Best get the complete picture.
Fisheries in the Philippines have already been reduced more than 50 percent and the reduction is not due to CO2.
Over 90 percent of big fish worldwide have already gone and independent evidence of substance indicates the cause is not due to over fishing.

In alternative food production of course agriculture must be supported but where is the sense in taking down and burning tropical rain forest to provide soil and barely enough fertilizer for one-in-ten year food crops?
Tropical soil is usually so poor in essential nutrients that cattle imported into Indonesia become too malnourished to breed.
Smoke from the burning even reaches Malaysia causing eye and breathing irritation.

Science into effects on climate should be complete science and not just science about CO2 promoting sale of alternative energy. Meteorology should include biology.

It appears photosynthesis-linked warmth in unprecedented sewage proliferated ocean algae plant matter has not yet been measured and assessed in AGW-IPCC science, even in the recent IPCC study and report, therefore that science must be considered incomplete. There is reasonable doubt.

It is the incomplete science that is actually already knocking on. Lack of debate and attention is resulting in damage to ocean food web nursery ecosystems continuing unchecked, that damage is causing damage, compounding.

Algae has warmth retaining capabilities.

Why is ocean algae plant matter not being assessed in IPCC science?

Kelly, imagine if someone wrote an article saying “The latest Department of Defence report states that the levels of democracy and social justice have all increased as a result of America’s foreign military adventurism", and then, without ever critically examining that statement to check whether or not it’s true, assumed this as a premise for an argument in favour of more military action.

What would you think of that process of reasoning?

Because that’s what you’ve done.

The IPCC is not a scientific body. It’s a political body charged with propagating the belief in catastrophic global warming. It has no charter to be balanced or reasonable in considering the issues; only to assume it’s true and propagate the cause.

You obviously haven’t been following the scientific debate. At no stage have you checked the data. The warmists have resoundingly lost. It’s they who are the “denialists” now. ALL the IPCC’s predictions about global warming have turned out to be wrong. Got that? Wrong. Unsupported by empirical measurement and their own theory. Cost: $79 billion.

You belittle yourself by uncritically regurgitating such clap-trap, and as a pretext for forced redistributions of income – well, you’re just proving the realists' case.

Actually you have the same fallacious premise twice over. You assume that taking millions of dollars from Australian taxpayers by threatening to imprison them (didn’t mention that bit, did you?), and pouring it down foreign bureacracies creates net social benefits. Firstly then you must approve the same reasoning when used by the American and Australian imperialists to justify their military adventurism that you disapprove of. Secondly, how can it be anything other than arbitrary if you don’t take into account the negatives? How do you know that voluntary wealth transfers wouldn’t have produced a better result? How do you know that the Philippines isn’t made worse off by the increase in parasitic bureaucrats? If your reasoning is correct, then why shouldn’t all property be taken by the government and distributed in its arbitrary discretion? Your positions on domestic and foreign policy are completely self-contradictory, and your economic reasoning is economically illiterate.

[Deleted for abuse.]

There are liberals out there who believe in global warming, and argue we need to do something, albeit difficult as it is given our obsession with economic growth.

Saw one last night: mayor at Bondi Beach.

Me also think global warming and human involvement real, although no one is ever going to tell us precisely what extent change will happen.

Could be that only the rich nations will be able to afford alterations to infrastructure needed.

But, I can safely predict, trillions of $US on such infrastructure will be spent around the world. The worse the problem gets, the more that will need to be spent.

The deniers will never win with this debate. All they can do is highlight where predictions are wrong.

JKJ,
I enjoy reading your posts as most are thought provoking and as such are of value.
Your post on this topic does not quite fit this category, it comes across more as climate cant and nowhere near your usual standard.
SD

a 2 degree increase by the 2030s? Kellie tell the authors of that report they're dreaming. As is now widely acknowledged, temperatures haven't moved much at all in the past 15 years and a range of excuses have been produced for this pause. So 2 degrees in the next 15-20 is being really hopeful.. I was under the impression that was mid-range for the IPCC by the end of the century, but I stand to be corrected.

Kellie you should mix your alarmism with the occasional does of reality. You will find it'll go further..

"The deniers will never win with this debate."

The skeptics have already won. The fact is that even the IPCC admits that the globe has not been warming for the last 15 years, while emissions have continued at unprecedented levels. This means and ALL the IPPC's predictions, and ALL the mainstream "scientists" predictions, are wrong.

Note that nothing Kellie, Robert or Chris says actually joins issue on the facts, or shows any evidence or reason? They just assume it and refer off to someone else.

Well guess what? If you follow the line of references, the rest of the global warming hierarchy are just doing the same, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TOP. That's herding instinct, not science.

You've lost. All there is left is the government funding, completely uninterested in the truth for reasons Kellie has just shown - they just want to get their hands on other people's money.

Obviously if you don't care about the truth, you could waste another $79 billion, have no data or reason to back up your claims, and still persist in making them.

The ratio of Big Government funding to Big Oil funding is 3500:1, so who's the idiot now Robert?

In the final analysis, the skeptical criticism of the warmists is that science cannot be based on logical fallacies, assuming what's in issue, bodging up and hiding data, and open-ended belief in authority despite absence of supporting data.

But the warmist criticism of skeptics is only that the skeptics don't believe what the warmists believe!

In what other area of science is a request for data met with "denialist!" and "idiot!"?

Got that peer-reviewed paper proving catastrophic anthropogenic global warming there yet fellahs?

All comments above may lead to AGW sin.

Scientists estimate that if all countries halve their greenhouse gas use now - in 200 years beneficial results may start to appear. All quite simple really.

Australia should stop greenhouse gas increases now. All we need to do is stop economic growth by the simple expedients of a one-child policy, banning all immigration and banning coal mining.

As AGW is a moral issue all deniers should confess their sinful thoughts. Burning of sinners is still a cure in some countries.

If Australia leads the way all countries will follow - especially China and India.

Pete

This might have had more currency, if it wasn't a trogan horse, to support Manning or Assange!
Nor is one persuaded that any democracy is trying to criminalize dissent.
We have plenty of avenues, like this site, to legitimately voice our dissent.
Moreover, one can't criminalize behavior that is already criminal!
Like stealing and distributing state or private secrets.
If what Assange did was somehow legal, then all the hacking by fleet street journals, virtually the same thing, was also legal!
And a shame really, given the veracity of your comment on climate Kellie!
One notes that this has been the hottest year on record, that we have just lived through the hottest September ever, up 4C on average, and a full 2C above any former recorded record!
And that the trend line on the ambient temperature graph, is still up! There are none so blind!
Rhrosty.

Overall, the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with more than $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves only covered about 25 percent of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims.

