Dan says:
Now you say there has not been 'significant' warming

No Dan, that was said by Co2 warmist scientist Phil Jones, I'm just relaying the facts to you. You remember Phil Jones? The guy who said:

"Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is"

Now, I'll start going through the many errors in your last comment, backing up each rebuttal of your nonsense with real data from real scientists. You'll get the hang of this eventually. If you continue making unsupported assertions, people with just start pointing and laughing at you.

I can't be bothered doing them all tonight, and it would make my reply so long no-one will read it all anyway. So, I'll just do them one at a time in no particular order over the next twenty posts or so.

Dan said:
the oceans circling Antartica are warming.

No they're not.
Here's the data

.

No-one should take a word you say seriously. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Rog, we all know you are going to come up with your own special charts and graphs that run counter to what is actually being discovered and that run counter to actual and real data - knock yourself out and keep shoveling out your talking points that your masters write up for you. Maybe you can dig up more Roy Spencer disproven trash.

Did you not see the points about Rex Tillerson.......oh, I'll give you time.....and you know, I'd really like to revisit what you said about Volcanoes causing warming rather than cooling. By saying that you directly support the fact that GHG causes warming. You said it a little differently but you said it - now I want to see you counter that.

And, I did not say there has not been significant warming. I'm drawing the distinction between Warming and Climate Change and how Climate can Change because of Warming and that Change in itself hides the warming through feedback destruction of crops, infrastructure, you name it. It won't be long and we won't be able to keep up with the destruction and when we can't engineer our way out of it by 'simply' moving farms, cities, and whole countries, Rex will be seen as the dinosaur he is.

Go ahead, write an fr---ing book for us. If you are working just part time and you are not getting paid for this.....maybe you should get a job (doing something else).

Rog quoted, " "Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is. "

Rog, if there is anyone quoting people out of context as an art form and REDEFINING what peer-review literature is - That guy is you (and your tiny team of counter informationists). I think it's interesting how you obsess over these people that are the authors of the emails you guys hacked. Of the thousands of scientists out there that run counter to your thought, what is so special about these charsacters to you? Is it just OCD? Oh, I get it, it's your claim to fame. I think the world has moved on. Maybe you should say something to your script-writers.

Here are links that discuss the Climate-Gate files that Roger Tattersall (Rog) was instrumental in distributing and likes to keep lying about and spreading misinformation about;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climategate

Edited to change F---ing to Fr---ing, a term used voluminously in Battlestar Galactica.

Edited by wildlife on 08/19/2012 18:28:27 MDT.

Oh dear, now Dan thinks the Reynold's ocean datasets are wrong, because the show the southern ocean has been cooling since the 1988 El Nino. For confirmation, lets have a look at the NSIDC data for Antarctic Sea ice - unless Dan thinks the National Snow and Ice Data Centre is in on the conspiracy too?

.

Hmm, that's a lot of ice increase, I wonder how it compares with the amount that the Arctic ice has been dropping.

.

Well looka that. They nearly cancel. Maybe a fall in global sea ice of 1.25M km^2 over the period from 1979-2012 - 33 years. Now. let me see, how much of a percentage of total global sea ice is that?

About 5%. And this was over the warm half of the ~60 year ocean/ENSO cycle. Ice increased between 1945 and 1975. No-one made it through the northwest passage in that period.

Wake me up when something exciting happens Dan, I'm nodding off here.

Dan says:
If you are working just part time and you are not getting paid for this.....maybe you should get a job (doing something else)

Well,,, this is getting a bit personal isn't it Dan? How's the pack making business? You busy right now? You seem to have plenty of time to waste talking rubbish here.

I'm fine doing my part time work at the University and using their library and institutional access to science journals to do my personal research. Where do you get your info from? Realclimate.org and the Thread and Needle monthly?

Edited by tallbloke on 08/19/2012 18:35:19 MDT.

Roger, you have the patience of a saint.

You seem to have forgotten Greenland - that has been setting records for melt - no offsets for that. Oh, I guess we found a figure from you that is statistically insignificant - 5% just does not count. There is more going on in Antarctica than your charts ands graphs show - as usual.

Since it has been proven that you maligned the authors of the hacked emails, why should we trust you with with any numbers, charts, or graphs, or denial-speak? You and your gang have been discredited;
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climategate

I really want to hear what you have to say about Volacnoes, the gases they put out adding weight to the atmosphere and then warming the atmosphere - rather than the normal suspect of cooling due to particulates? Isn't that how it goes in the article on your website? Are you suddenely ashamed of your work? I'll bet you don't want to talk about that for obvious reasons (because you contradict yourself)(GHG do cause warming). GHG was mentioned. It seems to me that GHG from volcanoes causing atmospheric warming.......put 2 and 2 together........humans emit 100 times what volcanoes do.......

