Too much with the graphs and statistics. These things are used to bamboozle us, and are all too readily bendable. Adelaide: wettest Summer for 80 years. No warming for 20 years. Nature itself is all we need to prove that the climate hysteria and rent-seeker rip-offs are part of a huge global fraud. The 'science' is the worst since the flat-earth thinking. Donald Trump is the one to put a stop to this fraudulent madness.

What amuses me about this gizzard-lore is that they presume to read off the tax rate from it. Real dark ages stuff.

"Fiddling with the past is all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe if I did a lot of work I would find them."

Follow the money.

Thanks Don, a really great article, as usual.

I really don't know how any thinking, honest person can argue with this evidence.

I was aware of all this, but putting it together in such a concise form is really valuable, for getting the message to any who really care, but perhaps don't have the math, or Google skills.

Hey Foxy, I hope you are reading this it is some of what I've been telling you. I know the green blob members will avoid it, in case their minds become contaminated with the truth, & have to admit the whole crumbling edifice of global warming is rotten to the core.

Meanwhile I'll just add some science proving CO2 can't do what they want you to believe.

CO2 facts

As CO2 and water vapour are more accurately called “radiative gases” they have different behaviours depending on day or night. During the day they absorb IR convert it to heat and just as readily convert heat into IR. As they are saturated during the day, their effect would be nil.

However, at night, with no insolation causing RI from above or below, these gases would convert heat energy in the atmosphere to IR which is eventually lost to space. Note how quickly the lower troposphere chills down after sunset or how quickly little breezes kick up in the shadows of scudding clouds on a mostly sunny day. The bottom line is that radiative gases cool the planet.

The idea that these gases heat the atmosphere directly is a sleight of hand done by the warmists. As their tropical upper tropospheric “hotspot,” which their “science” said HAD to be heating faster than anywhere else and thus heating the surface, simply does not exist (the region has been gently cooling for 30+ years). They quietly abandoned that “science” and tacitly assume that these gases heat the atmosphere directly. They have no evidence for this of any kind, but talk constantly as if it’s done science.

Warmist “science” is failed science, as the surface is always hotter than the air during the day and any IR sent to the surface would be reflected and not absorbed, according to thermodynamics that cannot be disputed. The upper tropical troposphere is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C. Cold cannot warm hot.

Good lord Hasbeen you do remind me so much of my evolution-denying creationist father in law it is uncanny. Yet even he accepts global warming is occurring.

I invite you to read again what you have dished up and then tell me if you stand by it totally and without reservation.

If you really do then we can play.

@SteeleRedux you're wasting your own time trying to get any sense out of neverwas.

His only employment was a short as a part time car park attendant. Since then he has been typing away on his mothers pc giving advice to the world, based on his experiences parking cars.

He calls himself haseen because his car parking days were fifty years ago and he doesn't think he has it in him any longer. i think he is right.

First of all Dons stuff, then mine from one of the worlds leading German physicist, & our green blob can only sneer. Pity none of them have any math or physics, the head ache it would give those empty heads would do them good.

Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote;

“Meanwhile I'll just add some science proving CO2 can't do what they want you to believe.”

You cheeky old bugger. No quotation marks, no attributions, just pass it off as your own. You know, however slanted your take, for a moment I thought you had gone away and gotten up to speed with this stuff and I was looking forward to an informed discussion. But no, you just copied and pasted it from here;

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/06/climate-sensitivity-a-simple-inverse-model/comment-page-1/

That is pretty low even from someone from your side of the debate.

Unless of course you are higley7 then I apologise.

If you did a lot of work? Well I reckon "some work", would be a useful start. If you don't understand global convection, Hotter in one hemisphere and simultaneously colder in the other, as an increased climate change phenomena, Then your comparative charts might as well be tasked with outhouse duties.

If you of all people don't understand that a solar waning phase since the mid seventies, (NASA) ought to be accompanied by milder temps, not record hot year on hot year. Then what hope do those who rely on the clear sighted intellectual acumen have?

