1.3 The Government accepts the science of climate change.

There is no science supporting AGW; it is all bluff, bluster and hysteria. That vapid, vainglorious nitwit Crowe and his latest Hollywood genuflection to AGW, Noah, is about the standard of AGW 'science'.

It jus beggars belief that this monumental foolishness is still trundling along but the money being spewed out in support of it will create momentum for a long time.

The Noah film, now that's what the warmists want.. none of this messing around with a few millimeters a year. A full on Biblical deluge will put the skeptics in their place and wash away all that industry. The earth must be cleansed! Come to think of it, it was wet in Sydney on the weekend..

Thanks, Don, for the reminder that the Senate remains dominated by the fraud backing Labor and Greens. It is bad enough that the Liberal government seem to have regressed from the position that AGW is crap and will waste resources on “direct action”, whatever that may be.

The Greens are toxic in their support of AGW fraud. They were active in the Tuvalu fraud on sea levels, asserting a sea level rise which never occurred. At the time that they produced photos of a storm surge, falsely presenting them s evidence of a sea level rise, there had actually been a fall of sea level at Tuvalu.

The sea level expert, Nils Axel Morner visited Tuvalu, and was able to show, by means of an old tree, of which there was a photograph taken 50 years before, that there had been no sea level rise.
The fraud backing greens responded by ripping out the tree, and launching unceasing vilification on Morner, which continues to this day. We can only look forward to the day when this criminal group no longer have a seat in the Senate.

Don,
C'mon mate, we're paying these people for sound and fury; and theatre!
What'd you expect, action? Or even a little bit of vision or an original thought!?
Rhrosty.

I rather gather that if the Senate had come up with an answer that fitted Don's ideology on this one, he wouldn't have written an article about how all politics is all theatre and they don't really mean it.

There seems to be an increasing chance that politicians get it wrong when it comes to scientific issues. Sadly that leads to poor policy. In this case, the Senate Committee got it close to right as far as the science goes and the minority report is wrong. The direct action plan has already been evicerated by a group of academics. http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/policies-using-carbon-capture-and-storage-soil-are-impractical-and-costly-say-experts

But what the Senate Committee thinks doesn't matter one jot, because Tony Abbott is too busy playing knights and dames will simply ignore them and any others that point out what the science really says.

After all Nero supposedly played the lyre while Rome burned.

Agronomist, you say that the AGW fraud backers have the science right.. That means that you are able to refer us to science that shows that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate. How exciting!

Please let us have a reference to this science.

Leo, previously you gave a reference from Andrew Bolt about how Tuvalu has had no impact from climate change. Here is the reference you gave:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/theories-fail-to-take-atoll/story-e6frfhqf-1225875224751

This is what is actually happening; completely different than the veritable Bolt says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw It works by copying and pasting.

A tendency climate deniers employ is to be insular in relation to what they try and review. The problem is that climate change is happening at the extremes of our planet.
In a post on another thread, I gave a reference to an epidemiological in Canada where water has been contaminated and where Inuit have come down with illness through pathogens being in the water they drank from brooks. The matter being attributed to warmer conditions.
In the same article there was comment about how the Inuit need to be exceptionally careful to travel to areas they had normally visited easily due to lack of stability of the ice. Just to make it clear, the article published in 2012, stated that there is already a 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature; meaning that where ice had been crossable in the past, that is no longer the case.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120405-climate-change-waterborne-diseases-inuit/

In another epidemiological study I have given reference to where encephalitis was seen to be an issue in the 1980s, climate change was seen to be the issue.

Earlier this year temperatures were high in Scandinavian countries as indicated by; the temperature in the early winter of 2014 were 4 to 5 degrees Celsius above normal through the Scandinavian countries; it created unusual circumstances with migratory birds delaying their migratory flights, and flowers showing out of their normal season. While Scandinavian countries were warm during early winter the USA had a cold snap.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140109/winter-on-the-way-for-sweden

As indicated by the epidemiological study in relation to encephalitis temperatures have been anomalous for many years. Most people would realize that epidemiological studies do not occur without a distinct trend being noticeable.

The question arises how do anthroprogenic climate change deniers argue against secondary impacts from climate change.