In fact, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers paid for climate-related disasters in 2012.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/taxpayer-climate-costs.asp

Misinformation doesn't assist the debate! Nor does almost endlessly repeating it!
Algae doesn't retain warmth, but simply reacts to it! And indeed, increased carbon in the water.
Natural convection allows the cooler water to sink, and the warmer stuff to rise.
In this process there is always some resulting mixing, which invariably accelerates, with any increased convection!
Ocean acidification has literally doubled in the last sixteen years.
Algae may well be the very thing we need to reduce dangerous Co2 levels, as a matter of increasing urgency, while this is still time. One notes, we have already seen unprecedented tundra melting! And the subsequent release of millions of tons of methane; one unit of methane worth 21 units of carbon, as a greenhouse gas.
Algae absorb 2.5 times their body-weight in Co2 emission. And under optimized conditions, grow to literally double that body-weight and absorption capacity every 24 hours!
Some algae are up to 60% oil, with some types producing virtually ready to use diesel or jet fuel. (Child's play to extract!)
I've read some estimates, which conclude, economies of production scale, could allow producers to market algae sourced fuel, for as little as 44 cents a litre!
And yes, that is with a fuel excise also imposed!
Very low water use algae production, may be the very thing we need, to not just save the Murray, but have the region prosper as never ever before!
Rhrosty.

*Burning of sinners is still a cure in some countries.*

But only if we could use the waste heat to generate power

Talking of misinformation, this post of Chris Lewis takes the cake:

<<In fact, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers paid for climate-related disasters in 2012...

How did they get this "fact"?
They arbitrarily branded a whole range of floods, hurricanes, fires etc "climate-related" (by which they meant the result of AGW) then added up the remedial costs and packaged it as "what the U.S. government" paid for climate disaster.

Chris Lewis, I have to agree with SPQR.. The figures you quote on insurance losses from climate events are almost certainly wrong. I see you got them form some sort of activist site, but I couldn't see where they got them from. Trends from damage cause by weather events, cyclones and the like, have been trending up but that's because there's a lot more coastal development and its more valuable.. events in any one year, such as a big storm hitting a major city, causes those figures to vary quite a bit.. Your activist friends have probably simply assumed that all storm damage was due to climate.. but I don't recall any major event in 2012..

Hi Robert LePage

I think you make a valuable contribution in identifying burning of climate change denialists to be an exciting and promising renewable energy source.

Such renewable burnings may not only provide unforgettable moral reminders to burnees, but crowd amusement to Climate Change believers.

Our post industrial society should return to its low carbon ecological roots, giving all members of the biosphere, including rats and roaches, the same human rights we enjoy. Some essential reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology .

As Kellie points out the right of Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to a sex change operation to achieve his-her transgender inner goddess is similarly essential. Chelsea Manning's new engendered niche would, in no small way, improve his-her popularity among the inmates of Fort Leavenworth Military Prison who are denied female company.

Pete

Curmudgeon, the link below might refresh your memory. So might the following extract:

"Over the past several months, extreme weather and climate events in the form of heat waves, droughts, fires, and flooding have seemed to become the norm rather than the exception. In the past half-year alone, millions of people have been affected across the globe – from Europe suffering from the worst cold snap in a quarter century; to extreme flooding in Australia, Brazil, China, and the Philippines; to drought in the Sahel. Records have been broken monthly in the continental United States, with the warmest spring and 12-month period experienced this year and severe fires and drought affecting large swaths of the country.

So how bad has it really been? Below we have put together a timeline of extreme climate and weather events in 2012. We have by no means attempted to be comprehensive in listing events, but have aimed to include some of the most significant occurrences this year.
- See more at: http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/09/timeline-extreme-weather-events-2012#sthash.SxbpE485.dpuf

Chris Lewis's info [sic] about Insurance losses is indeed scare-mongering and the usual fiddling with facts which informs AGW. What we are seeing is insurance companies using the scam of AGW to increase their profits through bigger premiums and the like:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/01/pay-up-insurers-raise-rates-over-global-warming/

In fact deaths from weather are decreasing:

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/goklany.pdf

Extreme weather events are decreasing, according to the 20thC Reanalysis Project:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

It just staggers me that hysterics like the author of this article and her acolytes can continue to spread unfounded alarmism at huge expense to the economies of the world and prevent accurate reliable weather and climate forecasting from occurring.

point was merely to say that there will be a cost, and more insurance claims are being made.

I think global warming (and other forms of environmental degradation) from human activity is real, but I am not losing sleep over it.

Environmental degradation is an inevitable part of economic development from a strategy of growth, growth and growth.

What would you deniers have us believe? That everything is great, mate. plunder the earth and reap the rewards. Keep burning what is in the ground, put into the air, and then expect the balance of nature not to change.

Get real, sooner or later there will be consequences.

That is my bet; I hope I am wrong.

For what it is worth, I don't think anyone will ever know the exact consequences of global warming from human activity, much in the same way others kid us that they can show us the exact sequence of human evolution (as if).

My view is shaped mostly by own thoughts for thirty years, as well as observations reported greatly in recent years.

Could be wrong, but I believe industrial society is a factor for global warming and other forms of environmental degradation.

Having said that, it is indeed difficult for govts to do much about it given the importance of economic growth.

Take Labor, carbon tax, yet export more and more coal to the world.

Kellie I'm sure there is something you know something about.

Global warming sure is not it.

Please find what it is that you have some knowledge of, & for god sake write about that, you make a fool of your self with this stuff.

Perhaps you could write about how to make money computer hacking. That appears to be one of your interests.

There are Lies,

Damn Lies,

Statistics,

Then there are 'Facts' about Global Warming

Chris, you are only demonstrating an atavisitc believing that adverse weather events must be because of man's moral fault.

People have been thinking this sh!t since before the Stone Age, and it has no more supporting evidence or reason now than it did then.

But when we grow up, we need to put aside childish ways. You need to think with your forebrain, not with your mid-brain *especially* when this inchoate belief is being used to perpetrate enormous crimes around the world.

The irony of it is, that when the big banks are bloated corrupt with the zillions taken under these schemes taxing air, and the poorest people on earth are dying of starvation from the diversion of capital away from productive activity and into expensive green toys, the invincible ignorance of the socialist idiots who caused the whole problem in the first place, then has the gall to blame "capitalism"! Which is exactly Kellie Tranter's line of thinking!

"The irony of it is, that when the big banks are bloated corrupt with the zillions taken under these schemes taxing air, and the poorest people on earth are dying of starvation from the diversion of capital away from productive activity and into expensive green toys, the invincible ignorance of the socialist idiots who caused the whole problem in the first place, then has the gall to blame "capitalism"!"

Jardine wrote this. Obviously, he is fully capable of writing opinion pieces for the Daily Telegraph! Perhaps he could join Andrew Bolt on his T.V. show too.

And I'm sure Alan Jones would like Jardine to help him articulate his extreme views on radio.

Anyway, that should be enough to keep Jardine off OLO!

David G

So that's your evidence that the world is facing catastrophic man-made global warming, is it?

FAIL.

