Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/07/2009 10:33:16 MDT Print View

Hey, Rog!

It's been so long;I thought you'd frozen stiff in denial!

>Rog wrote "The Air doesn't warm the ocean"

You're not saying that the atmosphere can't warm the ocean, are you, Rog?

If you are saying that, and, of course, if you could prove it,(You'd have to show your work!) that thousand dollar windfall that you're counting on from Dean, would be but a pittance. You would be famous! Dream with me, Rog.... Headlines....Nobel...speaking engagements....prestigious university position...high salary... the science world at your fingertips!!!!!!

But alas, it is a dream! It's part of that parallel "fantasy physics" universe that you've constructed... where the recurring dreamy discharge of drivel is interpreted as science.

And you admitted as much, many pages ago on this thread. The regular readers here know of your willingness to discard the principles of climate science and statistics, and they recognize the vapidity in your comment.

I interpret your struggle as a sign of order in the world, a reassurance of sorts.

I hope this note finds you well,
regards

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/07/2009 11:11:24 MDT Print View

Hi Skots.

I'm saying the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun. I won't be getting any prizes for saying this, as the physics is well known. Longwave radiation from the atmosphere can't penetrate water any further than it's own wavelength of around 10um. Because quite a lot of energy gets concentrated in this meagre depth, it simply causes prompt evaporation from the surface.

Your post is full of the usual AGW true believer contempt and rhetoric, so I'll turn the tables and ask you what fanciful new AGW hypothesis says otherwise. The onus of proof is on your side, since the physics I'm describing has been around and generally accepted for far longer than the AGW hypothesis.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/07/2009 16:04:08 MDT Print View

And while the AGW media twitters about the global July SST, it's worth looking at some longer term records of arctic ice.

Remember saying we should stick to talking about the ice for a while Skots?

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm

And the current Arctic ice situation is worth a look too.

ice area-09-07

Of course, the Goracle said the ice will all be gone by summer 2013...

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/07/2009 18:47:19 MDT Print View

I think I understand it now, Rog,

When you say that "the air doesn't warm the ocean", what you really mean is " the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun".

I guess my next question is, what do you mean when you say, "the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the heat directly from the sun"? :)

Do you mean that any long wave generated heat transfer into the ocean is insignificant, without comparing it to the sun? That it can't or doesn't penetrate below the boundary layer? By the way what is significant? Two watts per sq. meter?, over fifty years? Two hundred years? Six hundred years?

Considering that the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the planet 33 degree C or 91 degree F warmer than it would otherwise be, ( You do accept that basic physics, don't you?), and assuming the full 33 degree C is due to long wave, would you say that the an atmosphere that warmed the earth some 30 degree C, instead of 33C, would affect average atmospheric temps. more than average ocean temps.? And over several millennium?

I'm under the impression that like over land, low level night time cloud cover affects ocean/atmosphere boundary level energy flux. These conditions slow boundary level ocean cooling. Is long wave responsible for this absence of cooling , or warming? How is this different than the lower atmosphere and the ocean/atmosphere boundary level being warmed by downward long wave radiation from the mid and upper level atmosphere? In your world when would this flux achieve significance?

Well known and accepted physics indicates equilibrium planetary warming of about 1.15 degree C if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubled from 280 ppm, (its concentration preindustry), to 560 ppm, assuming all else equal. As I've said before, this radiative capacity of CO2 to warm the earth, all else equal, is roundly accepted. Again, considering that the 1.15 degree C warming would be a result of long wave energy, which it would be, would you, given your statement that "the air doesn't warm the ocean to any significant degree compared to the sun" expect the planets oceans not to warm, or to "not warm significantly" under these circumstances? Over time? All else equal, of course.

You know, Rog, sometimes a guy gets to wonderin' about how things fit together. Don't you?

> "won't be getting any prizes"

I agree that you won't win any prizes for your contribution to physics. Well, it wold be a long shot.:)

> "I'll turn the tables"

You haven't turned any tables, Rog. You are wrong in thinking that long wave energy cannot significantly affect ocean temperature.

Climate science is impossible without the assumption of the radiative effect of CO2, and the fossil fuel origin of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is fundamental to all the sciences. Chemistry, geology, biology, all come to the same conclusion. That's the easy part. Try constructing a climate model without radiative CO2. You'd win a huge prize if you could do that!!! Why aren't you trying? Do you know of any organization that is working on that? Hmmmm, I wonder why no one is working on that? It seems like that might be beneficial to several large, powerful, and prosperous industries.

