Yes Don Absolutely right on the money. The earth is actually getting cooler as one would expect as normal during a waning phase of the sun.

The tundras are not melting, there are no new Alaskan summer lakes belching millions of tons a methane skyward and there is just as much summer ice of the coast of alaska as there ever was? And Sydney as expected, had an unusually cool summer? the lowest ever recorded Yes? And all provable as 1+1 = 3.

A final thought? You mean you haven't done that years ago? Or are still able to do that? Maybe the source of that strange burning smell? Or maybe just the coal fired, reverse cycle, air conditioner overloading trying to keep the joint warm?

There are just three kinds of people in this world Don, those that can count and those that can't? Or maybe just two, those who accept the marshalled Data, and those who seek to explain it away or just dismiss it out of hand! You seem to fit the latter category and remain consistent!

By the way, just checked the time piece, and it's 10.30 am. I hope I'm not too early or that I'm the first responder? Given I know how much that gets under your skin.

Y'all have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

There is no valid evidence to justify the belief that global warming will do more harm than good.

Richard Tol is one of the foremost climate economists. He's been at the forefront of estimating the impacts of global warming since IPCC's First or Second Assessment reports. Tol (2013) [1], Figure 3 (bottom panel) shows global warming would be net beneficial to at least 4C increase in global mean surface temperature, excluding the projected increase in energy consumption cost. However, it is likely the estimated increase in energy consumption is grossly overestimated.

Agriculture and health are large positives - i.e net benefit for the world.
Sea level rise, storms, ecology, etc are all negligible net costs.

The only large cost increase is due to projected increase in energy consumption. but, as stated above, this may be grossly overestimated.

References:
[1] Tol (2013) was released as a working paper in 2011. It is available free here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

Alan B - you'll have to brush up on your sarcasm. I was part way into your post before I realised you disagreed. Anyway, yes, there were a few very hot days in Sydney this summer. Perth was much cooler than usual and the Northern winter was bitter. Variation is not a trend.

Don did not mention it, but the so called Karl paper from NOAA (related to GISS, I think) which tried to explain away the now lengthy temperature pause has hit all sorts of trouble due to its apparent use of "adjustments" to the data, which Don mentions. Last I heard NOAA was busy ignoring congressional committee subpoenas to hand over the data used by the paper, after a whistle blower came forward.

Don most interesting.
I have always wondered if the concept of global temperature had any real physical meaning. The averaging of raw surface temperatures is meaningless. If measurements at a site extend over decades, then changes in local topography must be considered. Likewise, if sites are moved, but retain the same name. Or perhaps strict protocol is not always observed.
Now, meteorologists are aware of these problems and attempt statistically to correct such variations by a process called “Homogenisation.” Although I suspect “Fudge factors” would be a truer term. Dr Jennifer Marohausy explains these problems at her blog site.
Satellite measurements on the face of it are more reliable, but the record only extends back a little less then forty years. Also, I understand that that there are arguments concerning calibration of the detected radiative fluxes and converting to precise temperature measurement.
The core measurement of the human body is measured per rectum. However, I suspect that a thermometer inserted into the earth’s core would melt.

Just like 'Fake' News , major Political Parties , 'Elites . and political Academics... the Great Unwashed are over "Fake' Global Warming.

It is just another 'Greenie ' ( since the Communists self-destructed) exercise intended to control The Masses.

Frankly , I am no longer interested in its' 'Science'..( what an abused word )...'adjusted Statistics or any other combination of BS.

Some years it's hot some are colder.. the world may get colder... but whatever happens.. this Planet will NOT last for eternity !

There are immutable facts in relation to climate:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we dispose of it very quickly and release CO2.

Those are immutable facts, will be true regardless of political orientation.

A reference to a major insurance body ... Munich Re.

https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html#sthash.GySQ5BsL.dpuf

Quote:

“The increasing navigability of the Northeast and Northwest Passages (under the RCP8.5 scenario, large portions of the Arctic Ocean will already be mostly ice-free in late summer by the mid-21st-century) will introduce new exposure and hazards in these regions - for shipping and coastal areas (port facilities, industrial plants).”

In 2016, a British yacht sailed the two routes in the one melting season. Also, two ice breakers were able to motor all the way to the North Pole in the same season. In other words, already we are well on the way to reaching the prediction of Munich Re. A few decades ago it was possible to sled over the ice to the North Pole.

Those who have read anything in relation to the IPCC would realise that the RCP8.5 is the worst case scenario discussed; yet, apart from the yacht other ships have already begun to use the fabled passage; a few decades ahead of expectation.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts from WUWT is publishing articles about how the Arctic sea ice is rebounding.

Here are a couple of matters we apparently do not need to be concerned about if accepting the denier viewpoint:

Loss of thousands of hectares on mangrove forests in the Gulf of Carpentaria....

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/they-died-of-thirst-extreme-conditions-wipe-out-forest-over-1000-kilometres-20170313-gux252.html

Also, further bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef:, BOM states there is a 50/50 chance of an El Nino in 2017.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/they-died-of-thirst-extreme-conditions-wipe-out-forest-over-1000-kilometres-20170313-gux252.html

Continued

The state of the Arctic sea ice is important as it moderates temperature. The state of Antarctica is also of concern.

An area twice the size of Tasmania in North West Canada has permafrost thawing ... a sign of high constant temperature:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

Those who do not believe in man impacting on climate may like to discover the changes in the stratosphere and troposphere.

A number of new studies have shown how Oceans have been picking up warmth; these studies make a nonsense of the so called "hiatus". Very important as Oceans make up around 70% of Earths surface, and take a long time to either warm or cool.

Australian and/or global average temperatures, expressed as a precise number, are a political not a scientific number. Given that there is an inherent margin of error in all these calculations claiming that this year is hotter or cooler is fraught when the difference between the two is within the MOE.

Now, it also matters that the MOE is itself unknown. The BOM doesn't mention it at all in its data.Nonetheless, it is generally taken as being +/-0.2c. If that's even close then saying its was Sydney's hottest year is statistically incorrect. It may have been the hottest year but it also may have been the 6th hottest. This was highlighted when GISS agreed that they were only 38% sure 2014 was the then hottest year due to the vagaries of the data.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Don's mentioning that Hansen was the first to combine "northern hemisphere data with what southern hemisphere data there were" bought to mind the story of Phil Jones. CRU issued data for 2001 which, surprisingly showed both hemispheres cooling in that year, but the globe warming. The late great Tasmanian John Daly recognised the error and bought it to the world's notice whereupon CRU took down their website overnight, rejigged the data and then re-issued it while complaining they had been exposed. That was the background to Jones' dispicable musing that Daly's death was "cheerful news" as reviewed in the ClimateGate emails.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Don's stalker, Alan B noted "there is just as much summer ice of the coast of alaska as there ever was". Although he was being sarcastic, he was actually more right than he knows. New research (Stein et al., 2017 - http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/new-paper-indicates-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-last-10000-years/) indicates that ice levels in the Arctic are at or near the highest levels in the Holocene.

Alan B. right about something - who'd a thunk it.

given that far more people die from cold than heat you would think that energy supply would be a priority. Not for those dumbed down by greens ideology.