Notice how every single one of David G posts and every one of all the warmists at all times consists of nothing fallacies, evasion, and snivelling ad hom?

It's like, what motivates these zealots? Do they really think they're saving the planet with their belief system that human beings are a plague species? Surely no-one could be so conceited or vain or ignorant or violent?

According to them, there's loads of evidence for their claims - so much so that anyone who dares ask for it is "an idiot".

Then when we ask them to prove it, what do we get? Nothing.

Ask again? Nothing.

What are you doing using fossil fuels and minerals anyway, David G? Too much of everyone else and just enough of you I suppose?

Got that peer-reviewed paper proving the existence of the tropospheric hot-spot by TEMPERATURE records there yet fellahs? Your whole belief system depends on it.

But it doesn't exist, does it? Answer.

But Jardine K. Jardine the butt.

In defence of David G far be it from you to deny the undeniable Fact that burning of climate change denialists presents an exciting and promising renewable energy source.

Such renewable burnings may not only provide unforgettable moral reminders to burnees, but crowd pleasings to climate change believers like your good self everywhere.

Strapped to windmills. Tied to solar scorchers.

Is not that a better end for thee?

Can-not your rather repugnant ego miss?

Yours

Edward I "Longballs" Plantagenet

Instead of standing for WikiLeaks in the recent election, the author should have stood for the Greens, as they are the party that is anti-development, anti-population, amoral, and science and economics illiterate.

Come on Plantagenet, we would do much better burning all the warmest academics.

After the billions of taxpayer funds poured into them, they will have much more fat to burn.

Not only that, reducing the number of useless academics by about half should solve all our budgetary problems for a decade or two. Talk about win win!

Pete, burning Jardine would result in a huge fireball as the mainly methane gas within him explodes.

No, burning denialists will never do. There's enough hot air in the world already!

Put them on islands that are disappearing under the waves should bring them to their senses!

What can I say. The few days. on two different forums, I have been accused of expressing autism and now thinking like a primitive.

Oh well, I will still express my opinion as part of my support for liberalism (free speech always).

Abusing about my intellect, harmless as it is, will not persuade me that all is okay with human activity in recent decades.

I think most Westerners agree that humans are the major cause, and that some regulation is needed. Just look at the polls around the world.

My view appears in line with the majority, and I have faith in democracy.

Better to do something, rather than nothing. Heaven the planet if we just did nothing.

There appears to be gross confusion in the AGW skeptic debate brought about by generalization, especially by associating warming with CO2.

In brief, AGW may be occurring but it might not be caused by CO2.
Many people agree with warming or possible warming however many of those same people do not agree the cause is due to CO2.
Labelling someone a climate skeptic is virtually indicating the skeptic does not believe there can be rain one day and sun the next.

Surely it would be better to have a label of "CO2 skeptic" and another separate label of "AGW-warming skeptic".

In any case, from my point of view there is evidence that areas of ocean are warming in various locations sometimes, and apparent moisture laden warmth in those areas can sometimes be seen linked to intense storms. For example cloud can be seen streaming up from waters of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone area into where a tornado is forming, with there is dense algae plant matter with no sign of increased CO2.

I think AGW should be debated without the mindset about CO2

Hasbeen and David G

Your concepts have edifying merit.

Coconuts strapped to gonads can only heighten the volume of Warmist-Denialist intercourse.

May rising seas make Rooty Hill a Riviera.

Edward I "Longrod" Plantagenet

David G and Chris Lewis

Sorry guys but there's been a major misunderstanding.. The stuff about industrial activity causing an increase in temperatures has been kicked around quite a bit, but then activists have stretched that increase into allegations that the changes (such as they are) have caused changes in storm frequency and intensity and droughts..

Those links are speculative at best. The bit about storms has also been kicked around but last I looked the consensus was that there was no discernable trend in storms. If you can find a recent, authoritative(non-activist)link to dispute that then I'll look. As part of that stretch activists tried claiming last year that there was an unusual number of storms and drought and other stuff (David G pointed to one site claiming this).. I don't think anyone took it seriously, I don't think there was an official count that said this. But was there any uptick in insurance claims? Again, I think you'll be disappointed.

As for the link between temperature changes and drought cycles this has been alleged, but whether there is anything to it has yet to be proven. Basically they have to make decent forecast from the theory and this has yet to happen.

Ah now I get it Chris Lewis.

You took a poll of all the people who can't figure the change from a bus ticket purchase with out a calculator, & tell us this is the latest truth.

Actually that would probably be about as accurate as anything from the IPCC, or UEA, & definitely more honest.

You don't have to read much of the latest IPCC garbage to be hit in the face by the dishonesty. I am sure some of you know this, but the lefty mantra that the end justifies the means eases your conscience, & of course, you KNOW you are right.

Hasbeen, don't know if I (we) are right.

But that is how it works in a democracy, or would you like to live in a society where the minority rule.

I always thought you were a democrat.

Sorry, my opinion disagrees with you.

So what we have here is every scientific body on the Planet saying AGW is real, because the Science says so.

We have every Nation on the Planet saying AGW is real, because the Science says so, the sole exception being Saudi Arabia.

We have 95-97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS saying the warming is caused by CO2e production

We have such left wing groups (sarcasm) as the World Bank and the IEA saying 4 degrees is probably inevitable and the change is dire (billions starving but the people that caused the problem, ie the polluting 1 Billion in the West, suffering the least)

We have the IPCC who are a group of SCIENTISTS pulling together scientific studies from more than 600 climate scientists saying AGW is real and is dangerous. With one part of their report designed as a simple document aimed at giving advice to policymakers, which every time states STOP extracting fossil fuels.

We have paleoclimatic observations (going back millions of years albeit with low temporal accuracy) backed with ice core samples going back 800,000 years (with high temporal accuracy) as hard evidence, we have 100's of years of surface temp observations, we have more than that for sea surface temp observations. We have models based on the laws of physics to give us a rough predictions of the future, models based on decades of climate physics, climate chemistry and measured readings. As much as you might dispute them (and you disputing them is backed up with NO expertise mind you, just a gut feeling on your behalf) I am going to say unless you guys want to use chicken entrails, that's as good as your going to get. We have 5 degrees being the difference between a mile of ice over Chicago and now you guys think nothing of a temperature increase. Or just turn the A/C up, as though the 10-15 degrees regional temp increases is just a balmy day ?

and the models are RIGHT... and yet you claim black is white and they're wrong ?

and such gob smacking nonsense as there is a pause in warming, when the warming is INCREASING. Where do you guys get this stuff ? because it is NOT from the Scientists. There is a "slow down" in surface temperatures warming (with the lower troposphere holding some 5% of the heat) by .01 degree over the last decade, how much more accurate do you guys want ? This is "predicted" to increase again, as it has multiple times in the past. This is all simple climate stuff, nothing hidden. There is no straight line temperature increase, there is fluctuation each month, each year, each decade with natural variability but here is a TREND and it is UP. You pick say 1998, the hottest year on record and yet the temps STILL increase from there when if there was no warming it would be cooling and yet you say there is no warming ? When every day billions of joules of extra energy of warming, by shortwave radiation being reflected back to Earth by CO2e (as measured by Satellites) and yet each decade is hotter than the last... where the increased CO2e leads to increased heat, which leads to increased water vapor, which compounds the problem.

and you guys are adamant all of this is wrong, or is a conspiracy ?