Rog, you are the one that said you are struggling with a part time job. I was just offering advice. Let's see, if you need money, and you don't get paid for writing volumes here at BPL, maybe you should rethink something.

Oh, I've been meaning to ask, how did your meeting with the Royal Society go? Do you have any links regarding that? Have you revolutionized the forcast system in the UK now?

Edited by wildlife on 08/19/2012 19:06:12 MDT.

Sean said:
Roger, you have the patience of a saint.

Lol, thanks Sean. It's not easy trying to overcome the programming of someone as thoroughly committed to the cult of global warming as Dan is, but I'll keep trying.

Just when you think you've presented enough objective evidence of the situation in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica to get him to admit maybe he was wrong to say the Southern Ocean has been warming, he goes skating off to Greenland to avoid the issue!

Ah well. When he can bring himself to behave like an adult in debate, we can continue.

Then I'll explain the Viking archaeological evidence from Greenland to him.... again.

It's silly to think that you presented enough there to even decorate a cake. I shifted to Greenland to offset your lame 5% comment.

Considering the time of the Vikings - because something happened in the past it does not follow that if something similar happens again, that it is for the same reasons.

Act like adults - do you debate people on science blogs other than your own site and here? It does not seem like it. You seem to like taking advantage of people here. I doubt there are too many other places you can get away with what you do here - you'd be eaten alive.

I want to see you get out of the contradiction you have created by saying that volcanic Green House Gases cause warming. Maybe you'll do that by putting me down again AND ignoring the subject AGAIN.

Edited by wildlife on 08/19/2012 19:36:29 MDT.

Dan Says:
It's silly to think that you presented enough there to even decorate a cake. I shifted to Greenland to offset your lame 5% comment.

Uh huh. And what evidence have you put forward to support your assertion that:

"the oceans circling Antartica are warming."

Hmm?

By the way, I won't disagree with you that a 5% reduction in sea ice over 33 years is probably not statistically significant. Especially considering that the change over 60 years is very likely as near zero as makes no difference.

PS, I'm perfectly happy to discuss the volcanoes issue once we've cleared up the question of the Southern Ocean.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/19/2012 19:55:09 MDT.

Sorry Rog, it's your turn. I brought up the volcano subject on page 137;

Roger, I found this article at your website;

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/#comments

In it you say this;

"But all this focussing on the short term of which the climate science mainstream seems so fond is blinkering us to the bigger picture. Volcanos add mass to the atmosphere. On geological timescales, they add a lot of mass to the atmosphere. And more mass means more surface pressure. More surface pressure means less evaporation from the oceans, and higher surface temperatures. Now to some extent, you might think, these two might offset each other........."

OK Rog, here's my question;

Now if it's adding mass to the atmosphere would that be in the gases it puts out or the ash that it puts out? I would imagine that you mean the gases since they would have the more permanent postion in the atmosphere to add mass to affect climate longer term. Surely it's the gases that you mean are adding the mass?

Dan: I answered you on page 137 by saying this:

"the answer to your question in your followup comment is yes. Bear in mind though that we are discussing geological timescales there, and it is the additional atmospheric mass from volcanic sources which causes the increase in surface temperature, not the makeup of the gases."

So now we have that and your trip to Greenland out of the way for now, please tell us how you are going to support your assertion that:

"the oceans circling Antarctica are warming"

given that the surface temperature of the Southern ocean has on average been falling since the '88 El Nino (See my graph above) and sea ice has on average been increasing since records began in 1979 (See graphs above). Additionally, nearly all of Antarctica itself has been cooling or stable for the last 35 years. The only place showing any warming is the Antarctic peninsula, which is a small proportion of the landmass.

.
This map of Antarctica shows the approximate boundaries of areas that have warmed or cooled over the past 35 years. The map is based on temperatures in a recently-constructed data set by NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan and colleagues. The data combines observations from ground-based weather stations, which are few and far between, with analysis of ice cores used to reveal past temperatures. (Illustration by Steve Deyo, UCAR.)

This is an important issue, because along with the fact that the southern Pacific has also not been doing much in the way of warming, it shows that the late C20th 'Global Warming' was in fact mostly limited to the Northern Hemisphere.

.

But carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas which rapidly diffuses worldwide from where it is emitted according to the people who measure it. So if extra carbon dioxide really does cause warming in the real atmosphere (as yet unproven), then we have to determine by what process this additional heat is transferred across the ITCZ (Inter-tropical convergence zone). A tricky problem for the co2 warmist theorists to explain, because the lower atmosphere and oceans transport heat from the equatorial tropics towards the poles, and not much energy is carried across the equator (it's also prevented by the coriolis effect), except in ocean currents transporting warmth from the northern pacific to the North Atlanic.

.

.

It's a lot more likely the late C20th warming was caused by increased solar energy entering the oceans due to the reduction in cloud as measured by the Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) and the Earthshine Project.

Here's the ISCCP data as a time series:
.

And here it is as a spatial map.
.

Interesting to note that cloud increased over the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, and as we saw above that cooled. So much for positive cloud feedback, another alarmist dodo.

Cloud amount started increasing again since the Sun went quiet. Cloud amount and solar activity are linked, and cloud change gives the amplification to solar activity changes which accounts for the generally good but laggy correlation of solar activity and global surface temperature.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/20/2012 07:02:28 MDT.

Rog, you need to go into the volcanic gas mass thing a little more. If the mass of the gas causes heating then we have another way that GHG cause heating and it does not matter where they come from - volcanoes or human emissions, It just so happens though that humans emit 100 times more than volvanoes. I know in your article you mentioned current time as well.

It is clear also that there is good mixing in ocean currents between the northern and southern hemisphere from the charts you provided. It also sounds like you are implying there is less CO2 south of the equator even though it is well dispersed.

You said this, " So if extra carbon dioxide really does cause warming in the real atmosphere (as yet unproven), then we have to determine by what process this additional heat is transferred across the ITCZ (Inter-tropical convergence zone)."

The real role of the CO2 is to keep the extra heat that has been going into the ocean from escaping as long wave radiation as much as it once did. Perhaps all that extra heat from the lack of clouds as you suggest would have dispersed more rapidly without the extra CO2. You seem to keep implying that the heated atmosphere heats the oceans.

Nevertheless, since it is the oceans that are holding all the heat and "missing" heat that is difficult to measure, the Arctic has quite a different geology that forces warmer waters directly at it. Antartica on the other hand is isolated and has currents circling it that tend to stay cold but still, there are exchanges with seawater from the north. You admitted the Antartica Penninsula was warming - that is a direct indication that things are warming as opposed to not warming at all and all you had to say was " go figure " as if we can't figure that one out. Why else would it be warming if it was not a general trend? The most exposed parts go first.

In the same way that Arctic air masses are being disrupted and are spilling more to the south and warmer air is spilling to the north, the Antartic ocean currents can start spilling more to the north and exchange with warmer northern ocean currents. There are plenty of reports of more northern ocean life moving south on the seafloor - something you can hardly ignor.....well maybe YOU can. This says nothing of how the warming ocean currents warm the atmosphere, thereby jumping your equatorial puzzle.

General info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current

Edited by wildlife on 08/20/2012 13:11:38 MDT.

Watching Dan and Roger go back and forth is fun ;) It's like watching two religious sects arguing when you know for a fact that neither is ever going to convert to the other religious point of view. Way back at the start of this thread, I entered it as an agnostic. Now I am definitely in the warming camp, though not because of anything in this thread. Which brings me to my next observation: Roger, if you really believe that the earth is cooling, this is not the venue to make any difference to the debate. Although I know you are cynical of the peer-review process of scientific publication, it is still the best way to make a real impact on scientific opinion. Posting up cherry-picked graphs on a backpacking forum is not...perhaps your energy is better placed somewhere else.

I am still an agnostic from a real perspective, in that I am willing to assess the different 'evidence' and make my own decisions. I accept that almost nothing in science can be truly proven, we just have to weigh up the evidence and make the best guesses we can.

As for the southern oceans and Antarctica, this is very much one of the least compelling evidence sets on both sides of the argument IMHO. Some parts of Antartica are clearly warming, others appear to be cooling, some haven't seemed to change, but even the cooling does not prove or disprove the hypothesis of overall global warming. For one, the disruption of the ozone layer over the Antarctic region in recent decades muddies the water, as does the southern ocean's apparent ability to suck down great amounts of atmospheric CO2. IF the ozone layer had remained intact, and IF the ocean hadn't been disposing of excess CO2, Antarctica may well have shown a similar across-the-board warming trend like we are seeing in the rest of the world. We just don't know.