Well who'd have thunk it? A few folk have realized that the best EROI in energy provision is inherent in thorium. And we just might have as much as 40% of the world's known reserves.

energy giants are telling us that few if any are willing to invest in coal fired generation, others that we may well not have enough gas to supply our's and the more profitable international market?

Now, for the purpose of the exercise, set aside all the claims and counterclaims on global warming or that thorium, the most energy dense material in the world or that it is carbon free energy! And just focus exclusively on the economic argument and its merits!

Thorium is all around us in our dirt. Stepping outside almost anywhere and filling a one cubic metre box with dirt, then using simple gravity separation recover on average around 8 grams of thorium, I'll have recovered enough thorium to power my house car and abundant lifestyle for around the next 100 years! The cost of recovering that 8 grams of virtually ready to use as is, without any enrichment, is around $100.00 that's just a dollar a year!

Compare that with either coal or gas and anyone with half a brain runner, will understand why both the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear want this stuff left in the ground, as do those who have a vested interest in coal, oil or gas!

Christians actually give a rats about their neighbor! Coal gas or oil advocates don't care if energy prices have created massive rust belts, tent cities and soup kitchen once only common garden scenes, during the Great Depression!

One would think rationalists would have understood that the way to keep the jobs and reduce operational costs, would have been via a different energy paradigm!

When gran can once again afford to heat or cool her home! Most of these problems will disappear. Hopefully before we replicate those circumstances that very nearly wiped out life on earth, around 90 million years ago!
Alan B.

yeah I am sure you despise the comforts that coal has brought you Alan B.

Just a few folk posting here would know that life was only possible here given our orbit is in the goldilocks zone around the sun, so also apparently, Mars and Venus?

Mars has no Van Allen belt? That protect us from the solar wind. And that it seems allowed the Co2 in Mars's atmosphere to mostly freeze out and now located largely at both poles?

More Co2 still in the atmosphere, would warm Mars a tad to make just a little more habitable?

Venus, the hottest planet in the solar system? Has huge Co2 levels in its atmosphere trapping far too much heat for life to exist?

The heat melting all the sulphides and adding them to a super hostile poisonous atmosphere!

Hard to imagine it was once possible that we could have prospered on that planet, when it was still cool enough to have liquid water, now just vapour and part of an acidic atmosphere?

At some point not too far ahead in time, we will have crossed the rubicon and set course for turning this blue green planet into another Venus? Only the hottest planet in the solar system due to the concentration of heat retaining Co2 In its atmosphere?

Yes one day our planet will become uninhabitable due to solar expansion!

Must we hurtle headlong at terminal velocity toward that date with destiny, for no other reason than maintaining the ever upward profit curve of fatuous folk who seriously believe, they won't inherit the mess of their making!

Imagine if reincarnation were a fact? And perfect justice if those who create our future come back as its most humble inhabitants?

Absolute justice, wouldn't you say? And gives new meaning to the expression, the sons inheriting the sins of the father?
Alan B.

ant,

At that SMH link you posted at the bottom of page one of this thread, can you or anyone explain the difference in water clarity that is visible in the before and after mangrove comparison photos?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/they-died-of-thirst-extreme-conditions-wipe-out-forest-over-1000-kilometres-20170313-gux252.html

mhaze

It was Paul Homewood who wrote an article published by Watts about Arctic sea ice rebounding quickly in September 2016. He was completely wrong, anybody who has followed sea ice in the Arctic would know that there are significant daily fluctuations. After he had made his nonsensical comments, sea ice began to not progress, there were even times when instead of increasing, it was melting during the winter of 2016/17. We are very close to the melting season and there has definitely not been any rebounding.

Sea ice rebounding is an interesting view on the basis that the maximum sea ice extent measured in March 2016 was lower than the minimum sea ice extent measured in September in the 1980s (winter and autumn measures). For 13/03/'17, sea ice extent is at the second lowest extent ever recorded, there will be no major rebounding from now till the when the melt begins. To illustrate the ups and downs of sea ice extent, on the 12/03/'17 sea ice extent was up 65,617km2, and on 13/03/'17 it was down 31,573km2, in both cases second lowest extent was recorded.

In other words the reference you provided at 14/03/'17 @ 3.19 pm is complete garbage, Homewood is not a scientist.

So where is the surprise. 100 percent of the no Sayers read the garbage put out by non scientific vernalisem.

If the ice melt is true when might the big sea level rise be announced?

Don't you just love people that spam other peoples forums?
AMDMODE obviously thinks the forum is a great place to spam and get free advertising.

This is AMDMODE; our spammer, Ahmad Daabas.
He's obviously quite taken with himself....

http://who.is/whois/amdmode.com
http://www.ahmaddaabas.com/
http://www.google.com.au/#q=ahmad+daabas&*

JF Aus wrote:

"If the ice melt is true when might the big sea level rise be announced?"

Sea ice melt in the Arctic will make no difference to sea level rise; just as ice in a drink makes no difference in level.
Properties along some coastal areas of SE US are losing value, research why JF. Insurance cover is refused by Insurance Companies for numerous properties in that area. Properties in that area are losing value. What capital works have been happening in Miami that relate to your question?
Check out why a British base in Antarctica had to be moved.
Take a look at what is happening to the Larson C ice sheet.

Currently, sea level rise is around 3mm per year, it is the undermining of grounding lines that is the issue (Greenland and Antarctica).

JF Aus.

Deep upwellings from the continental shelf, bring sediment laden cold water close to shore, (poor visibility water). These have been disturbed from their normal flows, which have allowed warmer currents to predominate in areas like the Barrier Reef, but not only. Their decline has brought dramatic temperature rises close inshore!

The differing clarity you point out in the SMH report, are probably caused by a local rain event!

Warmer currents a causing coral bleaching and the death of kelp beds, to the fringes of the East Coast in particular. This has been steadily increasing over many years.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

"Homewood is not a scientist".

Well that may be true. You don't know one way or the other. But he says things you don't like so, facts be damned.

Nevertheless his credentials are entirely beside the point in this case. In the link I posted, he was summarising a paper by rooly-trooly scientists. But since that paper says things you'd prefer to ignore, you'll find any excuse to do so.

So do you accept The Science as expressed by Stein et al., 2017 or do you reject science?

Just to repeat,,,Stein et al., 2017 shows that the sea ice extent in the Arctic over the past few centuries is the greatest its been in the last 10000 years. Little wonder that those of a certain faith want to only look at what happened in the past few decades.

mhaze

No Tricks is merely a blog site, run by Kenneth Richard.
I believe the paper by Stein et al is genuine, though do wonder about its interpretation by Kenneth Richard is suspect.

An article by Kenneth Richard has a headline: Most Polar Bears Live In Canada, Where There Has Been No Net Warming For Centuries. So Why Are They Endangered?

Here is a reference to a recently published paper:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

It describes huge thawing of permafrost in North West Canada. Permafrost only thaws when there are consistent warm themperatures.

There is an article by Kenneth Richard about the Thomas Karl et el paper being corrupted, there was much discussion afterwards and the allegations were found to be wrong.

No Tricks wrote about 20 W m-2 CO2 Climate Forcing, that is the first time I've ever seen such a figure, the forcing when taking all greenhouse gases is about half of that figure when discussed in 2015... absolute fake news. From memory in 2015 it was 9.793 WM2 for all greenhouse gases.