You need to place a thermometer in a shady spot in your garden, then go out and lambast it loudly, every time it confounds your incredibly apparent confirmation bias.

The way you obsess over this record keeping, and argue against the evidence, is not the actions of a highly educated erudite scholar!

Moreover however intelligent or highly educated, you can't own your own facts or dismiss evidence that doesn't fit your preferred paradigm?

Furthrmore, the only thing we have to fear from converting our coal fired economy, to a safer cleaner, cheaper by a long chalk, thorium powered one. And on the overwhelming economic merits alone, is that a few foreign miners/debt laden speculators, may lose some of their money, income or profits, while we reclaim our energy independence and our economic sovereignty!

I take it you have no problem with the latter? Or the period of sustained hitherto unprecedented prosperity that a space age energy policy could create?

The Irish have a saying, misery guts loves company! Maybe that's your problem? You don't want the patently punch drunk economy to get up off the floor?
Alan B.

The Global Warming hoax will be revealed soon with the coming of a mini ice age. Europe and the USA have had extreme winters causing food shortages.We had really hot summers in the 1960's with often a week of 100+ deg F. There were times the past when CO2 levels were 12 times the present and there was an ice age.

The green blob as usual offer no science, just insults & appeals to authority.

Do try to say something intelligent to cover the facts, & the evidence of fraud.

Must do better fellows.

any water in Sydney dams?

You deniers seem very angry.

Arjay,

Yes, it turns out that C02 is not the only driver of climate. Who would’ve thought?

It’s funny, isn’t it? One moment, you lot are arguing that our climate is far too complex to attribute it to human activities just yet; then, when a singular piece of data appears to support your position, it all becomes so simple again and past levels of C02 during periods of glaciation suddenly expose a hoax so grand in scale that it would be impossible to hide.

--

Hasbeen,

Appeals to authority are not fallacious if the authorities cited are experts in their field. What IS fallacious, however, is waving the Appeal to Authority about to dismiss a consensus amongst experts.

--

runner,

Here’s a quote, just for you:

“The dams will never fill again.” - No one, ever.

--

You deniers are desperate, swooping in with your cherry-picked data, false fallacies, and misquotes like that.

I do try hard to see it from the deniers’ perspective, though. I suppose I too would be tempted to wade through the data, employing confirmation bias as I went, if there were a critical issue that needed our immediate attention which could only be resolved by, say, being really homophobic or taking a devil-take-the-hindmost approach to economics. As it turns out, however, there are no issues which are resolved by such means. But there is a pressing issue that requires us to look after our environment, so it is you deniers who are left to cherry-pick data because the thought of finally having to give those tree-huggers what they've always wanted, by looking after the environment, is just too much to bear.

In terms of temperature, wind from Indian Ocean waters has to be measured and assessed because warm air coming off that ocean surface has an effect on air temperature flowing eastward over Australia. I think there is similarity in how a car engine gets hotter on a hot day. If already hot air is being forced into the cooling system, then the system will not be as cool as it would be if cool air was being forced in.

Warm air definitely comes off the Indian Ocean because that warm air is known to sometimes split the skin of white wine grapes growing in some WA vineyards.

Northern waters of the Indian Ocean now have historically unprecedented sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution and associated algae blooms. Algae generally is plant matter

Apart from impact or not from CO2, why do warmisters not measure and assess impact of increase in ocean algae plant matter?

My own temperature probe measurements of warmth in algae show consistently that warmth is retained more in water with algae than is water without algae.

Areas of ocean ecosystems where where algae is present or has been present is warmer and higher, indicating reason why sea level rise is not global/everywhere at the same time.

What sort of year did Australia's marine environment have?

Destruction and devastation of coral on Australia's Great Barrier Reef has continued because politically tenable media focus remains on AGW and CO2, ignoring coral smothered during mini or macro dead zone (hypoxia) events caused by nutrient overload proliferated algae.

Media does not closely show and point out and investigate and report on the dead areas of coral in comparison to library images of thriving areas of coral of the past.

Consequently the public and politicians are therefore not understanding need for nutrient load reduction and say "nutrient trading", instead of emissions trading.

