Hasbeen, re: Argo

I will give you the benefit of my doubt – you are ignorant of the facts, rather than deliberately distorting the truth.

For the benefit of others, information about Argo can be found here:

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

About 10% of the original floats had faulty pressure sensors, “resulting in a significant cold bias for these instruments”. Researchers who used the data were advised to exclude them or correct their results (and their research findings) based on them.

Unfortunately, one renowned sceptic, Roy Spencer, did not.

Indeed, he ‘published’ a paper after Argo’s notification without making the relevant corrections. He trumpeted the oceans were not warming at all.

Moreover, a ‘sceptic’ web-site (WUWT) also chimed in on Spencer's and another research paper – this time by Josh Willis, who also said the oceans didn’t show significant warming.

However (like all good scientists do following the scientific method and peer review), Josh Willis realised the mistake and subsequently wrote a retraction, overturning his initial findings.

WUWT and its pseudo-science followers were livid in apoplexy.

Roy Spencer has still not retracted his false claims, nor has Anthony Watts and Co.

It seems, Hasbeen, you would be willing to fly on a plane with a faulty altimeter.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

.

Again, Fester
Sea level rise/fall is a good proxy - but it's slow. The rate of rise is getting greater though.
And the world doesn't end in 2100.

Vox

I am going out now - will respond to your post later.

Bonmot

<If the Earth is cooling (it isn’t) you would not observe sea level fall for a very long time, either.>

Incorrect. If something heats or cools, the thermal expansion or contraction is pretty much instantaneous. It is the kinetic energy of the particles that determines how far apart they are. Remove some of they energy and they can be closer together. I guess what you are referring to is the fact that because the atmosphere holds less that 1000th the energy of the oceans, any change in atmospheric temperature will take a very long time to reach an equilibrium with sea temperature.

<There is an energy imbalance.>

Yes, there is an imbalance, but it isn't all one way. If you look at a sea level plot you will see that while the trend is up, the movement is up and down. If the world started cooling, it would probably take only a few years to observe a falling trend in sea level, but there are other factors. One is the change in Antarctic ocean currents, possibly as a result of cfcs. One ice shelf affected is the Pine Island Glacier, and its collapse would add over 20 cm to sea level.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43566975/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Roger Welch in opening, said:
<< The climate change ideologues have with a ‘science’ best understood by them, seized an agenda, and forced through legislation, which now threatens the homes and lifestyles of many Australians.>>

Ha! – That’s only the beginning, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Here’s our chief AGW advocate –talking about his core ambitions-- only this week :

“Bob Brown… wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament.This ''people's assembly'' would be based on one person, one vote, one value and was being vigorously promoted in Europe and the United Nations, he said yesterday.”

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html

“one person, one vote, one value”?
Ten child a family Yemen would be happy!

"The climate change ideologues ...[threaten] the homes and lifestyles of many Australians.>>

You can say that again

Vox, following in point form;

1. Thanks, a pity that Julia’s nutter can’t comprehend or make the distinction between weather and climate, natural variability and AGW.

2. a) No Vox, it is NOT “potentially more water vapour”. It IS more water vapour. In fact, the atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.4 kilograms per cubic meter per decade since 1988, and natural variability alone just can't explain this moisture change.

More water-vapour (itself a GHG) amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide – a "positive feedback."

Using measurements and observations from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager, atmospheric scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US and eight other international research centres have shown that the increase in atmospheric moisture content is not due to natural variability (solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo – a geothermal emission).

What they have discovered is that the primary driver of this 'atmospheric moistening' is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This is a human ‘fingerprint’ on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

2. b) Not overlooked Vox. But, have you ever tried to explain complex numbers, or the derivation of E = mc^2, to primary schoolers?

Similarly, it is difficult on OLO to explain the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, or Kirchhoff’s Law, or whatever … to those that just don’t understand rudimentary physics or chemistry – as many posters here exhibit. Imho, it is the height of stupidity for some ‘nutters’ to tell experts (in whatever their specialised field) that they don’t understand what they are talking about, or they have got it all wrong.

Vox, many so called climate “sceptics” wouldn’t have a clue about the Boltzmann constant or Planck’s Law – each and of themselves underpinning much of the basic tenets of ‘climate science’ developed over the last century, and found in high school text-books the world over. Yet, we have ‘pseudo-sceptics’ wanting to overturn it all – simply mind-boggling.

Cont’d

Bonmot, you, & all your AGW mob sound far too much like the boy who cried, for any thinking person to take any more excuses seriously.

It is too late now. Even if a little of the thing is true, you've lost the chance to make any difference.

I spent enough time getting my math back up to speed, & studding the whole fiasco a couple of years ago. I saw how little you had to hang your hat on, & then got annoyed when your lot kept trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.

If you wanted to be believed, you [as a group] should not have tried so many porkies when you had the floor.

Your desperate rearguard effort is just that, the last rearguard of a failed con. Get off it, before it destroys you.