Beyond that, your reckless chatter and endless ankle nipping contribute nothing.

If I'm sounding contemptuous, I apologize. And when it comes to climate science, rhetoric is all that I'm capable of.

Later

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/07/2009 19:07:55 MDT Print View

Still trying to turn a number into a trend, Rog?
Weather into climate? Same ole', same ole'

Latest monthly report from NOAA.

"According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the July 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 8.8 million square kilometers (12.7 percent below the 1979–2000 average), resulting in the third lowest July sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006. This was the 13th consecutive July with sea ice extent below average. July 1996 was the last year that had above-average sea extent. NSIDC reported unusually low sea ice extent in the Kara Sea, Baffin Bay, and along the Russian coast. Meanwhile, the southern Hudson Bay had significant above-average ice extent during July. July Arctic sea ice extent has decreased at an average rate of 6.1 percent per decade since 1979."

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 00:47:29 MDT Print View

"the July 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 8.8 million square kilometers below the 1979–2000 average".

No it wasn't. I think you've got this wrong by around an order of magnitude. According to the graph above the average July extent is around 7.3 million square kilometres. This year it was around 6.4 million square kilometres. This is below the 1979-2006 average used on that graph, but well within the bbounds of natural variability, as you can see from the long term graphs of the station data I linked above, which of course, you avoided commenting on.

And how come the Greenland settled Vikings were building their roof frames out of trees in 1200 AD when co2 levels were far below todays? Do you think they imported the logs?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 01:31:47 MDT Print View

"I'm under the impression that like over land, low level night time cloud cover affects ocean/atmosphere boundary level energy flux. These conditions slow boundary level ocean cooling. Is long wave responsible for this absence of cooling , or warming? How is this different than the lower atmosphere and the ocean/atmosphere boundary level being warmed by downward long wave radiation from the mid and upper level atmosphere?"

You seem to be shifting from implying that the air can warm the ocean to implying it can slow down it's rate of cooling. This gets to the heart of the AGW fallacy: implying that slowing the rate of cooling is the 'same thing' as warming.

It isn't.

By and large, tropical cumulus disappears overnight, and the ocean absorbs heat from the sun strongly during the morning. The increased evaporation then creates cloud, which slows the rate of solar warming of the ocean, a negative feedback. By the afternoon, thunderstorms build and these further slow the solar warming, taking the ocean surface temperature below that which generated the storm systems in the first place through the action of the latent heat of evaporation and the eneration of cool air currents. This is a negative forcing.

"Well known and accepted physics indicates equilibrium planetary warming of about 1.15 degree C if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubled from 280 ppm, (its concentration preindustry), to 560 ppm, assuming all else equal. As I've said before, this radiative capacity of CO2 to warm the earth, all else equal, is roundly accepted."

This is not accepted by any except the co2 global warming hypothesis proponents, and no proper empirical evidence has been put forward which proves it. Scientists sceptical of the claims have shown alternative evidence which puts the radiative forcing of co2 at a much lower value. The reason for the discrepancy largely lies in the weasel phrase "assuming all else equal". It isn't, and never has been. The other natural factors which affect climate are turning out to have far more effect than the co2 global warming proponents led us to believe.

In the light of the non-warming of the last 10 years or so, they are now admitting that the negative phases of other natural fctors can overcome the co2 effect, but haven't yet got their heads around the obvious implication that if this is so, the positive phases of those other natural factors were responsible for much of the warming they attributed to co2. This, along with a gross overestimation of the effect of aerosols is why their calculation of the radiative forcing value for co2 is overestimated.

"Climate science is impossible without the assumption of the radiative effect of CO2, and the fossil fuel origin of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is fundamental to all the sciences. Chemistry, geology, biology, all come to the same conclusion."

Estimates of the contribution of fossil fuel burning to co2 increase vary between 1% and 50%. Again, the models rely on "all else being equal", which it isn't and never has been.

"You are wrong in thinking that long wave energy cannot significantly affect ocean temperature."

Is this statement going to be supported with any evidence, or are you happy to just leave it as a bald assertion?

"Try constructing a climate model without radiative CO2. You'd win a huge prize if you could do that!!! Why aren't you trying? Do you know of any organization that is working on that? Hmmmm, I wonder why no one is working on that?"

