Eclipse, what do you make of the MWP? You were the one demanding peer-reviewed papers saying it existed. I just obliged. What is the case you are trying to make out? For what it's worth I think the graph of the last 450,000 years showing it has been much colder for the vast majority of that time is much more significant.

Of course the Moberg study doesn't speculate about forcings etc. Can you show me the answer to all your questions in the Mann et al paper which created the Hockey Stick? If not, why would you expect another paper on the same measurement issue to produce that information?

I've also checked out the Wikipedia entry you refer to as proof that no scientific associations oppose the IPCC consensus. Now I warn students against relying on Wikipedia, which just for your benefit I should point out is not peer reviewed, but the views of the organisations that it counts as neutral are not much different from my own. Are you now going to accept that all I say is calmly and well reasoned (as it is)? Or are you going to claim me as a supporter of the IPCC (which I'm not)?

**JF Aus**,
sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. The sceptics have deliberately taken everything he said out of context. Just ignoring that fact and pointing at a green point in the oceans doesn't excuse misquoting an expert in climatology, and ignoring his graphs for projections to 2100, and shouting "world cooling for next 20 years!" which is NOT really what he said.

**GrahamY**, if you can't answer my questions about the MWP then you have no case. The only reason the MWP would *mean anything* is if it revealed a major forcing that climatologists had ignored. The MWP would also need to be shown as warmer than today to demonstrate a natural forcing that could be driving climate in this geological period that was stronger than greenhouse gases.

And don’t forget, industrial greenhouse gases have not had their full say in our global temperature yet. Energy is still accumulating in our oceans and atmosphere. So the MWP forcings would have to be *very powerful*, as yet undetected, and yet somehow influencing today’s climate in a mysterious way that coincides with our massive release of greenhouse gases who’s Radiative Forcings can be tested and calculated repeatedly in a lab.

So dodge around the questions I asked you, because whatever you do don't acknowledge that they are the issues necessary to prove the MWP *means anything*.

Previous ice-ages returning WOULD be really "significant" if they suddenly returned. But we know that Milankovitch cycles produced those ice ages, and we know they are not due for the next 30 thousand years. We DON'T have 30 thousand years to prepare for a billion people starving across Asia after the glaciers have retreated.

I’m glad you are not openly hostile to climate science. Here is a history of climate science back to the 19th century that details how our understanding of climate evolved and what it is based on.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Good luck.

Eclipse Now,

Best you indicate which BBC article you say I posted and that you are referring to. I do not understand what 'fact' you now claim I am ignoring. Indeed, you are ignoring the green and appear to have dismissed it as just a colour.

I find green ocean (colour) algae is absorbing and transporting energy and that this has not been taken into account and measured by climate change science. You Eclipse Now are missing evidence right now, even though it is right there in front of you via the satellite video.

It is algae that is accumulating energy in the ocean.

Yeah, I didn't really expect much of a response Graham.

At least I got what I expected.

JF Aus,
in one sense you are right. Water takes 1000 times more energy to heat than the atmopshere, so as Co2 concentrations build up in our atmosphere and trap in extra energy (as measured by the Radiative Forcing Equation) that extra heat is slowly transferred to our oceans.

So in one sense, global warming is the story of ocean heating.

But nothing you have suggested about increased algae rings true as a mechanism for global warming. Increased nutrients in the oceans can actually create dead zones where only certain types of algae or even bacteria survive. Annoxic oceans is a RESULT of global warming, not a cause.

For more detail please watch "Crude, the amazing story of oil".

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

But what you REALLY have to do is find a peer-reviewed paper describing the mechanism by which algae increases planetary temperatures. You are trying to assert that all the world’s climatologists have somehow missed this ONE phenomena only you seem to have stumbled upon. So either write up the paper yourself and submit it to the climate guys, or get off my case!

Most of the world’s science academies endorse the Anthropogenic Climate Change greenhouse gas model of the IPCC, only a few are 'neutral' and none actually contest it.

So while you are writing up your counter-proposal, you also have to disprove the spectrometry of greenhouse gases, and the maths in the Radiative Forcing Equation which measures by how much greenhouses gases have increased and correspondingly how much extra energy is being trapped by those greenhouses, while you demonstrate your precious algae is the mechanism of climate change. Good luck with all that! ;-)

PS: This whole algae theory of yours just seems a random fixation. In that case, why not just pick on increased opiate production in Afghanistan? ;-) "There's so much, it's like, sending out too many warm cosmic vibes of love and stuff, and so like heating the planet? You hearing me maaaaan?" Yeah, we all hear you. ;-)

Eclipse Now,

What case have you got that I should get off?

I am not into science like you are. You are not into the ocean like I am. Why not be polite and understanding?

A few days ago I asked an 8 year old, if you take 3 equal sized glasses and fill one with clean water, one with milk and one with pea soup, then boil them together and turn off the heat at the same time for each, which one will hold heat the longest. Answer was the pea soup, then the milk.

In the ocean it is currents that transport the warm algae from one place to another. Why sneer at or dismiss algae as a possible factor in AGW?

Eclipse Now, you tell me if IPCC science has or has not assessed impact or not of increased algae in the ocean. What do climatologists know about ocean algae proliferated by nutrient pollution. My theory you say, I see it is with my own eyes. Is it theory if I see the sun rise and set?

Your nominated peer reviewed system is not perfect. New discoveries unknown to science can be made.

I can add to what I have already said and would like to see Australian science prove what is necessary as you say. Delay will however allow overseas science to lead the way. There is various impact from the algae problem and solutions are needed absolutely urgently.