Hello ant,

In your post you list some circumstantial cases and by inference accuse carbon dioxide of being the culprit. You put carbon dioxide in the dock. Let's have a look at your allegations.

Tuvalu - youtube videos made by greeny advocates have no more or less credibility than Bolt. No case.

Contaminated water in Canadian brooks being attributed to warmer conditions is no evidence against carbon dioxide. No proof of connection. No case.

Inuit concerns over lack of stability of ice has no direct relationship to climate. The ice your referring to is mostly melted from below by water which is always warmer than the ice above it (otherwise it'd be ice too). Circumstantial evidence against carbon dioxide with no direct link. No case.

Outbreaks of encephalitis in the 1980s - climate change was seen to be the issue. By whom? Where's the scientific evidence? Direct relationships? This is utter rubbish. No case against carbon dioxide here.

Hot air temps in Scandinavia, cold air temps in USA. So what? That's weather. No global heating trend for the last 15 years while carbon dioxide levels soar. No relationship here. No case.

"Most people would realize that epidemiological studies do not occur without a distinct trend being noticeable". Most people are fools and buffoons. What trend? What evidence points at carbon dioxide? Nothing. No case only here-say and nonsense.

"...how do anthroprogenic climate change deniers argue against secondary impacts from climate change..." More to the point is, how do anthropogenic climate change alarmists argue the science of primary impacts on climate caused by carbon dioxide? The simple answer is they can't.

There is no case here whatsoever in your allegations directly concerning carbon dioxide. There's no science, just here-say, innuendo and circumstantial hoohah.

In my assessment - case dismissed.

Would someone please post up some science that shows the direct relationships and overwhelming empirical evidence of the actual effects of carbon dioxide on global air temp? Not just more fluffy conjecture.

Cheers all.

voxUnius @ 9.49

I can provide you with an onslaught of articles to satisfy your denial postulations.

Start with this article that is as early as 1975 in a research paper from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University.

It deals with "The Effect of Doubling of CO2 on Climate of a General Circulation Model" and can be read here;

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Greenhouse-effect/more/Manabe-Wetherald-1975.pdf

Of course I am sure you will come back with Princeton are part of the left wing communist, anti-industrial conspiracy which deniers are fond of citing. You will also no doubt refer to the use of models while ignoring that all weather prediction is based on the same climate models and no one seriously doubts that the BOM, for example, are pretty accurate on their forecasts. if they were not then all agriculture would fail as agronomists rely on these data to determine plantings and harvest cycles.

However, there are hundreds more so please provide your analysis so we can start on your education...perhaps some of the LNP Senate members could be invited as well.

voxUnius, in relation to encephalitis, I gave a Lancet reference, you took part in that particular thread. Leo, keeps commenting on climate scientists committing fraud. Whether you like it or not, the Inuit are finding it more difficult to live their normal lives due to climate change, it had been happening over a number of years, not just due to variables in weather. Read the reference I gave; voxUnius, its pretty clear what is happening. The only way we know whats happening in other parts of the world is through reports we obtain from sources that experience the particular circumstances. The National Geographic is a reliable source as is The Lancet.

Carbon Dioxide is involved with acidification of water ways, carbonic acid is formed through water and carbon dioxide combining to form carbonic acid. Carbonic acid may fall in rainfall but waterways as well take up carbon dioxide it has been known since the end of the nineteenth century.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Prior to the Industrial Revolution carbon dioxide was around 270 parts per million, it has increased until it has now reached up to 400parts per million. Climate change scientists say they have gone through every possible variable and carbon dioxide is seen to be the cause of climate change. High levels of carbon dioxide have been associated with warm climates millions of years ago.


Anthroprogenic climate change is a real inconvenience to fossil fuel miners.

You obviously claim that carbon dioxide has no bearing on climate change, where is your proof?
I'd like you to debunk acidification as well.

voxUnius, was Andrew Bolt wrong about Tuvalu? Remember that there has been an increase in sea level; which makes strong storm surges and high tides providing a greater impact than previously.

.

Hi Pete,

Many thanks for the link. I have downloaded the pdf for later perusal.

Aside - When are the academics going to stop stuffing around with paper and dinosaur pdf facsimiles? Don't they know that this is 2014 and a digital age? Why can't they learn to use xml and html like the rest of us?