C'mon, not even the looniest of you can be that naive ? so something else is going on here... and I think THIS explains it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Let's look at what some professionals have to say on the subject

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/11/18/new-report-examines-risks-of-degree-hotter-world-by-end-of-century

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forget_kyoto_putting_a_tax_on_carbon_consumption/2590/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047vmL6Q_4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

https://theconversation.com/international-energy-agency-warns-weve-nearly-lost-our-chance-to-limit-warming-4255

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ocean-warming-and-acidification-deliver-double-blow-to-coral-reefs/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report-is-out-its-warmer-and-were-responsible/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/comparing-models-to-pilocene-climate-when-co2-was-last-this-high/

I could keep posting links for weeks but I doubt it will make much difference

and an interesting article on the Relativity of Wrong that might be the best take home piece from this

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Onya Valley Guy. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

David

You're fighting the good fight, Valley Guy. The Dunning-Kruger link was great, ending in quotations:

"Confucius: ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.")

"Bertrand Russell: ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")

Charles Darwin: ("ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").

Shakespeare:("The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole.")

In Oz we'd say fools know just enough to be dangerous, and that's what they are, a danger to our descendants.

AR5 is a farrago; case in point; Figure 1.4 as in the draft:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png

Figure 1.4 as published:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png

The difference for those commentators who will still believe what their masters tell them about AGW until whatever synapses they have left stop, is that the 'official' published version has simply shaded in the area around the model predictions so that the actual temperature now looks as though it falls within the model error bars.

This is deceit, a lie; if it were published in a company report the directors would be prosecuted. But because the liars at the IPCC do it, it must be right.

And again with the consensus; only a complete, brainwashed believer would still believe there is a consensus about AGW.

This is not about sceptics or science; it's about an ideological position which is misanthropic, left-wing and elitist; and stupid.

cohenite, please indicate the IPCC cover-up in what was finally published. "Figure 1.4 as published" tells me that while some models' variation caught some of the observations of the last 15 years the average temperature rise predicted by all models was somewhat higher than observation.

The the IPCC points towards observaed ocean warming as the reason, which I think this is entirely fair.

Almost the entire focus of the denialists is on average surface air temperature and warming having slowed in this regard, which models did not predict. Therefore they attack modelling. Their focus regarding observed ocean warming is that the IPCC is vague about its connection to surface air temperature.

In reference http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html you will note the imperfect graphical relationship at the detailed level between CO2 and CH4 concentrations and surface air temperature while there is very strong relationship seen at the macro level. It is perfectly reasonable to link the ocean to this fact and assume surface temperatures will ultimately fall into line with the general upward trend in GHG concentrations as, it appears, they always have.

Precisely what mechanism is involved in heat transfer between air and ocean needs further research. The fact it is not clearly resolved is not a weakness of the IPCC report, which is not obliged to prove a mechanism to support its case, but it is applied as a criticism nonetheless.

Meanwhile, we should focus on the fact the oceans are warming (and acidifying) and this is a proxy for an expected surface air temperature rise in the future, and possibly quite rapidly.

"It is perfectly reasonable to link the ocean to this fact and assume surface temperatures will ultimately fall into line with the general upward trend in GHG concentrations as, it appears, they always have."

CO2 NEVER moves before temperature at any time span:

last 25000 years:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

Since 1998:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-390/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/scale:1000/offset:-280

"we should focus on the fact the oceans are warming"

Where? Not at the surface:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

Not to 700 meters:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif

To 2000 meters; the lie with this is shown by this graph showing OHC in Joules with the equivalent temperature increase added:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HeatContentEQ_C-500x322.png

Bear in mind the 2000 level is calculated based on incredibly scant data and is speculative guesswork

cohenite, we could do links at ten paces eg. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

(Anyway, by reversing your logic why are CO2 levels rising if warming is not occurring?)

I'm all for erring on the side of solid research and caution. The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperate is too obvious to ignore, as is the involvement of the ocean, even if we do not understand every pathway. That is all I wish to say here.

You're all over the internet on this, where you have been answered sufficiently by others. I don't want to join the turkey shoot.

For god sake Luci, despite billions spent trying they have still not been able to establish any link.

Do you really think that if they had one they would not be plastering it in 10 foot high letters all over the world.

IPCC is collapsing like a pack of cards. The politicians are trying desperately to keep it going, but they are failing. It is over, try a new scars.

Oh, go ahead join the turkey shoot; the high calibre weaponry of the believers is always stimulating and such a tonic.

Sks isn't a link. it's a state of mind; a defective one.

"The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperate is too obvious to ignore,"

You didn't even look at Lansner's article did you? CO2 is released by a warming ocean. I didn't say warming hadn't occurred over the 20thC, or from about 1850 at the end of the LIA.

The key graph is the CO2/temp one from 1998; just out of interest, because, as I say, I'm a student of the belief systems and psychology of humans, how do you explain that? No fairy tales please, or damp squibs about not understanding every pathway; the IPCC has no doubts, every pathway is known to 95% certainty.

"The key graph is the CO2/temp one from 1998..."

The "denial" is settled.

If the politicians and scientists at the UN political body, the IPCC, were honest, they would acknowledge that they base their alarmist climate change assertions on invalid computer models, not empirical scientific evidence. In fact, they have not got any empirical scientific evidence to support their hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Sadly, the IPCC's assertions are disseminated faithfully by propagandists such as the supposedly impartial ABC, and accepted unquestionably by the AGW believers including our politicians and educators.

Hasbeen: "For god sake Luci, despite billions spent trying they have still not been able to establish any link."

Don't know why I'm bothering but, should you want to educate yourself, and to save me the keystrokes, please go to:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

then to http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm .

I've chosen "intermediate" level for you as you claim expert judgement in this and should find no difficulty in understanding the argument. Personally, I think your real strength lies in commenting on political and current affairs.

Now, I'm still waiting for the fine print you assert exists in IPCC AR5 that says it does NOT believe in a link between CO2 and warming (air land and ocean). Just to help you out, get the report in part or in full at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uk4Y-NLTzTp

Sorry to push you on this, which you were probably already attending to, but I was bored in my work and needed a distraction for awhile. Looking forward to you coming up with the goods, as always.

Hi Hasbeen,

Just a whisper in your ear. I would not pay too much attention to Lucifers link. If there one thing the warmists have impressed on us (re Pilmer) it's that geologists know stuff-all about climate. Yet you'd be surprised --stunned --flabbergasted by the number of geologists on Skeptical Science "team"!

