Well done Barrie! You have put every scenario known to man and it's all due to "Climate Change? Whatever happened to "Global Warming"?
You are following Prof Flannery, whatever happens sigh, roll your eyes and parrot "Climate Change". The "you are all going to die is a given".
The Y2K bug was a lovely little earner. The ozone hole stopped all but India and Russia producing fluoro carbons (They produce more than ever now)and we are supposed to forget both of these and be frightened by you?
Barrie mate, grow roses, go for long walks on the beach but for goodness sake give it a rest!

And Barrie, as you walk along the beach keep your eyes open for people who have their heads in the sand. They are denialists who are waiting to have their backsides kicked by the effects of climate change/global warming.
They are in for a big shock one day.

Oh god, another Global Warming 101, by one who has profited well from the scam. I wonder if the book sales have slowed down, or have your old research mates asked for a bit of help keeping the scam going.

Well put JBowyer, the ozone hole story should always be used when some "scientists" starts or pushes any scare/scam campaign. I have always found it telling, that the danger to the human race of the the ozone hole, attributed to fluoro carbons only became the in "science" just when DuPont's patent for fluoro carbon refrigerants expired.

I wonder how much DuPont paid for those "scientists"?

Weren't we so lucky that DuPont just happened to have a new patent for a new refrigerant gas all ready to save us.

Sorry Barrie, the patent on naivety ran out some years back. You'll have to do much better than this little lot. Hell, even first year Environmental Science students would find this a bit light weight

Good article. It should be noted, by denialists and warmists alike, that all these hazards identified already exist and need to be addressed. Unsubsidised insurance is a good example.
I find it incomprehensible that, in this century with so much experience behind us, people are still losing homes to floods and fires. These are easily foreseeable and preventable. In many cases it may be individuals who are responsible, in others local councils and governments must share some blame.
When government bodies are not part of the solution, they are most definitely part of the problem.

I was very happy to post this article on the assumption that one thing that both catastrophists and skeptics could agree on was that there are such things as sensible precautions, and we should take them.

Extreme weather events are as old as Noah (joke Runner) and whether they are becoming more or less frequent, they occur. Indeed, hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons appear to be more frequent when climate is colder, so if you are a believer in the sunspot hypothesis of Svensmark et al then the need to allow for storm frequency is greater, not less.

Very well Barrie - I have a question. A glace at the satellite readings of sea level heights kept by the University of Colorado
http://sealevel.colorado.edu

shows that sea level increases have been a steady 3.2 mm a year for 20 years now.. to get to even the lower level of scenario you set out - 60 cms by 2100 that rate of increase will have to at least double for the whole of the remaining part of the century.. but there's been no increase at all for the observed period.. when might we expect some change to occur? Why hasn't it already happened?

Grim - gee that's all we need the Government "Helping" us with insurance. That will cost more and help less. Government took over building construction insurance, cleaned it up and now anyone who gets a house built has to be lucky because if they are not there is nothing to fall back on.
House insurance is the same no insurance, fire, flood, lose house, simple really.
Grim, the government cannot do anything but make it worse, keep them right out of it.
If the "Government" are short of something to do get them to fix the theft of our rates to support pensions to council employees. They allowed that, now fix it!

Barrie. Read the AR5 assessment report re 'extreme weather' events, take a bex and have a lie down mate, this hyperventilating is just not good for you.

'Extreme weather events are as old as Noah (joke Runner) '

the multitudes that drowned did not think it a joke Graham. However it is clear that true gw will occur when the time comes. The apostle Peter gives a clear account of it. It won't be caused by trying to warm pensioners in the winter and cooling them in the summer as the Green religion preaches. It will be a result of man's corruption so aptly displayed by those who reject Christ.

(2Pe 3:7) But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

"There is a strong consensus amongst experts on climate that the Earth is warming at a rate that can only be explained by rapid increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

It's unfortunate -- for you -- that the consensus doesn't extend to the actual data series which measure the earth's average temperature, as these show no significant warming since 1996. How often do we have to point this out, I wonder, before the message actually sinks in?

And Graham, all the data suggests that the best way to take 'sensible precautions' against extreme weather, natural disasters and anything else is to allow and encourage people all over the world to improve their lot in life via the provision of cheap energy, democracy and secular, reason-based rules and legislation. None of which are on the agenda of the UN or the IPCC.