Back to the point - I'm too busy today to give it time, but I shall later. On first glance it seems to contain what I called "fluffy conjecture". But I will consider it genuinely.

You say - "...no one seriously doubts that the BOM, for example, are pretty accurate on their forecasts". 'Pretty accurate' is a loose term. I'd reckon their forecasts are about 98% accurate for aviation met (6 hour forecasts, about as good as mine), next day forecasts about 80% accurate (about as good as mine from BoM synoptic charts) and about 70% accurate for 3 day forecasts (about as good as mine too) except I don't use computer modelling. I use the knowledge I learnt back when weather really was a science of observation and conclusions, not a computer game.

Anyway cheers and thanks again. I'll get back to you, probably tomorrow.

Along ant lines....

voxUnius wants "overwhelming empirical evidence" to support the CO2 hypothesis.

What if I want that for the existence of atoms? Nobody's ever seen one (tho' some they claim they have with computers). Would I be foolish to assume that a theory which accounts for so much is baseless because overwhelming empirical evidence for their existence doesn't exist?

The existence of atoms is supported by the myriad of theoretical models, in all fields of science, that rely on presumption of their existence. Yet, acceptance of this took a rocky road, such as is briefly discussed here. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/newton-proof-atomic-theory.asp

Some see the light: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348 Some won't, boringly banging on about fraud without positing a better scientific basis for observed phenomena, or about a pet hypothesis going against all the science mounted against them.

I'd be a fool to propose an alternative to the atomic hypothesis that does not account for observed phenomena. The CO2 hypothesis is the best we have and we should immediately respond to its dictates given its trajectory, even if by some future discovery we find it is wrong, or that atoms don't exist.

Are you a scientist voxUnius? If not, your comment "fluffy conjecture" is quite offensive.
This site is pretty well up to date in relation to carbon dioxide and has provided some other references.

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

Something very interesting is a trend in El Nino, it has been trending up since it was identified. El Nino is expected to occur towards the end of this year, or next year as it runs cyclically every four or five years. El Nino is associated with drought and heat. The point is that like the level of carbon dioxide has continued to climb, El Nino has been having a greater impact as time has gone on. El Nino is about up welling of warm water in the Pacific Ocean; oceans take up warmth. Oceans also pick up carbon dioxide, the question is why is El Nino impacting more now than when first identified? El Nino creates its own feedback system, commonsense suggests that the water being pushed by wind is now warmer than in the past; hence, the impact of El Nino is becoming greater.
This is the kind of material that Anthony Watts provides, I gather he is funded by Heartlands:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

An interesting proposition since glaciers, and ice sheets are melting.
There was a very recent event on Greenland where a large slab of ice collapsed off the Greenland ice cape allowing an "ice stream" to begin running.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/14/study-ice-sheet-destabilizing-threatening-greater-sea-level-rise

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/greenlands-fastest-glacier-sets-new-speed-record/

Its fair to say cooling as stated by Watts is not happening.
Watts has also been caught out when stating that some weather stations in the USA were not measuring temperatures correctly. The stations Watts identified were checked against the remaining stations and pretty well identical results were obtained. Watts had made quite a fuss about this matter and was caught out.

Message to the Senate. Anybody listening?

The Senate should try it's hand at finding the answer to whether or not AGW or Kyoto or IPCC science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant proliferated by unprecedented sewage nutrient overload pollution discharged daily.

The Senate should find if AGW-CO2 science is settled or not.

If the science is not complete and settled then all associated carbon cost should be suspended and moneys paid to date, repaid.

JF Aus, photosynthesis is energy absorbing and CO2 consuming, so how does your algal hypothesis account for AGW?

Further, your pet hypothesis needs some data behind it. Do you have any?

Can you convince anybody with funding clout of your claim? Perhaps contact Greg Hunt, who would only too gladly get the emissions issue off his desk with any excuse he could. Imagine, Australian scientists demolishing human CO2 emissions as the reason for AGW, with Direct Action funding, and starting right here on OLO!

