learned about providing links. mate you are just so slow.

If you took the activities of mankind out of climate change, it would make virtually no difference.Over the years I’ve had dealings with media people, politicians and environmentalists on the matter of climate change. It has became obvious to me that many committed to environmentalism, and who are on some sort of a jihad to `save the planet’, are modern day Pharisee’s. They have some knowledge, not enough to be an expert, but enough to be a menace to the truth.

Many environmental zealots, and there seem to be no shortage of deluded `useful idiots’ as Lenin would say, who are prepared to cause enormous disruption to society in order to `save the planet’. Events such as sabotaging coal power stations, putting spikes in trees to thwart loggers, breaking into private property to film battery hens, holding disruptive public rallies and hogging open lines on talk back radio have unfortunately become all too commonplace.

Those dedicated to environmentalism suffer under the allusion that they alone have the truth. It is they alone who understand the `climate change science’. Thus from their elevated status which they have conveniently bestowed upon themselves, they denounce those who disagree with them as `deniers.’ The use of pejoratives and decorous labels is a tactic designed to embarrass and alienate. I’m constantly amazed and disappointed that the mainstream media, politicians as well as green lobbyists use the word `denier’. This is emotive and not the proper way to hold a rational, informed – indeed scientific based discussion. What has happened to `Climate Sceptic?

Monsignor Red Baron,

I take it you haven't checked out Ant's link (which I repeated in my considered response).
Else, how could you make such bland and unsubstantiated statements like:

>If you took the activities of mankind out of climate change, it would make virtually no difference.<

So, we can just take your word for this grand declaration?
(Or is it all down to disillusioned environmentalists 'corrupting' the 'scientific' evidence, or, worse still, making up their own minds based solely on the evidence and acting accordingly?)

You will of course inherit the 'environment' you 'envisage'.

So, Nutter, I take it you reject the evidence presented in the link out of hand, and purely on the basis of the source?
I'm sure of course, that you duly considered the 'evidence' on its actual merits, before coming to your totally unbiased opinion of it?
Yes, of course, couldn't be otherwise, from such as yourself, with your demonstrated 'open mind'.

'Mate', you are just so fast. (It's so much easier if one simply rejects the 'facts', eh?)

from the salty ant sukker up/TO
DEAR SALTY..FROM YOUR INK..PLEASE NOTE THE DATES
8 YEARS OLD THE 'LATEST'

Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3 to 4 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.

AND NOW ITS NON EXISTANT
YOU GUYS LIVE IN THE PAST/the green carbon credit..scam..is winding down.

its lobby will no doudt move onto some other moralizing regulation...sin-tax..cash cow..as scientists will always sell their souls for funding[and lets face it there is riches in taxing a weightless gas/by the ton..just like having a money tree.only you sell licences to polute...thats really catholic of you.

what motrivates my anger is the one tax fixes it all
plus those 'in the know'..sellingv their free-solar cell power for three times the rest of us must buy it for..how low can you go..how much cassh have you sold your soul..for>

YOU DONT TAX AIRPLANE FUEL..NOR SHIPPING DUEL
BETWEEN THOSE TWO..plus transport they use 2/3 rds the petro polution

yet bug abusers still get the fuel tax excise exemption of 12 billion
yet these huge polluters still get govt cash..[so much for ya stinking lobby..you avoid taking on the biggest poLLuters

then all ya freaking lies..and the nutters keep coming and comming like greedy cash monkeys..seeking the next carbon credit fication[on stale data

your stinking models made absurd predictions
they were wrong/but because we dont resist you mongrels professionally the useful idiots keep parroting on the babble.

ITS YOU MUGS THINKING WE BELIEVE YOU
when mostly their just ignoring your latest blaH BLAH BLAH

AND THEIR RIGHT.so what motivates you some greenie bonus points
or the cold hhard cash they give you for fooling and foiling the opposition.

regardless you professing fools win/not by the science/but by persistence akin to rape..and the thief caught lying yet again

and still you lot bounce back..pretending its true
then one day you going to look and see the fruit..of all you screwed

"God's will, or orbital decay? Too much 'hot air' expended on the subject, maybe?"

Nah, natural variation!

one under god, your references are not up to date, there are a number of references from this year that indicate that Greenland glaciers have become destabilised. A glacier that is moving fast is 16ks wide and 800 ms high...jakobshavn glacier.