Well, here we go. All the old tropes get an airing again.

“the actual data series which measure the earth's average temperature, as these show no significant warming since 1996”

Well actually, they do. Since 1996 HadCRUT4 has a statistically significant warming of the global surface of 0.09 C per decade; GISS has a statistically significant warming of the global surface of 0.11 C per decade, UAH has a statistically significant warming of the lower troposphere of 0.11 C per decade. Only RSS has a non-statistically significant warming of the lower troposphere since 1996 of 0.03 C per decade.

“sea level increases have been a steady 3.2 mm a year for 20 years now.. to get to even the lower level of scenario you set out - 60 cms by 2100 that rate of increase will have to at least double for the whole of the remaining part of the century”

That is the trouble with using short periods to cherry pick trends. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html shows an increased rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years (3.2 mm/y) compared with the first hundred years (1.4 mm/y). To reach 60 cm since 1880, the rise over the next 86 years only has to average 4.4 mm/y. There are two things driving sea level rise as the Earth warms, loss of land ice and expansion of oceanic water. A faster rate of sea level rise is a certainty if global surface temperatures continue to rise.

GrahamY, you are unlikely to get the deniers to agree that there are sensible precautions to take. The whole reason many deny man has an impact on climate is because they don’t want to think about precautions. You can see it already in this thread.

No individual event can be said to be caused by global warming. Extreme events have always occurred and always will. That is the nature of probability. However, many recent extreme weather events have been worse than they might have been because the Earth is a degree warmer and the seas 20 cm higher than they were 120 years ago

"Uncertainty about the problem (man-made climate change) is a given; but uncertainty about the chosen solution is inexcusable. This is to say, we should be confident that our solutions are going to be effective, and the more expensive the solution the more confident we should be. In short, big responses require high levels of confidence that they will work. There seems to be a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate carbon pricing passes this test."

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

Graham wrote:

>>I was very happy to post this article on the assumption that one thing that both catastrophists and skeptics could agree on was that there are such things as sensible precautions, and we should take them.>>

Yep.

We should. We should view climate change policy as an exercise in global risk management.

Unfortunately there is hard core that refuses to concede there are any risks than need managing.

There are also the eco-warriors - eg the Greens - who have latched on to climate change to advance what I can only call a Stalinist agenda.

And, incidentally, if weather patterns are going to get more variable we need more dams.

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events in recent decades.

Whenever an extreme weather event (such as a heat-wave, a flood, a drought or a tropical storm) is widely reported by the news media, a heated debate about its possible link with global warming is set off.

The latest example of this kind of speculation was triggered by the disastrous typhoon Haiyan that killed thousands of people in the Philippines in early November.

In his report The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link: A Review Of The State Of Science Dr Madhav Khandekar, a former meteorologist from Environment Canada, examines several recent extreme weather events and discusses them the context of the ongoing climate debate

The IPCC on extreme weather:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

They conclude [chapter 4]:

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

See also IPCC AR5 SPM Table 1.

The alarmists' position has now become so grotesque that they argue against the conclusions of their own fountain of wisdom, the IPCC.

The article is tripe but special mention to Grim who intones:

"I find it incomprehensible that, in this century with so much experience behind us, people are still losing homes to floods and fires."

This is morbid; the Wivenhoe disaster was directly due to AGW corruption of predictions so that a dam constructed to mitigate floods was being used to mitigate drought.

And the Black Saturday fires and every recent fire since has been exacerbated by Green policy preventing adequate fire hazard reduction, which still hasn't stopped the disgusting Greens from impersonating Vultures and using every disaster to peddle their alarmism.

So, to Grim I say I find it incomprehensible that anyone can be so hypocritical as to still blame AGW and ignore the culpability of the Greens and AGW predictions for these disasters.

And a special hello to Agro, still pedalling furiously as this scam evaporates from under his feet. Agro throws out bits of nonsense such as:

"There are two things driving sea level rise as the Earth warms, loss of land ice and expansion of oceanic water. A faster rate of sea level rise is a certainty if global surface temperatures continue to rise."

