Denial is a result of ;

1 being a paid shill of vested interests i.e. Exxon, who admit they pay large sums for articles that are pro denial.

2 Mental health .

3 Being unable to grasp the concept of something that will inevitably result in death and rationalizing this into denial of the event.

The last is being recognised as having a significant impact on some people.

"I think it is certain that warmth linked to ocean algae matter was not measured and assessed in AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science. However, why is that so?"

Because they measured the originating *source* of algal energy: the sun. Imagine that!? Satellites can then discern any albedo changing phenomenon.

Now it's up to you to disprove the laws of thermodynamics in arguing why algae somehow magically create MORE energy than the sun beaming sunlight down into the ocean, and how they magically trap MORE heat than the original sunlight per m2 and their ocean albedo effects combined.

You ignore the KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE heat trapping physics of CO2 which according to the Radiative Forcing Equation traps an additional 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. And why? In favour of your own physics defying algal bloom theory, which is already measured as in the albedo considerations of the sun's interaction with the earth's surface.

The real question here is why do you ignore that fact?

Max

"Except in the next breath you contradicted yourself and decided you did not actually accept the working group's findings on extreme weather events."

Well that never actually happened but why let the facts get in the way, heh?

What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally. Since that isn't what you'd like to hear, you then pointed out that the same document also suggested that there may be some increases in some regions. I never rejected that but I did opine that regional events were not yet well understood, that most of the 'data' is from models and that the global data was more relevant to what we were discussing. I also asked if you accepted the global data whereupon you left the thread.

As I said, I accepted the IPCC's global data and, without rejecting the regional data, drew attention to its shortfalls and that we'd need to see further evidence to fully accept/reject it - a position the IPCC also adopts. And that, apparently, is rejecting the science. Ya gotta laugh.

Here's some new interesting data for all those who think that we really really need to do something now to ensure that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids aren't up to their ankles in water when they go to the beach in 2100.

A new paper (peer-review and all so it must be true!) has found that coastal land areas have INCREASED in the past 30 years:

Here's the paper - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n9/full/nclimate3111.html

its paywalled so here's the BBC summary - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

"Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

This is, of course, a disaster. It means that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids are going to have to walk an extra few metres to get to the water's edge when they go to the beach in 2100 and that Al Gore's waterfront property may not be waterfront forever. How ever will they cope!

Don't you just hate it when the real world data doesn't comply with the hype. Its almost as though Gaia is mocking the true believers.

Mhaze:
"What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally."

Page 134 says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

Page 916 says: “We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations.“

To paraphrase what Mhaze said to me:
“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case unthinkingly parrot your denials heroes, and use cherrypicked data”.

Mhaze,
You'd have us believe that the world is generally creating
The extra land is a tragedy, not a good thing!

"Conversely, the researchers also found that even larger areas of water have now become land. The biggest transformation was seen in the Aral Sea in Central Asia. What was once one of the largest lakes in the world has now almost completely dried up after engineers diverted rivers to irrigate agriculture."

In other cases the coastline we 'gained' was not natural, but by construction. In other words, this has NOTHING to do with sea level rise being trumped up, and everything to do with multi-billion dollar construction of fake islands in Dubai and expensive sea reclamation projects in China.

But hey? You seem just as casual with Australia's construction money as you are with the truth. We *could* be putting that money into roads and bridges and hospitals, but you want us to put it into defending the Opera House from going under. Well, that's denialists for you. ;-)