In the past I have indicated that it is somewhat unclear what is happening in the Antarctic, the ice sheet is probably becoming larger through land ice dispersing into the ocean.
Here is a recent reference

http://www.dw.de/antarctic-glaciers-retreat-unstoppable/a-17363380

Tell NASA they are wrong
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Tell the US Navy they are wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4&feature=youtu.be

Tell New Scientist they are wrong
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.U1Bgr_mSw1K

Tell NSIDC they are wrong
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

Monsignor Saltpetre,

Everything I’ve said is `ex cathedra’, that is to say, everything I’ve stated is true and I can substantiate every claim I’ve made. Space doesn't permit me to go into depth here.

Suffice to say, in the overall scheme of things, the following influence climate far more than mankind. There are many drivers climate change, but a range of variables which are dynamic and constantly changing. Climate change factors include:

I - Heliosphere (sun spot activity); Cosmic winds, (biggest factor)
2- Magnetosphere. GMF GeoMagnetic Field.
3- Deviation of Earth’s rotational axis to the vertical.
Earth’s orbital variations (The Earth’s tilt ranges from 22 to 24.5. Currently it’s 23.3).
Our seasons are controlled by the angle of deviation of our rotational axis to the vertical. The angle changes over time and varies between 22.1 and 25.5 deg to the vertical. We are currently travelling with a deviation angle of about 23.4 deg.
This variation causes drastic changes to our climate, from ice ages to raging heatwaves. This change is cyclical and occurs over a period of about 41,000 years so, yes, we have been there many times before over time since the planet’s existence.

Get used to it. It’s likely to get worse over the next 20,000 years before we see any improvement.

4 Variation of Earth’s orbit (variation in distance from the Sun; (more elongated. `Milankovic effect’).
5 Proximity to equator,
6 Influence of moon on tides, fluctuating ocean levels,
7 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) The El Nino (dry, warmer weather) or La Nina (cooler, wetter weather) phenomena
9 Volcanic activity on land AND on sea bed floor (changing acidity levels),
10 Level and intensity of cloud cover, (water vapour concentrations),
11 Ice-reflectivity feedback,
12 Direction of prevailing winds,
13 Location, including proximity to the ocean, mountains, rainforest etc.
14 Land use changes, clear felling of native forests, cropping etc. This is far influential on climate than 15 below.
15 Industrial and commercial activity (includes CO2 emissions).
If you require further enlightenment, please feel free to ask any questions you may have.
Red Baron

The science of climate change
First thing raised against sceptics – “Not a climate scientist – not even a scientist.
Was Al Gore, Lord Stern, Ross Garnaut, Peter Shergold? On the Climate Commission out of 6 there are only 2 scientists who have some expertise in climate, Prof Tim Flannery kangaroo evolution) palaeontologist, environmentalist and Will Stefan a climate scientist.

Previously climate scientists trained in a specific branch of science (Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric physics, Oceanography, Geophysics, etc) and to analyse data, is such training adequate to make predictions about future temperature trends over the next 100 years. A scientist would need training in a branch of mathematics including, Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics and Time series analysis.
Universities such as ANU now offer courses in Bachelor of Computational Science (B.Comptl.Sci) which include modules on Differential equations ,Mathematical Methods,Numerical and Computational, techniques, Simulation and Modelling,Large Scale Matrix Computations, Programming and so on. One can also specialise in a major which include, physics , environmental modelling, genetics , mathematics (fundamental and applied) and computer science.
Science is a journey - it is never `settled' what crap!
In 1977 Time magazine carried as its lead story – How to survive the coming ice age.
However in 2006 Time magazine carried as its lead story – Be worried, Be very worried. Global warming is upon us.
That’s a very quick turn around. So what generation of scientists got it wrong? The ones who claimed a cooling in 1977 or the ones claiming global warming in 2006?
The Met Office in London and the Royal Society have distanced themselves from the claim that increased carbon emissions is driving increased extreme weather events. Infact extreme weather events have declined by 30 percent over the past two decades, this is well documented in Indur Goklany's book, `The Improving state of the World. (2007)
The idea that a 2c rise in temperature is to be feared or that the 1c rise over the past 150 odd years, is much ado about nothing. The underlying mechanisms of the change remain uncertain and largely unknown.

