People talking’ #6

I have been remiss about posting open threads: here’s a new one for 2012 — a place for the interested to discourse upon weighty matters, or for the weighty to discourse about interesting matters. Or indeed the weather in Amsterdam, where my daughter is looking forward to skating on the canals. In any event, keep it polite…

544 thoughts on “People talking’ #6”

  1. Hi Gareth – A question. I recently read in one of the hot tweets of the emerging problem of low level ozone killing the forests in North America. At first it was thought that drought was causing the die off, but trees raised in nurseries, with plenty of water, suffered the same damage. The suggestion was the this low level ozone is a newly noticed, perhaps unexpected effect of global warming. In effect the trees are suffocating. I have not, however, seen any follow up to, or confirmation of, this story here or on Skeptical Science. It was one of those oddball stories that seemed to vanish. Do you have any angle on this one?

    1. Low level ozone comes in part from the reaction of sunlight with hydrocarbons. If it were a “global warming” related problem then we would expect global levels to be elevated, but I don’t think this is the case.

      Ozone can also react to create the OH radical, which is part of the mechanism that removes atmospheric methane which decays into CO2 and water. Presumably we could describe that as a benefit of O3, though I don’t suppose we want to encourage its production for other reasons described above.

  3. Roger and andy – sorry to disabuse you, (and the eminent German professor), but the latest published work on solar irradiance has this to say “Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming.”

    2. You know, for a moment there I thought there might be something beyond yet another recycled – and multiply debunked – ‘it’s the Sun’ claim. I’m actually disappointed. Here’s Vahrenholt.

      In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This “large solar maximum,” as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.

      But any quick trip to check will readily refute the whole Sun argument. Take it up here in detail if you wish, but don’t expect to get any further than your forebears.

      To avoid tiresome rehashing, no-one say the sun isn’t an influence, just that it clearly cannot be the influence in recent warming.

      (I also find it highly entertaining that ‘CO2 is a trace gas’, and all that, but tiny variations in solar irradiance can be all-important! Selective sensitivity…)

      Threads still seem to be somewhat deranged! My last reply went astray, too. Bugger.

      1. Hey, I’ve just realised; looking at that first chart on SkS – Solar Irradiance lags Temperature! Must phone Andrew Bolt… 😉

      2. Hi bill
        re the “CO2 is a trace gas” – “thought” process…….
        I am of the opinion that those who promulgate this line of “argument” are unable to comprehend the mathematical truth that a tiny number multiplied by a REALLY BIG number may well be big number. And when that number is multiplied by other big numbers – well the result is truly significant.

    1. And since we wouldn’t want to lose sight of the big picture in the process:

      The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

      “Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”

            1. Having spent a little time familiarising myself with Eric the Red, it appears that this fearsome chap sailed from Norway, onto Iceland and then settled in Greenland, around 935. Quite a good effort really.

              http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/exist/erik.html

              I think that some of these settlements are still intact today. I haven’t been there, but I have seen a medieval village high up on Dartmoor in Devon UK, which is odd because it is quite a cold place up there. Must be the MWP I guess.

            2. Nice to see you say “appears”. For it is on the basis of this legend (written down about 200 years after the event) that the whole of the MWP myth of the denialosphere is based! Yes perhaps there was some colonisation of the Greenland southern shore around 1000 AD, but there is little substantive evidence to suggest it was a thriving community, it could well have been a staging post for adventures further afield. eg Scott base today. But on this ANECDOTAL evidence we are lead to believe that the MWP was warmer than today!
              The point I am make andy is simply this – If you are willing to allow anecdotal evidence to justify a stance re the MWP over far more rigorous work, then you must allow the IPCC to include anecdotal evidence in a report on glaciers. In the case of the Glacial depletion, however, the anecdotal evidence is substantially supported by more rigorous observation, as discussed here.

          2. Macro February 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm

            Are you seriously suggesting that the MWP is a myth? I thought the standard argument was that the MWP was at least as warm as current temps but limited to the Northern Hemisphere.

            Of course, there are those that claim it is global.
            However, I don’t know anyone who disputes that the Roman Warm Period, MWP, LIA etc actually never existed anywhere.

            1. “Are you seriously suggesting that the MWP is a myth?”
              That was not the point of my argument andy, and well you know it, and nowhere did I say that the MWP was a myth. So don’t put words in my mouth.

              You are in agreement then that anecdotal evidence has its place when supported by rigorous observation, and verifiable evidence.

            2. Macro February 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm
              I don’t know where the tales of Eric the Red came from, but we have archeological evidence of settlements in Greenland, not to mention Viking burial grounds.
              In fact, Viking bones have been found in places like Poland, so they certainly got around in those days.

              There’s also evidence from England too I believe (like the village I saw)

              Anecdotal? Depends on your definition I suppose.

            3. This is quite an interesting article about the Medieval village on Houndtor on Dartmoor, which I visited some years ago.

              You can see a lot of the information about this settlement is garnered from parish records, which in fact give us a lot of information of early British history.

              The article suggests that a combination of climate change and the Black Death may have forced the inhabitants to abandon the village.

              If you go there, you have to visit the famous Hound of the Basket Meals takeaway van in the carpark.

        2. Well, you took that bait!

          Sorry, Andy, could you explain again how you’re some sort of a neutral entity and not cherrypicking any information that’s presented to you for one distinct slant? Did you ever provide that link to the discussion where you were, however gently, labelled a ‘warmist troll’?

          Oh, and the 2035 BS. Well, that’s simply a dishonest citation, Andy, and I don’t use that word very often (check if you don’t believe me.)

          Could you also please explain to me how this 10 year hiatus in average melt (see quote below) in the Himalayas refutes the possibility of their disappearance by 2350, the actually date that was supposed to have been given, as you well know.

          And please answer this question directly: Is the cryosphere as a whole losing mass, gaining it, or remaining about neutral?

          “Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year,” said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.” [my emphasis]

          His team’s study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world’s oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

          The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

          The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: “The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification.” Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.

