The climate, and hence weather patterns, have always changed as the Earth is a dynamic system.
Whether we, as that animal species homo sapiens, are the cause of the present apparent exacerbation is open to debate.
BUT it is bleedingly obvious that we are not doing it or ourselves any favours by continually dumping millions of tonnes of pollutants into the atmosphere.
You can indeed have too much of a good thing.

Jennifer play book comes straight from creationist tactics. Taking pot shots at Brian Cox how sad. Creationist produces mountains of material just like you.
You couldn't convince your fellow scientist in the scientific world so you joined the IPA. Not an organisation well know for it's contribution to scientific progress. A nice little group think tank interesting in swaying opinions not advancing science, just like creationist.

Why not actually address the Senator's comments Jennifer, do you believe that there is a world wide fraud going on regarding climate science. That government and private organisation are deliberately changing data to support their findings. Yes or No

Oh for those playing at home here is a link to Richard Horton's comments to put them into their proper context.

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

I think Jennifer goes too far. Of the three ‘misleading’ claims of which she accuses Brian Cox, only one is really relevant, the global temperature chart. This she describes as “an out-of-date NASA chart of remodelled global temperatures as proof that we have catastrophic climate change caused by industrial pollution“. Well, it’s true that the chart appears (it’s hard to tell from the fuzzy Q&A screen shots) to go only as far as about 2010, but there are other later versions in which the short time extension makes no difference to one’s reading of the chart. No problem with the chart. Temperatures are rising.

‘Remodelled’ is a loaded term. What climate scientists have done, as far as I can tell, is integrated the satellite data available from the late 1970s with earlier measurements using good old thermometers and the like. What else could they do? Not models. Measurements.

The sad thing is that there is no need to exaggerate the case as Jennifer has done. Global ‘land – ocean temperature index’, which is what Brian Cox displayed, is definitely rising. Physical chemists, like me, are predisposed to blame rising carbon dioxide levels and the resulting changed spectral properties of the atmosphere. There might be other explanations. In normal circumstances we could surely give climate scientists the job of sorting them out. These days we just need to make extra sure that their peers are free to publish critiques. Has there been a ‘catastrophe’? Or is there one looming? That’s where Jennifer should concentrate her criticisms because she will lose credibility on her other grounds.

Just look at Cox’s chart. Temperature went up by close to one degree Celsius in the century to 2010. Catastrophe? In the absence of all the panic and exaggeration about future global warming, a scientific paper in 2011 announcing such a finding would have been met with a giant yawn.

The real problems are the alarmism of global environmental pessimists and the ridiculous energy solutions they so optimistically put forward. That’s the weird paradox. That’s where Jennifer could make a difference.

Let us not forget the Y2K scam. The hole in the ozone layer which an Australian scientist explained at the time was caused by the lack of sunlight over the poles in winter. CFC's were banned but are still produced in larger quantities by Russia and India so?
This sort of scam by thieving lying scientists is the reason I do not believe in spending money on a nebulous theory that tells me it is getting hotter. Really?
I believe a Royal Commission should sort this out and then the real day of reckoning where public servants are dismissed without a pension and have to pay damages.

JBowyer,
Just because the Y2K bug did not cause any serious problems doesn't mean it was a scam.

The lack of sunlight over the poles in winter prevented more ozone being formed, but that alone wasn't enough to cause the hole. That was caused by chlorine monoxide catalytically destroying the ozone, and the chlorine monoxide was the result of sunlight breaking down CFCs in the stratosphere.

Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, CFC manufacturing has ceased though China and India still have large stocks of them. The phaseout of HCFCs is much slower, and they won't be eliminated completely until 2030.

Global warming is not a nebulous theory. We know for sure that CO2 absorbs more ore the infrared radiation produced by the ground when the sun heats it. It's even been confirmed by Mythbusters. And we know from temperature measurements that warming has occurred, last year was the hottest on record, and the pause never really existed – it was just an artefact of cherry picked data.

Sorry Aiden you are requiring me to trust these thieves. I will not. CFC's are still being produced and once someone has shown themselves as a liar and a cheat that's it for me.
We need a full investigation on these scams and some hard questions directed at these overweening popinjays who think they are oh so clever.

The ABC show starring Cox was a typical set up by them. Despite it being set up, Malcolm Roberts performed extremely well.. under the circumstances.

Media darling Cox on the other hand revealed himself to be just another arrogant un- informed academic twit. He may know a lot about particle physics but bugger all about Climate science, and what a shonk it all is.

Its a pity Roberts didn't also show the many devastating graphs, that show "Climate Science" for what it is.

Just one would have done ....The one showing the complete disconnect between temperatures as revealed by the climate models, and the real world measurements ...all of them. Not just the demonstrably corrupted land based measurements. The evidence for which you ample demonstrate herein Jennifer. Well done

JBowyer,
Who do you mean by "these thieves"?

Do you have any evidence that CFCs (not HCFCs) are still being produced?

Who has "shown themselves as a liar and a cheat"?

By all means investigate anything fully, but do it honestly rather than assuming anything is a scam.

Yes, it would have been nice if Malcolm did have a chart showing the UHI Satellite record on Q&A on Monday night, but also this one, to put it all in context, the last 4,000 years: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/4000-years-of-climate-in-one-chart.php/climate-civilization-gisp-char

Sorry there was a t missing at the end of the above URL, trying again here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/4000-years-of-climate-in-one-chart.php/climate-civilization-gisp-char

The CO2 theory has been debunked time and time again, but still the diehards cling to it, too pig-headed and ignorant to admit that they are
wrong. Cox looks like a weirdo rock star, and he should have kept playing with his keyboard instead of public money, which he and his kind are frittering away without accountability. The whole scam is a crime against humanity.

Replying to Tombee,
You should be aware that correlation may match EITHER cause OR effect and empirical determinations are required to define which (not models) OR alternatively there may be no relationship to a phenomenon at all. For instance increasing use of some commodity might match global warming. Hamburgers? Increasing Council rates….sorry just guessing.

Cox’s graph looks like an oldish version of the repeated adjustments by GISS to the historic records. When Senator Roberts pointed out the big bump in the middle centred on 1941, did you notice that Cox evaded that issue. (BTW, that bump used to be bigger before a progressive generally anticlockwise rotation of the whole curve). The rapid warming leading up to 1941 was before the big acceleration in CO2 starting with WW2 industrialization etcetera. If Senator Roberts had been allowed to continue he might well have been able to point out that clearly it does not correlate with the CO2 curve.

The UAH (University of Alabama) satellite data for the lower troposphere here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ shows two very big spikes corresponding to the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016 and the lack of correlation with CO2 is immense. The big El Nino in 2010 also shows up well and note that it and 1998 both emerged from and then descended to below the centroid of the oscillation and that 2016 is plummeting down towards La Nina much more rapidly than 1998. There is no correlation between El Nino and CO2. There is also a plateau AKA as “The Pause” but now disappeared by GISS.

If you compare this with today’s GISS graph you may notice a strange thing that the formerly known “1998 Super El Nino” so very prominent in the satellite records has also been disappeared by GISS.

If you don’t believe the UAH data there is also the very similar plot here that employs entirely independent algorithms by RSS: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

I’d better stop before I blow my 350 word allowance.

if the evolution fantasy can be swallowed as science then people will adopt any other fallacy. Alarmist adopt the same tactics as evolutionist by demonising people who point out facts and truth. They constantly ignore there numerous failed predictions, data fiddling and false narratives.The alarmist very much play on the minds of the naive. They have certainly managed to dumb down many people.

Sorry Jenny, but have to agree with Aiden here. Simply put some of the global warming is down to known knowns, Solar thermal output an elliptical orbit, El nino and other variations!

THE REST IS DOWN TO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE!

While the sun may be responsible for some of it, it is hard to correlate record setting hottest years on record 14 15 and 16 if the trend continues. With an actual wane in solar thermal output, occurring and continuing from the mid seventies. (NASA)

A scientist like you claim to be, wouldn't ignore or dismiss empirical evidence as easily as you seem to, without an ideological imperative or worse, fossil fuel funding?

We have choices that don't have to include an economic meltdown, but rather the very opposite!

Like an algae based fuel, unrefined ready to use as is, jet fuel and diesel, that even with a fuel excise imposed, could retail for just 44 cents a litre. Quote unquote. (industry expert/manager working in our northwest, in a algae based diesel fuel project)

Or cheaper than coal thorium, which we have enough of to power the world for up to 700 years? The Indians are working on a 30 NW prototype that they claim could be up and working this year!

Then there's biogas and ceramic fuel cells in combination, with a world beating 80% energy coefficient (worlds cheapest power) currently powering Apple's new H.Q. Which as a combination produces mostly pristine water vapor as the exhaust product!

Just to name a few existing and proven carbon neutral or carbon free alternatives! That beat the pants of anything provided by the fossil fuel industry, even as they focus on wind farms and solar voltaic as the only competition they want to tussle with and for the most obvious financial reasons

Perhaps that's the real problem for you and most of the other fossil fueled denialists?

Assure us Jenny, that none of your funding or research grants originates or comes or came from the oil or coal sector?
Alan B.

Correction, the Indians are working on a 300 MW prototype.
Apologies, Alan B.

Keep on the warpath Jennifer . We are very lucky to have you.

Iwas appalled by Brian Cox's showmanship on that show.

His waggling and then throwing of a piece of paper ( with a squiggly line on it ) at another panel member was beneath what is expected of a scientist. He did not allow discussion of what it was and ( more importantly) what is was not.

He is another Paul Flannery, giving advice on subjects he is not qualified to deal with.

Paul Flannery, paid but unqualified government advisor on climate, advised us the dams would never be full again. Governments, at huge cost, built desalination plants now mothballed because the dams are too full of water.

He warned of the rising of sea levels and bought a water frontage property at Berowra.

The, in practice enforced, use of wind power , particularly in South Australia has led to large increases in the cost of electricity to our households and manufacturing industries.

We are already suffering sadly from this pseudo- science. Thank you for calling for sanity.

Cox.s use of the term "absolute consensus" in relation to anthropogenic global warming is either ignorance ( from a scientist!) or a straight forward lie.

Without harnessing the energy of fossil fuels, from the 1700s onwards 90% of world's population, would not be here for lack of the means to produce, transport and distribute food and shelter to sustain the population.

If there is anthropogenic global warming, where is the evidence it is caused by CO2 rather than the far more potent atmosphere affecting gases given off by that increased 90% of the population and the hugely increased livestock herds used to feed it?

What is the answer then? Multiple genocides to reduce populations to the level where we can comfortably walk around from cave to cave?

I hope we get some adults in government before too much damage is done.

I'm hoping that this shorter URL will take us to the 4,000 year temp reconstruction, which I tried to post previously. It does help put things in perspective, something Brian Cox was perhaps missing on Monday night: http://bit.ly/2b0Bt7x

It’s good to see how many climate scientists read OLO. I am not one of those and shall leave to others arguing with silly claims like that greenhouse theories have been debunked. Perhaps first reading what the American Institute of Physics says https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm would be a good idea. As for Roy spencer at UAH, I regularly go his website http://www.drroyspencer.com/ for UAH satellite updates and his own climate interpretations. Please tell me where he denies that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. He certainly doesn’t do it in his ‘Global Warming 101’ section, though he does argue that other factors are involved, a possibility which I have already acknowledged. It’s worth adding that Spencer is a creationist. Strange but true, see e.g. http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php. I don’t hold it against him, though perhaps I would at crunch time. But there is no crunch; Roy Spencer is happy to accept greenhouse theory, at least qualitatively. Anyway, please read what I actually wrote. There you will find that you can still enjoy heavy doses of scepticism on climate change without putting your feet into it.

Jennifer Marohasy, this 'article' is a very trashy, disjointed, false, fraudulent and manipulative piece of work. As an author I truly believe (and could prove that if I felt it was worth the time & effort - it isn't) that you are incompetent to write a single credible word on the state of climate science. It is obvious that you do not comprehend any of it. Jennifer, your article is an insult to people's intelligence.

For the benefit of Jennifer Marohasy, which also fits those she has referenced as being "authoritative" in the field when they are not:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.

These are tell-tale indicators of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

– fail to recognize their own lack of skill
– fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
– fail to recognize genuine skill in others
– recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger+effect&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=

About Choices:
http://www.iliketoquote.com/img/3693.jpg

For the benefit of others keen on 'empirical evidence' and the Truth versus Roberts/Marohasy/IPA Mythology and Fraudulent Conspiracy Theories:

http://www.realclimate.org

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/space-climate-change-and-the-real-meaning-of-theory

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

Dear Jennifer Marohasy the Earth's not flat either,if you want to shill from the frauds who back you tell us at least how much various US organisations are paying for your opinion.
Because like that British idiot Monckton and the rest of the OZ deniers your all on about the same level as the new one nation member of the senate NUTS.

RE: "Sorry there was a t missing at the end of the above URL, trying again here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/4000-years-of-climate-in-one-chart.php/climate-civilization-gisp-chart"
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:44:00 AM

Let's get real shall we Jennifer and try a 500 million years graph instead? see https://goo.gl/1KL5nM
original url
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/108549032882048528949/album/AF1QipNlc45MD46hVs7BbADS-hYc_WqlyV-O79UzS2cp/AF1QipO83jTL8IQomVgoIw27pRikSO0lN6Od8P33_EA6

Add half a life time of studying climate science and all the other related scientific based knowledge and maybe you and malcolm roberts could slightly begin to understand what that graph actually means and is saying to the world in 2016?

7.2 billion people live on the earth at once. Motor vehicles seems to reduce a working classes need to have many more children. The idea of modern industrial age living was to reduce population growth.

The alternative to living in CO2 increasing societies is to live like Indian poorest class peasants in hot climates. Cold climate societies need heat during many months of winter.

If talking about reducing CO2, may as well talk about reducing population growth.

More conversations on climate change should be directed at convincing middle eastern countries to reduce their population growth to a sustainable number. Western countries would not need to except immigrants into their countries.

Western countries would not need to bomb Middle Eastern countries to create disruption. Middle Eastern women finding disruption not ideal opportunities to have more children.

Bad school education, teaching children to believe what children are told; stopping children from realising better thought out ideas. Children so distracted by sports and mentally stressing education. Children grown into adults, adults can't conclude anything other than what media points to.

What Climate Change Skeptics Aren’t Getting About Science
http://www.wired.com/2016/08/climate-change-skeptics-arent-getting-science/

SPACE, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE REAL MEANING OF THEORY
"You can fool yourself, you can fool other people for a while, but you can’t fool Mother Nature."
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/space-climate-change-and-the-real-meaning-of-theory

The Galileo gambit and other stories: the three main tactics of climate denial
https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719

Australian silliness and July 2016 temperature records by Gavin Schmidt NASA/GISS Scientist
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/australian-silliness-and-july-temperature-records/

July 2016 was absolutely the hottest month EVER since the instrumental records began.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/gistemp_seas.png

Before that July 2015 was the hottest month EVER recorded.

Can y'all please stop spreading lies, conspiracy theories, and disinformation about climate science, climate scientists, the scientific data, and global temperatures?

Warmest June since 1880: 2016
Warmest July since 1880: 2016
Highest Recorded CO2 ppm: May 2016 407.70 ppm / 407.64 ppm
see: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co

Highest Ever Recorded CO2 ppm at Cape Grimm Tasmania:
CO2: 400.63 (ppm) - June 2016
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases

Replying to Alan B
You shout: THE REST IS DOWN TO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE!

In your wisdom you do not elaborate all of the natural phenomena affecting climate (and weather) including the ‘poorly understood’ natural phenomena* such as clouds, and even NOAA admit that ENSO is ‘poorly understood’ (= unpredictable, as was ‘The Blob’ in the North Atlantic affecting the USA).

Yes, GHG’s do slow the escape of heat from the surface but the net effects of positive and negative feedbacks are ‘poorly understood’. Did you know that Kevin Trenberth has his Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram adopted by the IPCC and that it estimates that the greatest heat loss from the surface as via evapotranspiration? (evaporative cooling….latent heat transfer) That is a huge pool for negative feedback which reduces any warming effect from GHG’s. Simple physics!

The rest is due to man-made climate change? The rest of what pray? There are no empirical determinations, only models….models with man-made inputs.

* That’s a technical term used by the IPCC etcetera

What a nasty discussion. Suggest that if you want to discuss the article you discuss the article rather than abusing the author. I've yet to see where anyone has made a substantive point against Jennifer's article.

I think her argument about space time makes little difference,and Cox was wrong on the history, but pretty right on the effect. But the homogenisation practices of the BOM as well as other meteorological organisations in the world is a major issue, and none of you has been prepared to tackle what Jennifer has written.

You seem to be adopting the technique of ad hominem that Cox used against Roberts, accusing him of believing that NASA faked the moon landings. That was inexcusable, but unfortunately is based on a piece of academic work by Stephan Lewandowsky which was so incompetent it should never have got through peer review.

Of the 10 respondents who thought NASA faked the moon landing, 70% accepted AGW. From what we know of the percentage of the community who believe in AGW, that would suggest that they are slightly more likely to accept conspiracy theories than the general populace, but the sample size is so small that any conclusion of any sort is ridiculous.

Again, none of you has engaged with her criticism on this ground at all.

Replying to Tombee,

You say you regularly visit Roy Spencer’s site! Can you not see the vast difference in profile between the UAH data and GisTemp, especially after their adoption of the highly controversial Karl et al 2015 “pause buster” paper?

I pointed out that Gistemp global has disappeared the 1998 El Nino which inconveniently remains, standing out likes dog’s balls in both UAH and RSS.

I'm puzzled why you do not admit that there is a contradiction there

Graham,

Glad to see your comment, instead of the blue pencil. It seems to me that people who have to criticise the messenger rather than the message itself have no real arguments to defend their own position.

Here's a really well written article on how AUSTRALIA WON-LOST THE VIETNAM WAR

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/remembering-long-tan-australian-army-operations-south-vietnam-1966-1971/

Mr O'Reilly opines that the article is " very trashy, disjointed, false, fraudulent and manipulative piece of work" and then proceeds to provide not a skerrick of an attempt to validate any of those claims. A devotee of scientific discussion is Mr O'Reilly.

But being a devotee of RealClimate he has absorbed (regurgitated?) the Dunning–Kruger offence which is a device used by those who haven't a clue how to discredit a view to seem that they are using 'science' to do so. Basically it says that, since your wrong you must suffer Dunning–Kruger and this proves your wrong. Science is ain't.

For those who doubt Marohasy's credibility on issue of the environment, perhaps they could do some research (sorry to use terms you don't understand Mr O) on the salinity issue in the early noughties (2000s). Doing so would show Marohasy was on the right side of the data when establishment scientists were blindly pushing yet another we're-all-gunna-die scare. Marohasy and a few others, looking to the data and past the spin saved this nation mega-bucks in wasted government spending on a problem that wasn't. The nation will be eternally in her debt.

So when a scientist with runs on the board says something, it behoves us lesser mortals to listen and ponder rather than run to the RealClimate play-book.

BTW using RealClimate to prove matters climate is like using the Koran to prove Allah.

Finally, the issues around temperature manipulation (or not) are not, strictly a climate problem but more of a statistical issue. Anyone reasonable numerate (sorry to leave you behind Mr O) can follow the issues and make valid judgements.

GrahamY, you're doing the same thing as Jennifer attacking the man and not the point. Brain asked the Senator if he believed that NASA landed a man on the moon after the Senator made the suggestion that NASA has faked the temperature data. to focus on the fact that he asked him the question, but ignore the context, and more importantly ignore the Senator's claim. Leads me to the same spot every time.

Does Jennifer believe that NASA and the UN are faking temperature data?

It's a simple question that deserves a yes or no answer. By giving anything else she is playing games.
The same games creationist play, the same games smoking companies played, the same games Asbestos companies played.
Don't go of on a tangential rant Jennifer.

Do you believe that NASA and the UN are faking the temperature record?

To the best of my knowledge every poster here is a google training scientist, no matter what side your post for take Lillie's advice and leave it to the trained experts to sort out. you are not going to replace years of training with reading a few cheery picked websites/blogs

There’s no doubt that climate change has grabbed the attention of many doomsayers and, as Jennifer Marohasy eloquently points out, all sorts of people, including eminent scientists who should know better, have jumped on the bandwagon. It has become a cause celebre, a global debate in which brownie points are to be collected in large numbers.

I think this is a pity, because the real issue is global pollution, which has many more elements to it than introduced atmospheric particulates, and the natural age-long climate cycles that have made Gaia what she is. After all, we wouldn’t be pumping coal carbon into the air now (far too much by the way) were it not for the results of a massive global warming millions of years ago.

It makes eminent sense to move as quickly as technology allows towards renewable, non-polluting energy sources. To do this effectively and swiftly we need to intervene in the free market to ensure price signals favour renewables rather than corporate interest in continuing to gouge huge profits from digging up the landscape.

At the same time, we shouldn’t immediately throw out the bathwater, or the baby in it. I think we can safely assume we won’t all fry in the foreseeable future by continuing to use non-renewable fossil fuels until equivalent mass capacity is available at competitive pricing levels from renewables.

Common sense is absent from much public discourse these days, and no more so than in the “debate” over global warming. Atmospheric pollution is a fact, a clear and present health risk to exposed populations, and comes from many sources, not only from the coal-fired power stations that so exercise the convenient consciences of comfortable westerners.

Global warming (and cooling) is also a fact, but it is one that calls for a different and actually far more difficult and expensive response: adapting to natural circumstances.

It is not ad hominem to point out that someone, like you, is using that technique, and you are. And if you read the article you will find that Marohasy has two examples of inexplicable and unjustifiable increases in past temperature for two sites. If this is repeated at other sites, then NASA is dealing with data that is corrupted.

That is not a tangent, it is the nub of the matter. And how else is she supposed to critique the temperature sets if she doesn't look at each piece of the sampling? You tell me, along with your reasons for why she is wrong on the two sites that she examines at detail in the article.

Otherwise we might suspect you of being part of one of the Crusher Crews, roaming the internet looking to deploy Brown Shirt tactics against anyone disagrees with your climate change orthodoxy, whatever it happens to be on any particular day.

Replying to Tombee,
I see that you assert that Roy Spencer is a Creationist. Are you sure that is strictly correct or is it that he is perplexed by some mind blowing issues in biological evolution? For instance, what about the ‘Cambrian Life Explosion’ or some incredible symbiotic relationships where one cannot exist without the other and yet somehow they simultaneously evolved in parallel? One issue that puzzles me (BTW God is not a solution for me) is that some of those fossil finds (from 500MYA?) have even sometimes been dubbed “experimental”, for instance three different rather odd fossils were later found to be all parts of but one bizarre creature.

*Regardless of his beliefs, are you asserting that it has any bearing on his skills as a scientist?*

In my reading of Roy Spencer he has made it very clear that GHG warming is nominally without doubt a physical fact but the question is by how much. In a personal communication I had with him a few years ago he admitted that whilst evapotranspiration cooling was very important, everyone was too busy focussed on radiative issues. FYI search “Roy Spencer” + “Andrew Dessler” (Re his war with Dessler, a prominent alarmist).

See later comment perhaps tomorrow or I’ll bust the 350 word limit

" the results of a massive global warming millions of years ago."
It's interesting that coal came from increased CO2 and rain forests / jungles so reducing the % CO2. That governor is now lost with burning forests in a double effect as well as burning that coal . Arctic ice is a visible thermometer which can't lie,.. aagh ..photo shopping...

Jennifer, did you notice what the graph you had so much trouble linking to showed? Not global temperatures, just central Greenland temperatures.

Your claim that "Roberts was more correct than Cox, when he claimed there had been no warming for about 21 years" is so ludicrous that it makes it very difficult to take the rest of your article seriously. I seriously can not think of a way to avoid reaching the conclusion that you're either a liar or an idiot! The apparent pause only exists when you cherry pick the start and end date, and the world has got significantly hotter since then. The warming trend exists no matter how you try to spin the data. There's an overall warming trend. There's a warming trend excluding El Niño years. There's a warming trend just looking at El Niño years. And El Niño years are becoming more frequent. Seriously, your denial of this empirical evidence does put you on a par with the moon landing deniers.

You may or may not have a point about the way temperature data has been adjusted by calibrating it against satellite measurements. Considering the shoddiness of the rest of your article I suspect not, but I'd welcome any attempt you make to prove me wrong by writing an honest article about it.

Cobber

I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this. Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, are extensively remodelling original temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

In the case of both Amberley and Rutherglen cooling trends have been changed to warming trends without any reasonable justification.

You need to study the empirical evidence as I've presented it for both of these locations in the actual article that precedes this thread.

NASA , hmmmm, How a 15 cent O ring now costs 4000,000 dollars ,,, How many salaries of Impeccable corruptibility and Rock Stars can we have ,,,, Got to love Government .. Lousy job as God , And they can Change the climate?

By Jennifer Marohasy:
"I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this."

Rubbish. You do not provide any evidence let alone "compelling".

