cohenite
Troposphere not warming:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
___________________________________________________________________
The link above refers to the issue of the tropical hot spot at an altitude of some 10km .
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

It has very little to do with the fact that globally the troposphere has warmed. That is from the surface to a maximum of about 20 Km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-sfc-radiosonde-temp/201001-201012.gif
The evidence is beyond any doubt, the troposphere is warming.
________________________________________________________________
No stratsophere cooling:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/

http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_eye_ball_vs_regression.png
________________________________________________________________

The evidence does not support this claim
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_TLS_SATO_latest.png
___________________________________________________________________
DTR not changing:

http://landshape.org/enm/david-karoly/#more-1759
____________________________________________________________________
Above an irrelevant link basically about bush fires.
Below clear evidence of a reduction in DTR.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure3-2.jpeg

To be continued

VoxUnius. A particularly interesting article. Within the article I was also looking for material relating to the magnetic effect of varying sunspot cycles to the formation of cloud cover from cosmic rays. It appears to be a matter of 'watch this space'.

I have a great discomfort when the activities of the sun are reduced to a single number in order to make it possible to fit into a super computer model.

However, all these things improve over time, observation and experimentation. The complexity of this one (solar) variable on the climate system is mind numbing. I wonder how many other variables there are that we haven't even thought of yet.

My 'take away' message from this article and numerous others is that the science is definitely NOT settled at this point in time.

Not the time, I would suggest, for making precipitous decisions and jumping to conclusions that attribute just one single element to explain variations in climate.

A good read

Said it before and will say it again: 'alarmists' and so called 'deniers' (extremists if you like) on both sides should pull their collective heads in.

The vast majority of scientists involved in 'climate science’ think there's very likely a significant problem and that the world should do something about it.

There will always be debate within the scientific community about the details. However, it's just ludicrous to think these nuances can be 'debated' in mainstream media and the blogosphere by arm-chair pseudo-scientists and wannabes/pretenders who do not understand the science, nor its complexities.

Science is never settled and those that trot out that misunderstanding contribute to the distortion and derision of science in general, and ‘climate science’ in particular.

Some people are disaffected with the IPCC. However, that does not make its processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust, particularly given the scale and wide-ranging complexity of their reports. Similarly for the numerous science academies, organisations and institutions around the world - they are not as stupid as some here would have us believe.

Moreover, if anyone can suggest a better way of collating and disseminating the science of 'climate change' any better than the IPCC, let them come forward and do it better - they haven't. I have to say ideological think-tanks and ‘denialosphere’ blogs don't rank, but that is only my opinion.

The 'debate' (at least in the public domain) is not about the science - it's about a socio-politico agenda and a respective socio-cultural and econometric response. Indeed, these are the very issues that the UNFCCC debate, not the science – real scientists do that well enough, in appropriate fora.

It is these 'issues' I have no answer (not my expertise) except to say that given there is a significant (not 100% absolute) risk associated with AGW, then it's in humanity's interest to work together to lessen its impact. Clearly, there are vested interests against such action. Sadly, there are others who are stuck in some form of ‘denial’ – a defence mechanism to justify their actions (or lack thereof).

Science is not a religion.

The Antarctic is cooling.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Antarctic sea ice for the most part retreats to the shore line in summer and then refreezes in winter the. The sea ice area has increased by about 0.9% per decade compared to the Arctic which has declined by about 4.1% per decade. On the other hand the data from the grace satellite indicates that the total ice mass for the Antarctic is declining.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242

The evidence suggests that the Antarctic is warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#Climate_change
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OHC can only be raised by solar short-wave as CO2 IR backradiation cannot penetrate surface.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Back radiation does not cause warming it reduces the rate of cooling. The ocean gains heat from the sun and loses heat by evaporation and infra-red emissions . Adding water vapour to the air reduces the ability of the ocean surface to lose heat via IR to the atmosphere. Once the relative humidity reaches 100% no more evaporation occurs also blocking off that method for ocean heat to of escape. The net result is that as water vapour levels rise in the atmosphere the rate at which the ocean can lose heat is reduced.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-4.htm

qanda,

"The debate (at least in the pubic domain) is not about the science - it's about the socio-politico agenda and a respective socio-cultural and econometric response..."

Yep, agreed.

I'm interested in the sway "skeptics" have on the media, the public at large - and in consequence, the politicians. They're the ones who are going to be elected on platforms which may or may not include a response to warming.

There are few (if any) other areas of science where rank amateurs have the gall to step up and talk out-of-their-hat pretendies science, and are taken seriously by sections of the public and the media.

It's all very well to have a huge cohort of scientists agreeing and talking about climate, but if they can't find some way to override the ignorant, negative (and often abusive) commentary from amateurs and denialists and their impact on public perception, there's likely to be a weak response from government and nothing "of any consequence" will be instituted to mitigate warming.

Not wishing to be "alarmist" - but I can't resist this cartoon.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HdXEEywz