          The IPCC is part of science Andy, that’s what you, and Roger, and Bryan L can’t seem to grasp. You think everyone is just routinely selecting information to confirm their prejudices. This is called projection.

          The difference between the IPCC and the Deniosphere, is that this research will certainly become part of the next report, and will attain the status of demonstrated fact if confirmed, because the IPCC present a summary of the verifiable science, and not a jumbled smattering of what they’d like to be true.

          1. Why is 2035 a dishonest citation? There were teams who got research grants citing this date. Any sentient person could see that 2035 was wrong.

            because the IPCC present a summary of the verifiable science, and not a jumbled smattering of what they’d like to be true.
            Yeah right. Have you read “Delinquent Teenager?”

            1. Oooh, stung!

              How big is the IPCC report, Andy? How long did it even take to find this error? How key a component of the report was it? How many error-free reports of this size have there been in history?

              Laframboise’s shibboleth is of little interest to me, Andy. She refers constantly to the ‘Climate Bible’ and seems to feel that there’s something egregious about graduate students doing the legwork on papers! I’ll predict In 2 years time you’ll barely remember her book, let alone anyone else.

              And, c’mon, take the challenge: the cryosphere is either reducing, expanding, or remaining the same; which is it?

            1. The 2035 “error” was a deliberate scam put out by Dr Syed Hasnain.

              The “error” was reported in the press as long ago as 1999.

              If it was an error, you’d think that someone might have actually corrected before it hit all the media. The article linked was originally published in The Times and concludes

              but Hasnain’s team told New Scientist magazine that those in the central and eastern Himalayas were melting faster than anywhere else. – The Times

            2. A ‘deliberate scam’, eh? Oops, there’s goes that disinterested party veneer again!

              And, wow, I can say it’s ‘no big deal’ according to Pielke Sr.! This is fun!

              Of course, my link to the NYT could barely hope to compete with the independence, high-minded vision and general not-at-all-nuttiness of Richard North’s site!

              And what a high profile news story you cited from South Africa there! 2 years after the error in the 2007 report, so the ‘deliberate scam’ designed to inflame the world had a fairly hard-to-explain moratorium inserted into the strategy, didn’t it? Seems a little more Keystone Cops than Machiavelli, don’t you think?

              While I’ve got you, please answer my question about the cryosphere, there’s a brave chap.

            3. Bill, reading your NYT link, Pielke Jr (not Snr as you state) says:

              Pielke said his concern is heightened because he believes Working Group II also misrepresented his research about the link between climate change and monetary damages of natural disasters, highlighting a white paper produced for a conference he organized — when ultimately, attendees at the conference “came up with a contrary conclusion to what the background paper said.”

              In fact , there are quite a few of these issues documented in Pielke’s book The Climate Fix, like the dodgy report from WHO that links climate change to health and mortality.

              I’m sure there’s some good science in the IPCC reports, but it does tend to get dragged down by this kind of activist nonsense.

            4. Silly me! Jr., not pere; you’re right. What do the words ‘and I can say’ mean, Andy? Is there any point that you imagine I might have been making?

              Thanks for taking the bait twice!

              I’m sure there’s some good science in the IPCC reports, but it does tend to get dragged down by this kind of activist nonsense.

              Oh, very noble of you, I’m sure. And a clear indication you’ve read none of it, surely? 😉

              Note to all: Andy cannot bring himself to answer my simple question about the state of the global cryosphere.

              This is because, while he knows the answer, he doesn’t like it!

            5. Andy cannot bring himself to answer my simple question about the state of the global cryosphere.

              This is because, while he knows the answer, he doesn’t like it!

              No, the reason I don’t comment on the cryosphere is because I don’t know anything about it.

            6. No, the reason I don’t comment on the cryosphere is because I don’t know anything about it.

              Well, that’s certainly true.

              What puzzles me is that you can comprehend the Guardian article enough to understand the bit where the Himalayan Glaciers aren’t shrinking currently, at least overall, but now you tell us you can’t take in the bit where the remainder of the world’s ice is fast disappearing.

              Nor can you apparently comprehend the same information taken from the same study when imparted to you via a quote lifted from NASA’s jet-propulsion laboratory.

              Congratulations! Perfecting selective comprehension must be a useful skill for you…

          3. “The IPCC is part of science Andy, that’s what you, and Roger, and Bryan L can’t seem to grasp. You think everyone is just routinely selecting information to confirm their prejudices. This is called projection.

            The difference between the IPCC and the Deniosphere, is that this research will certainly become part of the next report, and will attain the status of demonstrated fact if confirmed, because the IPCC present a summary of the verifiable science, and not a jumbled smattering of what they’d like to be true.”

            This is where you are completely wrong. The IPCC is a political body set up to counter the effects of global warming. It has no brief to evaluate whether carbon dioxide is causing global warming. That is taken as fact.

            The IPCC is much influenced at senior levels by Greenpeace and WWLF people who are driven by their political agenda, not science.

            The output of the IPCC is propaganda based on carefully selected science, much of the stuff that the IPCC might include, if it was not biased to keep itself in business, is simply omitted.

            Put simply there is a core editorial team committed to promoting the AGW proposition which selects published material that supports its proposition and discards that which does not.

            1. Thanks, Roger, for putting that so plainly.

              It’s all a conspiracy by Greenpeace and the WWF (or is the’ WWLF thing a witty ‘Liberation Front’ style addition? A bit of a ‘Saul Alinsky’ style buzz-term on the Right at the moment, perhaps? No? Just a typo, then?)

              Very plausible, and not-at-all, um, crazy.

              Greenpeace is run by people very much like me, Roger; I’m flattered that you think we’re that disciplined and clever.

              The WWF is about as diabolical as the RSPCA or Amnesty, to my mind, but perhaps I’ve missed the memo on those guys, too?

              Incidentally, let’s say the left-pointing chevron on your keyboard is the left triangular bracket (LTB) and the right-pointing chevron is the right triangular bracket (RTB).