As a matter of fact, I have been woirking extensively on this. Which is why I haven't had the time to contribute here much over the last few months. I have worked out a different way of looking at temperature change and built a model which describes the temperature history of earth using solar and planetary based parameters. I have been encouraged by two physicists working in this field to try to get my results published.

There are many climate scientists and physicists working on theory's and models which don't need co2 to explain temperature change. Your ignorance of this fact is very telling.

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/08/2009 01:45:52 MDT Print View

The problem with your inquiry, as has been stated before, is that your focus on ONE of the (alleged) deleterious effects of our reliance on fossil fuels obfuscates that there are MANY reasons to restrict their use and begin moving towards renewable energy resources.

The mind boggles at what kind of person would obsess over disproving global warming when EVEN IF it is a complete sham, a reasonable person would agree that fossil fuels are harmful and their use should be curtailed.

I know your response. You care about the truth, but really the denialist's quest for the "truth" is just aiding and abetting the destruction of our planet through various other means (besides global warming). You're on the wrong side of history, any way you slice it.

My suggestion--why don't you obsess over something worthwhile, something that would actually contribute to the conservation of our planet's ecosystem? Deforestation, over-fishing, habitat destruction, asthma in children caused by pollution/smog, etc. etc. etc.....pick one!

Edited by Rezniem on 09/08/2009 01:48:30 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/08/2009 02:07:26 MDT Print View

Hi Nate,

I am an environmentally conscious person and I've planted many thousands more trees than all the co2 global warming alarmists combined. Scientific truth is important because without it, we are left in the darkness of religious faith and political whim.

I am all for moving to cleaner energy sources. Can you name any viable ones which will fulfill society's needs in the forseeable future? Or is society to change to a low energy future? What effects will this have on public health when it gets cold again?

Once the public is being heavily taxed for co2 emission, and then find out it's a big fat ponzi scheme run by Al Gore and his ilk, based on a big fat lie about co2, there will be a backlash against all things environmental.

As it is, the politicians love the co2 scenario, because it gives them an excuse not to do anything about all the other issues you mention, none of which have anything to do with co2. They can fly off to climate conferences in Bali and make important sounding speeches about the BIG ISSUE.

Meanwhile, to get the congress critters on board, Obama has had to promise a big fat handout of carbon creds to all the coal and oil producers so they can afford to carry on polluting.

It's time to wake up to the way we are being gamed by Big Green.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken-

.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/08/2009 02:22:36 MDT.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/08/2009 05:29:34 MDT Print View

Hi Rog

""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken-"

You're right, that's exactly what the client deniers are doing with their talk of "Big Green" etc. Thanks for pointing it out.

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 07:21:49 MDT Print View

God Morning, Rog,

Rog said: >You seem to be shifting from implying that the air can warm the ocean to implying it can slow down it's rate of cooling. This gets to the heart of the AGW fallacy: implying that slowing the rate of cooling is the 'same thing' as warming.

It isn't.

So, in your world, the 33 degree C of greenhouse effect, doesn't warm the planet, it prevents the cooling of the planet. What would be the result of a stronger greenhouse?
Slower cooling? Higher planet temperatures? So, in your world, a more accurate description might be "global not cooling"?


Rog said:> By and large, tropical cumulus disappears overnight, and the ocean absorbs heat from the sun strongly during the morning. The increased evaporation then creates cloud, which slows the rate of solar warming of the ocean, a negative feedback. By the afternoon, thunderstorms build and these further slow the solar warming, taking the ocean surface temperature below that which generated the storm systems in the first place through the action of the latent heat of evaporation and the eneration of cool air currents. This is a negative forcing.

Now, Rog, take this model of daily WEATHER that you've articulated, add a stronger greenhouse effect, and over time your model is working in a warmer environment. Redefining "climate feedback" to satisfy a change in daily WEATHER is just more fantasy.

Rog wrote: >This is not accepted by any except the co2 global warming hypothesis proponents, and no proper empirical evidence has been put forward which proves it. Scientists skeptical of the claims have shown alternative evidence which puts the radiative forcing of co2 at a much lower value.

Name one. The point here is not feed backs, Rog, rather the radiative effect of the greenhouse. Even a lower number makes my point about long wave's capacity to warm the oceans.

Rog wrote:> In the light of the non-warming of the last 10 years or so, they are now admitting that the negative phases of other natural fctors can overcome the co2 effect, but haven't yet got their heads around the obvious implication that if this is so, the positive phases of those other natural factors were responsible for much of the warming they attributed to co2. This, along with a gross overestimation of the effect of aerosols is why their calculation of the radiative forcing value for co2 is overestimated.