Deniers can debate till the cows come home in relation to climate change; but, it is actually happening in Polar regions:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316152955.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/global-warming-melts-greenland-ice-sheet/5324848

The SMH also had a similar article, my bet is that there has been no coverage in Murdoch press.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-melts-edge-of-greenland-icesheet-20140317-hvjgs.html

Where the Greenland ice sheet had been stable in the past; a large chunk has shorn off allowing an "ice stream" to do more damage.

Science Daily says "The last remaining stable portion of the Greenland ice sheet is stable no more, an international team of scientists has discovered. The finding will likely boost estimates of expected global sea level rise in the future. The new result focuses on ice loss due to a major retreat of an outlet glacier connected to a long "river" of ice -- known as an ice stream -- that drains ice from the interior of the ice sheet." There are a number of references to this event having occurred. Ice sheets melting in the Artic region have no bearing in relation to changing sea levels; however, this is not the case when ice is shorn off a land mass.

It has been known that glaciers have been retreating for a number of years. Interestingly, a number of sites have indicated that the speed of change has not been predicted by computer models. That has been a common criticism of many climate scientists working in Polar areas about computer models. That is, computer models are not displaying the speed of change.

Combine unstable ice in the Arctic, and the prospect of an El Nino event; there have been a number of predictions in relation to an El Nino event ranging from a 50% chance to 75% chance. It does not bode well for later in the year and early 2015 should those predictions prove to be accurate.

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/monster-el-nino-emerging-from-the-depths-nose-of-massive-kelvin-wave-breaks-surface-in-eastern-pacific/

Ant. Regarding Tuvalu, Bolt is meticulous in his facts
The video to which you refer us is the one made by the lying greens who ripped out the old tree which evidenced that there has been no sea level rise at Tuvalu for at least 50 years.

The video contains no material showing sea level rise. One of the faces in the video looks very much like Ian Fry, from Queanbeyan, who deceitfully posed as a Tuvalu citizen and wept on the table at the Copenhagen fraud backers lie fest for “my country”.

This merely serves as a further example of your complete lack of comprehension of science Remember when asked for a scientific basis for AGW, you referred us to a site which made a baseless assumption that human emissions have an effect on climate. You were not asked to refer us to baseless assertions of AGW, but to science which could justify the assertion. You are 100% failure on this.

The sea level at Tuvalu had fallen at the time this video was made.

“The island's scientists admitted they were surprised and "a little embarrassed" by the change, which they blame on unusual weather conditions caused by El Nino in 1997.”

http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html

"The sea level at Tuvalu had fallen at the time this video was made."
Leo that's an admittance that flooding had happened. Your reply in relation to Tuvalu is quite breath taking; its like saying 1+1=3.

In an earlier post I mentioned how unprecedented ice melt has been occurring in Greenland; that will cause an increase in water levels; as the ice is melting off land.
An El Nino event is very likely to occur at the end of this year; not a happy situation for Tuvalu.

In relation to Greenland, you would at least have to agree Leo that warmth and water melts ice.

A quote from your The Telegraph reference Leo.. "However, scientists both on and off the island believe such concerns will be short term because the sea level falls are coming to an end and the oceans will soon resume their inexorable rise."

The Murdoch press is not reliable as indicted with the Andrew Bolt example. If you are going to show that there has been a lessening of sea water rise you need to go to scientific references, Leo.

Ant, you cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be. It is a pretence to enable you to divert any sensible observation. The sea level fell, at Tuvalu. Fact. The nonsense about Tuvalu sinking in the future, is pure speculation, with nothing to support it, but a statement with about as much substance as the IPCC’s assertion that it is 94% certain that human activity contributes to global warming. Baseless statements, in line with those which you constantly inflict upon us.

Any progress in producing a genuine scientific basis for the assertion of AGW?

About time that you conceded that there is no such science and the assertion of AGW is fraudulent.

Leo, anybody who cares to check my reference knows that Tuvalu has been flooded.
I believe that CSIRO et al provides a better reference than the grubby The Telegraph you provided: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

A quote from CSIRO et al reference..." Many observations show that the ocean has been changing over the last several decades. One aspect of this is a warming ocean resulting in increase of ocean volume through thermal expansion. There has also been addition of water from glacier and ice sheets ...."
Thermal expansion would mean warming wouldn't it Leo, measured.

