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.

“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.”

Col Rouge

I would much prefer to debate the topic, however, since your obsession is to stalk me throughout this forum where you make the most noise with the least amount to say, I must point out that your limited comprehension portrays you as a dill and your pursuit of me as compulsive obsessive. Please return to Carbon rationing or freedom” then digest the contents of my post without manipulation, then find a corner and wipe the egg from your face.

Last night Mule in his post described you most appropriately. He referred to you as an “ass-licker.” Strange how his post has vanished just like the others. Did you rat on him also by running off and crying to Big Daddy after you posted the billious, sycophantic puffery about the OLO managers?

No doubt, you as a refugee from the Old Dart, would insist on some decorum whilst “debating” on public forums.

Therefore, you may explain to we rattees why the Administration has seen fit not to delete your many vile posts. Here's just a few of your comments to prompt the memory:

“Old Trollop. Blow it out your arse. Impotent loser, scum sucking troll, more whores than Kings Cross or St Kilda on a wet Saturday, except they specialise in suck, rather than blow, jobs etc.”

I note one poster described you as an “arrogant masturbating arsehole.”

True, though I view you more as a quisling Quasimodo – a subterranean rodent, grovelling to seek a position in the high chair of the Deputy President of the House.

Ah – there's your toxic claw now......... poised above the delete button!

Lots of talk here fellows.
The reality is despite it all is...if we chop down all of the trees, dig up all of the minerals (pump up the oil), fish out all over the oceans (fill them with plastic), run smelly autos we are going to kill a wonderful Creation.
Earth is very resilient but it cant go on forever.
One of the reasons God clicks in the events of the Book of Revelation is because we are not listening to His Creation.
The storms and the droughts and the earthquakes are the beginnings of the endtimes.
We hurting the earth and its reacting!

Ease up Dickie, Col goes off topic quite regularly – we all do.

However, I even thought Mule’s comment was over the top – I’m not surprised it was sent back to cyberspace. The colour of Col’s tongue has nothing to do with it – brown, blue or otherwise.

Col is a prodigious poster so if Col too was suspended for saying those vile and depraved things … well, I’m not surprised.

As for me, all I ever did was allude to the book-keepers guide to the universe and asked for some spiritual guidance ... for this I got wacked.

Personally, I don't think Col is a stalker but I can understand how you feel ... someone doesn't like what we say and complains.

Anyway, it’s a shame we can’t introduce a bit of frivolity into these discussions without some jerk getting offended … probably the reason why the chief editor has to constantly monitor, censor and admonish – very Orwellian.

Having got that of my chest, I’m looking forward to a response to the issues I raised about the Argo system.

Thank you for condescending to point out my errors of judgement Q&A.

I shall decline your offer to debate Argo.

I'd much prefer to leave you boys to play amongst yourselves.

Cheers

Did anyone out there give a try to Wide Circles or WideCircles. They are new word of mouth advertising platform, apparently they can push massive amount of messages through social network mediums like forums,blogs,wiki's and so on. They say that they only bill for posts active for minimum of 5 days and price seems pretty affordable. I am going to give Wide Circles aka WideCircles a try since I am tired of PPC fraud. http://widecircles.com

Q&A see http://.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Titled "The Mystery of Global Warmings Missing Heat"This was written in March 2008 unlike your ref that are 12 mths old.

Arjay

Wrong link. Left out "www",

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

But this is a good turn in the debate on this forum. If the measurements of the robots turns out to be accurate and shows no warming of the oceans, then AGW would be in serious doubt. I take it that by posting the link that it is the main basis of your opinion on AGW. If so, then would your opinion change if the measurements turned out to be inaccurate, and recalibrated robots showed warming?

Fester our climate is undergoing change,it is a matter of keeping a level head on decifering cause and effect relationships.The overall consensus is that the oceans have increased by 0.6 deg C.We don't really know what are long term variations and short term imapcts made by man.If the information from these robots are wrong then yes I will accept that,but I will not jump to wild conclusions about imminent devestation due to drastic sea level changes.12 mm rise in 5yrs is not great.In the next 5yrs it may reduce by the same amount.The average depth of our oceans are 3720 m reaching a maximum depth over 11,000 m.Now 12mm is 32/10 millionths of the average oceans depth.There could be any number of variables affecting this.They have not been seriously studying the oceans long enough to draw real conclusions as to cause and affect scenarios.

The real danger is not from climate change itself,but from panic generated from an over populated world.We are more likely to destroy ourselves fighting over limited resources and energy than dangers from environmental changes.

