Eclipse Now,

Firstly, I agree there will be greater warming, because science is generalizing and result of that is not leading to relevant required knowledge and due solutions. Evidence of this generalizing and impact is clear to me since viewing the ABC science part 3 program you referred to.

Apologies again for delay in reply to the ABC item but I had a sound breakdown. I need time to think and study further. Presently I am on the road without a printer. A very busy full schedule is also a handicap replying here in full, nevertheless I will eventually get back to you on this thread.

**JF Aus**
hey, we all have technical issues from time to time. I do recommend Part 3 of "Crude" on algae, as it is clearly demonstrates how it is a cooling mechanism. The whole movie is about algae, oil, and global warming.

**Q&A**
All I'm saying is that a little basic comprehension of the Executive Summaries of *real* climate science reveals the many Denialist myths for what they are: empty, attention-seeking old has-beens out to make a quick buck off the gullible and stubborn. Go Plimer! ;-)

While you’re here: what’s your opinion on the ocean debate Q&A?

It seems that GrahamY wants us to believe that the oceans are never heated by the atmosphere because the oceans are *always* hotter than the atmosphere. How can that be true? Why do we go surfing in summer? Because the oceans are *hotter* than the atmosphere? ;-)

Are not Australia's coastal city temperatures milder than inland summer temperatures because the ocean is COOLER than the atmosphere? Cheers Q&A

**Whitmus**
You're just miffed because Latif made a fool of you by predicting *exactly* your behaviour in his scathing assessment of Denialist media and people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&feature=sdig&et=1255382545.77

If you want a simplistic 5 year olds view of the universe then I can't be bothered.

I've already held your hand and walked you through how rebuking the 1998 strawman is different to discussing an individual model of a *new* oceanic cooling period. D'uh!

If you want to accept Latif's individual model which predicts cooling for a decade so over all the other climate models which predict warming (including that sceptic we've already mentioned who warns against the 1998 myth), then do YOU also want to be consistent and accept that by 2100 we're utterly stuffed according to Latif?

You're the one dancing about celebrating his *good* news that there's cooling ahead. But what about after that when his *bad* news kicks in? Or are you just cherry picking AGAIN?

At least I can celebrate Latif's cooling model consistently.

Sigh...waste of time. So I'll try to keep it short and simple for ya.

EN: "You're just miffed because Latif made a fool of you by predicting *exactly* your behaviour in his scathing assessment of Denialist media and people."

Could you point out how and where? If you're suggesting I've pounced on it as invalidation of global warming, please illustrate where. Or are you just making this up?

EN: "If you want to accept Latif's individual model which predicts cooling for a decade so over all the other climate models which predict warming (including that sceptic we've already mentioned who warns against the 1998 myth), then do YOU also want to be consistent and accept that by 2100 we're utterly stuffed according to Latif?"

Please point out where I said I accepted Latif's model. Or did you just make this up? (It's you who've said you accept Latif's model, but I challenged that it's consistent with what you've said elsewhere, but you avoided that, hey).

EN: "You're the one dancing about celebrating his *good* news that there's cooling ahead. But what about after that when his *bad* news kicks in? Or are you just cherry picking AGAIN?"

Please point out where I did this, or did you just make it up?

In the absence of evidence, I'll assume you're admitting to misrepresentations.

This has been an interesting thread. I think we've managed to establish a number of things. Mojib Latif and his exchange with the blogger demonstrate the thesis of the article - the models aren't particularly good at prediction. He doesn't think that global warming has stopped, but he's sufficiently rigorous and honest to accept that we have cooled, that his models didn't predict it and that they are not particularly predictive at all.

We've also established that there was a MWP and that it was global. Plus the graph going back 450,000 years proves that there is nothing particularly odd about our temperature at the moment, except that it has been warm for so long - long before man's emissions of CO2 became an issue. I think, because it hasn't been contradicted, that we've also shown that sea level increase hasn't been accelerating.

EN now appears to have a problem with the laws of thermodynamics based on his experience of going for a summer surf. He also misquotes me. What I said was that the average sea temperature is higher than that of the atmosphere (the figure is about 0.8 degrees), not that in every single place at every single time the sea is "always" hotter than the air. Colder things do not heat hotter things - second law of thermodynamics.

His example is wrong for a number of reasons. His summer surf is but one small data point which doesn't go anywhere near representing the whole. Even during summer he will find that if he goes surfing after dark that the sea is generally much warmer than the evening air. If he goes to the Antarctic the sea will never be below zero, even though the air will be for long periods of time. You have to join all the dots up. And then he ignores the evaporative effect so can't understand why sea breezes are cooler than inland winds.

**Witmus**
If you don't accept his projections, why have you made such a fuss over him? I assume to try and point out how utterly divided all climate models are? Pfffft. You're screaming blue murder over some smallish wiggles in the overall trend. Once again, look at the overall trend for this century, and tell me what he says by 2100. As for the next decade, talk about building mountains out of molehills if that's all you've got to throw at climate science.

But it proves nothing against climate science. If anything, it shows how rigorous it is and how it actually adapts to the latest data, while Denialists are stuck in the same old models from their same old dogma. Nothing evolves in their understanding, because they're not doing science but domga.

I for one hope Latif is right, and if global temperatures follow his graphs as ACCURATELY AS THEY ALREADY HAVE FOLLOWED PREVIOUS CLIMATOLOGIST MODELS LIKE HANSEN'S, then will you admit you were wrong around 2015 to 2020?

**GrahamY**
"he's sufficiently rigorous and honest to accept that we have cooled,"
Sorry, but I didn't get that from the talk. We HAVE cooled already, past tense? No. Please show me where he said that.

He is modelling ocean temperatures for the next decade or so, as in the *future*. This is the distinction I've been trying to make with Witmus.

I'm just pointing out in a thread this "hot" that it might be a good idea to steer right away from 'selective quoting' of any kind. We all have to phrase things *very* carefully, especially the Denialists, because of their reputation for repeatedly misquoting peer-reviewed authors.

“surfing after dark”
Ha! Never done it in my life. Those Bondi beaches are ALWAYS empty during the day hey? Just like your argument above.

These temperatures ARE odd, you have to go back over 20 million years to get today’s temperatures, and you haven’t established that it was AS warm as today in the MWP or that today’s temperature *trends* are normal. Today is one thing, Latif’s model for 2050? Another!

Eclipse, please read the material you rely on. In the link that Q&A provided there were average anomaly figures from Latif which were lower for this decade and the next than the 90s. He's also correctly quoted as saying that it has cooled. An incorrect inference from what he says is that he believes warming has stopped. He doesn't, he believes it will commence again somewhere next decade or after, but admits that his models aren't very good at short range predictions.

We will never know exactly how warm the MWP was. We have enough trouble working out what the global temperature is now with all these sensors all over the place. But a reasonable position, based on the peer reviewed papers, as well as historical evidence, is that it was comparable to today. Furthermore it is generally acknowledged that we are at the cool end of the Holocene. That is that in the last 10,000 years temperature was frequently higher. You can see that on the graph showing temperature and CO2 for the last 450,000 years. This means you don't have to go back 20 million years to get to today's temperatures.

You've got a hide criticising other people for "misquoting".

And I see you've decided to accept defeat, or at least fold your tent, on the issue of heat transference between the atmosphere and the ocean.