And then --Skeptical Science --has other luminaries like these :

Rob Honeycutt "Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2."

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"

Doug_bostrom "1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration.

Cheers!

Oh but please, SPQR, why not go to a primary source if you don't like slumming with those who are trying to help the scientifically challenged on the secondary sites.

Go directly to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf and take a long hard look. Please do try hard to come up with a more worthy critique than the denialist movement has to date. All we've seen in response so far is shock, horror, the earth is warming but IPCC models have failed to forecast average surface air temperature, or sufficiently linked ocean and land temperature to this with completely elucidated mechanisms.

All the evidence points to GW, and A before that and a possible C before the A if we don't do anything. All the denialists really hang on is a hiatus in surface air temperature as if that completely guts an avalanche of empirical evidence involving a massive array of proxy measures.

That you, SPQR, Hasbeen and so many people choosing to bury your heads in ignorance is either maliciousness towards our descendants or stupidity. Just to preserve my faith in humanity I have to believe it to be a mass case of Hanlon's Razor, so I plug away at the task of converting denialists to enlightenment.

cont'd

Do I ever think I may be wrong? Absolutely. Am I 100% confident that I am right in my choice of what what I believe? No, as ALL scientific hypotheses can ever gain is support, never, ever, ever 100% mathematical proof. We are not trying to prove or disprove that the sum of the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.

Right now, empirical evidence for AGW completely overwhelms denialists' carping, peripheral falsification attempts that do not even reach 50% of their goal, nor rely on any data they have chosen to gather themselves. They do not set out, as scientist do, to support or falsify anything, but they do spend a lot of time looking for holes to exploit in the research and conclusions of others, such as is contained within http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8nrvrkVBt24 , which doesn't even point out that the periods in which rising temperature appears to precede rising CO2 concentration is but a tiny fraction of the total enormous time period of recordings.

The relationship between GHG concentrations and average surface air temperature, with the former preceding the latter massively over the 150,000 years it has been measured, is undeniable at the macro level. We ignore this fact at our great peril by focusing on a few short years of slowed warming of the air alone.

Come now Lucifer, all I am doing is applying the standards the warmists set--your side has been such sticklers for standards, remember?

And as for this:<<Go directly to [The IPCC] ... All we've seen in response so far is shock, horror, the earth is warming>>

In truth that was my response too.But for a different reason. I thought I was living out Ground Hog Day, 'cause when the ABC reported words to the effect: "This is it (this brings home the bacon)The IPCC is now 95% sure about its AGW hypothesis.I thought, hang on a cotton-picking minute, the ABC has been reporting that very headline for the last ten years! Why is it framed as it if it is new news?

Following on from you heart felt confessions-here's my apostle's creed:
I believe the climate is changing,it's always trending one way of another.I believe that humanity plays a part in climate change & environmental degradation,but less so in the former than the IPCC wants us to believe. I believe that most true believers in AGW, in most fora, believe for political reasons--their party told them so. And if their party said different they would stop believing tomorrow. However, whether AGW is valid of not it makes sense to clean-up our act. And it's always wise to try out/expand new technologies (solar,wind, nuclear) who knows what it will turn-up.But I believe many of the ways your side is proposing to mitigate the effects of climate change are downright foolhardy, you have not considered their wider implications --one example:climate change reparations!

But overall you come across as a reasonable poster. A lot more so that most of the other AGW spruikers on OLO. And I often find myself musing, your posts are not too bad -- had it not been for a few mutant genes you might have grown into a good conservative.

"I believe the climate is changing,it's always trending one way of another."

Agreed.

"I believe that humanity plays a part in climate change & environmental degradation,but less so in the former than the IPCC wants us to believe."

What the IPCC "wants" is for humanity to look hard at the evidence. The evidence on air temperature is that GHG concentration is rising and surface temperature ultimately responds to that, notwithstanding hiatuses due to temporary ocean/land mitigation. It would be nice if the current hiatus extends the time in which we have to act but a look at the temperature record tells us things can turn quickly in the correction that will inevitably follow. We must follow a path as if the correction IS coming rather than waiting to see and leaving too much too late.

"I believe that most true believers in AGW, in most fora, believe for political reasons--their party told them so. And if their party said different they would stop believing tomorrow."

AGW is more than a tool by which political parties differentiate themselves. It's interesting that our major parties have been on the same page over AGW at times. However, vested interests abuse our political parties and our democracy and its freedoms to push their agendum, along with every other means at their disposal. Big Coal/Oil/Gas have a big agenda that does not coincide with what must be done to avert CAGW, that is, leaving fossil fuels buried. By comparison, belief in a massive conspiracy to enslave us beneath some global elite is fanciful nonsense fostered by Big Coal/Oil/Gas in its cause to continue making hay until one day, hopefully, the sun shines enough to enlighten all of us before it's too late.

SPQR,
You say you believe, “….. humanity plays a part in climate change & environmental degradation,but less so in the former than the IPCC wants us to believe”.

Do you take devastation of world fish populations and ocean ecosystems into account in your belief that environment degradation is less than IPCC wants us to believe?

I believe in climate changing as you do, but I think environment degradation is much worse than the IPCC is telling us.

During the past 10 years and until a few days ago I had never seen or heard the ABC mention 95%.
To my knowledge ABC news has been reporting AGW as fact, usually with image of steam rising slowly from steam cooling towers than are not chimneys gushing CO2.

Have you or has the ABC had knowledge of the following?
http://www.trust.org/item/20131003084405-xiv93
N.B.
"Risks to the ocean and the ecosystems it supports have been significantly underestimated," according to the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a non-governmental group of leading scientists”.

I question the word “threat”, threat from what, why, how? Threat due to CO2?

I think it inevitable you and others will come to understand that oceans and ocean ecosystems are already devastated due to unprecedented sewage nutrient pollution proliferating unprecedented ocean and fresh water algae plant matter and consequences.

Has algae warmth in the Bering Sea got anything to do with sea ice melting faster in the region? Silence on the subject on OLO is deafening:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Bering_Strait.jpeg

Yes, many people believe AGW is occurring but they do not believe the cause is CO2.

I think AGW and IPCC should duly measure and assess warmth in ocean algae plant matter. Complete science might change the whole 95% plus 5% thinking, change belief too.

Your comments with Lucifer Luci are good, thought inspiring

to continue from my last post (an hour later due to posting restrictions)

"However, whether AGW is valid of not it makes sense to clean-up our act. And it's always wise to try out/expand new technologies (solar,wind, nuclear) who knows what it will turn-up."

