bonmott,

there's that abuse again!

Look at it this way. I haven't crushed your argument, The weather has.

It isn't doing as you predicted.

It rained torrents where you predicted ongoing droughts. Then it snowed heavily where you didn't predict. That caused your precious average surfaces temperatures to plummet.

All you do in the face of freezing wearher is to keep harking back to your original science and all it's flaw's. Science btw, I'll repeat, that initially failed to predict the flooding rains and the massive snows.

All you can do is now introduce a new idea that global warming has caused what is an already naturally occuring event that traditionally has caused a cooling effect.

You latest idea/excuse is absolutely not supported with any peer reviewed article or writing published anywhere.

You used to be so big on peer review, what's happened?

Now do you really think any scientist, including even your consensual ones, with any sort of cred left, is going to write a paper supporting your latest assertion?

Damn right they won't! They all know they'd be laughed right out of their profession.

I see one of your 'warmist rump' mates quoted NOOA statistics at me. Even he couldn't see that the stats he was quoting could be used to support a cooling trend.
The figures showed we have gone from having the warmist 12 month period on record in December to having the 12th warmist 12 month period in May. From 1'st to 12th in 3 months!

Once Junes factored in, given that the Northern Hemisphere summer hasn't been excessively warm and the southern hemisphere winter has been among the coldest on record ... well you do the arithematic.

Add those records have only been kept accurately for 45 years or so. It looks even sillier.

You clever blokes who assess things without simple logic, and in fact denigrate such, are being bested not by simple logic but by the weather which simply isn't doing as your consensuel scientists, with all their complex theories and logic, predicted.

Laughing stock! Did I hear someone say aughing stock?

<Once Junes factored in, given that the Northern Hemisphere summer hasn't been excessively warm and the southern hemisphere winter has been among the coldest on record ... well you do the arithematic.>

That claim is false, as this bar graph shows:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201101-201105.gif

The big question for me is "What do you do?". Clearly, a technical solution is needed, not a political one. Until the pollies realize this, they will continue to look a bunch of idiots.

Technically, what is needed are Gen IV reactors, economic renewable power, and energy dense, cheap, and long lasting storage batteries.

It would be a start to agree to mine and export more uranium. India is developing a thorium reactor, yet by some obscure reasoning the Government thinks it okay to send yellowcake to China and Russia, but too risky to sell it to India.

Solar panels look like becoming economic this decade, but without decent storage, they aren't the answer. And given that the average Pom would need a battery the size of his unused soap collection to get him through winter, the likelihood of solar usage far from the equator is about the same as the stinker having a consensual encounter with water.

Lots of interesting r&d happening though, which makes me optimistic for solutions being found in time.

http://www.polyzion.eu/

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Disc+Gas+Engine+Looks+to+Challenge+Traditional+Diesel+Gas+ICEs/article21323.htm

Hi Fester,

The Southern Hemisphere average surface temperatures for March–May 2011 ... ranked as the 13th warmest on record.

The Northern Hemisphere average surface temperatures for March–May 2011 ... ranked as the 8th warmest on record.

There are some very handy tables under the Title:

Temperature Rankings and Graphics
Current Month | Seasonal | Year-to-date

A perusal you might mean you re-assess you claim.

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/5)

Since 2010 is the warmist year on record and with an assessment of the differences between rankings and temp variations of the hemispheres I think my statement stands.

What to do? Burn as much fossil fuel as possible!

But seriously Fester I have two 125amp house batteries. I find even with hot water, which I can always run through a heat exchange off my motor, I rarely use much more than 80amps per day. I cook with gas.

The batteries are usually recharged before they halve their capacity, (Approx three days) with a single solar panel and wind turbine. But like you I'm looking forward to improvements. It's not really an issue of storage capacity. It's more an issue of recharge. I have three back ups. A 20hp diesel motor, a small petrol gen set and I can always plug into a shore supply.

Yes weather plays a huge part in my lifestyle. I have taken more than a passing interest in meteorology.

Cheers, it's nice to chat with you.

Vox, pardon for getting caught out by post limits.

2. b) Cont’d

Yes, the Tropopause can expand and contract as it were the Earth’s lungs, and you’re right – the Earth System is not truly a “closed system”, but the analogy is perfectly ok for OLO ‘primary schoolers’.

Put simply: the Troposphere is not saturated and the concentrations of CO2 is going up.

3. No Vox, AGW “alarmists” (not proponents) prophesise eternal drought and scorched Earth. Like I said, the planet is “squealing”, hopefully we don’t reach the tipping points they’re fearful of.

There are alarmists on both sides – those that think it’s all a big hoax or con are termed “deniers”.

4. Nice ‘play’ with numbers, Vox. However, that miniscule and “insignificant” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is stopping the world from becoming a snowball.

We have increased it by 30% in a mere 200 years. The planet is warming as a result.

5. a) Eloquent maybe, but Fester confused my energy flux at TOA with ocean/atmosphere (or what now appears to be ice/ocean energy flux). See my response to Fester because you got it wrong too.

5. b) Science is never settled Vox, a common misunderstanding and often taken out of context. Some things in science are very certain, some things less so – nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, the ‘weight of evidence’ is skewed very much in favour of humanity’s increasing influence on the climate.

5. c) Vox, please don’t engage in distortion – I did not say (energy in) - (energy out) = AGW. Read my posts again.

Yes, there are many factors to consider, and they are – including geothermal emissions. Fortunately, there are many people who study and research these factors. Also, fortunately, we have access to technology and computing power that makes some sense to it all.

Unfortunately, neo-conservatives the world over are trying to withdraw funding from programmes that will more definitely confirm (or repudiate) the influence of human activity on the planet’s climate system. That is silly.

Fester

Are you now talking about energy flux between ice and water?

Perhaps this link will explain what I am trying to explain. It is not constrained by 350 words:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~schewe/publications/schewe_levermann10b.pdf

It is technical, but very good. See the embedded fig 9 b.

Globally averaged heat flux from atmosphere to ocean. Increasing GHG concentration results in enhanced oceanic heat uptake which declines after the peak in atmospheric warming and vanishes around the year 2300 after which the ocean becomes a source for atmospheric warming.

Agree with everything in your last post, except for one thing. I am not confident that society can do what is needed. All politicians just play the game and people make up their minds on simple ideological grounds - I am particularly pessimistic about that.

Hasbeen,
I would not like to think it’s too late – but you may be right. I don’t think our society can do what is required, we are too selfish.

You say to me, “get off it”.So you would really prefer scientists don’t try and get their message across, no matter how dire the message is. It may not amount to censorship, but it smacks of head-in-the-sand stuff.

It seems julia’s nutter is also a yachtie. Perhaps you two should hook up, you have a lot in common.

.

Fester
You agree with the navy about averaging weather over time-spans of 30 years or so to define climate. Yet you persist in saying weather in one cold year means it is then cooling. The long term average is up - not down? Bye