This environmental panic is just adding fuel to the fire!When there is a fire in a picture theatre,more people die from being crushed in the panic than the actual fire.

Arjay

My question was whether evidence of a warming ocean would change your opinion on agw. Is there a particular rate of warming that might lead you to change your opinion? Your reaction to such a change and comparison with other problems faced by humanity is interesting, but answers a different question altogether.

Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.I will agee with that Fester.Presently there is very little of it.People have taken sides simply because it suits their particular bias.The Greens do themselves no favours.They are becoming like the Catholic Church.Too much faith in the cause and not enough examination of the evidence.

"Too much faith in the cause and not enough examination of the evidence."

Yes, I think that an opinion on a scientific question like agw should have objective boundaries. With faith there is no boundary. That is why I asked you what objective boundary you have set for your own opinion. For your own boundary of belief, you stated:

"Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with."

But isn't this boundary impossible to cross and so identical to having no boundary? This would tend to make your opinion similar to an act of faith. Would you agree?

Fester,"So isn't this boundary impossible to cross and so identical to having no boundary."What are you smoking Fester?Your invective bares no relationship to the argument at hand!I will believe unadulterated scientific evidence.All we have been presented with is is vague scientific findings with no imperical evidence to back it up!I will remain a sceptic and so should most logical/sane beings.

In the realm of improbability believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you see!

The definition of the word science, is Mans best guess.( and that's all you are doing). Look at climate change like this. Once upon a time, the world was stable,( just for a brief moment in the time scale of us) and then, co2 was back with us(in the past one hundred years) and with our growth of knowledge, ( or the opposite of) the genie is out of the bottle) and the big question is, where is the responsible for what is happening.

The answer is yes. ITS US!

But to answer the question? I have given you the answers and the solution to the problem, but I know its not as easy as I have explained it.( or is it)

You can put a band-aid on the problem or stick your heads in the sand.

Its your choice.

Arjay

There is no invective I assure you. I am merely trying to find out what objective boundary you have set for your opinion on AGW. All you have answered so far is "Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.". As far as I know, this would be impossible to do. So essentially there is no evidence that would change your opinion. As such it is the same as faith based belief.

As you find the idea of holding a scientific viewpoint on faith offensive, I must have misunderstood what you meant by "Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.". Could you be a little more specific as to what you meant by this?

Arjay

“Q&A see http://.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Titled "The Mystery of Global Warmings Missing Heat"This was written in March 2008 unlike your ref that are 12 mths old.”

Thanks for the link.
Btw, you started this thread on Argo; I assumed you would have at least looked at the Argo home page before your stated correction “NASA deployed these robots in 2003”.

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

If you look at the internal link ‘Argo research in press’ you will be able to see what is being done with Argo, it is continually being updated. I don’t understand why you are trying to imply my references are 12 mths old.

The NPR story led to a burst of blogging from ‘denialists’ questioning why the rest of the mainstream media were silent on this ‘blockbuster’. Canada’s National Post published a column by Dr. Willis explaining his findings in the context of long-term climate change.

In it, Dr. Willis included a succinct description of how some people opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gases sometimes operate:

Quote:
“It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change sceptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread …”

Cont’d

Cont’d

… “It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work.

It is easy to pick on computer climate models for not simulating certain things or point out the odd measurement that isn’t well understood. Despite this, models and data of all different types tell the same story about the past century: the oceans are warming, sea levels are rising, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing and carbon dioxide levels continue to go up. Given that, you don’t need a fancy computer model or an Argo buoy to tell you that the future will be warmer.

The real debate is not over whether global warming exists, but how we as a society will address it. The climate system is already committed to a certain amount of warming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects of global warming can still be avoided. It only requires the will to look toward the future and to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. That’s not alarmist, it’s just common sense.”
End Quote.

Healthy scepticism is part of science and should be encouraged, but there’s a clear difference between healthy scepticism and ‘denialism’. Science is not absolute but for ‘deniers’ no evidence is good enough – re your stance with Fester.

‘Deniers’ position themselves as intellectually more capable than the collective scientific community. They think there is some kind of ideological conspiracy in which scientists the world over are scampering around the planet, researching in their labs and building computer models of scenarios just to mess with our heads.

Arjay, keep asking questions about the Argo network – but please, do some homework before you start jumping to conclusions. Otherwise, you will be seen as just a simple ‘denier’ trolling with malevolent intent.