Here is a further quote from your reference Leo..."Low-lying coral islands such as Tuvalu and the Maldives are among the countries most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Most of the world's leading scientists agree that the earth is warming up, caused by carbon dioxide emissions from petrol and the burning of coal."

Luciferace,

It is said that Europeans scoff at data because it can be used to claim almost anything. For example data is being used to claim AGW is caused by CO2.
I have been aware for over 50 years about warmth in algae.
My ‘hypothesis’ at the very least accounts for fact that solar warmth is absorbed in algae.
And to my knowledge warmth in ocean algae has not been measured and assessed in AGW science.

Do I need data to establish an unprecedented human population is dumping unprecedented sewage nutrient loadings in ocean ecosystem waters?
Do I need data to establish nutrients proliferate algae plant matter?
Do I need data to establish unprecedented sewage and land use nutrient pollution has not been measured and assessed in AGW science?

Does anybody have any data indicating warmth in natural and sewage-fed ocean algae has been measured and assessed in AGW science?

Look, try a basic experiment.
At sundown, take 2 equal containers, place 2 desert spoons of dried pea soup vegetable matter in one, fill both equally with boiling water, allow to cool in equal positions but not touching, see which retains warmth longest.
Ocean currents can move increased algae mass from one place to another, somewhat like a small heater moves warmth around a big room or building.
(continued)

Cont’d………..
I think I have convinced some politicians AGW science is not complete but at present the response is like one religious faith entering and talking in the worship place of a different faith.
Then there is phenomena of a student knowing something unknown to the teacher who suddenly becomes hostile toward the student. MT was polite but did not get back to me as indicated.

I spoke to Malcolm Turnbull some time ago and I think they want a trading scheme. So I think it likely Greg Hunt will not drop emissions.
Recently I sent a number of questions to my local MP Bronwyn Bishop, including the question of warmth in algae already assessed or not.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. My focus is on solutions to seafood protein supply collapse and malnutrition and hardship and associated increased NCD amongst Pacific Islands people.
To me, AGW is an aside issue.
I think warming is occurring in some areas of oceans but whether that warmth is warming the globe as AGW implies, I do not know.
I do not think warming is due to CO2 alone, or than an ETS is the best way to go.

From my point of view exploring underwater, inside ocean ecosystems and from general research including into surface photographic data, it appears that warmth in algae in some waters is changing atmosphere in that area, and that change is changing the weather downwind.

As for peer reviewed data, I invite science to measure and assess warmth in ocean algae and collect data that is available to science. Or science can prove there is no warmth ever absorbed in ocean algae.

Meanwhile CO2 non- sense continues to waste vital time and also significant opportunities.

OK, JF, so we've got water carrying algae around the world in the major convection currents. We've got the sun beating down upon this alginated (is that a word) water that absorbs more heat per kilogram per degree rise than normal water and, by your reckoning, emitting more heat than normal water in the reverse process (at night). Wouldn't this moderate ocean temperature changes while making little actual difference to the heat quantity in it?

I'm just thinking aloud, but it's your baby JF, and you are the one who has to see it through. Have you written to those who may receive you warmly (no pun), like Watts or Nova? Perhaps cohenite can help get things going here with his skeptical contacts. Maybe contact the Heartland Institute to put up the money and expertise, or go direct to the Koch brothers.

"Meanwhile CO2 non- sense continues to waste vital time and also significant opportunities." Great to see you're keeping an open mind, JF

JF Aus, I do believe you have the cart before the horse. In small waterways during summer algae becomes very noticeable growing over rocks. It is noticeable that as the days become warmer after winter, that algae begins to form. I believe that when waterways get too warm de-oxigenation happens and then algal blooms occur. Too much nutrient is another reason for algae to become more noticeable.