JM:
"Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, are extensively remodelling original temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming."

Rubbish. That's a lie. You have zero evidence because it's not true. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "theory" it is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming, incontrovertible, and undeniable.

By JM:
"In the case of both Amberley and Rutherglen cooling trends have been changed to warming trends without any reasonable justification."

Rubbish. That's a lie. You have zero evidence. None.

By JM:
"You need to study the empirical evidence as I've presented it for both of these locations in the actual article that precedes this thread."

Rubbish. That's another lie. Using the words "empirical evidence" does not make it so. There is no credible evidence to study that supports such a claim. None. The evidence is provided by ~30,000 'climate scientists' in the field presented in ~10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers in the last couple of decades with hard data & evidence plus the laws of physics/chemistry going back 100yrs.

Jennifer you are publicly accusing thousands of people across the world of FRAUD without a shred of evidence. That's an egregious defamation! Stop it.

You are not qualified to Judge the work of those scientists and Universities. OR, present a paper for peer-review that proves you know better than those 30,000 climate scientists you're claiming are "liars and frauds" and/or stupid and part of a grand conspiracy - take them to court if you're game. You can't and you won't. The only thing you have is your rhetoric and clever sophistry.

Refs:
" A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage

On Fallacies http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php

You gotta admire Mr O' who can use his entire 350 word allocation to effectively say, you're wrong because I think you're wrong and that proves you're lying. Not even a passing reference to any facts or even a suggestion that facts might matter. Kudos.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Personally I try to avoid using words like 'fake' or 'falsified' as regards the adjusted terrestrial temperature data(well except when talking about MBH98 or Karl2015) because those words carry all sorts of connotations. As McElhinney/McAleer said, they aren't evil, just wrong.

When someone charged with maintaining the data looks at, say, Rutherglen, given that they 'know' in their bones that temperatures have increased world-wide over the century, they don't see an anomaly but instead an error which requires attention. So they run the data through their approved algorithms and, presto, it now concurs with what they'd expect the data to show. So this confirms, to them, that (1) GW is occurring and (2) that their algorithms are right since they achieved the right answer. So they can be safely employed on the next anomaly. Confirmation bias.

What is needed is that those adjustments be vetted by outsiders who aren't vested in the outcome, although after what happened to poor Mr Wegman such a creature might be hard to enlist. This is why it was so despicable that Greg Hunt ran interference for the BOM when there was a push for such a vetting of the data. He can NEVER be forgiven for that.

Hopefully there will come a time when Malcolm Roberts will be able to parlay his needed vote on some legislation or other into a commitment to do a thorough independent check into the BOM homogenisation process. Hopefully...

Replying in part to Cobber the hound,

You declared: “…Brain asked the Senator if he believed that NASA landed a man on the moon after the Senator made the suggestion that NASA has faked the temperature data…”

Putting aside your poor paraphrasing, what you overlook is that Brian Cox was spluttering and arm waving a total irrelevance. The mystery graph that Cox brandished, (it seems to be an obsolete GissTemp graph?) was created in a division of NASA known by acronym GISS. Its creators had absolutely nothing to do with landing a man on the moon.
ZERO!

You should compare the two sources of satellite data I advised above to Tombee which strongly contradict the GISS graph at 18 August 2016 11:59:31 AM

Perhaps you could explain why they are so drastically different?

Perhaps, rather than denigrate Dr. Marohasy, “Cobber the hound” might like to check a few salient facts himself. The link below is Weatherzone’s climate history page, the statistics are supplied directly to Weatherzone from the BoM.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/stationdrill.jsp

It was prominently claimed in local media that the month of May, 2016, and again now the month of July 2016 were the hottest individual months on record. Go to the link above and click on any of the towns, cities available, in fact you can check any town in Australia for its climate history, you will not find one that verifies this outlandish claim.

In reply:
" the results of a massive global warming millions of years ago."
It's interesting that coal came from increased CO2 and rain forests / jungles so reducing the % CO2. That governor is now lost with burning forests in a double effect as well as burning that coal . Arctic ice is a visible thermometer which can't lie,.. aagh ..photo shopping...
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 18 August 2016 5:00:02 PM

---

My point was about global climate cycles over very long periods. I'm neither a denier nor someone who thinks the human race is behaving in any way other than appallingly badly. Nor do I deny the veracity of scientific study, but I do think the veracity of those studies should be thoroughly questioned. In this case this should be by reference to millions of years, not just the last 150 during which temperature records have been (a) available (b) basically sound and (c) capable of inclusion in actual data records.

In reply to Aiden, quote:
“…when he [Roberts] claimed there had been no warming for about 21 years" is so ludicrous that it makes it very difficult to take the rest of your article seriously”

Just as Cox presented an obsolete unidentified graph so too was Roberts citing non-contemporary information (if more recent) probably from early 2015, before the now rapidly decaying El Nino (a natural phenomenon) resulted in the recent hot spike.

However, if you look at the UAH and RSS Satellite data (which strongly contradict GISS) you will see that there was a significant plateau AKA ‘The Pause’. Furthermore, if the current rate of decline continues, currently much faster than in 1998, there will be a substantial return to a long pause.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.htm

A little further reading around the matter :http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

JM's conspiracy theory would have a hard time getting up in court. All she has at this point is a claim of motive AFAICT.

For those interested in the detail of just how dodgy the adjustments are to the Rutherglen temperature minima by the Australian bureau, there is a lot more technical evidence in my submission to the Australian Auditor General, which can be downloaded here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pd

Sorry, the above link was too long - missing an 'f' at the end. Try this: http://bit.ly/2bE5r40

Since the space shuttle disasters (Challenger and Columbia) N.A.S.A. has needed to hitch a lift with the Russians.
"The US space agency has forked out $490m (£316m) for six seats for its astronauts to get to the ISS on board one of the Russian Federal Space Agency's (Roscosmos) Soyuz spacecraft."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-forced-pay-russia-490m-lift-iss-1514497
Why are they even in the dodgy temperature propaganda game? They should close GISS down and use the wasted funding to get back some respect.

You should already know that UAH/RSS do not report surface temp, they report the “lower troposphere” which, if you compare it to radiosonde measurements, corresponds to about 5 km (15 000 ft) height. That is not the earths surface where we live.

Many complain about computer models/adjustments made in climate science and then reference UAH/RSS data as if they prove something is wrong with NASA/GISS et al surface temperatures.

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure 'radiances' in various wavelength bands, from which a surface temperature may be INFERRED using computer models that apply multiple ADJUSTMENTS to non-temperature data.

Why do climate science deniers/conspiracy theorists then accept UAH/RSS outputs being evidence computer analysis of surface temperatures are wrong, fraudulent, and/or proof of a global conspiracy?

imho it's called being ignorant of the basic facts, being affected by belief based confirmation bias and being conned by incompetents, liars & unqualified fools on social media and wanna be "rock star-bloggers".

There are reasons why NASA/GISS et al do not equal UHA/RSS outputs.

Apples and oranges? Yes they are both FRUIT from a TREE - equivalent in some ways and yet not Equal. The proof is in the eating. Both apples and oranges are good for you, so long as you are not so CONFUSED that you ask the Fruiterer for an Apple when what you really wanted was an Orange!

There are "global temperatures" and then there are "global temperatures".
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The semantics of this leads to both unintentional and intentional confusion among the public.
Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246

Marohasy's false accusations about the effects and intent of "homogenization" and BOM/Nasa/GISS and everything else are utterly irrelevant and nonsensical to the science. Her opinions and her work has been rejected by her peers and the known facts already.

There are good scientific based (and other) reasons why her "papers" have been rejected. She isn't the first and won't be last to have a paper rejected or revised. It's 100% NORMAL and is not a conspiracy against her.

Jennifer,
Cox was not quoting some study about deniers being more prone to believing in other absurd conspiracy theories. He was saying that Malcolm Roberts was asserting a conspiracy as ridiculous as believing the moon landing was faked or that the moon was indeed made of cheese! You also believe that NASA and the other top 3 world temperature databases have conspiratorially set out to manipulate global temperatures. Why? On what evidence? Because some other celebrity scientists (not climatologists) said so? Would you take chemotherapy advice from your plumber? Seriously Jennifer, I don’t know where to begin describing your own worldview to you. I just hope that one day, you get some help. In the meantime, as for me and my household, we’ll stick with peer-reviewed science which quickly and easily debunks every one of your rather eccentric statements above.

A few short video's that show CO2's heat trapping ability:-
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

Maze said: “As McElhinney/McAleer said, they aren't evil, just wrong.”

Is that actually yourself when you tried to draw an artificial line between the IPCC Working Group and SPM, and quoted a bunch of cherrypicking the GLOBAL discussion while ignoring the rest of the REGIONAL modelling? ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=14

Cherrypicking isn’t evil if you just copy and quote it from some denialist website because it was convenient. It’s just wrong. It only becomes evil if you knowingly continue to spread such Cherrypicked data once you know the truth. So here’s the REGIONAL quotes so you know the truth, and can avoid spreading error. Whether or not you bother to read it and respond to the truth indicates whether there is something more going on than just being plain wrong. ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=15

Re: Malcolm Roberts: “The Galileo Gambit and other stories: the three main tactics of climate denial,” Stephen Lewandowsky, DeSmogUK, Aug 14 (from “The Conversation,” Aug 10):

“Conspiracism, the Galileo gambit and the use of sciency-sounding language to mislead are the three principal characteristics of science denial. Whenever one or more of them is present, you can be confident you’re listening to a debate about politics or ideology, not science."

http://www.desmog.uk/2016/08/14/galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-three-main-tactics-climate-denial

https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719

https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephan-lewandowsky-685

Along with the three tactics of denialism mentioned, one sees at work the archetypal tactic of blaming the victim–the perpetrator blaming the victim. Familiar, isn’t it? By the perpetrator I don’t just mean Malcolm Roberts, but the the entire structure that props him up: coaltails, the “One Nation” party, Jennifer Marohasy/IPA, Sydney Institute, Judith Curry, Religious RW of the LNP, John Howard's "One Religion Is Enough" pleas and more.

http://www.desmogblog.com/malcolm-roberts

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/23802

The Galileo gambit is consistent with the tactic of blaming the victim–if not its quintessence. It preempts the role of victim for the perpetrator. So today’s perpetrators of disinformation get to play the role of victims. It also distorts what the suppression of Galileo was about.

Like today, it was a matter of power, politics and purported religion aligning to suppress scientific findings and common sense. The perpetrator-as-victim (or perpetrator-as-aggrieved-party) is a rampant form of disinformation spin.

Jennifer Marohasy is a powerful timely example of that by including such disinformation/sophistry/spin here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18111

as well as this little quote at the top of each page in this article:

"Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, 'The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.'

... as if it is relevant when it is so clearly not. True Knowledge helps and so does Logic. Readers can Discover some Tricks of the Trade here http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm and re-reading JMs article and comments with the wisdom of such hindsight

Briefly to Thomas O'Reilly,
You have a number of misconceptions including that for a long time now very many land stations are not eyeballed by someone looking at a glass tube two times a day (hopefully), together with inconsistent methodology and strange treatments (like with the BoM for any given day the maxima data were actually logged from the prior day). Instead, they use electronic devices that record continuously and have calibration algorithms and whatnot and troublingly they have greater sensitivities to spikes. That applies to about 30% of the globe in which there are huge uninhabited and/or 3rd world conditions of poor coverage etcetera.

You may not be aware that over 70% of “surface T” is not near-surface air temperature but is water temperature. For a long time now it too has been measured using electronic sensing including buoys or in ship’s engine cooling intakes. Before that they would dunk a bucket over the side and then eyeball a glass tube in it

Satellite remote sensing provides far better uniform coverage.

Yes, TLT data are not the same as near-surface air temperature or sub-surface water temperature, but you miss the point. Unless atmospheric lapse rates have changed significantly since 1979 the SHAPE of TLT data (Temperature Lower Troposphere) should follow near-surface temperature.

However, both of the independent sources of remote sensing data (having separately developed their own calibration algorithms) show a huge 1997/8 El Nino spike. GISS has disappeared it (see link below) although they happily show the 2015/16 one largely responsible for record 2015 global averages. All three sources show the latter to be plummeting

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979

If you believe that the laws of physics behind ATMOSPHERIC LAPSE RATES have changed since 1997 or there is some other poorly understood disturbing atmospheric influence that I’m unaware of, I’d be very interested if you would advise details

I think the questions you raise regarding the adjustments to these complete data sets are quite reasoanble. In any field, they would require a detailed justification, which I can't find. Can someone direct me to such. I would be happy to be homogenized to 5 feet 11, because that is the average height round here, but alas I'm only 5 feet 9.

Bob Fernley-Jones: "You have a number of misconceptions"

No, I don't! I am aware of all those things you 'question' and much more. I did not come down in the last shower Bob. Get back to me when you can get your head around 14 million temperature observations and prove there is any intentional fraud, deceptions, errors or criminal Conspiracy by the BOM or Nasa/Giss or anyone else connected with climate science.

Because that is precisely what JM and Roberts are claiming to be "true". It is not true. Not even one tiny bit of it.

Prof Richard Muller: NOT ADJUSTING global temperature records would be “poor science”.

Professor Muller said the results had prompted a "total turnaround" in his views. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." The results were obtained by going back to re-examine more than 14 million temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753 — and excluding those that sceptics had believed were artificially enhancing global warming data.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-richard-muller-not-adjusting-global-temperature-records-would-be-poor-science
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

All of this is old news. JMs story-telling about Darwin & Rutherglen the same. These myths have been proven to be 'rubbish.' I used that word in my first reply because it adequately describes the output in this article, her comments and your own. It fits the typical denier rhetoric disinformation - repeat repeat repeat Advertising:101. Everything (including errors) connected with AGW/CC science fits the observations and reality.

All GCMs (past, present, and predictions) are "wrong". All the (average/mean) global surface temperatures are 'wrong', not 100% perfect. They do not need to be! If you understood that (and psychology cognitive science) then you would not be listening to JM and the rest of the ideological/political/corporate denialist machine in the first place.

Your mileage may vary. I cannot teach you how to think. I can only lead a horse to water. Then it's 100% up to the horse (and that's an analogy, not science, not a fact.) If you prefer sophistry, lies, falsehoods then good luck with that

Re Thomas O'Reilly, and anyone wondering over his failure to recognise that GISS has disappeared the 1997/8 El Nino, please defer to the lauded Kevin Trenberth of IPCC leadership fame.

From greatest authority he defines 1997/8 as a “Super El Nino” here:

http://www.alternet.org/third-ever-super-el-nino-underway-heres-what-north-america-can-expect

So the question to ask is where did it go for GISS? After all, with the latest Trenberth defined “Super El Nino” of 2015/16 it is happily retained by GISS and it is clearly a major driver of the record high 2015 global average. Yet, both the RSS and UAH satellite data show this latest one is plummeting and July 2016 is already significantly cooler than 19 years ago in July 1998.

Furthermore, when skeptics began pointing out a few years ago an evidently growing pause in warming, the great Oracles such as at “Skeptical Science” and “Tamino” countered that it was cherry-picking to rely on the then recognised very high 1998 peak value. (BTW ‘The Pause’ did not rely on the peak but included the whole ENSO oscillation which embodies below centroid values each side of it, but putting that aside…).

No worries, enter ‘Karl et al 2015’, a study with yet more adjustments to historical data progressively rotating the curves in an anti-clockwise direction. It embodied some imaginative corrections for historic sea-sub-surface temperatures that were sometimes measured in tossed over canvas buckets or thermally different other containers and all sorts of methodology such as in engine coolant intakes of ships of any calibre and destination etcetera. Problem gone. The 1997/8 super El Nino disappeared; pause busted.

But, inconveniently, not per the TWO different Satellite data sets where 1998 sticks out like dog’s balls and showing 2016 to be but a pup despite all the excitement it has caused.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979 (A few months short)

Replying to Thomas O'Reilly, you declare:
“No, I don't! [have misconceptions] I am aware of all those things you 'question' and much more. I did not come down in the last shower Bob. Get back to me when you can get your head around 14 million temperature observations and prove there is any intentional fraud, deceptions, errors or criminal Conspiracy by the BOM or Nasa/Giss or anyone else connected with climate science.”

If indeed you “are aware of all those things” you have nevertheless evaded response over the matter advised to you that the elementary laws of physics contradict your earlier assertions. (Where did you get your ideas from? Skeptical Science?)

I repeat the ask for your clarification of your claims over my question that YOU HAVE TOTALLY EVADED:

“If you believe that the laws of physics behind ATMOSPHERIC LAPSE RATES have changed since 1997 or there is some other poorly understood disturbing atmospheric influence that I’m unaware of, I’d be very interested if you would advise details”

I look forward to your relevant scientific wisdom rather than your totally irrelevant distractions about “14 million temperature observations” etcetera.

Bob says: "lauded, greatest, Super, happily, great, very, tossed, etcetera, dog’s balls, pup." The only thing you have is a bag of adjectives. Not science.

Monckton Bunkum - 21 Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo&feature=youtu.be&t=7m36s

Critique the 'denialists' using evidence and data to hold their feet to the fire over their errors, mistakes, falsehoods, deceptions, untruths, confusions and lies. Too easy.

NOAA has posted July anomaly of +0.87ºC, the hottest July on record & the 15th month in a row to be hottest ever for its month.

The July anomaly was a mite cooler than both May and June. July stands as the 15th highest anomaly month on record. The average anomaly for 2016-to-date is running at +1.03ºC ... apples to apples!

The remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.72ºC to gain the ‘warmest calendar year’ accolade.

The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings to the full record:-
2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC . 22nd
2015.. 2 … +0.88ºC . 11th
2015.. 3 … +0.90ºC . 9th
2015.. 4 … +0.77ºC . 32nd
2015.. 5 … +0.86ºC . 17th
2015.. 6 … +0.88ºC . 11th
2015.. 7 … +0.81ºC … 24th
2015.. 8 … +0.87ºC . 15th
2015.. 9 … +0.92ºC … 8th
2015. 10 … +0.99ºC … 6th
2015. 11 … +0.96ºC … 7th
2015. 12 … +1.12ºC … 3rd
2016.. 1 … +1.05ºC … 5th
2016.. 2 … +1.19ºC … 2nd
2016.. 3 … +1.22ºC … 1st
2016.. 4 … +1.07ºC … 4th
2016.. 5 … +0.88ºC ..11th
2016.. 6 … +0.90ºC ..9th
2016.. 7 … +0.87ºC ..15th

Now tell me again what were saying about it not being hotter now than 98/99. Try your missives and spin on someone else Bob. I'm not buying it one bit. I'll also leave it to you to explain 'anomaly' to the climate science illiterate here.

Sorry Bob, being a genuine skeptic means you actually check what other people tell you. As the video suggests find me something that Monckton and Marohasy et al actually got right.

Climate Science to be found here: https://scholar.google.com.au/
Ask a working Climate Scientist here: http://www.realclimate.org/
and here: http://climatechangenationalforum.org

Thomas O'Relly My old English teacher always cautioned us against using metaphors on the basis we would end up mixing them. Then what we meant would be not be just obscured but confused. If the algorithms were given out it would be so easy to check the figures but that is always avoided, because of that.
You need some lessons on plain writing rather than the jargon you put out. Then add to that your liberal insults and I think "Hello we have a smart one here" except that you are a little too smart for your own good.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck.
Y2k and hole in the ozone layer scams cost us billions. This rubbish will cost us trillions.

Bowyer,
the W.H.O says fossil fuels kill 3 million people a year through particulate poisoning. They are also finite, and peaking fast. We have the alternative! This is where you'll probably agree with the world's most famous climatologist, Dr James Hansen. As well as his (scientifically valid and true) message about climate change, he also says:

1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy!
(Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste.

I have no argument with you on nuclear Max Green but check with your local Greens and our ABC and watch the sparks fly. They would fight in the courts, the courts of public opinion and would literally attack and fight any attempt to build nuclear. This is another reason I do not trust this global warming nonsense. It is a religion, no sense just pure hatred and desire to rip money off us.
I now think the ABC just has to be closed down. The irony is that is all the television I watch.

The Left say "Global Warming is true, so we all have to cut our energy budgets, return to the Middle Ages with a few mod-cons, and be good."

The Right see the marketplace as god, and cannot stand the idea of any regulation, whether or not it is based on science. So they say "Global Warming is not true, and nuclear power is the answer."

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell the SCIENCE says Global Warming is really really true, and we're approaching 200 years since we worked out the physics of greenhouse gases. (See Joseph Fourier's work in the 1820's). The temperature charts are true. But 100% renewables, except for a very few places on earth with large hydro, just isn't viable!

The Left need to get their heads out of their ideological renewable sand-holes and the Right need to do the same with their precious attitude to the market. Markets have shifted off ice-hauling onto refrigerators. Coal will run out one day, and I'd like us to be prepared for that! We have the technology to shut down every single coal oil and gas plant on the planet and still have an abundant supply of energy, only this time it will be secure and last a billion years and prepare us for burning thorium on settlements on Mars.

If only we could get people like yourself to respect the REAL climate science, the real health risks from coal oil and gas, and the very REAL solutions in today's and tomorrows nukes. Then we could have a groundswell heading in the right direction. But right now? Nuclear power is illegal in Australia!

Max,

You say 'the science' of global warming is true, but you don't seem to have read my article, or the supporting information, for example the information at this link: http://tinyurl.com/hww8ho9

It would be more on-topic, and perhaps more interesting, if you could explain how you continue to have so much confidence in 'the science' when the observational data is so different from the remodelled?

As I conclude in my piece that precedes this thread: climate science has diverged into the post modern, it just makes stuff-up. I provide empirical evidence/examples, but you seem to ignore this.

The hound makes his usual effort to mislead us. Jennifer’s scientific comments on Cox’s pseudoscience have nothing to do with creationism, but, as the hound cannot fault Jennifer’s science, he makes a baseless and scurrilous reference to creationism, similar to the way in which the fraudulent Oreskes refers to the irrelevant, and imaginary "Big Tobacco".

Jennifer’s article is concise and scientifically sound, and we are grateful for her rebuttal of the fraud promoter Cox, who should be ashamed of himself.
As for you, ateday: If you wish to make baseless assertions, at least specify what you assert are the so-called “pollutants” to which you refer.

Max Green, the last time you made a fool of yourself with your baseless support of the climate fraud, you said you would not return to the forum..
You were unable to refer us to any science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate.
Why are you back, reminding us of your foolish, and baseless assertions about climate, and even repeating them?
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, Max, so why do you continue to support the climate fraud?

I urge all those who treat Marohasy as just another blogger to research the salinity issue from the early 2000's to see that we are dealing with someone who is highly qualified to raise questions as to the efficacy of the BOM's temperature adjustments and who is quite conversant with the way group-think can cause some scientists to try to take the science down the garden path.

Of coarse, all this could have been resolved were the BOM required to be completely open about its adjustments and the methodology fully open to outside vetting. That Greg Hunt decided to kill the chances of such a resolution speaks volumes about just how confident the BOM is that it withstand such scrutiny.

It seems the BOM operates in the grand tradition of that unspeakable swine Phil Jones* of the UEA..."“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Science and the search for the truth doesn't really exist in some parts of the climate science community.

* He thought it was cheerful news that John Daly had passed away.

Max Green,

I gather from your rather confusing post of '20 August 2016 12:22:28 PM' (a bunch of words desperately trying to find a sentence) that you'd like me to return to the CLexit thread so as to continue your education. No problem, I'll see you over there.

Replying to Thomas O'Reilly,
You continue to evade the fact that GISS have DISAPPEARED the “Super El Nino” of 1997/8 etcetera. Even Kevin Trenberth described it as real recently, link above! It’s still bigger than 2015/16 in both RSS and UAH, and July 2016 is significantly cooler than July 1998 in both global time-series; anomalies C follow:

July1998: RSS 0.61 UAH 0.51
July2016: RSS 0.47 UAH 0.39
2016 cooler than 1998 by: RSS 0.14C UAH 0.12C (cooler than nineteen years ago)

It’s entertaining that you don’t think that these remotely sensed data are measurements but that they are inferred, presumably to assert that it is unreliable. It sounds like something straight out of “Skeptical Science” or “Real Climate”. Please submit your paper for peer review to rebut 35 years of R & D from two independent sources that closely agree in their outcomes.

And yet, your preferred Oracles are happy to manipulate fundamental parameters used in their climate change beliefs that are also remotely sensed via satellite. Stuff like cloud and global albedo, EMR frequency spectra departing earth, solar insolation and whatnot. And of course, Gavin Schmidt is a keen supporter of hockey-sticks that are inferred from tree rings. (Well not all the way because they graft on very different temperature data (!) in modern times, thus avoiding that inconvenient “Divergence Problem”.