              This is the html instruction for a making an indented quotation: blockquote

              While this instruction ends the indented quotation: /blockquote

              To make a quotation it’s

              LTBblockquoteRTB “quoted text goes here” LTB/blockquoteRTB. Note the slash ahead of the second blockquote – I’ve bolded it to make it clear.

              It’s easier for all concerned if we actually know you’re quoting. Unfortunately I can’t easily show you without the HTML itself kicking in…

          4. You believe the IPCC is all about science whereas the more cynical among us believe that it is all about politics.

            You believe that everything coming from the IPCC is truth. Others believe that what comes out of the IPCC is very selectively filtered to convey the desired message.

            You bury your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich when
            your attention is drawn to monkey business in the IPCC, UEA, University of Pennsylvania, NASA or the Royal Society. Cynics are inclined to wonder how much job security, promotion, status and income when AGW is promoted as aggressively as it is with personal attacks on the critics being the norm. Aside for that the cynics are inclined to think that your ‘science’ is pretty ropy. You all studiously avoid explanation of the ‘science’ on which your beliefs are founded. And they are beliefs, nothing else.

  6. “Laframboise’s shibboleth is of little interest to me, Andy. She refers constantly to the ‘Climate Bible’ and seems to feel that there’s something egregious about graduate students doing the legwork on papers! I’ll predict In 2 years time you’ll barely remember her book, let alone anyone else.”

    It is not about graduate students doing leg-work it is about these people becoming lead authors!

    1. Roger, why don’t you take a moment to learn something about how the IPCC actually operates? You clearly have no idea. Try here.

      For a start, contrary to all the ‘it’s an elite cabal (of incompetent teenagers and Greenpeace)’ nonsense you’ve spouted, you need to understand that –

      Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

      and

      Each chapter has a number of authors who are responsible for writing and editing the material. A chapter typically has two “coordinating lead authors”, ten to fifteen “lead authors”, and a somewhat larger number of “contributing authors”. The coordinating lead authors are responsible for assembling the contributions of the other authors, ensuring that they meet stylistic and formatting requirements, and reporting to the Working Group chairs. Lead authors are responsible for writing sections of chapters. Contributing authors prepare text, graphs or data for inclusion by the lead authors.

      and, crucially (so I’ve emphasised it) –

      The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

      because so many of you clearly have no idea of this last point!

      Andy S, you should go too, since it seems clear you’ve not actually read any IPCC reports.

      The WWF got some of the IPCC scientists to agree to act as a reference body! Shock! Horror! Some of the scientists are even members of the WWF! Oh, the humanity! I bet some are even Masons, or Rotarians, or registered Republicans! There’s a Hindu in there somewhere, I just know it!…

      The only reason people like Laframboise can get any traction at all is because of ignorance, pure and simple.

      That and willful prejudice. And if people choose to remain ignorant when provided with opportunities to learn, well, there’s no much any of us can do about that, is there?

  7. “bill February 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Thanks, Roger, for putting that so plainly. ”

    A pity that it was necessary to put it so simply.

    WWLF was a typo not some devious attempt to paint the organization as a terrorist group, even eco-terrorist!

    If Greenpeace is run by the likes of you I might be tempted to sympathise with the French for putting a bomb under you! Hitherto I have not I might add. But I can see why your founder, an honourable fellow I believe, walked away from Greenpeace. Stick to saving whales and other wildlife and stop meddling in politics, particularly left wing politics. You would get a lot more respect that way. Now you are just a bunch of watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.

    I have no idea why you have a problem with quotations. They come back to me exactly as I sent them, inverted commas at start and finish. However I get all sorts of HTML crap from some.

    1. If Greenpeace is run by the likes of you I might be tempted to sympathise with the French for putting a bomb under you!

      ‘Watermelons’, blah blah blah. And you’re not saying Greenpeace is a terrorist group, nor even eco-terrorist, but you’d have some sympathy with people killing their members if they were like me, you’ve decided recently. Oh, I geddit, that’s funny, is it?

      Do you ever review what you write and wonder what non-zealots are going to think of it?

      Roger, your immoderation borders on Tourettes! You are extraordinarily, blissfully unaware of just how much you come across as a crank. In fact, as the very caricature of a crank.

      And, yeah, whatever you do, don’t learn how to use blockquotes properly, or even attempt to make it clear when you are quoting someone else. Like that quote from Delingpole you pasted verbatim. God forbid that that kind of information should be made clear. Or was that some attempt at plagiarism?

      You stubborn, arrogant, opinionated old man.

      You just keep on being right ’til the end of days.

      1. Bill,
        I am reading Patrick Moore’s book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”, in which he states

        The truth is Greenpeace and I underwent divergent evolutions. I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is antiscience, antibusiness, and downright antihuman

        He then goes on to say.

        May of its members [of the peace movement after the collapse of communism] moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent, the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalisation than with science or ecology

        One might be forgiven for thinking these are Monckton-esque rantings, but they from the man who co-founded Greenpeace

          1. You might have noticed that there was a discussion about Greenpeace happening in the “open” thread. My reply was to bill’s “Watermelons” comment, not one on ice melting.

            It is open because we can have a free-ranging discussion about any topic we want, including in your case, just calling people prostitutes and rent boys for the hell of it.

            1. You are right, Andy, there is really no comparison, as rent boys merely engage in honest prostitution that harms no-one (one hopes).

              You and your fellow intellectual prostitutes, however, are helping drive all humanity into a world of suffering, war and want.

              You and the likes of the NZ Climate Scam Coalition are working assiduously to bring about an inexorable but unnecessary tragedy that will be much like Hitler’s dreams of a “Thousand Year Reich”, only worse.

              What would you do if you had a conscience, Andy?

            2. You and the likes of the NZ Climate Scam Coalition are working assiduously to bring about an inexorable but unnecessary tragedy that will be much like Hitler’s dreams of a “Thousand Year Reich”, only worse.

              Hilarious. This is getting better by the minute.

          1. I see that the idiot Leighton Smith still fulminates against AGW on the ZB “squawk” network – given the nature of his masters, no surprise there.