The No Tricks site doesn't live up to its name it provides fake news ...bs.

The Great Barrier Reef is once more undergoing a bleaching event, a clear indication of a continuation of warmer waters that coral cannot sustain.

http://theconversation.com/year-on-year-bleaching-threatens-great-barrier-reefs-world-heritage-status-74606?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=facebookbutton

In the Arctic Ocean acidification has been shown to be a matter of concern:

http://phys.org/news/2017-02-international-team-ocean-acidification-rapidly.html

As people would generally realise, Oceans are a sink for CO2, colder water draws in more CO2 than warm water. Also, a more open Arctic Ocean allows for more CO2 to be drawn in.

A further illustration of climate change stated by a CSIRO scientist:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/15/australian-coastline-glows-in-the-dark-in-sinister-sign-of-climate-change?CMP=soc_567

Quote:

"The phenomenon, which is best seen in calm, warm seas, is foreboding. “The displays are a sign of climate change,” Anthony Richardson, from the CSIRO, told New Scientist after an occurrence in Tasmania in 2015."

These examples provide observed data displaying climate change.

Immutable facts:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we dispose of it very quickly and release CO2.

Scientists speak about the rapidity of climate change currently compared to previous eras.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

Of course the Stein 2017 paper is genuine. I'd just like you to advise whether you accept or reject the science. I know why you're avoiding the issue. You don't want to say you reject the science but you can't accept it either because the paper shows that the current decrease in ice cover is from the highest levels seen in the Holocene and that its just returning to more normal levels.

So accept or reject?

"A final thought"

Hope you keep that promise Don.

mhaze

The paper is hidden behind a pay wall, only the Abstract and first page of the Introduction are available. Kenneth Richard is unreliable in giving a synopsis of any article in relation to climate change as indicated by my last post.

Meta Reports which give an overview of what is happening in the Arctic provide data and information that is very reliable ... peer reviewed in relation to a whole gamut of matters relating to the Arctic:

http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf

A final thought on 2016 Australian 'warming' is that Australians like ant have learned nothing about reality and continue with non-sense about CO2 emissions causing warming.
No offence, ant, it's just that in your post above you provide perfect example of the non-sense.

There is no sense or scientific evidence proving wild natural coral is being killed by warmer water.

Reality is that on a hot day at low tide there are pools of water on top of coral reef that often have varying amounts of coral growing in them and that coral does not bleach or die, despite fact that pooled water gets very warm.

Killing coral with warmer water in a laboratory would make sense if the water was say very very hot, or very hot for an un-natural number of hours.
Tides do not stay low all day, reef top pools of warm water are quickly filled and cooled.

Try to understand, a human can stay outside on a very hot sunny day but cannot stay for very long without cooling with water or shade.

If warm water was killing coral the top of every reef would be dead.
Coral exposed to sun and heat on reef tops dies during storms and/or big seas and waves that smash the coral to bits.

Sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution is feeding invasive algae that is smothering coral in local events involving hypoxia, leading to bleaching.

JF Aus

The science of climate change has been in existence for almost two centuries.
Your comments suggest that Fourier in the early 1800s was wrong.
Eunice Foote in the 1850s was wrong in relation to experiments she conducted with CO2.
John Tyndall was wrong in the work he completed later in the 1800s.
A long line of increasing understanding created by experimentation, observation, and use of increasingly sophisticated equipment must also be wrong.

Your previous comments imply that Fourier, Foote, Tyndall et al were wrong.

I happen to believe in science, and not contrived statements.

ant,

Your own reply there is actually contriving that I am implying those et al you refer to were all wrong.

It is your opinion that my comments are wrong. Do tell on what grounds they are wrong. Show science proving I am wrong, if you can.
Be specific instead of generalizing.

I too believe in science, but complete science, not BS science that is politically motivated or science that is underfunded and incomplete.

JF Aus

At a Symposium in 1856 the work of Eunice Foote was presented, her experimentation showed the interaction between CO2 and light. I have provided a reference a number of times in the past. Were Fourier, Eunice Foote, Tyndall, politically motivated? Guy Callendar till the early 1960s kept records of temperature from every place possible, was he politically motivated? ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s indicated that fossil fuels damage the climate, were they politically motivated? Later, a couple of ExxonMobil scientists used modelling to show the state of the Arctic as it is now. Projecting what they believed would be the case in something like three decades into the future, politically motivated?
In 1991 Shell provided a video on climate and a theme of the video was the high risks involved in relation to climate change, politically motivated?

On the other hand, since Reagan and Thatcher a new political/economic way of viewing the world has evolved overthrowing concepts previously held.

You say "...I too believe in science, but complete science"

What that means is that you know better than CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, the Royal Society et al, and Journals such as Nature, AAAS, Lancet etc which publish peer reviewed research. You also know better than scientists working out in the field in at times hostile conditions. You know better than Physicists, Oceanographers, Meteorologists etc. You know better than Universities that provide Earth Science cources.

The implication is that you believe Monckton, Rose, Delingpole, Taylor, Watts, Nova etc who are continually proven wrong.

Where is your data?

ant,

It looks like your comments are politically motivated. Are you chasing commissions from from emissions trading? Are you an agent selling wind turbines to government? Are you in alternative energy business?

Look back on my comments on this thread.
Did Eunice Foote in 1856 prove warm water kills coral?
Did any of the other sources you refer to, prove CO2 or hot water is linked to death of coral?

Sometimes I have known a tiny bit better than CSIRO, NASA and NOAA, for example in 1982 I reported a major government search for 4 missing fishermen was in the wrong direction south to Gabo island, and 3 weeks later their boat was found north off Newcastle where I had even searched. Search procedure was subsequently changed.

I am not disputing CO2 is linked to atmosphere that is liked to climate.

Where is my data?
Science has no data to show how gravity is formed yet gravity exists.

The Great Barrier Reef has been a place of work for me, I have been a cameraman and co-produced and produced underwater films in GBR waters.
Inside a giant fishing lure mobile blind I was towed feet first backwards underwater for a total distance of 400 nautical miles for the first time filming the previously unknown locomotion and feeding habits of giant black marlin - locomotion and habits then unknown to CSIRO, NASDA and NOAA et al.

I have rested and warmed up many times while walking on top of the GBR, as other divers do, exploring, observing, walking in shallow warm pools.
First hand I have observed healthy coral in very noticeably warm pools while cooler moving tidal water flows nearby.

You pay, ant, take me there, bring a scientist and measure temperature of my feet and the warm pool water, show in natural conditions that warmer water is killing GBR coral, then you can have some data. LOL.

Anthropogenic sewage and land use nutrient overload pollution, not CO2 emissions, is proliferating invasive algae that is killing coral and sometimes leading to bleaching, worldwide.

JF Aus

I'm retired.

I'm not a member of any political party nor do I have any intention to join one.
My children and young relatives will be hit by climate change, already we are seeing changes. Many people apparently couldn't give a stuff about what they present to their children or the next generation.

I'm sorry if what I have written previously is not clear.

Eunice Foote was the first person to show the relationship between CO2 and light, fairly recently discovered information. Tyndall had previously been thought to have had that distinction.

