@ 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.

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.

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.

"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.

@ 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.

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.