Bob F says "*Geological activity (One Russian lander seems to have passed through a volcano plume of high concentration methane BTW)"

This is exactly the type of thing that was predicted to be found on Venus by Immanuel Velikovsky.

wiki says.
Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published April 3, 1950. The book postulated that around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world.
The wiki article then goes on to attack Velicovsky because his observational methods did not produce politcically correctness suitable enough to fit in with the fashionable theories in vogue.

A series of short Videos.
"Charles Ginenthal presents at the 1994 Velikovsky Symposium in Oregon the detailed results and data compiled by the Venusian probes, both American and Russian, and compares the hard data of such versus subsequent "revisions" which were then widely publicized/disseminated, and how this latter disinformation amounted to an ongoing debasement of science at the altar of dogma.

(In Part 1 Charles reviews the age-old and insidious process of sceince by ad hoc-ism.)

The trendy usage of the AGWA term "runaway greenhouse effect" is shown to be one of several possible motivations for the "revisions" to the actual probe data streams."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCDS7JmUhl8&list=PL334491CC94CEE42C

Another pearler (Hilarious rubbish)from Thomas Oh Really as confused by Cox.
O'Reilly says
"Yes, but it is much better to find out for yourself. Maybe Prof Cox could help you? He's been doing a science series on TV for weeks now, and in one of those he provides the Physics (Laws) why the Oceans are blue and the sky is blue and how the whole planet looks blue from space. Seems to be something about how infra-red energy in the visible light spectrum energizes molecules such as H2O."

Thomas has thus ended any foolish notion of him understanding or Cox being able to teach atmospheric optics.

To see how the sky being blue has absolutely nothing to do with infra red or GHG's read about Rayleigh scattering here.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm

The atmosphere scatters violet and blue light so much it is blue on the way out (sometimes without even hitting the ground) also. At the article linked to above wqe find. "Air molecules, mostly nitrogen and oxygen, are 1000X smaller still. They interact only very weakly with visible light but with their enormous numbers in the atmosphere we see the effects."
High energy shortwave visible light heats the atmosphere directly from the sun due to Nitrogen and Oxygen being 780900PMM and 200900PPM. Blue and violet light have more enrgy as higher frequency EMR than infra red. This is all modulated by the solar spectoral shift ( the light from the sun is not constant).
Absorbtion bands
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/

JF Aus

An interesting article about phytoplankton, among other things:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160919131958.htm

@Siliggy go away, find someone else to 'play' with. I'm not interested - PLONK!

Forces of Nature with Brian Cox - Season 1 Episode 4 ''The Pale Blue Dot''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNplJG8sCrU

or spend $2.99 and watch a decent version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhQ03HUvTY

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=22358

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

Yes, it is much better to find out for yourself! LOL

BUT

"Never argue with stupid people (or internet trolls), they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

AGW/CC comments from RC

There are several problems with satellite temperature record. One, the satellite instruments do not measure temperature at all, they measure microwave brightness over a wide range of altitudes.

It takes complex processing of the raw data through a computer model to estimate temperature. Two, that temperature is for the mid-troposphere, not the surface where we live. Three, both the satellite instruments and the satellite orbits degrade over time, meaning the record is stitched together from readings from multiple satellites and instruments over time.

UAH TLT – what is generally jabbered about by Denialists as the “satellite data” , provides a measure of the weighted average temperature from the surface of the earth to an altitude of 10 km or so, and is much more heavily manipulated than the surface temperature record that is measured by real thermometers.

I tend to think of those who deny the basic physics of the greenhouse effect as being analogous to Young Earth Creationists while those who accept the basic physics but still deny that AGW is a problem (e.g., believe we are saved by negative feedbacks or convection or what-have-you) as being more like Intelligent Design proponents (where one is denying a lot of scientific evidence in a specific field but at least not denying basic science across a broad spectrum of fields).

Looks like Nicol & Marohasy are in the YEC Box!

Roberts and his ilk have been thoroughly debunked for their fictional mythical fantasies on RC - really it's so sad.

Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
-

@ Thomas O'Reilly, Thursday, 22 September 2016 12:27:54 AM

Yes, I have asked you to explain warmth recorded in SST anomaly data.

I have browsed through the ‘homework’ but still the question is unsettled from my point of view based on years of experience with underwater photography, colour, matter, turbidity.

Now I think I can see why you and Professor Cox are confused.

Saying the ocean is blue is a generalization that does not describe the real colours that can indicate water quality.
It’s like not seeing a black person blush in daylight or not seeing a white person blush on a dark night.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/50384/how-can-bodies-water-be-different-colors

In increasing areas of ocean the water has changed from clear to green or green more often than not.
Some areas that were green as observed 50 years ago are now more green or a muddy green.
Why the change and what impact according to science?

Some ocean waters are now showing a whiter-blue due to massive coccolithaphore blooms that surely cause change to this planet’s albedo, some are dark green, but has such change been measured?

SST data involves only the first millimetre of ocean surface water, so where is scientific thermometer data showing coinciding temperature WITHIN algae blooms and ocean dead zones and currents globally?

What reference exists to show AGW data and analysis of warm ocean surface currents streaming away from algae inundated waters?
E.g. the East Australia Current transports warmth in very clear water, though warmth begins weeks earlier in tropical waters, then nutrient apparently depletes, algae falls away, the very clear EAC then streaming to near Tasmania?

Photosynthesis-linked and/or radiated solar heat in open ocean water can therefore last weeks over long distance.
Surely a blanket-mass of living ocean algae MATTER can also delay particle to particle loss of heat, also slowing the second law of Thermodynamics .

Think, at the BIQ algae building in Germany, “photosynthesis causes the microorganisms to multiply and give off heat”. Can anyone prove that incorrect?
Scroll down to various evidence at my post at page 17, here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=17

Think globally act globally. Very urgently.

Craig Minns,

My post above to Thomas O'Reilly should point to my view of the SST anomaly charts.
They do not show any anomaly from my point of view of ocean ecosystem currents and nutrient overload pollution and consequent increase in algae plant matter.

I would be pleased to chat or answer any relevant questions if I can.