The point of my last post was to state while you suggest you support science, you do not support the physics and chemistry that support climate science, nor the other disciplines, or the peak bodies that support them. That equals anti-science.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef it were areas that were most remote (Northern areas) that were hit hardest by coral bleaching ... waste from farms and sewage had nothing do with those areas. Anthropogenic waste from farms or sewage has been discounted many times and it amounts to lying to keep pushing that barrow.

An individual's perceptions fall a long way down anything scientific...first come questions arising from perceptions...afterwards a reference search, then a hypothesis might be created, then collection of data. The hypothesis might be changed depending on data collected and then further data is collected.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

You claim to only follow the science, but we both know you only follow that science which suits your preferred positions. So you ignore Stein et al because its behind a paywall, while we both know the real reason is that it says that which you'd prefer to not be true. Yet when the Exxon papers were freely available you ignored them (no reason given) because, we both know, they said things that contradicted your preffered postion. That, my boy, ain't science - although it is something like climate science as it now, sadly, exists.

Re the GBR.

As I showed you a while back in one of those papers you've decided to ignore, over the past 10000 years temperatures have been higher than at present for 25% of the time. The GBR existed and survived throughout those warmer periods. (ant, will now assert that the speed of the rise exceeds the past, but Marcott has already advised that he, and we, don't know that to be true).

So if the warmer past didn't destroy the reef, why should we think the current warm is the casue for whatever perceived problems the reef currently has?

It may be that run-off and nutrient overload is the problem. It may be that the reef has always bleached and we haven't been studying it long enough to know better. But there's no reason to think that a warming world is the problem since, in the past, a warming world wasn't a problem.

mhaze

Pure garbage.
I have seen too much science research either lied about (tampering with graphs), misunderstood, or where authors have had to repudiate what deniers have been suggesting about their research.
I do go to denier sites when they are referred.

Your No Tricks referral offers rubbish, the synopsis by Kenneth Richard is highly suspect as a result. I illustrated previously why I believe Kenneth Richard offers rubbish by providing examples.

It would appear that Kenneth Richard is making much fuss about nothing in relation to the reference you provided:

http://youtu.be/GGEjfUHPVcE

JF Aus

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/despair-is-not-an-option-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-20170312-guwguk.html

Well ant,

I have read the paper via a login provided by my local library. I think most council run libraries offer that service.

The summary I originally linked is correct.

The data in the graph is taken directly from the paper and its attachments.

But since its not what the alarmist community wants to hear, it will be ignored and I don't imagine ICN will be covering it any time soon.

mhaze

I think your referral does not differ much from the video clip I supplied. Hence my comment about Kenneth Richard is making much fuss about nothing in relation to the reference you provided:

ant,

I am also retired but would like to come out of retirement.
Nor am I a member of any political party and nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.

I think you are incorrect, ant, in saying your children WILL be hit by climate change, future tense, when in reality they are already being hit by higher energy cost caused by AGW alternative energy politics.

We are all being hit right now today, present tense, because unchecked damage and bad word of mouth in the international tourism market is reducing tourism revenue for Australia.
Many people don't want to see dead reef.

Damage to the GBR and loss of tourism is continuing and worsening because Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority associated science is continuing to ignore the northward flow of city and town sewage nutrient dumped daily into the sediment transport system associated with alongshore current on the east coast of Australia.
Because the GBRMPA southern boundary ends north of Fraser Island the nutrient flow from south of Fraser Island is being officially ignored. The flow is strong enough to move over 500 cubic metres of heavy sand past the Gold Coast annually. The flow is a sediment transport system. See: http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1?code=cerf-site

Consequently GBRMPA associated science is not measuring and assessing impact and consequences of the total nutrient load flowing into GBR waters.
Think about it.
The hard hit bleached northern area of the GBR is downstream from massive estuary excavation that resuspended solid and dissolved nutrient matter within the actual GBR ecosystem.

ant or anyone, answer this.
What scientific reference exists to show that the Australian east coast southern city sewage and land use nutrient total loading has been discounted?
Just show reference and let us see who is telling the lies.

JK Aus
You wrote in response to my comment:

“… nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.”

My comment was:

“I'm not a member of any political party nor do I have any intention to join one.”

It displays poor comprehension, there was not a comment about wanting to be a politician, something you conjured up.
In the past when you have provided references, my comments were along the lines of you have misinterpreted them.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, how big are the farms and towns off Cape York?
My point being that coral bleaching occurred in areas where there are National Parks and no run off of fertilisers or sewage. Water quality was not an issue; whereas, much further South water quality is part of the problem with the reef.

Likewise, with the death of mangrove forests, in the past I purposefully mentioned it in a fairly vague manner, hoping you might research the matter.
You brought up the issue of human pollution in relation to that. I knew full well that the mangrove forest dying was in the isolated Gulf of Carpentaria.

A take down on the comments made by Pruitt, per Boston Globe:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/why-are-climate-change-models-so-flawed-because-climate-science-is-so-incomplete-jeff-jacoby-boston-globe/

Quite a discussion in relation to CO2, Also, about the relationship between CO2 and water vapour. A warmer atmosphere is able to hold more water vapour.

Quote from Mark Zelinka:

“…That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the present of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor.”

Quote from Andreas Schmittner:

“The water vapor feedback, which is referred to here as “creation of water vapor” but in fact is higher water vapor in a warmer atmosphere, is a basic prediction of thermodynamics, one of the most well-tested branches of physics. Water vapor has been observed to increase*. So, there is nothing speculative about it.”

Physics part of science?

Floodlist, gives an indication of major floods that have been experienced around Earth causing numerous people to be killed and billions of dollars of damage.

http://floodlist.com/news

Morocco provides an interesting example, average yearly rainfall is about 300 mm; a rain bomb at the beginning of February 2017 dropped 100 mm in a few hours.

The following reference provides some idea of the precipitation normally experienced

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCCode=MAR

According to Insurance Company Munich Re there were 160 natural disasters in the US in 2016. Records began in 1980, and 2016 produced the most disasters recorded in that time span. The company stated that 54% of properties damaged were not insured.
Munich Re states they define any disaster creating $3 million dollars of damage as being a disaster.

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/natural_disasters_caused_55_billion_in_damage_in_north_america_2016

My previous note stated that the amount of precipitation is reliant on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Floodlist provides many examples of major precipitation events which are generally not reported in the mainstream media.

A very clear statement previously provided:

“The water vapor feedback, which is referred to here as “creation of water vapor” but in fact is higher water vapor in a warmer atmosphere, is a basic prediction of thermodynamics, one of the most well-tested branches of physics. Water vapor has been observed to increase*. So, there is nothing speculative about it.”

ant,

You said I said so what, ant. I posted my view.

You have not replied about truth of the sediment transportation system running north with sewage nutrient through GBR lagoon/coastal waters.
Surely you think truth of the matter is important in order to find solutions.
Why should ignorance of 2016 Australian warming or not continue?
Do you have any scientific evidence proving AGW is the only cause of coral bleaching?

Would you be surprised if I said at least some sewage nutrient from Sydney would likely reach Cape York and that some may then flow into the Gulf of Carpentaria?

Can anyone prove it absolute fact that the unprecedented mass of Gulf of Carpentaria mangroves did die of thirst, when clearly some of those mangroves are well out from the shore and would likely not dry out because of 20 CM (200mm) less tidal depth?