Very good, except neither is happening; the entirely normal decrease in Greenland ice is more than matched by the increase in Antarctic sheet ice and OHC is decreasing at the surface and down to 700 meters; and anyone who thinks deep OHC is increasing will be already getting excited about Santa.

shows that sea level increases have been a steady 3.2 mm a year for 20 years now.. Curmudgeon,
The sea surface is 140 million square miles. The total merchant marine shipping tonnage is 2.2 billion tonnes. Add to this all the naval shipping, the private water craft, in fact anything that displaces water on our seas. I'd imagine by the time it is all added up the combined displacement by all shipping on our oceans will just about make up a few mm. I'd not be at all surprised if that rise is caused by displacement. Let's see 1800m x 1800m x 140000000 x 3.2 mm equals ? Now what's the weight of sea water again ? Hmmh....

individual
its a thought, but I'd be seriously surprised that if all the ships ever made suddenly started sailing it made the slightest difference to sea levels.. the ocean is a very big place..

And this is an independant, unbiased organisation?
And this is also where John Howard gave a speech denying AGW So we are going to believe the report put out by them?

Global Warming Policy Foundation
The GWPF website carries an array of articles sceptical of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming.
The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions.
he GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[1]
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson
Mr Howard delivered the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s annual lecture in London overnight

the ocean is a very big place..
Curmudgeon,
Agree, but several billion tones is a very big amount also. Something has to give & as the old saying goes the only way is up even if it's only 3 mm.

individual
To workout the effect of 2.2 billion tonnes of shipping on sea level all you need to know is that 1 litre of water is equal to an area of 1sq meter 1 millimetre thick and 1 litre of pure water weighs 1 kilogram.
The area of the oceans is 360 million sq kilometres or 3.6*10^20 sq millimetres
2.2 billion tonnes of shipping displaces 2.2 *10^18 sq millimetres of water 1 mm deep
Therefore the sea level rise caused by shipping is 2.2/360 mm =0.0061 mm
Note ^ meaning to the power of or in this case number zeros

Ice mass, or ice extent, which correctly measures ice loss/gain?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1138.summary

<<I'd be seriously surprised that if all the ships ever... made the slightest difference to sea levels>>

While not buying into the argument about whether ships (& reclamation projects for that matter) make a difference...I can recall an article/study ( I think it was NewScientist) where warmists were arguing that recent floods in Asia --and the subsequent holding of water on land-- was the reason the sea levels had not risen as much as anticipated.

Warmair,
yes but 2.2 billion is only the merchant shipping, add to this the huge number of the world's navies land relaim etc. It might not be 3.2 mm but it does have an impact & cruise liners are getting more numerous & bigger. Also, due to much development more water now goes directly into the oceans instead of being soaked up by land. My point is that if we need to be worried about 3.2 mm then I'm sure we shouldn't take an additional half a mm too lightly in this scheme of things. At that rate the lowest lying land will be submerged knee-deep in only a few thosand years. better put more into your Super if the earthquakes don't get us before then by depleting all the gas & oil in the ground.

It seems that cohenite just can’t resist displaying his ignorance of climate data.

cohenite wrote “the entirely normal decrease in Greenland ice”

But is it entirely normal? This is what NOAA has to say: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

“The data show that the ice sheet continues to lose mass and has contributed +8.0 mm to globally-averaged sea level rise since 2002. The rate of mass loss has accelerated during the period of observation, the mass loss of 367 Gt/y between September 2008 and September 2012 being almost twice that for the period June 2002-July 2006 (193 Gt/y).”

cohenite wrote “is more than matched by the increase in Antarctic sheet ice”

Except there hasn’t been an increase in Antarctic ice mass http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract In fact the Antarctic is losing ice mass and that loss is accelerating.

“In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of &#8722;26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”

cohenite wrote “OHC is decreasing at the surface and down to 700 meters; and anyone who thinks deep OHC is increasing will be already getting excited about Santa.”

Here is the Heat content to 700 m from NOAA http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ No signs of a decrease there. In fact there are 5 x 10^22 extra Joules of heat since 2000.

For completeness we could look at 0 to 2000 m and see that that ocean heat has increased by 9 x 10^22 Joules of heat since 2000.