You're happy for fossil fuels to continue being dug up with the expectation that, as they deplete, nuclear and renewables will fill the gap. That would be my position too were it not for the incontrovertible conclusion we draw from the scientific evidence, that following this path will take us to much higher average global air temperature than earth has experienced in the last 150000 years. (At its peak, 125000 years ago, air temperature was only 2 degrees warmer than today, and that's what we set as our target. That will involve upheaval enough, but if we do nothing a ~4 degree raise will raise upheaval to catastrophe.)

"But I believe many of the ways your side is proposing to mitigate the effects of climate change are downright foolhardy, you have not considered their wider implications --one example:climate change reparations!"

So, lets avoid the problem. The first world is dragging the third world into this. We already have those needy of environmental asylum and it's going to get worse. Here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#173266 I brainstorm a remedy which includes implications for the Oz economy if we move unilaterally. We will not be obligated to reparations if we meet our moral obligation to mitigate AGW unilaterally.

JF Aus,

<<Do you take devastation of world fish populations... into account in your belief that [human induced climate change] is less than IPCC wants us to believe?>>

Well you hit the bulls-eye first shot.

Fish populations have declined largely due to overfishing. And overfishing (as with over cropping/over anything) ultimately results from more people drawing on a resource than it can meet --overpopulation.

In other-words declining fish stocks are not due to GHG --oh yes, the IPCC might predict all sorts of horrible future scenarios --but the current depletion of stocks is primarily due to overfishing. But herein lies the rub, the IPCC like many scurrilous corporates trying to market a shonky product have associated/linked their product with something easier to sell. Huge numbers of people have been conditioned to think that any disaster, delay, or down-turn could only result from AGW --hence, your post about declining fish stocks.

On the issue of the ABC & climate change:
Not less than 1 hour ago on the ABC Science Show I was hearing a reporter expressing dismay that AGW skepticism is strongest in the English speaking world and virtually non-existent in places like India & Brazil -why might that so? LOL

I suggest it has a huge amount to do with the fact that in the IPCC & its allies scheme of things the English speaking countries will be the ones writing the cheques and the India's and Brazil's will be banking them. And both will be playing those roles for a long time since the developed worlds problems --like fish stocks--have less to do with too many GHGs--and more to do with too many mouths to feed & shelter!

Above 2nd last line s/r: " developing world"

Lucifer

<<You're happy for fossil fuels to continue being dug up with the expectation that, as they deplete, nuclear and renewables will fill the gap>>

I'm happy to go with your *gap* strategy --if you are up to telling suburbanites that they need to get by with 2 hours of electricity each day because you have opted to forgo the use of coal to save the world. Have you run that by Shorten or Albo yet?

<<So, lets avoid the problem. The first world is dragging the third world into this. We already have those needy of environmental asylum and it's going to get worse>>

Even supposing your belief about CO2 is correct. No amount of mitigation is going to stop climate change in its tracks.

AND,AND,AND thanks to all the ranting from the left blaming everything on AGW from tsunamis to tooth ache we are already seeing AGW used as an pretext for asylum scamming.

<<Climate change refugee' fights to stay in New Zealand
Immigrant from Pacific island of Kiribati hopes to convince court he is a refugee at risk from rising sea levels>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/compose-message-article.asp?article=15530

No wonder your side couldn't stop the boats!

SPQR: “I'm happy to go with your *gap* strategy --if you are up to telling suburbanites that they need to get by with 2 hours of electricity each day because you have opted to forgo the use of coal to save the world. Have you run that by Shorten or Albo yet?”

My strategy is as very briefly brainstormed at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#173266 involves a phase in of thorium nuclear asap making fossil fuel fired power obsolete while enticing consumer decisions towards renewable through a carbon price. By the time nuclear completely displaces fossil fuelled power there will be a sizable renewable energy supply industry already in place (in say 25 years).

I don’t care which party brings this to fruition, a bipartisan approach would be great. Each major party has its own mountain to climb to get where I’m talking about going, so Shorten and Albo will have as many problems as Abbott and Hunt. That could mean it’s a good solution.
“Even supposing your belief about CO2 is correct. No amount of mitigation is going to stop climate change in its tracks.”
The current aim is a 2 degree ceiling above today’s temperature, to avert CAGW. I can see a future where we can reverse AGW with a global will, but it means leaving fossil fuels buried.


cont'd when post limit relaxes

“ thanks to all the ranting from the left blaming everything on AGW from tsunamis to tooth ache we are already seeing AGW used as an pretext for asylum scamming. “

If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation? If the first world cannot pull itself back to a 2 degree increase, the largest naturally occurring variation from today’s temperature known for 150000 years, then we should expect to compensate the affected in the third world e.g. http://www.trust.org/item/20121102004200-kwn23/?source=spotlight
“No wonder your side couldn't stop the boats!”

I want boats stopped but you must know something I don’t ,as I thought it was a secret! The PNG solution is what is effectively at work presently as far as we have been allowed to know.
Re my mutant gene, I simply find myself more in agreement with Labor’s most recent solutions on refugees, climate, NBN, NDIS, MRRT, superannuation and more. This is because it aligns with my thinking, not because I align myself with its. There are some daft ideas coming out Labor (eg. gay quotas) of as much as the LNP (eg. PPL). I am out of sync with both parties on welfare for single parents after children turn eight, and I support no welfare for those choosing to be single mothers. I’m no bleeding heart, that’s certain, but nor am I completely one for putting the individual way ahead of the group.

Lucifer,

<<My strategy is ...involves a phase in of thorium nuclear asap... (in say 25 years)!>>
-Are you assured of getting this by your party--let alone your allies the Greens?
-And even if valiant(masochistic) little OZ adopts this, it's going to mean bugger all unless the major carbon producers/exporters --and aspiring producers-- follow suit (no wonder you want a world govt!) And bear in mind that IPCC/left propaganda has been so effective that places like India think its none of their business.
-ASAP...(25 years)" 100 years if you use the same team you employed to oversee the NBN

<If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation?...we should expect to compensate the affected in the third world >>
How does anyone objective assess whether the desert that formed at regionX was the result of AGW , long term change, or local mismanagement?

Yet you have already given everyone within coo-ee the green light to seek climate asylum in the West! So 200,000,000 bods in Asia & Africa --in answer to your generous offer --are likely booking places with people smugglers at this very moment.

And if you are true to your principle: "If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation" how do Australian citizens apply for compensations from the left side of politics for selling us out?

IMO, compensation should only be payable once the earth's natural variation from today's temperature is breached, i.e. 2 degrees. My link is not to some Panamanians I believe need compensation, only to show the kind of issues the first world could be compensated for due to a failure of the first world to meet the 2 degree cap.

That's not one world government (which I do not advocate), that's just fairness.

How will lefties, or righties for that matter, be "selling" out if they they pay compensation for doing dirty deeds to people of the first world? Has the first world some right to physically impact upon the third without compensating it?

Luci your ideas do sound fair. There is just one problem. You start from the idea that CO2, man made or natural causes global warming.