Meanwhile, the weather in Greenland is incredibly unstable with ranges in temperature of 40 degrees Celsius; one week being what you would expect -20 degrees Celsius and a few days later +20 degrees Celsius. In a previous post I have written about concerns being raised as Greenland once considered to be quite stable in holding it's ice sheet has shed what had virtually been a "dam" allowing "ice streams" to flow into open water. Currently, there are high levels of methane that are being measured off Greenland, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Usual temperature range of Greenland:

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima/vejret-i-groenland.aspx

"Sealers and whalers at Qaanaaq say that the sea ice is 1 metre (3 feet) thinner today than it was earlier. East Greenlanders see less ice from the Arctic Ocean than earlier, and both scientists as well as tourist guides report that in certain areas of the country glacier heads are pulling back year after year. This applies not least to the UNESCO-protected ice fjord near Ilulissat, which has pulled back almost 10 km (6 miles) between 2001 and 2004."
Source:

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima/klimaaendringer.aspx

Temperatures being experienced:

"As described in the post High methane readings over Greenland, huge temperature swings can hit areas over Greenland over the course of a few days. Temperature anomalies may go down as low as as -20°C one day, then climb as high as 20°C a few days laters, to hit temperature anomalies as low as -20°C again some days later."
Source:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/

@ Luciferase,

I think apparent fact that warmth in unprecedented ocean algae proliferated by humans has not been measured and assessed in AGW science, is causing massive and unnecessary problems.
For example, the incomplete science is resulting in imposition of a massive financial burden on national economies, business and livelihood/s.
The real cause of whole ocean damage is not even being addressed, damage is compounding.
Real solutions would generate major business and employment worldwide, e.g through plumbing, proper sewage treatment retro fitting and new sanitation.
This is about increasingly costly fertilizer causing increasingly costly food, increasingly unaffordable food.
Nutrients could grow algae for biofuel instead of feeding algae killing coral and vital seagrass – ocean food web nurseries, instead of causing unprecedented starvation of marine animals .
Looking after the natural food ecosystem of this planet could be a productive new industry.

Whatever slight degree of warmth carried into night hours may explain anomalies in AGW ocean surface temperature data, and I do not say that will create employment but it should help create better understanding.

Atmospheric convection at night from a warmer ocean surface may continue to form cloud at night, I say may, because I cannot see it happening at night.
In daytime on a calm day the very first visual evidence of formation of cloud above ocean inundated with algae, can be seen in and above the Bering Sea.

Re the following satellite photo text, NASA at the time was apparently not studying the apparent formation of cloud in relation to the algae. N.B:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

Insurance companies paying out for severe weather damage would do well to place algae high on their agenda, including in relation to hurricane Sandy cloud formation over algae inundated waters off Florida USA. See:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/702906main_20121031-sandy-goes-full.jpg?itok=50E06VgD

I do not have resources and time to write to every source of whatever opinion.
OLO is an opinion site that could be noted by all concerned

JF Aus, your first NASA link says "phytoplankton convert sunlight to energy". That energy is chemical potential energy, not heat.

I've given some reasons in posts above why I think you're barking up the wrong tree, so if you haven't convinced me, why should the world beat a path to your door to unlock the secret you will only reveal on OLO?

Given opinion you hold towards mainstream science, you appear to be using your theory to shield yourself from the inconvenient truth that the CO2 hypothesis is the best going, and that we should be doing something substantial about emissions.

Try putting your theory "in the box" at http://www.newscientist.com/topic/lastword/
or pop one to Wattsup, Jo Nova, Skepticalscience, whatever. Don't expect OLO to launch your theory as it's not a place where serious people come to join in discourse over GW, due to abuse rendered by the usual suspects here.

Hi there Peter King,

I managed to find the time to read through the paper (pdf - sheesh, can't even copy text from it) you provided a link to.

I am extremely busy right at this time and I regret not being able to get back to you yesterday as I suggested.

Anyway, I found the paper to be quite interesting and nothing in it surprised me other than the tone of the author. It really was a 'nicer' world back in 1975. The author's tone is what I would call 'quaint' these days. An enjoyable read after I got used to it.

I was taken by the fact that they didn't include air pressure in their investigative parameters.

Why do you think they did that?

They included temperature (of course), relative humidity, snow cover and albedo, heat balance, eddy kinetic energy and poleward transport of energy. But not a mention of atmospheric pressure.

I find that strange as temp and pressure have an intimate relationship in physics, and in particular, the atmosphere, weather and climate.

I did take note of their 3D model and was pleased to see they took it to the vertical limits of space, although I couldn't find the reference to it again due to the document being a pdf facsimile and not having any search functionality.