          2. Really, Bill? Only if you think that time ends at 2050 or 2100, which it manifestly does not.

            As much of the CO2 we emit today will still be in the atmosphere millennia from now, the prognosis is for continual heating long-term, leading to food insecurity in the DEVELOPED world as well as famine in the undeveloped.

            http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/slow-onset-climate-change-catastrophic-impact-food-production/648/

            This will likely lead to war between nuclear-armed states, not to mention internal repression as elites scramble to protect themselves at the expense of the masses.

            That’s just the impact on agriculture, ignoring the problems of SLR and extreme weather.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Vd7TqbyWQ

            1. Um, Rob, if you check the extent of indentation you can see I was responding to Andy S’ –

              One might be forgiven for thinking these are Monckton-esque rantings, but they from the man who co-founded Greenpeace

            2. As much of the CO2 we emit today will still be in the atmosphere millennia from now,

              Your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?

            3. Of course, if and when the methane cannon goes off, we won’t be stuck in the Pliocene for long,.. We’ll be taking a one-way trip back to the PETM, only 1,000 times faster than last time, and our time on Earth will likely be over.

  8. As we can see, the NZ Climate Scam Coalition still has a few aging rent boys out earning their keep on the street corners of cyberspace.

  9. The news from Europe. Just In…

    “Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist’s absurd claim that 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

    SPIEGEL: And what was your conclusion?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

  10. Now are we nearer, or further away from AGW apocalypse.

    Remember Manhattan drowning after Greenland melting ?

    1. Nearer every day, Benny…
      Sea levels in the Pliocene, when the CO2 level was similar to today, were 25 metres higher. Unless our descendants build a 25+ metre high wall around Manhattan (and every other coastal city), they will drown.
      Now, guess what proportion of human agriculture and population resides within vertical metres from current sea levels?
      If you think it’s only a few Pacific Islanders who will be forced to migrate, spare a thought for your own hungry and frightened grandchildren, and their grandchildren (if any).

    2. Benney – sea level rise as a result of the melt of the Greenland ice sheet won’t aggregate around New York. That’s just an ill-informed assumption based on you not actually reading any scientific peer-reviewed literature on global warming.

      Have you ever really wondered why sea level rise was not level, and tried to find out the answer?

    3. Benny, you really need to learn to read the discussion, and not just swoop in and spatter us with these semi-digested nuggets.

      The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

      “Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”

      Are we getting closer to Greenland melting ? Yes. It won’t happen by next Wednesday, though, so if fight-or-flight is the only way you can respond to any threat, don’t worry about it. If Greenland does melt will NY (and much of the coastal world) be significantly inundated? Yes. Also not by next Wednesday. So you can relax!

  11. andyS: “As much of the CO2 we emit today will still be in the atmosphere millennia from now,
    Your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?”

    Science, boyo – start here:

    “CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates among the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on timescales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, awaiting a return to the solid earth by much slower weathering processes and deposition of CaCO3. Common measures of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, including the e-folding time scale, disregard the long tail. Its neglect in the calculation of global warming potentials leads many to underestimate the longevity of anthropogenic global warming. Here, we review the past literature on the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 and its impact on climate, and we present initial results from a model intercomparison project on this topic. The models agree that 20–35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2–20 centuries). Neutralization by CaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on timescales of 3 to 7 kyr.”

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206?journalCode=earth

      1. Andy, my high-school physics model suggests that, if you were to jump off a tall building, bad things would likely happen to you.

        Care to try it? After all, its just a model….

        Thought not. Nuff said!

          1. Now you are just revealing the depths of your ignorance, Andy!

            The “laws of gravity” are just mathematical models, of varying degrees of usefulness in describing the real world – Newtonian, General Relativity, MONDS, Loop Quantum Gravity, Stringy Thingies, etc, etc.

            We know that the classical (“high school”) Newtonian model of a force between objects cannot be correct, because it does not explain such observed phenomena as the bending of light, but it is plenty accurate enough to predict your sudden and messy demise, were you to jump off a building.

            Your GPS system uses a more sophisticated GR model of gravity based on local diffeomorphisms of spacetime, but that model cannot explain the evolution of the Universe and black holes, for which there are many competing models (“theories”).

            Finally, both the PC you use to post here, and CO2 absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere, are based on quantum processes, but the CO2 molecule is a hell of a lot simpler than your computer’s CPU…

            Bit of an “own goal”, boyo!

            1. The “laws” of gravity, are as you state, a series of theories of increasing complexity, based on a foundation of Newtonian theory.

              These are mathematical abstractions of reality.

              The difference between this and a climate model, is that the climate model makes a series of assumptions, some of which may be based on physical reality, and then we run that model to simulate the behaviour of the planet over a period of time

              There is no easy way of determining whether that model has any predictive skill.

              We can measure the effects of gravity using experimental physics. In fact the bending of light that you refer to has been observed using star data and confirms Einsteins general theory of relativity.

              We don’t have a similar way to verify a climate model, other than waiting to see if they work.

            2. Gee whiz, Andy, that foot of yours must be in a pretty-bad state with all these self-inflicted gunshot wounds it’s sustaining!

              There is no easy way of determining whether that model has any predictive skill.

              Well, it all depends on how you define ‘easy’, I suppose. But there are certainly ways!

              We don’t have a similar way to verify a climate model, other than waiting to see if they work.

              Heard of ‘hindcasting’ Andy? Or sequestering some of the data used to create the model to then use to test the skill of its predictions?

              If you’d just be willing to give up reading Delingpole and ‘We Hate the Wind Monthly’ for a while, and read, say, Mike Mann’s new book, you might learn a lot about this fascinating area. I certainly have been.

            3. bill February 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm

              Heard of ‘hindcasting’ Andy?

              Yes, this is called verifying the model using the training data.

              I can fit any model given a sufficient number of parameters. I think Roger gave quite a good analogy recently of fitting a polynomial to the currents in a bun. It doesn’t give any predictive skill at what the next current bun will be.