Mate they have now spent billions trying to find even a single atom of proof of that, & found nothing. The only place they can find any is in their computer models, their computer games for bigger boys.

That is of course, because no proof exists. It can't because CO2 has such a minor effect, that it is overpowered by other forces. Recent research has proven that water vapor & the cloud it forms negate any warming from CO2.

I wonder what we have to do to get people like you to stop believing everything your masters tell you, & get you applying your logic right at the start of your reasoning.

You're back Hasbeen, and without the goods requested, I see.

"Recent research has proven that water vapor & the cloud it forms negate any warming from CO2."

Hazza, use the word "prove" advisedly when talking science, "supported" is the word used. OK where is this recent research, in what publication and, is the it peer reviewed? Please don't tell me the warmists won't publish it because it goes against some religion. A link would be nice.

If you won't accept what your eyes see at http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html then read about what it means at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/index.php?id=40&tx_naksciinterview_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=643&cHash=7faa6cce3f&table=tx_naksciinterview_interviews
http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/ten-questions-with-descartes-prize-laureate-dr-eric-wolff-british-antarctic-survey-member-of-the.html
or pick out what you like at http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Eric-Wolff/148342670

The game's up, Hazza, so just tell us you don't give a toss about our descenadants and move on to politics and current affairs threads, where the opinion of the uninformed is as valid as any other.

The amount of plant life in polar waters would surely influence CO2 levels trapped in relevant ice when that ice formed.

Is abundance or not of algae plant matter being taken into account in studies of CO2 trapped in ancient and modern polar ice deposits?

Impact of past and present plant matter in oceans should surely be measured and assessed in AGW science. What do the Greens say about that?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

JF Aus, from your cited article link:

"One piece of seemingly good news is an increase in the Arctic's ability to sequester carbon. As the Arctic Ocean's productivity increases, so should its carbon capture rate. But, Arrigo says, the effect is unlikely to make much difference."

"Even if the amount of CO2 going into the Arctic Ocean doubled, it's a blip on a global scale..."

If you have specific questions you cannot find answered, or proposals you believe debunk/falsify the the hypotheses behind AGW, try http://climaterapidresponse.org/, or, many claims are countered at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please take the time to read everything you can to understand that humankind is entering very dangerous territory if it does not act decisively. Each of us has a duty to our descendants to do what we can , even if that is only to convince others that there is a problem. Do not expect others to lead.

Luciferace and all,

Empirical evidence categorically indicates humankind is not entering very dangerous territory, it is already there, humankind is already in very very dangerous territory.

The danger is that a situation of already seriously devastated land and now ocean natural food supply already exits, right now. Unaffordable agricultural food exacerbates the situation, so too does increasing cost of dwindling fish-linked fertilizer and essential protein for feedmeal, including for aquaculture.

You say take time to read everything and therein is a serious problem. Much of what is needed to be known is not yet written, especially concerning phenomena in ocean that covers 72% of this planet. Data is lacking. Nobody counted fish in the beginning and no one can count fish that remain. Political demand for scientific evidence/data on the subject is preposterous.

Empirical evidence of substance however indicates, “never mind duty to our descendants”, it’s duty to each other and the world in which we live right now, to keep it all alive right now without more war and loss of peace right now, that should be foremost in thinking instead of nonsense about CO2 and associated trading schemes.

Spurious claims about CO2 are already knocking-on via virtual brainwashing. For example religion-like CO2 believers are failing to properly consider and debate whetheror not there could really be another or more major cause of AGW.
Take you own post above for example.
With respect, you see algae under ice as being suitable for CO2 sequestration, and you fail to comment on warmth in that algae in an area where ice is known to be melting more than usual.
And algae is known to have warmth retaining capabilities, yet the IPCC has not measured it.

Evidence about the state of the ocean and seafood sustainability categorically indicates it is too late for conservation, there is need to sustain, to be pro-active with urgent solutions. Just look at lost coral (without mention of GBR loss).
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/threats.htm


I expect the government leader to lead.

JF Aus: "Spurious claims about CO2 are already knocking-on via virtual brainwashing. For example religion-like CO2 believers are failing to properly consider and debate whetheror not there could really be another or more major cause of AGW."

I've tried to help Hasbeen see the wood for the trees, but you deniers just line up one after one with the same claims. It doesn't matter what evidence is put before you you just look past it. I gave several sites where the evidence for CO2 based warming is displayed and discussed. I gave two sites where you may get your questions answered about whatever brain-storming counter-idea you want dealt with, including:

"And algae is known to have warmth retaining capabilities, yet the IPCC has not measured it."

My guess without researching further, which you can equally do, is that algal growth is a symptom, not a cause of GW. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

The IPCC doesn't measure this, it is the research institutions that do and the IPCC brings it together with its conclusions. There may well be information on your question that is taken into the conclusions, or there may not. How about finding out? Meanwhile unequivocal IPCC conclusions stand correct until they're smashed down by irrefutable evidence and logic.

You are of the view that there are worse things than AGW, fine, but that doesn't mean we forget about it. It won't nicely and easily disappear while we do something about those things.

"I expect the government leader to lead." Without involving yourself you can't to expect anything. The government is us.

Luci,
Some people are unable to see the trees because they live in another world, like in skyscrapers fed by CO2 politics in news media.
I am not a denier of AGW but I am a skeptic/denier of the cause being CO2 emissions. Yes air pollution is a problem.

Straight after you posted the link I asked a question on that “climate rapid response” site but as yet have no answer. I think there will be some rapid conversations today to find words for an answer.
I will keep you posted.

What scientific evidence do you have to prove algae is a symptom of GW and not a cause?

IPCC science involves measurement of atmosphere. The science measures oxygen and CO2 links to trees and heat trapped in buildings and roadways so surely measurements should include warmth in ocean algae plant matter.
Crikey, ocean produces more than 50% of world oxygen so surely everything to do with ocean algae plant matter should be measured and assessed, including warmth. But I can find no indication of the latter, can you?
It is logical all plant matter on this planet be assessed. Land plant matter is even assessed when being chewed in cud.

IPCC science is incomplete, I think grossly incomplete if photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been measured and assessed. I see no evidence whatsoever it has been, but I do see CO2 nonsense trading linked to public money collection schemes.

Government leaders are paid a considerable income with numerous perks, to lead government including productively.
Evidence indicates that solutions to ocean problems could be very productive.

Luci you are such a joke, trying to help who? The gravy train riders, & the ratbag green fringe dwellers are the only ones on your help list.

You are obviously reading only from the same hymn book as our ladies.

You obviously have not read much of the IPCC's latest offering. Hidden here & there is a little of the truth. No warming for 15 years. Nothing dangerous likely this centaury. They are obviously retreating from their full stupidity, hoping to get on another government funded gravy train, if they can avoid being buried when this garbage collapses.

It must be a bit of a problem when your high priests abandon their useful idiots, but some of you will probably survive. If you do, it will be as a wiser idiot, & perhaps less useful to the fraudsters next time.