Are any of these natural factors that you speak of above oscillations? Cyclic variation. And varying in their cycle?
Of course, oscillations and aerosols have nothing to do with the radiative effect of CO2. I haven't read of any change in the radiative forcing value of CO@. Have you? Was it from your fantasy world?

Rog wrote: > Estimates of the contribution of fossil fuel burning to co2 increase vary between 1% and 50%. Again, the models rely on "all else being equal", which it isn't and never has been.

What the heck, eh Rog. Why limit yourself to denying just climate science. Take on the whole regime. And that's where you end up. Science is so intertwined that challenges and charges reverberate across the disciplines.

Rog wrote: >Is this statement going to be supported with any evidence, or are you happy to just leave it as a bald assertion?

I provided a few examples, and asked a few developing questions. I guess we're not having a conversation, though.

Rog wrote: > As a matter of fact, I have been woirking extensively on this. Which is why I haven't had the time to contribute here much over the last few months. I have worked out a different way of looking at temperature change and built a model which describes the temperature history of earth using solar and planetary based parameters. I have been encouraged by two physicists working in this field to try to get my results published.

I say this with absolute sincerity and skepticism. Good Luck! And one question. Will the results of your research nullify the accepted radiative value of CO2. The answer is no. Your research may add to the complexity of climate, but it won't overturn greenhouse effect or CO2 as a radiative component.

Rog wrote: > Your ignorance of this fact is very telling.

Well, at least you can discern my ignorance. That is a positive sign.

But, in my ignorance, I do know that to believe what you write you MUST IGNORE 98 to 99 per cent of the scientific literature written on climate. What kind of person would choose that path? I come up with two possibilities, and combinations of the two. Maybe, three possibilities.

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 07:41:58 MDT Print View

Hey, Rog,

The quote was from NOAA. I think NORSEX and NOAA use different data and?or different processing. The rates of long term decline, however are similar.

What kind of comment would you like to hear about the long term decline? Has it changed? Are you hoping that it will change? Are you predicting it will change?

Was the particular warming in that part of Greenland global?
How far south did the warming signal extend? Was the warming even consistent north of 70 degrees? Are you denying climate forcings other than CO2? Are you denying variation? Are you implying that since CO2 didn't drive every regional or global wide warming that it can't be driving the current warming? Are you playing stupid here or being disingenuous.

I may be gone for a while again, Rog. I needed a holiday from the real world and I appreciate the refreshing dose of fantasy.

Good luck

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/08/2009 14:36:20 MDT Print View

"that's exactly what the client deniers are doing with their talk of "Big Green" etc

Or from another point of view:

"That's exactly what Big Greens like Gore are doing with their talk of "client deniers" etc.

Have a quick count up of the number of nonsense scare stories about imminient climate disaster in the newspapers compared to the number of stories about the natural variability of the climate to see how vacuuous your comment is.

Would you like to bet that global sea ice doesn't reach a thirty year high in a few months time?

Didn't think so.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/08/2009 14:45:01 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 14:39:10 MDT Print View

I may be gone for a while again, Rog

So it's another attempted hit and run then Skots.

I notice you still don't want to discuss long term Arctic station data. Is this because it shows that the recent warming is not at all 'unprecedented' even within the last century or so?

Anyway, back to your order of magnitude error regarding Arctic sea ice:

"The quote was from NOAA. I think NORSEX and NOAA use different data and?or different processing."

Ok, here's the NSIDC plot used by the NOAA:

arctic sea ice nsidc

So, as you can see, it's a little different to the NORSEX plot, but still shows you are wrong by a factor of around ten. Why not simply admit it?

Edited by tallbloke on 09/08/2009 15:06:31 MDT.

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/08/2009 22:30:19 MDT Print View

Rog,

I'll admit that you miss quoted my post!

skots wrote above:
>"According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the July 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 8.8 million square kilometers (12.7 percent below the 1979–2000 average), resulting in the third lowest July sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006.

In the subsequent post Rog referred to the text above with this quote:
"the July 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 8.8 million square kilometers below the 1979–2000 average".

Talk about an error of magnitude!!!!!!!I know that these "hit and runs" confound you, so maybe you can sharpen up before the next drive by. Can I make a few suggestions?

