One Under God (lol)

Do you ever actually go to the prime source of science data?
Why do you always link to so called 'sceptics' or 'denialist' blogs?
Do you really think the experts haven't considered the stuff you've stumbled on?

You haven't got a clue.

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

I fear your good-god Senator Fielding is swimming in deep water and he's drowning. God save him.

byork

It's a subtle difference, but it's important.

I did not declare "that life will be 'stuffed' once we reach 700 pmm".

I said, "... life as we know it is stuffed".

You are probably taking things out of context, or misinterpreting what the science says - 'sceptics' have a history of doing this, intentionally or otherwise.

For the sake of argument (no, not debate) - please do a basic wiki or google on what 'climate sensitivity' is all about. If you're really interested, read the chapter in AR4 (or search the papers in google scholar).

You tell me what the average global increase in temperature will be if [CO2] reaches 700 ppm. Of course, you would know what the term 'average' means - some regions will have higher temps, others less.

(If you really want to understand, study Earth 's radiative budget.)

Nevertheless, temperatures this high will have serious consequences (on various things, including: food, water, energy, sea level, transport, agriculture, storms, insurance, border protection, immigration, security, add your own.

And don't get me started on ecological biodiversity - fisheries, fauna, flora, corals, etc.

Yes, life as we know it will be stuffed, but life will go on.

Btw, I have always said on OLO that extremists on all sides should pull their head in - you are obviously new here (and your link to your website does not work).

BtwBtw
There is no point in debating an accountant (for example) on the merits or otherwise of the algorithms needed to correct for the errors in Argo float pressure sensitive switches that lead to Roy Spencer wrongly asserting (in a paper 'published' on a denialist blog-site for God's sake) that ocean temperatures were cooling.

Ergo, I am happy to debate with real scientists my work. I don't debate with the likes of the 'casual sceptic'.

BtwBtwBtw
You can post 4 times in 24 hrs on an OLO general discussion thread (I think) - so, you have 1400 words at your disposal. You and OUG can have a real debate.

Q&A, you are backing down from a position that sought to give an impression of catastrophe should CO2 levels reach 700 ppm. No wonder you're not keen to debate!

The science is not settled on the issue of how much responsiblity can be attributed to increased CO2 emissions in global warming/climate change; it is not settled on the question of how much temperature will change nor what the consequences will be.

William Kininmonth and other qualified scientists argue that the computer models greatly exaggerate the role of CO2 because of a basic deficiency in the way they represent the hydrological cycle. Evaporation of water vapour constrains surface temperature increase.

You are certain that a 700ppm level will end life "as we know it" yet the IPCC estimates the first order impact from a doubling of CO2 to be around 1.2 degrees. And, yes, I know about the second order impact, the feedbacks, but these are based on computer models and cannot be regarded with certainty. They are speculative.

Kininmonth was appointed by the Hawke government in 1986 to head Australia's National Climate Centre in the Bureau of Meteorology, a post he held until 1998. He represented Australia at the World Meterology Organisation's Commission for Climatology. I can imagine you not wanting to debate him, too!

Considering a couple of posts ago you were so arrogant, it now seems you're backing down from argument and debate. Of course, you can afford to do so - you need not convince anyone of your position because you have institutional (and state) power on your side, and the mass media behind your position.

Q&A, you might like to condescend to debate with David Evans, who was a climate-modeller with the Australian Greenhouse Office for several years. He reckons "the IPCC modelers will eventually turn down the water vapor feedback in their models to bring them into line with observed reality. That will reduce their predicted temperature increases due to CO2 increases by about a half to two-thirds, and the 'crisis' will be well on the way to becoming manageable".

Further: "... the evidence is pretty good that the assumed positive feedback in the IPCC climate models due to water vapor (and the positive water vapor feedback dominates the total feedback in the IPCC climate models) is wrong - the hotspot is missing, so the water vapor feedback must be small or negative".

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Dr. Evans is correct. I wouldn't know - it's not my area of expertise. But it strikes me that he cannot be dismissed either - in other words, the science is not settled.

Gee, I enjoy giving reactionaries who are backed by institutional power a hard time!

By the way, I blog at a Marxist-influenced left-wing website called Strange Times: http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/ (Just wait for the ad hominem attacks now!)

I'll have to disengage from this thread now - but, hey, it's been fun.

byork, sea level rises of 80 cm by 2100 (for example) are bad enough, don’t you think? Of course, the world doesn’t stop then either.

I have never said the science is settled on climate sensitivity or attribution – so please refrain from inferring I have, it’s boring.

Yes, there is robust debate in the scientific community – but it is the detail they’re debating, not the guff that you wish to ‘debate’.

My work and research has much to do with the ‘hydrological cycle’ - land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems in particular, thanks.

I am bemused by ‘sceptics’ put-down of computer models when it goes against their beliefs, but they gladly trot them out when the models appear to suit their beliefs – epitome of hypocrisy.

Wait, another post from you.

Ah yes, David Evans – one of those pesky modelers, for goodness sake!

I understand you’re new here. Any earlier and you would have seen I am very interested (see above) in things water (clouds, water vapour feedback, ocean/atmosphere currents, oscillations, etc) but guess what, we haven’t been able to present robust science to counter AGW.

We keep trying though. If we can knock AGW for six we can clean the mantle for a Nobel or Fields – and save a lot of people a lot of money and a lot of worry.

Here's some homework, tell me what you think of 'stratospheric cooling'. Hint: is it hot enough for you?

The rest of your waffle I’ll let slide to the keeper, sorry.

Peter the Believer and Byork - Who are the more and more “scientists” you claim disagree? Why, have you not provided us with evidence to support this “revelation?” One could hardly describe the links you provided as “compelling” evidence Peter and, written by:

1: Jon Christian Ryter - an anonymous, mediocre hack
2. Michael Crichton - a novelist and past shill for the tobacco and oil companies

Crichton, won the Journalism Award from the Petroleum Association (AAPG) for penning the “ State of Fear” which uses a load of discredited and fallacious arguments to attempt to disprove the reality of climate change. What do you do when a fictional work takes a position you like? Call it science, of course!

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the AAPG association. "But it has the absolute ring of truth." Yeah right!

Crichton’s “State of Fear” is widely reviled amongst the rest of the scientific community:

The book is "demonstrably garbage," Stephen Schneider, a Stanford climatologist, advised. Petroleum geologists may like it, he said, but only because "they are ideologically connected to their product, which fills up the gas tanks of Hummers."

Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist from Harvard University, called the award "a total embarrassment which reflects the politics of the oil industry, a lack of professionalism" and Crichton’s profound ignorance.”

Ironically Crichton, died from metastasized melanoma (peace be upon him) and though he initially trained in medicine, failed to recognise the symptoms. The planet is suffering a malignant tumour which he couldn’t recognise either - he should have stuck to creating fictional melodramas like ER.

Similarly OLO’s rabid evangelists, addicted to money, persist in peddling junk science (though usually it’s no science at all) whilst genu-flexing to a wooden altar - (“Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch!”) Meanwhile they keep the “heretics” focused and outraged about their lack of eco-mindedness, so they can continue screwing the planet all over.

“And he (knucklehead Fielding) shall speak for you to the people and he shall be your mouth.” (Exodus. IV:16.)