Red Barron the matters you raised have been acknowledged by climate scientists; scientists from all sorts of disciplines are involved in studying whats going on.
We should be going into an ice age at present on two accounts, lack of sun spot activity up till very recently, and you mentioned the cycle of ice ages and then warming periods.

We are due for an el nino event and in the last week or so there was mention of sun spot activity; but these events are subsidiary. It is interesting that with the el nino effect that there has been a trend line going upwards since the beginning of the 1900s.

There have been constant papers stating that glaciers are retreating except for a few where there has been an increase. The glaciers that count though are retreating.
There has been a reduction in the Arctic ice sheet extending over decades. There are some seasonal variations, but temperatures are on the way up around the globe; especially in Polar and sub Polar areas, the trends overall show global warming.
A huge myth is that temperatures stopped increasing after the major el nino event in 1998.

RB, which of your items 1-13 hold the same relationship with temperature for the last 800,000 years (at least) that CO2 concentration does?

Why can't items 14 & 15 possibly explain the unprecedented rate of rise in temperature over the last century?

Aren't you really just saying it's "natural variation" and obfuscating this with the addition of items 14 & 15?

Been there, done that.

Ant
Sorry bno they haven't beem. The IPCC deliberately hones in on anthropogenic activity and virtually sidelines natural causes.

The latest research - among them Prof Ivan Frolov, have found there is NO uniform ice melts as demanded by IPCC modelling. Also ice cover in both Artic and Anartic has increased and not decreased.

What planet are you living on? It's a huge FACT that temperatures stopped increasing after the major el nino event in 1998. Don't get me started on the junk science used to ascertain the `average temperature'. It's notoriously hard to work out the average temp of say one place, i.e. Melbourne, let along a state, not to mention a country - its almost darn near impossible to work out an average temperature for the planet. It's impossible impossible to work out a temperature trend - given that the way we have measured temp has changed and also the expansion of sea based temp readings over the past century. There are - even now - only 8 monitoring stations in a huge place like Antarica whereas America literally has thousands, so this bias alone renders any `average' temp redundant.

Professor Ivan Frolov et al wrote about predicting a rebound of ice levels in the Arctic in a book published in 2009.

http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound-predicted/

While there had been some retreating of glaciers in Greenland it was believed that the glaciers were generally quite stable;but, as from 2014 a tipping point is believed to have been reached.

At present, the sea ice is in a death spiral in the Arctic circle
http://www.skepticalscience.com/feb-2013-sea-ice-spiral.html

Ant,
The `Skeptical science' website, so called, doesn't impresses me. They are soooo biased that objectivity has gone out the window. Besides the name, "skeptical science" (SS) website is misleading and dishonest. To pretend that SS is a site which purportedly explaining sceptical science when in fact it is promoting and defending global warming theory is disengenious. Can this website be trusted? Not in my view. If a person can't be honest in the way he presents himself, then as far as I'm concerned, anything Cook says or claims on SS is highly suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt. SS should some integrity and change the name of its website to a title which indicates the site actually is, such as "Defending global warming theory" or "Defending consensus science" or similar.
It also must be noted that the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is 1.7 percent which is well below the natural variation of 5 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. So logically humanity’s CO2 emissions cannot be driving climate change.

Thank you Red Baron,

I have to admit that my assessment of climate change potential has been on a purely macro level - retreating ice, sea level rise, ocean acidity and average atmospheric and oceanic temperature change.
Given the staggering complexity of global climate, I have had no other means available to me in making an assessment and forming an opinion.

Perhaps the ice-core data comparing relative climate (relative global average temperatures) to relative CO2 levels (or atmospheric composition), over time, may not be fully indicative, or fully reliable for projection or prediction purposes - given the many variables you have identified.

With my limited knowledge I will retreat into the background, and will just have to wait to see (if I live so long) what impact, if any, the combustion of millions of years of fossil fuel aggregate, essentially from the start of the industrial revolution, and now accelerating, may, or may not have, on the Earth's future climate outcomes.

The question remains however: whether climate is changing, through natural variability or otherwise, and, if so, what preparation, adaptation, mitigation (if any) may be possible and appropriate?

I only hope someone will ultimately get it right, and 'in time'.
(Meanwhile I think I may be wise to get some solar panels capable of charging an electric-powered vehicle, inter alia.)

