LOL!

Oh, I'm sure we can reach 100 pages.
With all these tornadoes in America, floods in Australia, fires around Moscow, there's got to be some fuel for the fires ...

Cheers

"practically incommunicado since returning from Lisbon, possibly licking infected wounds inflicted by the accursed Warmista-which are notoriously slow to heal-so patience is called for"

Actually, I understand that because of the warming of the earth infection control will be a real problem and that wounds will take longer to heal.

Roger, forest fires around Moscow have occurred throughout recorded history. See the Novgorod chronicle.

As for floods in Australia, if too little rain is evidence of global warming, and too much water is evidence of global warming, where is the falsifiability in the hypothesis?

Arapiles: The evidence of history shows that contagious diseases are far more dangerous in cold conditions. The black death in Europe which wiped out ~40% of the population occurred during a cold century. The Spanish Flu which took out ~15 of the world population occurred during the coldest part of the last 160 years.

"Actually, I understand that because of the warming of the earth infection control will be a real problem and that wounds will take longer to heal."

Evidently the case. ;)

"The evidence of history shows that contagious diseases are far more dangerous in cold conditions. The black death in Europe which wiped out ~40% of the population occurred during a cold century. The Spanish Flu which took out ~15 of the world population occurred during the coldest part of the last 160 years."

Ah, but we're talking wounds here.

It was a well conducted meeting where neither side attempted to 'inflict wounds' on the other. There was some progress on issues which both sides agreed needed attention, but the warmist side weren't prepared to spend time debating possible alternative causes for such warming as there was at the end of the C20th.

I regard that as head in the sand behaviour.

"but the warmist side weren't prepared to spend time debating possible alternative causes for such warming as there was at the end of the C20th."

Am I to understand they totally excluded debate on some of the hypothesises you have presented here? Totally? Hmmmm....

That implies they were a majority of the attendees, or at least a majority of those running the conference.

How disappointing. I had looked forward to hearing a report from you that would clarify things a bit for us confused layfolks.

Was there any discussion of acidification of the oceans? Or was that not on the menu?

Yep, totally excluded. I tried to get around it by asking if there might be any interest in discussing the merit of considering the inclusion of alternative causations in climate change assessment work, without being specific. This got murmurs of approval, but no discussion on scheduling time for it. As the main organiser said to me later, it was more a 'talks about talks' kind of event, and it was clearly going to take time to get the co2 believers to entertain alternative possibilites.

There was no discussion of ocean acidification as a specific topic, though it was mentioned several times in passing by a few of the participants at first. After it was informally agreed not to bang on about things for which there is no good quantification, it was dropped.

molten core

Got me thinking about the heat from the core of the Earth.

Amazing that scientists will not discuss alternatives. Good to get first hand feedback.

I guess the Sun blinds them, the core is too cheesy, and the ocean is overwhelming.

Seems like it is all about the funding and that is why they stay on topic. History is on the side of the trouble makers.

George, the amount of heat making it out through the crust is surprisingly small. And it doesn't vary much. However, that is from measurements on land. Air is a good insulator too. The sea bed is much thinner, and most volcanoes are underwater. And levels of volcanic activity change, but there are no good metrics for undersea volcanism.

So no-one knows how much they might contribute to energy balance variation.

The Ocean soaks up heat, and re-emits it on timescales varying from hours to millenia.

The puzzle isn't going to be solved tomorrow.

Rog, solving it will be interesting. An enigma for sure.

Did you come away from the conference with something learned? Or an ah-ha moment?

Hopefully you will continue your trouble making : )

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110505/full/news.2011.266.html

Australia's new chief scientist reveals his plans

What is going on there?

six month away and things heating up (pun intended)...

http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/lines-drawn-ahead-of-cop17-1.1065520

Lines drawn ahead of COP17

Judging by the intensity of the exchanges and the views expressed at a World Economic Forum plenary on the upcoming conference yesterday, there remain formidable obstacles toward finding real solutions to the problem of global climate change.

The differences over what needs to happen to curtail global emissions and get funding to pursue alternative energy sources dominated the plenary addressed by, among others, President Jacob Zuma, Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Gabonese President Ali Bongo Ondimba, Sasol chief executive Pat Davies and India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma.

Zuma went so far as to call the climate change challenge a “life and death” issue that warranted real commitment from all stakeholders to tackle.

“I’ll be happy if our agenda in Durban is clear – to see where we differ, what are the priorities. We should not go to Durban just to make speeches,” Zuma told the plenary.

Hi George,
Well, I learned that it's easier to keep debate polite, friendly and rational when you are sat next to the opposition proponents at the dinner table than it is in 'keyboard warrior' mode. ;-)

The Aussie chief scientist sounds sensible too, saying people from both sides of the debate need to be heard.

The African drums beating around Durban seem to be mopre about economics than climate science to me.

Meanwhile, the sun continues to be quiet. Solar cycle 24 sputters along, and if my theory about the relationship between planetary motion and solar activity are correct, we can expect that to continue for quite a few years of low solar activity.

Nature will answer the climate question, even if our mainstream science can't.

"Well, I learned that it's easier to keep debate polite, friendly and rational when you are sat next to the opposition proponents at the dinner table than it is in 'keyboard warrior' mode."

That is something this little guy learned long before the Internet was a gleam in Al Gore's eye. ;)

"Nature will answer the climate question, even if our mainstream science can't."

But will she answer it in time for you and Dean to settle up? ;)

"Yep, totally excluded. I tried to get around it by asking if there might be any interest in discussing the merit of considering the inclusion of alternative causations in climate change assessment work, without being specific. This got murmurs of approval, but no discussion on scheduling time for it. As the main organiser said to me later, it was more a 'talks about talks' kind of event, and it was clearly going to take time to get the co2 believers to entertain alternative possibilites."

I find that discouraging. I had looked forward to hearing the results of a vigorous debate from which some clarity might emerge. It seemed to my layman's eye that the ideas you presented here might at least be worth discussing. Do they consider causation to be pretty much settled then? Beyond any doubt?

"The Carbon Flame War Is Over"

Did anybody win?

--B.G.--

People who consider the oceans to be the primary thing driving all other consequences of global warming seem to have won.

Interesting to hear Rog thinks the pro warming side is driven by economics.

From the outsiders view, the pro-keepdoingwhateverthefcukwewanttomaximizeourprofitsatallcosts side has the most arguments that are driven by the desire to preserve maximum profits.

"But will she answer it in time for you and Dean to settle up? ;)"

Wouldn't it be funny if both of us kept our cash because the temperature in 2020 was unchanged from 2005?

It would still be a moral victory for the un-alarmed though ;-)

Regarding the question you asked about causation. It does seem to be the case that the proponents of co2 induced global warming are keen, nay, desperate, to keep other possibilities out of the debate.