What exactly is causing the difference in water clarity in the before and after photos of those mangroves?

Does anyone have scientific evidence proving it impossible for an ocean dead zone to flow into and inundate that mangrove forest area?

http://mangrovesunderpressure.wikispaces.com/Eutrophication+on+Mangroves
and
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005600

A big wake up is needed. Too many people have been dumbed down for too long. Try to understand. See:
http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/55/7/552/306721/Dead-Zones-Spreading-in-World-Oceans

JF Aus

Your references in relation to mangroves where do they fit with the mangrove forests that died in the Gulf of Carpentaria?

What direction does the East Australian Ocean current move in? JF hint, tropical fish have been sighted off Sydney, marine species have moved South to Tasmanian waters, kelp forests are dying in Tasmanian waters. Temperature is measured of sea water by UTAS off Maria Island; temperature has been found to be warming.

How many thousand kilometres would effluent from Sydney have to move against the predominant current to make its way to the Gulf of Carpentaria, as you suggest?

Getting to the very basis of science, I previously quoted Andreas Schmittner, Associate Professor, Oregon State University, who made comments about the laws of thermodynamics.
Ages ago I quoted Professor Roger Jones, who made the comment that Malcolm Roberts would fail high school science through his lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

Quote from Professor Jones:

"“Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.”"

http://reneweconomy.com.au/senator-malcolm-roberts-fails-high-school-science-in-maiden-speech-66398/

Where do your opinions differ from the firmly understood laws of thermodynamics?

ant,

I think death of the mass of mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria was likely due to nutrient overload pollution, and evidence indicates the majority of the total load has come from all point sources along the east coast of Australia. Those point sources include sewage outfalls at Sydney and Brisbane.

Here is where a lot of people go wrong or become confused.
The East Australian Current (EAC) is a warm water predominantly surface current that streams southward from equatorial waters to off Bass Strait and sometimes off the east coast of Tasmania.

The EAC is situated usually about 20nm off the east coast of Australia but very very occasionally tongue-like currents lick in and touch the coast, sometimes snatching unsuspecting broken down boats and occupants.
The 'tongues' then flow eastward out to sea and form 200 km diameter anti clockwise eddies before that then join back into the southward flow to ocean off Bass Strait and Tasmania.

The ALONGSHORE current on the east coast of Australia that I have been referring to is the current that transports heavy sand that often blocks river mouths. It is a current driven northward by energy within prevailing winds from the south and southeast.
Google: alongshore or longshore current.

With the offshore sewage outfall off North Head, Sydney, the fresh water with BONDED nutrients rises to the surface where S and SE winds drive surface water toward the coast and into alongshore current already loaded with sewage nutrient from other outfalls. The mix of fresh water in the ocean is called fresher water.

At Cape York almost all water exiting the GBR lagoon flows into the Arafura Sea that usually runs westward into the Indian Ocean, and some of that Arafura Sea water must drift around Cape York into the Gulf Of Carpentaria. There, N and NW winds would press that fresher water against the western coast of Cape York where the mangrove mortality occurred.

Continued……….

Cont’d………

I think the difference between my view of thermodynamics and GBR science understanding, is that my view is of reality and real science, and I am not controlled by political agenda that excludes eastern Australia alongshore current and sewage and the unmanaged nutrient load dumped daily by government.

Proof of the political or whatever it is, agenda, is that you will not find any data showing the various point sources of nutrient, or the nutrient load from each point source.
Yet farmers are blamed for nutrient 40nm offshore in actual GBR coral reef waters, where nutrient from east coast cities is also present.

Failure to complete science on nutrient point sources and the total nutrient load entering GBR waters is allowing or causing GBR coral and other biodiversity to be choked and destroyed.

JF Aus

You have repudiated (denied) thermodynamic laws. Thermodynamics is part of science.
You state you believe in science; clearly, not true.

The damage of runoff from farming etc is acknowledged for the Southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef; your mistake is to try and generalise this fact to remote areas.

There is no sense in responding any further to your comments.

ant,

Your method of operation as others know on this site, is for you to attack the person and not debate relevant evidence.
Then you run away from responding any further, as you have done previously.

As a matter of courtesy, would you kindly provide reference to the damage from farming etc, especially the etcetera, being acknowledged for the southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef?

There is no debate in relation to climate science.

There are immutable facts that deniers are not able to debunk:

Laws of Thermodynamics.

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

As indicated by critique of Boston Globe article, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on the amount of CO2.

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/why-are-climate-change-models-so-flawed-because-climate-science-is-so-incomplete-jeff-jacoby-boston-globe/

We know that temperatures have been higher than current temps for 25% of the past 12000 years.

So if there are problems in the GBR and if those problems are caused by higher temps then we can say that those problems were experience by the reef in those past times when temps were higher than now. And we can say (since the GBR is still extant) that the GBR survived those problems. Hence there is either no problem or the problems are caused by things other than temps.

QED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on the amount of CO2"

During the decade starting in 2000 the volume of stratospheric water vapour declined by 10%. At a time was atmospheric CO2 was increasing. So the link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and stratospheric water vapor would be...err doubtful.

According to NOAA "The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown". But the science is,apparently, settled.

mhaze.
Where did your information come from?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Quote

"..."Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle."

And:

"Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Phys.Org, states in a 2014 study states:

"... Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

Says:

" ... the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes ...."

"Where did your information come from?"

A NOAA paper. I didn't bother linking to it since we know that you're not interested in reading anything that doesn't support your faith.

mhaze

You say:
" A NOAA paper. I didn't bother linking to it since we know that you're not interested in reading anything that doesn't support your faith."

At 15 March 2017 9:06:33 PM, I clearly state that alternative truth sites are visited.

Kenneth Richard wrote about the rebounding of Arctic sea ice extent in September of 2016; that does not fit in with 13,556,324 km2（March 18, 2017,）down 51,178 km2 and lowest measured for the date. The long term trend line measured over decades is continuing to go down.

You won't produce a reference, so the assumptions that can be made are you do not have a reference, the reference does not say what you suggest, the reference is quite old, or the reference is misunderstood. I have now provided references from a number of sources, including NASA.

How many factories and internal combustion motors were available before the Industrial Revolution? Does such machinery belch out CO2 and other pollutants?

A tragedy unfolding due to warm temperature of Pacific Ocean as stated in video.

http://youtu.be/iy6LHR4FdCA

ant,

I think the tragedy is running away from discussion and evidence of sewage and land use nutrient pollution destroying coral and mangroves and other biodiversity, yet continuing discussion about CO2.

I will play the game briefly.

You ask, ant, "How many factories and internal combustion motors were available before the Industrial Revolution? Does such machinery belch out CO2 and other pollutants?"

My answer is this.
Before the Industrial Revolution every household, every house and camp, and every outdoor individual, had a fire to cook food EVERY DAY and often another fire to keep warm when needed.

How much CO2 was belched out from all those fires?

ant,

I've simply given up on you. You have a few talking points that you stick to religiously and for which no amount of contrary information or data matters. So I see little point in providing other data which you'll either ignore or offer some spurious reason why you don't want to believe it.