1. Practice reading.
2. Practice thinking.
3. Master copy and paste.

Writing up your research and submitting it for publication will go much better. Maybe your new mentors, those "two physicists working in this field" can help you. Are they working in the field outside your house? I'm thinking that if they're close, they can help you every day!

Is the station data that your rambling about the crap that uses seasonal temperatures to discount Arctic warming? If it is, why don't you instruct the readership here why Arctic summer temperatures show little change, while winter temps are rising relatively fast.

You're a blast, Rog!!!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Warmest Ocean Temperature Ever Recorded on 09/09/2009 00:56:44 MDT Print View

"I'll admit that you miss quoted my post!"

Touche!

"Is the station data that your rambling about the crap that uses seasonal temperatures to discount Arctic warming? If it is, why don't you instruct the readership here why Arctic summer temperatures show little change, while winter temps are rising relatively fast."

Rambling?

If you don't believe me, try this climate scientist's paper from 2000:

Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic
Rajmund Przybylak *
Department of Climatology, Nicholas Copernicus University, Toru, Poland
email: Rajmund Przybylak (rp11@geo.uni.torun.pl)

"The presented analysis shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic (defined on the basis of climatic as opposed to other criteria, e.g. astronomical or botanical) are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect. The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. The second phase of contemporary global warming (after 1975) is, at most, weakly marked in the Arctic. For example, the mean rate of warming for the period 1991-1995 was 2-3 times lower in the Arctic than the global average. Temperature levels observed in Greenland in the last 10-20 years are similar to those observed in the 19th century.
Increases of temperature in the Arctic are more significant in the warm half-year than in the cold half-year. This seasonal pattern in temperature change confirms the view that positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. sea-ice-albedo-temperature) as yet play only a small role in enhancing temperature in the Arctic."

Here's the plot for Danmarkshavn Greenland from 1951 to 2001, which seperates *all* the seasonal records and shows the annual too.

.danmarkshavn

And for Eureka Canada:

.eureka

So when did the co2 effect kick in Skots?
I know the graph isn't up to date, and that the melt rate from Greenland increased from around 170km^3 to 250km^3 between 2001 and 2007. However, the british scientists monitoring the situation said that in 2007, the melt rate returned to 2000 levels and hasn't risen again since. At the symposium where they presented their results they said it was like someone had turned the tap off. The six years or so when the melt rate was higher is too short a time period to get excited about. It is by your definition, just weather. So when you say winter temperatures are rising fast, maybe you should be using the past tense. In short, winter temperatures in the arctic aren't rising, they are falling, and have been for several years.

Most people round here wouldn't hesitate in telling you that temperatures in the last couple of winters have not been too hot.

Do you get out much in winter?

"You're a blast, Rog!!!"

I know, I know.

Here's the global sea ice situation since 1979

.global sea ice

Here's Akureyri - Iceland.
Warmer in the 1940's than now.

.akureyri

The global! climate! alarm! is past it's panic by date.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/09/2009 05:06:59 MDT.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/09/2009 08:06:03 MDT Print View

"Or from another point of view:

"That's exactly what Big Greens like Gore are doing with their talk of "client deniers" etc."

I think you meant climate deniers?

In any case, my point may have been slightly sarcastic but it certainly wasn't vacuous. Your post - with it's reference to "Big Green" was ironically exactly the kind of attitude Mencken was criticising, whether you see it or not. Whenever I see websites for people who don't believe in climate change I see references to "lefties", "greenies", "chattering class" etc etc. In what way are those labels not just "an endless series of hobgoblins"? Where on those websites is any sober assessment of the facts that's not related to the posters' existing political views? One blogger I saw the other day was referring to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology as "lefties" - because as scientists they were expressing a considered view about climate change that the blogger considered to be leftist.

And when you talk about "nonsense scare stories about imminent climate disaster" aren't you simply begging the question? i.e., they're only scare stories if they don't come true? As I've said before, whilst you may not be seeing climate change in rainy old London, there are few sceptics in Melbourne.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/09/2009 10:24:02 MDT Print View

"I think you meant climate deniers?"

I just copied and pasted what you wrote Arapiles me old wombat. I did wonder what 'client deniers' were but there you go. ;-)

My reference to 'Big Green' was a sarcastic reprise of the frequent references made on websites for warmies by AGW proponents to those they accuse of "being in the pay of Big Oil". (Client deniers?)