So IF I am to accept that the earth as a whole is warming, the next question is how much of this is due to human influences versus natural fluctuations? Again, I find the overwhelming balance of evidence in favour of a lot of it being due to human influences. For sure not all of it, but enough that I feel we should take action now, rather than wait for the non-existent day when everyone agrees that this is what is happening. Yes, making these changes now comes at an economic and social cost, but we will have to make these changes anyway in the near future anyway, at perhaps a much greater cost, so why not fast-track it now?

Hi Lynn and thanks for dropping by on the carbon flame war. Come on in, the water's lovely... Ah, you're in New Zealand, it's probably pretty cold in the southern ocean right now. :-)

You said:
Roger, if you really believe that the earth is cooling, this is not the venue to make any difference to the debate. Although I know you are cynical of the peer-review process of scientific publication, it is still the best way to make a real impact on scientific opinion.

In my view, it's as important to debate with people who don't read the scientific literature as it is with those who do. I've been a part of this debate since page 1, and I'll see it through.

Posting up cherry-picked graphs on a backpacking forum is not...perhaps your energy is better placed somewhere else.

If you're going to accuse someone of cherry picking data, it's customary courtesy to substantiate the accusation with specific observations. Otherwise it's just empty insult. As for the invitation to shut up and go away, I'll carry on correcting the untruths spoken here for as long as they are. When someone says "the oceans circling antarctica are warming", I'll present data which shows the truth is otherwise. You contend that the data I presented is "cherry picked". I respond that what I showed is the entire satellite record for the southern ocean. How is that a cherry pick Lynn? Get specific.

IF the ozone layer had remained intact, and IF the ocean hadn't been disposing of excess CO2, Antarctica may well have shown a similar across-the-board warming trend like we are seeing in the rest of the world.

The southern ocean disposes of co2 because it's cold. It isn't cold because it disposes of co2. No matter how quickly it absorbs co2 the concentration in the atmosphere above it is within a few ppm of the worldwide level. If you believe otherwise, offer some evidence and argue its interpretation.

IF I am to accept that the earth as a whole is warming, the next question is how much of this is due to human influences versus natural fluctuations? Again, I find the overwhelming balance of evidence in favour of a lot of it being due to human influences.

Please enlighten me as to the evidence you find so convincing. I'm always ready to be converted by really good evidence.

Yes, making these changes now comes at an economic and social cost, but we will have to make these changes anyway in the near future anyway, at perhaps a much greater cost, so why not fast-track it now?

What changes do you think we have to make? what effect do you expect them to have? When you expect the effects to happen?

I'm not sure I'd like to 'fast track' changes that might result in a lot of suffering and death if the idea is to avoid possible but unproven risk of suffering and death. Seems like the cure might be worse than the disease we didn't suffer from yet and don't know whether we will.

"Posting up cherry-picked graphs on a backpacking forum is not..."

Are you suggesting that Rog debate with actual climate science experts instead of ultralightweight backpacking enthusiasts? Hmmmmmm.

Actually so called climate science experts will not publicly debate with anyone. They have been asked, and forums provided on many many occasions. No takers. A few have accepted, but all of those backed out at the last minute. Why? If the debate is settled it should be an easy task.

"Are you suggesting that Rog debate with actual climate science experts instead of ultralightweight backpacking enthusiasts? Hmmmmmm."

I don't think 'debate' is really the right concept. Good climate scientists should be the first to admit that AGW is not 'proven'. There is just, at this stage, more compelling evidence supporting it than not. A lot more. I don't even think it should be such a polarising subject. You do not have to entirely accept or reject either position, science is not an all-or-nothing endeavor, and I don't say there is NO conflicting evidence, just that, on balance of evidence, AGW seems much more likely than non-AGW, or planet-wide cooling. A good research paper will also almost always point out the limitations in their findings, be they in measurement or interpretation. This is what I meant when I accused Roger of "cherry picking". In just about any field of research I have delved in to, there is always conflicting evidence. There is never a concensus, and always room for alternative explanations. So if you believe, or want to convince someone else of a position, you can always find supporting evidence for your argument. But when the overwhelming body of evidence goes in the opposite direction, that is when it reaches the definition of cherry picking IMHO. And no, I don't feel like posting up a gazillion pieces of evidence in opposition to Roger's belief. I don't even know how to post a graph or chart on BPL, and I have a full time job doing other things, thus do not consider myself an expert on the topic. However I do work in a field of scientific endeavor where I would not be taken seriously if I didn't back up my findings in a peer-reviewed publication. To the extent that most on-line forums are not peer-reviewed, and are often inhabited with hostile religious believers armed with cherry picked data and conspiracy theories, I would not be keen to enter into a debate in this manner either.