The real life situation indicates climate science is grossly incomplete without knowledge of weather-linked ocean and lake ecosystems and especially under-surface temperature.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100305-baltic-sea-algae-dead-zones-water/

Dear Hasbeen,

Well from that I assume you are not higley7. In that case please refrain from attempting to look knowledgeable on this stuff by plagiarising someone else's post from a denialist site. It wasn't even that good, but you were not to know that because you have so little grasp on the physics and science of global warming. How do I know? Well because if you had you would not have felt the need to copy and paste another person's words to pass them off as your own.

Perhaps you could go do one of the excellent courses available to bring you a bit of a handle on the physics and maths involved. Good luck and be sure to let me know if you need a hand with any of it.

' t wasn't even that good, but you were not to know that because you have so little grasp on the physics and science of global warming. '

what a laugh Steelie. Coming from jokers who can't work out the basics in what is needed to keep power running. This has been done for a century or more before these fraudulent ' scientist' got to make a name for themselves (albeit fools).

Dear runner,

Mate you are getting more and more obtuse as the years go on. Just for clarity I do not work in the electricity industry and am at a loss why you even went there. How about one day you actually attempt to put a cogent argument forward on the thread's topic rather than run in here like a neutered Jack Russel, a touch crazed with mange, nipping and snarling for a second before fleeing?

Dear Don,

Why on earth are you straining your eyes over pixellated gifs on a dodgy denialist site when your could go and look at the data from your own BOM?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2016/annual-summary-table.shtml

Notice our clown, Steele studiously avoids ever saying anything about the science, which is obviously totally beyond him.

Typical green garbage as usual. Try to change the discussion to avoid anything other than denigration of the more intelligent folk, who have seen through the fraud.

Keep it up Steele, it gives us a laugh.

Why is so little if any focussed attention being given to the underwater ocean ecosystem/s that produce more than 50 percent of world oxygen and dominate influence driving world weather and climate?

Science should not hide from such a question.

Global warming. Rubbish.

Its the usual, delusional, illusional, noble sounding hippie - "we are going to save the world" crap, dished out by our leftist greenies and brainwashed academics.

Its merely a political tool, to bash the evil capitalists over the head with.
While the ones that carry on with this twaddle, continue to live with every convienence
their westen lifestyle provides them with.

If these people had to ever really go back to surviving in the natural world. They wouldnt last two seconds. But still they come up with these chicken little
ideas so they can continue believing their hippie leftist extremist ideas.

The barrier reef dying, oh please, its been dying at least since the 1970s according to these greenies. Still waiting for the funeral of the reef, you strange people.

Ive even seen the ocean rising and threatening island people before, probably 25 to 30years ago. Thats nothing new either.

Interesting that a warning for Ross River fever has been made in relation to Melbourne.
Disease vectors have been changing.
Melt ponds and Lakes developing on ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Glaciers melting around Earth.
Extra water vapour in the atmosphere.
Wildfires in Siberia out of season.
Warm Oceans.
Fish moving from their habitats.
Coral bleaching around the Planet.
A couple of short periods of sea ice melting in the Arctic Oceans in winter etc etc.

These naturally display a warming Earth and have been on upward trend lines for decades.

The Whats Up With That (WUWT) site is crap.
There was an absolute ignorant article published in WUWT in relation to sea ice rebounding shortly after the minima had been measured in September 2016.

In my last note I mentioned how WUWT in an article got it completely wrong in relation to the Arctic, displaying gross ignorance . The WUWT article had been about a rebound of sea ice.

Seemly crazy solutions are being suggested to halt the loss of sea ice, through manufacturing it. Where there is little change in temperature there would be no need to even contemplate such unusual solutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/plan-to-refreeze-arctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change?utm_content=buffer8b95a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A quote from Jennifer Francis:

"Last November, when sea ice should have begun thickening and spreading over the Arctic as winter set in, the region warmed up. Temperatures should have plummeted to -25C but reached several degrees above freezing instead. “It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean. This is unprecedented,” research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University told the Guardian in November. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary.”"