Red Barron, I'm not surprised you do not like the Skeptical Science site. It is maintained by scientists, it references peer reviewed science papers and allows for discussion. It is kept up to date.

What about NASA, they say that climate change is happening on the basis of:
sea level rise
global temperature increase
warming oceans
shrinking ice sheets
declining Arctic sea ice
glacial retreat
ocean acidification
extreme events
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

There has been some debate in relation to sea ice in the Arctic in the 1920s; one problem is that there can be no comparison of mass and volume between what was happening in the 1920s and 1979.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/arctic-sea-ice-extent-1920-1939-vs-2012.htm

Red Barron

Have a peak at the CV's of some the Sceptical Science "team"-that will really blow your socks off!

<<Bärbel Winkler lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo and a conservation group for many years. Over time and while learning more and more about it>>
https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
[if this link doesn't work check under i)About ii)Team ]

peak s/b peek -- of course

SPECIAL PROVACATEUR QED/HAS ROTE/quote>>

<<..Have a peak at the CV's of some the
Sceptical Science "team"-that will really blow your socks off!>>

YES SPECIAL AGENT QED.. its amassing..the perversion of the data
long winded and designed to confuse cause its written to support mugg bloggers such as you

lets look at the rubbish..link..look at the name
skeptical science..[how about that for clever positioning
they swupport global warming by men..then claim the sceptical/oppisite high ground

it its about warming facts..say warming fact site[but it says sceptical..[and thats what we are]..not you..but you keep putting the reverseengeneerrd lies about..im a sceptic..i see a clever trick

and what does ..'skeptical science"
say/TO CONFirm..warming warnings never go away?

<<Bärbel Winkler >>
http..skepticalsciences://www..com/team.php
[if this link doesn't work check under i)About ii)Team ]
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 8:55:32 AM

hope your not posting all these corrections
to bill the warmists for more blogs?..still if we get our new tax
what do you gain..[your not A GREENIE]..YET YOU POST *skepticalscience*..BUT YET CLAIM FAITH IN THE SCIENCE

ADD IT TO THE FAR TOO MANY LIES
its the liars i dispise...every time ya look at things..like skepticalscience*..ya know some-one went in to cut off any opposing ground

try..gogling
skeptical science.[you read this 3 times/but please see why now*..you must read it again..ie do not google skeptical sciernce..to get to scepticalscience*..

..special agent provocateurd said/not sceptical silence google
qed.quote

<<>.[if this link doesn't work check under i)About ii)Team ]

normally i would trust a skeptical science site to be..well sceptical
unless skeptical = tactical

Red Baron

Realistically your list of factors affecting global climate leaves a great deal to be desired.

The sun is of course the primary source of heat for the earth, but its output has in fact been declining slightly since the 1960s as has sunspot numbers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/720px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

The second most important feature of the earth's climate is the greenhouse effect, without its contribution to global warming the temperatures would be some 33 Degs C cooler and the planet would be frozen all the way to the equator.

The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and CO2, without the warming effect of CO2 the air temperature would be too cold to generate enough water vapour to further enhance temperatures, and keep the majority of the planet ice free.

Orbital mechanics do indeed play a role in climate, but without feedbacks the global effect would be minimal. Again it is greenhouse gases, which allow the climate to escape the clutches of ices ages. As temperatures gradually increase due to orbital changes, this causes the area of ice to decline, the oceans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere, and water vapour levels to rise. The result is that temperatures going into an ice age take a long time to fall but rise quite abruptly when the ice age retreats.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

Cloud cover's major impact is that it reduces the flow of heat both into and out of the climate system, by either refeclting sun light or preventing infared radtion from escaping. In any event more water vapour leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Outside of cloud and ice cover, the other factors you mention are not important as they are either strictly local, or the time scale is so vast as to be totally irrelevant to what is happening to the Earth's climate, over the last couple of centuries.

The facts are that humans are adding significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which if continued, will raise global temperatures to a point where it will cause major problems.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=east+anglia+loses+warming+data

DATa what data
oh that refuted DATA..WELL WE LOST IT

IM SICK OF THE DAMM LIES

Warmair, you say:
“The facts are that humans are adding significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which if continued, will raise global temperatures to a point where it will cause major problems.”