              Since GCMs (that is assuming we are talking GCMs here) are non-heuristic models (i.e they are not self-correcting), any parameter that is wrong makes the entire model invalid. There is no predictive value in the model whatsoever.

              The IPCC refer to climate “projections” rather than “predictions” for this very reason.

            5. I can fit any model given a sufficient number of parameters.

              Please do, oh mighty genius! From memory, you’re an IT guy, Andy; but if you’re really so damn clever go and take it up with the folks at RealClimate and SkS!

              And please tell us when you’re about to take them on – I wouldn’t miss it for the world!…

            6. bill February 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm

              I can fit any model given a sufficient number of parameters.

              Please do, oh mighty genius! From memory, you’re an IT guy, Andy; but if you’re really so damn clever go and take it up with the folks at RealClimate and SkS!

              I remember my parents hiding under their own kitchen table once when the Mormons knocked on the door.

              It was pretty embarrassing. These days I deal with these kind of fundamentalists with a really big smile. I tell them that I *heart* God and all is well with the world.
              They toddle off, unconvinced but not offended.

            7. Oh, Mighty One, if I, puny as I am, can but hope to appreciate the majesty of your awe-inspiring analogy, drawn, as an inspiration to us all, from your tender years, I take it that you, Mr IT Man, are smarter than this Gavin Schmidt, this man Michael Mann, this Stefan Rahmstorf, and others, who are in cast in the Darkness of Error, and who have been Shown, but will not follow, The Way, the True Path that is shown to us by that most Lordly of Lords, The Monckton. And the Raspberry woman.

              Now, that’s credibility!

              Get thee to NASA! Nail your tenets on their Gates! Hide thee not your Light under a Bushel. Away! Challenge those who would cast us all in the outer darkness. I insist!

            8. bill February 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm

              Oh, Mighty One, if I, puny as I am, can but hope to appreciate the majesty of your awe-inspiring analogy,

              Kewl. Looks like I might get a following.
              I have a beat-up Kombi waiting in the driveway. algore step aside. we are GONNA SAVE THE PLANET.

              Cheques, credit cards and Paypal accepted. Please click the “donate” button. Thanks for your kind generosity.

            9. AndyS: ever taken a flight in something like an Airbus or any modern jet? They all took their maiden flight after being completely developed inside a computer modelling environment that simulates the behavior of the atmosphere and the laws of Physics pretty perfectly.
              Modelling reality and experimenting inside models has become a staple tool for engineers and scientists from all works of the trade….
              Your ignorance is astounding. Your posturing amusing….

  12. Andy, again you have – no surprise – missed the point completely. All physical science is based on experiment (e.g. absorption of IR by CO2, established 150 years ago) and observations of nature (e.g paleoclimate and the instrumental record).

    From these, scientists construct and test models (theories) to explain and predict new observations, then test these against experiment in a continual process of refinement. This is why stuff WORKS in the modern world.

    If you turn up your ignorant nose at climate models, do you likewise eschew antibiotics, airplanes, banks, electronic equipment and contraceptives? Do you put on sunscreen before going to the beach in summer?

    Do you smoke cigarettes, Andy? If not, why not? Could it be that the epidemiological models of tobacco-related disease have put you off?

    Come on, man, if its all just mathematical abstraction, light up!

    1. And yet, Rob, if pressed to choose a model he would place his trust in – what’s the betting it would be an economic one? 😉

        1. I think that you will find – if you care to look -, that the IPCC projections based on climate models are stacking up rather well against, atmospheric temperature trend lines.
          Note that these are models from 1992 vintage and have been substantially improved since then.
          Far better than any economic model, I might add.

            2. He can disagree all he likes! But in order to be right, he has to have facts on his side!

              You didn’t answer this question last time you threw this in. Do you think those really are a fair representation of the IPCC’s AR4 projection curves? Because I’m inclined to doubt it…

              Right down to the colour scheme, this reminds me of one of Monckton’s charts. Here’s what he was doing in order to come up with his dramatic chart that showed projections being way off. You won’t bother to read it, but it was, um, ropey. Indeed.

              That is why I sent you to this chart last time.

              Can you show us any charts from authoritative sources – i.e. NASA, NOAAA, NCDC etc. or similar, that match Shaviv’s?

          2. Yes I agree with Roger. BS economic models that are based on BS climate models are BS squared.

            Stern == BS squared

  13. Robert Manne sums up denialism here

    “Those who do not at present fear climate change but recognise they have a lot to lose by tackling it have simply and conveniently ceased to believe what they hear.

    Citizens of the consumer society are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. However they wish to feel good about themselves.

    The climate change denialists – the lobbyists and propagandists of the fossil fuel corporations; the right-wing commentariat in the blogosphere and the media; the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues in the think tanks and the academy; the angry older generation of engineers and geologists – offer them the alibi for doing nothing they so desperately need. “

      1. Andy, just answer the following question: are you a smoker and, if not, why not?

        If you answer Yes, you are a proven addict, idiot, or both.

        If you answer No, you are a proven hypocrite, because the evidence that smoking causes cancer, although strong, is no stronger than the evidence that human CO2 emissions cause global warming.

        http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=152

        So, are you just blowing smoke in our faces, boyo?

        http://www.desmogblog.com/lancet-climate-change-passive-smoking-global-scale

        1. Actually, the evidence that smoking causes cancer is, in some ways, less strong than that for CO2-AGW, as the former relies somewhat statistics from epidemiology, whereas the latter not only has masses of data, but basic physics constrains the latter. Of the myriad chemicals in cigarette smoke, some are known carcinogens, but sometimes medical science does not yet explain why, and nobody knows how to predict whether or not a kid who starts smoking at 13 will die of {lung cancer, heart trouble, or other problems.} To make AGW nonexistent, one has to reject sophomore-level physics, i.e., conservation of energy and quantum mechanics (underlying absorption/emission spectra.}
          Of course, smoking and climate anti-science are closely linked, far closer than appeared in Merchants of Doubt, as will be shown fairly soon.