A case in point. Over a year ago now you wrote "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." That is of course arrant rubbish. I started off by showing you Marcott2013 which you started off trying to refute but finally decided to simply ignore eg as above when I point out the higher past temps and the ramifications of that, you just ignore the issue.
When I asked for support for your paleoclimatologists claims you shirted the issue and finally made the lame claim that, since there are lots of papers published each year, some will support your assertions. When I decided to inundate you with lots of papers and datasets refuting your claim you left the discussion.

Only later did you return, using a different nickname, hoping to be not asked to provide evidence (although it is possible you went down this path to avoid havingto admit that you'd been hoodwinked by ICN over the Exxon papers non-story...who knows, there are so many reasons why you'd want to retire the 'ant' nickname).

Tell ya what...you provide some evidence to support your Paleoclimatologists claim or admit that you made the claim simply because you want it to be true,and then I'll point you to the NOAA paper on water vapour.

JF Aus

Previously, I acknowledge pollution from farms in relation to the Southern section of the Great BarrierReef; I stated that your comments are wrong in relation to the Gulf of Carpentaria, nothing to comment on further.


mhaze

The denier trick of accusing me of using a different nick name is absolutely not true. I have posted as "ant" ever since joining Online Opinion years ago. Supposition/misinterpretation are what is a constant used by deniers. Diversionary tactics you are not able to break down my apriori statements:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

I have given a number of references in relation to the realtionship between CO2 and water vapour.

ant,

Are you qualified to claim I am wrong?

JF Aus
You ask "Are you qualified to claim I am wrong?"

This is an amazing answer from you to a question I put:

"You ask, ant, "How many factories and internal combustion motors were available before the Industrial Revolution? Does such machinery belch out CO2 and other pollutants?

My answer is this.
Before the Industrial Revolution every household, every house and camp, and every outdoor individual, had a fire to cook food EVERY DAY and often another fire to keep warm when needed."

My advice is think about it more carefully.
Hint, did pre Industrial Revolution populations fly around in jets, or drive cars? Apparently since the Industrial Revolution people do not warm their homes and cook; the population has not increased?? Plus further question marks.

ant,

I asked you various questions about nutrient and algae and you have ducked most if not all.
Apparently you are not so qualified or experienced to answer.

As to your view, absolutely most of the household etc cooking and heating fires have been replaced by either clean gas or clean coal burning.

Warmisters would do well to study major media news about delectricity generatioin that shows images of industrial chimneys belching black smoke at sugar mills. Note the stairs winding around and up the steel sugar mill smokestack/s.

ant, you religiously-like obsessed warmister people often fail to understand there is no CO2 from nuclear power and electricity power generations stations that have installed smoke filtering equipment. Modern aircraft and cars have similar technology.

Try not to forget all the kerosene lamps no longer used, and that kerosene now being used for aircraft.
And most cars have anti pollution technology.

Warmisters are apparently not wanting to think where all their sewage goes and impact it has.
Think, for ever action there is reaction.

It's a pity at the end of 2016 and even now into 2017 there are still obsessed people ignoring the sediment transportation system that is also transporting dissolved sewage nutrient overload pollution that is feeding algae smothering the Great Barrier Reef.

Is anybody denying the scientific evidence of that Australian east coast northerly flowing sediment transport current, that flows into GBR ecosystem waters and the Arafura Sea?

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1?code=cerf-site

Ego, obsession, greed or just sheer belief in whatever is touted by major media, seems why Australia is going backwards. Not forward.

The Dunning -Kruger effect is alive and well.
The definition is:

"Broadly speaking, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is defined as “a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability to recognize their [own] ineptitude.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/the-dunningkruger-effect_b_4476166.html

Another version:

"The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

The Dunning- Kruger effect applies to lay persons suggesting greater knowledge than a group of professionals who have worked a lifetime in their field after having obtained a PhD; and then, being told they are wrong. The Professionals are told they are wrong based on opinion by their lay person critics; critique of vacinations is an example, another is climate change.

I wonder if rejecting what experts day about the Holocene temperature record another example of Dunning-Kruger?

For a different perspective on the experts with PhD's:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/20/americans-reject-experts-failure-history-glenn-reynolds-column/99381952/

JF Aus,

I'm finding you writing and links on the GBR rather revealing. While I was aware that there was some issues with sedimentation as regards the GBR, I wasn't aware how far the problem extends.

The real problem is that, if there really is an existential threat to the GBR, and we go barking up the wrong tree by attributing all the problems to the wrong cause (CO2) then the problems become greater. By the time the real causes and solutions are recognised, it may be too late or at least the damage becomes much more severe than it need be. There are more than a few examples of exactly that type of problem in the relatively recent past, particularly in the medical sciences.

mhaze,

Exactly.

And here is a link to provide more evidence.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/pdf/2002/annual/short/ndx_43867.pdf

I add this.
The energy in the current that transports the sand to Fraser Island cannot just disappear. That flow cannot just stop. The water flowing north has to go somewhere. It does not go out to sea because it would be noticeable passing across the East Australian Current.

The heavy sand/sediment sinks down over the edge of the Continental Shelf, as the above abstract states.
However the energy and flow of that alongshore fresher-water current with bonded nutrient continues northward into the GBR lagoon.
And that flow and that nutrient load is not measured and assessed in GBRMPA and GBR coral associated science.

From my untrained point of view of medical science and similarity, I think during about the late 1980's medical and other science became separated into specific fields, to the point there is now a shortage of expertise in general practice of medicine.

In the ocean environment, for example, I see sediment dispersal experts with virtually no qualification in fish biology, and vice versa. I see coral experts with no knowledge of nutrient.
Then there are politicians who don't want to know about anything because as one has told me, the media is not interested and therefore is is politically untenable for politicians to deal with the matter.

So, too bad for the GBR and the associated national tourism drawcard, too bad for island people dependent on essential protein food staple from the sea, too bad for coastal economies and the amateur fishing tourism industry.

I appreciate your post there, mhaze.
I just hope Don Aitkin and others have similar comprehension.

ATTENTION: Don Aitkin.

"I wonder if rejecting what experts day about the Holocene temperature record another example of Dunning-Kruger?"

or...
I wonder if rejecting what experts say about the Holocene temperature record is another example of Dunning-Kruger?

my dyslexic fingers...

No worry mhaze, your power of reasoning is not affected.

AF Aus

What is terrigenous sediment? That is what your abstract reference was about.

Scientists say that the Northern areas of the Great Barrier Reef were pristine before the bleaching last year. Most coral reefs around Earth have been hit hard by Ocean warmth in 2016. That is what scientists are saying, I'm more inclined to believe what Professor Hughes states.

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/life-and-death-after-great-barrier-reef-bleaching

Quote:

“Most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in the northern, most-pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef. This region escaped with minor damage in two earlier bleaching events in 1998 and 2002, but this time around it has been badly affected,” says Professor Terry Hughes, Director of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies based at James Cook University, who undertook extensive aerial surveys at the height of the bleaching."

Also:

https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2017/03/16/scientists-mobilise-as-bleaching-resumes-on-great-barrier-reef/

Quote:

"The collaborative study between institutions across the world, published in the prestigious journal Nature today, examined whether past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 made reefs any more tolerant in 2016. Sadly researchers found no evidence that past bleaching makes the corals any tougher."