Karl et al caused a controversy with deniers as his research showed how the so called "hiatus" was a wrong assessment. Oceans comprise 70% of the Earth's surface; they are deep and take a long time to either warm or cool. Satellites, along with data from ships and buoys have shown how Oceans have been warming. Shown by coral reefs around Earth being impacted.

Australia has displayed warming through:

.Turtles dying in Queensland through beach sand being too hot.
.Bush fires in Tasmania destroying King Billy and Pencil pine groves which have been in existence for thousands of years.
.Coral bleaching of Great Barrier Reef
.Mangrove areas being decimated.

A fact check in relation to deniers of the Karl et el paper; by a scientist, not amateurs such as Rose/Watts:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Per reference, Zeke Hausfather, discusses how data was sourced which had been ignored by Rose.

Even if Rose/Watts for once were right, Earth is warming anyway, regardless of their drivel.

Be realistic.

Climate has obviously been changing from wet to dry since the time the ancient city of Petra was thriving with a running water supply.

Turtles are starving due to fish population devastation that is also causing Australia to import over 70 percent of its fish consumed or processed for animal feed meal annually.
Somewhere near $2m BILLION worth and the ABC cannot even afford $2 Million to keep Radio Australia short wave on air.
What a disgrace.

Coral is dead or dying almost everywhere and algae can be seen causing that similar to how aphids can be seen causing leaf damage and plant death.

Mangroves are also in sewage and land use nutrient overload/pollution inundated ecosystem currents like seagrass food web supply nurseries are.

Warm ocean currents are known to be higher in the centre where the warmth is greatest, as would be the case with blobs of water.

Does data exist showing water warmed by underwater volcanic vents or by increased algae plant matter that has absorbed solar heat that would not be absorbed if that algae was not present, in contrast to SST data?
So much for ocean warmth and sea level rise data.

Why is the total nutrient load from various point sources flowing into GBR waters not being measured and assessed in association with northerly flow of the Australian east coast Sediment Dispersal System?

AGW data is very incomplete and so is news of the real state of the world ocean environment.

You present alternative truth JF.
I obtain my information from scientists.
For example, it was DR Bowman who identified the fact that climate change was behind the pencil pine and king billy pines being hit by fires. The particular habit does not regenerate, the groves of trees had been in the highland area for thousands of years.

Volcanic action and algae is a nonsense.

The warm currents in the Arctic are around 70 metres below the surface, they impact on sea ice when there are storms causing upwelling. In 2015 an Ice Breaker took data during winter and they were able to assess the impact of upwelling during storms. Sea ice melting was not found when there no storms.

The mangroves that died were in an isolated spot where effluent is not a problem; you made unfounded assumptions, as you did with other situations.

Ant,

At least I present the truth.
I feel sure you would have been a flat earth believer and disciple.

The government of Japan obtained information from scientists, to build a nuclear power plant in a Tsunami region.
The Australian government obtained information from scientists to import cane toads.
Of course there is good science and incomplete science, especially science involving AGW and CO2 emissions.

Of course ancient trees and forests are being destroyed by change in climate just like trees and possibly forest were destroyed adjacent to the ancient city of Petra. Trees there would have provided firewood for warmth and cooking.

I think volcanic vents underwater heat the water similar to how milk is heated by a coffee machine. Are you saying there are no underwater ocean volcanic vents?

When might you be able to comment on algae and associated warmth under arctic sea ice?

Ant, have another look.
Amplified Arctic warming by phytoplankton;
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Apart from upwelling there are also surface currents made up of fresher water loaded with nutrient and driven by wind.

As for mangroves, they have to be in sediment and nutrient habitat in order to grow.
Nutrient from human sewage and land use is travelling vast distances, I reiterate driven by wind.

Ant, do you have evidence from your scientist/s proving there is no anthropogenic nutrient whatsoever where your mangroves are located. Where is that location anyway?

JF Aus

A geoengineering technique discussed is to drop iron fillings on sea water to develop extra phytoplankton to draw in more CO2. You continually misrepresent what science research is saying.
You can discuss phytoplankton till the cows come home, it remains wrong.