          For a terrific, brand-new book on tobacco , which peripherally mentions climate, see Golden Holocaust., by Stanford’s Robert Proctor, one of the top historians on this. I have a review there, including:

          ‘I repeat just one of many horribly-fascinating quotes (p.114), from Bob Herbert’s interview with David Goerlitz, the “Winston Man.”
          ‘Goerlitz then asked whether any of the company’s executives smoke and got this answer: “Are you kidding? We reserve that right for the poor, the young, the black and the stupid.”‘

          1. So it’s sophomore level physics that feedbacks to CO2 warming are positive and dangerous?

            Even if you accept the basic greenhouse theory, it is still feasible that feedbacks are weak or even negative. These theories are in the peer-reviewed literature as you know.

            1. “Even if you accept the basic greenhouse theory, it is still feasible that feedbacks are weak or even negative. These theories are in the peer-reviewed literature as you know.’

              Yes ‘feasible’ – but highly unlikely. Especially when one take ALL the evidence of Global Warming into account. The authors of the most recent report warn, though,

              “that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.
              Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.”

        2. I am not a smoker and never have been.
          Secondly, I haven’t actually “denied” any link between CO2 emissions and warming, though I think the correlation is weak

          Unfortunately, you characterise sceptics in this cartoon like view of the world – goodies and baddies. I know a lot of folk of all ranges of political views, and who have a wide range of views on global warming.

          Many people think that it is a potential problem that we need to look at, but that the policy prescriptions being suggested don’t make any sense.

          It is quite easy to give up smoking, relatively speaking (though I don’t have any first hand experience)

          If you want to give up emitting CO2 completely, then you need to give up all trappings of modern life – car, washing machine, oven, toaster, TV radio, computer.
          Even your beloved wind turbines require a massive amount of steel and concrete to manufacture them, both of which emit massive amounts of CO2 in the process.

          You’d even have to give up eating meat, since apparently cows are causing the planet to warm. In fact, since humans also emit methane, we should probably eliminate ourselves too.

          Maybe we should just give a massive grant to Iran so they can nuke us all and get it over with?

            1. No one could, or would, “give up emitting CO2 completely”, as we are part of a carbon-based biosphere and emit CO2 even when dead.

              So why are cows in the NZ ETS then? Cows are part of the carbon based biosphere too you know.

  14. “Andy, just answer the following question: are you a smoker and, if not, why not?

    If you answer Yes, you are a proven addict, idiot, or both.

    If you answer No, you are a proven hypocrite, because the evidence that smoking causes cancer, although strong, is no stronger than the evidence that human CO2 emissions cause global warming.”

    Your thinking process is defective!

    Andy may never have wished to smoke whether or not deterred by the thought of lung cancer.

    Also the evidence that smoking caused lung cancer is far stronger than the evidence for carbon dioxide causing global warming. In the first case correlation is very good; in the second case there is little correlation.

  15. Hating to interrupt Andy’s Galileo-meets-Martin-Luther-over-the-NAS-Server expositions (and Roger’s exhorting us all to get off his lawn), but your pal John McLean has just racked up 3 more minutes out of his 15 of fame over at SkS.

    Sorry, explain the bit again how you’re the people with the real eye on the evidence and the actual understanding of the global climate cycle?

    Oh, and Roger, you’re rather straying from the Heartland script with all that ‘smoking clearly causes cancer’ stuff, aren’t you? 😉

    1. Bill, picking up your smoking link, I see this
      Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit.

      So no denial there then.

      1. What did they spend the 90’s doing, Andy? Are you really so freakin’ ignorant that you just don’t get who your ‘new friends’ really are?

        ‘Smoking is an unhealthy habit‘. Gee, well that’s stating it plain, ain’t it? Could they hope to deny the danger outright in this day and age, do you think?

        Hardly. Instead it seems that they must chastise ‘others who search for fame and ratings instead of the truth‘ who are saying unkind things about this mildly problematic past-time:

        They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

        Now, think what you like about taxing peoples toxic addictions (entirely reasonable to my mind), does any sane person seriously doubt those first three claims?

        But Heartland ‘cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups‘. Ooh, I bet Al Gore’s involved! And he must be, because ‘[t]he anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.’

        The ‘anti-smoking lobby’ not ‘grassroots’ – ain’t that the smokestack calling the fireplace grotty!

        And I look further down the page and discover that alll those studies revealing the major smoking death-toll, appalling social-costs, second-hand smoke risks etc. etc. are all – wait for it –

        ‘junk science’!

        You don’t say!? Does any of this BS and the horrible canards associated with it have a sort of familiar ring to you, guys?

        Good thing they’re using all that lovely money of theirs (now, where did that come from?) to ensure that ‘copies of the[ir] book have been distributed to elected officials at the annual meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, and National League of Cities.’

        Yabber yabber yabber! On and on it goes, an unstoppable brown tide of filth.

        Nice fellow-travellers you have there… I, for one, am proud never to be in any danger of receiving money from this lot!

        I’ll end by quoting a Nature editorial on your jolly pals’ tactics:

        Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations….makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading…. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters. [my emphasis]

        Sound like anyone you know?

          1. Can’t face the truth can you andy.
            So off you go on another tangent.
            Bill is telling you what these duplicitous people are really like. Deceitful, double-dealing, two-faced bastards is almost too polite for them. Those who roll with dogs get up with fleas. But if that’s who you prefer, who are we to disagree.

        2. Any of or other Denier attendees more courageous than Andy S? No? Thought not…

          You see, Heartland makes me sick. Sincerely, I-kid-you-not, heartfelt, hand-me-a-bucket sick.

          And your problem is, that once most normal, non-reactionary people actually discover who they are and what they do, they’re generally no more fond of them than I am.

          By the company they keep…

          1. I’m not too familiar with Heartland but their Wikipedia entry states The Heartland Institute is a conservative and self-described libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies.

            So their stance in smoking and climate change should come as no surprise.

            I guess they are just upholding the traditions of the American Constitution in that man has unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to the UN Agenda 21
            view of the world that rights to man should be granted by the state.