This is not fact, but conjecture.
The fact that CO2 is increasing does not mean that the increase is caused by human emissions. The pre-1995 warming that has taken place has released CO2 into the atmosphere.
The increase in CO2 has not caused the increase in global temperature projected by the fraud-backers.
Revise your definition of “fact”, warmair.

The problem with the current debate over alleged global warming is that it’s incredibility narrowly focused. Do those people who advocate humanity’s carbon emissions are driving `dangerous climate change’ serious?
I guess so, given the heat their anxiety generates. Do they really think the Earth is a closed system? And is not part of the solar system?
It’s as if cosmic forces play no play no part in shaping Earth’s weather, or if they do, then its only a minor part.
Yes siree we all know the major driver of climate change (or should that be global warming?) is naughty carbon dioxide.
Any competent climate scientist knows there are many factors which influence climate including forces from within and without the Earth’s atmosphere.
This nonsense that we have to zero in on one tiny component in the atmosphere and attribute to it some mythical - even god like quality – which says it is the principal driver, the principle shaper of weather on this planet, is completely and utter rubbish. If a person don’t know this then they have the hubris, the temerity to call themselves a climate scientist.
I must confess I get frustrated with global warming theory advocates. Why do climate change alarmists think that one player makes a footy team? Does one star player make a footy team? Was Gary Ablett Jnr the reason for the success of the Geelong and GCS footy teams? No. Any successful footy team has not only many good players, but has also a good coaching staff and administration behind it.
Blaming CO2 for causing `dangerous climate change’ is actually going further, it’s like saying that Ablett is a champion footballer - not because of his skills, his fitness, his coach, or diet - but the colour of his boots. Yes, it’s the colour of his playing boots which makes him a champion footballer!
It would be a ludicrous assumption to make. Likewise blaming carbon dioxide for causing climate change is exactly the same.
Warming, or cooling, the weather is not being controlled or primarily driven by CO2, natural or man-made, period.

What an amusing analogy! It's all so obvious when you put it like that. Thanks RB.

Extract/conclusion from a lengthy article on Past Climate Cycles - to be found at the following link:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

(I'm not sure about the credentials of the author, but the article is extensive in its coverage of the data, and the list of source information is also extensive.)

"By the start of the 21st century, it was clear that the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels was a major geological force. All through the Pleistocene, the greenhouse gas feedback had turned the planet's orbital cycles from minor climate variations to grand transformations that affected all life on the planet. The geological record gave a striking verification, with wholly independent methods and data, of the processes that computer models were predicting would bring a rapid and severe global warming — a disruption of climate exceeding anything seen since the emergence of the human species."

The graph contained in the article, showing a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and methane levels and average (global) temperature variation - from ice-core records covering the last 320,000 years - is also significantly informative.

Climate is obviously complex, but the relationship between overt 'climate' and the prevailing levels of greenhouse gasses pertaining, at any given point in time, seems irrefutable.

It appears that decline into an ice-age is extraordinarily slow, but the ascent out of an ice-age extremely rapid.
The rapid ascent being explained by slight warming due to orbital variation causing a corresponding increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels - which then accelerates 'warming', in what appears to be an exponential, self-perpetuating 'forcing'.
Why the subsequent decline into an ice-age? I have no idea(yet). Maybe a 'tipping point' is reached, where a massive decline in biological activity is wrought by excessive temperature and decreased rainfall, followed by a slight decrease in temperature, due to orbital shift, which causes the start of a progressive reduction in greenhouse gasses, which self-perpetuates a 'forcing' into ever-decreasing greenhouse gas levels - and hence progressive 'cooling'?

Red Barron, very interesting that your Professor stated “The intensity of the warming will be about twice as high here”, Frolov said. Also,
"During the last 40 years, the average temperature in Russian has increased 0.4 degrees every ten years. The global warming can been seen through higher air temperatures, reduction in ice cover and snow cover, higher sea levels, Frolov said and reminded that the Arctic ice cover last year reached a record low."

http://barentsobserver.com/en/nature/2013/11/russia-most-affected-global-warming-12-11

FROM/THE ANT..link

<<..“The intensity of the warming>>
not climate change?
you sure/this is upto date?
the term..is change..not warming after not cooling was rteFUTED

ITS CHANGE ANT
GET IT RIGHT..cli*mate/change*..[right?]