KR at Skeptical Science has a great analogy for Marohasy's ‘attack’ on homogenisation. Over to KR:

“Station moves occur, as do equipment changes, both of which change the absolute temperatures recorded at the station affected and thus bias anomalies. Homogenization looks at nearby stations that do not experience simultaneous changes to detect and measure how the temperature anomaly offsets have changed for the modified station, and corrections are applied accordingly. Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 demonstrated strong correlations in observed temperature anomalies over distances over 1000km, meaning that nearby station anomalies are very reliable indicators for identifying individual station changes.

As I've said before, It could be argued (and has by people like Marohasy) that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and would have to disagree.

Ignoring known and correctable biases to search out some subset of raw data that seems to support your thesis IMO indicates either (a) deliberate distortion or (more charitably) (b) a huge misunderstanding of science and statistics accompanied by confirmation bias. Either way, such claims are simply not meaningful.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110&p=7#106243

Replying to Leo Lane,
Re Tombee “It’s worth adding that Spencer is a creationist. Strange but true”

Tombee went silent on my enquiry regardless of whether it was true or not, as to relevance to his skill as a scientist (an awarded one).

Oh well, if Spencer’s sin is “worth adding” let’s add more detail to Cox’s colourful past:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/prof-brian-coxs-ketamine-shame.222217/.

The physicist released a statement following coverage of the ketamine shame and has publicly defended his position “as a psychadelic journenyman, a psychonaut exploring the very fabric of the universe through drug exploration” and said that the Royal Society were all “off their nuts, that’s how science works”.
Online comment #1: I don't care he's lovely.

Google search for; “prof brian cox” + ketamine; gave 172 hits and there’s also this extract under +activist:

http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892

“I work at university, and I am involved in the political process. I lobby really hard for funding and support for scientific and engineering programs, because I feel that those are the ways that we will progress as a civilization and as a country. That’s what I share with Sagan’s view, that you can be an activist—a scientific activist—and you should be able to do that on television and with books.”

I remember Sagan as a popular sensationalizer of science who was inconsistent in his various scientific opinions and activism. In my view it is revealing and exquisite that Cox models himself on Sagan.

Also see this interesting UK analysis with 660+ comments on Cox’s performance on Q&A entitled: ‘Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist’

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/18/prof-brian-cox-gorgeous-lips-lovely-smile-crap-scientist/

Robert’s references to ‘The Feynman Principle’ went way over the heads of at least 97% of those present, and Cox did not blink an eyelid. Cox’s lauded status in Particle Physics couldn’t be further removed from the Earth Sciences and e.g. the ABC’s Media Watch should investigate Cox’s background. They were keen enough to denigrate distinguished ecologist Jim Steele recently for having an ornithological interest and therefore unqualified to comment on coral bleaching! WOT?

@Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:25:57 PM

Thomas O’Reilly, in relation to comment on this thread you indicate you are aware of much more about AGW and climate science. How much more? And you say you did not come down in the last shower. Accordingly I have a few questions

Are you aware whether or not ocean algae is causing some precipitation forming cloud and changing weather?

Has formation of cloud above algae inundated waters been measured and assessed in AGW and IPCC and Kyoto associated science? If not why not?

Has the unprecedented anthropogenic total nutrient load and associated point sources on this planet been measured and assessed in AGW linked science? If not, why not?

Is albedo and temperature associated with algae inundated waters included in meteorological science?

Is there justifiable reason for climate science not to include impact of algae in oceans and lakes?

Responses in Reverse

JF Aus: Don't know/care. If I/readers should do tell. Off-topic?

Bob Fernley-Jones1: National Enquirer denigration/Off-topic?

Bob Fernley-Jones2: Yes ignoring. Off-topic? I await your & JMs peer-reviewed papers that prove AGW/CC is a fraud/conspiracy/false. You'll win the Nobel Prize for Science!

mhaze, Leo Lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

Jennifer: Your speech/article does not contain 'empirical evidence' get it peer-reviewed incl. raw data/calculations. Wise to ignore people who 'make stuff made up', prove it = evidence/data/math.

Max Green: James Hansen on Nuclear http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-4/#comment-659055 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-659150 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-659247

JBowyer: Correlation Greens/ABC vs validity/proof of AGW/CC Science = Nil

Max Green: pg10 nuclear I agree

JBowyer: What's a 'liberal insult'? Leyonhjelm can help you with feelings. Please stop embarrassing your english teacher :-)

Bob Fernley-Jones3: I feel your frustrations. I decide what I do/say. Enjoy your retirement. I admire your dedication to the cause, the time/effort invested. Kudos to you for caring / trying.

Bob Fernley-Jones4: disappeared 1997/8 El Nino Off-topic? Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt factory. Not interested, sorry.

Thanks so much for all the 'positive' attention. JMs silence is noted. Will return with a more detailed analysis commentary of her article here and the so-called "paper" about BOM et al another time.

Many 'scientists/academics' have their "papers" rejected for hundreds of different reasons and are asked to have revisions made. Such events happening are not proof nor amount to even a slight hint of a conspiracy against the paper's author/s nor the content.
https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719

Helpful Tips About Life Climate Science Commentators

Guide To Critical Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA

Guide to recognize and avoid Logical Fallacies on any subject
http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

6 Dumbest Ideas Politicians have about Science
https://youtu.be/IBIET-uEbXA

Being an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're Rational
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ

How can understanding 21st Century Cognitive Science help anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=232&v=S_CWBjyIERY

How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ

Choose your friends, do not let your 'friends' choose you!

On Wealth Climate Science Energy and Empathy
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57x7n454
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/
~50% of Global CO2e emmissions comes from only ~10% of the population Kevin Anderson March 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJ8lMIm9-c&feature=youtu.be&t=36m53s

Any other questions/comments?

Yeah Thomas O'Reilly, we don't need any more link spam. You have posted so many times on this thread and you have yet to address yourself to Marohasy's primary issue which is with the adjustments on two datasets that cannot be justified on any scientific basis. Instruments were not moved. No UHI either. Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment.

It's obvious there is no rebuttal to Marohasy's specific claims when the "consensus" sends Troll-bots like you along equipped with a link generator to renewable industry astro-turf operation desmog blog.

Max G, I don't think your KR, is a reliable source. The claim that you can infer temperature 1000 kms away boils down to I can infer temperature in Cairns from Brisbane, or in Sydney. Expressed like that everyone knows it is nonsense.

The fact is there is no reason to use anything but raw data. The dataset is so large that moves ought to cancel each other out on the up and the down side. Some of the new stations will be hotter, and some will be cooler. The chances that they wouldn't are infinitesimally small. Yet the homogenisation always appears to increase temperature. The homogenisation algorithms are obviouslly wrong. Jennifer just provides you two specific examples.

Perhaps you can show us some sites where homogenisation has lowered temperature?

It's the homogenisers who are making the image less clear.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:00:51 PM

Not knowing or caring about algae plant matter in climate science forms empirical evidence just how incomplete the science actually is. And to think ocean algae may be off topic really highlights lack of knowledge about weather and climate.

I suggest look into the following link where my first comment there is on page 4, at JF Aus.
I have included significant satellite photo data/evidence and El Nino graph data.
Jennifer Marohasy’s reply follows a few posts later but it is my comment/s that I ask you to assess. Perhaps you could then know and care and reply to the questions I have asked you (and anyone else).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18111&page=4

As for need to produce peer reviewed raw data/calculation, can you provide raw data/calculation proving how gravity is formed and how it holds you on this planet right now?
I suggest accept the Precautionary Principle. Full scientific certainty is no longer essential to take action to prevent further damage to the environment.
Be sure, action on CO2 emissions is not reducing nutrient pollution and proliferation of algae.

I submit evidence of substance indicates beyond reasonable doubt that nutrient pollution and algae require critically urgent management to reduce and perhaps reverse worsening damage presently being caused to ocean ecosystems and quality of water and atmosphere on this planet.

Why is there no science and major media news about the state of the world ocean environment and for example, links between algae plant matter and El Nino, and impact of algae on weather and climate?

@GrahamY

RE: "You have posted so many times...adjustments on two datasets..."
That's patently untrue. The 'empirical evidence' is there, I addressed it.

RE: "Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment."
That's your opinion. Not sure what that has to do with me.

RE: "It's obvious there is no rebuttal ......astro-turf operation desmog blog"

Very colourful writing and a vivid imagination. Of course it too is patently not true. I know that for certain and you do not. So your opinion/beliefs don't really matter do they?

RE: "link generator" I'm curious. Have you ever heard of Favourites/Bookmarks and a really good memory? The links I provided could really be helpful. You'll never ever know if you never ever go. :-)

Anyway, seeing you're interested in my opinions so much I could get into more detail about the end:
"Much of climate science, in particular, is now underpinned with a postmodernist epistemology – it is simply suspicious of reason and has an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining particular power-structures including through the homogenisation of historical temperature data."

btw *postmodernist epistemology* is a highfalutin phrase straight out of the ivory towers of academia isn't it?

But I am more curious to discover how a noun, a thing (ie climate science) could become suspicious of anything, let alone reason, suffer from sensitivity or be cognizant of homogenisation in anything.

You mentioned "obvious" in your reply to me. Well Graham, isn't it obvious to you that that sentence makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever? Meaningless 'par excellance' imho.

I'd expect better than that from my PhD students, let alone post-grads, wouldn't you? And yet JBowyer has a go at me about "english"? Oh boy. I'll put it all down to "confirmation bias", it's the kindest thing I can think of for now.

I'm still trying to work out what a Rock star-scientist/astro-physicist on Q&A has to do with BOM or Nasa/Giss or JM.

I'm still trying to locate exactly what it is he was supposed to be confused about "more than global temperatures." I must be slow or...

Not sure if one should pay any notice of the writer when they are an associate of ideologically driven IPA (possibly compromising?), supporting an ideologically driven politician's quite odd or at best 'layman's' non-science views, demonising another scientist Cox or the messenger, and if not cherry picking having a micro focus on a dataset, while ignoring wider evidence (classic creationist and/or neo con media tactics to help try discredit any 'expert' and create uncertainty in peoples' minds).

As a PhD. biologist, the writer's article would not have passed muster in an academic science environment, and with some form or history in causes close to the heart of fossil fuels industry, i.e. neo cons and IPA, we should all be sceptical of those who propose do nothing approaches to climate change and its causes (e.g. curtailing fossil fuel energy use).

A start, and would no doubt be vehemently opposed by the IPA etc., would be the (re)introduction of explicit teaching of critical thinking and media analysis for high school years, along with strong environmental focus in e.g. General Studies as Vic HSC late '70s was. The former was in General English syllabus and the latter had replaced Religion late '70s, but think Howard reintroduced back nationally by '90s e.g. christian chaplains of more US influence etc.). Otherwise, as the like of Kevin Andrews proposed, preference is for rote learning, following orders and believing anything, especially authority and religion....

O'Relly "Liberal" as in lots of em! Savvy?
You and the other numpties can lead us all by example. Shut down all electricity supply to yourselves and all your little green mates. The saving should be enough to help Australia get over the carbon line (See where I am comming from? confusion, blah blah blah) then you can really make a difference. As opposed to liberal (Lots of) insults and being a sarcastic fellow.

Further, a reason many do not watch Q&A (copied from BBC's Question Time) is that it's about entertainment and precludes balanced discussion and analysis; lots of grandstanding.

Q&A and ABC have fallen into lock step over the demand to be 'fair and balanced' aka Fox News between a scientist and crackpot, which leads to legitimising all sorts of lay peoples' claims and conspiracy thoeries; while avoiding weighted evidence and analysis.

It's not unlike lining up an expert health scientist to deal with a lay person claiming expertise about dangers of vaccination, and the latter appearing and being taken more seriously, when they should not be.

This adheres to the concept of 'engineering media' by political/business establishment in USA whereby those with predominatly neo con, flat earth and religious views managed to not only defang inconvenient facts or science in mainstream media (in deference to religion especially), but to misinform electorates and preclude ability of individuals to think for themselves, e.g. on Iraq WMD, Brexit, gay marriage, 'immigration', etc., and being refined further by Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc., the latter using for agitprop surely being a warning signal

Like 'dog whistling' it's modern political tactics and strategy described by the LNP's US influenced polssters (like IPA, fossil fuels co's etc. lobbies), it's about bypassing the head and going the heart for peoples' desires, wants, needs, fears etc..

Does not say much for modern and educated Australian elites who want to believe or at least propagate the same.

@JF Aus, I have no idea why you're addressing this issue with me?

Re: "...just how incomplete the (climate) science actually is."
There is no climate scientist who has ever suggested CS was "complete". I don't get your point when it's already obvious. CS is the most complex/recent sciences there is today.

Re: "ocean algae may be off topic really highlights lack of knowledge about weather and climate." Not really, only means off-topic to JMs article.

I looked and can only say I already answered you 'not of interest'.

Re "...can you provide raw data/calculation proving how gravity is formed etc." Irrelevant. Why ask me?

Re "Precautionary Principle, scientific certainty, prevent further damage to the environment."

You're preaching to the converted @JF Aus.

Re "action on CO2 emissions, nutrient pollution and algae."

Two totally separate issues imho, albeit also related/connected. Two cause and effect scenarios. Two or more solutions need to be addressed sensibly based the PP and what's possible/realistic.

I agree with your submission. Imo fish stocks to be first major food supply shock that will impact globally due to AGW/CC plus runoff & overfishing all at once, going the way of the NthAtl Cod.

RE "..impact of algae on weather and climate"
I think you have that back to front. AGW is one cause, massive algal blooms the effect. Simplistic of course, check with a marine scientist/body.

FYI http://scholar.lmgtfy.com/?q=marine+algae+%22climate+change%22

eg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135411004386
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S4
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf
http://sims.org.au/research/current-projects/climate-change-impacts-on-calcifying-marine-algae/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-toxic-algae-blooms-may-prove-a-sign-of-climate-change-to-come/

There are hundreds of such reports and papers. These matters are being researched with climate change. Issue is ongoing funding scientific research CSIRO etc and acceptabnce of the current science.

These are political issues. Write the Prime Minister? Write to Tax Exempt organisations like the IPA to stop their anti-science political lobbying? Maybe ask JM to stop undermining the scientific research that's being done by BOM/GISS 30,000+ climate scientists globally?

I think it's way too late already. Time will tell.

Well I for one am glad that Jennifer has finally nailed her colours to the mast and finally acknowledged for whom she really works.

The professional jealousy of more successful scientists is a bit unbecoming though.

A few words about "Free" enterprise, business certainty, sound business practice, business innovation, research & development, business financing, new technology and the role of Government acting on behalf of the Common-Wealth of all the People, for the People and by the People.

aka "Regulating Fossil Fuels and GHG emissions out of existence in the US Electricity Market by 2050"

See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdlpES3NpVTVZS1E

An example of the possibilities. Energy accounts for ~10% of global GDP since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If I was James Packer or Rupert Murdoch the last place I'd be investing my money, experience, reputation and human resources is in gambling and the media.

Upstate New York 1905

"Oh Tom, what on Earth are you doing?"

"I'm going to plow the hay fields Ma of course."

"But why? We haven't sold last years crop yet Tom!"

"Aw get a grip Ma. Those new fangled horseless carriages will never catch on. Judas priest, the chickens can't even lay eggs with them around."

"Oh OK then Tom. If you think that's true, then what can I say? Have a good day."

---

UNFCCC Chairperson Christiana Figueres:

“Impossible is not a fact, it is an attitude.”

Wow, there appears to be a little bit of hostility spreading into this thread. I like the quote below and think it is perhaps time to introduce it:

According to programmer Alberto Brandolini, “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshi-t is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

I think both sides need to consider this!

Replying to Leo Lane,
Re Tombee “It’s worth adding that Spencer is a creationist. Strange but true”

Tombee went silent on my enquiry regardless of whether it was true or not, as to relevance to his skill as a scientist (an awarded one).

Oh well, if Spencer’s sin is “worth adding” let’s add more detail to Cox’s colourful past:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/prof-brian-coxs-ketamine-shame.222217/.

The physicist released a statement following coverage of the ketamine shame and has publicly defended his position “as a psychadelic journenyman, a psychonaut exploring the very fabric of the universe through drug exploration” and said that the Royal Society were all “off their nuts, that’s how science works”.
Online comment #1: I don't care he's lovely.

Google search for; “prof brian cox” + ketamine; gave 172 hits and there’s also this extract under +activist:

http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892
“I work at university, and I am involved in the political process. I lobby really hard for funding and support for scientific and engineering programs, because I feel that those are the ways that we will progress as a civilization and as a country. That’s what I share with Sagan’s view, that you can be an activist—a scientific activist—and you should be able to do that on television and with books.”

I remember Sagan as a popular sensationalizer of science who was inconsistent in his various scientific opinions and activism. In my view it is revealing and exquisite that Cox models himself on Sagan.
See this interesting UK analysis with 660+ comments on Cox’s performance on Q&A entitled: ‘Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist’
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/18/prof-brian-cox-gorgeous-lips-lovely-smile-crap-scientist/

Robert’s references to ‘The Feynman Principle’ went way over the heads of at least 97% of those present, and Cox did not blink an eyelid. Cox’s status in Particle Physics couldn’t be further removed from the Earth Sciences and e.g. the ABC’s Media Watch should investigate Cox’s background. They were keen enough to denigrate distinguished ecologist Jim Steele recently for having an ornithological interest and therefore unqualified to comment on coral bleaching! Amazing!

So we add "imposter" to the list of aadjectives that describe you Thomas O'Reilly? We regularly have people who comment on climate change and other scientific threads and claim expertise they don't have. Appears you reckon you're an academic. But an academic wouldn't have recourse to ad hom as his, or her, only tool of rebuttal.

And they would have higher quality book marks on their browser on these issues.

You have yet to show why the data at the two stations Jennifer analyses should have been adjusted. Until you do that all your abuse and claims count for nothing.

It shows how tenuous the alarmist case is that people like you feel you need to bury threads like this in sprays of spuriously relevant links so anyone who is not already across the issues will have difficulty getting there.

Pretending to qualifications you don't have is just part of the game, isn't it?

Jennifer has shown that nothing happened with these two sites that required homogenisation, but they were homogenised. You can deny it all you like, but until you can contradict that evidence, then her analysis stands.

Malcolm Roberts mentioned Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) while talking of those charts. This was somewhere near the time that confused Cox was unable to find the missing 1998 El Nino on that dodgy chart he held up.
This video from Tony Heller starts with some local U.S. info but explains well how badly uninformed Cox is about that chart and it's origins. This video is a must see. It is a rock solid history presentation. Those who hold up charts like that will really look like ignorant idiots to anyone who has watched this through.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:19:34 PM

Re climate science complete or not:
Climate science has been presented and accepted as complete by governments that subsequently took action that negatively impacted national economies and the world economy.

Re off topic to JM’s article:
I submit ocean and lake algae is right on topic to JM’s article because discrepancies JM identifies and has had the courage to announce, fit into evidence of impact of algae plant matter on weather and climate that is not being seen by ‘rock star scientists’ or ABC news.
If evidence of ocean and lake algae plant matter can be understood there will be less confusion about higher sea level and change to climate.

Re not of interest:
Are you interested in impact of a rainforest on atmosphere and climate? Surely you are.
So what exactly justifies having no interest in plant matter in oceans that takes up CO2 and produces more than 50% of world oxygen?

Re why ask about gravity:
You ask JM for data and calculations to scientifically prove fact about climate issues for which she states she has empirical evidence, but you yourself Tom, have no data or calculations to scientifically prove how gravity is formed, yet gravity is known fact.

Re Precautionary Principle:
According to that principle, full scientific certainty is not required for JM to come forward with questions about correct AGW temperature measurements, e.g especially when sea surface temperature anomaly in CO2 related science is not an anomaly when studying nutrient and algae and associated heat movement by currents at the ocean surface.

Re preaching to converted:
Let’s hope you Tom and others can be converted to comprehend impact of all nutrient pollution point-sources and the total nutrient load presently feeding algae devastating world ocean ecosystems.

Re action on CO2 v/s on nutrient pollution and algae:
I agree with your first paragraph there.
As for fish stocks, I have empirical evidence of substance indicating unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing ocean food web nursery devastation resulting in fish depletion in general.
Are fish immune to starvation?
Continued………

Cont’d……….
Thomas,

However you say, “fish stocks to be first major food supply shock that will impact globally due to AGW/CC plus runoff & overfishing all at once, going the way of the Noh Atlantic Cod.”

“Will impact”? No.
In reality it’s past tense. World fish depletion is already serious and general and has already impacted globally, continuing to impact, exponentially, increasingly, not due to overfishing or AGW/CC.

Years ago the destruction of wetlands in Holland to build Dykes had impact on North Sea fish population recovery. Even now land use is destroying ocean wetland and estuary seagrass food web nurseries.

Hungry animals do not breed successfully.
Governments have developed aquaculture policy without due consideration of food for wild fish or availability and cost of feed and cost of end product for people in need of affordable healthy protein.

Re impact of algae on weather and climate:
Absolutely I do not have that situation back to front. I think climate science has that situation back to front.
CO2 alone cannot cause massive algal blooms, other nutrient such as N&P must be available (together with sunlight and suitable conditions).

Marine science barely knows the basic biology of life in the oceans. However a professor has said to me that is incorrect, because marine science knows even less than that.

I think real goals and adequate resources are needed to help rectify that lack of knowledge and I base my opinion there on underwater ocean exploration and general research spanning over 50 years.

Show me how CO2 is causing pinpoints of cloud to form above algae and into cloud streets.
Look carefully into that other JM article link and comment of mine and response also from Siliggy.

Are there hundreds of reports and papers that include nutrient pollution proliferated algae?

I think real science holds the keys to the various solutions, some newly productive, economically stimulating.

I don’t think JM is undermining real science. She has found and has the courage and integrity to question discrepancies in AGW temperature measuring.

It is inevitable algae be included in AGW/CC modelling.

Marohasy has been going on about the temperature "anomalies" in Rutherglen and Amberley since 2014.

Her claims are BS as pointed out by the BOM when she first floated them...

"At Amberley, the bureau noticed a marked shift in the minimum temperatures it had been recording, which was also likely due to the station being moved.

Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground."

She of course claims that there is no evidence of the sites being moved but the BOM has documentary evidence.

Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.

She said that, for example, sites moved only a kilometre or so to more exposed areas such as airports would tend to record lower temperatures.

So the data was adjusted to allow for changes in the monitoring sites; no conspiracy and certainly does not invalidate the thousands of global sites of which these are just 2.

At least JM has been made wealthy for her work in denialism...pity the actual scientists doing the hard work are not similarly rewarded.

Luboš Motl, Czech theoretical physicist, puts down show business physicist Brian Cox:
"Brian Cox's incompetence
Like Sean Carroll, Brian Cox pretends to be a scientist but in reality, he is confused about some very rudimentary facts about modern physics and science in general.
It's not just the lunar phases or locality or the exclusion principle that he totally misunderstands (be sure that I haven't discussed every misconception of his that has made me very angry). He actually doesn't build on science; he builds on licking the rectums of the powerful and those who are brainwashed by currently fashionable political deviations. Cox is a kitsch for the least demanding audiences".
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/brian-coxs-incompetence.html

So has Jennifer contacted the BOM to ask them about this? What have the BOM said in reply to these allegations? Anyone actually contacted them, or are we pushing our blogs and armchair climate hacking? ;-)

Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Jennifer has shown that nothing happened with these two sites that required homogenisation, but they were homogenised. You can deny it all you like, but until you can contradict that evidence, then her analysis stands.”

Well not quite. Jennifer has put a contrary position to the BOM. I accept their's not her's.

But be that as it may, Jennifer has claimed this to be part of a national and global conspiracy to falsely 'alarm' the world over temperature rises, for which she has furnished very little in the way of evidence.

Instead of cherry picking sites Jennifer needs to show us how the homogenisation process on the Australian data has steepened the trend line toward higher temperatures.

Yet the BOM say that the homogenisation conducted by the BOM resulted in sites where the max temps were adjusted upward and others where they were adjusted downward. They say that taken as a whole the pre-adjusted figures would have shown a steeper rise in temperatures than those forwarded on to ACORN.

If there were indeed a conspiracy within the BOM to steepen the trend then this would seem a rather strange act.

If Jennifer can show this to be incorrect then I'm happy to take another look.

Dear Jennifer,

Would you be so kind as to post a link to the two data sets for Rutherglen. One being the unhomogenised data and the other being the data submitted to ACORN-SAT, there is something I would like to show you.

Why post an article attacking Cox you might ask!

Sponsorship to OLO from the right nutters party must be drying up...hence the article and why else is GrahamY (who surely should abstain from joining the discussion on his forum) wading in so volubly on posters criticizing Marohasy?

Pitching Cox against Marohasy is a "no brainer"...he is an OBE, has numerous published works (admittedly in Physics) and works on the CERN Hadron Collider project.

Marohasy is what...oh yes a shrill paid advert for the fossil fuel industry.

Peter King, you asserted;

“She [Marohasy] of course claims that there is no evidence of the sites being moved but the BOM has documentary evidence. Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.”

That’s a very misleading claim Peter. Everyone knows that early weather stations were mostly in-town, commonly at Post Offices and more recently many sites were relocated out to regional airports.