But the model itself raises a point in having a fixed vertical limit. A point I have not had anyone explain to me or even get interested in discussing. It seems to me that all the models assume a fixed space or vertical limit to the top of the atmosphere.

(cont...)

(cont from above...)

Now to the point. I have no argument with their work or paper, it was well constructed and documented and no surprises there. Its age (1975) surely makes it somewhat redundant by now, I don't know. I hope you AGW folks have something better to go on by now than just this.

This lack of concern about air pressure haunts me. Surely that's the corroborative evidence for the temp increase claims, yet the AGW proponents never, never, seem to discuss it. I find that most contentious.

If anyone can direct me to a graph of global mean sea level air pressure anomalies for the period 1890 to present, I'd be most obliged. But I don't think such a thing exists - that's curious!

Thanks again Pete, but nothing here I didn't already know. It's interesting but seriously, it's just more extrapolation conjecture. Nothing really scientifically significant in this day and age. It's the sort of stuff a person ought to know by now, in this time. Nonetheless, an interesting exercise, which these guys did well.

Cheers.

Luciferase,

Yes, alga converts sunlight to energy but is that all it does?
What else is happening do you think? Is any solar heat absorbed and transferred after sunset from algae solid matter into water molecules?

You should be well aware of heat transfer particle to particle and/or molecule to molecule.
Consider the amount of algae in the ocean, there is so much micro algae in some areas it is even visible from space.

Do you have scientific evidence ocean algae cannot absorb solar warmth?

Surely you are aware increased matter can absorb and store increased warmth at whatever slight degree for whatever short period)?

How can the AGW - CO2 hypothesis be the best going as you say, if solar warmth absorbed in increased ocean algae has not been measured and assessed? Best going? What does that mean scientifically?

I am not shielding myself as you think? I seek the opposite to a shield. I am publicly challenging IPCC ‘science’ about warmth in ocean algae not included in AGW science. I am out front about it, no shield.

There are serious people on OLO and most are not fooled by CO2 non-sense. And I would still like to know what one tonne of CO2 looks like.

I am not seeking to “launch” my theory on OLO as you think, it is enough for me that my inconvenient question is in writing and published online, Especially, nobody has been able to show any evidence that solar warmth, (a) is not absorbed in ocean algae, and (b), that ocean algae plant matter has been measured and assessed in AGW and Kyoto and IPCC science.

It has not been, has it?

JF, if you're going into battle with the scientific establishment, you'll need some scientific understanding. Begin here, and best wishes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ar4bSlKz3s

Luciferase and others,

I do not consider I am going into battle with the scientific establishment, real science that is. You know, the science that is gagged by politics and AGW trading commissions agenda. The latter should be applied to solutions and that would also stimulate economies worldwide.

Thank you for the best wishes, same to you.
As for you or I beginning to understand, I think you would do well to help by gaining a better understanding of algae.

For example, have you personally ever heard from any source other than here on OLO, that algae is linked to El Nino and associated weather events? Please be honest and let me know your answer to that. Did you know or not?
You surely are aware that El Nino and La Nino phenomena is linked to drought, floods - weather and climate. i.e drought = dry climate, rain = humidity.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNinoColor/el_nino_color_3.php


To remain on topic I would like to clearly ask, what is the use of The Senate if matters such as we are talking about are not raised or debated in The Senate?

Can the Government of Australia Senate justify turning a blind eye to evidence of substance indicating AGW - Kyoto – IPCC science is incomplete, and that emissions cost based on such incomplete evidence and ALREADY legislated is causing cost to the public that is such a burden, it is causing closure of Australian and international business

JF Aus, I had a look at your reference and the hyperlinks with it; there is a co-relation with phytoplankton and El Nino; El Nino produces an up welling of warm water and nutrients which then allows the phytoplankton to thrive. The warmth comes from the water, not the phytoplankton.
We are about due for an El Nino event; it being cyclic, a build up appears to be occurring:
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/monster-el-nino-emerging-from-the-depths-nose-of-massive-kelvin-wave-breaks-surface-in-eastern-pacific/

Methane is a more serious gas than carbon dioxide and the level of this gas has been on an upward trend.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts

Many suggest there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, an ice core taken from Antarctica shows beautifully that is completely wrong:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

Graph from above reference:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/images/003.jpg

For a number of weeks I have been wondering about what the base level of methane has been in the past, the above site suggests about 600 ppb; a number of recent papers are suggesting that levels of up to 2,600 ppb have been recorded in the last year or so.