            My view is that we have far too much regulation, and most of it is pointless and expensive. The NZ ETS is a case in point.

            2. Rob Taylor February 12, 2012 at 8:32 am

              Boring and predictable troll, begone!

              Thanks for your insightful comments Rob. They are really helping me understand the world around me.

            3. As you wrote Heartland is a right wing organization and thus it is an anathema to the left wing zealots promoting AGW. Their goal is regulation by government, and themselves. They may not wish to be in government and take responsibility for outcomes but merely be well paid advisors who ultimately take no responsibility whatever.

            5. Yes I do know what the term “useful idiot: means, and it is a great piece of projection form Macro to refer to The Cause, when this term is widely used by Mann in the Climategate 2 emails.

          2. “By the company they keep…”

            Besandled, bearded socialist buffoons do not make for the best company!

            1. I am *very* familiar with Heartland and I also study the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library a bit. What Heartland upholds is the freedom of tobacco companies to addict children to something that will end up killing many slowly. They have defended Joe Camel, the most successful get-kids-to-smoke campaign in history, which gained market share and helped move the typical starting age from 15-16 to 13-14 in the “race for the bottom” in the 1990s. When Joe Camel stopped,. RJR shifted to candy-flavored cigarettes like Twista-Lime. Tobacco companies knew decades ago that the only way for most people to be addicted to nicotine was to get them while brains were developing. Otherwise, most people could stop. See The Importance of Younger Adults, ~1984. Note: in tobacco-talk, “younger adults” means “Children.”

              Joseph Bast ardently defended Joe Camel and then used that as an example to ask Philip Morris for more money, not too hard as he had PM’s Roy Marden on his Board, at least 1996-2008.

            2. John Mashey February 12, 2012 at 10:06 am
              Well I am shocked, deeply shocked.
              So let’s do something about the alcohol companies that are getting kids addicted to drink via “alcopops”, the games companies getting kids addicted to Playstation and XBox, the social media companies getting kids addicted to Facebook, the phone companies getting kids addicted to texting, the media companies getting kids sexualised at a young age, etc etc etc…..

            3. Does Bob Carter wear sandals as well?

              He is bearded and a buffoon.

              Actually as any drama student will tell you buffoonery is quite an art.

          3. By the way Bill, while you are taking this “holier than thou” approach to suggest that there is some kind of “guilt by association”, maybe you’d like to tell us how much money climate scientists and environmental NGOs have received from fossil fuel companies.

            I could help, or course…

          4. Well well well – didn’t I strike a nerve?

            Again, guys you never respond to the truly interesting bits.

            Here’s a strategy:

            Dismiss and disparage majority research findings from the heart of the scientific process you don’t like.

            Use glib, derogatory catchphrases such as ‘junk science’ to describe undesirable results from the peer-reviewed scientific mainstream.

            Talk up minority research findings you do like, even if they’re from fringe outliers and from outside the peer-review system.

            Cast these as ‘solid science’.

            Claim their outsider status is due to persecution by a pernicious and self-interested mainstream.

            Accuse scientists whose results you don’t like of acting in bad-faith and corruption.

            Use political and financial clout to push any favourable ‘research’ results into the public eye and the political process, regardless of their scientific merit.

            Simultaneously lever accusations of your opponents’ bad-faith and corruption into the public eye, again regardless of merit.

            Despite being well-funded by some of the richest corporations in the world who are attempting to protect their own profits, accuse other people who oppose you of being in it for the money (such as, of all things, research grants!)

            Or claim they’re doing it for the glory.

            Or out of an insidious desire to establish a global socialist tyranny.

            Or all of the above!

            Your strategy to a ‘T’, gentlemen!

            And, what do you know, ‘T’ also stands for… ‘Tobacco’!

            I’m fully confident I’ll go to my grave untroubled by the alliances in my life, gentlemen. Somehow, to me, ‘Hey, I teamed up with the Tobacco Lobby’ doesn’t have an untroubled-deathbed ring…

            And oh, Andy; what a hoot; your right to die from self-inflicted emphysema, lung-cancer, or heart disease – costing health-systems $millions in the process – or poison others with the toxic by-products of your repulsive habit recast as ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’? ‘Thank You for Smoking’ right?

            I’ll take the regulations and the regulationists, thanks… Next.

            And ‘UN Agenda 21’ is a global Commie Plot? Oh, puhleese! You guys really are funny!

            2. Bill: generally good comments, but you really must get the terminology right for the alternate universe in which smoking causes little harm to anyone and modern physics doesn’t work 🙂

              1) “Junk science” is as you say, from the peer-reviewed literature, what medical science says about smoking and {US National Academy, UK Royal Society, AAAS, AGU, GSA, etc} say about climate.

              2) But the correct term for what the tobacco guys, Singer, Heartland, etc say is “sound science”. Singer wrote a piece for Heartland and goofed, calling it “solid science”, but then a few months later, edited it slightly, reran it, getting back on message with “sound science.”

              3) Of course, the 2 phrases came into prominence via:
              Philip Morris
              APCO
              TASSC (Steve Milloy, Bonner Cohen)
              Milloy does junkscience.com these days

              For instance, has letter from Milloy to Brown & Williamson.

              Or for real fun, read 8-page letter from APCO to P. Winokur (PM), explaining why it would be good to fund an extension of TASSC to a “TASSC Europe.” It mentions SInger’s “Heidelberg Appeal” and discussions with him., and expresses APCO’s eagerness to help create this. People may recall the Tom Harris / APCO connection with ICSC from “Puppets…”

              Anyway, the official meme is “sound science” and the tobacco archives say so 🙂

  16. “Well I am shocked, deeply shocked.
    So let’s do something about the alcohol ……”

    It is so easy to pick an example and say “We must have legislation….”. That is the thin end of the wedge. Progressively, once the wedge is started, more and more legislation is justified by the first case and more and more freedom is lost. We see it every day. It is worse in Britain than here but we are following down the same path and it will lead to the same appalling social problems that political correctness and over legislation have brought about there.