So that is 3 out of 3 statements by cohenite that were completely wrong. Well 4 really, because the last one had 2 claims in it

WAP:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

Antarctic generally, East and West:

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses; Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

Greenland:

http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/53654

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/11/21/G34843.1.abstract

Oh damn, missed Agro's riposte; and it's obvious he's been up burning the ecologically sustainable midnight oil for his research.

Anyway, my last post clears up both Agro's and Luci's concerns about ice.

Now OHC; first surface temperature:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

That graph is not by me but based on the ARGO measurements since 2003, the most accurate measurement. Let AGRO argue with that!

OHC to 700 meters which is where 99% of the heat resides:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-v-2000m.gif

David Evans has graphed the ARGO data for both the 700 and 2000 levels; at 700 meters the warming is not statistically significant; at 2000 meters it apparently is but with the proviso that the ARGO measurements at that level are EXTREMELY sparse. Here are the respective trends from 2005:

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-36.png

The trend is expressed in Joules, which sound enormous but when translated into temperature equivalent are vanishingly small:

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

A couple of other things since Agro has tried really hard. SST is clearly declining which begs the question of how the heat bypasses the surface and gets to the lower depths. Trenberth suggested wind variation causes this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Have the winds been more variable:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-ocean-surface-wind-anomalies.png

And Agro would have us believe the science is settled. Good old Agro.

cohenite, you didn’t disappoint did you.

Tell me that you understand the difference between ice extent and ice mass? Please do.

It is mass that is important for increased sea levels when ice melts.

For the Antarctic there are some differences in data between methods used; however, GRACE is likely to be more reliable than laser altimetry as it covers the whole of the Antarctic. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 This is where a bit of understanding of science and its methods comes in handy.

So for ocean heat balance, rather than go to the data you go to blogs. Why would anyone do that? Unless of course they don’t like what the data says.

Start with Woodfortrees. Why did you pick 2003 for SST? Why not 2000? This is why http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/trend

Once the data is in place, it all looks a lot less interesting doesn't it? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

Then graphs of trends since 2005. Why choose 2005? Is that because the trends won’t be significant over such a short time period? Probably.

So, the climate is changing AGAIN. What are you planning to do about it ? Pay more tax so that the Greens & Politicians can travel more, contributing more to the change.
Last time the climate changed it actually turned out pretty good what with all that ice gone & everything growing nicely ? Admittedly a few land bridges got inundated but we learnt how to overcome that. It'll be interesting what the next challenge will be, warm clothing or more air conditioning ? Mother Nature will know & do what's best for her. It's irrelevant to her what a few billion silly mutts think.

Well that little post tells me all I need to know about you Agro.

Just for the record, AS I SAID, I chose 2003 because that was when ARGO commenced; measurements before ARGO are crap.

And your little trick, Agro, of combining the trend with the point anomalies graph softens the tend line, an old trick.

You're not an honest broker Agro; but then if you were you wouldn't support AGW.

Individual
Unfortunately mother nature is indisposed at the moment and is unable to attend her normal duties due to choking on our fumes and the muck we are dumping in the water.

cohenite, you do make up some excuses.

If you wanted to discuss the ARGO buoy data, you should have linked to it. Instead you linked to HadCRUT SST, which is from the ICOADS and GTS data sets. HadCRUT SST goes all the way back to 1662. You should have looked at the trend line since then on your argument.

The reason for showing the data is not a trick. It demonstrates the trend you chose for exactly what it is, a non-significant trend. It is not me being dishonest, cohenite. I merely point out again and again that your arguments and claims are completely without substance.

Anyway, toodle-doo. I have better things to do than pointing out denialist tropes.

"toodle-doo"

Toodle-loo to you to.

Just to be sure, when you combine the data anomaly points with the trend the scale of the decline is reduced. All the toodle-loos in the world won't change that fact.

Good point about ARGO and HadCrut SST. Put up ARGO SST and let's spot the toodle-loo difference, shall we?

unable to attend her normal duties due to choking on our fumes and the muck we are dumping in the water.
warmair,
We'll somehow need to get that across to the consumers, the military nuts, the motor sport nuts, the travellers, the health professionals, the anti abortionists etc etc.......in fact all those who think the growth is good.