Ant and others and The Senate,

I understand warmth comes from the sun into the water and into the algae, phytoplankton call it what you like.

It is the increased algae matter in the water that in my opinion has not been measured and assessed in relation to claimed increase in ocean warmth, and think such data is not included in AGW –Kyoto-IPCC science models. Or is it? Can anyone provide reference?

I also challenge the source of nutrients proliferating algae/phytoplankton associated with El Nino, because there is need to measure and assess all sources of nutrients in order to assess whether or not there is an increase in the total nutrient loading.
I consider nutrients do not only come from upwelling currents into equatorial – El Nino waters.

In my opinion based on empirical evidence it is vital to scientifically assess the nutrient loading entering El Nino waters from the mass of prawn farming and human sewage and land use nutrient matter in coastal waters of the western Pacific Ocean.
Has that loading been measured and assessed in association with the El Nino phytoplankton? I think not

JF Aus, I watched this clip a couple of months ago, it is about various impacts on oceans. The clip takes almost 1.5 hours to watch.

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/jeremy-jackson-ocean-apocalypse

Still arguing about our AGW/nonAGW problem ?
All the while as it becomes a secondary consideration in what to do
about our rising population and our falling resources.
Anyway you won't have to worry about burning fossil fuels in a couple of decades.
Talk about Nero and his fiddle !

BTW, the world temperature has been rising for more than 300 years.
Anyone attended the Ice Fair on the Thames in recent times ?

Ant,
Why think apocalype when there are employment and business generating opportunities to sustain ocean ecosystems and seafood supply on this planet.

Is the Senate interested in genuine solutions?

Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.

The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is 1.7 percent which is well below the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So logically humanity’s CO2 emissions cannot be driving climate change.
Many politicians hide behind the peer review process. The peer review process has not vindicated the global warming hypothesis and I can't accept the assumption anthropogenic carbon emissions are the culprits behind CC.

Three things. Firstly, global temperatures have remained stable for the past 16 years despite the massive increase in CO2. Even if a little warming did occur it would be highly beneficial for the planet as things grow bigger and better with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Secondly, the IPCC, CRU, NOAA, CSIRO and other climate agencies have been found to be using corrupted data and to make wildly exaggerated claims regarding the future impacts of climate change. The claim of the IPCC is an educated guess, and not fact. They claim they think they are 90% right when blaming CO2 for climate change.

Thirdly, the Non Government Panel on climate Change (NIPCC) do not support the IPCC’s alarmist stance on climate change and have published a comprehensive rebuttal entitled, `Climate Change Reconsidered’. In addition there are now 31,487 scientists who have signed a petition to say they do NOT subscribe to the view that anthropogenic emissions are driving climate change.

The precautionary principle ignores the risks of going ahead with a carbon tax or ETS, which could be more severe than the risks of not going ahead. The precautionary principle is nothing more than one half of a risk-benefit analysis - the 'risk' half - and is therefore incapable of assessing the true impact of any emissions trading scheme

“Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.”

Miskolczi is wrong. Water vapour in the atmosphere has increased by about 0.41 kg/m2 per decade over the last 2 decades http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract

“The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is 1.7 percent which is well below the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Human activities since the industrial revolution are responsible for about a third of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

“Three things. Firstly, global temperatures have remained stable for the past 16 years despite the massive increase in CO2.”

GISS, HadCRUT4 and UAH all give significant increases in temperature over the past 16 years. Cherry picking based on 1998 is getting less and less useful.

“Even if a little warming did occur it would be highly beneficial for the planet as things grow bigger and better with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

No it wouldn’t, because the increased temperature (and reduced water availability) will reduce production of key grain crops.

“In addition there are now 31,487 scientists who have signed a petition to say they do NOT subscribe to the view that anthropogenic emissions are driving climate change.”

The Oregon Petition again. A petition signed by veterinarians, medical doctors, engineers and cadavers. When the views of experts in climate science are analysed, they overwhelmingly agree with the general thrust of the IPCC http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Still arguing about the wrong problem ?