You also asserted:

“Marohasy has been going on about the temperature "anomalies" in Rutherglen and Amberley since 2014”

The very reason for her study of Rutherglen (82039) and Amberley (40004) is that they are prime examples of IDEALLY LOCATED sites that have ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD OF CHANGE. In particular Rutherglen has been located in open arable land at an official research station since before homogenisation and the start-of-true-BoM-time in 1910. It is very puzzling that you condemn her several years of research wherein she has been unable to discover any site changes.

The in full ACORN site catalogue site histories are:

Rutherglen (82039): There have been no documented site moves during the site’s history. The automatic weather station began operations on 29 January 1998.

Amberley (40004): The site has been operating since August 1941. No significant moves are evident in documentation but the data indicate a substantial change of some kind at the site in or around 1980. An automatic weather station was installed on 3 July 1997. Manual observations continued under site number 040910 until September 1998.

In the latter case for “No significant moves are evident in documentation” a plain language translation is; we have no record of any change. But, the BoM can muster “corrections” without knowing WHERE they THINK there may have been a re-location from in maybe 1980 to where it is now?

I recommend that you actually read JM’s evidence with an open mind. Tip; digitally search ‘jennifer’ and click all of the links she advised.

So Bob,
what do you make of this from the BOM on that station?

"The Bureau is part way through a task of entering historical information held on paper file into the corporate database. Until this process is completed there will remain large gaps in the information contained in these metadata documents and considerable caution should be used when deriving conclusions from the metadata. As an example, two consecutive entries about a rain gauge dated 50 years apart may appear in the equipment metadata. This may either mean that nothing happened to that instrument over the 50 years, or that information for the intervening period has yet to be entered into the database. Similarly, if no information was available about instruments at a site when it was first established, fields which were required to have a value present may have used the earliest information available as a best-guess estimate. Sometimes this was the metadata current when the database was established in 1998. In some instances there may be gaps in metadata relevant to the post 1998 period.

For the above reasons it is recommended that all metadata prior to 1998 be considered as indicative only, and used with caution, unless it has been quality controlled. The Bureau of Meteorology should be contacted if further information or confirmation of the data is required. Depending on the nature of the inquiry there may be a fee associated with this request. Contact details are provided in the telephone book for each capital city or the Bureau's web site at:
http://www.bom.gov.au
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.082039.SiteInfo.pdf

My detailed thoughts and comments about the article "Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures" by Jennifer Marohasy - posted Thursday, 18 August 2016

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

I might also waste my time commenting on her letter to Media watch (and associated legal threats about "defamation" etc) and her referenced speech/article about all this 'homogenised' data business which I read over the weekend. <shaking my head> One day she might get her stuff published, but I doubt it will make a hill of beans difference to anyone. Sure won't help the environment none.

There but for the grace of god go I.

What's the point saying anything? If people cannot work it out for themselves already, there's nothing anyone else has to say that could or will likely make a difference. Still, it matters to this starfish, does ring true. The smallest things the simplest word that little nuance can sometimes make all the difference to another person that helps them forever. And we never know. Mmmm.

Regards

Siliggy & Tony Heller video: example of incompetence, unreliability and tricks by Tony Heller Climate Science Denier Career Activist. See Heller's reference to a supposedly "Hansen quote" https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU?t=19m14s

Very cute/funny.

See the original text here: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/
The interview is of a reporter for the Washington Post, Outside magazine and GQ, Bob Reiss ... NOT Hansen ... Reiss spoke to Salon from his home in New York.

REISS says: While doing research 12 or 13 years ago [circa 1988], I met Jim Hansen [...] Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” [end quote]

Tony Heller is relying upon the rendition of Salon.com reporting to correctly get the words right of another reporter Bob Reiss proposing his 'verbal memory' [ or made up / incorrect / misunderstood ] is correct about comments purported to come from James Hansen, sometime when he doesn't really know, but at least 12 years before the interview with Salon is correct. This 28 years ago. Is this really called 'evidence' 'proof' that it's a conjob wrong bad all the way down?

Siliggy then refers to Heller's lecture as: "It is a rock solid history presentation."?

If this is what passes for credible sources and "empirical evidence" for Roberts, Marohasy, Heller and Siliggy and others, then all I can say is: God help you!

This may help some http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay versus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Anyone know the difference? http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Tony Heller's very entertaining and yet unscientific unreliable and not credible video lecture is also here with background info:
http://www.desmogblog.com/doctors-disaster-preparedness

@JF Aus: "I don’t think JM is undermining real science. She has found and has the courage and integrity to question discrepancies in AGW temperature measuring."

Well, that's a very interesting way to put it. I've been questioning discrepancies and things my whole life. I never expected that qualified me to win a Bravery Award or something because of it.

It's good to question things. Even better to work out what are the right questions to ask. Better still is to arrive at the correct answers!

@JF Aus: "I have empirical evidence of substance indicating unprecedented anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae is causing ocean food web nursery devastation resulting in fish depletion in general. " and "I base my opinion there on underwater ocean exploration and general research spanning over 50 years."

If that is true then I wish you well in getting that 'work' published in a respected peer-reviewed Scientific Journal asap.

fwiw according to you this little interview is also on topic:

'Demise of the Great Barrier Reef' 2016 Coral Bleaching Event & more
16 minutes with Dr John (Charlie) Veron, the 'Godfather of Coral'
50 years and 6,000 plus hours diving on coral reefs and former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, just might be worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

Or asking for his advice and professional opinion about your "research" / "empirical evidence"?

Charlie Veron's ‘Corals of the World’ website aims to preserve the Great Barrier Reef in digital form: http://coralsoftheworld.com

[ Note: there's something not quite right with this website when it continually drops off the last character of url copy/paste. ]

Replying Max Green,
Issues like 50 years of missing rain gauge data can be easily detected by eyeball simply by plotting the time-series and Marohasy has established that Rutherglen and Amberley have good data (which is a reason for their selection).

There are other perhaps more relevant data issues, for instance at the many Post office sites some were not manned on Sundays and PH’s and even in modern times there are days and short periods of no data. At some sites glass thermometers were eyeballed with varying skills and whilst most were given to a tenth of a degree it’s unlikely that they were that accurate, particularly before decimalization. Furthermore, many readings were overrepresented to half degree and integer values. With the widespread introduction of automatic stations a functional problems led to years of either no data or integer values only. Cape Otway showed integers for nine years solid and Larapuna seven in the minima parallel with seven of no data in the maxima. These problems overlapped at various sites and with their various instrument types for at least eleven years.

However, because these events are RANDOM in effect they have trivial and indeterminate effect on underlying TRENDS.

Marohasy has found that BoM homogenization has transformed cooling TRENDS to warming TRENDS; an entirely different matter.

Bob Fernley-Jones says:
Replying Max Green,
Issues like 50 years of missing rain gauge data can be easily detected by eyeball simply by plotting the time-series and Marohasy has established that Rutherglen and Amberley have good data (which is a reason for their selection).

What data does Marohasy have? Is it different data from BOM? Where did she get it? How does establish it is "good data"? Has she sent it to BOM for analysis?

Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.

Algae is heating and killing the ocean yet evidence of heat in algae seems ignored in AGW IPCC Kyoto associated science and present day climate change comment and media.

Professor Brian Cox apparently has knowledge of electrochemical reaction in algae during photosynthesis but that knowledge seems not mentioned in the professor’s view about CO2 being the cause of AGW and climate change. See:

Rhodopsin | Professor Brian Cox | Volvox | Algae | Heron
www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/wonders/rhodopsin.html
Mar 9, 2013 - It is possible that the light-sensitive properties of Rhodopsin can be traced as far back as cyanobacteria over a billion years ago.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/wonders/rhodopsin.html

Algae plant matter uses rhodopsin during photosynthesis.
Rhodopsin has thermal properties.
Therefore cyanobacteria phytoplankton algae has thermal properties.

Electrochemical reaction involves transfer of electrons between two substances, one solid the other a liquid. Algae plant matter - ocean water.
http://www.britannica.com/science/electrochemical-reaction

Stanford University has harvested electricity from algae during photosynthesis.
http://inhabitat.com/stanford-scientists-harvest-electricity-from-algae-photosynthesis/

The BIQ building in Germany uses photosynthesis to multiply micro algae to give off heat.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

Pinpoints of cloud and cloud streets can be seen forming above algae inundated waters. Images thanks to NASA. Zoom to see the pinpoints clearly beginning and forming cloud above algae visible in algae inundated waters.
e.g. Over the Bering Sea:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716
Over the Timor Sea;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88389

Empirical evidence of substance indicates unprecedented anthropogenic sewage and land use nutrient loads are now often amounting to nutrient pollution causing increase in algae plant matter causing increased precipitation leading to change in weather and climate including more intense storms.

Ocean dead zones are expanding and increasing.

Evidence indicates need for nutrient trading to reduce nutrient loads while generating productivity.
Sensible CO2 emissions trading that is not an economic burden should be applied to combat air pollution.

John C Fairfax.
23rd August, 2016.

John Fairfax,
give it a break. If you're that convinced you're onto something, take it to the CSIRO, NOAA, whatever. Just please stop spamming here.

Thanks.

Max Green,

Are you suggesting I am onto something?
And can you define what the spam is you refer to?
Why don't you point out where opinion and evidence I have posted is incorrect?
If you can.

With respect, I suggest try an exercise by considering views of a religion different to your own.

With respect, ;-) Nudge nudge wink wink.

So you haven't bothered with the peer-reviewed circuit, and would rather spam it all over opinion pieces like this. I wonder why? Attracting the armchair climate crowd? ;-)

I've been looking for a reference back to this for a week now. Looks like it is much easier to wipe out all STDs on earth than it is to kill myths in the conspiracy theory world.

And people keep on talking and talking and talking about the absence of 'empirical evidence' and 'credible data'? Yeah right. :-)

Some readers will enjoy and understand this, some other readers will keep on ignoring it so will never read it, and the few who do will never believe it. Maybe I'm psychic! :-)

1934 and all that
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — gavin @ 10 August 2007

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that

I await the next OLO revelation...

"Malcolm Roberts Proves Climate Change is a Conspiracy using Empirical Data"

This used to be a great forum for intelligent debate on a range of topics but is now the haunt of denialists and their sycophants.

The real problem is that no matter how much information from credible sources you can produce they don't want to be convinced; whether it is religiosity, fear of the truth or just the love and titillation of intrigue offered by conspiracy theories or perhaps all of these that closes their minds to rational argument.

Replying Peter King and Max Green,

I see you have again changed the subject after your “Gotcha” claims failed. That is to say that when I provided corrective information for you, you evaded the facts and instead raised new questions or unsupportable claims.

Answers to the latest question can be found by actually reading JM’s work, for which it is evident that you have not done, (or maybe you did not understand it because it was technically too challenging for you?). For instance, see her submission here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Request-Audit-BOM-Marohasy-Ver2.pdf

Notice for instance that the BOM declared usage of Beechworth to homogenise Rutherglen even though they have no record of any change at Rutherglen. Furthermore, statistical control charts (not employed by BoM) show no need for “corrections”. Conflictingly, Beechworth did actually have a site change in 1977 that was not homogenised and yet that “uncorrected data” was employed to “correct” Rutherglen. A further absurdity of using Beechworth is that Rutherglen is in flat arable country near the Murray whereas Beechworth is in the foothills of the Alps with different geology, vegetation and weather systems etcetera. (Marohasy had no need to mention that).

See also important issues over Wilcannia, Oodnadatta, Bourke and Cape Otway.

You also gesticulated at me:

“Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.”

For a start it is preposterous that you can make that assertion when you have either not read OR have not understood her work.
Secondly, is ‘theory’ some colloquialization of yours? Please indicate where she has proposed a scientific theory in this matter. (Analysis of archived data is not theory)
Thirdly, I’ve downloaded masses of BoM data into MS EXCEL and used its software to sort and isolate problematic data. (Including Rutherglen, Amberley, Bourke, Cape Otway, Beechworth in her review and many more) On the other hand, judging from the unscientific quality of your opinions I doubt that you even know what EXCEL is. My life-long-matured scientific and data handling experienced totally rejects your slander “that I probably know” Marohasy’s analysis to be false.

Yup, it's all a conspiracy. Those temperature stations and the BOM are involved in a co-ordinated conspiracy that goes right back to Joseph Fourier's discovery of Greenhouse gases in the 1820's.

Said conspiracy involves the top 4 temperature databases on the planet, from multiple 'reputable' scientific organisations. Said conspiracy involves the terrible intent of weaning us off finite and polluting fossil fuels early, so that there's enough energy left to build out the post-carbon infrastructure. Said conspiracy also values human life, and aims to prevent 7 million deaths to dirty energy each year, 4 million of those to poverty related wood-fires and wood-smoke, 3 million of those to fossil fuels including coal and oil and gas particulates.

Said conspiracy happens to measure changes in the world that correspond with said physics of said CO2 particle, but that's just co-incidence. It's actually NASA out there with flamethrowers to burn back the ice sheets and glaciers... and changing the seaons... and messing up ecosystems... all at about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second retained heat. With NASA flamethrowers!

Saint Marohasy is the only objective voice, given her sponsorship. We should all trust her, and get on board with the program of remaining addicted to finite fossil fuels that leave us dangerously exposed to energy insecurity, pollution, and geopolitics. It's just the truth! And my tinfoil hat is polished to protect my brain from them thar brain waves.

Having used Lotus Notes and its predecessor, Visicalc, both in use in science circles long before MS Excel, I am unfazed by your sarcasm nor impressed by your ability to download screeds of data and sort columns.

I have read JM's submission and I well understand her submission. It is as I have said on OLO before "just noise" and is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate...not for the BOM but for the general public who can then be informed that a:) the science is not settled or b) there is disagreement in the scientific community on the veracity of climate change. etc etc etc

Take your masterclass Excel spreadsheets and publish the data for peer review and allow actual scientists to evaluate your findings. If you and she are able to demonstrate that there is no warming then good on you and/or convince your peer groups that the data has been deliberately distorted to "hide" the fact that the world is cooling we will all be most appreciative.

Until that time I repeat you know as well as Marohasy that you are just creating mischief

Dear Jennifer,

You claim repeatedly that Rutherglen station had not moved and quote the BOM as saying there has been “no documented site moves during the site's history”.

This is what they say;

“No document has been located which states explicitly that the observation site moved. However, there are a number of documents from 1958 or earlier which make references to the site which are not consistent with it being in its current location, indicating that the site moved on one or more occasions at some point between 1958 and 1975. There are also additional documents which indicate a strong likelihood of a move or other changes.”

Which is entirely consistant on their side.

They expand further;

Quote

A number of documents present information about the pre-1958 site which is inconsistent with the current location. The major relevant items are:
A 1939 station inspection report (Figure 4) which refers to the site as 'Station flat but country falls slightly to north'. This does not match the current site, which is on flat ground for several hundred metres around, with a slope rising steeply approximately 500 metres to the north.

A 1953 document (Figure 5) which refers to a hill of over 700 feet (213 metres) approximately 300 yards (270 metres) to the south of the site. No hill exists for several kilometres south of the current site. The possibility that the '300 yards to south' is a reference to the station buildings, not the observing site, can be ruled out as the hill on the Rutherglen property—whose height closely matches this description—is to the west, not the south, of the buildings. (The coordinates listed are not useful in accurately determining the site location as they are given only to the nearest minute, and would therefore only specify the location to about the nearest kilometre).

Cont..

Cont..

A site sketch from a November 1958 inspection report (Figure 6). This shows a woolshed 18 feet high approximately 150 feet (45 metres) west of the screen, and shows no indication of any road to the west of the screen, neither of which match the current site. (The possibility cannot, however, be ruled out from the available information that the woolshed might have been removed after 1958, or the road might have been built between 1958 and 1975).

A reference in the November 1958 inspection report (Figure 7b) to the site being '1/4 mile from office' (400 metres). This differs considerably from the present site which is 700 metres from the office.

End quote.

Are you disputing these documents?

With this next piece being so well written, I don't think I have to say anything more.

"Now the great thing about conspiracy theories is that, for believers, attempts to correct the record just serve to reinforce the conspiracy."

Check.

"Lloyd wrote there was now an “escalating row” over the “competence and integrity” of the BoM despite the fact that Marohasy has not published her claims in a peer reviewed journal (the two papers mentioned in Lloyd’s story actually relate to rainfall prediction, not temperature)."

Check.

"Unusually, the bureau’s full response to one set of questions from Graham Lloyd has found its way onto at least one climate sceptic blog."
http://joannenova.com.au/sources/bom/australian-bom-responds-to-graham-lloyd-the-australian/

Check.

Bourke, Amberley, and Rutherglen all explained!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

Check.

Author of non-peer-reviewed accusations sponsored by contrarian interests.

Check.

I mustn't have positioned my tinfoil hat right... this all sounds pretty convincing, and it ain't pretty for JM.

Steele Redux, thanks for your contribution showing the BOM could not run a chook raffle. So we are supposed to trust these idiots are we? Typical, they are full of themselves and got double funding with this bulldust. Enquiry? No halve their budget and the ABC budget at the same time. That will reduce our budget shortfall.

Dear jbowyer,

There are hundreds of dedicated and hardworking Australians employed by the BOM. Just because your ideology on global warming makes it imperative that you try to slander their efforts and their integrity doesn't mean I should regard your pontifications as having even the slightest modicum of merit.

If you have evidence you would like to place before us go right ahead otherwise permit us to dismiss your offering as a contribution to a warming planet.

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:58:23 AM

I think many scientists would expect a bravery award if they spoke out to prove the globe is not warming overall and that only some areas are warming sometimes. Imagine if an astute scientist spoke out and said yes the climate is changing due to human activity but not due to CO2 emissions.

Yes, indeed there is urgency involved. It’s not just about solutions and dead zones and dead coral and destroyed seagrass food web nurseries, but also seafood dependent people experiencing seafood protein deficiency malnutrition need urgent assistance. It’s not starvation. It’s shrinking in stature, stunting, NCD, increase in maternal mortality and early death. Free milk powder should be provided in real Aid. That would also assist dairy farmers in these tough times. However I think scientific journal editors are too frightened to publish other than CO2 emissions material, though evidence indicates it inevitable they will publish.

AIMS scientists are politically gagged. The GBRMP area is limited by jurisdiction, not by ecosystems. For example the Fraser Island ecosystem immediately south of the GBR is not included in GBR waters due to the GBRMP southern boundary. That means the northerly flow of alongshore current waters driven by prevailing SE winds is not seen by the GBRMPA as transporting east coast city and town nutrient loads into GBR waters.

6,000 hours diving is like the Pro 5000 dive card I hold, however diving virtually just on coral reefs is quite different to diving in food web nursery ecosystems and on coral.

I have been asking experts for many years, that’s where key knowledge has come from.

It’s too late to preserve the GBR in digital form.
Just some of us were lucky to see it the way it was.

And what do you think about that chemistry in algae?

f.y.i.
https will not be a live link on OLO because the OLO system dopes not recognize the s.
So delete the s and the URL will be active on OLO.
I wonder who is adding the s these days, and why?

@BobFY thx for the BOM audit it's very interesting info. Read Changing_Temperature_Data, is there anything else worth looking at?

I now see this concern goes back to 2010, WA and Joanne Nova. I have never heard/noticed this BOM issue before. I'm not convinced there is anything to it by what I have seen thus far. Lot's of questions, zero answers, possible theories, and that's it.

No evidence for any corruption of the data and definitely, no evidence of any intentional deception, manipulation or public service incompetence by anyone, and no whistle-blower in over 6 years.

btw you have an odd definition of slander Bob and seem to apply it very selectively. I can't imagine any of it is bothering Prof Cox.

I see JM has re-titled her article here as Speaking Truth to Power, and Correcting Brian Cox and posted it to her blog on the 19th. Can anyone tell me who this power is that she is supposedly speaking to? And what Prof Cox has to do with any of this?

PETER BOYER, Mercury: To Roberts, scientists who do not share his views are dogmatic ideologues suppressing truth and threatening freedom. [...] But the inquisitors of today are not to be found in the Brian Coxes of this world.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582127

Associating with Roberts/homogenization of the UAH satellite data
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582124

Steven Mosher - False allegations against GISS by JM
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582112

So why would anyone find JM credible/reliable on this matter when she doesn't seem to know the difference between Nasa/Giss and Noaa? Surely false allegations are a kind of 'slander' too.

Quoting Jennifer Marohasy: I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this.

That claim is self-evidently false.

Posted by SteeleRedux 22/08: (JM) Would you be so kind as to post a link to the two data sets for Rutherglen. One being the unhomogenised data and the other being the data submitted to ACORN-SAT, there is something I would like to show you.

I would like to see it too.

GrahamY suggests earlier: "Instruments were not moved."

And the hard evidence for this is what exactly? Where is it, please show it to me. I hope it isn't info from BOM, I heard they are unreliable and basically incompetent.

GrahamY: "Perhaps you can show us some sites where homogenisation has lowered temperature?"

No, that's Marohasy's job, not mine. It's her issue to substantiate and prove. I reject your earlier characterization I am abusive, trolling, adhom etc.

I am very clear in my detailed response to JMs article here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0 - please read it if you wish to understand my point of view and what it is based upon. Refs included. The other links I have posted here provide very good information for those unaware of such matters - worth considering in a balanced way and with an open-minded attitude, imo. Accept or reject is the readers prerogative. Sharing is caring - is my motto.

I accept in good faith, until proven otherwise, the reasonable claim that the BOM and GISS et al are operating at worlds best practice. Please feel free to prove otherwise.

The scale of the accusations thus far (if true) warrants a police fraud investigation imo not an auditor. If as is claimed that JM et al have the evidence already, then hand it over to the AFP/FBI. Marohashy can be their primary witness giving sworn evidence in court. I'm being serious here because these are very serious accusations being made against individuals at large Taxpayer funded Institutions here and overseas.

Quoting Jennifer Marohasy: "I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this."

My opinion about that is irrelevant because I am not privy to anything beyond what JM and a few others have said publicly. Should Marohasy have that kind of evidence then it should be getting reported on the front page of The Australian and in the NYT and not hidden on obscure blog forums with the evidence handed over to the proper authorities immediately.

So why hasn't it GrahamY, do you know?

Why hasn’t heat in algae plant matter been reported on page one of The Australia and NY Times when impossible discoveries of virtual rain forests of algae have been found under where sea ice, sea ice that is reported melting more and faster than normal?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

Why has heat in ocean and lake algae and cause and effect not been reported in Australian major media, when it is known, (quote), “Arctic phytoplankton warms the ocean surface layer through direct biological heating,” (end quote)
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Why has discovery of virtual rainforests in oceans not been reported in AGW debate.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

I wonder why I am the only one around here that is talking about how heat in algae and warming in oceans is occurring.

Why is the already devastated state of the world ocean environment and fish stocks not reported on front pages or even in back pages?

Does anyone know any other source stating chemistry of warmth in algae, such as chemistry I have stated here as JF Aus on OLO? JF Aus, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:09:06 AM. Here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

Who is actually allowing alternative protein production industry to be run down (e.g milk) and sought by foreign buyers, while the state of affordable protein supply and sustainability is not understood by Australian investors and property and business owners?
Why is news of substance apparently gagged, allowing foreign business to get ahead in Australian commercial and national export opportunities?

The Jennifer Marohasy view is of interest to me because of need to seek evidence why AGW measurements and assessment are not showing measurement and assessment of ocean surface heat generated by ocean algae that is so damaging.

My actual focus is on sensible solutions to algae killing seagrass food-web ecosystems, resulting in seafood protein deficiency under-nutrition that is worsening and killing more and more seafood dependent people off Australia’s shores (AND ELSEWHERE).

I think areas of oceans and waterways are warming worldwide and that is causing weather and change of climate, but I don’t see the whole globe warming at the same time.

Replying Peter King,
“…publish the data for peer review and allow actual scientists to evaluate your findings”

Alas, I have “allowed actual scientists” at the BoM to review the many discrepancies in their data per my spreadsheets a few years ago, but they declined the offer. Earlier, in several simple email exchanges they had admitted an algorithm error and also substandard quality in their formerly named “High Quality” site but perhaps the major scope of the spreadsheets was too hard.
* e.g. here’s one email reply; “2 Many thanks for the question - turns out there was a multiplication error in the code which has now been fixed.” Their time-series plots showed significantly different linear trends between annual, monthly, and daily data at Laverton. On checking today I see the modified site (“High Quality” removed from the title) seems to have resolved the problem by simply removing availability of trending from the monthly and daily time-series!

“I have read JM's submission and I well understand her submission”
“Your support of her preposterous theories is unsustainable but you probably know that.”

Any chance you could elaborate anything that is preposterous in it? (Without divorcing context of course)

“If you and she are able to demonstrate that there is no warming then good on you”

Where has she or me claimed there is no warming? The main focus in her A.G. submission was about the quality of the BoM data. Perhaps you are trying to change the subject again but yes the global data do show warming including RSS & UAH. Among the issues is how to separate human from natural causes. How to estimate CO2 sensitivity and explain the wide range of MODELLED values? Kevin Trenberth has estimated that by far the greatest heat loss from the surface is via evapotranspiration plus convection, not EMR. Meanwhile everyone is competing and hyperventilating on radiative effects while it’s in fashion.

“Until that time I repeat you know as well as Marohasy that you are just creating mischief”

Wow, you can even read my mind, I’m impressed!

Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 23 August Pg 19
Hi Steele, imo/ime it's counter productive to dig into the details and point out the obvious errors being made in fact and in the judgement about those facts. What that does is to help folks like Marohasy pick up the blatant errors they missed to either drop them or change their next version of the 'analysis' so it looks better.

Best to keep the obvious to one's self and share only with like minded people who are already on the right page and who are already thinking clearly. This way people like Nova, Marohasy, Roberts can keep spinning their wheels and wasting their time.

In the meantime, are you smarter than the combined brilliance and expertise of ~30,000 climate scientists and the top scientific bodies on this Earth?

Part one:

High School Level understanding of Scientists using super-computer models

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/study/modeling.html

Climate Scientist Level understanding of Scientists using super-computer models

On the Potential for Abrupt Arctic Winter Sea Ice Loss
S. Bathiany
Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, and
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
D. Notz, T. Mauritsen, G. Raedel, and V. Brovkin
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0466.1

"It is shown that in comprehensive climate models, such loss of Arctic winter sea ice area is faster than the preceding loss of summer sea ice area for the same rate of warming."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0466.1

Another AGW climate sceptic denialist claim debunked by science.

Giant natural fluctuation models and anthropogenic warming
S. Lovejoy1,*, L. del Rio Amador1, R. Hébert1 andI. de Lima2
Version of Record online: 18 AUG 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070428
©2016. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

Abstract
Explanations for the industrial epoch warming are polarized around the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AW) and giant natural fluctuations (GNFs). While climate sceptics have systematically attacked AW, up until now they have only invoked GNFs. [...] Helped by statistics, the GNF model can easily be scientifically rejected.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL070428/abstract

Is there any data showing water temperature beneath the melting sea ice where algae plant matter is located?

Most sea ice mass is underwater.

Or is someone claiming the increase in sea ice melt is only occurring at the surface, from the top down?

Is there any data showing sea ice melt from the bottom up?

Ignorance is no excuse.
You all here can see and read what I am writing, including questions of substance I am asking.
Yet the virtual silence is deafening, laughable.
Is this part of the homogenization process?

Part two:

The question is who to believe, trust and value?

People might believe that despite the genius, IQ, rigorous checks involved that Scientists are too stupid / corrupt to check if the data they have been given by providers like BOM has been properly vetted - above all scientifically valid.

Scientists know how much booking time on a super-computer costs their Universities. They value their own time and are also putting their whole career on the line every time they put their name to a Paper.

There are other people who believe that the data they are relying upon has been Faked! They believe they are smarter than the collective wisdom of 30K climate related scientists.

See some more excellent work by the best scientists in their field providing in 2014 the scientific 'proof' for the hypothesis of AGW without resorting to GCMs:

Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming
S. Lovejoy First Online: 06 April 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2

Abstract
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. [...] We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions.

Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.

Intro:
Well before the advent of General Circulation Models (GCM’s), (Arrhenius 1896), proposed that greenhouse gases could cause global warming and he even made a surprisingly modern quantitative prediction. [...] But there is yet another reason for seeking non-GCM approaches: the most convincing demonstration of anthropogenic warming has not yet been made—the statistical comparison of the observed warming during the industrial epoch against the null hypothesis for natural variability.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2/fulltext.html

Galileo published the pre-existing Consensus of the Wise Men of that era - Marohasy is not a Galileo!

Does anybody have a link to data proving 30,000 scientists agree AGW is caused by CO2 emissions?

Or is the 30K another misleading figure?

I like algae. It might one day feed the world, if some of the TED talks I have watched bear out.

Right now it might help fix aquaculture.
* traditional aquaculture trawls the oceans for by-catch to munch up and feed to captive fish, which is not sustainable for the oceans.
* this system replaces ocean feedstock with microorganisms grown in nearby tanks
* Or it can be grown in the prawn farm’s own prawn ponds in the 6 month off season
* half the world’s seafood is farmed, so if we eventually replace unsustainble by-catch feedstocks with sustainably grown feedstock pellets from algae, the oceans may get a chance to recover
* it increases marginal prawn farms to profitable prawn farms because the prawns grow 40% larger and are healthier
* increased health gains mean more prawns can be grown in closer proximity
* more prawns in each pond increases production & profits,=
* spin off’s not listed on the show but that I am considering are possible increases in our understanding of micro-plankton or algae growth for feedstocks for other industries.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2014/s3984247.htm

But hey, you want to hate on algae, be my guest and go and submit your claims to CSIRO and NASA etc. Just don't expect us to applaud until we see your name in the peer-reviewed literature and see you on TV accepting the Nobel prize for physics proving all our climate woes are NOT derived from the measurable, demonstrable, basic physics of increased CO2 (as measured by a Fourier Device, which with the Radiative Forcing Equation works out to be about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second), but are in fact from THE GODZILLA ALGAE MONSTER!

Global warming is part of a depopulation agenda.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf

Global warming may end up depopulating the world as a side-effect, but it has no agenda. It's the laws of physics: CO2's Radiation Forcing multiplied by the extra amount we've added to the atmosphere = an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

Does the ocean have an 'agenda' when it drowns someone dropped overboard? Does metal have an 'agenda' when it kills someone twisting into it at 150kph in a car crash? No. They're just obeying the laws of physics.

Dear Thomas,

You wrote;

“Hi Steele, imo/ime it's counter productive to dig into the details and point out the obvious errors being made in fact and in the judgement about those facts. What that does is to help folks like Marohasy pick up the blatant errors they missed to either drop them or change their next version of the 'analysis' so it looks better.”

Possibly but I think it is important that people are made aware of claims that are not supported by the data. I think I know where she went wrong which is why I asked for the data sets for Rutherglen she is using since they may be different to the ones I obtained.

We will see when her '61-page expose' emerges.

All good fun.

//Global warming may end up depopulating the world as a side-effect, but it has no agenda. It's the laws of physics//

Save your breath, Max. AC has no interest in real science of any stripe, just made-up conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I'd say your best to approach to persuading him is to try and convince him that global warming is a dastardly ploy by Big Pharma - whom he distrusts - to increase the rate of tropical diseases by effectively expanding the tropics, so that they can sell us 'cures' that are really poisons for a hefty profit.

AC prefers absurd and implausible hypotheses like that to simpler but less entertaining theories. Apparently where he comes from, there is no such thing as Occam's razor.

The climate is changing whether people believe that man has had an influence or not.

The Larson C ice cap in Antarctica looks as though it will be venting a huge section of ice in the not too distant future.
Rain bombs are going off around the planet; causing death, loss of infra structure; homes ,cars, businesses are being destroyed or severely damaged.
Record temperatures are being recorded; permafrost thawing displays temperature going up, permafrost does not thaw unless there are constant high temperatures.

Given that global warming is happening contingency plans need to be made.

The question is whether man has had any impact on climate.

Fossil fuel takes millions of years to be created in they're raw form, we burn them and create emissions in a few moments in comparison to how long they were created.
A new study just released shows how climate warming began 180 years ago.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/climate-warming-'started-about-180-years-ago'/7773270

Very simple experiments to quite sophisticated ones show the interaction between CO2 and light. The ARM 11 year study conducted at two locations in the natural environment showed the interaction between radiated infrared and CO2. It is wrong to say there is no evidence to relate CO2 to warming. Data was taken on pretty well a daily basis for eleven years. The research underpins records of forcing in the atmosphere going back to 1979.

Radiative Forcing ARM Research:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240.epdf?referrer_access_token=bjuEJ63ymUk1yz9-Sx7uv9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MBUVHxgrRxcZhDCgss_A2aMRa8sFLO_Zqgdcoim1aBJ-ppgkwzC_X-LI_texKSoCxo8v99tBOdaXByc5w2vfUK6bQEvtZxBNKZCgRy1HIyrxTY_hAOl32yqeVv0D3PtJ4vbpvRlLZDhvLKrioDpSzGrLyRJaeQRsN5ONzqOxHEEmW5HA3RGBDDVjgPzDqGVcF4Fnq2RlZC6TONg2ccTYfeEliAQYz0GU2j8BvX9qq5-Q%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

Table at the end of article showing 2.974 watts/square metre created by all greenhouse gases:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

It is well known that members of the IPA display a very strong neo conservative ideology and do not accept climate science. Even Anthony Watts, from WUWT, when asked why he became so involved in trying to debunk climate science stated he feared government regulation.

@Armchair Critic what comes first, the horse or carriage? The horse does. If you are going to use a reference to support your beliefs, it helps to actually read it first. See this http://www.dictionary.com/browse/read

@SteeleRedux, no worries. I suspect nothing will inform her enough to get real about this issue. She's a very unscientific scientist.
and also to @Max Green/Toni Lavis, the other key question is why is the IPA so anti-science? For a think tank they do not seem to think clearly at all, especially in supporting these very fringe conspiracy theories and the fake science outputs (weird beliefs) by people like Marohasy, Roberts, Bob etc.

I suspect the members of the IPA know precisely why they are so anti-science, conspiratorial and spreading disinformation as do those who accept the scientific conclusions of AGW.

@JF Aus "Does anybody have a link to data ..." Yes try https://scholar.google.com.au where you'll find the work by those ~30,000 climate related scientists. Of course you will not do that. That's how powerful and entrenched Beliefs are. This can really help: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/read There's no need to believe me.

There are good reasons why climate science ignores your beliefs about Algae. There's nothing to it. Growth in algae extent is one of the effects of increasing temperature of the Oceans and anthropogenic nutrient runoffs. You have it backwards. I'm not interested in your opinions about this nor your non-stop 'why' questions.

@Bob Fernley-Jones, Wednesday, 24 August Pg 20 asks "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming?" = Sophistry.

Bob is dropping the keywords that matter: "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities?" Answer: Everywhere!

A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. Bob's leading rhetorical question is not credible.

Bob please stop spreading clever lies, playing sophist word games, and falsely denying that Marohasy and yourself deny the validity and findings of AGW Science. Be honest about that because being deceptive makes your 'research' look even more untrustworthy to me.

Thomas O'Relly you should turn your professed high power analysis on yourself. I think every criticism you leveled at your many opponents can be levied against you.
President Eisenhower's famous speech against the "Military Industrial Complex' is still bandied about. The next paragraph warned about the Scientists research costs. Both are equally costing us billions for nothing more than enriching their authors.

@Bob Fernley-Jones Pg 20 "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming?"

Have the courage of your and her convictions not to deny your beliefs. It's your 'St Peter moment', I heard a Cock crow three times! :-)

Quoting Marohasy verbatim proves it.

1)
MARCH 21 OLO:
"... create a global warming trend where none previously existed"
"This warming, however, is neither catastrophic nor outside the bounds of natural variability."

2)
Does Jennifer believe that NASA and the UN are faking temperature data?

"...are remodelling temperature series so that they fit the theory of AGW .... cooling trends have been changed into warming trends”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/

3)
sustained cooling over the 20th Century
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/10/sceptics-and-alarmists-together-present-to-coalition-environment-committee/

4)
"You say 'the science' of global warming is true, but ... my article"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=11

5)
" the trend was flat, no warming for 17 years."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jennifer_marohasy_meets_alarmists_at_parliament_house_more_please/

6)
no trend i.e. no warming if you start the record back in 1890
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/JenniferMarohasy_re_BOM_TheAustralian_20150929.pdf

7)
"this record showed no warming since ... 1997-1998. [...] no warming trend in the UAH [...] the pause has been broken ... cause is not carbon dioxide."
http://ipa.org.au/news/3440/pause-in-global-temperatures-ended-but-carbon-dioxide-not-the-cause

8)
Flannery ... to JM ... she was wrong to state "we've had no warming for ten years".
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Steffen2011January25.pdf

9)
JM OLO MARCH 21
[...] this record showed no warming [...] no warming trend in the UAH [...] temperatures back in ... were hotter than they are now.
[...] February 2016 is not that hot.
[...] so the present appears warmer relative to the past.
[...] create a global warming trend where none previously existed, [...] Bureau’s remodeling ... generating a global warming trends
http://climatechangedispatch.com/pause-in-global-temperatures-ended-but-carbon-dioxide-not-the-cause/

10)
Graphs Source JM used to claim "no warming" by Graham Lloyd
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/p/homographs.html

That's called evidence of Marohasy using the words "no warming" in original context. Have a look

What ocean heating reveals about global warming? 2013
NOAA posts regularly updated measurements"
http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming

Dear Thomas,

I do take your earlier point.

Jennifer posted this link earlier in the thread;

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/4000-years-of-climate-in-one-chart.php/climate-civilization-gisp-chart

This graph has gone through numerous incarnations but was originally from a climate skeptic geologist called Eastbrook;

http://i0.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png?resize=480%2C360

Here is a good history of the graph and an explanation of why it was so badly misinterpreted by him;

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

Obviously the skeptic crowd can't let it be and it keeps appearing, often as with Jennifer's post, without explanation, as though is is expected to be so definitive that it doesn't need words. Each time the criticisms leveled at it results in subsequent incarnations being tweeked.

What I find particularly amusing is the imposing of HadCRUT satellite temperature data over icecore data. This is something the rightwing chattering classes including Jennifer went mental over when Mann did the same with tree ring data.

It seems what is bad for the goose is good for the gander.

Rampant hypocrisy has never been all that attractive.

@ JBowyer "warned about the Scientists research costs. ... for nothing more than enriching their authors."
Koch brothers et al make more money that all the 30K climate scientists combined. The 21stC version of the Mil.Ind.Complex is the Neocons and FF Energy.

Research shows ~50% of global CO2e emissions are generated from the top 10% Income earners = Neocons etc.

2012 U.S. produced 17.9% world's coal-fired electricity vs U.S. Pop. only 4.3% home of the MIC and the 1%, educate yourself better.

"It's a Club, and you ain't in it!" George Carlin RIP

Ocean Heat Content vs Darwin Rutherglen data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Stefan Rahmstorf - A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/stefan-rahmstorf/

Versus

Conspiracy Theorist, Blogger, Unemployed Scientist Jennifer Marohasy whose only claim to fame expertise is Climate Science Denier & Part time writer for a NeoCon Think Tank / Rent-Seeker that thrives on the Government's teat and Australian Taxpayers through it's Not-For-Profit Tax Free Status.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=576

Now try and plug those facts into your MS-Excel spreadsheet Bob and see what pops out! :-)

Our planet is heating the empirical evidence 2016-08-16

"I should dearly love to be convinced that climate was not changing, or if it were, it were not due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make things just so much easier, all round. So what would make me change my mind?

[...] there is no way to convince Malcolm Roberts that the ... data has not been manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome. So he simply is not going to accept those data as being empirical.

[...] relevant data does not just include the records taken by meteorological authorities. It also includes the the record preserved beneath our feet in the temperature logs from many thousands of boreholes across all inhabited continents. In fact Malcolm can go out an re-measure them himself, if he needs convincing they are “empirical”.
http://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

Representative Graph Data Just Look: http://goo.gl/PC4nY = Empirical Evidence Undeniable Proof - No Thermometers or BOM required

Dear GrahamY,

I'm sorry but I missed this.

You wrote;

“Yet the homogenisation always appears to increase temperature. The homogenisation algorithms are obviouslly wrong.”

No it doesn't.

You then asked;

“Perhaps you can show us some sites where homogenisation has lowered temperature?”

That is easy. Try Orbost;

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/station-adjustment-summary-Orbost.pdf

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:44:45 PM

Empirical data, that's a new one. Google those words. On this date there is only one site, http://study.com/academy/lesson/empirical-data-definition-example.html

Yes science has measured heat and gas from forests and grass and cud and bore holes etcetera but chemistry of algae plant matter in oceans and lakes that likely totals more than all photosynthetic plant matter on land on this planet was not measured and assessed in AGW IPCC and Kyoto associated science. True or false?

Climate science keeps pointing at heat because of El Nino but the science does not provide even empirical evidence of what is actually causing the heat in El Nino. Why is that so?

Meteorological temperature empirical data does appear to be being manipulated including on this site, because temperature directly associated with ocean algae plant matter is not even being mentioned in comment by learned people on this site right here and now, despite empirical evidence I have presented on page 17 of this OLO thread.

On what justifiable grounds can all plant matter in oceans and seas and lakes and waterways of this planet be ignored in AGW or climate discussion and science?

ShortURL not spam: the Tynong AGOS borehole temperature record is responding to a long-term heating cycle of 0.3-1.3°C over the last century at the 95% confidence level.
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134201/width754/image-20160815-13007-1kxmnmg.png

Let's talk Politics and Reason shall we?

Whereas everything about Climate Science AGW is not 100% perfect, whereas earlier errors in papers/comments have been revised to be more accurate, it is incontrovertible undeniably true. AGW/CC is not an 'opinion' it's an obvious fact.

The fact is all GCMs are "wrong" per Gavin Schmidt of Nasa/Giss. They still are based on science, maths and are very useful. No IPCC Report/Paper has ever said GCMs are perfect. All analyses and projections were qualified.

Fact is today's observations/measuring of global climate shows that almost all prior expectations have been underestimated in speed, changes, and effects.

This is proven and understandable if only people would look at the holistic body of knowledge.

Your choice is to either trust the illogical claims and theories of the Blogosphere, a handful of 'scientist outliers' or trust the genuine experts in the field who produced the Peer-Reviewed 'empirical evidence'.

Science builds upon itself, the methodology has proven to be the best for hundreds of years.

The 'collective consensus' is based upon evidence, scientific rigor and not vacuous opinions/beliefs or Fraud.

I support a global regime of enforceable Regulation and Laws based on the empirical science to tackle the causes/consequences of AGW/CC equitably.

The rationale being no different than a 40 klm zone at schools. People are typically often too stupid, irresponsible and driven by self-interest therefore seat-belt and Food Safety Laws.

I have never supported an ETS, Carbon Tax, Direct Action, nor Fee & Dividend strategies.

Nor Bob Brown blaming "Big Polluters" as if they were solely responsible. Energy is a collective need, we all accepted fossil fuels and it's consequences.

I support safe GenIII+ GenIV Nuclear Energy as a science based strategy, along with Renewable energy options with Government support eg Sewerage and Natural Gas in the 1960s!

I support large Electricity users to deploy their own energy systems on site.

Regulation and Business can help fix it https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdlpES3NpVTVZS1E

An interesting comment from a Meteorologist; quite skeptical of anthropogenic climate change initially, he has since changed his mind.
Deniers suggest temperature gets tampered with; Meteorologists would soon pick that up. The environment displays temperature increasing without the need to use a thermometer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/24/opinions/chad-myers-climate-change-weather/

Ant - Wow! I am totally sold now! Hey what about you ask Flannery or Karoly to sell me their waterfront properties very cheaply? I mean if they are all going to be under water soon then they are worthless right?
So can you call them for me Ant and suggest a large discount say 90% on what they paid. Good luck with that.
I am only joking Ant do not call either of them because they will think you are taking the mickey out of them.

Well I think your all off your heads if your implying that I'm trading in fear porn any more than anyone else.

The CSIRO says 'Deserts 'Greening' from Rising CO2'
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
Obviously then, CO2 is helping to prevent the planet become a desert.

- Then we have other claims that say greenhouse gasses reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, though I don't know how true that claim is because the source is considered questionable.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

Then we have this:
http://www.infowars.com/group-that-admitted-manufacturing-global-warming-threat-still-pushes-same-hoax/

And this:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/06/portland-schools-ban-on-books-questioning-climate-change-national-coalition-against-censorship-ncac
- Which basically proves that kids are being indoctrinated rather than educated.
Obviously they aren't being taught to question things anymore.
Brainwashing...

But thats ok since what they want is for us not to have kids anymore.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Then you have people who want climate deniers charged and jailed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

Who's crazy here exactly?

This whole thing is about carbox taxes and emissions trading schemes, which only ultimately takes more money from a/ consumers and b/ business, who will have less profits to reinvest into renewables.

So tell me how anyone wins from this except people like Al Gore and his ilk who hypocritically fly around in private jets burning up millions of litres of fuel, and live in palaces that use more power than all the members of the forum combined??

Why don't we go steal some third world tribes rainforests for some carbon credits?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/the-forest-mafia-how-scammers-steal-millions-through-carbon-markets/280419/

Tell me we mostly all live by the coast; has anyone noticed the location of the sea change in their lifetimes?
I'm assuming its still there where we left it right?

This whole thing is not science, its propoganda and politics.
Mountains of money for scientists - if they tow the line.
Of course scientists will take the money..
They aren't any more reliable than politicians.. or used car salesmen when someone opens a briefcase full of money.

Then you get someone like this author who tries to set things right, and you all attack her, like you attack me.
Doesn't matter that one of our leading scientific organisations has zilch on the subject, but you all know better.

[cont]
Climate on earth is controlled by many many factors, some more powerful than others.
Do humans have an impact on the environment? Yes
Is it significant? Not really
Climate on earth is determined by 2 primary mechanisms:
The first is solar output - how much energy comes from the sun and it is not a constant.
There are multiple overlapping cycles of solar activity.
11 yr sunspot cycle, 22 year magnetic cycle and indications of longer 60 and 90 year cycles.
The second is the shape of the earths orbit which oscillates from circular to elliptical over roughly 100,000 year cycles.

Until scientists can control solar output or shift the earth in its orbit there isn't a thing anyone can do to change climate change...

Except of course to use the issue to extract money from gullible idiots.

JBowyer
If you view my previous posts you would see that many different references are provided, my view on climate change does not hang on the view of one Meteorologist.

It amuses me that scientists are viewed as only being interested in climate change for the monetary resources.

ExxonMobil have spent millions of dollars funding denier groups, the question is why would they do so?
They're own climate scientists believed that man has an impact on climate.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_9uBIubzU

Climatologists would be lucky to earn in a year what an oil or coal baron earns in ONE DAY! Does money drive climate politics!? You bet!

@Armchair Critic cry me a river. :-)

Better to read the scientific literature or listen to those who know.

“It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/climate-warming-%27started-about-180-years-ago%27/7773270

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence...that 2C global warming could be dangerous.

"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers
to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we
have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should
be reduced as rapidly as practical."

52 Pages - References 10 pages!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Read That versus the flippant uninformed online comments or the ideologically biased funded by special interests using your Tax Money to manipulate You!

Dr Marohasy said she was keen to get government support on their method of forecasting = Typical IPA Denier Hypocrisy
http://www.qt.com.au/news/weather-forecasting-system-developed/1398812/

Quoting Marohasy:
1. Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.
2. The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much [s]he knows, and inversely proportional to how much [s]he believes.

Ignoring 'the Science' by NOT reading it is driven by Ideological Beliefs!

Ideology is a collection of BELIEFS held by an individual, group or society.

An Ideology is political theory, economic theory or Religious THEOLOGY - all are Belief Systems.

Ideology is not Science!

Rule #1: Follow the Data where it takes you!

Marohasy has clearly forgotten this critical point for her version of "30 pieces of silver." People forget what really matters in life.

REF:
The Neo Sophists: Intellectual integrity in the Information Age'

Although CORPORATE [IPA self-]interests insist on a dominant role in determining not only instructional models, but also the course of university–based scientific research, they blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge the guiding PRINCIPLES of normal scientific inquiry, as defined by Thomas Kuhn (1970).

“Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent CONSENSUS it produces are prerequisites for NORMAL SCIENCE, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”

http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/881/790

Learn Something Read It

Armchair,
"- Then we have other claims that say greenhouse gasses reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, though I don't know how true that claim is because the source is considered questionable"
By absorbing and remitting infrared in random directions, greenhouse gases do effectively reflect heat. But far from debunking global warming, it's part of the basis of it. More infrared travelling through the atmosphere comes from the ground than directly from the sun because the ground emits infrared after it's heated by visible and UV light. So higher greenhouse gas levels mean more infrared is effectively reflected towards the ground.

Most climate change deniers don't even bother to understand the science before they ignorantly dismiss it. Is it any wonder there are people around who want them jailed?

BTW investment levels depend on how profitable the investments are, not how much profits they make from other things. Business isn't averse to borrowing for good investments. And in the mid to late 20th century, a breakdown of the link between sunspots and temperature was observed. And only by ignoring the evidence could you claim that the effects of human activity on climate is not significant.

The IPA has been in the news frequently since the 2013 election.
According to the Saturday paper it has been hijacked by radical ideologues. We know that radical ideology is not a good mix with science.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/08/27/former-ipa-head-radicals-hijacked-think-tank/14722200003666?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Saturday+Briefing+123&utm_content=The+Saturday+Briefing+123+CID_5552cba2ce698ff0aa0fd6e6f0a4e5a1&utm_source=EDM&utm_term=Mike+Seccombe

Given the tenor and content of many posts here I have assembled some information with references into a pdf file. Some may find it useful, some not.

"Thomas O’Reilly research findings, analysis and opinionated conclusions regarding Jennifer Marohasy, John Abbot and the IPA OLO in general over Climate Science's validity, the disinformation being spread, and the default adhominem attacks against those engaged in this critical aspect of Scientific research.

I only found this place because of Marohasy's article and criticisms of Brian Cox, the BOM, and the whole edifice of Climate Science and that arose out of the Q&A program that hosted Senator-Elect Malcolm Roberts from One Nation and long term member of the science denying Galileo movement.

Since the 18th of August on the Online Forum (OLO) there's been NO reply to questions or requests for data from many posters.

No comments on the evidence presented. So what if it conflict with existing beliefs ... isn't exactly what dialogue on online forums is supposed to be about ... sharing different views and info?

URL http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

Topics covered:

Jennifer Marohasy
John Abbot
IPA
Orthodoxy
AGW/CC Science
Conspiracy rubbish
GrahamY
Algae
waterfront properties
JBowyer
Armchair Critic
climate scientists
ideological beliefs
"Dirty" Harry
the BOM
evidence
Auditor-General
weather
forecasting
Climate Modelling Laboratory
John Nicol
GCMs
ANNs
Analysis GHG Effect
ideological vested-interests
political solutions
Central Queensland University
B. Macfie Family Foundation
Doctorates in Paradise
Climate Lab
Tax-Deductible 'charity'
"New Climate" magazine
Stock market trading
Dr George Bryant Macfie?
Medical doctor?
Macfie Energy Pty Ltd
new religion infecting science
Strike Resources
Myth and The Murray group
IPA book
Alan Moran dumped by IPA
George Christensen MP
coal industry
GBR tourism industry
Global Warming had stopped?
temperature variation = natural variability

If have provided some refs for most of the historical details. If you'd like more References/Info let me know.

Enjoy :-)

See this pdf with Youtube vids / websites that relates to the content and context of this JM article, the IPA, and climate science.

See: Thomas O'Reilly Useful Links
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPd2prNmVhU3B3bEE

Why is it such a prickly subject?

Remember, Nature bats last! :-)

Climate Feedback is an excellent fairly new website operated by climate scientists and academics to counter and correct misinformation - disinformation in the media and online.

Today’s media climate leads to confusion
With so much information available online, trying to figure out which information is credible — and what is not — is a real challenge. When so much of what we read falls outside of our own expertise, how can we know which headlines and news articles are consistent with science?
http://climatefeedback.org

Addendum from previous comments in pdf about John Abbot and his so-called "Papers" in "scientific journals" as displayed and promoted by Marohasy on her and on their ClimateLab websites.

About Wessex Institute of Technology:

Wessex Institute of Technology is a big Scam and their conferences are ...

..... Wessex Institute is a big money making machine for Mr Brebbia by offering very ...

Dubious conference invitations. Just spam, or do these meetings ...
https://www.researchgate.net/.../Dubious_conference_invitations_Just_spam_or_do_th...

Jul 9, 2013 - These bogus and predatory conference invitations are becoming just ... I'd say that I get such mails for both journals and conferences on a ... may i ask you about the case of Wessex Institute of Technology(WIT)?do you have ...

List of Bogus Journals. Fake Journals. Bogus Science ie Pseudoscience
Wessex Institute of Technology ·

REF:
http://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F&gws_rd=cr

LOL - doesn't surprise me one little bit.

Intelligent and wise people always check the purported 'facts'

It really helps to expose amateurs, sophists, liars, frauds and the lazy.

Allow me to repeat my opening comment about this article by Marohasy:

"Jennifer Marohasy, this 'article' is a very trashy, disjointed, false, fraudulent and manipulative piece of work."

Followed up with:

"Jennifer, your article is an insult to people's intelligence."

Thanks very much to Graham and OLO allowing me to express my sincere opinions and share some additional info for readers without any censorship. Much appreciated.

Nothing has motivated me to adjust my opinions, as yet

Thomas O’Reilly, you produce a lot of words, but no substance. You attack an honest and competent scientist, like Jennifer Moahasy, while being a supporter, yourself, of the climate fraud, for which there is no supporting science. You have given no reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
If you can refer us to any such science, then please do so. If not then you have no basis for support of the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Because you have no science to support your position, you have no science to refute Jennifer Morahasy, so you employ the fraud-backers approach of a baseless, and dishonest attack on her.
You have no science to support your position, and whatever you have put forward has been based on the false and baseless assumption that any global warming is human caused

@Armchair Critic: "Tell me we mostly all live by the coast; has anyone noticed the location of the sea change in their lifetimes?"

In psychology, Cognitive Dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html

Do NOT View Images: http://goo.gl/DoKiiv

Do NOT Read Text: Researchers Call For A National Coastline Observatory in Australia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/04/23/researchers-call-for-a-national-coastline-observatory-in-austral/

IT’S the Australian dream — a multi-million-dollar beachfront house on a stretch of pristine coastline.
http://www.news.com.au/national/is-the-australian-dream-of-a-beachfront-home-really-worth-it/news-story/37842853b935d2e78faa4d4f7deb2ff2

Coastal engineers waiting for Collaroy residents to have storm-damaged houses cleared
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-16/engineers-waiting-for-collaroy-residents-to-have-houses-cleared/7516184

Beach shacks falling into the sea SA
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-26/point-turton-shacks-storm-damage-ugent-repairs/7788284

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-26/tathra-wharf-insurance-payout-denied/7788162
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/storm-hits-perth-with-high-winds-rain/7750806
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/storms-steal-a-slice-of-south-east-coastline-and-part-of-jetty/7630370
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/lifestyle/beaches-and-fishing/gold-coast-at-threat-of-severe-erosion-and-property-damage-research-shows/news-story/46326698783e430830f4e668b0086191

Areas that will be most affected by rising sea levels
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/maps-show-areas-that-will-be-most-affected-by-rising-sea-levels/news-story/57d33f3fdf52a6baf9491ffcd4f1a570

154 Australian scientists demand climate policy that matches THE Science
“governments worldwide are presiding over a large-scale demise of the planetary ecosystems, which threatens to leave large parts of Earth uninhabitable” and asks for “meaningful reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and cuts to coal exports.

Coral reefs supported 500 million people worldwide but reefs were “threatened with complete collapse” 25% marine species were at risk, exposing “hundreds of millions of people to decreasing food security and increased poverty”.
http://theconversation.com/154-australian-scientists-demand-climate-policy-that-matches-the-science-64359
and
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/25/climate-scientists-write-another-open-letter-warning-of-unfolding-crisis-for-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-to-ignore

Look what has been happening lately around Australia's coastline alone.
Queensland, more than nine-tenths of the Great Barrier Reef has just been bleached.
Perhaps a quarter of it has died and likely won't come back.

The Gulf—the worst mass die-off of mangroves ever seen, 10,000 hectares along the coast.

Look off Western Australia—960 square kilometres of kelp forest has just disappeared. More than 33% is now extinct.

And all of this in just the past six months!

To be bluntly colloquial, it's very bloody real, it's right bloody here, right bloody now.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/what-will-it-take-for-us-to-pay-attention-to-climate-change/7749086

Bloody Socialist Leftist Media!

70% of Republican Senators reject the scientific consensus of AGW/CC

Senate Leadership Fund is a Super PAC to maintain Republican majority.

Duke Energy contribution $150,000
Chevron has contributed $2 million.
Petrodome Energy donated $1 million.
Devon Energy donated $750,000.
CEO of Freeport LNG contributed $500,000.
NextEra Energy contributed $250,000.
http://www.facingsouth.org/2016/08/duke-energy-invests-keeping-climate-science-rejecting-us-senate

Thomas O'Reilly Both Flannery and Karoly have beachfront properties and you are telling me (and I presume them, or perhaps they are telling you?) that all this will end in tears.
Need I go on? I mean, really, mate!

@Leo Lane, oh really, how nice.

"you produce a lot of words, but no substance."

False. Read it!

"You attack an honest and competent scientist, like Jennifer Moahasy"

False. I did not. I criticized and challenged her Article and her Opinions/Beliefs.

"while being a supporter, yourself, of the climate fraud"

Prove it is a 'Fraud'.

"for which there is no supporting science."

False. Ignoring it is not proof.

"You have given no reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate."

False. If you not like my references, then start here: http://scholar.google.com.au

"If you can refer us to any such science, then please do so."

Already have done so, as have others. It is not a secret. You are not my problem.

"If not then you have no basis for support of the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate."

False. Your opinions are clearly at variance. I do not care what you believe think or say.

"Because you have no science to support your position, you have no science to refute Jennifer Morahasy...."

False. I do. I have.

".. so you employ the fraud-backers approach of a baseless, and dishonest attack on her."

False. I am not a Liar nor support "fraud-backers". You?

"You have no science to support your position"

False.

"whatever you have put forward has been based on the false and baseless assumption that any global warming is human caused"

False - the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

Improve your critical thinking skills, maybe start here: http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

" 'Contrariwise', continued Tweedledee, 'If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' "
— Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, Ch. IV.

Believe whatever you want to believe but do not ever imagine that I have to lift a finger to convince you or prove a single thing to you.

It's also not a good strategy to make false allegations against me without any proof.

Nice chat. Thanks.

Thomas O’Reilly, where is the science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?
You support the fraudulent assertion that climate is governed by human emissions of CO2, and now assert that you are not a fraud-backer.
You also assert that you can think straight, while clearly demonstrating the opposte with your addled post

Here we go again, wasting more time on global warming.
It does not matter if the world is warming or not.

However, why will no one explain why it is necessary to change the
"paperwork" for Rutherglen when no one disputes the repeatability
of the measurements at that site ?
If any of you had been knowledgeable on measurement accuracy you
would know that the main calibration standard is the repeatability of
the measuring device.
If it is repeatable, it does not matter what it measures, that can be
ascertained and adjusted for. But that is a once off change applied to
ALL measurements, not to particular dates.
As the repeatability is not in question then those that change the
records are fiddling the figures and should be sacked forthwith.

This informative article of Jennifer’s has attracted the fraud supporters, who, having no science to oppose her impeccable presentation, resort to insults and lies.
Aiden, who never has any science to back his idiotic fraudulent assertions, resorted to insulting her, no doubt encouraged by the example of the ignorant O’Reilly, another supporter of the climate fraud.
Of course NASA manipulated the temperature record. Just one example:The hottest period in th U.S. was the 1939s, but after Hansen used his position at NASA to tamper with the temperature record, it was cooler, which gave the fraud promoters an upward trend in temperature from then to the present.
We are fortunate to have someone of Jennifer’s qualifications and skills to expose the miscreant BOM.

1939s should be 1930s
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record-2740118.html

Leo, considering your track record of considering all the science that contradicts your conclusions doesn't exist, it's hardly surprising that you're now saying I don't have any science.

Tell me, do you yet acknowledge that your claims that global warming has stopped were based on old blog posts that were contradicted by more recent data?

I suggest you reread what I wrote: what you took to be "insulting her" is an honest opinion of her position, based on the facts. I briefly explained to her why I had reached that opinion, and challenged her to prove me wrong and write an honest article about it.

As for the 1930s, an explanation of why adjusted temperature data was used can be found at http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

Thomas, you stated this is the first time you have come to Online Opinion.

Leo Lane likes to continually say that climate science is fraud; says he's a retired lawyer. He occasionally does provide references but follow those references and they are extremely wanting. Leo's message is like a stuck record, he repeats the same message over and over and has been doing so for years.

Every week there are references to science papers on climate change in various peer reviewed journals, the number of papers by science skeptics is extremely low, around a handful per year (Powell et al).
Fossil fue companies fund denier groups such as Heartlands, Cato Institute, ALEC et al.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

ExxonMobil is not the only major fossil fuel company to be involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_9uBIubzU

You do not need a thermometer to understand that the the planet is warming:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ice-free-northwest-passage-20624?utm_content=bufferee6bc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The question is whether man has had an impact or not; regardless, contingency plans are required.
All the evidence is in that man has had an impact. The science of climate change began in 1820s through Fourier; he has a theorem naming him in recognition of the work done.
Climate change denial has a recent history.

The isotopes of CO2 differentiate the source of CO2, volcanoes ruled out.
The ARM study of 11 years shows the forcing between radiated infrared and CO2.
Satellites have been measuring the forcing since 1979.

Here we go again, with Bazz getting all dismissive about climate change with a few trite accusations. But as The Guardian said when these groundless mudslinging accusations came out a few years ago:-

"Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground.

Marohasy wants heads to roll [rolls eyes] because she claims that the Rutherglen site was never moved and so there was no need to homogenise the data.

However, the bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

The bureau had initially spotted a break or jump in the data that pointed to a likely move at Rutherglen."
goo.gl/ihHPbc

Wow, Thomas you really treat this like a religion.
Your a climate jihadist... Stick that one in you're report.
- Which is pretty much why I choose not to believe in it.

Regards the 52page research documents and images you linked...
I'm not wasting my weekend reading that, and since Australia's coastline is 36,000klms and you managed to photograph a few storms, geez, all I can say is you're a one man army.

Last time I looked it was still in the same place as it was when I was born 40 something years ago.

And as for your snarky comments I was busy on Saturday and the site was down yesterday...
So don't get your panties all up in a bunch.

And Sorry mate, but I listen to Monckton (when I can be bothered paying attention) and he says all your climate models are wrong.

And going back to my original comment about depopulation (and since you love TED talks so much) Bill Gates says quote "One of these numbers of going to have to get near to zero" - with the 'P' for 'People' in the background highlighted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

There is no way that can be misconstrued to fit in with yours or Max's first reponses to my comment.
...So you can get back on your horse an cart buddy.
Thats how much I think about your crap comments and your TED talks.

Also none of you have had anything to say about the fact CO2 is greening the planet...

Max Green Australian media have a long and sordid history of making things up. Google "Two Wongs don't make a white" and see how many times the media have brought that old chestnut up.
If the BOM did what the Grauniad says it did then it should stand by it. Of course if they took legal action they would be open to having to produce facts and figures in court.
So why do you think they would not want to do this? I think because they do not want to give evidence they say they are relying on.

Let me spell it out for you.
So long as this argument is about Carbon Taxes and ETS rather than sensible measures to move us in the right direction I'll oppose it.
30,000 climate scientists time would be better put to use planting trees, so all the climate scientists amount to is a waste of oxygen and making the problem worse.
So long as you lot treat it as a religion I'll opt out as I would with any nutty belief system.

They aren't helping things, farms and factories if you want to have the money to fix the problem and power out of it...
Climate scientists are just another impediment to fixing the problem.
Good for nothings...

And tell me do we have national tree planting days, does McDonlalds, KFC, Hungry Jacks or Red Rooster do anything to stop cars waiting 45mins for a meal? Does the government only purchase 4cyl cars for government to lower costs emissions? It won't even buy from companies it subsidises.

No, So don't try and put it all on me because I won't go along with the scam the fleeces consumers to redistribute wealth into the hands of the rich, because I don't run the show.
If it were up to me I'd support nuclear and thorium and a 50yr transition to renewables whilst giving the country the cheapest energy we could get.

As for all your long speils, get over yourself...
Whatever you need to tell yourself to get to sleep at night hey...

"And Sorry mate, but I listen to Monckton (when I can be bothered paying attention) and he says all your climate models are wrong."

Well, if you're going to *quality* scientific sources like Monckton, then I guess we're all exposed and we'll all just have to admit defeat. I mean, it's not like *any* of his accusations have ever been peer-reviewed by people who actually know what they're talking about? His foundation came out with the cure for MS, didn't you know?

Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change

Now hear this !
I do not "know" whether the world is warming or not.
All I know is that people fiddling with the paperwork does not give
rise to confidence. If the repeatability of the instrument is valid
then there is no reason to suspect its measurements.
Max says it was moved, from where to where ? Surely someone would
know who moved it and if it is still with the same organisation it
could not have moved far.
Was it in shade and was moved into the sun ?
Surely someone knows ? Anybody asked retired employees ?
Without knowing the answer to those questions it is improper to change the paperwork.
Simple bit of detective work needed. Should not be difficult as the
date of the alleged change in known. The original base on which it
stood may even be visible. Was a new building built at that time ?
Would the new building have shaded the shelter and so it was moved
to keep it in the sun ?
Rutherglen has become a symbol of "The figures are fiddled" on one
side and "Sensible adjustments" on the other.
It would be worthwhile for the AFP to be sent after the evidence.
Don't let the alleged offenders near the evidence.

The Global Energy Group at Upsalla University presented a paper that
did a survey on all known oil & coal fields and found that the figures
for affordable fossil fuels used by the IPCC papers were too high.
It would be interesting if they did it again because coal production
seems to have peaked already and the oil companies also have problems
with the return on development and discovery. So much so they have
cut back most search and development. Insufficient return on investment.

Max
The question is why would BOM, JMA, CSIRO, NOAA et al wish to fraudulently change temperature?

We know that more evaporation takes place on a hot day. The creation of water vapour is extended when water bodies are warm and surface temperature is high. Rain bombs are created in high temperatures where major water bodies are present, with example after example being observed. An example showing temperatures going up without the need for a thermometer.

Recently the "Third Pole" was on the news, Chinese scientists were concerned about the rate of melt of Himalayan glaciers. Most people would agree that warming temperature causes snow and ice to melt, perhaps that's not the case with deniers. No need for thermometers here.

Armchair Critic

You use Monckton as a reference when he has neen shown to present material that has been cherry picked or changed from the original scientific paper.

Blurb in relation to Monckton being debunked:

"Monckton has responded to my catelogue of his errors, on the website wattsupwiththat.com
It includes an extraordinary reversal of position on most of them, including an outright denial of what he said (needless to say, I have video tape of him saying it.)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4

The advice given is go to the original piece of science rather than rely on a denier's interpretation.

Ant you asked why those organisations (BOM et al)would want to change the data? Well that was the whole point of the original article?
Then the usual tirade from you.
Mate, this is the point, you just do not get it. There is a deep mistrust of scientists who research and when asked for a conclusion say they need to get more money for research. It has now got to the point where the researchers are more numerous than the people actually doing something.
When Flannery sells his waterfront land I will have a concern but until then my only concern is the wastage of our tax money.

Bowyer,
I don't think you get it. There is a deep mistrust of oil and coal and gas CEO's who earn more in a day than a climate scientist does in a year! There is deep distrust of oil barons that actively sponsor climate deniers and lies and rumour-mills. There is a deep distrust of oil and coal barons that destroy mountain tops, deplete resources, buy politicians, warp the democratic process, pollute nations, and ultimately kill 3 million people a year. (WHO).

Other than that, I'm sure they're saints, and completely trustworthy! ;-)

Calm down Max Green. Those climate scientists earn a lot more than me, an OAP. No one is paying me, worse luck, in fact I have been paying tax most of my life.
I hear what you say about the fossil fuel industry but being ripped of by the Fossil Fuel Lobby and scientists is even worse. My point was/is that these scientists are as untrustworthy as the fossil fuel industry. Let's go them both!
I would go nuclear, of course, but try getting than by the Greens.

Don't worry Jbower,
the first time the power goes off in the middle of cooking dinner the
ladies will be demanding nuclear power by tomorrow afternoon !

Calm down, I said ladies because you married men will know what I mean.

Thanks for positive comments, info, feedback.

re: "Thomas you really treat this like a religion."

That's an opinion! You're welcome to it. Fact is I know myself much better than anyone here. I know for a fact that I do not treat AGW/CC nor my opinions/beliefs/ideas about it as a religion.

Don't believe me? I honestly don't care, have zero interest in proving it either. Wouldn't change your mind anyway.

My AGW/CC views are based on evidence scientific rigor I have checked over ~20yrs. Plus my senses observing nature and how much it has changed since I was a child. My observations and those of climate scientists match 100%. Co-incidence?

Accusing someone else of making a religion out of AGW/CC is pure sophistry. A cheap, button pushing, half clever, but fallacious argument.

Quoting myself:
"I have never supported an ETS, Carbon Tax, Direct Action, nor Fee & Dividend strategies. Nor Bob Brown blaming the Big Polluters" - "I support safe GenIII+ GenIV Nuclear Energy as a science based strategy"

Given Lawyers are generally in the top 2% of IQ on the planet to earn their degrees you'd think they would be smarter than playing word games, especially when it comes to important issues as AGW/CC science (be it true, half true or false).

Graduating high school my results were in the top 6% of the state and my core subjects were science and maths not woodwork.

In my 20s the Corporation I then worked for put me through a battery of external Tests. They reported my IQ/EQ across multiple dynamics (literacy, numeric, spatial, mechanics etc) as all in the top 6% with half being the top 2-3%. I got the promotion!

The 80s I was an Executive running a Company Division with over 1,000 mngt/staff with an annual turnover of $240 Million in today's money. Before tax profit was ~28% of sales, that were 300% higher than budgeted and Profit 600% higher than original Budgets. That Division saved the ass of the Parent Company's Board and Shareholders (10K staff) as it doubled the Dividend across two financial years.

TBC

Con't
I worked in Personnel, Management & Marketing incl. some large multinational Corporations. Some direct involvement with Oil/Resource companies co-ventures, with extra knowledge from friends and associates in that field.

I have attended many Board meetings who partly relied upon my professional opinion and advice. I know how things work at that level from direct experience.

When in Oz James Peabody III with his "charms" attempted to use me for his own corp self-interest. I got what I wanted by using him instead and I saved my Company $1 mln via another supplier who was ripping us off in the process. I mentioned before I didn't just come down in the last shower, meaning I am no fool, but neither am I a climate scientist. I do not have to be to recognize truth or bull-dust when I see it.

A couple of words stand out in the References I was given when departing a company; reliability, honesty and integrity. No, I do not have tickets on myself nor flies, but you can see where they have been. :-)

I have also extensively studied history, religion, politics, economics, marketing and psychology or what some call 'human nature.'

So if people here wish to have an intellectual battle over AGW/CC, Business & Politics the least you could do is come armed. :-)

To me being respectful and genuine is a bonus. I have low expectations and can play too, it is social media after all.

Having a sense of humor means being able to laugh at—or at least see the humor in—life’s absurdities. Humour doesn’t mean the ability to be the target of verbal abuse / sarcasm without getting upset as if there’s nothing wrong in what was said and/or how or why it was said. Marohasy should edit her article accordingly, or call in the AFP/FBI if she has any evidence. GrahamY should reconsider his position.

I recommend my prior comments Refs for due consideration. I have no expectation my 'opinions' will change the world or the IPA rhetoric.

People's beliefs are their responsibility, not mine.

Try this: http://goo.gl/JjrMdk -

Hi Thomas,

"Having a sense of humor means being able to laugh at—or at least see the humor in—life’s absurdities. Humour doesn’t mean the ability to be the target of verbal abuse / sarcasm without getting upset as if there’s nothing wrong in what was said and/or how or why it was said. Marohasy should edit her article accordingly, or call in the AFP/FBI if she has any evidence. GrahamY should reconsider his position."

You said it! This is the stuff of extreme conspiracy theories, and IF she has evidence, ICAC, AFP, maybe even Oprah and Dr Phil need to know about it. But no. There's nothing here but smoke and mirrors, and what better way to preach to the choir than bring up a 2 year old and outdated and already debunked paper than regurgitating it here? ;-)

Insights with Ref links: MikeR To Marohasy http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582124

MikeR to Bob
"Yes, there have been numerous cases where the orthodoxy has been overthrown and a paradigm shift has occurred."
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582136

and To quote Bob-H-J
“1998 Super El Nino” ... has also been disappeared by GISS’.

This has been noted on many occasions, such as at WUWT & CarbonBrief
(Bob you should read more widely) that El-Nino and La Nina affect the Troposphere temperatures much more strongly (and correspondingly satellite data) compared to the surface based temperature records such as GISS.
...these larger departures allow many more opportunities for cherry picking."
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/#comment-582141

The Devil, as they say, is in the Details!

Marohasy's own documents (posted/prepared by Bob) to prove her rightness also show where she is wrong and misses the 'details.' eg When did Rutherglen switch to automated instrumentation? Everyone who has posted here should already know that OR you never really read them properly.

Marohasy relies upon the BOM as "proof" Rutherglen's site never changed, was moved. The very same BOM she asserts is basically incompetent and/or untrustworthy.

You can't have it both ways at the same time. Not scientific nor logical. If Rutherglen was moved Marohasy's entire edifice 'for fraud' collapses and/or her own incompetence is exposed.

BOM docs says it was moved/changed and BOM docs says it wasn't. Both cannot be true. Marohasy "cherry-picks" that it wasn't, serves her beliefs and purposes better.

Begging-the-Question isn't scientific, it's a fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence = Science:101 - but it is Rule #1 for 9/11 Truthers and every other Conspiracy Theory on this Planet.

Awaiting publication of the rejection letter from the Auditor-General, or I will do my own FOIA request.

Awaiting the Abbot Marohasy publications in legitimate peer-reviewed Science Journals and proofs of their superior "weather forecasting" software using artificial neural networks ... 4 years and counting.

Awaiting Marohasy's new analysis of the historical temperature data for Victoria and Lighthouses supposedly due later this year? She's been on about this 'data' for over 7 years now I think. Where is it? -

I can still go down to the beach that I played on when I was 3 or 4 years old.
And I can go into the small rock crevices that are ONLY exposed at low tide just exactly the same as I did 40 years ago.

It's all still in EXACTLY the same place.
The sea comes up the beach at high tide the same as it always did and goes out to the same level it always did.

Now, I'm willing to bet my life that with the pace of technology today that in another 40 years we will have an almost total reliance on renewables in this country and none of these arguments will even matter.

I can hardly see the sea level changing much during this transition.
It's still going to be be more or less exactly where it is now.

We can't control what other countries do we can only do whats best for us.

We're a big country and we've only got 25 million people, heaps of room.
No-ones getting around wearing breathing apparatuses.

With this in mind all we can do is figure out the best plan to take us where we need to be.
Climate Change or no Climate Change, makes no difference.
50 years time burning fossil fuels will be long outdated technology anyway.

Build the future, don't whine about it. Embrace the changes and adapt.

If 1 climate scientist planted one tree every 10 minutes
That would be 6 trees an hour or 48 trees a day or 240 trees a week or 12,000 trees a year.
30,000 scientists could effectively plant 360 million trees a year or a million trees a day...

You people deserve the Joseph Menglar award for being locked in a small room with their thoughts for too long and then pushing their chosen profession and ideology so far that you become a danger to the rest of society.

Go do something useful and plant a tree.

//I'll opt out as I would with any nutty belief system.//

Liar.

//If 1 climate scientist planted one tree every 10 minutes//

It wouldn't make any difference. They're being felled at a much greater rate than that.

Also, of the course of it's entire life-cycle, the effective net reduction in CO2 from a tree is zero. While they're growing, they are effectively carbon sinks. Once they stop growing they're basically carbon neutral; when they die and decompose they release all that carbon back to the atmosphere. The trick is to let them grow, then cut them down and process the timber in a way that stops it decomposing.

I recommend personal libraries: books are great carbon sinks and wooden bookshelves don't hurt either. In your case, AC, I would recommend quite a few shelves full of introductory science textbooks, and that you actually attempt to read and understand some of them.

stop being so rational Armchair. It upsets the alarmist. I still enjoy going to the beaches I went to 40 years ago. Almost the same except for a little erosion here and there that comes from storms. Certainly the ocean temperature is as cold if not worse. Still I suppose we must be due for another drought in Aussie soon. It will give the alarmist something to wet their pants over especially the kids that have not been around to long.

Toni Lavis,

The problem with keeping paper books as a carbon sink is that at some time those of a 'certain persuasion' are going to want to burn those books. Think of all the 'carbon pollution' released all at once - oh the humanity!

Armchair Critic thinks his anecdotal observations of the coast somehow disprove sea level rise. He obviously doesn't live on the Northern Beaches, and didn't watch the news that week when a swimming pool 20 metres into the land nearly swam out to sea itself!

He obviously didn't watch the news when Cyclone Sandy hit NY, and hasn't visited the Pacific Islands or watched the reports coming out of there. NASA must be in on the conspiracy as well, as they write:

"Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea level rise and land subsidence to further increase flooding in many of these regions. Sea level rise will not stop in 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than that of the current century."

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Sea levels have risen since 1850. Little question about that. This is probably primarily due to the warming from that time. But as we now all know :) since that warming is merely returning us to a state that has applied for a large part of the last 12000 yrs, then it can be assumed that the sea levels are also returning to a state that's applied for that same period.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the various RCP calculations are correct and we do get an 80cm rise in sea levels from the current levels. What can we say about the consequences of that?

Well the first thing we know is that the people affected are way off in the future. For many of them, their grandparents haven't yet been born!

We also know that they will be spectacularly wealthier than we are today and therefore better able to easily afford to build the odd sea wall to hold back the relatively modest sea level rise that occurs then.

We can also assume that they'll have technologies that haven't even been thought of as yet that will further ease the burden of adapting to a small rise in the oceans.

I also suspect that our great-grand-kids will find it mildly amusing that those relative paupers from 2016 thought it prudent to totally gut their economy to fix a problem that they would see as a mere irritant.

//The problem with keeping paper books as a carbon sink is that at some time those of a 'certain persuasion' are going to want to burn those books.//

Only if we let them.

They will only take my books out of my cold, dead hands.

@Max Green "maybe even Oprah and Dr Phil need to know about it." - a few weeks in the Dr Phil House even? :-)

fwiw Quoting JM:
I’m continually reminded of the Thomas Kuhn quote: “As in manufacture so in science, retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it.” http://jennifermarohasy.com/about

I add:
"These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions - "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" New assumptions –"paradigms" - require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community."

Climate Science is one of the "scientific revolutions" that has "required the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of prior facts."

Breakthroughs in Climate Science's embrace of other scientific specialties eg astrophysics, paleontology, biology, geology, physics, statistics created a revolutionary substantive whole new discipline: "strongly resisted by the established community" at the beginning, until such times as the science had established NEW FACTS that could no longer be denied by that broader scientific community... that led to today's Consensus, not the other way around.

Climate Science was NOT the Orthodoxy of the day ... there are still a small number of orthodoxy holdouts though.

You see KUHN also said:
“Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent CONSENSUS it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.” Kuhn, 1970 http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html

But Marohasy seems to skip over it.

I quote the last bit in my response to Marohasy's article: http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

Surely Science is there as a tool to help Politicians make better decisions based on the empirical evidence vs on beliefs alone.

6 dumbest ideas politicians have about science @ #6 17 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBIET-uEbXA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m27 -

Political responses can be informed by evidence and facts via Science but it is still the Politicians alone who will be remembered for their decisions.

mhaze, sophistry once again.

You stated:

"I also suspect that our great-grand-kids will find it mildly amusing that those relative paupers from 2016 thought it prudent to totally gut their economy to fix a problem that they would see as a mere irritant."

Where are your references.

The Fort McMurray fires were more than an irritation, with about 100,000 being displaced and infra structure being lost..
All the storms since Sandy have been more than an irritant, costing billions of dollars.
The "Third Pole" is more than an irritant, with worries of water supplies in the future for a number of Asian countries.
Arctic sea ice melting as quickly as it has been is more than an irritant. The cryosphere acts as an air conditioner for the planet.
A large chunk of ice shelf of about 6,000 square kilometres in size will sooner or later calf from the Larson C ice shelf of Eastern Antarctica. More of an irritation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/22/a-huge-crack-is-spreading-across-one-of-antarcticas-biggest-ice-shelves/?utm_term=.644119fbd413

Temperature of 50C and a spike of 60C is quite an irritant as experienced in the Middle East recently.

The floods in Louisianna are expected to cost $1.5 billion dollars, more than an irritant.

Having to move isolated Inuit communities has heavy costs, more than an irritant.

Miami spending millions on infra structure to create an interim measure to ward off sea rise is more than an irritation.

fwiw

21 x Monckton Errors in under 4 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo&feature=youtu.be&t=7m36s
- shows people do make a Free Choice on which side of History they wish to be Remembered.

First Commandment for 'Truth Tellers': Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies - http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg :-)

Good Refs fyi:

http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Critical Thinking or Wishful Thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA

Five Characteristics of Science Denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

The difference between real Skepticism and Denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pyeRHCpRM

Ideological Bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj1-tDKuHno

We need to teach children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think – Margaret Mead http://www.schoolofthought.org -

Cognitive Science output: George Lakoff (mathematician/scientist/linguist)

"There is no linear Left to Right order - there is no ideology of the Moderate"

Covers Families Politics Enlightenment Reason Neuro-science Conservative Strict Father Model Empathy Self-Interest Adam Smith Founding Fathers Government Basis Values Metaphor How People Think and Why - watch for about 10 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXxc_M9EmE&feature=youtu.be&t=23m39
-

Thomas O'Reilly,

What's wrong with Marohasy skipping over things when you have skipped over evidence of warmth in ocean algae that I posted on page 17 of this thread?

Ignorance with intent can involve lack of integrity.

@JF Aus, ask what's the difference between what I say/do versus what Marohasy says/does?

A good question. For starters I am not pretending to be an environmental or climate scientist (appeal to authority) with science on my side and that I must be 100% right.

I am saying / suggesting that people are wise to go look at the scientific literature yourself and if it's too hard then ask someone about it who can explain it to you, especially an active climate scientist, to whom I provided a few links where that can be done.

My suggestions were don't listen to blogs, forums, newspapers, even the UNFCCC or the IPCC as if it is "perfect" ... but make genuine inquiries.

I am not accusing the BOM, Nasa/Giss, and almost all the people involved in climate science of being liars and frauds or defaming each one of them by publicly accusing them of intentionally corrupting the data to make up a fake global warming crisis that doesn't exist.

Neither am I accusing 30,000 people of being rank idiots and so unscientific and gullible that they are involved in a global conspiracy intent on shutting down the global economy industry mining et al in order to form a Global UN Government and the destruction of human liberty on Earth.

No, I do not do that.

Plus I gave very straight answers to your questions before JF Aus.

I am not the PR spokesperson for the Climate Change Union of Scientists either.

In regards to Marohasy, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. The onus is upon her not I.

Marohasy is not and will never be the judge of whether her accusations are correct or not. That is for others to decide. Not me.

I'm merely offering up a personal opinion about all that given what I know I know, and what I know I do not know. I know she's wrong.

You don't need to believe me anymore than you have to believe what Marohasy claims.

Cheers -

JF Aus

You keep raising algal impact in relation to climate change, its a chicken or egg situation. You push the chicken. You provide a diversion, nothing more.

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Thomas O'Reilly,

"Neither am I accusing 30,000 people of being rank idiots and so unscientific and gullible that they are involved in a global conspiracy intent on shutting down the global economy industry mining et al in order to form a Global UN Government and the destruction of human liberty on Earth."

You should.
Because then you'd understand that unlike some I'll never be a mindless servile scumbag of George Soros or any other of the elites global government agendas.
They overstate the problem, then propose solutions to the said problems they publicised in order to get the public to go along with whatever agenda they had in the first place.
Its Hegelian dialectic, problem, reaction, solution.

Maybe I see the elites Global Government agendas as being potentially more harmful than climate change.
So whatever they're selling, I'm not buying.

Poor JF Aus,
he's not interested in links like that!

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Too sciencey! Not in on his conspiracy! What, are you trying to ask him to remove his tinfoil hat?

JF, again, if you want us to take this seriously, go submit it to NASA and CSIRO and stop trolling this forum.

ant asks "Where are your references" in response to my whimsical paragraph about what the people of 2100 will think of the people of 2016. References? Seriously? I was going to go the full mock on this piece of idiocy but then thought it would be just cruel.

Toni Lavis,

"They will only take my books out of my cold, dead hands."

And that's just the way they like it. Get rid of the message and the messenger. Be careful what you wish for.... :)

Hi mHaze,
in other words it's just like your 'quote' from the working group that 'apparently' shows discrepancy with the SPM? Just verbiage and bluster trying to hide that all you've got is one big sneer at modern science?

Yup. About what we expected.

ant,

I think it correct to say, ant, you are known on this OLO site as having a religious-type belief that AGW and climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.

What do you know about chickens and eggs and algae?
Are you a poultry farmer?
In any case, algae arrived on this planet before the egg and chicken.

Diversion you say, ant.

I think warmth associated with algae plant matter is a very inconvenient truth.

The Marohasy article here has led me to consider a rock star scientist has knowledge of chemistry and history of algae.
Perhaps music is diverting focus on study of chemistry and climate.

ant, have you read my page 17 post? Have you viewed the links and NASA satellite photographic data?
Prove me incorrect about algae, if you can. Go for it. I welcome it.

Google; cloud street images.
Consider precipitation and look closely at the very start of cloud forming into “cloud streets” above known nutrient overloaded and algae inundated waters.

Can anyone show scientific evidence “cloud streets” are not linked to ocean and/or algae plant matter?

Economists and scientists best urgently focus on solutions including nutrient trading to really harness algae to produce fertilizer, stockfeed and biofuel, to reduce the nutrient load and grow economies instead of dumping sewage nutrient in rivers and lakes and ocean ecosystems.

Thomas O’Reilly,

Thank you for reply.
You appear well educated and perhaps you have a background in science and/or education.
In any case I consider you as my peer on this OLO website and accordingly I ask you to review my page 17 post on this thread.

I am not asking you to accuse anybody or any organization but I do ask you not to skip over my page 17 post.

The Jennifer Marohasy view is of interest to me because AGW temperature measurements from my point of view fit more with heat associated with ocean algae than heat due to CO2 emissions as claimed.
For example there are the AGW sea surface temperature anomaly charts and I think that anomaly has to be questioned, not skipped over.

I also now question if there are actually 30,000 scientists who have cited scientific evidence proving the globe is warming globally all together all at the same time. Is it 30,000 or 3,000? I seem to remember it was just under 3,000.

Thomas, you have answered some of my earlier questions but did not answer the very direct questions, so I have updated and revised one question.
Accordingly I ask for a direct answer because of the seriousness of impacts and consequences (possibly) occurring already, such as increase in seafood depletion linked under-nutrition linked to anaemia, maternal mortality and NCD for example.

Q. Is there any evidence of substance establishing anthropogenic nutrient proliferated increase in ocean algae plant matter and has nothing to do with climate change or change in climate in some regions?

mhaze

As indicated in my last post; climate change is happening now and is costing billions of dollars.

Your usual comments are about down playing what is happening now, without providing any justification, you need references to show your premise is true.

I asked for references as I know you are not able to provide any. Your whimsical post was about how people in the future would comment on what's happening now. Whimsical does not fit into science discourse.

You need evidence not just sophistry to show not a lot is happening now, to labour the point.

Hi all,
Just last night I finished a Netflix documentary about climate change and Antarctica that predicted a crash in the local food supply. It was something to do with the reduced ice cover not being conducive to a certain type of phitoplankton & krill interaction. Not exactly sure what it was.

But watching JF Aus rant about algae prompted me to investigate the climate impacts on Antarctica's phitoplankton further, and what I read rocked my understanding.

It's going to DOUBLE!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/microscopic-antarctic-food-source-predicted-to-double-in-size/6829060

(But only in the Southern Hemisphere). Could this stimulate the food chain, whale population, and number of enormous whale droppings that sequester carbon to the bottom of the sea floor naturally?

JF Aus "Can anyone show scientific evidence “cloud streets” are not linked to ocean and/or algae plant matter?"

Rule #1 Critical Thinking - Can't Prove a Negative :-)

re: "that AGW and climate change is caused by CO2 emissions" = wrong.

Anyone who has read and understood the science would already know that's false because the AGW/CC Science does not say that.

People need to know that CO2 emissions ~50% effect, other GHGs ~15%, land/use changes incl forest removal ~20%, Cement ~5% - eg Electricity production via Fossil Fuels equals about 20% - disclaimer all figures from memory because it's not worth my time to provide accurate figures nor references to this place - 'God helps those who can help themselves.'

re Cox: "Perhaps music is diverting focus on study of chemistry and climate." and perhaps it's the voices inside his head making him doing it? :-)

JF Aus Q. "Is there any evidence of substance establishing anthropogenic nutrient proliferated increase in ocean algae plant matter and has nothing to do with climate change or change in climate in some regions?"

Yes. I believe I provided a Google scholar search for 'papers' that addressed that Q. before JF. Not my area of interest which was been Energy use data, IPCC RCPs/ECS, Arctic Greenland Ice, and acidity/GBR.

Included in that were Papers that also addressed the increasing ocean temperature/acidity as further exacerbating all versions of algal blooms et al - this also had an impact in the Sydney Water supply in Warragamba Dam several years ago. Yes it is a problem. Scientists are not avoiding it. Politicians and anti-science websites like the IPA/OLO and other science denialists like Marohasy/Abbot/Nicol are as usual ignoring it too. Just as they ignore the current real world threats to the GBR and it's now rapid demise.

View science based info via Emeritus Professor Dr. Charly Veron 'Demise of the Great Barrier Reef' - 2016 Coral Bleaching Event -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

For the benefit of others:
OCCAM'S NIGHTMARE the book about Conspiracy Theories and Vapid Lunacy some believe - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

A Great Father's Day present
http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/s-peter-davis/occams-nightmare-ebook/ebook/product-21017102.html -

Max Green wrote with (sadly) all the eloquence he could muster "in other words it's just like your 'quote' from the working group that 'apparently' shows discrepancy with the SPM? Just verbiage and bluster trying to hide that all you've got is one big sneer at modern science?"

In some of the many parallel universes postulated by string theory, this makes sense. Alas, this isn't one of them.

Somehow quoting approvingly from the IPCC is sneering at science! Who'd a thunk it.

JF Aus

"I think it correct to say, ant, you are known on this OLO site as having a religious-type belief that AGW and climate change is caused by CO2 emissions."

I believe in science. Various disciplines of science show how the climate is warming.
The question is what is causing the warming.
But, regardless of the cause, we need to mitigate impacts, Miami is spending millions to create infra structure to stave off sea rise for a few decades.

The ARM 11 year study clearly demonstrates the forcing happening in relation to CO2 and radiated infrared; referenced many times.

The EPA reference I provided invites people to be in contact with them to make comments, have you done so?

The first sentence from the reference says:

"Scientists predict that climate change will have many effects on freshwater and marine environments. These effects, along with nutrient pollution, might cause harmful algal blooms to occur more often, in more waterbodies and to be more intense. Algal blooms endanger human health, the environment and economies across the United States."

It says very clearly that climate change impacts on algal blooms.

mhaze says:

"Somehow quoting approvingly from the IPCC is sneering at science! Who'd a thunk it.

There was quite a discusion previously about this matter; mhaze has done some cherry picking.
The SPM clearly commented on how extreme weather conditions can be expected in a changing climate.

Several rain bombs have been occurring in 2016 alone; many others in a number of countries have happened since the IPCC Report; mhaze, you are completely wrong. If there were only a few examples of rain bombs; maybe, you could be seen to be right, there have been several examples. Rain bombs being just one facet of a multifaceted changing climate. Many references have been previously provided.

//And that's just the way they like it. Get rid of the message and the messenger.//

I am not the message or the messenger. I am the archivist, for somebody must remember what has come before.

For Educational Purposes

The UNFCCC and IPCC were created by Governments and by nature 'political'.

Government Reps do change the content/wording of IPCC Draft Reports prepared by Scientists. Therefore all IPCC Reports are coloured by some Political interference.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a VOLUNTARY BASIS as authors, contributors and reviewers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml

None of them is PAID by the IPCC for time or travel, they still have to do their day job and get vacation time to do what they do.

The UNFCCC is also a 'political body' of Governments but relevance to a global conspiracy for One-World Government = Zero

Historical and Future Energy Use, GHG Emission Projections, IPCC AR5
http://www.scribd.com/document/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-and-GHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5

see Pg27 'Safe GenIV Nuclear Power Plants'

pg6> Quoting extracts from the IPCC AR5 Sept 2013 - Summary of Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions

Between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 ± 30 PgC (261 years)
2000 – 2009 increased by 3.2% yr-1
2011 amounts to 9.5 ± 0.8 PgC
Hold that rate to 9.5 x 88 years = 836 PgC to 2100
Between 2012 and 2100 amounts to 1685 ± 225 PgC for RCP8.5
This scenario amounts to 19.1 PgC yr-1 over 88 years
1685 PgC is 462% (x 4.6 times) above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011

RCP 8.5 assumptions above for fossil fuel energy use may be significantly LESS than the current BAU Energy forecasts from 2013 to 2040

"Expert judgment based on the available evidence suggests that TCRE is likely between 0.8°C – 2.5°C per 1000 PgC"

The Paris COP delivered an agreement by Governments for ongoing increases in global GHGs beyond 2030!

Angel Gurría Secretary-General OECD: A call for zero emissions
http://forumblog.org/2014/01/call-zero-emissions-climate-bailout-ooption

'Delivering on 2 degrees' UNFCCC Paris COP Agreement/MYTH Prof Kevin Anderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gJ78vDU17Y

"We Have To Consume Less": Scientists Call For Radical Economic Overhaul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEQ7cOUjwgM

Capitalism 3.0 - A GUIDE TO RECLAIMING THE COMMONS by Peter Barnes
http://archive.org/details/Capitalism_3.0_Peter_Barnes

The facts are: Temperature conspiracy theories plus Abbot/Marohasy are irrelevant to anything and everything AGW/CC and of no importance.

ant,

That epa link you sent is not active and i am using a basic smartphone from a farmhouse without strong signal.
To make an inactive link active on OlO delete the s from the http.
No worry, i will look into it and respond asap.

Thomas O'Reilly,

Try giving your Rule #1 Critical Thinking - Can't Prove a Negative, answer in a Court of Law.

It's disgusting this skipping or ducking answers and reality is continuing.

Mhaze,
"Somehow quoting approvingly from the IPCC is sneering at science! Who'd a thunk it."

Except in the next breath you contradicted yourself and decided you did not actually accept the working group's findings on extreme weather events. What was that about believing the bits you want to, and then just making up what you want to? ;-)

ant,

Here is the USA - EPA link you posted and it's now live:
http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Let's get this straight.
Algae and algae blooms cannot exist on warmth alone, there has to be adequate nutrient to feed the algae.

Nutrient comes first, then sunlight and solar heat to generate photosynthesis, then comes further warmth generated during multiplication of algae cells.

There is also solar warmth transferred particle to particle from the algae matter into the water molecules.

Solar warmth alone and due to any greenhouse gas linked-increase in warmth is not enough to generate algae blooms.
If solar and/or increase in greenhouse gas warming was enough to proliferate algae then algae blooms would be occurring throughout all surface water of all sunlit oceans, and especially within warm ocean currents.

The East Australian Current is a known warm current but is exceptionally clear with no algae visible.
Visibility in the warm EAC surface current waters is a divers dream. e.g. usually about 90 metres visibility underwater.

The EAC originates in nutrient and algae rich warm equatorial waters but as it flows away southward it seems the nutrient becomes exhausted and the algae dies and falls away into deeper currents or directly to the sea floor.

I have considerable understanding of the EAC, ask Search and Rescue in Canberra if they know about that.

Empirical evidence indicates the EAC and similar current/s worldwide are causing confusion and thus sea surface temperature anomaly in CO2 emissions-related science.

Adjustment of temperature measurement to perhaps suit older climate change modelling may be leading science away from reality and impact of underwater phenomena such as warmth linked to algae.

I think it is certain that warmth linked to ocean algae matter was not measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science. However, why is that so?

JF Aus

As requested.

http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

ant,

Read into that link document dated 2016 and see (copied and pasted);

Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms.

At least USA government science is now realizing algae generates warmth.

However relatively speaking there is a lot missing in what is needed to be so urgently learned.

Graham Y; re Jennifer's theory.
The integrity of the data and where it comes from is really immaterial.
If you believe in the integrity of Photos and video footage taken in the Arctic showing the lack of ice, coupled with the large melt of the Northern Russian and American coasts, then there is no argument.
The increase in extreme weather events is also a pointer to what is going on .
A quibble of a few decimal points of the temp readings do not explain these.
If you do NOT believe the integrity of the graphic evidence of Arctic melt, then there is no point in arguing.

Denial is a result of ;

1 being a paid shill of vested interests i.e. Exxon, who admit they pay large sums for articles that are pro denial.

2 Mental health .

3 Being unable to grasp the concept of something that will inevitably result in death and rationalizing this into denial of the event.

The last is being recognised as having a significant impact on some people.

"I think it is certain that warmth linked to ocean algae matter was not measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science. However, why is that so?"

Because they measured the originating *source* of algal energy: the sun. Imagine that!? Satellites can then discern any albedo changing phenomenon.

Now it's up to you to disprove the laws of thermodynamics in arguing why algae somehow magically create MORE energy than the sun beaming sunlight down into the ocean, and how they magically trap MORE heat than the original sunlight per m2 and their ocean albedo effects combined.

You ignore the KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE heat trapping physics of CO2 which according to the Radiative Forcing Equation traps an additional 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. And why? In favour of your own physics defying algal bloom theory, which is already measured as in the albedo considerations of the sun's interaction with the earth's surface.

The real question here is why do you ignore that fact?

Max

"Except in the next breath you contradicted yourself and decided you did not actually accept the working group's findings on extreme weather events."

Well that never actually happened but why let the facts get in the way, heh?

What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally. Since that isn't what you'd like to hear, you then pointed out that the same document also suggested that there may be some increases in some regions. I never rejected that but I did opine that regional events were not yet well understood, that most of the 'data' is from models and that the global data was more relevant to what we were discussing. I also asked if you accepted the global data whereupon you left the thread.

As I said, I accepted the IPCC's global data and, without rejecting the regional data, drew attention to its shortfalls and that we'd need to see further evidence to fully accept/reject it - a position the IPCC also adopts. And that, apparently, is rejecting the science. Ya gotta laugh.

Here's some new interesting data for all those who think that we really really need to do something now to ensure that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids aren't up to their ankles in water when they go to the beach in 2100.

A new paper (peer-review and all so it must be true!) has found that coastal land areas have INCREASED in the past 30 years:

Here's the paper - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n9/full/nclimate3111.html

its paywalled so here's the BBC summary - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

"Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

This is, of course, a disaster. It means that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids are going to have to walk an extra few metres to get to the water's edge when they go to the beach in 2100 and that Al Gore's waterfront property may not be waterfront forever. How ever will they cope!

Don't you just hate it when the real world data doesn't comply with the hype. Its almost as though Gaia is mocking the true believers.

Mhaze:
"What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally."

Page 134 says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

Page 916 says: “We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations.“

To paraphrase what Mhaze said to me:
“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case unthinkingly parrot your denials heroes, and use cherrypicked data”.

Mhaze,
You'd have us believe that the world is generally creating
The extra land is a tragedy, not a good thing!

"Conversely, the researchers also found that even larger areas of water have now become land. The biggest transformation was seen in the Aral Sea in Central Asia. What was once one of the largest lakes in the world has now almost completely dried up after engineers diverted rivers to irrigate agriculture."

In other cases the coastline we 'gained' was not natural, but by construction. In other words, this has NOTHING to do with sea level rise being trumped up, and everything to do with multi-billion dollar construction of fake islands in Dubai and expensive sea reclamation projects in China.

But hey? You seem just as casual with Australia's construction money as you are with the truth. We *could* be putting that money into roads and bridges and hospitals, but you want us to put it into defending the Opera House from going under. Well, that's denialists for you. ;-)

@mhaze: "What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally."

Well you're wrong again, going off half-baked because one must also include both Sept 2013 http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and the content of AR5_WG2 as well http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ in 2014 at the very least.

It would help to know the contents of the SREX too ie Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
2011 http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/IPCC_SREX_fact_sheet.pdf
2012 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf
2012 SREX Full Report http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

There's many reasons why qualified climate scientists and not misc. posters to internet forums do climate science.

I'll assume mhaze that you are licensed to drive a car. There's good reasons why you've never been in Formula One. :-)

Follow that analogy down into the rabbit hole or not. It is what it is.

mahze: "...I accepted the IPCC's global data and, without rejecting the regional data, drew attention to its shortfalls"

No, you didn't. You cannot accept IPCC data or criticize it before reading it first.

mahze: "peer-review and all so it must be true!" That is not what peer-review means, nor how any scientists treat it. Educate yourself better?

Nature paper looks interesting. Let us know when Abbot/Marohasy get a paper published in Nature or PNAS.

mahaze re: "It means that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids are going to have to walk an extra few metres to get to the water's edge when they go to the beach in 2100 ..."

False, it doesn't mean that at all. More proof how totally lacking in basic skills you are. The Paper never suggests anything remotely close.

mhaze re: "blah blah blah"
Sigh - "It's better to remain silent and perhaps thought a fool, only to open one's mouth to remove all doubt." :-)
That's a 'joke' btw.

Try harder.

Live and Learn without a Thermometer in your Pocket by relying on only one of your senses - eyesight.

@ 14th August
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/08/Figure1-1-350x417.png

A widdle satelite gif image to 26th Aug
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb0930d921970d-800wi

@ August 31st
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_dthumb.png

Maybe your eyes are seeing things or the satellite broken or NASA is lying again.

refs http://neven1.typepad.com and http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews

UAH (satellite homogenization calcs) has posted the August global temperature anomaly for its TLTv6.0(beta5) at +0.44ºC, the second warmest August (after 1998) and the 20th warmest of all monthly anomalies.

It represents a small rise on July’s anomaly. The year-to-date average stands at +0.567ºC, To achieve the ‘warmest calendar year on record’ (which remains 1998 at +0.484ºC) the remainder of 2016 would have to average in excess of +0.32ºC [which is all but guaranteed.]

……….1997/99 Avg Anomaly
Sep … +0.441ºC
Oct … +0.403ºC
Nov … +0.123ºC
Dec … +0.246ºC

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

Global Surface Temperature Anomalies: FAQ | Monitoring References ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Clearly it can't be 'warming' and yet it is. Highest global temp so far was recorded in 2016 @ 1.38C above pre-industrial. Land clearing impacts, Ocean acidity, and CO2e emissions continue to increase globally.

Still waiting for the Abbot/Marohasy Show to deliver on proof of their claims and their promises. I can see a future where Marohasy is teaching STEM subjects to the girls at Brisbane Girls Grammar School, the best girls private school in Brisbane, to earn a living.

On being left behind by anti-science and anti-Australian-Business-Economy Luddites being elected to Parliament in 2016

China, the Green Energy Superpower
http://www.china-brain.com/Resources/China–the-Green-Energy-Superpower/229.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/s/600757/china-could-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors-safer2c-more-efficient2c-with-/6384118

http://www.datenna.com/industry/china-to-develop-gen-iv-supercritical-water-cooled-reactor/

According to a well-known expression, Rome's emperor at the time, the decadent and unpopular Nero, “fiddled while Rome burned.”

The expression has a double meaning: Not only did Nero play music while his people suffered, but he was an ineffectual leader in a time of crisis.

Happy Daze All

mhaze

Lake Mead is n the state it is in due to drought over a number of years.
The Aral sea drainimg was created by the Soviet Union through diverting water.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

Max Green,

Clearly I'm going to have to stop doing ironic - it just goes over the head of so many.

"You'd have us believe that the world is generally creating
The extra land is a tragedy, not a good thing!"

When I said it was a disaster, surely it was clear that I was joking given that one of the disasters I mentioned was that nice Mr Gore's house would no longer be waterfront. I was sending up the reflex alarmist reaction to anything that smacks of change as a disaster. Seriously, how could you not get that?

Elsewhere Max opines (or just hopes) that the increase in coastal landmass that I mentioned was due to construction of artificial islands!! The global increase was 33000 sq km. The Dubai islands (for example) added less than 100 sq km. Anyone a problem with Max's 'theory'?

The authors of the report said that " the coasts are growing all over the world". But if you don't want that to be true, then it isn't - that's irony again Max.

As to AR5, to make things easier for you, just take one of the quotes I gave you earlier :"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”. The is from AR5_WG1. Were the authors of that report right or wrong? Was the conclusion based on data or fantasy? Will you now exit the thread (like before) or attempt and answer?

Note that I'm not saying that that was their only point. Yes they commented on other things. But my original point was about global data and this is what they said about global data. So were they wrong?

re Thomas O'Reilly,

Its the nature of sites such as this, particular one as lighted moderated as this (kudos GrahamY), that you occasionally get people like Mr O'Reilly popping in. These are people who claim or imply a special understanding of this or that subject while disdaining to actually demonstrate such special knowledge. The MO is to just assert that others are wrong and supporting that claim by referencing a multitude of vaguely relevant URL without delineating how those references prove their point. The attitude is that they really are above the mundane to-and-fro of proving their point and those lesser unknowing souls ought to just accept what their (claimed) betters know.

So Mr O'Reilly swamps his posts with masses of links which, if followed, are either utterly irrelevant to the point at hand or only tangentially relevant. But no matter...so many links must mean he's right, right?

For example O'Reilly asserts I'm "wrong again" about what AR5_WG1 says about global climate extremes because of what other AR5 papers say. Obviously the implication is that the authors of WG1 were also wrong since I was merely quoting them but Tom won't go there. He, as is his want, then offers a bunch of links that purport to make his point - without making his point! One is WG2 - yes the same WG2 that in AR4 gave us the 2035 Himalayan fiasco. But it is only tangentially relevant since it is mainly concerned about what to do if extremes do indeed turn out to be a problem. Even so this report is far less bullish on the certitude of data than the disastrous AR4 report.

He also links to SREX, again without any advice as to why its relevant. And what does SREX say about global trends? :
"There is low confidence in any observed long-term... increases in tropical cyclone activity"
" There is low confidence in observed trends in...tornadoes and hail"
On floods "there is..low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes"

/cont

/cont

" low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences"
"There is low confidence in projections of changes in large-scale patterns of natural climate variability".

and so on, and on and on. Go to the SREX and search "low". There is a large amount of "low confidence".

But none of this matters to the likes of Tom. He gave the link, implied it was conclusive and that's the extent of his understanding. Oh dear.

There's much more of the utter gumph from Tom but 350 words makes a full expose difficult. He, for example, falls for the line that the IPCC reviewers are doing it pro bono. He falls for the line that China is going all renewable when they are instead building coal plants like they're going outta style.

My favourite is his Nero segue which again seems to lack any attempt at relevance. He tells us that " Not only did Nero play music [fiddled] while his people suffered [during the great fire of Rome], but he was an ineffectual leader in a time of crisis."

The fiddle was invented 1500 years AFTER the fire. And a full understanding of the fire would show that Nero played a very effective role in fighting and recovering from the fire.

Elsewhere Tom tells us he " extensively studied history". Perhaps 'extensive' has a different meaning where he comes from.

@ Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:33:28 AM

Max, you indicate warmth in ocean algae has been measured in AGW - Kyoto science because the original source of heat from the sun was measured and satellites have measured the planet’s albedo. Accordingly I question:

How did AGW and Kyoto associated science measure algae beneath sea ice when algae under sea ice was unknown at the time Kyoto Protocol was developed?

How could satellites measure albedo associated with algae under sea ice when it is the white of sea ice at the surface that dominates reflectivity?

How could satellites measure albedo of algae MASS deeper down and not at all visible or reflective at the water surface?

From my point of view, during hours of sunlight solar heat is absorbed in algae, plus algae produces more heat and mass as cells multiply during photosynthesis.
At sundown the solar heat source shuts down but heat within the algae plant matter remains for several hours and perhaps sometimes until sunrise depending on the mass of algae and water current movement or not .
Next day there can already be some warmth retained and more sunlight adds to that residual warmth.
I think ocean algae retains heat similar to a battery retaining energy, including overnight.

Based on empirical evidence I think that after sundown EXTRA/MORE heat in the algae transfers particle to particle from the algae into the water causing the water to warm to whatever slight degree, and I think that EXTRA/MORE warmth would not exist if anthropogenic nutrient proliferated algae was not in abundance or there at all.

From my point of view this is not about vertical reflectivity – albedo.

My view on AGW is fundamentally about particle to particle transfer of heat retained in algae plant-matter for several hours during darkness, similar to how a cotton plant-matter singlet or jacket shields body heat especially at night.

I am not ignoring heat-trapping physics of CO2, nor am I accusing anybody.

P.S
For reference see my post on page 17 of this thread

Dude, just to be clear, you misunderstand the word irony. You were attempting sarcasm, but it didn't work because you demonstrated comprehension problems with the *subject* of the material you were quoting.

>>"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart. "We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

What was that? Who was able to create more land? Was it nature? Was it some mistake in measuring sea level rise? Who or what did it again? Who is the active *subject* of this sentence? Seriously dude, you’ve just failed Year 6 Comprehension!

And you try to sell this to us as a wealth creation thing? As if spending millions securing our foreshores is going to somehow magically conjure more money for roads and hospitals? Irony? No mate. That's a fail.

Just in case you're confused about where the most land reclamation was, the article spells it out: “the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land.”
How big a conversion of water to land?

“Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Sovietirrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size, “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

68,000km down to a tenth it's size! That's a *lot* of extra land. Too bad it's all bad news!

@mhaze veers off into fantasy land, jumping to silly assumptions, putting words into my mouth, all the while spinning like a top. LOL

re: "while disdaining to actually demonstrate such special knowledge." oh do go tell your mother, maybe she's interested in your silly opinions, I'm not.

re: "vaguely relevant URL without delineating how those references prove their point." so you're admitting you need help to work it out? LOL

There's been no "vaguely" about it. That you and others don't even bother looking, can't fit in more than a Tweat sized factoid, or work out what the Refs & Comments are all about ain't my problem kemo sabe - it's all yours. Go check my peter principle url again and read it this time then go look in the mirror. Oh the 'irony' of it all. :-)

re "[I] implied it was conclusive" oh what rubbish, read what I wrote which is exactly what it meant, and not your creative sci-fi imagination of what you believe it implied.

Which part my constant recommendation to all to "read the literature" and I do not care what people's opinions/beliefs are do you not get mhaze (apart from all of it that is?)

re: "are either utterly irrelevant to the point at hand or only tangentially relevant." Rubbish and BS ... is this all you got - hand waving on a forum?

re: "He also links to SREX, again without any advice as to why its relevant" READ IT is the recommendation. What? Oh it's too hard & your head hurts? ;-)

Here you are complaining about refs to info, papers, books, all kinds of issues including sacrosanct 'opinions'. You're complaining about 'knowledge' and links. Do you get that, what you're doing? Then mixing it into an adhom ridicule piece, then a load of guff about Nero? Is that all you got in your swag. Bloody hell man. What an intellectual giant you are mhaze.

Again, please go tell your mother. Your problems and your supercilious opinionated rhetoric are none of my business. Don't care, doesn't matter to me one widdle bit.

JF Aus,
if the algae is under sea ice, even better.
Sea ice reflects 90% of the sunlight, open ocean absorbs 90% of it.
In other words, the algae are only able to metabolise a small amount (based on their metabolic efficiency) of the 10% of the light (or less, depending on the thickness of the ice) left over after the ice has reflected most of it away. Those pesky algae only have a tiny fraction of the energy to convert to heat. Far more worrisome is the KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE physics of CO2.

“From my point of view”
I really don’t care. Until you stop seeking attention on an internet forum and send your whacky stuff into the IPCC or CSIRO or other peer-reviewed bodies, I couldn’t care less *what* your POV is. Go measure the heat from algae. With sciencey tools like a thermometer. You seem to know what the word empirical means. Do you also know what a control group is? Cool. Do it. Go wear a white coat while you measure algal heat versus normal water heat. Dress up. Have fun. Take some friends. Write it down. Then go send it all into CSIRO. Because I really don’t care until you put your money where your mouth is. You’re just another ranting person on the internet until you publish this theory of yours.

Oh, and these next 2 paragraphs are mutually contradictory. I do hope you realise that.
“My view on AGW is fundamentally about particle to particle transfer of heat retained in algae plant-matter for several hours during darkness, similar to how a cotton plant-matter singlet or jacket shields body heat especially at night.

I am not ignoring heat-trapping physics of CO2, nor am I accusing anybody. “

My fourth post on this thread for the day so the continued expose of Mr O will need to wait a day or so.

In the meantime...

Max,

Are you aware that the authors of this report are Dutch. Therefore English as a second language.

So using a very specific understanding of the plural pronoun to support your idea might be thought of by some as somewhat fraught. Others might call it bonkers.

Seriously, do you really imagine that the authors we saying mankind created 33000 sq km of extra coastline in the past 30 years? Do you appreciate that's an area more than half the size of Tasmania?

As far as I aware the authors haven't offered a considered opinion on what caused the increased coastal lands. My guess would be that when/if the reasons are investigated it will be some combination of sedimentary deposits, continental rebound and isostatic tilt. But we could be waiting a while for answers - I suspect we won't find too many geologists willing to risk their career researching something that the consensus doesn't want to be so.

What went on in the Aral sea and other inland areas is irrelevant in regards to the increase in coastal lands. The Aral Sea is some distance from the coast!

You wrote "And you try to sell this to us as a wealth creation thing?" and elsewhere "but you want us to put it into defending the Opera House from going under". At no time have I said I want us to put money into defending us from sea level rise. You constructed that idea from whole cloth ie rubbish. I did suggest that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids might like to do so if they so desire 80 years from now.

@mhaze: "the continued expose of Mr O" - Oh no, I'm shaking in my boots!

"Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures"?

The one who wrote the article is confused, as are those who believe her disinformation, her adhom ridicule and her sophistry.

mhaze et al seem to be living under the misapprehensions that I or Cox are affected by anything they say (or care) and that an article by Marohasy here makes the slightest bit of difference to objective Reality or Facts.

For well adjusted folks not driven by extreme beliefs and not living in a world where ~30,000 scientists are political operatives engaged in global fraud (or they're just stupid) vs say 'normal' research scientists - the evidence is overwhelmingly self-evident.

Marohasy needs to explain scientifically - IF her silly accusations are correct and that the global temperature data has been fraudulently changed to show a warming where she claims (without any evidence) there was cooling - then why is there still global warming and ice melting .... where before there wasn't.

Why isn't the Arctic Ice coverage and thickness (ie Mass) the same as it was in 1979? Links are good to share knowledge.

The Climate is complex that requires a complex all encompassing explanation of it's Nature, it's current, past, and possible states.

Mudslingers like Marohasy never do this!

Request for an inquiry into BOM to the Auditor?

All she had was unanswered leading questions. Her request was refused, as it was earlier by the BOM, by Greg Hunt, because her assertions are ludicrous on the face of it.

People can believe whatever they like, free to put any AGW/CC denial 'celebrity' they wish up onto pedestals, believe everything they say, but that isn't going to change reality nor the facts or stop Ice melting.

Genuine climate science vs snake-oil salesmen.

Reality of AGW/CC vs WTF to do about it.

Never the twain shall meet!

Well Marohasy has certainly achieved her object.
This thread has spewed forth more uncertainty than an Australian government.
The whole reason for this is to confuse the proles and maybe make them vote a certain way.
In the long run it will make no difference because the world will keep on reacting to the abuse that is being put on it and eventually it will become mostly uninhabitable for humans.
Good luck with that I will be long gone.

Max Green, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:22:52 PM

Max, what is your motive in saying, “if the algae is under the ice”?

As per my page 17 post on this thread, Stanford Uni scientists have made the “impossible discovery” in already finding algae under the sea ice.

There is also the NASA satellite image showing algae flowing north along the coast of Alaska in the Bering Sea, plus another species of algae mid water between Alaska and Russia, all where sea ice occurs and where the ice is reported melting faster and more than was natural.

I have an ac e up my sleeve, Max.
I have known about warmth in algae since the 1950’s in the wool industry.
I have already done measurements you suggest, and more, as a way of confirming insight from the 1950’s.
I wrote some of it on the US.Huffington Post some years ago.
Why bother with CSIRO that is known for dismissing it’s own scientists with their different view.

I think physics should include KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE physics of algae and nature.

Perhaps, Max, if you had upbringing and training to care you would see and understand nature and algae and physics.

I think algae that grows under ice has developed metabolism to thrive in those conditions and includes ability to thrive even more when waters become loaded with anthropogenic nutrient.

It is also possible to see algae that has grown in open sea under sunlight, and that then flows into Arctic waters and under sea ice.
Relevant images that form data and empirical evidence are all there on page 17 of this thread.

Why don’t you care about my point of view, Max?
I have a point of view from underwater within ocean ecosystems.
If physicists had such a point of view then warmth in algae plant matter would likely have been measured and assessed in AGW -Kyoto science.
It’s a pity you don’t care.

Show how the 2 paragraphs are mutually contradictory, in your opinion.

Suggestion; lay off the ad hom and direct insults you also troll at others on this site

@ mhaze re: COASTLINE INCREASE

Please don’t abuse ESL issues to twist this study to say something that suits you. They clearly said WE are doing this: and the largest increase was the drying up of the Aral sea. If there is a communication issue, it might be that they lumped every category of drying up and land creation in under the generic term “coasts are growing all over the world.”

But maybe that’s just my problem in accepting your premise? 33,700km2 over 30 years is about 1123km2 / year, on average. The draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes created 20,000km of land. That’s ONE act of land creation in ONE country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draining_of_the_Mesopotamian_Marshes

China: 3500km in 5 years, then 200km / year ongoing. But 10% of the amount you’re sneering at in 5 years, in one country alone?
“During the 11th five year plan (2006-2010), China’s land reclamation frenzy was at its height, and under the auspices of the central government 700km2 of land – roughly the size of Singapore – was being created each year. … to prevent what was looking like a “land reclamation bubble” the amount of land that could be legally be created nationwide was reduced to 200km2 each year.”
http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/gift-sea-through-land-reclamation-china-keeps-growing-and-growing-1350

The Philippines once had 5000 km2 of wetlands, but have lost about 80% of that in the last 30 years.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/wetlands

So who are you to sneer at a mere 33,700km over 30 years?

Sneering. It’s a common habit with denialists.

WAS IT US OR NATURE?
1. They specifically said *we* did it. You can blame ESL, but we all know what you’re doing. Cherrypicking. We know your type. ;-)
2. They specifically pointed to the UAE and CHINA and SPECIFIC human engineering projects.
3. They did not mention ONE natural mechanism where nature might somehow be offsetting coastal increase.
4. They said they still accepted and expected sea level rise!

But hey, go ahead and just IMPLY natural sea level retreat into the article. You’re now reduced to cherrypicking something that isn’t even there!

@Robert LePage "Well Marohasy has certainly achieved her object."

Nah, I don't think so. She was crowing the article had 13,000 hits in it's first 5/6 days. That's about what OLO gets normally (IPA even less btw) - but in this case anyone alerted to the Q&A episode via twitter etc would have seen this article pop up in search .. it doesn't mean that 13,000 views agreed.

The regular gang of agw/cc anti-science commenters here always post.
imo Marohasy only looks like a bigger fool than she may have before, and many more people know about that now. Only narcissists think everything is about themselves and note the "web-traffic" because it's all they have.

It doesn't mean the majority of 'readers/visitors' thinks what she imagines they do.

Face it, the IPA membership has so little faith in their own Libertarian ideology, imo, their MO is to infiltrate the Liberal Party with their members like Patterson and Wilson.

Why? Because imo they all lack the courage of their convictions to create a proper bona-fide Libertarian Party of Australia and stand openly for election and lay their cards on the table openly and honestly.

Eating out the heart of the LNP like a worm is far easier (and cheaper) than being up front and honest about themselves. Marohasy serves their purposes in this regard. 30 pieces of silver buys supporters to a cause 100% of the time. (shrug - it's common)

Of course this is old news, but sometimes it helps to remind people of the obvious as it gets drowned out by the hyperbolic hand-waving such as Marohasy's. AGW/CC is merely an opportunity to push their broader biased ideological political power agendas. :-)

Cox, Roberts, and Q&A made international headlines - Marohasy did not!

Besides the usual echo-chambers this ridiculous Marohasy article has barely been covered by anyone. Nobody cares about Marohasy, not even the IPA membership who are using her. lol

Marohasy is so unimportant and inconsequential she doesn't even rate in the climate skeptics world

The Who is Who network of climate skeptics

Ron Arnold
Timothy Ball
Joseph “Joe” Bast
Joe Bastardi
Michael Bastasch
William Briggs
Russell Cook
Judith Curry
Joe D’Aleo
James Delingpole
David Paul Driessen
James Enstrom
Steve Goddard
Pierre Gosselin
Greenie Watch
William Happer
Jim Lakely
Patrick J. Michaels
Steven J. Milloy
Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Joanne Nova
Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. – Unclear in Email)
Thomas P. Sheahen
S. Fred Singer
Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
Roy Spencer
James Taylor
Anthony Watts

Sourced and referenced via Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) file.

Ref to original refs
http://climatestate.com/2016/08/30/australian-senator-malcolm-roberts-claims-that-there-is-a-pause-in-global-warming/

Also see there another 'graph' on that page which is even more up-to-date than the one used by Cox on Q&A

"Who do you trust, Goddard with ties to special interests who creates doubt on climate science, ignores empirical data, observations, and facts or the actual people, the scientists who study climate.

"Meanwhile global temperatures keep climbing, below a graph from the Japan Meteorological Agency, does this look like a pause, or is this also part of Steven Goddard‘s conspiracy?"

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

Quoting: "The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2015 was +0.42°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.78°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891."

I know the data has been corrupted by 'frauds' everywhere. The Japan Meteorological Agency are as stupid and corrupt as the BOM and Nasa/Giss, obviously.

Who needs evidence when you 'just know' that's true!

JF Aus,
your 'point of view' is your own opinion, not science, until it gets written up and submitted to a peer-review organisation. The fact that you refuse to do that shows that you're only after converts here, not actually interested in the truth but just another version of an anti-AGW conspiracy theory.

You'd rather rave about your algae theory than read peer-reviewed stuff from the IPCC. Your view is incompatible with the IPCC because you're trying to subvert the role of CO2 and insert algae as the villain. This is preposterous and ridiculous. CO2's atmospheric heat trapping properties have been known since Fourier in the 1820's, just short of 200 years. Go study the "Radiative Forcing Equation". It works out to be 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Good luck demonstrating that algae can trap that kind of energy!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-per-second-widget-raise-awareness-global-warming.html

You've got nothing, expect to keep asking where you are wrong. I've shown where you are wrong repeatedly: incoming sunlight + albedo + atmospheric gases = warming rate for that area. The algae component of that is in albedo. Done and dusted.