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

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.

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,

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. ;-)
-

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.

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