Notice how the CO2 Flux Clan are now calling it "climate change" rather than Global Warming? Could it be that against all the advice of sensible men and women, they insisted on projecting from the past decade of data showing a very minor warming that was entirely within the normal, natural, range of temperature variation?

So what can we conclude from the SNOW that fell on the Queensland Granite Belt on the 16th November 2006? Snow has never been recorded in November in Queensland and all the climate shonkers are quick to now claim that this record cold event is just part of the normal range of extreme events.

Talk about hypocrites. Talk about SPIVS with a bob each way. On ya bike, Mr Cribb. The last thing we need is the gratuitous mutterings of those who have never even defined a problem correctly, let alone fixed one.

What gets me is that this science communicator is quoting third hand the supposed comments of another person, and lists some reasons why AGW might be understated. He may do well to ask Mr. Pittock for his evidence, because it doesnt take much to find out that most of his phantom 9 are open to dispute.

For example the NOAA recently produced a document to show that the area of snow on the Antarctic has increased, not decreased, further the major currents of the earth are not going to change unless and until some one stops the earth from rotating, and the winds from blowing. In addition if there was more reflectance up, then why doesnt that show in the amount of radiation going out at the top of the atmosphere.

Its grossly overstated, aided and abetted by failed politicians from other countries like Gore, who are using it to further his own ends.

Julian Cribb is told "He may do well to ask Mr Pittock for his evidence--", but - instead of having the information delivered second-hand by Julian, readers of OLO might like to see it themselves first-hand. They would be well advised to start by reading his book "Climate Change" published by CSIRO Publishing in 2005 (ISBN 1-84407-300-9). It deals dispassionately with data and various climate models treating it, as available at the time of writing. But, a word of warning - although he gives fair treatment to the extent of uncertainties, probabilities, and best-available projections - it will not be preferred reading by those who might find its information inconvenient.
So, have a read and make up your own mind first-hand. Personally, I think he concludes with too much optimism for the determinedly blinkered human race. And those thoughts have been reinforced by the data which has come to light since the book was written. That data which so many seem to find inconvenient enough to flagrantly filter, or misconstrue and falsify, on OLO.

The classic BS from Cribb and his expert was the item about the permafrost melting and reducing albedo or heat reflection. The first problem with this is that he seems to be implying that permafrost is permanently white and reflective when for most of the, albeit short, summers it is under a thick bed of lichens etc. The fact that it is frozen or otherwise has minimal impact on heat reflection.

The more important consideration is that all this claimed reduced reflection will still be taking place in latitudes higher than 60 degrees north and south. And that means that from equinox to summer solstice the angle of the suns rays will still range from less than 30 degrees to 53 degrees at best. And these angles are already very condusive to bouncing rather than absorption. AND THAT IS WHY THE #@%^& POLAR CAPS ARE COLD. They simply do not absorb the suns heat.

Furthermore, the climate wonkers are mad keen to calculate an increase in absorption at the poles but neglect to point out that a band of increased albedo around the globe in the desert belts closer to the equator would only need to be much less than half as wide as a similar band of decreased albedo at 60 degrees north to completely negate the latter. The reason for this is that the circumference at 60 degrees is only half the circumference at or closer to the equator.

The southern tip of Greenland is 60 degrees N, as is all of Alaska and much of Siberia, so all these claimed "significant" changes are taking place north of this at latitudinal circumferences that are closer to a third of those within the tropics where the offsetting increases in albedo (through desertification) will take place.

Combine this with the effects of the suns angles and it is clear that these high latitude wonkers just cannot get their minds around the fact that they occupy a comparatively insignificant part of the planet.

re:
“The classic BS from Cribb and his expert was the item about the permafrost melting and reducing albedo or heat reflection. The first problem with this is that he seems to be implying that permafrost is permanently white and reflective when for most of the, albeit short, summers it is under a thick bed of lichens etc. The fact that it is frozen or otherwise has minimal impact on heat reflection.”

Perseus misses the point here, entirely. Let’s forget about what Perseus thinks seems to be implied and take a more detailed look at peatlands in Canada. My hope is that Perseus may then re-calibrate his model and wonder about the effect of global warming on the Siberian permafrost:

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/climate/peatland_e.php

Climate Change

Canadian Peatland Database

The Canadian Peatland Database contains information on the nature and distribution of peatland in Canada. There is an estimated 154 GT of carbon in Canadian peatlands, 95% of which is found in boreal, subarctic, and arctic areas (Tarnocai, 1998).

Sixty percent of the area of Canadian peatlands is expected to be severly to extremely severly affected by climate warming caused by a doubling of CO2 (Kettles and Tarnocai, 2000). In areas of discontinuous permafrost, permafrost distribution is closely tied to the distribution of peatlands.

(snip)

With climate warming, release of greenhouse gases from peatlands will be influenced by the degradation of permafrost, particularly in areas which are discontinuously frozen. At present the production of greenhouse gas is extremely limited within the extensive areas of permafrost-bearing peatlands. Within unfrozen fens, degrading peat may produce greater than 100 times more methane, a major greenhouse gas, than peat in nearby frozen areas, per unit area (Watson et al., 1990).

The Canadian Peatland Database will serve as baseline data for monitoring the effects of climate change on peatland and its impact on the Canadian environment

So Sir Vivor would have us believe that once thawed, peat suddenly starts degrading and emitting methane and CO2. So how come we have peat bogs in the rest of the world that are stable?

The simple answer is water. If the bog remains waterlogged then the processes of decay are severely retarded and the carbon and methane remain in situ.

The climate wonkers appear to be assuming that all the water will instantly drain away when these permafrosted peat bogs thaw. But this is totally unrealistic to the point of pure delusion. Even the reasonably well drained locations will take time to drain and, given the short duration of arctic summers, the actual change in emissions is negligible.

The only way that the soil moisture levels could be reduced sufficiently to allow a significant increase in carbon and methane emissions would be if the warming also produced an explosion in plant growth. The resulting increase in transpiration would dry out the soils but it would also increase the absorption of CO2 by those plants and counteract the adverse effect of warming on the soils.

It is what nature does, folks. Get used to it. And be very cautious of climate wonkers who try to scare you with only half of the equation.

Al Gore has the stategic vision of a cost clerk.