Try variation between troposphere and stratosphere in relation to what is happening in relation to temperature. How are photo plankton managing to impact here?
The Southern Hemisphere has less land mass than the Northern one and therefore should warm more quickly by your reckoning ... it doesn't, the opposite is true. etc

JF, your "alternative facts" do not make sense scientifically.

http://youtu.be/ox5hbkg34Ow

Ant,

I deal with ecoengineering. ecological engineering. For example in the fed govt Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper - Supporting Information, I have suggested harvesting northern wet season water and running it to help sustain farming as well as the water starved Coorong in SA that is supposed to help feed ocean biodiversity.

Yes, iron stimulates phytoplankton growth but in my opinion iron alone is not enough.

Iron was spread in the NE Pacific Ocean but I think there was concern about impact of that iron, for example on coastal ecosystems.

Ant, are you qualified to say my discussion about phytoplankton remains wrong? Can you be specific and state exactly what is wrong and why, such as by referring to some scientific evidence?
No you cannot do that.

I am not qualified to speak on troposphere and stratosphere but I can say ocean dominates control of weather above. Therefore I assume ocean chemistry is linked to chemistry of atmosphere.
Phytoplankton produces some cloud that impacts albedo that I think in some way impacts troposphere and stratosphere. Yes or no?

Yes the southern hemisphere is warmer, it has the SW Pacific Islands and more sunlight, in comparison to the northern hemisphere that is virtually inundated with cloud that creates shade and cooling.

The opposite is not true as you say, Ant.
And what "alternative facts" are you talking about?

As for your last post link, "what did we know and when did we know it"?
Climate science - geoengineering apparently did not know about increase in warmth linked to anthropogenic increase in ocean algae plant matter in addition to ocean natural algae mass.

I suggest study the leading text of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, scientific paper, at the PNAS link I posted above.
It states, quote, "..... such biogeophysical impact is still not considered in many climate projections by state-of-the-art climate models, nor is its impact on the future climate quantified. (end quote).

Ant, is that the "alternative fact" - "that does not make sense", you are referring to?
Posted again: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

JF Aus

Photo plankton were said to be dying in a study of the Indian Ocean I referred ages ago due to warmth.

As per usual you have put the cart before the horse with the referral you provided.

Once again you are stating much the same as you have for a few years. I'm not going to waste my time saying anything further.

Ant,

Sorry to see you backing out.

You should get to know what you are writing about including how to
spell phytoplankton.

Phytoplankton is always dying.
Perhaps you mean zooplankton, of which I think there might be less due to imbalance caused by over abundance of phytoplankton including toxic species fed by sewage and land use nutrient pollution.

I enjoyed discussion with you because it helps to get to understand the marine environment and urgent need to attend to seafood sustainability and ocean animal starvation instead of waffling on about CO2 and lucrative emissions trading.

I spoke briefly to a civil engineer not long ago and he said the aqueduct system should have been started immediately following completion of the Snowy River project.

Really, Ant, you should not be running from debate about a project that might generate vast business and employment and export revenue for government.

Do you think its best to forget export industry and just increase tax to generate revenue?

Cheers

New research is indicating that Oceans are becoming less oxygenated through warming and other factors. The greatest impact has been in the Arctic Ocean where warming has been the greatest.
Last sentences from Absract:
"We suggest that changes in the upper water column are mostly due to a warming-induced decrease in solubility and biological consumption. Changes in the deeper ocean may have their origin in basin-scale multi-decadal variability, oceanic overturning slow-down and a potential increase in biological consumption11,12."

The complete study is available via hyperlink from Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.c916338d4d10&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

Quote from Washington Post article:

"The largest overall volume of oxygen was lost in the largest ocean — the Pacific — but as a percentage, the decline was sharpest in the Arctic Ocean, a region facing Earth’s most stark climate change."

It is interesting that modelling had previously anticipated loss of oxygen in warming Oceans; now, objective meaures are showing that to be the case.