Since 1993 NASA has deployed robots measuring the Oceans temperatures up to depths of 3000ft.The Oceans absorb between 80-90% of the Suns energy and hence are the major influence on climate.They have found no increase in temps,in fact the median temps have fallen slightly.Even NASA seems baffled trying to explain away the temp drops by some mysterious self regulating ability of the earth via clouds.They even are questioning the validiity of the data from their robots.This is particularily interesting since with the growth if India and China during this period,Co2 emitions have increased expodentially.See www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story.Id=885200025

Black carbon now it seems is 3 to 4 times more influential on temp increases by absorbing infrared light.In fact it could have 60% of the effect that CO2 was thought to posess.Carbon is more controlable than CO2 and does not remain in the atmosphere for long periods.

Even NASA is baffled as to the complexity of interactions here,yet we have the true believers on this site calling people like Jennifer Marohasy and Bob Carter heretics because they dared to question the Green infallible view of the environment.I saw one comment likening this site to that of a Liberal Right wing pro business clack.I thought this was a pretty left wing site.Perhaps Graham is doing something right.

There is no hard scientific evidence to back all the claims made by the alarmists,yet the popular media lap it up to send the public into a feeding frenzy on their diet of doom and gloom.

" There is no hard scientific evidence to back all the claims made by the alarmists"

If this is so then why dont Bob, Jenny and others engage in the production of scientific articles instead of shock jock journalism? It wasn't long ago that the satellites weren't showing any warming. It that still true? And are mean sea levels rising or falling? Is the ice mass waxing or waning?

Scientific ideas are strengthened by a diverse range of approaches leading to a similar conclusion. I think it is good that data gathering methods are being questioned. It is good science.

"Even NASA seems baffled trying to explain away the temp drops by some mysterious self regulating ability of the earth via clouds." (Arjay)

The cooling is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.

It is estimated that the cooling effect of La Nina will be slightly greater this year than in 2007. The global cooling trend should reverse around mid 2008 when La Nina subsides. However, it in no way undermines the body of evidence pointing to global warming.

There were similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.

Do you have a link where you advise NASA appears "baffled" by the cooling trend? The following NASA link contradicts your claim.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Black carbon is soot generated by incomplete combustion and from industrial pollution, traffic, outdoor fires, and the burning of coal and biomass fuels. Soot particles absorb sunlight, both heating the air and reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.

Evidence of black carbon in the sedimentary record serves as an indicator of historical combustion processes by the increasing influence of anthropogenic processes in the global carbon cycle, therefore, in this context, it is important to prevent black carbon from entering the atmosphere.

However, while significant, I have only read of a technology which will capture black carbon from crude cooking appliances used by people in developing countries. This is wonderful news since black soot is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people.

The inventor, I believe is currently looking for corporate investment. Let's hope that his invention will also lead to the capture of BC from the vehicular industry including aircraft, industrial processes, as well as the burning of coal and other anthropogenic causes.

Your article indicates that you hold anthropogenic carbon emissions responsible for global warming?

If not, what was the point you were making Arjay?

Arjay I sincerely believe we have alot of possible solutions being peddled which are still in search of a problem and of course, in search of soft grants and government funding.

Hence you get ambitous and arrogant pseudo-scientists parading around with an idea which they claim is the reason for this that or the other and who will always challenge the dissenters whose view might prejudice the gross amount of slops being poured into the research trough from which they supp.

Hello Dickie... nice to see you posting again..

I noticed you scurried away from the "Carbon rationing or freedom" thread without producing any evidence to substaniate your claim I had spoken in support of Cartels, as you fraudulently claimed in your post there.

I guess the albatross around your neck must be smelling a bit high by now.

Sorry one correction. NASA deployed these robots to measure ocean temps in 2003 not in 1993.For 5 yrs the oceans have slightly cooled on average.Even if the cooler waters from the ocean depths have now rotated thus causing this La Nina,the median temps should still be rising not declining.Now one explanation was that the heat energy was transferred to depths lower than 3000 ft.They just don't know.Sea levels have increased by 1 cm since recordings started,but this could also be part of a long term cycle.Glaciers have melted,but how old are they in term of short term geological history?If glaciers begin to grow again during this La Nina,period can this be attributed to Global Cooling?

If all this alarmist talk is proven to be rubbish,who is going to believe the scientists in the future when they eventually have the hard scientific evidence to show the world is on the brink of oblivion ?Pollies suffer from the same malady,no one believes them.

Arjay, you have tweaked to Argo and raise some interesting questions, but you appear to be getting in over your depth.

You (?) make some statements. Arjay, honestly, where are you lifting these from because they are not yours. I am interested in ocean/atmosphere coupled systems, so please … cite your source/s.

You obviously have not visited the Argo home page. Where do you get the idea that “NASA deployed these robots” and in 2003?

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html

Maybe you can help me with this little conundrum (I have asked elsewhere on OLO but our resident ‘deniers’ can’t explain):

Errors have been found in Argo that bias the results to a ‘cooling’. See:

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset2.html

The above errors were reported in October.

Now some researchers last year said the oceans were not warming based on Argo findings. If the above errors were reported in October and these researchers have not corrected for the errors, their statements are wrong.

Btw, they have had time to correct their research but I have not been able to see any of their corrections yet.

You could check this site:

http://www.coriolis.eu.org/cdc/argo_rfc.htm

The Argo system is independent of what the researchers do to the data-set provided … but the data-set is freely available and at least the team that runs Argo have a QA/QC system in place.