I, for one, am not saying Roger is wrong, merely that I am unconvinced that he is right.

"Actually so called climate science experts will not publicly debate with anyone."

Yes, it is sad that all those scientists worldwide have been ducking the chance to debate Rog publicly, or to review all his peer-reviewed journal articles (ummm), and instead he is reduced, through no choice of his own, to debate the minutiae of critical climate-science with fringe-backpackers on an internet forum. How the mighty are compartmentalized and diminished.

Lynn, I agree with you. The problem I have had with the uncovering of what is actually happening, is over and over again a certain group of scientists have had flaws show up in their work. Rather than share the data with others, everything has been done to make sure the raw data and algorithms used on that data are suppressed, lost, or just outright refused, even under FOI laws. Peer review in the climate game degenerated into a very small closed circle which included the help of editors and publishers of journals. This type of behaviour raised red flags for me, so I looked deeper and read more. The watered down versions of work done by lead authors on the various chapters of AR4 from the IPCC did not accurately reflect what the lead authors and many of the contributing authors found. Many of these lead authors resigned from the IPCC and many are only now coming out with their concerns of the IPCC, after their retirement. I agree there is some correlation shown, but little causation. The "skeptics" are only asking for what you describe. A full look at the balance of evidence. For example the last report on July temps by NOAA showed a 2.7 degree increase for 2012. A huge news story. Interestingly enough the old weather station array was used. The one that has been shown to have 85% of the stations improperly situated and not meeting NOAA standards. Two or three years ago a new array was created with proper siting characteristics. The new array showed a temperature increase of just .6 degrees, 2.1 degrees cooler than the obsolete array. NOAA did not give any reason for not using their new array. Why was this done, even after the discrepancy was forwarded to them? No correction, retraction or explanation. More red flags. The news headlines are already out there. The public have seen them, and when there are issues, no correction or explanation, just silence. So the public is not getting the whole story, thus the belief of a consensus. As an former environmentalist I have concerns about how the movement has been hijacked by politics and ideology. I think we are throwing the baby out with the bath water, and are now ignoring the things we can actually do something about, such as dealing with SO2, NOx, agricultural runoff, over fishing, oceanic plastic soup, the massive amount of vegetation loss in the third world due to using wood for fuel. If the money going into the climate change industry was used to deal with more pressing problems I think we would all be better off. Unfortunately so far it has been an opportunity cost that I think we may never recoup.

I was actually speaking about climate science experts debating those with whom they look upon with derision, those who are showing problems with what is being described as settled. Rog is someone who has a deep interest in the subject with respect to solar insolation and related areas. From what I see he is actually looking at the body of evidence, and figures he sees something that is being overlooked and discounted by the mainstream. I for one am glad Rog has put so much time into this thread. It gives all of us things to ponder. I read many of the studies, or should I say abstracts, as most of the full studies are very hard or impossible to get ahold of. I then look for any criticisms of those studies, the rebuttals etc. Crap, I have a lot of free time, LOL. What I conclude from my efforts is that exaggeration is the order of the day on the CAGW side. Much of it I believe to be driven by politics and tenure. Just what I see so far. With good evidence I could be convinced, but so far it is not there, and as I said before at what opportunity cost?

Edited by mtnrat on 08/20/2012 20:58:42 MDT.

Your turn Dan, what are you going to present to support your assertion that

"the oceans circling the antarctic have been warming"

Hmm?

Well said Sean. One of the clearest examples of bias in Journals was Nature's refusal to publish any solar papers for years - claiming no one was interested in them and they didn't get cited 1/10 as much as other papers they published. An eminent solar Physicist, Sami Solanki, tested the claim statistically and found it to be an outrageous lie. Nature were forced to admit they got it wrong, and grudgingly agreed to publish "a few solar papers per year" !!

Lynn said:
I don't say there is NO conflicting evidence, just that, on balance of evidence, AGW seems much more likely than non-AGW, or planet-wide cooling.

It depends how you operate your scales of balance. it's certainly true that in sheer weight of journal papers, there are many more for AGW than against. Ask the editors of Nature why. There has still no proper explanation of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' been published anywhere though. The "planet wide cooling" is something of a strawman. If my interpretation of the situation is correct, we are just around the top of the warming curve and cooling is imminent over the next few decades, starting around the end of next year.

A good research paper will also almost always point out the limitations in their findings, be they in measurement or interpretation.

The IPCC reports are not peer reviewed, and the opinions of scientists who disagree with the IPCC position have been vigorously suppressed in their publications.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/21/2012 01:41:16 MDT.