<<will be about twice as high here”, Frolov said.>>

oh/wow..twice as high..how/why?

<<..During the last 40 years,..the average temperature in Russian has increased 0.4 degrees every ten years.>>

BUT WAIT..<<>.The report also projected that average temperatures will rise 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of the century.>>

IF TEN YEARS IS 4 DEGREES..THEN 100=40 DEGREES
but the same report 'projects'..<<..average temperatures will rise 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of the century.>>

poinmt 3..is ONE TENTH OF THE TEM YEAR 4 DEGREE
HOW IS THIS WARMING//and how come 4 degrees per ten years turn into..A MAX OVER 100 YEARS EQUAL TO ONLY 10 YEARS

<<..average temperatures will rise 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of the century.>>

<<..Arctic ice cover last year reached a record low....>>
YES WE SAW THE STRANDED WARMISTS..ON THE BEACH IN THEIR BATHERS OVER XMASS

<<.. surface water of the Barents Sea was 5 degrees C warmer than normal.>>

yeah/thats right..[lol]..next door to antarctic..[sic*]

<<..They linked the peak-temperatures with the unusual warm summer in the northernmost parts of mainland Norway and on Russia’s Kola Peninsula.>>.

and iognored the 4000 new cols records set over northern winter
LOL ANTARTIC FREEZING SOLID IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER
its sad these proessional decievers..are so filled with guilt/they feel helplessv as ants



Tnoote the weazel wpords

<<>.“extremely likely”>> ..<<.. adopting its strongest language yet on the state of the world’s climate system.>>>

lol

<<.In its previous assessment in 2007 the U.N. panel said it was “very likely” ..that humans caused global warming.>>

yes a likely delusion..HMMM WILL IT RAIN TOMORROW?
VERY Likely..unlikely//hardly/likely..not likely

and to distract/that water/level..hasnt risen[nederland][..

<<>.The IPCC report projected a sea level rise by 2100 of 26-82 centimeters, up from the 18-59 centimeter rise it predicted six years ago.>>..cause that way it looks like they got proof/and are more sure/when its allready refuted the earlier lie

Hang in there ant.

Have you given any further thought to CO2 absorbing radiation as you pointed out several pages back, and fact algae absorbs CO2, and my question of whether or not AGW - Kyoto science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter?

I suggest search "algae Barents Sea".

The Abbott-Hunt Direct Action climate change policy is focussed on CO2 emissions with no apparent scientific measurement and assessment of photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter.

Climate change science is incomplete.

Water management and plumbing industry business and employment should be booming, to reduce sewage and land use nutrient pollution that is causing unprecedented massive algae blooms in this day and age.

Of course there are air pollution problems in some parts of the world, however reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change is non-sense.

Who will get the commissions from the auctions?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/government-releases-climate-change-policy-white-paper/5409262

Weightings on various aspects of climate change
Part 1
Weighting factors are estimated values indicating the relative importance or impact of each item in a group as compared to the other items in the group. In this instance I shall attempt to weight the various aspects of climate. For the purpose of this exercise `climate’ is defined as a period of weather records over a thirty year time span.
The purpose of assigning weighting factors is straightforward. They help us establish the importance in descending order of the various components which shape the climate on this planet. There are many elements which contribute to our planet’s weather system.

Based on my own research, I would rate the following influences, the major components which shape, control and influence climate. There are many considerations, including a range of variables which are dynamic and constantly changing.

Aspect, category. Weighting

I. Heliosphere (sun spot activity); Cosmic winds.
Without the Sun there would be no light or warmth, or no life. 50%

2. Magnetosphere
The magnetosphere protects the planet from too much UV and makes
life possible on Earth 20%

3. Deviation of Earth’s rotational axis to the vertical.
Earth’s orbital variations (The Earth’s tilt ranges from 22 to 24.5.
Currently it’s 23.3). 5%

4. Ocean influences; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),
Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Jetstream, Gulfstream 5%

