Ocean regulates climate.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9477

There is considerable comment on this site about CO2 but not about the ocean. Why is this so?

It really is not surprising that 'scientist have no idea what drives climate'. Rationality went out of much of science when they swallowed the evolution fantasy. Their many explanations for origins are really quite pathetic. Unfortunately the voices of honest scientist who insist on evidence is silenced.

**Runner**, please, this is not an evolution/creation debate? I'm a Christian evolutionary theist and see Genesis through the Framework lense, as do most Sydney Anglicans. Please stop making out all Christians deny science OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29

This paper by Dr John Dickson is also very convincing. It details the number of Christian thinkers before Darwin that were reading Genesis figuratively, and also details the rise of literary criticism that emerges around the time of the discovery of the Enuma Elish which also casts light on the genre of Genesis. This is the majority Anglican view.

http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.pdf

Back on topic.

**JF Aus**
No no no! The climatologists DO look at the ocean's affects on climate. It is the denialists that try to divorce the ocean and just go "WOW, JUST LOOK at 1998! It's been COOOOOOLING since then!" The real climatologists try to count ALL the forcings, including ocean systems, Co2, methane, solar forcings, albedo changes in terrain, dark carbon soot on snow, etc. That it is COMPLEX doesn't mean it's not TRUE.

Oceans super-spiked 1998 above the anthropogenic trends. Also, oceans "cooled" temperatures following 1998, even though the last decade is the HOTTEST ON RECORD! (Explain that Mark Lawson! Other than character attacks, you didn't explain 2005 being the hottest year on record and NOT being an El Nino year. Hmmmm?)

I'm still waiting for verifiable peer reviewed evidence of the MWP Mark.

Eclipse now I'll give Mark a helping hand on the MWP. Here is a peer-reviewed paper showing the Medieval Warm Period "Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617." More references are just a Google away. BTW I agree entirely with your rebuke to Runner. He makes a mockery of serious Christianity.

Matt Andrews, I am surprised that you should prefer land-based instruments to the satellite data. As far as I know most serious observers of the AGW issue prefer the satellite data because they are not subject to the statistical manipulation that land-based thermometers are.

The land-based thermometers are subject to the urban heat island effect. They attempt to correct for this, but such correction is only subjectively possible, so that stats are suspect. They also move thermometers around, and again this calls for statistical manipulation and subjective assessments to produce a continuous data-set. The land-based thermometers are also not uniformly spread over the globe and can't measure temperature over sea, even though most of the globe is covered in sea. This calls for statistical interpolation, again a perilous undertaking.

There are also continuity issues in the Arctic due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the failure to maintain a lot of stations. There are also issues in the Antarctic due to the almost complete lack of thermometers over most of the continent. Again, both of these are solved by manipulating the data.

It's interesting that when you look at Australian weather stations with the longest period of continuous existence you get little or no discernible trend at all. I find this incredible actually, because there should be some warming from CO2, but there you are.

The satellite data suffer from none of these short-comings although they require some small statistical manipulation. Their major problem is that we only have a short period of recordings from them. Over time with a longer dataset they will supersede land-based measurements.

Hi,
**Genesis**
I'm glad others can see that there are a bunch of Christians that understand Genesis has all sorts of rich figurative narrative in the first 11 chapters, and I'm still working through the archaeological evidence that it is actually a very targeted rebuke to the Babylonian Creation narrative, the Enuma Elish. (See the John Dickson paper above).

Kind of like if I said,

"Australians all let us rejoice, for we are full of greed.
We ignore climate change, for profit, this is our national creed.
Our land abounds in natures gifts, of which we do not care.
What about our grandchildren's inheritance? We don't have to share".

You'd KNOW I was having a go at our national anthem AND having a greenie rant at the same time! That's Genesis to the Enuma Elish.

Now...

**The Moburg** paper on the MWP does not indicate it was even close to today's temperatures. See the red line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I thought Australian temperatures were always breaking new records, as with our droughts. I also thought the temperatures tended to accumulate in the north? (Because of the oceans conveying the heat up there? Land mass? Tilt? I don't know WHY it's always the north! Anyone?)

Eclipse now you write
'I'm a Christian evolutionary theist and see Genesis through the Framework lense, as do most Sydney Anglicans.'

No doubt many Anglicans don't believe in the resurrection or the adamic nature. The only thinking that leads a person from these basic truths is stinking thinking. Thankfully the only Sydney Anglican I know is a Science teacher and very much believes in Genesis. Please don't insult true science by claiming evolution fits that bill. Evolution is more faith based than Creation. You are obviously blind to the link between the faith in evolution and faith based man made climate change.