Fair enough, boys.

Like ozdoc noted, it's pointless trying to promote the overwhelming scientific consensus around here.

It all boils down to the politics of "skeptics" versus supporters.

There's no detailed physics available here...there's only argument as to motive, etc.....with you fellas accusing tens of thousands of scientists of being part of a fraud,

spindoc, you and your cohort are disingenuous from the outset with your references to religious jargon, such as "believers", "agnostic" etc.

So, apologies for putting up articles by trained climate scientists who defend the thousands of scientists who contributed to AR5. I know how much that sort of expertise rankles people here.

I'll leave you to yourselves, a little world where everyone confirms each others' bias and science takes a back seat.

Cheerio : )

Cont’d

As a skeptic I need some very simple answers. Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2? Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this? Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming? And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?

And your explanations for these are what precisely? Non scientist to non scientist of course.

The best we get from the AR5 report is that the IPCC has “increased it’s level of confidence that humans were changing the climate” (I doubt anyone would disagree human contribution or that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Is that what a Trillion $$’s gets us?)

And from your link we have a stunning raising of their confidence from "very likely" in the previous report to "extremely likely" in the current one”. So the only thing that has increased is “their level of confidence”? Based on what, predictions or empirical ?

If it helps you understand what I need to move from skeptic to believer, I have just read the technical specification for the Airbus A380, that it’s performance expectations have risen from “very likely” to fly, to “extremely likely”.

Don Aitkin’s article pointed to Judith Curry’s issues on the “questions of uncertainty” and a list ten specific uncertainty concerns. Having read them I share those concerns, call it my skepticism.

You again avoided the content, offered no answers to those concerns or even indicated whether or not they were valid concerns, you just posted the adoption of snide vilification by others.

It is interesting that when you are squeezed just a little, you turn out to be just another doom peddler, go to pieces, dig holes and then fall into them.

This from your last post;

<< Are you suggesting that all OLO is good for is the untrained inexpert blather of the regulars who contribute to comments?>>

Madame Poirot, either you forgot to exclude yourself or you just tagged skeptics as “untrained inexpert blatherer’s”

Can’t resist can you?

At first glance, a rise of just 0.9C may not seem much of a problem?
This is not alarmist, but rather history repeating itself!
You see, a rise of just 2C is enough to start melting the formerly frozen tundra; releasing enough methane to force ambient temperatures up to 5C
The paleontological record describes a 5C warmer world, where impossible storms of unheard ferocity, whipped the world.
The entire food chain relies initially on plant life to survive, and if climatic conditions won't allow it to grow!?
Much of the ice melt has been mostly limited to sea ice thus far, and that is why we haven't seen much of a "significant" rise in sea levels.
However, if we should lose the Greenland ice sheet, we could see rise of around a metre or more!
That would adversely affect most of Australia, with most of the population hugging the coast; and, from whence we generate around 70% of our economy.
Yes we can do something about it!
We can absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than we produce.
All we need to do just that is the widespread creation of algae farms. Very low water use algae farms that would not just save the Murray, but vastly prosper it!
Algae absorb 2.5 times their body weight in Co2; and literally double that body weight and absorption/oil production capacity every 24 hours.
No tree or other plant type can come close to matching that!
Some algae are up to 60% oil, with some types producing ready to use jet fuel or diesel, which is child's play to extract!
As one might expect, the fossil fuel industry and all its various proponents, employees/paid consultants, shareholders, and royalty earners, I believe, are threatened by that, and continually claim, this is something reserved for the far distant future.
Ideally, when we've run out of fossil fuel; and or, they've gained control of most/all algae production? Hello!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

Since you seem to have such an excellent grasp of such matters, would you consider answering the simple questions I posed on this thread. If you can answer these you might convert a number of skeptics like myself in one hit.

Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?

Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?

Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?

And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate

Hi Rhosty,

You're spot-on with your comment:

" .... The entire food chain relies initially on plant life to survive.... "

Indeed - plants love CO2. Glasshouse growers pump it in to encourage growth AND improve water efficiency. Sixty-odd years ago, some bloke in the US studied CO2 uptake in a crop of corn (maize). He found that CO2 levels around/above the crop were very high first thing in the morning - as one would expect (i.e. no photosynthesis during the night without sunlight), then a rapid removal of it during the day, and measurable growth in the plants during that time, then in the afternoon, the CO2 levels had dropped below a certain point, I don't know, maybe 50 ppm, and growth stopped.

Your comment ?

Joe

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/#more-13098

"Well, I haven’t worried very much about this sequestered heat. Without having done the arithmetic, I figured that the actual temperature increase when averaged over the global ocean is probably pretty small. Further, with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface.

Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.

So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?"