5. Variation of Earth’s orbit. Variation in distance from the Sun;
more elongated the more temperatures drop. `Milankovic effect’). 4%
6. Proximity to equator,
The further away the colder it gets 4%
7. Level and intensity of cloud cover (water vapour concentrations) 3%
8. Land use changes, clear felling of native forests, cropping etc, 2%
9. Influence of Moon on tides, fluctuating ocean levels. 1%
10. The El Nino (dry, warmer weather) or La Nina (cooler, wetter weather) 1%
11. Volcanic activity on land and on sea bed floor,
changing acidity levels. 1%
12. Ice-reflectivity feedback, 1%
13. Direction of prevailing winds, 1%
14. Location, including proximity to the ocean, mountains, rainforest etc. 1%
15. Industrial and commercial activity (includes CO2 emissions). 1%
Total 100

Weightings on various aspects of climate change
Part 2

Thus in terms of weighting, we can see that the top 5 account for 84% of the total. (see previous post). These factors are completely outside mankind’s ability to influence or manipulate. Indeed factors, 6,9,11,12,13 are also outside humanity’s ability to influence. Where man has some influence is in factors 8, 14, and 15 only. These factors have a combined weighting of 4% only. While this is significant, all three combined do not have the ability to be a major influence or controller of climate.

Conclusion

The idea that mankind has to zero in on one tiny component in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide - in order to stop `dangerous climate change’ is misleading and dangerous as it diverts attention away from other more pressing environmental issues and is not supported by the science.

In terms of `greenhouse gases’ (so called), water vapour makes up 96%, carbon dioxide about 3 %, and other gases, such as methane 1%. Warming, or cooling, the weather is not being controlled or primarily driven by CO2, natural or man-made - period.

Red Baron,

It appears you have not included ocean algae plant matter in your research. Why is that so? I would be interested in learning if CO2 propaganda is filling your thought process, hindering insight to alternative phenomena.

Surely you are aware over 50% of world oxygen comes from the oceans, and that oceans cover about 72% of the surface of this planet?

I think you came in late on this thread and may not have picked up on some of my earlier comments and links indicating how much ocean algae there may be, especially in regions where ice is reported melting more than usual. E.g.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

Meanwhile I agree with what you have said re CO2, your words quote,
“Warming, or cooling, the weather is not being controlled or primarily driven by CO2, natural or man-made - period.”

I would like to learn why ocean algae plant matter is not included in AGW, Kyoto and IPCC climate science, Direct Action science too?

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Joe-Bastardi-climate-weather-unbelievable/2014/05/07/id/570115/

Pentagon Cuts Military Raises And Benefits,
Spends $150 Per Gallon In Green Jet Fuel
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/pentagon-cuts-military-raises-and-benefits-spends-150-per-gallon-in-green-jet-fuel/

The Department of Defense was put in the awkward position of having to defend cuts to military pay raises and housing allowances as well as increasing health care fees just one day before a report saying the Pentagon spent $150 a gallon on green jet fuels.

Defense officials spent $150 on jet fuel made from algae that is approved for civilian and military use, according to a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/may-5-global-sea-ice-area-second-highest-on-record/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/coldest-year-on-record-so-far-in-the-us/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oftheliars.php
Let's start with some basic concepts. You live in an age of lies. Every day of your life you are literally being drowned in lies. Lies by government. Lies by advertisers. Lies by the corporate media.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/us-summer-afternoon-temperatures-have-plummeted-since-the-1930s/

Truth has become such a valuable commodity
that the government is economizing it!
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/07/government-should-get-out-of-the-small-nuclear-reactor-business

A reminder that rulers always lie to the ruled,
AND SIN taxes feed off the guilt..GOvt lied to get
http://xrepublic.tv/node/8786

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/05/07/separating-business-from-state-with-ryan-dawson/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/it-has-begun-illuminati-elite-being-jailed-babylon-falling-right-now/

Science Guy' Bill Nye accused of bullying during heated debate
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/science-guy-bill-nye-accused-of-bullying-during-heated-debate-1.1814113

A CNN host accused “Science Guy” Bill Nye and other environmental advocates of being bullies for dismissing questions raised by skeptics of manmade climate change in a heated debate earlier this week.

The debate followed the Tuesday release of a landmark report called the National Climate Assessment from a panel of scientists overseen by the United States government. Manmade climate change is impacting all regions of the U.S., including diminishing water supplies, droughts, wildfires and rising temperatures, the report concluded.


From the same government that told you Saddam had nuclear weapons and unemployment is only 6%!