More information from those on the spot conducting science:

http://theconversation.com/ocean-acidification-is-already-harming-the-great-barrier-reefs-growth-55226

Quote:

"As our research published in Nature today shows, the reduction in seawater pH – caused by carbon dioxide from human activities such as burning fossil fuels – is making it more difficult for corals to build and maintain their skeletons."

You nor mhaze are able to dispute that:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

Here is what scientists in Siberia are investigating:

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/

Quote:

"Scientists have discovered as many as 7,000 gas-filled 'bubbles' expected to explode in Actic regions of Siberia after an exercise involving field expeditions and satellite surveillance, TASS reported.

A number of large craters - seen on our images here - have appeared on the landscape in northern Siberia in recent years and they are being carefully studied by scientists who believe they were formed when pingos exploded.

Alexey Titovsky, director of Yamal department for science and innovation, said: 'At first such a bump is a bubble, or 'bulgunyakh' in the local Yakut language.

'With time the bubble explodes, releasing gas. This is how gigantic funnels form.' "

Scientists at work:

Experimentation is occurring in relation to corals showing the impact of warming of Ocean waters and CO2 plus sea water creating a weak acid.

Coral Reefs in the Caribbean have virtually been destroyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVJBltmAfqM

A further clip from Years of Living Dangerously showing damage to a reef in the Phillipines and comments are made in relation to the impact on a number of island Nations in the future. The matter of security is touched on; an issue dealt with in the last ABC Four Corners program (20/03/'17).

http://youtu.be/YZXBawQGONs

The following reference discusses the Maldives; it discusses the science behind what is happening to coral reefs and impacts:

http://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/climate_change_and_coral_reefs_brochure.pdf

ant,

I reply to your post above as follows.

Energy within the eastern Australia alongshore current I have referred to is strong enough to transport heavy terrigenous sand northwards so that same current is obviously strong enough to transport dissolved nutrient bonded to fresh water.

In my view based on empirical evidence the more northerly damage to GBR coral occurred downstream/northward from the unprecedented deep excavation of ancient and other nutrient matter that was re-suspended during the more northerly coast Gladstone port development that was even situated within the GBR ecosystem.

Professor Hughes has apparently not measured and assessed the nutrient load flowing into GBR waters from south of the southern GBRMPA boundary. Nor did he scientifically measure nutrient re-suspension on a daily and tidal basis at the Gladstone ecosystem excavation.

Let's say the blue sky was pristine before clouds appeared with heavy flooding and damaging rain. It's similar with nutrient travelling in water.

Re universities, I expect CO2ist study would be mobilising to gather warmister 'data' from coral bleaching.

Institutions across the world are handicapped by gagging of information of substance from long term underwater exploration and observed changes in the marine environment, just consider change to chemistry of water dumped in the relevant alongshore current.

The situation is confusing, CO2ist claim of acidification is said to be hampering growth of GBR coraline based coral but in reality the delicate coraline base of coccolithaphore phytoplankton algae is thriving and is being seen in historically unprecedented blooms.

JF Aus

Coral reefs around the planet have been impacted over the last few years. Previously mentioned have been coral reefs in Caribbean, Pacific off the Philippines, Indian Ocean off the Maldives, and Great Barrier Reef. The unanimous verdict by scientists is that warming Oceans have been the cause. Scientists being people who have studied science for years and then spent years working in the Ocean environment. But, you virtually say they are clueless, you know better.

No matter what you write you cannot break down:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

Somehow you would need to deny that motor vehicles don’t emit CO2, aircraft do not emit CO2, coal fired power stations do not emit CO2, and transport generally does not emit CO2.

You need to be able to explain the disappearance of glaciers, be able to answer how India was in a pickle last year through depleted water resources and why that could be the case again in 2017. Some further questions, how is California fairing in relation to agriculture, what is Munich Re saying about climate costs, what is happening in permafrost areas of Siberia, and what changes have happened in the troposphere and stratosphere?

"Coral Reefs in the Caribbean have virtually been destroyed."

See Brocas et al., 2016 for evidence that, while there has been a rise in Tropical Atlantic temps in the recent past, they have been much higher for much of the previous 5000 years. (Besides Brocas there are several other papers that I know of that show similar data).

So the question becomes: if these corals are currently harmed by rising temps then how did they survive previous higher temps? Is there something else causing the problem? Is there in fact no problem and we just think there is because we haven't been looking long enough? Perhaps these coral regularly die back and then recover. We know Caribbean coral was virtually wiped out during the last ice age but enough survived to repopulate when things were more benign.

I've spoken before about the issue of 'presentism' ie the unstated belief that conditions in the present or recent past are normal and that any change is abnormal. Maybe the corals are returning to their normal state. Or perhaps they go through cycles of growth and decay and after we have been studying them for a longer period we'll better understand that cycle.

Trends of a decade or three or five aren't necessarily permanent trends. They may just be part of the standard cycles

mhaze

Quote from Tim Ferguson, on Julia Zemiro’s Home Delivery … “Science is science unless you are a right wing ding bat”

James Hanson disputes what you suggest.

http://app.box.com/s/t050csk2z20iqk9u14vnllz3i15dh5i0

In a section titled “2.2.  Temperature during current and prior interglacial periods”, Hanson et al provide a number of references to paleoclimate studies.

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years

Quote:

“The global temperature has increased to a level not seen for 115,000 years, requiring daunting technological advances that will cost the coming generations hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to the scientist widely credited with bringing climate change to the public’s attention.”

Corals in N Atlantic:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161122122811.htm

“North Atlantic coral populations -- key to supporting a variety of sea life -- are under threat from climate change, a study suggests.
Changes to winter weather conditions could threaten the long-term survival of coral in the region, upsetting fragile ecosystems that support an array of marine species, researchers say.”

Inter Glacials:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060051765 millions years

Scientists state that the Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island which has survived for a couple of million years through Inter glacials appears as though it could disappear ( March 2017). That is, temperature conditions have not been similar to what are currently being experienced.

Quote:

“The current rate of warming in the Arctic is unprecedented in the last 2.5 million years, a new study has found.
Global warming is causing significant melting throughout the region and will claim the last remnants of a massive ice sheet that once covered all of North America and that remained stable for 2,000 years, according to findings published yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The Barnes Ice Cap, which is about the size of Delaware and is located on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, is likely to disappear even if humanity curtails its combustion of fossil fuels at levels not currently expected, even under the most conservative estimations.”

Also:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170320143856.htm

ant,

I have not had time to reply but perhaps note the following link.
And I would like to know the connection to climate change (from their point of view).

http://inhabitat.com/mexico-sized-algae-bloom-in-the-arabian-sea-connected-to-climate-change/

JF Aus

Your usual diversion.

Note this is what scientists are saying.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-why-we-should-be-more-concerned-than-amazed-by-the-plankton-lighting-up-tasmanias-waterways-right-now-2015-5

"The concern is, “all over the world” never included Tasmania until 1994, when the phytoplankton were first spotted that far south. By 2004, sightings were much more common.

“The displays are a sign of climate change,” Anthony Richardson, from the CSIRO, told New Scientist earlier this week."

