Leo

Quote:
"... Max is talking about 2015 being the hottest year. ..."

At the beginning of this month it was pretty well a laid down mizaire that 2015 would be the warmest year ever recorded since preindustrial times. The information was available at the beginning of the month; now, there could even be a slight increase over what was expected.

It is winter in the Northern Hemisphere yet some record high temperatures are being recorded.
At Svalbard ..."Average temperature was -6.1 °C, 7.4 °C above the normal. Highest temperature was 8.7 °C (30 December), and the lowest was -19.0 °C (13 December). "
Quote from weather station.

Similarly, less than 5 degrees South of the North Pole a buoy measured temperature at a positive 1C, in a number of hours it had jumped 20C. Europe has had a lack of snow, temperatures in some Eastern US States also were unseasonal in December. Monthly temperature records haveI been on the news, so a record temperature for 2015 will happen as shown by the guest post at Skeptical Science below.

http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/statistics.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html

The "pause" concept has been put to bed as an interesting notion, but wrong.

You will have to help us out here, Aiden, it is not clear whether you are a liar or an idiot. You say:” the blog post's authors had withdrawn the claim “Watts never withdrew his claim." What he said was:”this post has an error, see update below.”

The update:”A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

“This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.”
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf”
The new paper says 3.75%, Watts’ fresh calculation is 2.9%.
Would you care to explain yourself, Aiden?
If you have a better name than mine for the flea, please let us know.

Actually it is pretty easy to tell who is the idiot.

Is this the 'update' you are referring to Leo?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html

Leo, you have my word that I'm neither a liar nor an idiot. And of course you have no evidence for either, but you desperately want to believe I must be one or the other, as you're extremely reluctant to believe anything that doesn't conform to your prejudices, regardless of evidence.

Watts's exact words, when acknowledging the error, were:
"The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading."

As for the table at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf it shows gross emissions rather than net emissions. If you look at the table objectively instead of just trying to support a predetermined conclusion, you'll notice that the CO2 from anthropogenic sources is nearly double the total atmospheric CO2 increase.

It is extremely misleading to use gross CO2 emissions figures in the way Watts has. When you consider net emissions, it's clear: the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from human activity is much more than enough to account for the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Gross CO2 emissions can be of great relevance when considering how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but using them in place of the net figures is fraudulent.

As for ant, I suggest you call him ant. It won't make any difference in anyone's perception of him, but at least it will no longer make you look like a particularly obnoxious kid.

It's hard to believe that supposedly educated people can rant on and on about CO2 while apparently totally ignoring presence and impact of algae plant matter and associated warmth throughout ocean ecosystems of this planet.

No wonder flat earth thinkers existed in the past.

Let's hope a Royal Commission will find why news media repeatedly reports CO2 emission views but reports nothing about photosynthesis-linked warmth in algae plant matter in oceans that produce over 50 percent of world oxygen.

El Nino phenomena is definitely linked to chlorophyll that is definitely linked to algae plant matter that is definitely linked to photosynthesis and ocean surface warmth.
It is increase in matter and particle to particle transfer of warmth that is involved.

I observe ocean algae is also linked to cooling when precipitation and cloud occurs causing shade.
Mid summer last week where I am in Solomon Islands near the Equator right now, it was just 27c degrees. I repeat, mid summer, just south of the equator.

International government dumped sewage nutrient overload amounting to pollution that is proliferating excessive ocean ecosystem algae does not make the news, yet solutions to reduce the nutrient loading could generate millions of jobs and stimulate economies worldwide.

http://www.biologyeducation.net/news-and-articles/el-nino-la-nina/

Surely there is need to think beyond CO2 and get a Royal Commission happening a.s.a.p.

The 11 year ARM study in situ, provides proof of infrared radiated long waves reacting with CO2.

The amount of energy created is very small per square meter; but, taken over billions of square meters around the planet it is a different story. Objective data; J F you have already identified yourself as a climate change denier elsewhere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm