The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures > Comments

Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 18/8/2016

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.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 61
  7. 62
  8. 63
  9. All
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.
Posted by ateday, Thursday, 18 August 2016 8:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 18 August 2016 8:59:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 18 August 2016 9:01:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 18 August 2016 9:33:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 9:45:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:02:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:41:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:44:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:51:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 August 2016 12:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 18 August 2016 12:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction, the Indians are working on a 300 MW prototype.
Apologies, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 18 August 2016 12:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Old Man, Thursday, 18 August 2016 1:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 1:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 18 August 2016 1:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 18 August 2016 2:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by John Ryan, Thursday, 18 August 2016 2:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 18 August 2016 2:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by steve101, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 18 August 2016 3:58:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Scribe, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:13:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Thursday, 18 August 2016 4:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" 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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 18 August 2016 5:36:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:32:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by All-, Thursday, 18 August 2016 9:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:35:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 19 August 2016 12:09:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Friday, 19 August 2016 12:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by elessel, Friday, 19 August 2016 3:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Scribe, Friday, 19 August 2016 3:01:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Friday, 19 August 2016 3:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 19 August 2016 4:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Jennifer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 9:50:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, the above link was too long - missing an 'f' at the end. Try this: http://bit.ly/2bE5r40
Posted by Jennifer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 9:53:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Siliggy, Saturday, 20 August 2016 9:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 11:38:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 20 August 2016 12:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 20 August 2016 12:22:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 12:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Saturday, 20 August 2016 2:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Richard Castles, Saturday, 20 August 2016 2:31:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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)
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Saturday, 20 August 2016 5:56:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Jennifer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 7:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 20 August 2016 10:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 20 August 2016 11:03:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 21 August 2016 7:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 21 August 2016 7:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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”.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 21 August 2016 1:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Sunday, 21 August 2016 3:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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?
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 21 August 2016 3:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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?
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 21 August 2016 9:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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...
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 9:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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....
Posted by Andras Smith, Sunday, 21 August 2016 10:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 21 August 2016 10:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Andras Smith, Sunday, 21 August 2016 10:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:19:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.”
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 22 August 2016 12:00:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:20:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Monday, 22 August 2016 6:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 22 August 2016 7:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Siliggy, Monday, 22 August 2016 10:36:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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………
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 22 August 2016 12:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:00:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:24:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Johnno of Kalamunda, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 22 August 2016 2:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 22 August 2016 2:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Monday, 22 August 2016 5:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 22 August 2016 6:17:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 22 August 2016 8:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:28:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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. ]
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:58:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 7:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:07:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:09:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 10:16:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 10:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 10:37:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 10:45:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:45:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 4:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 5:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 5:52:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 7:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 7:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:30:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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?
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:39:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:23:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 Bob Fernley-Jones, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:37:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:08:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming is part of a depopulation agenda.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 8:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 8:50:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//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.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 25 August 2016 8:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:03:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:07:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 25 August 2016 1:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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?
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 25 August 2016 1:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 25 August 2016 2:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by ant, Thursday, 25 August 2016 6:21:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 25 August 2016 8:10:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[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.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by ant, Friday, 26 August 2016 3:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 26 August 2016 5:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 26 August 2016 7:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 27 August 2016 9:58:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 August 2016 10:30:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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! :-)
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 27 August 2016 5:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 27 August 2016 6:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 27 August 2016 7:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 27 August 2016 8:34:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 27 August 2016 9:05:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 27 August 2016 9:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 27 August 2016 11:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 28 August 2016 12:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 28 August 2016 12:45:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1939s should be 1930s
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record-2740118.html
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 28 August 2016 2:37:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 29 August 2016 12:41:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Monday, 29 August 2016 6:53:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 29 August 2016 8:22:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:02:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:02:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:08:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:30:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:43:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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! ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 29 August 2016 10:21:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 29 August 2016 11:09:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 29 August 2016 2:09:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 29 August 2016 3:06:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 -
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 29 August 2016 3:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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? -
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:47:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//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.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 29 August 2016 5:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 August 2016 5:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 8:40:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 10:00:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 2:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//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.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 3:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 3:52:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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 -
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 5:21:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 6:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 12:23:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 8:34:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.... :)
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:04:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:28:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:54:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 11:19:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 -
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 11:42:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 11:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 12:34:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//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.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 3:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 4:34:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:50:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 1 September 2016 10:25:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

As requested.

http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms
Posted by ant, Thursday, 1 September 2016 10:31:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 1 September 2016 10:41:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:31:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 11:33:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 1 September 2016 12:27:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 1 September 2016 12:46:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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”.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 1:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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. ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 1 September 2016 2:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 1 September 2016 3:01:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 2 September 2016 10:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by ant, Friday, 2 September 2016 2:22:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 2 September 2016 2:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 2 September 2016 3:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/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.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 2 September 2016 3:25:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 2 September 2016 3:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 2 September 2016 4:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 2 September 2016 5:07:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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. “
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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!
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 3 September 2016 9:29:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Robert LePage, Saturday, 3 September 2016 9:41:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 3 September 2016 10:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ 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!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 September 2016 11:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 3 September 2016 11:16:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 3 September 2016 12:54:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 September 2016 1:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Max Green, Saturday, 3 September 2016 1:27:27 PM

Max, my point of view includes first hand observations that form empirical evidence as my comments on web sites document.
And the Precautionary Principle indicates empirical evidence should be used to take action when there is not full scientific certainty.

I am coming forward with what I have seen and studied. I think it's up to science to do the science and get paid for it.

I have not refused to do anything, as you wrongfully claim.
I am telling the truth. It is you who is ducking justified questions.

I think your comments, Max, often involve prime example of "what you say is what you are".
It is you Max, who is raving, about Hiroshima bombs and peer review being the only way to go.
Acute urgency is involved with the state of the marine environment, worldwide. There are too many facets to be written and peer reviewed.
Seafood depletion, protein deficiency malnutrition, nutrient pollution, anthropogenic algae, precipitation forming cloud streets, cloud and weather change, is just part of the phenomena involved, plus the impacts and consequences of ongoing spin and ducking and weaving and inaction.

Me got nothing? In reply to that, ok I have nothing. So what now, Max?
It might be you who has achieved nothing.
Have you had a life working in science without discovering anything yourself? Done and dusted you say. You not me.

Can anyone provide reference to data showing difference in albedo between different ocean algae species worldwide? NO.
So much for warmth in algae being accounted for in measurement and assessment of this planet's albedo.
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 3 September 2016 10:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big-mouth O’Reilly:
In relation to your support of the baseless assertion of human caused climate change, you were asked to refer us to science which showed a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You stated :” Already have done so,”
That is a lie, you have supplied no such reference. Most fraud backers, when they cannot supply any science to support their position, either refuse or neglect to answer the question or they just go away. You chose to tell a blatant lie. When and where did you supply the reference, as you assert you did, big-mouth?
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 September 2016 11:48:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

You keep pushing the view that alga creates warm, in that case why have experiments using iron filings been suggested as a means of geo engineering to pull CO2 out of atmosphere.

Leo Lane

Your usual aggressive outburst which displays no substance. You say you were a lawyer prior to retiring; and so, presumably would be able to make a good case. In your situation that is not so. Any number of times I have provided references to science. Your not a scientist and suggest you know better than the professionals.

For your arguments to have any foundation you need to show how various science disciplines disagree with man created climate change. We need evidence that after spending several years at University that young scientists graduating from numerous Universities around the planet would happily push your none science.

Scientists can identify the isotopes of CO2, and as a result its origin.
Measures of the forcing between radiated infrared and CO2 have been measured since 1979.
Underpinning those measures the 11 year ARM study conducted at two locations measured the forcing of radiated infrared and CO2.
References have been provided a number of times.

Fossil fuel companies must be very happy with you supporting them; they have spent millions on denier groups such as ALEC, Heartlands, Cato et al.
Between 1998 and 2014 , ExxonMobil paid $30,925,235 to denier groups, other fossil fuel companies have also contributed.
Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s held the view that man does have an impact on climate
Posted by ant, Sunday, 4 September 2016 8:46:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ant re JF Aus "that alga creates warmth/heat."

Of course this is nonsensical. Nothing is 'created' all heat/warmth from life forms - it is always the heat energy from the Sun transformed by biological life processes, it's why humans are at 37C - we don't 'create' heat energy out of nothing we transform 'stuff' that already exists .. behind all that is the SUN.

The only reaction that kind of 'creates' heat energy are nuclear reactors based on E=MC2 the transformation of Mass into Energy. Simple really. No energy from the Sun then there is no algae to begin with, nutrient runoff or not.

@LeoLane & to anyone else who thinks like him:

Well hello Leo Lane. If I have your meaning correct: I have/am a big mouth, make baseless assertions, tell lies, haven't provided refs, probably a fraud backer, can't supply any evidence, refuse/don't answer questions, tell blatant lies. Do I have that right?

re "When and where did you supply *the reference*, as you assert you did, big-mouth?"

There is no single reference, I never said there was. Seems to be something you just assumed *should be* the case. It isn't. I provided multiple refs as well as where to find the answers you seek.

You can find those refs/directions in my posts: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=69949

I think it's clear that your accusations are unfounded. Look closer! :-)

Or you could start here in 1856 in The American Journal of Science and Arts pg 377 - Papers published by Elisha & Eunice Foote REF: http://goo.gl/RG1Qmh - keep going until you get to the papers published in 2016. Human knowledge builds upon itself and get's better all the time despite any side-tracks and errors along the way. IT's there for the taking.

Maybe an analogy? All science (climate science) is like a giant Jigsaw Puzzle with millions of inter-connecting pieces. No single piece of the jigsaw puzzle proves how complete the whole picture is until they are all placed in the correct position and viewed as a whole.

con't/...
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 4 September 2016 10:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

I think the geoengineering suggestion and experiment to grow algae in oceans to take up CO2 occurred at a time when nutrient pollution proliferating ocean algae was generally not known or seen.

Even in your comment above right here and now you refer to "the view" that algae creates warmth. It appears you are not seeing the evidence.
I think warmth in ocean algae is now more than a view, that is, if you consider the evidence I posted on page 17 of this OLO - Marohasy article thread.
I think warmth in ocean algae is now obvious.
To almost anyone following this thread I think the view could at least be most likely or apparent.

Changing tact somewhat, I would like to comment on your second para to Leo Lane, regarding disagreement within the various science disciplines.

I think a majority of scientists agree human activity is causing some change in weather and climate. e.g. It has been known for many years that removing forests has impact on rainfall and climate.
However I think most of those scientists do not agree CO2 emissions are causing global warming, i.e of the whole globe (AGW).

Initially in more recent years discussion was all about AGW but that focus seems to have morphed into discussion about Climate Change.

Evidence I observe indicates human activity is causing change in weather and climate in some regions but not globally at the same time. And I see evidence underwater as well as evidence above water.
I do not observe sea level rise occurring worldwide at the same time.

It's one thing to take action on the cause of global problem caused by a global gas, and I think it's another thing to take action on regional problems caused by nutrient overload pollution occurring sometimes in some regions.

Inaction and failure to reduce the nutrient load and curb impact and consequences is the most serious problem.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 4 September 2016 10:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/con't

What Marohasy has done is taken one jigsaw puzzle piece labeled BOM, complained about her lack of access to the *pigments/knowledge* of that piece - she thinks she can see a speck of dirt.

Aha, she declares, the whole jigsaw puzzle image of a million pieces is a fraud!

That ain't 'science' that's just being silly. That the BOM/auditor general, Minister refuse an inquiry is proof there's a fraud to Marohasy and anyone silly enough to believe her. That ain't 'science' either!

Anyone who expects a single reference (or a few) to prove AGW/CC is more than silly. It doesn't work like that.

The IPCC summarizes thousands of papers, they compile the facts and the *message* into a meaningful whole. I have read every single page of every IPCC report. Have you?

I can understand what those reports are saying, and why, and have looked behind them into the published literature upon which those IPCC reports are based on. Could you do what I have done and understand it?

I gave you a ref to the IPCC didn't I and to Google Scholar? Are you so utterly incapable to go there yourself and read it for yourself? Apparently yes, you're incapable. You are not my problem.

Well listen closely Leo *I am not your slave!* I owe you nothing!

The climate scientists owe you nothing.

We've done the work, done the hard yards, invested the time to understand what is going on. It took me almost 10 years to get my head around everything, and still I know nothing compared to a working climate scientist.

I gave you links to ask them questions directly - why you asking me questions?

I provided many links that would put you onto that same journey that leads to the proofs of AGW/CC. Ignorance and laziness is not an acceptable excuse.

Do you imagine your comments upset me? Not in the least. You are as irrelevant to me as climate science is to you.

Do not blame me for your own failures and total lack of personal responsibility!
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 4 September 2016 10:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

I came across iron filings being used a few years ago as a means to produce alga. which in turn, is meant to take up carbon. The suggestion would not have arisen if algae creates warmth.
As has been suggested, you say that you have written an article to Huffington Post, get it published in a Science Journal.
I grew up in an area where we literally had a small rivulet in our backyard, warmth and a receding of water flow proceeded the growth of algal blooms. Farmers took water from the rivulet for irrigation. Algal blooms were a feature of summer.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 4 September 2016 11:25:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big-mouth says:” and still I know nothing “.
That sums it up. You know nothing, you certainly do not know how to shut your big mouth.
The reason I asked the question was to have you faced with the fact that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. The human effect is trivial and not measurable.
An ignoramus cannot accept this fact, so you throw around irrelevant links, and proclaim the lie that you have supplied a reference to science demonstrating the unproven measurable human effect.
You could not be as stupid as you pretend to be, big-mouth, so your nonsense stems from your dishonesty.

When the head fraud-promoter the IPCC first announced, some years ago, “with “95% certainty” the unsupported “science” that global warming was human caused, They stated that the science would show a “hotspot” in the troposphere, which would be the “human signature”
Since then, of course, no “hot spot”, no human “signature, and no apology from the IPCC for its baseless lies. John Cook, the unqualified failed cartoonist who runs the deceptively named climate fraud promotion site “Skeptical Science”, attempted a support of the non-existent “hot spot”

Jo Nova said, reporting on Cook’s failure:
“Inasmuch as anyone can tell, the hot spot is created (in the models that is, not in real life) by several mechanisms, but one of the main ones is the extra water vapor that is supposed to be “thickening the blanket” 10km above the tropics. The models assume relative humidity stays constant, and if it did, that would mean an increase in the greenhouse effect due to water vapor. Note that the same radiosondes that record no rising temperatures in the upper troposphere also record that relative humidity fell(Paltridge 2009), which is what you’d expect if there was negative feedback, but not what you expect if you trust computer models. “
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 September 2016 12:22:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus,

I wish we could quickly INCREASE the amount of algae!

Check this headline!
"120 tons of iron sulphate of fertilization into the ocean boosted fish catch by over 100,000 tons - We get a lot of fish and solve the CO2 climate problem"
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

When they die, they fall to the bottom of the ocean where they trap the carbon for millions of years. That would reduce the KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, peer-reviewed fact of CO2's 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!

As Thomas said, it's all about the sun, and known thermodynamic laws. Your body produces heat which is a result of the food chain, which itself is a result of the amount of energy coming from the sun. The food chain is just juggling the pieces on the board: the sun determines how many 'pieces there are in the first place. Suggesting anything else breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

Sunlight hits the earth, and creates the potential for different kinds of heat energy.

ALBEDO measures how much light is reflected back into space as light.

Some of that light is turned into HEAT energy, depending on the ALBEDO.

Life responds to the above equation in a variety of different ways: juggling pieces on the board around depending on the story in different locations.

Although some of that 'juggling' of pieces on the board may not be conducive to what we call civilisation today. It's not a co-incidence that *most* previous ELE's have mostly been caused by extreme climate changes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS PER SECOND!
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 September 2016 12:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Leo Lane: "The reason I asked the question was to have you faced with the fact that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate."

Oh really, how nice. You failed Leo.

Your opinionated ad hominem spiel can't make me un-know what I have done and know. It makes zero difference to climate science or to scientists or to reality.

re: "The human effect is trivial and not measurable."

Really? Go prove it Leo. Show me and all the readers here the evidence you got.

re: "ignoramus, irrelevant links, the lie, unproven measurable human effect, stupid, big-mouth, nonsense, dishonesty, blah blah blah!"

Was it something I said Leo?

<snipping the sniping> Cry me a river?

Living in Leo's Land where an ex-journalist (JoNova who can't use her right name or get a job at a newspaper for a decade plus) is the scientific expert. Impressive.

That and Marohasy? Monckton's Lies? WUWT? Or a Heller who can't use his right name either? Roberts and his Galileo group spin?

Plus ad hominem verbal abuse, unscientific swill, with poor self-control and all backed up with no knowledge? Impressive!

Some would recognise the anger here is the second stage of Grief.

"The five stages, DENIAL, ANGER, bargaining, depression and acceptance are a part of the framework that makes up our learning to live with the [CHERISHED BELIEFS] we lost [are losing]."
http://grief.com/the-five-stages-of-grief/

On father's day we can all celebrate the humour found in 3yo temper tantrums. :-)

Let me share a secret. Thanks for your responses Leo but know that my replies are not actually directed at you personally: my comments are meant for the 'readers' of this here OLO, now and into the future.

I'm like a Nurseryman who loves planting seeds. Like Jesus I too know the difference between good soil and rocky ground.

I'm also teaching others how to handle responses like yours. :-)

Believe what you want Leo. Nothing to do with me.

AGW/CC Denial has already lost the War of Words.

It's all over Red Rover. :-)

Refs: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm -
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 4 September 2016 1:12:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green, the juvenile delinquent who backs climate fraud. He has no science to support his position, so he resorts to childish slogans, like “Hiroshima bombs”:, which emanates from the failed cartoonist, John Cook, who runs a website promoting climate fraud.
Jo Nova comments on Cook’s nonsense.“ John Cook’s figure sounded like a marvelous marketing gimmick, scientifically it was meaningless. For starters, the Sun blasts 1,950 Hiroshima’s worth of energy over the Earth every second (h.t to Wellerstein). So we got four more? Did Cook forget to mention that, or was he just trying to scare people?”
Jo explains that Cook’s units are a parody of science: “The atomic-bomb delivered all the energy in one spot, but the sun spreads it out. Science becomes mindless if you mash up things like volume and area. A million square miles is not like two square feet. McDonalds sells a Hiroshima Bomb worth of Big-Macs every 8.6 days. It’s like a bomb in the same sense that black is like white, 1 is like 2, being alive is like being dead. Things can be equated-to-inanity. Cook has achieved that.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/
It is easy to see why Max is the school dunce.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 September 2016 1:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo,
please abide by the forum rules regarding name calling etc. It's not only polite, it will help you appear less rabid in your tinfoil hat sales.
Regards,
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 September 2016 2:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max,

I found the data on which the findings in this paper were based and therefore I was able to find the locations where "We're were able to create more land". According to Max, the authors meant that the land was actually being created by humans "not natural, but by construction."

ummmm,

this new land was being 'constructed' in locations like this:

* west coast of Madagascar
* south east coast of Africa
* south west coast of Africa
* western Great Australian Bight
* Libya
* all round the north coast of the Black Sea (I know Putin did 'reclaim' some land there recently but I don't think that's the same thing)
* the Maldives (no surprise - we already knew this).
* Irian Jaya
* Borneo
* North Korea
* most of the east coast of South America

Do I need to point out that none of these places are renowned for the land reclamation works. Maybe nature did play a part
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 4 September 2016 4:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
great linking there to establish your claims!
(As usual).

No doubt if I were to stumble upon the actual study, your comprehension and cherrypicking would be the issue again, as demonstrated by your 'respect' for the Working Group. Your particular 'respect' stomps its foot and DEMANDS I accept one cherrypicked part of the report. But of course, you also demand that I just ignore an entire Chapter about the fine tuned REGIONAL methodology, and findings of this better methodology, because you don't like the conclusions. Based on this clearer, better methodology, they said it is LIKELY we will see more extreme weather events with climate change!

Basically, because you just copied and pasted these cherrypicked chunks off some cheap denialist site, I don't believe a thing you say. Trust has to be earned on the internet. Certain topics attract the tinfoil hat wearing types, and so it is not innocent until proven guilty, but the other way around when you fall on the tinfoil hat wearing side of the fence.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 September 2016 4:41:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear. It seems that when Max realises he has been shown to be wrong the solution is to throw a tantrum.

Here's the data Max:

\http://aqua-monitor.appspot.com

Actually its a pretty impressive piece of work.

Do you want me to provide links so that you can find the places I mentioned on the map?

As to your AR5 debacle, I really can't make things any easier for you. If you can't (or won't) get the logic there's little more I can say.

Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"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? ....

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?"

Max never answered. Saying they were wrong would get him excommunicated from the alarmist fraternity. And saying they were right would make my point. Solution: ignore it,
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 4 September 2016 5:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
on Cook’s nonsense of 4 Hiroshima bombs. Jo Nova is right to ridicule it imho. Of course she neglects that embodied in Cook's formulation was itself an intentional ridicule of every other hand-waving trick used by deniers to spin the science.

SkpSc started being focused entirely on 'communicating' accurately the data, science, and correcting misrepresentations and misunderstandings and misreporting about what the science actually meant. I think John Cook figured, well if you can't beat them join them - they made an attention-getter tool. It wasn't important in itself. I still it was a silly thing to do, not worth it.

Like Jo Nova, Marohasy, Monckton, Heller, Alan Watts et al John Cook isn't a climate scientist either. Not even a scientist himself.

His expertise is in communications and psychology, and he researched why so many people were rejecting the solid science in deference to non-experts like Jo Nova and online forum activists such as Leo. So John Cook studied that not climate science itself.

Not everything he did / tried (or others have done) worked or was very effective. That doesn't mean failure. What he and his mates tried to do was impossible from the get go. It helps to be realistic in the first place.

I've been telling people on RC etc for years they were wasting their time to imagine they can make a difference with deniers via web forums. They thought I was a mad idiot. (shrug)

But when I said that Al Gore did the greatest disservice to climate science communication to the public with his doco, well the "warmists" went ballistic (shock horror)!

Deniers aren't the only people who can get bent out of shape and start conspiracy theories! LOL

It's called being Human, we all have the same flaws and strengths. Everyone suffers from Cognitive Dissonance in life, there's no escape. Fact is people are stupid. So imagine where we would be today if the scientific revolution never happened?

Mmmmm. No climate science, TV weather reports, cars, planes, satellites, no iPhones and no online forums, mmmmmmm. ;-)
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 4 September 2016 6:53:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze:
>>Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"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? ....

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?”<<

The AR5 represents our best understanding of climate impacts so far, so they were RIGHT to point out the pitfalls of a global model. They then went on to demonstrate a much BETTER model, one that FAR MORE ACCURATELY models REGIONAL events. Both statements are true. There is no contradiction.

Compare it to the telescope. Old optical telescopes were pretty good at getting us closer to the planets, but not so good at explaining quasars. A report outlining BOTH the limitations of the optical telescope AND the extra knowledge benefits of the radio telescope is not contradicting itself. It’s just discussing the pro’s and con’s of different methodologies. Right now you’re stomping your little foot insisting that radio telescopes don’t exist, because the report said old optical telescopes couldn’t see much beyond our solar system! Yes, the report said their global methodologies had low confidence. Which is why they shifted to regional models, and why they included THOSE conclusions in the Summary for PolicyMakers. It's not hard. Really.

REGARDING WATER TO LAND
Interesting that the map glows brightest green around China's coast and the Aral sea, as I pointed out from in their summary! But I will agree that they said the natural action of accretion contributed to some land growth. Which doesn't contradict the fact that they ALSO said land reclamation, and that WE created most of it! Their summary.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 4 September 2016 7:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

The suggestion to add more nutrient to the ocean was laughable because ocean currents could transport that nutrient into already nutrient overloaded waters.
There were even reports of putting shade cloth over the GBR.
Even on this thread there is talk about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second and we are supposed to worry about that. LOL

ant, look back into my post on page 17 and honestly assess whether or not there is, or could be, warmth in algae that has apparently not been generally known.
Or maybe it was known but has been skipped in AGW science in a similar way to the skipping of questions and dodging of matters going on here on this thread.

I would have thought Thomas would have said something about the 1,900 whatever Hiroshima (natural) bombs per second, not just 4 per second.

Numbers are being fiddled in favour of AGW, that is for sure.

I only commented on Huffington Post, numerous times, including to replies. I did not write an article there.

There are some 4,000 species of algae. Some are good for fertilizer. Some grow in freezing cold under ice, some need heat.

I grew up mustering and pulling stock from river waterhole bogs where the air was thick and like stuffy, seemingly not good to breathe.

Do some tests on algae temp yourself, compare with sterile water temp
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 4 September 2016 9:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

Taking temperature where there is algae, does not mean that algal growth has been the cause of warmth.

Are there algal blooms in the atmosphere, JF Aus?
If not, what is your explanation for radiated infrared forcing in the atmosphere?

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

The table at the bottom of the article provides the level of forcing for a number of greenhouse gases. It is measured in watts per square metre, the measure for CO2 in 2015 was 1.939 W/Sq M, for all green house gases it was 2.974 W/Sq M.

Paper that backs up forcing in the atmosphere:

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

Astro Physicists writes about how irrational man created climate change deniers are:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/07/26/487457043/the-remarkable-inconsistency-of-climate-denial?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

A geologist spruiks Ian Plimer's view on Earth requiring a mantle of greenhouse gases, and makes interesting comments about boreholes providing useful data. A further illustration that a thermometer is unnecessary in showing an increase in temperature:

http://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-6399
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 September 2016 8:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

Empirical evidence of substance indicates the following (to me at least):

Wind comes in contact with surface waters of oceans and lakes and temperature of that wind is influenced by temperature of that water.
Sometimes that wind is warmed due to algae associated warmth in that water, sometimes wind is cooled due to impact of algae.
There is more I could say but not space and time to write it this morning.

I don't believe I am a climate change denier. I think anthropogenic change in climate is occurring regionally but not globally at the same time.

I suggest carefully consider this.
Cloud can be seen forming above visible and known algae and algae inundated waters. Thanks to NASA.

I cannot understand how radiative forcing causes cloud and storms to form in one region and not all regions of the globe at the same.
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 5 September 2016 10:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kudos to ant, Max Green, Robert LePage, Toni Lavis, Aidan, SteeleRedux, Peter King, Bugsy, Andras Smith, Luciferase, Cobber the hound, John Ryan, & Alan B. for their contributions.

(imo) What the future holds for Climate Change Politics globally is more of the following:

The US has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/03/g20-summit-obama-to-make-climate-change-announcement-as-may-heads-to-china-live

Forecast the Facts becomes ClimateTruth.org in 2015 http://climatetruth.org/about/
eg ClimateTruth.org worked with a coalition of organizations to call on AARP [ http://www.aarp.org ] to leave the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an extreme right-wing group that lobbies against the interests of seniors and blocks climate action. AARP quickly announced that they will not be renewing their membership! http://climatetruth.org/campaigns/

Netherlands Court Case
http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/
http://theconversation.com/what-does-the-dutch-court-ruling-on-climate-targets-mean-for-australia-43841
http://theconversation.com/dutch-courts-climate-ruling-may-force-other-states-to-cut-emissions-or-else-43882

Landmark Oregon Federal US Court Case begins Sept 13th
http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/
Global Legal Actions
http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/global-legal-actions/

The IPA, Malcolm Roberts, Marohasy and all the others who sew discord and disinformation about Climate Science have as much chance of succeeding as the anti-equality anti-constitution white racists had against School Desegregation in the 1960s USA. None!

Meanwhile living in the real world is Shri Piyush Goyal Minister of State with Independent Charge for Power, Coal, New & Renewable Energy and Mines in the Government of India. “Large Scale Integration of Renewable Energy” April 2016 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uURYQSsAN_8 (35 mins)

@25mins just 3 mins! “What the West is doing … is anti-development and anti the fight against climate change… affordable energy access for all the people of the world” http://youtu.be/uURYQSsAN_8?t=25m6s

The India Report http://powermin.nic.in/sites/default/files/uploads/Final_Consolidated_Report_RE_Technical_Committee.pdf

Plus the Global Future will include NPP Electricity to power transport, desalination, industry and more.
eg SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report
http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/pages/nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-report-release/

August 2016: China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science Mag, 353,
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/547.full?ijkey=7.4C0Yg90r8G.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Nukes WITH Renewable Energy and Safer Environmental standards globally
http://www.china-brain.com/Resources/China–the-Green-Energy-Superpower/229.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116300600
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/06/30/world-bank-india-sign-deal-to-boost-solar-globally
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/13/india-secures-2-5-billion-debt-funding-rooftop-solar-power-projects/
http://mnre.gov.in/schemes/decentralized-systems/solar-cities/
http://www.makeinindia.com/sector/renewable-energy

Eventually this is where the planet will end up (absent war) ie almost sane but reasonable and practical at the end of the day.

Australia will get there too, well, eventually.

The Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/hamilton-karoly-minority-report-climate-change-authority/7813638

Climate Change Authority Special Review: Minority Report
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/cca-minority-report
vs
http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/special-review/towards-climate-policy-toolkit-special-review-australias-climate-goals-and
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 5 September 2016 10:53:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF AUS: MORE ALGAE = LOWER TEMPS!

Here's what the ACTUAL science says:

“Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have COMPLETED ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.”
http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

Not enough? Mt Pinatubo spewed “40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.”
goo.gl/RLY6Ij

Not enough? Here's the peer-reviewed result from the ocean fertilisation experts:

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science

That’s sad. I was starting to get excited that algae might be a silver bullet, but at least it's something in our arsenal to more gradually reduce CO2. (Spreading olivine around to soak up CO2 might even be cheaper, but that's another topic).

The bottom line is this.

MORE ALGAE = LESS CO2 = LOWER TEMPERATURES.

At least according to real science.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 5 September 2016 1:30:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green,

If more algae = less heat in your CO2 belief then why is sea ice melting faster and more than normal in the algae inundated Bering Sea?

Ocean food web ecosystem's cannot tolerate the algae impacting them already.
Have your CO2 belief iron experts shown how they will keep their fertilization out of the natural food web ecosystems?

Can anyone provide scientific evidence algae does not help to heat the BIQ building in Germany?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 5 September 2016 8:30:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Siberian Arctic Sea Loss Aug 2 to Sept 2 (giff)
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb0932601e970d-pi

Latest Arctic Sea Ice Extent Satellite Image 2nd Sept 2016
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

from
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/piomas-september-2016.html
and
http://nsidc.org/

My new song:

What's BOM got to do, got to do with it?
What's BOM but a second hand distraction?
What's BOM got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a brain when a mind can be broken?
-

Anyone heard of the US earthquake swarms most likely caused by Fracking?
Jan 2016
http://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/
June 2016
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/23/new-research-confirms-earthquake-swarms-caused-oil-and-gas-industry

What about the massive shift in upper atmosphere winds? No?
A 60-year pattern in the stratosphere changes up
Date:
September 2, 2016
Source:
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Summary:
High above Earth's tropics, a pattern of winds changed recently in a way that scientists had never seen in more than 60 years of consistent measurements.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160902142132.htm

It's called science folks.

Now back to the Fin.Review.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 5 September 2016 9:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF AUS,
“If more algae = less heat in your CO2 belief then why is sea ice melting faster and more than normal in the algae inundated Bering Sea?”

Because of climate change! (Slaps hand to forehead).

Bering Sea is NOT overloaded with nutrients into what the scientists call an Oceanic Dead Zone.
LOOK AT THE MAP OF DEAD ZONES!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Instead, it has HIGH algae stimulating the base of the food chain. Not DEADLY. Just HIGH. Get it? A ‘Goldilocks’ level of nutrient and algae. It’s just BRIMMING WITH LIFE!

“On the U.S. side, commercial fisheries catch approximately $1 billion worth of seafood annually, while Russian Bering Sea fisheries are worth approximately $600 million annually.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Sea#Biodiversity

THIS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND ASSERTIONS OF THE ALGAE IN THE BERING SEA!

Now, I’ve danced around your algae assertions enough. It’s time for you to watch 2 very short videos. Myth busters, and another one. We’re talking basic physics. BASIC! It’s about all I can understand of physics, myself, so I like to keep it that way.

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/
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 5 September 2016 10:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green,

Calm down Max.
I did not say anything about a dead zone in the Bering Sea.
I said inundated, as can be seen in satellite images compared to other areas of ocean with no visible density of algae.

Value of a fish catch these days is inflated due to fish depletion causing higher prices.

Vitus Bering reported a great river of fur following his discovery of the Bering Sra so think how many fish used to be there to feed so many seals and other animals.

NASA sat images show micro algae that cannot be denied.
There is no world renowned big fishery in the Bering Sea.
Salmon stocks in the region are known to be devastated generally.
Seals are killed as fisherman and animals now struggle in competition for food.
Mutton birds arrive emaciated and drop dead in Australia after migration from Bering Sea waters.
U.S. fishermen are having to travel to western Pacific waters in their struggle to find fish.

Can anyone show evidence there are no electrochemical heat properties in ocean algae and no precipitation linked to algae causing change in weather and climate
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:04:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green, you're being Trolled mate. :-)

Which is fine because it only shows up the insincere troll as being the manipulator not you. Still there is the waste of time aspect. Though you are doing a great job of sharing some excellent info. I don't think he or she (could be JM in disguise?) has looked at a single ref, and if they did they sure wouldn't comprehend it's meaning. LOL
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:13:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

Oceans and seas generally have been warmer than usual, South Eastern USA is being hit by the extra warmth in the Mexican Gulf at present.

Warmth plus nutrients are conducive to creating algal blooms.

I notice you did not comment on radiative forcing in the atmosphere.

Go on believing that algae creates warmth; JF Aus, I certainly don't accept it.

Until you can show that radiative infrared forcing has no impact on climate, I will no longer respond to your comments.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:24:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Can anyone show evidence there are no electrochemical heat properties in ocean algae and no precipitation linked to algae causing change in weather and climate"
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:04:23 AM

YES!

Can you show substantiated evidence accepted by a consensus of working scientists in this field there are electrochemical heat properties in ocean algae and precipitation linked to algae CAUSING change in weather and climate?

NO!

Next silly question insert here:_______________
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus,
You have not responded substantively to these facts yet, so I'll repeat them.

“Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have COMPLETED ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.”
http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

Not enough? Mt Pinatubo spewed “40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.”
goo.gl/RLY6Ij

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science

Why are the ice caps melting?
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.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

How much extra energy does this add?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Have a nice day.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 8:50:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, where has mhaze gone?
mhaze:
>>Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"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? ....

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?”<<

The AR5 represents our best understanding of climate impacts so far, so they were RIGHT to point out the pitfalls of a global model. They then went on to demonstrate a much BETTER model, one that FAR MORE ACCURATELY models REGIONAL events. Both statements are true. There is no contradiction.

Compare it to the telescope. Old optical telescopes were pretty good at getting us closer to the planets, but not so good at explaining quasars. A report outlining BOTH the limitations of the optical telescope AND the extra knowledge benefits of the radio telescope is not contradicting itself. It’s just discussing the pro’s and con’s of different methodologies. Right now you’re stomping your little foot insisting that radio telescopes don’t exist, because the report said old optical telescopes couldn’t see much beyond our solar system! Yes, the report said their global methodologies had low confidence. Which is why they shifted to regional models, and why they included THOSE conclusions in the Summary for PolicyMakers. It's not hard. Really.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 8:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Machanick:
"Roberts claims that the warming cycle ending the 17th going into the 18th century was faster and bigger than the modern one he picks out.

"The data actually shows [global] cooling over the time period he picked out. But never mind, even if there is a CET period with faster and bigger warming than any today, that’s not warming of the whole planet.

"There are other people out there who make similar points about local warming; even if true, those can only be about local trends that can be influenced by many factors that change the local but not global distribution of energy around the planet."

"Also Cox, points out that it is not just about the trend line and correlation between temperature and CO_2 – but also understanding the physical mechanisms, which we’ve understood since the 19th century."

"...Central England temperature record [by Roberts] does not go back to the mid-1600s in full detail. The daily record goes back to 1772; monthly to 1659. I don’t know who claims the 17th century had the hottest period; WikiPedia has the full range and reports the highest temperature as being in 2014."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/australian-silliness-and-july-temperature-records/comment-page-4/#comments
[end quotes]

Roberts is not the only one who can't understand Local Temps/Data vs Global, Marohasy can't either..

The World's Oceans comprises 72% of the planet. Australia comprises land area 5% of the land mass, or only 1.4% of the planet's surface.

BOM only uses 100 sites for it's national mean temp data, but even if they used every single site, and even if the results put Australia's temps at an anomaly 2C below what they show today, it would make ZERO significance to the combined data output by Nasa/Giss and every other provider.

The scientific results would still show global warming being man-made.

Marohasy ignores these facts when making unproven claims about the BOM/GISS data. She does not tell the whole scientific truth. Remove Australia from the planet - same AGW/CC results.

Appears that logic and scientific facts are the last thing on Marohasy's mind when she publishes her articles at the IPA & elsewhere.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 11:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi mhaze, where did you go?
>>Just to reiterate this was my previous post:

"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? ....

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?”<<

The AR5 represents our best understanding of climate impacts so far, so they were RIGHT to point out the pitfalls of a global model. They then went on to demonstrate a much BETTER model, one that FAR MORE ACCURATELY models REGIONAL events. Both statements are true. There is no contradiction.

Compare it to the telescope. Old optical telescopes were pretty good at getting us closer to the planets, but not so good at explaining quasars. A report outlining BOTH the limitations of the optical telescope AND the extra knowledge benefits of the radio telescope is not contradicting itself. It’s just discussing the pro’s and con’s of different methodologies. Right now you’re stomping your little foot insisting that radio telescopes don’t exist, because the report said old optical telescopes couldn’t see much beyond our solar system! Yes, the report said their global methodologies had low confidence. Which is why they shifted to regional models, and why they included THOSE conclusions in the Summary for PolicyMakers. It's not hard. Really.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:39:52 AM

Thomas,

You answer yes to that question, so please provide scientific evidence accordingly?

Please provide evidence Stanford Uni did not extract electricity from algae?
Please provide evidence photosynthesis does not cause algae microorganisms to multiply and give off heat in the BIQ building in Germany.

What proof do you have, Thomas, that there are 30,000 working scientists in agreement with AGW and CO2 emissions as you point out?

And why, Thomas, have you said nothing to Max Green about his repeated (scare tactic) claim of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second hitting this planet when in reality there are 1,950 Hiroshima bombs of radiation hitting this planet every second, as Leo Lane pointed out on page 40 of this thread.
What impact do the extra bombs 4 of radiation have?
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:56:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ ant, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:24:02 AM

ant,

Oceans and seas generally have had more anthropogenic nutrient than ever before, nutrient from over 7.3 billion humans dumped daily plus from their land use.

The Gulf of Mexico has the world biggest dead zone and the Caribbean is greener than historically known previously.

I do not comment on radiative forcing because I focus on following nutrient and algae.

I am not saying radiative infrared forcing has no impact on climate. Show me where I have said that.
I think it would have impact on climate, for example via photosynthesis in algae and subsequent increase mass in algae that influences our planets albedo.

What's more I do not use the word "creating".

It's anthropogenic nutrient that is the problem. Nutrient overload, nutrient pollution causing algae blooms that generate heat that would not be generated if the nutrient was not available.
Look at the BIQ building, algae used there would not exist if nutrient was not pumped into the bio reactors.
If nutrient is not available then algae does not grow prolifically.

I again suggest, look into the links in my post on page 17 of this thread.

What evidence do AGW proponents have to prove CO2 emissions are the only cause of warming?
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 3:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phew Max, we finally got there. Its only taken two weeks, umpteen posts and two threads for you to finally concede that I was right when I said that AR5_WG1 said there was low confidence that there are any global trends in climate extreme events. You've spent all that time trying to deflect, but we did get there.

Are we gunna go through every time I point out a fact that you'd prefer wasn't so:

* temps in the Holocene higher than present 25% of the time. 'Outrageous' says Max until, kicking and screaming he agrees that that is what the data says.

* natural processes adding land mass to coast areas. That can't be true says Max. Its gotta be caused by man (since everything to an alarmist is caused by man). But now alas he concedes that that is what the data says.

I guess its pretty easy to be certain of your position when you know little of the actual data and reject anything that doesn't suit - or at least reject it until it becomes untenable to continue to do so.

Even after being presented with the data MAx wants to obfuscate and deflect. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 3:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bigmouth O’Reilly says :”The scientific results would still show global warming being man-made. :”
That is nonsense, bigmouth.
You have been asked repeatedly to give a reference to science which shows any measurable man-made effect on climate, and you failed to do so.
You now assert the lie which I have just quoted.
Of course I understand that anything you say to support your position as a fraud-backer will be dishonest and untruthful, like your statement which I have just quoted, so I will do my best to point out each further instance of your lying as it arises.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JF how's it going? In answer to your questions, in order:

No. I answered the question you asked, now you go do the work
yourself if you're interested. I'm not a computer, or anyone's slave.

Next, no I won't. Next, no. Next, ample.

I usually don't answer 'why' questions, but I'll make an exception. ie Because I am not a control freak, and Max can read what I say of he wishes. Same as you can.

It's not a scare tactic it basically true and backed by science. Facts can be scary for some people aka the truth hurts but band-aids are cheap.

Lastly, a lot. If you want the specifics you can go look it up yourself.

Q. to ant: "What evidence do AGW proponents have to prove CO2 emissions are the only cause of warming?"

A. None. Your question is totally disconnected from reality or any sense of realism and truth. I think you're a Wizard https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wizard_troll_doll-low_res.jpg

mhaze, very funny retort to Max. You've won a bronzed banana for your wit and extraneous exaggeration. Collect it at the box office on your way out. :-)

Meanwhile the Oceans - 70% of the planets surface vs Marohasy's conspiratorial concerns about the BOM.

IUCN:

This is no longer a single story of ocean warming challenges to coral reefs, but a rapidly growing list of alarming changes across species at ecosystem scales, and across geographies spanning the entire world.

It is pervasive change, driven by ocean warming and other stressors already operating in ways we are only beginning to understand.

More than 93% of the enhanced heating since the 1970s resulting from human activities has been absorbed by the ocean, and data show a sustained and accelerating upward trend in ocean warming.

The scale of ocean warming depicted in the report is truly staggering: if the same amount of heat that has gone into the top 2 km of the ocean between 1955 and 2010 had instead gone into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere, the Earth would have seen a warming of 36°C.

http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/news/20160905/article/global-warning-ocean-warming
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 10:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi mhaze,
//phew Max, we finally got there. Its only taken two weeks, umpteen posts and two threads for you to finally concede that I was right//

You copied and pasted your denialist blog straight into the forum here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

All I did, in the very next post, was just ask for a source. Show me where I denied the quote or you're a liar?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327519

You then smugly tried to create a divide between the Working Group's conclusions on Extreme Weather, and the Summary for Policy Makers. (SPM). //We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM.  Science v. politics..//
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327522

I then immediately clarified that the SPM was PART of the Working Group report and that the SPM only summarised what the Working Group CONCLUDES about Extreme Weather. Guess what? It's going to get MORE EXTREME! The Working Group discussed the deficiencies of the global model you CHERRYPICK from and then the advantages and accuracy of the regional model.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327805

As you said, //Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.// If you don't like it, just cherrypick it.

You've been caught out disingenuously & dogmatically dictating denialist dogma. But not only that, now you're congratulating yourself for convincing me to believe the Working Group when that's simply back to front! You're the one who won't accept the Working Group's findings: MORE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ARE **LIKELY**!

You're not just a copy and paste shill, but now you're outright lying. You're a troll, on the same level of 'credibility' as Leo Lane's mad conspiracy theories and JF Aus's algae.

It’s a warning boys and girls.

Don’t rub your brain against tinfoil hat websites, because the disease is catching.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 10:44:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max

mhaze, has some kind of association with WUWT.
Some time ago when discussing ExxonMobil and the mutually exclusive stance of seemingly to support its scientists of the 1970s, and management supporting denier groups with funding; mhaze, suggested he would confer with a mate from WUWT.

At the time, ExxonMobil was being investigated only by the Attorney General of New York State; several other Attorney Generals from other States have since become involved. It is alleged the accepting of science from they're own Professional scientific staff, and funding deniers provided false information to financial markets. It is seen to be criminal activity to provide false information to financial markets.

mhaze, had been trying to create doubt in relation to the alleged criminal activity, even though the situation has not been finalised as yet.

The usual denier style create doubt on all matters; regardless of facts and data.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 8:25:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 10:18:12 PM

Thomas, since you ask how's it going, it's going very well.
It is now clearly obvious you are ducking and weaving to avoid explaining reason for your answers.

It's going well because it is clear you have read my genuine questions and then you intentionally refuse to explain reason for your yes and no quips.
I am aware the real answers would show you are wrong.

Other people on this thread can also see your method of operation, Thomas.

I think it extraordinary you are failing to acknowledge algae contains rhodopsin that has thermal properties, and that Stanford scientists have tapped straight into currents of electrons generated at the cellular level in algae, the latter where you are virtually denying there is any heat generated there at all. Not even a tiny fraction of a degree, multiplied by algae biomass on this planet.

It's also going well especially because you refuse to debate evidence the BIQ building in Germany is using photosynthesis to multiply algae organisms that give off heat, to help warm the building.

And I ask again, where is evidence to prove your claim that 30,000 scientists agree CO2 emissions are causing AGW? 30K you kept repeating.
Basically true backed by science you say. What level of science is that?
I now wonder about your qualifications and motives, Thomas.

It really is extraordinary. You refuse to discuss properties and impact of algae plant matter in oceans that drive weather and regulate temperature.

(copy pasted) oceanservice.noaa.gov › Ocean Facts
The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet's surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all .. (end copy)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

And here I am with a lifetime of experience in underwater ocean exploration.

I would like to thank Jennifer Marohasy and OLO for the article prompting this thread that has led to revealing Professor Brian Cox has knowledge of electrochemical reaction and thermal properties of rhodopsin that is linked to ocean algae, the latter inextricably linked to change in weather and climate.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 10:00:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF AUS: if anyone is dodging the questions, it's you.

Once again: how to you explain that many international tests have found the EXACT OPPOSITE to what you are claiming?

Here's what the ACTUAL science says:
“Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have COMPLETED ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.”
http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

Not enough? Mt Pinatubo spewed “40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.”
goo.gl/RLY6Ij

Not enough? Here's the peer-reviewed result from the ocean fertilisation experts:

“The maximum possible result from iron fertilization, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding practical considerations, is 0.29W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[33] which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6 of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Science
That’s sad. I was starting to get excited that algae might be a silver bullet, but at least it's something in our arsenal to more gradually reduce CO2. (Spreading olivine around to soak up CO2 might even be cheaper, but that's another topic).
The bottom line is this.
MORE ALGAE = LESS CO2 = LOWER TEMPERATURES.
At least according to real science.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 10:17:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the foul mouthed frustrated Leo and the unsuccessful troll JF trying to get a "rise" - go here http://scholar.google.com.au

Have at it lads. Keep trying. :-)

<shaking my head at the gross immaturity, lack of awareness, double-standards, the obvious pathetic lying, the raving big egos, lack of respect, the intolerance and ignorance of it all>

Not my problem. I am not going to help you.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 11:29:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Max Green,

Dust storms also transport nutrient including iron that proliferates algae. I have not said anything ruling out iron so why are you on about that?

I think Max, you do not understand where ocean food web nursery ecosystems are located and that biodiversity within them cannot tolerate even more increase in nutrient.

Mid ocean waters would suit iron fertilisation because they are nutrient poor but practicality is there is no way to stop quantities of added iron nutrient from being transported by currents into the already overloaded food web nursery ecosystems.
Posted by JF Aus, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 12:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RSS has posted for August at +0.458ºC, a small drop on the July figure. This is the third warmest August on record (after 1998 & 2010) and the 31st warmest monthly anomaly on record.

The first 8 months of 2016 average +0.645ºC. For RSS TLT to have 2016 as warmest calendar year (currently that is still 1998 averaging +0.550ºC), the remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.36ºC, which is a little cooler than has so far been seen in 2016. A comparison of recent RSS TLT anomalies with the 1997/98 El Nino years:-

……….1997/99 ....… 2015/16
Dec … +0.302ºC … +0.545ºC
Jan … +0.550ºC … +0.665ºC
Feb … +0.736ºC … +0.978ºC
Mar … +0.585ºC … +0.842ºC
Apr … +0.857ºC … +0.756ºC
May … +0.667ºC … +0.524ºC
Jun … +0.567ºC … +0.467ºC
Jul … +0.605ºC … +0.469ºC
Aug … +0.572ºC … +0.458ºC
Sep … +0.494ºC
Oct … +0.461ºC
Nov … +0.195ºC
Dec … +0.311ºC
Jan … +0.181ºC
Feb … +0.317ºC
Mar … -0.013ºC
Apr … +0.182ºC
May … +0.112ºC
Jun … -0.083ºC

The 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Metric Minima - with satellite images
Look for the Blue near the North Pole
http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/09/the-2016-arctic-sea-ice-metric-minima/

Or spend a few hours on WUWT to salve your self-righteous ego.

Everyone may well have an 'equal right' to hold an opinion, but all opinions are not and never will be equal.

Next to Facts and Truth an Opinion has No Value.

Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction
https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Philosophy-Introduction-Alan-Hausman/dp/113305000X

http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do;jsessionid=B9A6D62FCBED3838D36AB61F84F376DF?N=16+156&Ntk=P_EPI&Ntt=185513661616260196355757760632117151562&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial

Buy it, Read it, and learn something useful for all of Life

http://whitemyth.com/sites/default/files/downloads/UniDocs/Logic%20and%20Philosophy%20-%20A%20Modern%20Introduction%2011E%20(Hausman%20et%20al).pdf
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 1:13:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Dust storms also transport nutrient including iron that proliferates algae. I have not said anything ruling out iron so why are you on about that?//

Shows how meticulously you click the links to find out, doesn't it? It's all in the wiki. Part of the scientific process, when making a scientific assertion, is to try and read what OTHER REAL SCIENTISTS have said about it before running your own tests.

The more algae, the LOWER the global temperature because algae eat warming CO2, and lock it away, and drop to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Where do you think oil comes from? Ancient algae.

TRAPPED SUNLIGHT!

>>>A number of ocean labs, scientists and businesses are exploring fertilization as a means to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the deep ocean, and to increase marine biological productivity which is hypothesized by some to decline as a result of climate change. Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have completed ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.[1] However, controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO
2 sequestration and ecological effects.[2] The most recent open ocean trials of ocean iron fertilization were in 2009 (January to March) in the South Atlantic by project Lohafex, and in July 2012 in the North Pacific off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC).[3]
Fertilization also occurs naturally when upwellings bring nutrient-rich water to the surface, as occurs when ocean currents meet an ocean bank or a sea mount. This form of fertilization produces the world's largest marine habitats. Fertilization can also occur when weather carries wind blown dust long distances over the ocean, or iron-rich minerals are carried into the ocean by glaciers,[4] rivers and icebergs.[5]<<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 2:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good news! I've decided to do some of your work for you.

There IS one way algae can contribute to the warming of the planet. It changes the albedo of ice. So if algae grows on top of ice, it changes the way sunlight interacts with the ice, causing the ice to melt. Mind you, it's really the sun doing the melting, not 'algal heat' or however you phrase it. Inanimate stuff like black carbon or soot can also change the albedo of ice, making it warm. There's nothing unique about algae in this regard.

Anyway, ALGAE = CHANGED ALBEDO ON ICE = MELTING ICE = MORE ALBEDO CHANGES AND FURTHER WARMING.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24062016/tiny-pink-algae-snow-arctic-melting-global-warming-climate-change

Not only that, but as the CO2 warms the oceans, the algae will respond. It will grow more!

>>Toxic blue-green algae prefer warmer water.
Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster.
Warmer water is easier for small organisms to move through and allows algae to float to the surface faster.
Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms.<<
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

>>Warming of the upper ocean may stimulate plankton metabolism, enhancing photosynthesis. This effect has received little attention, but new research suggests that it could be important enough to spur a net increase in global ocean productivity.<<
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1069.html

BUT KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A RESPONSE TO CLIMATE WARMING.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 4:20:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the following link it states:
Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms.
http://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Let's be clear about this.
Algae must have nutrient in order to grow.
Growth must occur in order for photosynthesis to occur in algae.
Nutrient must be there in the first place, then sunlight.

Algae does not generate nutrient for it's own species.
For algae to bloom there must be enough nutrient, or, an overload of nutrient to feed a bloom AND PROMOTE MORE BLOOMS.

Nutrient overload amounting to nutrient pollution provides over abundance of nutrient causing over-abundance of algae including historically unprecedented anthropogenic proliferation of algae and more algae blooms, including toxic species.

Pause for a moment and carefully consider there may be more than one cause of change in climate and warming of ocean and lake waters.
Consider warming from the bottom up, from under the ocean surface, not just from the atmosphere - top down.

Apply the purpose of the Precautionary Principle.

I suggest carefully consider reason and need to care and help understand that anthropogenic proliferated algae may be impacting the marine environment in other ways, such as already causing food deprivation and malnutrition that is increasing rates of non communicable disease (NCD) including maternal mortality, plus mass mortality of marine animals. Plus devastation of ocean ecosystems.

Ego and jealousy and/or greed and politics should be put aside.

Absolute urgency is involved. There should be no confusion.

Solutions to the algae involve absolutely major economically stimulating opportunities, including nutrient trading, proper sanitation, and development of profitable sewage treatment and water ecosystem management. Including for the present river sewer systems of Europe and worldwide.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 8 September 2016 9:37:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little bit of housecleaning:

1. ant,
"mhaze, suggested he would confer with a mate from WUWT."
No I didn't say any such thing.

What I did say was that I followed the advice of a commenter at WUWT to read the actual Exxon papers to see why the 'case' against Exxon was rubbish and destined to fail. I read those papers and urged you to do likewise so as to not make a fool of yourself by buying the gumph being pushed by the activists. As usual you refused to read anything that might upset your beliefs and so have spent 10 months writing about something that was clearly, from the outset, utter propaganda.

Read this (or not) to see how the case has fallen apart. The article makes many of the points I tried to educate you on almost a yar ago now: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-exxon-case-unraveled-1472598472

2. Max,
"You copied and pasted your denialist blog straight into the forum here." You've made this claim several times without the slightest attempt at evidence. The quotes were from AR5. They were probably mentioned in myriad blogs since they were rather important in that they represented a significant climb down by the IPCC from their earlier scaremongering in previous reports.

"All I did, in the very next post, was just ask for a source. Show me where I denied the quote or you're a liar?"

Who said you "denied the quote"?

The fact is that I used Ar5 to show that there are no trends, good or bad, in global climate extremes. I never denied that the IPCC models suggest trends in region extremes. But you sought to deny the evidence on the global data by concentrating on the regional data. I accepted all the data for what its worth while you accepted that data that supported your beliefs.

My point about the SPM was that, while the Assessment Reports (flawed though they may be) are written by the scientists, the SPM are written by governments. Simple as that.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 September 2016 10:33:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@mhaze "the SPM are written by governments."

False. The SPMs are all authored by the Scientists of the various Review committees. They are volunteers too btw, they receive no remuneration for their work or time. In fact, what usually happens is that one gets roped into being the volunteer for the job from hell to write the draft SPM, then the rest contribute their ideas/edits, until they all agree.

Then before these SPMs are finally accepted by the IPCC review process, various Govt reps sit in the final review that can go on for days and all the way to sunrise arguing about anything and everything (incl a single word out of thousands), between various Govt Reps and the scientists who wrote the SPM.

Eventually after much stress, sophistry and verbal abuse/insults compromises are made so the scientists can get back to their real jobs.

That's what gets published by the IPCC and then accepted by the UNFCCC which goes through the whole process again in their own way.

So what mhaze is purporting here is in fact false. Governments do NOT write the SPMs. Mhaze is spreading untrue disinformation here and everywhere else he publishes his incorrect faulty beliefs and opinions.

The proof for my corrections can be found via http://www.ipcc.ch

I will not waste my precious time giving a direct url link in the lame hope that in their impassioned desire to prove me wrong that mhaze and others might just stumble across something else they have got seriously wrong too.

Simple as that!

“Fiddling while Rome burns” is basically now a modern day metaphor. Meaning: “To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.”

@JF Aus re "And here I am with a lifetime of experience in underwater ocean exploration."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#329057 et cetera

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#329081 et cetera

Let me Google that for You
http://scholar.lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+science%2C+oceans%2C+and+global+warming

-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus,
there's a *tiny* bit of truth in your argument. But that's the problem. It's *tiny*. In the smallest of the changed albedo categories.

The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER!

0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

There are only TINY changes to TINY areas of ocean off our coasts. Fractions of less than 1% of the earth's surface. There is no known physics that can demonstrate algae to add 4 Hiroshima bombs per second to the energy balance of our planet! Even with our oceanic dead zones and areas where the nutrient load is WAY too high, I doubt how much we've increased algae on the planet, and whether that would even CORRESPOND to the earth's MASSIVE increase in temperatures. Let alone the fact that you've got a complete physics BLANK when it comes to proving the CAUSATIVE process for such a huge energy intake.

You simply don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

CO2, on the other hand, is also a tiny percent of the atmosphere. But unlike your mysterious, ZERO evidence assertions for algae, CO2 has a Radiative Forcing that is measurable in any decent physics lab on the planet. A Fourier Device measures energy shadows. It's like a high tech version of shadow puppets, but instead of guessing if it's a rabbit or a dog, the shadow measures energy passing through various gases. The 'shadow' reveals what was trapped: and with CO2, it's long wave radiation, otherwise known as heat.

CO2 traps heat! The amount is measured in the Radiative Forcing Equation, and equates to an EXTRA 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Yes, the earth receives a lot MORE energy per second. But that energy balance was equal, with the majority heading out to space. Guess what CO2 does? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:34:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do you tell mhaze is trolling?
His keyboard is moving.

It’s almost become too petty to bother responding to. But I’ll have a go.
>>>phew Max, we finally got there. Its only taken two weeks, umpteen posts and two threads for you to finally concede that I was right when I said that AR5_WG1 said there was low confidence that there are any global trends in climate extreme events. You've spent all that time trying to deflect, but we did get there.<<<
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459#329039
This is mhaze implying I didn’t concede it from the start. Simple, really, isn’t it? Blowing his own trumpet for all to see, but hey? Let’s not let the truth get in the way. I never denied or deflect from the start. I explained it.

>>>I accepted all the data for what its worth while you accepted that data that supported your beliefs.<<<
What a con! It’s called cherry-picking, not “accepted that data that supported your beliefs”. That’s an outright lie.
The working group clearly concludes that EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ARE *LIKELY* TO INCREASE.

But mhaze says the global model is ‘science’ while the SPM is ‘politics’. Duh! One is merely the summary of the other, and the other is long and complex and mhaze obviously hasn’t bothered with Chapter 10 explaining why they dumped the global model in favour of the regional model. It’s like mhaze is denying cars exist because he can still see a horse. It’s that bad.
>>> Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.<<<

Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it sings the praises of WUWT.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:52:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze
When the IPCC does not suit what you want, you post a misrepresentation.
You admit to some kind of association with the pseudo science source of WUWT.
Then you provide a Wall Street Journal referral; then , expect to be taken seriously.
The Wall Street Journal has lost credibility since being taken over by Murdoch.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 September 2016 1:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh for God's sake Max. The report made two broad points:
1. That the evidence for their previous confidence that there were/would be adverse trends on a global scale wasn't there. They'd made claims based on models in previous AR and the evidence meant they had to retreat from their previous confidence in that model data.
2. The model data for region adverse trends gave them more confidence that such regional trends were real.

I used the first point to make my point. I never rejected the second point because it wasn't pertinent to my point.

You sought to disprove my point by asserting that only the second point was valid and/or that it superceded their global research.

I get that you will never accept your earlier error (just as you've never accepted any of your other errors) so I won't torment you any longer on this.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 September 2016 2:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@mhaze while speaking of 'errors' after talking much rubbish then says:

"so I won't torment you any longer on this."

ROTFLMFAO

Cute. Real cute. You're a blonde too, right? :-)

Is this how it's done on the IPA/OLO forum .... posting flippant bs. I hope I've now lowered myself down to OLOs standards.

Let me know if I need to go even lower to make the 'grade' for being a mindless OLO Ideological Troll where no matter how dumb as dirt an opinion is it's as sacrosanct as Holy Communion in the Catholic Church
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 8 September 2016 3:24:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom O',

Your naivety is rather touching:

"They are volunteers too btw, they receive no remuneration for their work or time."

So are they doing the work for the IPCC during their annual vacations or are they being paid during that time by their various employers? No need to answer.

The SPM is originally drafted by the scientists who wrote the relevant report. It is then subject to a line by line, word by word vetting by the government representatives who can and do delay the final report until they each and severally agree to every word, sentence and sentiment in the SPM.

More than one CLA has complained about the fact that the SPM vetting has resulted in it being no longer representative of the scientists views - see Tol and/or Robert Stavins who complained to the IPCC that the SPM should be renamed the Summary BY Policymakers.

I'll tell you what. Next time you want to post here, give me a line by line veto on everything you write and then we'll see if you still think you wrote it.

ant,
I know its a waste of bandwidth to even ask it but please show where I "admit to some kind of association with the pseudo science source of WUWT."

Did you read the WSJ article? Silly question. If you had you would have seen that it made a series of factual statements. If you want to reject the article do so by proving those statements wrong, not by meekly rejecting it because the author works for someone you don't like.
The Fairfax press reported this morning that the sun rose at 6:04am but since I don't like the Fairfax papers I'll assert that that is wrong! Honestly
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 September 2016 3:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CAPS for emphasis, putting my OLO training to work:

"I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC ARE FAKING THE DATA: I provide compelling evidence to show this.
Posted by Jennifer, 18 August 2016 - PG 7"

T. = Unsubstantiated LIBELOUS DEFAMATION

"It is NOT AD HOMINEM to point out that someone, like you, is USING THAT technique, and you are.
IF IF IF IF 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.
Posted by GrahamY, 18 August 2016 - PG 6"

T. Oh dear, the brown shirts are a comin'. Does he know what the word *IF* means?
GY also asks "You tell me" but would GrahamY understand/believe it. She's been told why she is wrong (been repeatedly for years)

"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."

T. GrahamY stop LYING. You need to read what people say and follow the urls. Then IF you still can't work it out, ask a respectful genuine question (absent the paranoia) and you would probably get a respectful answer.

Stop being a BIG MOUTH, it is NOT AD HOMINEM to point out that someone, like you, is USING THAT technique, and you are. :-)

"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, ...."

T. Oh precious, you're sensitive over "imaginary adhom". Facts/Truth are that unimportant to you? What about Leo Lane and yourself GrahamY re insults and ad hom not addressing the content of a comment or article?

btw it is not ad hominem to point out that you are using that technique!

"Again, none of you has engaged with her criticism on this ground at all."
Posted by GrahamY, 18 August 2016 - PG 5

T. LIAR
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 8 September 2016 4:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2:

"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."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

"Instruments were not moved."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

"Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

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.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:59:44 PM - PG 13

T. and again A BIG-MOUTHED LIAR

Is this the right way do it on OLO GrahamY as per yourself and Leo Lane?

"Bigmouth O’Reilly says
That is nonsense, bigmouth.
You have been asked repeatedly to give a reference to science which shows any measurable man-made effect on climate, and you failed to do so."

T. LIAR

"You now assert THE LIE which I have just quoted."

T. LIAR = DEFAMATION

"Of course I understand that anything you say to support your position as a FRAUD-BACKER [=DEFAMATION] will be dishonest [=DEFAMATION] and untruthful [=DEFAMATION], like your statement which I have just quoted, so I will do my best to point out each further instance of YOUR LYING [=DEFAMATION] as it arises."
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:57:08 PM - PG 45

I do hope I got that all down pat. I feel right at home now.

Thanks for the counselling and tips GrahamYoung. :-)

-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 8 September 2016 4:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>You sought to disprove my point by asserting that only the second point was valid and/or that it superceded their global research. <<<
Comprehension dawns at last!

And did you actually READ chapter 10 which discusses WHY they're moving from global to regional models of extreme weather in particular? Because while there might be GLOBAL warming with a fairly uniform distribution of CO2 trapping heat (we'll ignore the albedo effects of the North Hemisphere supercontinents for the moment), the REGIONAL climate effects are far more diversified and complicated and specific to regional zones, and therefore global statements about extreme weather are almost useless.

I'll stop calling you a troll when you can admit that the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model that you harp on about. Not 'pertinent to your case' enough? That's because you're a cherrypicking denialist troll.

>>> Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.<<<
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 8 September 2016 10:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Comprehension dawns at last!"

Glad to be of service.

Yes Max I have read AR5_WG1 including its SPM.

But no I didn't come across that part which opined that " the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model".

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where it says that. Or was it just "the vibe of the thing…." (Dennis Denuto).

I won't hold my breathe waiting for enlightenment - although doing so would reduce CO2 levels and could be considered as my part in saving the planet.

I don't mind if you keep calling me a troll. Whenever I see you name-calling, I just see someone who has been badly mauled and who self-esteem has taken a hit trying to strike back in their own inept way. Its like being back in 3rd grade. I look forward to the "pants on fire" post.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 9 September 2016 9:14:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi mhaze,
Glad to be of service.

It's called Chapter 10,

"Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional"
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Also note:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. Since the AR4, the observational basis has increased substantially, so that some extremes are now examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}

P134 “By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense.“

916 says: “Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these REGIONAL events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 9 September 2016 9:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze

In one of your posts you brought up Lake Mead. Lake Mead has been in a parlous state for some years due to drought.
Parts of the South Eastern States of the US have been impacted by drought and extraordinary rainfall. You can argue about semantics forever; except, whats happening in the real world is contrary to what you say.

Meanwhile, debate is progressing elsewhere about whether all, or most, multi year ice is going to be lost prior to the refreezing of Arctic sea ice. Currently, sea ice extent is at the second lowest ever recorded.

Another region has been in the news lately; the Third Pole.

Siberia has been in the news in relation to thawing permafrost, and anthrax has become a problem at three spare locations as a result of the thawing.

It is not long ago that Great Britain was hit hard by extraordinary storms. A centuries old stone bridge was ruined as a result.
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 September 2016 10:27:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

Current science reviews suggest you are wong hanging onto IPCC misinterpreted views.

http://gizmodo.com/noaa-expect-more-extreme-flood-events-in-the-future-1786333685

The first sentence of the reference states:

"Extreme, catastrophic flood events like the one that swamped Louisiana last month are becoming more likely because of climate change, according to a hot-off-the-press analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

There is nothing ambiguous about that sentence.
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 September 2016 12:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bigmouth O’Reilly, you have now demonstrated your complete ignorance of the law of defamation, , as well as your ignorance of climate science.
You have not posted any reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
Your response to that indisputable observation had all the brilliance of a delinquent school child:”Liar”, was his pathetic response. No reference to where he had posted the reference, because there is no such reference. Just another of bigmouth's lies. He is determined to convince us of his dishonesty and incompetence.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 September 2016 12:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
struth Max, its like drawing teeth, without anesthetic...but more fun.

Where, specifically, in Chapter 10 does it say anything like "the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model".

oh and just by-the-by, I wasn't originally talking about global models, but global data. I wonder if you understand the difference.

ant,

"In one of your posts you brought up Lake Mead.'

Nup, never happened.

You've fabricated so much stuff over the past year, perhaps you'll understand why I no longer bother with your baseless assertions.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 9 September 2016 12:54:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Max Green, in attempts to educate the 'Fur King More Rons' (FKMR) in the Applied Idiot's Federation of Research Fellows working for the People's Freedom Front for Global Lunacy about complex science in IPCC Reports eg Global vs Regional Climate dynamics, here's a new study @RC: An update on mid-latitude cyclones and climate change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/an-update-on-mid-latitude-cyclones-and-climate-change/

For example:

Why is it so hard to say what the future North European climate will look like? A recent review paper by Shaw et al, 2016 explains the reason in persuasive terms.

The North European climate may be regarded as the weather statistics for over this region.

They argue that there is a “tug of war” between various conditions which will affect the outcome for future mid-latitude storms as well as the jet stream.

In other words, the projection of future storm tracks is highly sensitive to aspects that are not so accurately quantified by the global climate models.

The question is where, how strong, and how frequent will these storms be in a warmer world.

There has been a view that regional climate model results will be used if they are readily accessible through a data portal such as Copernicus in Europe.

An analogy for data portals is the drug stores, which often require a prescription from a doctor before selling a drug to avoid misuse. Medicines also come with labels.

but for decision-makers, it’s a question of risk management and there is some useful information to act on.

A factory shut-down due to flooding in e.g. Bangkok may affect an economic chain, and persistent drought may trigger migration.

[end quotes]

a comment by Walter Hannah says:
"Some of the robust mechanisms that we see on a global scale are really hard to see on a regional scale, even though we know they have to be at play at a fundamental level. And when we think we have a robust conclusion, there’s no way to know if it’s just a weird byproduct of multiple remote biases in things like SST or cloud fraction."
-
mhaze, Leo Lane, Marohasy et al are FKMRs!
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 9 September 2016 1:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, you don't like the term models? Want me to spell it out for you?

"Evaluation of Detection and Attribution Methodologies"

"How Attribution Studies Work"

"Methods Based on General Circulation Models and Optimal Fingerprinting"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

It's all in Chapter 10, if you bothered to read it, about how they separate out signal from noise, model what's really going on in longer term trends from climate versus raw data, etc. If the terms confuse you try a dictionary. "Climate" versus "weather". Weather gives us data, climate is an abstraction, a concept, a pattern over decades not just a single event.

Once their methods of data interpretation (or model) has changed to include regional material, it not only notices the overall trends more clearly, it leads to better projections. EG: Page 920:

"Implications for Climate System Properties and Projections"

Page 871: those models of data sets etc... again!

" It is very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. Attribution of changes in temperature extremes to anthropogenic influence is robustly seen in independent analyses using different methods and different data sets. It is likely that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heatwaves in some locations. {10.6.1, 10.6.2, Table 10.1}"

There's raw data, and understanding what the data means. Go figure.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 9 September 2016 1:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

"In one of your posts you brought up Lake Mead.'

Nup, never happened."

You do not read your own references!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

A sentence from your referral:

"The researchers said Lake Mead near Las Vegas, which is the largest reservoir in the United States, was also losing water, and 222 sq km (85 sq miles) of it was now land."

You might find this reference in relation to ocean warming interesting:

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

The first sentence from the Executive Summary states:

"The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend."
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 September 2016 2:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't mind the term 'model' when it's applied to models and when the user knows that models aren't data.

Clearly there isn't anything in AR5_WG1 which goes close to justifying your assertion that "the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model". If there was you'd have mentioned it by now to assuage your embarrassment.

Obviously you are using the Dennis Denuto defence. And obviously you've learned something from Mr 0' ie point at some document and assert it supports your claims without ever trying to show how it does so
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 9 September 2016 3:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, tell us what data there is for climate?

Do you even understand what the word means?
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 9 September 2016 3:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Leo Lane aka Swami Iddi Ott Ji, and @mhaze the Fur King More Ron asks:
"work for the IPCC during their annual vacations or are they being paid"

Yes, some have taken annual vacation-weekend-late night time to do the work. Depending on their employer they may get paid or not paid. This operates similar to people who Volunteer for the RFS etc with RFS SES here. Do you have a problem with their employers too Mr R. Sole?

Marohasy has only survived on "charity" for years, and now has a part-time job @IPA funded by more Tax-Deductible Charity!

Non-scientist Tol says what Scientists Lead Reviewers have also said.

There's been a "process" of political interference and it goes the other way than you believe you FKMR! What Max tells you is 100% true Mr. R. Sole - stop being a fraud by pretending to know anything about climate science or IPCC.

@FKMR then asks: "give me a veto on everything you write"

No F.U. shove it where the sun don't shine. I did not "copy" what I said from anywhere except my memory you small minded little creep.

(This is how real adhom is done, best used on cowardly lowlife's not worthy of respect)

@FKMR asks: "Did you read the WSJ article? Silly question."

No, it's a FKingDUMB question by a rank Iddi Ott. Only a FKMR would be guided by newspapers about Climate Science, or be stupid enough to quote it an argument with people who KNOW it 10,000 times better than you ever will!

You & Leo cannot think for yourself so you need the WSJ, WUWT, IPA to tell you what to think, what to say to defend your insane false beliefs. Y'all pathetic individuals and a disgrace to the human race.

@FKMR says: "I won't hold my breathe waiting for enlightenment"

Neither shall I. You're too dumb, but hold your breath anyway!

Your intelligence/moral/ethical levels are equivalent to a Jihadi terrorist crying out Allahu Akbah before blowing themselves up!
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 9 September 2016 3:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lois Lane/Smoke Haze, no worries I won't be sticking around this pathetic forum of trolls and fools.

To be clear, I do see you as pathetic as any jihadist suicide bomber. It's exactly the kind of FKMR that you are: stupid ignorant uninformed gullible fools following an insane ideology unable to think for yourself.

Your approach to 'science' is like a patient getting a Doctor's Script saying: "No thanks, I can get that off the back of a Coco-Pops box." Dumb as dirt while imagining you're smarter than the collective wisdom of 30,000 scientists.

You won't make any difference at all to ongoing climate science and it's implications. You're ideological beliefs are however far more dangerous to life than all terrorists combined!

At least they have the guts and offer the unexpected benefit of taking themselves out in the process. FKMR AGW Deniers never go away nor STFU spreading their poisonous anti-life rhetoric like a Deadly Virus. No one listens to you, they just put up with you and the Marohasy's.

This world will be a better place as people like you take your last breath: Planetary IQ will jump 30+ points imo. I have nothing but contempt for your ways.

"The proposed solution for the Dunning-Krugar Effect is that the incompetent should be directly told they are incompetent."
http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php

You are incompetent Haze and Lois. Nothing can help you, no one will save you, because you're beyond all help.
-

If I was the Benevolent Dictator of Australia, I would would have you and your kind interred on Manus Island in Education Detention Camp for one year.

And if you did not learn how to think properly in a year then you'd be sent to a Secure Asylum for the Criminally Insane for life.

Then I would apply the IPA's Personal Responsibility Ideology, by stripping you of all your assets in order to pay for your permanent internment behind bars.

Thankfully you and your corrupt sick ideology days are numbered. You've already lost. I hope you believe in God's forgiveness because it's the only kind you'll ever get.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 9 September 2016 7:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and Delusion, Told in Forms 10-K (2009-2015) September 8, 2016

"This tedious but insightful exercise is part of a CSPW investigation that parallels important ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by several state attorneys general; and a growing body of reports by universities, investigative journalists, not-for-profit organizations, and others addressing Exxon’s internal understanding of the threats to its own operations and profitability relating to a host of global warming impacts now worsening, relative to how it has communicated these threats to its investors and the public over time."

"If it can be proved that the corporate leadership at Exxon, which merged with the Mobil Corporation in 1998 to become ExxonMobil, committed fraud by deliberately deceiving shareholders and failing to properly disclose risk factors that would materially compromise stock value, then corporate leadership should be held accountable and justice sought. It’s that simple."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2016/09/08/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-2009-2015/

Does the IPA support such investigations to ensure the protection of Shareholders / Superannuation Funds?

Is or has the IPA obtained any funding connected in any way to ExxonMobil to continue it's anti-science campaign or employing unqualified denialists like Marohasy who has essentially accused the BOM, IPCC and NASA/GISS of fraud?

ref: "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."
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:32:07 PM"
URL Ref: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#327799

NOTE:
"ExxonMobil and its apologists, including some elected officials and groups that have accepted money from the corporation, posit these legitimate inquiries as infringements on First Amendment rights to free speech."

"This assertion is contrived and a deliberate distraction intended to avert attention away from the corporation’s alleged culpability."

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, conducting a robust investigation into ExxonMobil, says it right: “The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”

I'd say Australian Law doesn't give anyone the right to commit Fraud or Defamation either.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 9 September 2016 9:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, it seems that Mr O' is becoming increasingly deranged.

That's to be expected.

Mr O' s modus operandi is to assert some special understanding and seek to demonstrate it by showing all sorts of entirely or almost entirely irrelevant links while at the same time declining to even try to provide logical argument that those links support their claims or substantiates their claimed special understanding. Such people are used to or hope to get away with this, thus puffing up their obviously low self-esteem. And when that is challenged and they get hits to their fragile self-esteem they become deranged and resort to childish name calling and tantrums.

I've seen the likes of Mr O' before and it always goes this way. They aren't mentally capable of sustaining an argument and hate that they are shown to be other what what they claim to be - ie informed. The next step will be that Mr O' will exit the 'discussion' while throwing bombs on the way out. But he'll be back at some future time, with a new nickname but the same childish MO.

Its been my aim from the moment I read his first silly post to facilitate his derangement and ultimate exit. I think we're nearly there.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 9 September 2016 10:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The global models are good for global matters like worldwide climate trends. The regional climate models are better at mapping out extreme weather events for REGIONS.

“There is also a global to regional perspective, assessing the extent to which not just global mean changes but also spatial patterns of change across the globe can be attributed to anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
P872

“Consistent with previous Assessments and the majority of the literature, this chapter adopts this conservative emphasis. It should, however, be borne in mind that this means that positive attribution results will tend to be biased towards well-observed, well-modelled variables and regions, which should be taken into account in the compilation of global impact assessments (Allen, 2011; Trenberth, 2011a).”
P878

You wouldn't want urban heat island effect just smoothed into the global models, would you? Want taken into account? Try bottom of page 878 for REGIONAL discussion on that.

“Third, forcings omitted in some global climate model simulations may be important on regional scales, such as land use change or BC aerosol. “
P899

“10.7.2 Changes of Past Regional Temperature
There is also substantial literature suggesting solar influences on regional climate reconstructions, possibly due to circulation changes, for example, changes in Northern Annular Modes”
P919

Which is better, global or local? It depends what you're discussing. The two scales interact, with global warming having local and regional effects, and regional events like volcanoes or ice-melting feedbacks also have some input into global models.

Also important is the probabilistic method since AR4, although I'm not strong on the math for that.

Bottom line? The report says more than your cherrypicked chunks. It actually concluded that extreme weather events will increase. Likely. Or do you only read what you want, and just magik the negative stuff away? ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 9 September 2016 11:06:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bigmouth mentions the investigation of Exxon Mobil. He seems ignorant of the fact that this has no effect on the company’s status. It is innocent until something is proven.
The attorney general, Schneiderman, enlisted a few state attoneys to associate themselves with him, and they now want out of the arrangement.
”just about everyone thinks Schneiderman is on very flimsy legal ground. Columbia Law Professor Merritt B. Fox published an op-ed in the National Law Journal with a scathing review of Schneiderman’s use of the Martin Act to investigate ExxonMobil, noting,
“The Martin Act grants the attorney general extraordinary powers to subpoena private documents without either obtaining a court order, which is required in most ordinary New York criminal proceedings, or the filing of a complaint, which is required in an ordinary civil action and is subject to court review. The Exxon subpoena is an abuse of these extraordinary powers.” (emphasis added)”
https://energyindepth.org/national/schneiderman-changes-justification-for-exxonknew-investigation/
Schneiderman’s improper actions are linked to the fact that he is motivated by correspondence from environmentalists, and not by an intention to do his job properly.
Just another irrelevancy by bigmouth.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 September 2016 12:31:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JaneP

Well said.

Thomas, posts ago said he could do ad hominem; he has. He has thrown a mirror on commentary by Leo Lane and mhaze; they don't like it.

It is extremely naive to believe that huge companies such as ExxonMobil use ethics or morals in determining how they will operate.

Prior to retiring, Ken Cohen an ExxonMobil Executive, admitted that ExxonMobil had resourced denier groups and supported the science of their Professional scientific workers.

Rex Tillerson, current CEO of ExxonMobil has stated that fossil fuels cause damage to the atmosphere.

There is a paper trail showing how over 30 milliom dollars had been provided to denier groups.

The alleged criminal actions against ExxonMobil are in relation to how mutually exclusive messages were being put to financial markets.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 10 September 2016 7:29:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jane,

Have you read Mr O' s posts. Do so and then come back and tell us if you think they were appropriate and attacking him was inappropriate.

And then we can decide whether your concern is about the proprietaries or just about supporting one side.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@mhaze 9th @LeoLane 10th

Pg 40 Sept4 to LL:

"Let me share a secret...know that my replies are not actually directed at you .... my comments are meant for the 'readers' of this here OLO.... I'm like a Nurseryman who loves planting seeds.... I'm also teaching others how to handle responses like yours."

Fits 'The Hazer' too!

Stupid people never know how stupid they are, even when they are warned of what's coming, be it from me or climate change, they remain stupid.

The Hazer (Hazing is the practice of activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group, the IPA?) who is obviously a pompous military-type control freak, loves being 'all powerful' but has lost all that power in his old age - so he comes up with false accusations of "deranged" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deranged it simply means "insane".

Why do you believe you're in control of this conversation Hazer? You say "deranged" in reply to me stating that you belong in an 'insane asylum'? It's planting seeds, you don't even realise it!

Is it deranged to call someone a big mouth and a liar with zero evidence?

Is it deranged to call someone an "imposter" (GY said that) with zero evidence?

Is it deranged to imagine you know others motivations, state of knowledge, or what someone else is thinking?

Is it deranged to be so paranoid you see conspiracies despite the absence of evidence?

Is it deranged to accuse the BOM, IPCC, NASA of fraud by intentionally faking scientific validated data?

Is it deranged to say "I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC ARE FAKING THE DATA: I provide compelling evidence to show this."

BUT then not provide ANY EVIDENCE to back it up bar innuendo?

Is it deranged to believe you know what the Climate Science is without reading or understanding any of it?

Is it deranged to claim that you know more about AGW/CC science than 30,000 plus qualified scientists who actually did the work and follow the same scientific method that took man to the moon?
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 10 September 2016 4:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@mhaze 9th @LeoLane 10th con't

Well I do think it is deranged.

I think it is self-evidently INSANE to think like that and proves to me you two are no better than a flaming insane jihadi terrorist blowing themselves up.

Is it deranged to call an idiot and idiot when the evidence is right there on the screen for all to see?

Is it deranged to label a fur king more ron as such when they are a fur king more ron? Incompetent and ignorant of the subject matter they claim to know?

No I don't think it is.

It's logically rational to respond in this way. You've been done like a dinner.

From me people can see a wealth of high quality information in "entirely relevant links" about the science, psychology/thinking, and logic to compare against a number of fools "puffing up their obviously low self-esteem!"

Unintelligent trolls who infest internet forums like this, who are supported and encouraged by incompetent biased moderators and extremist ideology "are used to or hope to get away with this!"

Then I turn up and strip the facade away and call a fool a fool and I back it up with self-evident truths in front of everyone's eyes!

The Hazer then stupidly admits:
"Its been my aim from the moment I read his first silly post to facilitate his derangement and ultimate exit. I think we're nearly there."

There is a mirror in your bathroom. Go peer into your own image!

You have exposed yourself openly as an untrustworthy dishonest manipulative disingenuous TROLL!

You're only course of action now is to deny it or leave! The very thing you claim I will have to do. But everyone else now knows with CERTAINTY that you just another FAKE like Marohasy is.

You're both irrelevant Bigmouths!

There's an old Aussie saying that goes: "Would not piss on you if you were on fire!"

Ponder that thought.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 10 September 2016 4:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea says that bigmouth has “thrown a mirror on commentary by Leo Lane and mhaze; .”
So when I point out a lie asserted by bigmouth, and he points out a fact that I have contributed, and he calls it a lie, that is a mirror, is it , flea?
It is stupid retaliation which shows bigmouth’s outhouse rat cunning as well as his puny intellect.
JaneP is incapable of coherent thought, but she seems to think it is permissible for an attorney general to break the law if he is pursuing a target approved by the criminal greens. I am sure you did your bit in the gulf disaster JaneP, dipping wildlife in oil and photographing it, and applying chemicals to the oil so that it would not disappear naturally without trace, as it does if left to the normal natural process.
Surely you must have noticed bigmouth's mental state before mhaze ever commented on him.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 September 2016 6:23:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You did not understand what I meant.
Many times I have commented on your aggressive meanlingless commentary. Thomas stated much the same thing in a more colourful way ; you made aggressive comments against Thomas, you coped it back.

The difference between your commentary and Thomas's is that he provided many links to science; you generally make aggressive and vacuous comments.

The Oceans have a large influence on climate; here is a read for you Leo; real science:

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf
Posted by ant, Saturday, 10 September 2016 7:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

What is the measurement of control oceans have on climate?

And what measurement or degree of influence does ocean algae have on ocean control of weather and climate ?
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 10 September 2016 8:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

The reference I provided is very comprehensive; pretty well hot off the press:

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf
Posted by ant, Saturday, 10 September 2016 8:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

That report, Ocean Warming - Conclusion 1.11 states, "Ocean warming is a complex issue that we are still striving to fully understand".

Yet at 2.2.5 Conclusions it states, ...there is observational evidence ecosystems are responding to changes in regional climate caused predominantly by the warming......

Pollution gets a mention but not any specific type of pollution.
Why is science generalizing?
Why not study sewage nutrient pollution dumped daily from 7.3 billion humans into water ecosystems?

ant, that IUCN Oceans Report right from the start is all about CO2 being the cause of warming.

But agreed, there are critically serious problems with the state of the world ocean environment on which all people depend for rain and affordable food supply from land and sea.

I think the IUCN - Ocean Warming report is a report primarily from the carbon faithful.

It is however inevitable that one day the carbon people will realize anthropogenic nutrient pollution is proliferating ocean algae causing increase in regional ocean temperatures above natural levels.

When realization occurs about algae plant matter in oceans there will be no sea surface temperature anomaly and less confusion about global temperatures
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 10 September 2016 10:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MHAZE has dried up and disappeared because I posted evidence that the Working Group paper actually models different things at different levels: global, or regional, and sometimes global is the correct perspective, and sometimes regional is the correct perspective.

“There is also a global to regional perspective, assessing the extent to which not just global mean changes but also spatial patterns of change across the globe can be attributed to anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
P872

“Consistent with previous Assessments and the majority of the literature, this chapter adopts this conservative emphasis. It should, however, be borne in mind that this means that positive attribution results will tend to be biased towards well-observed, well-modelled variables and regions, which should be taken into account in the compilation of global impact assessments (Allen, 2011; Trenberth, 2011a).”
P878

You wouldn't want urban heat island effect just smoothed into the global models, would you? Want taken into account? Try bottom of page 878 for REGIONAL discussion on that.

“Third, forcings omitted in some global climate model simulations may be important on regional scales, such as land use change or BC aerosol. “
P899

“10.7.2 Changes of Past Regional Temperature
There is also substantial literature suggesting solar influences on regional climate reconstructions, possibly due to circulation changes, for example, changes in Northern Annular Modes”
P919

Bottom line? You CHERRYPICKED, then lied, then simply re-asserted the same cherrypicking. It's no big deal. It just means we know not to take anything you post seriously. You're just another one of 'those' people we sadly bump into on the internet. Not a biggie at all.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF AUS LIES AGAIN! The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER! That's only 0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

What you have to prove:
1. What was the original algae load in the oceans?
2. What is the anthropogenic algae load?
3. How much warming does X% extra of algae contribute to the oceans?
4. How evidence is there that algae can warm the oceans? How many watt's per gram? Where are the studies that show how much warming algae do?
5. How can you demonstrate that algae add an extra 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS per second? (Same as 3 Christmas light globes per square metre of the earth's surface).
6. Along with hiding their ability to generate VAST amounts of heat, do algae also hide Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? (Hint: algae simply CANNOT generate that amount of heat: GET A LIFE!)

Here's a thing: Joseph Fourier discovered CO2's heat trapping properties back in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

What political agenda or conspiracy was controlling him to deceive the world? What about the fact that every physics on the lab can DISPROVE your whacked out mind-job of an algae theory, and PROVE the raw physics of CO2? How did this vast conspiracy survive the Napoleonic wars, and then continue through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the re-unification of Germany, etc.

Even the MYTHBUSTERS are in on this 'conspiracy'? They demonstrate it in a crude experiment in their lab.
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Another experiment: watch the candle at 90 seconds in! Candle demo only goes for a minute.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

CO2 traps heat! The amount is measured in the Radiative Forcing Equation, and equates to an EXTRA 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Yes, the earth receives a lot MORE energy per second. But that energy balance was equal. This is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs worth prevented from leaving the atmosphere.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”. This is the first paragraph of the pathetic rubbish to which he has linked:
“The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend.” Even the flea could not be so ignorant as to mistake that for science, but he has wasted my time looking at it, and that satisfies his urge to be an ignorant pest.
You have the gall to talk about “science”, flea, when you have no comprehension of what the word means, and continually demonstrate your ignorance.
You have been asked for your qualification in science before, flea, and in your usual uncivil, pig-ignorant manner you ignore the question. I ask you again, flea, what is the qualification which is the basis of your tenuous presumption that you can speak about science as if you know what you are talking about, when you obviously do not.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea said:” You did not understand what I meant.”. You do not know what you mean, flea, so how would anyone else?
For example, you say I make:” meanlingless commentary. Thomas stated much the same thing in a more colourful way ; you made aggressive comments against Thomas, you coped it back.”
So do you say that bigmouth repeated my meaningless words in a lively way? The meaningless commentary by me was made interesting by bigmouth when he repeated it?. You refer to my truthful comments about bigmouth as “aggressive”Should I be untruthful about his abysmal behaviour, in your judgment, and not describe it accurately?
What did I “cop back”. I told the truth about bigmouth, and he told lies about me? He did not “mirror” my behaviour in any way. You are a very poor communicator, flea, and a very muddled thinker.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 September 2016 2:11:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

In the past you have stated you are a retired lawyer and acknowledge you have no science qualification. We know that some lawyers develop a criminal history due to misappropriating funds. As a result, it becomes easy for people to say that all those employed as a lawyer are corrupt, tell lies, or create a hoax; it gets pretty grim for lawyers. Especially when those employed as lawyers pride themselves in the work that they do. It becomes harder when groups are paid to rubbish all those involved in working in the law field.
Also, those paid to rubbish lawyers are encouraged to create a climate where people generally are encouraged to be critical of lawyers.

The work lawyers do is highly involved and not really well understood by people in general. Clearly, in such a situation lawyers would be bewildered by the uncalled for criticism. Especially when those doing the criticism have little knowledge about the specialised field of being a lawyer.

Another way to get the concept across is to suggest you go to the short article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the nicer version goes along the lines of people believe they have knowledge in an area; yet, do not understand the areas they have no knowledge in. For example, what can you tell us about Astro Physics, Glaciology, Atmospheric Physics, Oceanography without going to google.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php
Posted by ant, Sunday, 11 September 2016 7:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Max Green, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:13:33 PM

Measurements are clearly being manipulated to claim or infer evidence of AGW CO2 factors, for example measuring the amount of algae in oceans compared to the amount of water.

Water in depths of the oceans has been stated in scientific literature concerning biodiversity and productivity to be similar to a barren desert on land.

Stating measurement of the volume of all ocean algae plant matter compared to the amount of all ocean water is a way of inferring algae is inconsequential in AGW climate science, and I think that stated comparison is akin to measuring all atmosphere on our planet compared to the amount of all cloud; imagine inferring cloud is nothing to do with rain.

Max, in your next post show evidence of your suggestion JF AUS lies.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 11 September 2016 8:38:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

You stated:

"ant, that IUCN Oceans Report right from the start is all about CO2 being the cause of warming."

There should be no surprprise there, your commentary has been nothing but opinion with no actual proof provided.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 11 September 2016 10:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF AUS LIES by ignoring the simply physics around CO2, and then playing "Puff the magic dragon" with the truth by just pretending it's algae.

Nothing he says makes sense, or has any credibility.

It's childish to engage him.

I'm just feeding the troll.

If anyone cares, here's the stuff JF's LIES are trying to bury.

algae is inconsequential as a fraction of the world's oceans, has not increased fast enough to account for today's warming, and does not have a physical process that can possibly produce enough heat to effect anything. JF is just imagining all this and has NO EVIDENCE! Has anyone here seen him produce ANY physics that explains how they produce heat?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Back to the REAL WORLD (and away from childish internet trolls that think their childish armchair rants are going to overturn the peer-reviewed science).

Joseph Fourier discovered CO2's heat trapping properties back in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

JF believes in a conspiracy theory that survived the Napoleonic wars, and then continue through WW1, WW2, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the re-unification of Germany, etc.

Even the MYTHBUSTERS prove CO2's heat trapping ability. JF LIES by just plain avoiding discussing this video! Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Another experiment: watch the candle at 90 seconds in! Candle demo only goes for a minute.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

JF lies by washing his hair at us: if at first his 'arguments' don't work, he just ignores or contrary evidence and rinse and repeats at us. So I'll return the compliment, only this time, with links to actual science.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 11 September 2016 12:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"MHAZE has dried up and disappeared because I posted evidence...."

Nup...but I do have a life beyond OLO.

I couldn't see any reason continuing after you'd effectively confirmed my original point when you wrote ..."The global models are good for global matters like worldwide climate trends. The regional climate models are better at mapping out extreme weather events for REGIONS."

If you look at my original post on this I was talking about the global matters which you've now acknowledged were correct. I didn't mention regional matters because they weren't relevant to my point. Since then you've been trying to generate dispute where none exists but I don't entirely disagree with your points on regional predictions. Don't agree, don't disagree. The jury is out.

The one thing I'd mention is that my point wasn't about global models but about global data. It's all very well to create models to try to predict the future but that does have to verified against actual data. And the data shows that earlier predictions on a global scale were somewhat (!) overstated or over-pessimistic. From that I'm wary of, but don't discount, current predictions. In a warming world it'd be surprising if there weren't some region changes.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 11 September 2016 2:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Max Green.

For a start, show me proof of your claim I (JF Aus) believe in a conspiracy.
Show me proof.

Prove your own lying and time wasting claim.
Do it now with no ducking and weaving excuses.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 11 September 2016 4:25:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all, maze just continues to demonstrate how futile it is to debate climate deniers.

He ORIGINALLY quoted the Working Group to deny that climate change would impact on extreme weather events! Maze had just finished insulting the term ‘rain bomb’ and was generally making fun of the concept that climate change can and will exacerbate extreme weather events. See here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327505

Then I replied that maze was indifferent to the massive economic and humanitarian hit these extreme weather events would cause, and then mhaze responded by cherrypicking the Working Group.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

And maze has the arrogance to state:

>>Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.<<
Hypocrisy much?

>>f you look at my original post on this I was talking about the global matters which you've now acknowledged were correct.<<
I never did. The ‘global matters’ were not correct! That would be conceding that we don’t know that extreme weather events WILL MOST LIKELY get worse! You’re cherrypicking my words, and lying AGAIN! You can’t help it, — lying is the air you breathe. What I DID do was explain that the Working Group was unpacking why the global models were not the way to understand the existing weather data the best.

>>I didn't mention regional matters because they weren't relevant to my point.<<
What, you’re point that extreme weather events were not going to increase? Um, yeah. It’s called cherrypicking. The Working Group concludes they ARE going to increase.

>>Since then you've been trying to generate dispute where none exists but I don't entirely disagree with your points on regional predictions. Don't agree, don't disagree. The jury is out.<<
LIES! The jury is in, and they presented their summarised conclusions in the SPM.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 11 September 2016 4:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@mhaze: "And the data shows that earlier predictions on a global scale were somewhat (!) overstated or over-pessimistic."

1) What Data shows?
2) What earlier predictions, be specific?
3) How so were they over-stated or over-pessimistic and show the current Data you rely upon to 'prove' your claims?

Published Climate science papers IPCC reports (backed by papers) only! Not Al Gore's movie, newspaper or some shill on a blog site etc.

You made the claim, let's see you back it up with scientific evidence.

Max pulled your pants down. Enough of the rewriting history after the event. Only Sophists and Manipulators do that. An honest open genuine person interested in the truth no matter what it is would have provided the direct ref to back up your claim that: "If you look at my original post on this I was talking about the global matters which you've now acknowledged were correct."

That's also called a cherry-picking distraction and should not isolate everything you asserted in this long discussion with Max as being null and void. The record is there, be careful your memory is better than your knowledge of the scientific facts as they stand.

Post a verbatim quote of what you're alluding to above as "original post" with a url link or a page number.

I'm very good at this. Outing people who play word games and duck and weave over the facts and the truth of what they said or didn't say.

Your opinions about me are beside the point and do not count. Denying you've been nailed already won't change the facts either.

@LeoLane, you are a foul mouthed gutless coward hiding behind your computer screen on social media. You're a serial abuser, a little bully and an offensive nasty deranged cyber-stalker. You were like that long before I turned up on OLO.

Do something about your depression and rage inside of you. Perhaps seek some help from a psychology professional, ask your doctor, or your preferred spiritual adviser/counselor.

Or don't. I don't care because you are not my responsibility, nor am I to blame.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 11 September 2016 5:31:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More nonsense from bigmouth:” hiding behind your computer screen”.
This is an online forum . If you wanted a punch in your big empty head, you should have chosen an appropriate venue, and I am sure there would be plenty of takers once you opened your big lying mouth.
You referred to me as foul-mouthed. Show me where I have used foul language, bigmouth, or are you being untruthful again, as is your habit?.
You have some excellent advice for yourself, bigmouth.” Do something about your depression and rage inside of you. Perhaps seek some help from a psychology professional, ask your doctor, or your preferred spiritual adviser/counselor. “ You are obviously addressing yourself, so drop the pretence that it applies to anyone else.
Refer us to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, bigmout, or stop supporting climate fraud which asserts a human caused effect on climate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 September 2016 6:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Explaining ocean warming (science)
Complete Title: Explaining ocean warming : causes, scale, effects and consequences
Edited by D. Laffoley and J. M. Baxter September 2016
https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46254

Has 97 results for the word "algae" :-)

Climate Denier Crackpot Index
“A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to climate science:”
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/climate-denier-crackpot-index/

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on (cf peer reviewed science) to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction (cf peer reviewed science).

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of “Al Gore“, “the Hockey Stick” or “Global Government“.

9. 10 points for each claim that climate modeling science is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

and 25 more.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 12 September 2016 8:18:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, PART 2...

>>The one thing I'd mention is that my point wasn't about global models but about global data.<<
The data points involve global weather on specific days in specific locations. This is not climate, get it? To understand the climate shifts involves interpretative methodologies. The global methodologies were not clear: the regional ones were more specific and clearer.

>>It's all very well to create models to try to predict the future but that does have to verified against actual data.<<
(Slaps hand to forehead!) Where do you think their models are coming from? They're modelling climate from weather data. D'uh! Averaging it globally doesn't work as well for some purposes. Appreciating regional data in its context works better for some purposes. (sighs).

“And the data shows that earlier predictions on a global scale were somewhat (!) overstated or over-pessimistic.”
No, a global reading of the data all averaged out was misleading. Regional models of the data proved far more accurate. Data. Smooth it globally, or understand it regionally?

>>From that I'm wary of, but don't discount, current predictions. In a warming world it'd be surprising if there weren't some region changes.<<
Except that’s not how you started: you started off laughing at ‘rain bombs’ and copied and pasted some denialist cherrypicked propaganda from some denialist blog.

Note again: THE MODELS COME FROM THE DATA! The issue is, which one? Global averages, or regional?

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. Since the AR4, the observational basis has increased substantially, so that some extremes are now examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 12 September 2016 8:23:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Max Green Note again: THE MODELS COME FROM THE DATA!

But Max, the Data comes from RUTHERGLEN .... omg we're going to die from Bushfires now because BOM effed up all the "Real" Data!
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18490&page=5

Max, mate, don't you get it like mhaze/leo et al do get it?

Why don't you just listen to Marohasy the Queen of Handwaving and Occam's Nightmare and then believe her?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

Send me your email addresses mahaze/leo/jf and buy you all a copy for Xmas
http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/s-peter-davis/occams-nightmare-ebook/ebook/product-21017102.html

-

Global Economic Symposium (GES) 2013 - interview with George Lakoff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNwXx2DwcQ

Professor George Lakoff on The Political Mind
http://library.fora.tv/2008/06/20/George_Lakoff_on_The_Political_Mind

Lakoff on Adam Smith, Taxes, Progressive Thought and the Conservative Rewriting of History and Adam Smith's Original Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXxc_M9EmE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h6m55s

There is no Political Ideology of the Moderate. I am a Moderate. Moderation in all things including Moderation.

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

Religion is a collection of Beliefs too.

Far out, what a weird coincidence! :-)

Exploring the Psychology of Wealth (quick 9 mins video)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/

On Wealth and Wrongdoing: How Social Class Influences Unethical Behavior
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57x7n454
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Monday, 12 September 2016 8:48:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus,
it's YOUR argument. YOU find the relevant paragraph for us. Don't ask us to 'just believe' because you found an article on ocean warming that contains the word algae in it! (Slaps hand to forehead).

I *bet* it mentions algae as a feedback loop, not primary cause. But I'm not even going to look. That's YOUR job. Because you have failed to do your job, I'm going to list it all again!

The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER! That's only 0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

What you have to prove:
1. What was the original algae load in the oceans?
2. What is the anthropogenic algae load?
3. How much warming does X% extra of algae contribute to the oceans?
4. How evidence is there that algae can warm the oceans? How many watt's per gram? Where are the studies that show how much warming algae do?
5. How can you demonstrate that algae add an extra 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS per second? (Same as 3 Christmas light globes per square metre of the earth's surface).
6. Along with hiding their ability to generate VAST amounts of heat, do algae also hide Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? (Hint: algae simply CANNOT generate that amount of heat: GET A LIFE!)

Here's a thing: Joseph Fourier discovered CO2's heat trapping properties back in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 12 September 2016 9:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green.

You claim I am lying.
I ask you for proof of that.
You then tell me to look for proof. LOL

That response is typical of your twisting and ducking to avoid answers that will prove you wrong.

I don't need to tell lies.
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 12 September 2016 11:42:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JF,
to prove you're not lying:

1. Open the PDF you linked to.
2. "Find" (CTRL F) for algae
3. Copy and paste *any* quotes that indicate algae *causes* warming, and is not a *feedback* of warming.
4. Look for any summary quotes that show how much warming they cause.

It's YOUR argument! It's not up to me to hold your hand and guide you through the process of HOW to argue your case for you! YOU prove that algae has something to do with *causing* warming, and is not just a feedback as I have said. Go on. You're recommending that PDF. You prove it makes your argument for you. Be an adult, for crying out loud! Stop whining, go get some facts, and shove them in my face! Prove to me that you've got a point! I dare you!

I've checked. On page 122 there's a table. It has OCEAN WARMING EFFECTS and CONSEQUENCES.

Last Effect on that table.

"Thermal stress lowers the viability of persistent longlived
seagrass populations with slow growth rates"

The Consequence?
"Replacement of persistent long-lived seagrass species with colonizing, opportunistic seagrass species, macroalgae or bare sediment which provide fewer or no ecosystem services to human populations (e.g., fisheries habitat)"
https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46254

Your own paper says warming will cause more algae, not the other way around!

In the meantime, you scoff at CO2. We have CENTURIES of PHYSICS indicating the Global Warming potential of CO2, and to deny the basic physics is like denying gravity or insisting the moon is made of cheese. It's just plain mad.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 12 September 2016 12:59:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max,

if you can't understand the simple logic of this I really don't know how to dumb it down even further for you.

Here was the sequence:

1 ant posted some gumph about there being a lot of wet microbursts. I poked fun at that because he used the emotive term "rain bomb" because that's scary to the perpetually alarmed.

2. I then showed that there is no evidence that these things are increasing on a global scale by quoting from AR5. Note the past tense ie there is no evidence that as of now there has been an increase in these extreme events on a global scale.

3. You thereupon, while initially ignoring what AR5 said about the current data, went off on a tangent about what they say about the future.

Nowhere ( and invite you to show otherwise) have I said that they didn't predict future increases. I have said that I'm not particularly interested in what they say will happen, since I'm more concerned with what has happened. Its difficult to know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. There might come a time when people who haven't been born yet might need implement meeasures to overcome future problems, but currently, since there is no evidence that things are better or worse than at any other time in the past, there's little point in us fretting about it. Note the events if you so desire, but don't imagine there's much you can do about it.

Its a basic difference in philosophy. I'll become alarmed when/if things become alarming and will leave it to our vastly wealthier great-grandkids to adopt whatever measures they think appropriate as needs be. You become alarmed when people tell you things will become alarming and want to adopt measures to avoid what may never happen.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 12 September 2016 2:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

"Rain bomb" is not a term I invented. It sure is not a funny situation for the families who lost loved ones through drowning, losing cars, having their homes flooded. Businesses have been damaged, but that is all very funny in your eyes.

Very funny isn't it mhaze, to see your vehicle washed ashore on a beach:

http://www.weathernationtv.com/news/cars-washed-ashore-greece-drifting-sea-flash-flood/?platform=hootsuite

It would appear the atmosphere is unstable in relation to other matters:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines
Posted by ant, Monday, 12 September 2016 3:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi mhaze,
Nice try, but here’s what the text says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, CAN lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. SINCE the AR4, the observational basis HAS INCREASED substantially, so that some extremes ARE NOW examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}

P 134:

“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)

P 916:
“Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these regional events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is likely that human influence HAS SUBSTANTIATLLY INCREASED the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“

As you said, //Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.//
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 12 September 2016 5:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max.

What paper are you referring to when you say, "your own paper"?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 12 September 2016 5:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JF Aus,
I apologise: for a moment I thought you were actually trying to find scientific evidence for your case. But I didn't notice it was a link Thomas had put up.

But that's the problem with you, isn't it? You don't link to peer-reviewed science to support your case, because there ISN'T ANY. You've got nothing, and I'm bored. Other than the pink algae on the ice, algae CANNOT be responsible for the warming we observe because they DON'T have a significant impact on the physics of heat retention, respond to climate change but don't cause it, and while damaging to some ecosystems, are not statistically significant enough to account for major albedo changes to the ocean. The ocean is already quite dark enough as it is.

Basically, I've linked to the peer-reviewed trials, 13 of them, which indicate that MORE algae would mean LOWER temperatures. It's up to you to put up or shut up. Please come up with a valid scientific data set or you're just another of a million internet trolls, and not worth our time.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 8:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Max Green, Sunday, 11 September 2016 12:41:43 PM

I suggest read the last sentence of the second paragraph at the link below, posted by Max Green as evidence of AGW.
I see no data collected in polar waters where ice is claimed to be melting due to CO2, and I think that is quite extraordinary. Surely data proving AGW would be sought and collected. But no, no data.
Could this be example selected data is being used to promote AGW?

Example of data not being seen and measured, is why temperature within massive algae blooms has apparently not been measured and assessed in relation to AGW.
Different algae species must have different albedo that is measurable. Difference in water temperature below the surface must be measurable, within such different blooms.
Has different albedo above algae blooms been measured and compared with temperature underwater within such blooms?

Some algae phytoplankton blooms are more white than dark green like others. There must be different reflection.
NASA images I have linked to on page 17 of this thread, clearly show the whiter coccolithaphore algae in the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia. Here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

However sea surface temperatures in the following link page have been taken from the first millimetre of surface water, not within the ocean water body, or within the mass of algae in blooms.
The following link page also shows data is ‘missing’ from coasts of land masses, where other evidence indicates nutrient loads are elevated and algae is more prolific. Why is that data missing?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

Be aware of the laws of thermodynamics.
Science is aware that what goes in must come out.
Solar heat that goes into algae during photosynthesis must come out.
But how long does it take for solar heat to come out of algae after sundown, from particle of algae matter into molecule of water, seconds, minutes or hours?
Evidence I am aware of indicates four to five hours (summertime).
If anthropogenic nutrient pollution proliferated algae was not there, then THAT algae-associated residual heat would not be there.

John C Fairfax.
(not the newspaper)
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 9:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF,
So the bottom line is you're concerned about the oceans. That's good. But presenting weird arguments and then linking to sources that have nothing to do with your weird arguments is not convincing.

What you have to prove:
1. How would algae warm the oceans?
2. What is the physics? What is the evidence?
3. Is there even a correlation? EG: Have we increased anthropogenic algae above natural algae that would account for the warming we witness in the environment? What was the original algae load in the oceans, and what is it now?
4. How can you demonstrate that algae add an extra 4 HIROSHIMA BOMBS per second? (Same as 3 Christmas light globes per square metre of the earth's surface).
5. If algae are meant to generate so much heat, why are there actually so few of them? The following map shows the VAST majority of the earth's oceans to have less than THREE HUNDREDTHS of a GRAM of algae per CUBIC METRE OF WATER! That's only 0.03 grams / M3!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA
6. How do you discount the known physics of CO2? We KNOW what it does: it's nearly 200 years since we discovered it. Are you REALLY mad enough to suggest that 200 years of physics is just plain wrong, or some kind of conspiracy theory? Fourier discovered the Greenhouse effect in the 1820's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Radiative Forcing Equation proves MORE CO2 = MORE HEAT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Until you can answer all the questions above, you don't have a case.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 10:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Max, I'm not sure whether you can't get this, are determined not to get it or do get it but aren't prepared to accept yet another instance where you misunderstood following your "outrageous" debacle, the misreading of the extra coastal land paper etc etc.

I suspect the later.

After I opine that the difference is that, while I'm primarily interested in what the paper has to say about the present levels of extremes on a global scale, you proceed to 'prove' me wrong by quotes regarding the future levels on a local scale.

Again AR5: ""In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century..." and lots of similar observations in that paper (which it'd be futile to mention yet again).

If I say the weather in WA today is bright and sunny, its rather incongruous to 'disprove' that by telling me the forecast for Sydney tomorrow is for rain. I suspect you get that but won't acknowledge it.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 1:59:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

You say:

"If I say the weather in WA today is bright and sunny, its rather incongruous to 'disprove' that by telling me the forecast for Sydney tomorrow is for rain. I suspect you get that but won't acknowledge it."

Your example doesn't make sense. It is mere sophistry having no bearing on the IPCC discussions.

The re-appearance of the "blob" is quite unexpected.

In 2014 and 2015 the so called "blob" off the West Coast of the US was having a huge impact on weather patterns off the West Coast of the USA. The "blob" was associated with drought in California. Already, the situation is quite grim in some areas where domestic water wells were failing in August 2016.

http://tularecounty.ca.gov/emergencies/index.cfm/drought/drought-effects-status-updates/2016/august/week-of-august-8-2016/

The "blob" had quite an impact on wild life and the shell fish industry.
Many ski fields did not gain enough snow.

The "blob" has returned, no La Nina weather pattern looks as though it will be appearing.

The reference provided suggests many of the matters already experienced in 2014 and 2015 will re-appear with the "blob" from now on.

It may have a negative impact on Lake Mead which was mentioned in a reference you provided, mhaze. The amusing part being you denied having provided that reference.

http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/cliff-mass-the-warm-blob-is-back-in-the-pacific-ocean
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 3:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mhaze,
The Working Group is NOT talking about the future, but about the past.
I'll have to unpack all your cherrypicks here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

YOUR FIRST CHERRYPICK:-
"In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due..."

Comes from page 162.

FULLER CONTEXT:-
“….to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.”

ALSO ON THE VERY SAME PAGE!
“It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950. There is only medium confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century mostly owing to lack of data or of studies in Africa and South America. However, it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. {2.6.1}

Now, is “since 1950” the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 6:47:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MHAZE,
YOUR SECOND CHERRYPICK
"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

Page 219:

FULLER CONTEXT:-

“Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe...

... indications exist that droughts have increased in some regions (e.g., the Mediterranean) and decreased in others (e.g., central North America) since the middle of the 20th century.

... There is very strong evidence, however, that storm activity has increased in the North Atlantic since the 1970s....

FAQ 2.2, Figure 2 summarizes some of the observed changes in climate extremes. Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability, and observed trends in droughts are still uncertain except in a few regions. While robust increases have been seen in tropical cyclone frequency and activity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, the reasons for this are still being debated. There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”

Now, is “since the 1970’s” the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 6:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Max Green: "Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot."

Um, Max, I'm not convinced NOT copy/pasting the cherries from "denialist trolls/websites" would make mhaze look any less like an idiot.

I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced that would help at all. :-)
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 7:27:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze, your THIRD CHERRYPICKED QUOTE is also on page 162.

"Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated."

Oh no! The science was overstated... so what does the rest of the IPCC data conclude?

"However, this masks important regional changes: the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950. {2.6.2.2}

Don't denialist's just LOVE to quote data that MASKS other stuff? it's their FAAAVOURITE. They just cherrypick their favourite quotes, and ignore the overall context, the 'vibe' if you will. ;-) The INCONVENIENT DATA. It's just erased from existence, like Marty McFly, or displaced in time, moved from data from our past into the future, also like Marty McFly. You keep trying to get this data "Back to the Future". Dude, unless you've got a Flux capacitor, it just ain't gonna happen, OK?

Now, is "since 1950" the past or the future? ;-) Here’s the tip: don’t copy and paste from denialist trolls or you'll look like an idiot.
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 8:56:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The science that underpins the IPCC is beginning to age, the IPCC was published in 2013, the peer reviewed papers used by the IPCC would had been published sometime prior. Each year there are about 12,000 papers published.

Since the last IPCC much new research has been completed in relation to the cryosphere.

Much more recent research:

https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-death-spiral-update-what-happens-in-the-arctic-affects-weather-everywhere-else-eeb823f6112b#.ior53e8ye

A quote from Professor Jennifer Francis:

"Our new study does indeed add to the growing pile of evidence that amplified Arctic warming and sea-ice loss favor the formation of blocking high pressure features in the North Atlantic. These blocks can cause all sorts of trouble, including additional surface melt on Greenland’s ice sheet (the primary focus of this study) as well as persistent weather patterns both upstream (North America) and downstream (Europe) of the block. Persistent weather can result in extreme events, such as prolonged heat waves, flooding, and droughts, all of which have repeatedly reared their heads more frequently in recent years."

Last sentence"

"What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic."

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has continued to fall; in 1979 it was measured as being 15,700 km3, and in 2015, 5,700 km3. The trend has continually gone down.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 9:29:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ ANT, I hear you, but this is about showing how untrustworthy mhaze's cherrypicking is, and how utterly it misrepresents the IPCC's findings.

@Mhaze, here is your FOURTH CHERRYPICK.

This one is not as bad. The flooding evidence so far does not seem to be as extreme as I would have thought. But the best models with the best physics show flooding will be a MAJOR concern soon. When the best supercomputers from the best scientists in the field say LOOK OUT, I don't care about your petty, selfish, childish little rant about the weather tomorrow not spoiling the weather today. Indeed, I don't even care why you dismiss the models. That's your problem, not mine.

YOUR FOURTH CHERRYPICK"

"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."

CONTEXT:

"AR5 WGII assesses floods in regional detail accounting for the fact that trends in floods are strongly influenced by changes in river management (see also Section 2.5.2). Although the most evident flood trends appear to be in northern high latitudes, where observed warming trends have been largest, in some regions no evidence of a trend in extreme flooding has been found, for example, over Russia based on daily river discharge (Shiklomanov et al., 2007). Other studies for Europe (Hannaford and Marsh, 2008; Renard et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Stahl et al., 2010) and Asia (Jiang et al., 2008; Delgado et al., 2010) show evidence for upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude and frequency of floods, so that there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding except for the earlier spring flow in snow-dominated regions (Seneviratne et al., 2012).
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 10:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I don't really know where to go with this. Max is all over the place and just when I think he's almost got it, it proves to be a mirage.

I've been pointing out that AR5 has been largely saying that there is little to no evidence that climate extremes on a global scale shows any discernable trend but did agree that AR5 did opine that extreme events have increased in some places, decreased in others and might increase in the future. I've explained why we should worry about what happens in the future when/if it happens.

So to prove me wrong Max says:
"The flooding evidence so far does not seem to be as extreme as I would have thought. But the best models with the best physics show flooding will be a MAJOR concern soon."

That is, he agrees with my point about the current data AND agrees with my point about potential increases in the future. Somehow agreeing with what I've said proves that what I said was wrong!!

To continue my 'sky' analogy its as though Max is saying "You're completely wrong to say the sky is blue because all the data shows that the sky is blue."

He of course peppers his posts with the accusation that I've cherry-picked from AR5. Apparently I've concentrated on the data about the current situation when he wants me to worry about the future. Cherry-pick is one of those favourite words of the alarmist which, in their hands, means "I don't want this to be true, therefore its cherry-picked". When you can't work out why the data is wrong, callit cherry-picked and hey presto!

Finally Max is continuing his policy of just making it up without evident embarrassment. He keeps saying I " copy and paste from denialist trolls" without bothering to offer even a passing attempt at demonstrating where, how or who.

It'd be sad if it wasn't so comical.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 2:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have made quite an effort, mhaze, but you are aware that Max is a proven dunce, and quite resistant to learning, as all dunces are.
He produces four Hiroshima bombs of fraudulent support for AGW per day, and should never be taken seriously.
He still asserts that humans have a measurable effect on climate, despite the fact that there is no science to support what Robert Carter has shown to be nonsense
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 3:30:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You made a mistake when you stated:

"You have made quite an effort, mhaze, but you are aware that .......is a proven dunce...."

It should read "... Leo Lane is a proven dunce ...."

The reason being you state that the referenced work below, is not science, only a fool would have such a notion:

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Also, how do you explain the forcing of all greenhouse gases including CO2 for 2015 being 2.974 Watts/square metre?
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 7:20:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi mhaze, you cherrypicked the globally inconclusive statements to downplay the known increases in regional events. I’ve not seen you truly acknowledge the regional events, or how serious they are *already* becoming. You cherrypicked the Working Group to try and disprove any extreme weather events.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com
 
You smugly dismissed the Working Group’s Summary for Policy makers, which summarises the data findings *and* forward projections, while pretending in the previous post to respect the Working Group. 
http://forum.onlineopinion.com
 
But instead we find that we have already seen increases in the frequency AND intensity of heatwaves and droughts in some regions, as well as other events. The future is worse, and if the peer-reviewed science says we should be concerned, I’d believe them over a cherrypicking denialist I had the misfortune to bump into on the internet. I’m glad you’re not in charge of the world or you would drive us straight at a cliff at 150 clicks, and only after we smashed through the barrier and gone over the edge would you declare: “Now we can worry about it!”
 
“If I say the weather in WA today is bright and sunny, its rather incongruous to 'disprove' that by telling me the forecast for Sydney tomorrow is for rain.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 1:59:35 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.
 
D’uh! Your cherrypicking and deceit and lack of real respect for science have disqualified your opinion from even mattering. Goodbye. (Smacks hand to forehead for having stooped to ‘feeding the troll’.)
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 10:44:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea, addressing me said”“ you state that the referenced work below, is not science”
That is a lie. I took an extract from a reference posted by the flea, and showed specifically the nonsense in his reference. It is ridiculous for a purported scientific document to include what I had extracted. I will post below a copy of what I said.. Nowhere did I make the statement asserted by the muddle headed, disingenuous flea.I only read one paragraph of the document, and commented on that Copy of my post:
“The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”. This is the first paragraph of the pathetic rubbish to which he has linked:
“The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend.” Even the flea could not be so ignorant as to mistake that for science, but he has wasted my time looking at it, and that satisfies his urge to be an ignorant pest.
You have the gall to talk about “science”, flea, when you have no comprehension of what the word means, and continually demonstrate your ignorance.
You have been asked for your qualification in science before, flea, and in your usual uncivil, pig-ignorant manner you ignore the question. I ask you again, flea, what is the qualification which is the basis of your tenuous presumption that you can speak about science as if you know what you are talking about, when you obviously do not.
Posted by Leo
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 10:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, it appears the software I was using changed the urls.

Mhaze's debut into extreme weather was here. It's the extreme cherrypicking version of 'denialist truth' where only the bits they want you to read are true.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327516

He then tries to create a divide between the science of the Working Group and Summary for Policy Makers, when if he had actually READ the Working Group paper the summary is all in there!

"We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM. Science v. politics"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327522

As Mhaze said SO IRONICALLY: "Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion."

If only mhaze actually focussed that at himself. I wonder, does he also believe the Moon Landing was faked, the moon is actually made of cheese, and 9/11 was an inside job of the government, orchestrated by an Alien Elvis who actually still lives in a UFO hovering invisibly over Gracelands? Makes you wonder.... it's all a conspiracy... science versus science (coughs) I mean policy.... such an enormous conspiracy, can they read my minds mhaze? Have you got a tinfoil hat handy?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 10:50:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze's FIFTH CHERRYPICK
"there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
P216.

This one is again comforting, as the severe thunderstorms and hail events have not gone too awry around the planet as a whole, yet, but are starting to rev up in some regions.

ALSO ON THE SAME PAGE:
"who found an increasing frequency of severe hail events in Ontario, Canada during the period 1979–2002 and Kunz et al. (2009), who found that hail days significantly increased during the period 1974–2003 in southwest Germany. Hailpad studies from Italy (Eccel et al., 2012) and France (Berthet et al., 2011) suggest slight increases in larger hail sizes and a correlation between the fraction of precipitation falling as hail with average summer temperature while in Argentina between 1960 and 2008 the annual number of hail events was found to be increasing in some regions and decreasing in others (Mezher et al., 2012)."

Seriously, does the username even indicate what he is? Is it short for "Me Haze"? Is that all we're dealing with here? Is this all just one big joke to him?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 15 September 2016 12:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max

I wonder where Typhoon Meranti fits into mhaze's view about extreme weather.
It impacted on a Phillipines Island as a Force 5 storm; it has since moderated down to a Force 3-4. The Philippine Island was in the eye of the storm and it has been stated that winds were in the 185 miles per hour range. The Typhoon is said to have been the second strongest ever recorded; and suggestions have been made that a level 6 storm should be added to the classification of storms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/09/14/typhoon-meranti-blasted-taiwan-and-now-its-headed-to-china-as-a-category-4/#comments
Posted by ant, Thursday, 15 September 2016 1:58:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Max has finally jumped the shark. Not content with just fabricating stories about me copying from blogs or that I want to spend money on sea rise amelioration, he now decides I must be a moon landing denier etc etc.

When the uninformed alarmist are shown to be uninformed alarmists they always revert to the cherry-pick meme and the moon landing moron-osity.

Earlier I said "It'd be sad if it wasn't so comical."
Now its just sad.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 15 September 2016 6:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Green,

Do you have a science degree and if so in what field?
Ducking and weaving or failure to answer will indicate you have none.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 15 September 2016 6:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze laughed at the suggestion that there were extreme weather events, and when I said extreme weather events were not funny, put up his cherrypicked quotes. Whether or not he just copied and pasted them from some denialist blogger we'll never *actually* know, but that he seemed completely ignorant of their *context* gives us a bit of a hint, doesn't it? ;-)

Sneer.

I correct.

Deny with cherrypicked quotes.

I correct with context.

Sneer.

Getting the pattern?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 15 September 2016 10:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just imagine all the broad acre farmland a thawed out tundra will provide and all the $billions saved in shipping by an ice free north west passage.

Cheers

Ross
Posted by FireballXL5, Friday, 16 September 2016 10:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just imagine water wars, increased drought and famine across the USA, the Amazon drying out, 30% species extinction by 2050, farming wars, 100 million refugees on the move, increased flooding in some regions, crops lost to increased heat stress, killer heatwaves that wipe out tropical populations due to 'wet bulb' temperatures being above what the human body can dissipate, Australia moving from becoming a desert surrounded by a skid mark of green to a skid mark of ash, global sea water rising and rising and rolling our cities back across the world... and the world marching on those last few green farm belts, demanding them for their own.

Sounds like paradise.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 16 September 2016 11:16:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you clairvoyant Max, you know that's going to happen?

Did you need a computer model to prophecy that?

Another question please, why are climate alarmists always doom saying or "glass half empty"? We humans have a knack of adapting, scare campaigning doesn't help.

Cheers

Ross
Posted by FireballXL5, Friday, 16 September 2016 11:31:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@FireballXL5: "Just imagine all the broad acre farmland a thawed out tundra will provide and all the $billions saved in shipping by an ice free north west passage."

It'll be like the Garden of Eden all over again? Just imagine what the Methane Gas will do to push summer temperatures up 5-10C or more.

Just imagine what the Cyclones will do to Queensland where there is no more GBR to stop the waves hit the once protected 2,000 klm coastline with cities and towns all the way down.

If Australians are lucky Putin may let us all emigrate to Siberia as environmental refugees when the 'really clever people in this nation' work out the Murray-darling no longer flows, we can't grow enough food or catch enough fish to even feed ourselves let alone export our excess.

That's in a world where no one burns coal anymore, no Aussie coal miner is digging it up anymore, and Oil/Petroleum is severely rationed for emergency services only across the globe (maybe but when?)

AUSTRALIANS FOR COAL. What is your investment dollar doing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXzAUaTUSc

How Not To Be Stupid - A Guide To Critical Thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA

Permafrost: The Tipping Time Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g

Greenland when the Tundra is a "Garden of Eden"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkpFNteryX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmC7-DrAuJU

The Greenland Ice sheet is 2 to 3 kilometers thick! OK?

Greenland Ice sheet is 1,710,000 km2 in area vs QLD 1.853 million km²
Now imagine an ice sheet 3 kilometers high across all of QLD and it's melting fast?

Heaven on Earth or an Earth in Hell?

Five Characteristics of Science Denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

Hint: Read the Science!
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Friday, 16 September 2016 11:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ross

If all the tundra thawed, then at the same time the Arctic Ocean would have no or very little sea ice.

If you honestly research that amount of thawing you won't like the answer.

Already in the Middle East in 2016 there have been temperature spikes of 50C and even in one case 60c.

A thawed tundra would mean huge qualities of CO2 and methane would be expelled.
Nothing to