I hardly think the AGW proponents are in a position to complain about the epithets given them by skeptics given the odious connotations 'denier' carries with it. However, I agree that the partisan politicisation of the issue is pretty stupid, and I avoid it, referring either to 'AGW proponents' or if I'm feeling playful, the warmista.

In any case, we do not deny that the climate changes, indeed this is what we are trying to get you to understand. The climate has always changed, and will continue to do so, with or without the vanishingly small contribution of an increase of atmospheric co2 from 0.027% of the atmosphere to 0.039%.

Even as we speak, temperatures are taking another downturn, and the slide from 2005 looks set to continue. Not very consistent with the inexorably thickening carbon dioxide blanket theory is it? Maybe this is why the warmista and their media poodles the climate journalists keep trotting out the scare stories to try to change reality in the face of recovering arctic ice extent and record antarctic sea ice levels.

As for scare stories not coming true, we don't have long to wait. Al Gore predicted an ice free arctic in 2013 not very long ago. Mark Serreze, now head of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in the US said something similar about the north pole. Though these pundits always include a few weasel words like 'may' and 'could' in their 'projections'.

The long drought in Australia is not unprecedented. Neither are big bush fires. Nor are warm arctic decades. Nor are quiet hurricane years (there seem to have been a few of those recently).

But still, according to the doom mongers "It's worse than we feared". Indeed, the climate model predict global warming, global cooling, and even global averageness.

Amazing stuff that co2.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/15/2009 07:48:36 MDT Print View

"I just copied and pasted what you wrote Arapiles me old wombat. I did wonder what 'client deniers' were but there you go. ;-)"

Ah, my bad - I must have been having problems with clients at work that day.

But the drought in Victoria is unprecedented, and unfortunately it's about to get worse as there's an El Nino event on the way. Everyone here has a bad feeling about this summer - for example, I walked home around 10.30 pm on Saturday night and it was 25 C. At the start of spring, and at midnight. I don't think I saw any temperatures above 25 C the whole time I lived in London .... let alone at midnight. And the northern parts of Australia had their hottest winter ever ...

You might enjoy this article:

http://www.csiro.au/news/Climate-forecasts-article-response.html

Regards

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: With so many deleterious effects.... on 09/18/2009 06:22:03 MDT Print View

Hi Arapiles,

As you can see from this rainfall map, the last three years has been pretty much average for most of Australia, a bit above normal in the north, and a bit below normal in the south. Victoria is the worst hit area.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=anomaly&area=aus&period=36month&region=aus&time=history&steps=1

The southern oscillation index doesn't currently indicate a strong el nino in the pipeline, but above average sea surface temperatures are definitely compounding south eastern Australia's prolonged below average rainfall problems.

The emission of heat energy from the oceans worldwide is a response to the prolonged solar minimum, and will continue in the form of a moderate el nino modoki for a while yet before SST's fall to below jan 2007 levels in the next 15 months.

El nino's have followed the last 4 solar minima. I have been doing some research on ocean heat content and it's correlation with solar activity. I have been encouraged by physicist Nicola Scafetta to get my work published. It seems to me that the solar aspect of global warming has been badly underestimated by the co2 climate lobby and undeplayed by those who see advantage in the co2 policy. You can't tax the sun.

The article you link is just a collection of assertions with nothing backing them up apart from a reference to the IPCC report. This isn't adequate since the IPCC report itself relies on evidence which has been discredited (Mann Hockey Stick graph) and fails to provide any empirical evidence for the effect of co2 on temperature. The Computer model it relies on for it's future projection, GISS model E is proving inaccurate and is based on assumptions about the relative strength of climate factors such as Aerosols, greenhouse gases and solar forcing which are proving to be at odds with observations (No tropical troposheric hotspot, decrease in temps following solar slowdown).

Temperatures have been below normal over much of the northern hemisphere, Arctic ice extent is higher again this year. The North Western USA will likely suffer more record snowfalls this winter. The UK as you noted is cold and rainy as ever. No comfort to your folks I know, but the global warming doesn't seem all that global right now.

Here is the Arctic ice extent graph:
.ice area 09-18

As you can see, arctic ice returned to 1979-2006 average extent in November last year. It rose slightly above the average in April/May, before dipping in June. It is now past minimum earlier than the last two years as is increasing again.

This is not the picture being spun by the NSIDC and their compliant climate journalist friends in the media.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/18/2009 06:37:07 MDT.