Further, from New Scientist hyperlink (warm water):

"Until 1994, Noctiluca had not been seen in Tasmania. But global warming has been strengthening the East Australian current, which pushes warm water south towards Tasmania. “As the Southern Ocean warms, it will be warm enough for Noctiluca to survive,” says Richardson."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-03-algae-bloom-arabian-sea-tied.html#jCp

"Scientists who study the algae say the microscopic organisms are thriving in new conditions brought about by climate change, and displacing the zooplankton that underpin the local food chain, threatening the entire marine ecosystem."

http://phys.org/news/2017-03-algae-bloom-arabian-sea-tied.html

ant,

What diversion are you referring to?

ant/Tony thinks that any data that doesn't confirm his beliefs is a diversion.

mhaze

Do you not know what diversion means?

Corals and sea temperatures were being discussed. AF Aus wanted to move onto his usual nonsensical cart before horse type comments about algae through his last reference.
He should have followed up his last reference a little further, warming water is the reason for the spread of Noctiluca, Tasmania being a good example.

On todays Science Show on RN radio, part of an interview with Professor Hughes was broadcast. Professor Hughes stated they have been closely monitoring the Great Barrier Reef, through numerous fly overs and assessing through dives. He stated that they investigated areas where there was sediment disturbance; very clearly he stated there was no more bleaching of coral in such areas, as in other spots where the coral had been pristine. The Southern part of the GBR was saved through the remnants of Cyclone Winston cooling the water.

The study of the Barnes Ice Cap (above) puts a huge dent in the denier comments about paleoclimate; very clearly the study indicated that over a period of 2.5 million years the state of the Barnes Ice Cap only showed the degree of melting a few times that is now evident.

Remember, these immutable facts are stated by scientists:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently (Mauna Loa).
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

ant,

You say, "warming water is the reason for the spread of Noctiluca, Tasmania being a good example."

I say algae must have adequate supply of food/nutrient in order to spread, and nutrient overload pollution is now common.

As for warm EAC water, what evidence do you have showing how that warm EAC water reaches into the Derwent River Tasmania where the Noctiluca algae is spreading?

Be sure there is plenty of sewage and land use nutrient pollution food for algae in the Derwent River, but in my opinion there is no warm water in there from the EAC.

JF Aus

Making assumptions in relation to the warmth of the waters of the Derwent River? What influence the EAC has at the mouth of the Derwent River and near environs neither you nor I can say without data.

You have a particular opinion about algae; JF Aus, that does not match what scientists are saying. I have wasted much time in relation to this matter reading references you have provided, scientists often note that warmth is a precursor to algal blooms which go against your opinion..

As mentioned previously, Professor Hughes states categorically that pristine coral as well as areas where there has been sedimentation were equally bleached as much as each other. It debunks completely your assumption about sediment ( Science on RN radio). Another assumption you pushed.

ant,

Data data data data is what you turn to, ant.
I repeat to you, there is no data to show how gravity is formed, yet gravity exists.
Do you understand, ant? Data is not essential to establish fact?

It was you who raised the issue of Noctiluca algae from more southerly EAC warm water being in the Derwent River. So how did that algae get into the cold water Derwent River?

Without data I can say warmth from the EAC does not extend into the Derwent River. I know as a Pro 5000 dive card holder that the EAC has high visibility underwater and the Derwent River has low visibility underwater.

I have not heard any scientist provide science against my opinion, have you?

My opinion is that natural nutrient and warmth is a precursor to natural growth of algae, and, that increase in sewage pollution proliferated increase of algae is a precursor to increase of warmth.

A view about sedimentation does not debunk my view about dissolved nutrient. Explain what you mean, if you can.

What assumption did I push about sediment? Answer. Don't run away or hide behind another subject you have read about.

I dare you ant, to find any scientific reference to Professor Hughes and dissolved nutrient being transported north in the Australian east coast sediment dispersal water current.
You won't find any such reference.

I will concede defeat and even agree with your AGW nonsense, if you ant can find such reference. LOL

AF Aus
Listen to Professor Hughes, I gave a reference, you should be able to pick it up by pod cast.
Temperature off Maria Island is measured which is not far off the mouth of the Derwent.
It is complete bs about the far North of the GBR being impacted by effluent.

I do believe in evidence, JF Aus, not assumptions.

When stating non membership of a political party your response was “… nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.” An assumption/comprehension problem made without any evidence .. wrong. Science relies on more than speculation, assumptions, opinions ... it relies on hypotheses being shown to be true with data.

Your alternative truth relies on nothing but sophistry, wrong assumptions with great helpings of bs. I'm not going to waste any more time in responding.

ant,

You not responding any further is your way of avoiding questions you cannot answer. Anyway you have been a great antagonist. Thank you.

Try to understand.
Water temperature at Maria Island not far off the mouth of the Derwent River is blocked from reaching into the Derwent due to northerly flowing alongshore current along the east coast of Tasmania. And Noctiluca algae cannot swim.

As for effluent, where do you think Australian east coast effluent goes after it is dumped in rivers and ocean waters?
Anyway, I have not said effluent reaches the far north of the GBR, but I do say dissolved nutrient from effluent reaches that far, whereas sediment from effluent would settle and become sediment much closer to sewage outfalls.

You raised political party membership and I replied with my view. One day I may join a political party, to help progress integrity and constructive innovation. But I have no intent or even desire to become a politician. It seems you have assumed something else.

This is a definition for hypotheses. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".
"Limited evidence", ant. Then comes science, hopefully real science, not BS science.

ant, you say "without any evidence".
I have provided you with scientific evidence of sediment transport current reaching from Bass Strait to Cape York, and I repeat, Professor Hughes does not include that current and associated nutrient in his assessment of nutrient in GBR waters.
Your claim otherwise involves sophistry.

I invite you, ant, to prove any BS from me, do it, I welcome it.
Why is it so that you cannot produce any science or other evidence to prove any of my comments BS or wrong?

Come on ant, give AGW CO2 a rest for awhile and perhaps briefly focus on other phenomena. Your investigative skill could be of great value to science and business and employment and humanity.

Attention: Don Aitkin

Don, I trust you understand.
I have continued my view and discussion on your article thread here because most weather and climate in Australia at the end of 2016 and continuing, is influenced by weather and climate flowing from the Indian Ocean.

My focus in part is change to biology and chemistry within ocean water and that focus provokes thought about warming of atmosphere over Australia. That warmth coming in from the Indian Ocean is even known to sometimes split the skin of white grapes grown in WA.

Cheers,

John C Fairfax.

ant,

Good one. But.

I think some scientists are arrogant because they think they know everything about everything about all science, whereas plumbers know about plumbing and mechanics know about mechanics.

I repeat, some scientists.
I think a majority of scientists are constrained by politics involving fear of losing their livelihood.

I would like to make a slight correction to my previous post about Noctiluca.
I mean to say Noctiluca algae cannot swim across the sediment transportation current flowing northwards past the Derwent River

Still no real response to these immutable facts:

a) We need greenhouse gases in the right proportion to survive. CO2 being important in regulating the respiration rate in humans. Earth would be a sphere of ice without greenhouse gases.
b) Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been increasing; for CO2, it has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm currently.
c) Carbon took millions of years to be sequested; we have disposed of fossil fuels (carbon) in huge quantities in a little over a century.

Current state of the Arctic:

http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170320143856.htm