Good luck.

Luciferace,

The following is the question I asked yesterday, 7 Oct 2012, after your suggestion to look into the link:
http://climaterapidresponse.org/
(copied and pasted)
Has AGW-IPCC science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in sewage and naturally proliferated ocean micro and macro algae plant matter?
(end copy)

This morning 8 Oct 2013 I received the following reply via email:
Quote:
The IPCC certainly addresses GHG emissions from sewage treatment and algae growth but I'm pretty certain the IPCC report does not deal with warmth in sewage. I hope that answers your question.
(end quote)

I have replied with this:
(quote)
No, your reply does not answer my question.
You should address the wording of my question.
I have not asked about warmth is sewage.
My question is about warmth in ocean algae.
Please answer the perhaps inconvenient question accordingly.
(end quote)

Cheers
JF Aus

Hasbeen, you're on a new track (since you were caught out on your old one) with: "You obviously have not read much of the IPCC's latest offering. Hidden here & there is a little of the truth. No warming for 15 years. Nothing dangerous likely this centaury."

You really haven't had a look at AR5 have you? I've had my fill of your baseless unscientific assertions supposedly deriving from it, so I direct you to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf where you find reference to all the science underlying IPCC conclusions. You you can also find sites that spell the science in layman's terms, such as http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/index.php?id=40&tx_naksciinterview_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=643&cHash=7faa6cce3f&table=tx_naksciinterview_interviews

JF Aus, I do think your first question to http://climaterapidresponse.org/ was a little ambiguous and your follow-up response was terse and I wouldn't be surprised if your communication has ended. Please let us know if you do receive a further response.

As far as what science exists to support or falsify your algal hypothesis, I know of none off the top of my head and do not think it incumbent upon me to find any. AFAIK, algae grows from spores, photosynthesises and dies, yielding up methane (many times GH affective than carbon dioxide). This may interest you http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/31/artic-methane-catastrophe-empirical-evidence

Luciferase,
I agree my question was a little ambiguous but that does not mean it was ambiguous. Does it?
Do I need to explain in the question that sewage is a fertilizer because it contains nutrients?
Clearly I did not say sewage is warm and of course it is not. Accordingly my response was sharp and to the point, and it was correct.
If communication has ended with http://climaterapidresponsse.org/ , does that mean warmth in ocean algae has ended? Not likely.
I will re word and re submit the question and keep you posted here on OLO.

As for science to support whether algae retains warmth, much science from years past is not yet online. But let’s not be pedantic.
Try taking two equal containers and filling one with clean water and one with algae inundated water, bring both to the boil in equal position and allow to cool.
Which one will (likely) take longer to cool?
Or experiment with a cup of pea soup v/s a cup of clean water.

The Guardian is likely aware of algae under Arctic Ice because I for one have asked them the question about algae warmth. Their science advisors would likely be in the know.
From comments at the Guardian link it is possible to see that authors/scientists online seem to not yet be aware of the amount of alive and dead algae in Arctic waters and “possible” photosynthesis-linked warmth in living algae.

I think you will find algae will knock on climate debate.

News f.y.i.
Kachamek Bay is close to the Bering Sea, I would say upstream from Bering Sea waters, downstream from the heavily populated US coast and rivers that have water quality and algae problems. Flotsam from Fukushima has reached western Pacific coast via wind driven surface waters.
Q. So how new and how much algae is there now worldwide?
N.B. at:
http://homertribune.com/2013/10/whats-that-brown-algae-floating-in-kachemak-bay-%E2%80%A2-no-complete-answer-yet-science-takes-a-back-seat-to-politics-during-this-time-of-government-shutdown/
Algae four of five feet deep.
Never seen such an outbreak.
And guess what, not allowed to study it even voluntarily. Why is that so

Luciferase,

I have just reposted on the climate site> Copied here:

An author on a leading Australian social website has suggested I raise the following subject with http://climaterapidresponse.org/
Question:
Has AGW – IPCC science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean micro and macro algae proliferated by sewage nutrient and land use nutrient pollution?

JF Aus

Nice link giving the breakdown of heat absorption, as explained by Dr Karl http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/08/3864474.htm

I haven't tried the your experiment but I'd say the algae laden water (or even ink dyed) might get warmer than clear water in the sun.

IF greater ocean heating resulted I'm not sure why that should debunk the CO2 and AGW hypotheses in relation to surface mean air temperature.

Perhaps your question should be: "Greater and greater waste nutrients from human activity have flowed into waterways and oceans. This results in large algal blooms causing greater heat absorption by the oceans, presumably. Can you please direct me to any accessible research on this as being the hypothetical cause of global warming rather than the CO2 hypothesis?"

Wish you luck.

Luci,

Dr Karl say’s, “The overwhelming majority of the heat trapped by the extra carbon dioxide in our atmosphere enters the oceans.”
I think the opposite. Being a diver for over 50 years I experience, cold increases the deeper down you go. It’s warmer near the surface.
I think solar warmth captured in ocean algae plant matter and water eventually rises upward and enters the atmosphere.

Dr Karl also say’s, “However, all that the energy is not concentrated on Sydney Harbour, but instead, it's spread out across the surface of the globe.”
So, “…..spread across the surface of the globe”, makes me think.

For about the past 7 years I have been spending 3 on x 3 of x 6 months yearly in the south Pacific islands, where I am seeing ocean water and land cool when under cloud.
This past winter I have been under dense cloud for about 2 months straight.

A great amount of solar warmth does not penetrate dense cloud. Dense cloud does not seem to absorb solar heat like earth and ocean does. Cloud is cold..
I think warmth obstructed by cloud is deflected back up and out into space, but this is not mentioned in Dr Karl’s summary of scientific data numbers.

Cloud and associated reflection on top is always occurring somewhere.
Huge areas of the planet’s ocean become covered with cloud that moves and comes and goes.

I think cloud and algae warmth may account for variability of ocean surface temperature.
I have seen cloud forming from an ocean dead zone inundated with algae causing hypoxia.

Algae is surely linked to cloud and more intense weather events.

Other than personal experiences with algal warmth, especially in the Australian outback, I do not know of any research on algae warmth in oceans.

Subject of warmth in algae is an aside I am dealing with, my focus is cause and solutions to islander malnutrition, other consequences of seafood depletion, and viable environment and socio-economic solutions.

Empirical evidence indicates nutrient pollution proliferated algae is the most significant factor causing fish depletion, not overfishing, not CO2

Interesting theory JF. Haven't seen research on the algae bit, but see this from 2001 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.ht

Luci,
That link says the page cannot be found.
I was looking forward to it too.

Worked when I posted it and same here, can't be found for me now too. Perhaps it's temporary.

Here's something: search the word "cloud" using Control + C
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/anti-agw-papers-debunked/
It has the anti-AGW paper links followed by rebuttal links on many topics.