    1. What you idealogues-for-hire fail to comprehend, Roger, is that a world stressed by global warming (famine, mass migration and war) will not be a libertarian paradise – or a socialist one either.

      Not regulation, but food and survival will be the primary concern, and, as conditions worsen, we can expect a return to the “appalling social problems” of the Dark Ages.

      http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791

      http://www.theage.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/australia-faces-prospect-of-being-unable-to-feed-itself-20110713-1hdyn.html

      1. In “The Population Bomb”, Paul Ehrlich predicted that 100s of millions would die in the 1970s as a result of massive food shortages. Meanwhile, an agronomist called Dr Norman Borlaug created high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice for the developing countries. This so-called “Green Revolution” turned net importers of grain and rice such as India and Pakistan into being self-sufficient in these staples.

        Borlaug died in 2009, relatively unknown, but Ehrlich, none of whose doom-laden predictions came true, is lauded as a hero by the environmental movement.

        1. Ehrlich’s basic conclusions remain sound, as anybody who has brewed beer will recognize. Elrhich merely overstated the time frame.

          1. What the environmentalists fail to recognise is the power of human innovation. Since most of them don’t have any innovative skills, they assume the worst case scenario in human outcome.

            1. Environmentalists are realists who simply recognise a closed system when they see one.

            2. [Andy, I know this is an open thread, but it’s not provided for the kind of exchanges you are now offering. I’m deleting several of your recent commentswhich are just point-scoring attempts and making serous discussion difficult. I suggest you give us a rest, and if you don’t I will. Bryan]

            3. Environmentalists are dreary no-hopers who have no imagination or hope for humankind. That’s why they end up in government and academia

              The stupid. It hurts.

        2. Yeah yeah yeah…
          The sad fact is my dear andy that climate change is wrecking all that!
          You probably are unaware that India (and Pakistan) because of failing Monsoons is again facing severe food shortages despite the “green revolution”
          see here if you don’t believe me:
          http://www.dnaindia.com/money/analysis_more-food-imports-are-inevitable-for-india_1391482
          Furthermore the “green revolution” never made it to the most depressed of Africa, despite Borlaug’s best efforts, and the deepening drought has virtually killed off any hope of self reliance.
          Furthermore, in a land desperate for water, farmers in India find they earn more from selling their water for human consumption rather using it for growing crops. Most of the domestic water in Chennai for instance is trucked in. Aquifers are being depleted at such a rate that they are now having to employ oil pumping technologies to raise water to the surface.
          However, you believe what you want to believe. Those with eyes to see, and ears to hear know different.

          1. As an old farmboy and long-time fan of Borlaug,, I mention this.

            That is an just a sample (of a lot that I’ve read): he never thought the Green Revolution “solved” the problem of population, just bought some time. People often quote Borlaug as disproof of Ehrlich, but that’s because they didn’t bother to read his Nobel lecture., which includes:

            ‘The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.

            Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster …’

            1. Thank you for that John, I was aware that he had seen the ability of Asia to grow its food for the immediate future as only a temporary measure. The “population monster” was always going to overtake the production. The other factor is of course, the dependence of Asia on the monsoon. Having lived in Asia for a number of years one becomes very sensitive to this event. And when the rains come there is great celebration. But the seasons as you know are becoming less dependable, even here in NZ our summers vary greatly now from one year to the next, and drought is always around the corner. Drought in Asia is, of course, devastating.
              I haven’t read the Nobel lecture but will as soon as I can.

    1. Roger, “Which looks a better fit?”

      Obviously the harmonics are a better fit than the IPCC projection but I think there’s a flaw in Scafetta’s long-term prognosis around 2040 here:-

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png

      Reason being that the phases that we see, oscillate about a quadratic trajectory found in HadCRUT3 by Scafetta 2010. That underlying trend is extrinsically imposed and Wu et al 2007 found a similar trajectory using an intrinsically extracted EMD residual.

      Problem is that the Wu07 series ended 2003 and with the additional data since then the residual has transitioned to an INVERTED curve (still rising). The residual cannot be used for prediction purposes because as additional data comes in, the residual repositions and distorts until a new IMF is added (there are 7 IMFs in HadCRUT3/HadSST2 since 1850) and a new residual emerges.

      Wu et al 07 here (they term the series GSTA):-

      http://rcada.ncu.edu.tw/reference008.pdf

      Scafetta 2010 here:-

      http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

      I’ve done 30yr and 162yr EMD analyses with up-to-data HadSST2 data along with a comparative 162yr 5th order poly (HadSST2.xls) that I’ve put in Dropbox ‘Public’ here:-

      https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Public:::

      The inverted trajectory only shows up in the 162yr analysis but the present inter-decadal oscillation that we are witnessing corresponds to IMF5 that is common to both 30yr and 162yr analyses. I think IMF5 is tracking the trends in the Nino 3.4 SST anomaly here:-

      http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_NINO_34_latest.png

      It must be said that neither EMD IMF signals nor the Scafetta harmonics (two different concepts) necessarily mimic the data closely. This has confused some WUWT people because they are saying Scafetta’s model has failed already because the data is not closely tracking the harmonic oscillation.

      Also in Dropbox ‘Public’ above is CO2 vs GAT R2.xls where the Scafetta 2010 HadCRUT3 quadratic is plotted against the CO2 Keeling Curve (note that temperature leads CO2). You might also be interested in the GMSL analyses in ‘Public’.

      I don’t see the inflexion in the 162yr EMD residual as a sign of cooling but I do see it as an indication of a climate regime shift this century. It may be a precursor to a cooler regime but only time will tell as new data comes in.

    1. The vested interests are working quite hard to keep their 850 million a year subsidies though

      Analysis of UK wind farms shows that the 15 biggest owners will between them receive almost £850 million in subsidies that are added on to household electricity bills.
      It comes after the disclosure last week that 101 Tory backbench MPs had written a letter to David Cameron demanding he slash the subsidies.
      An investigation shows how the wind energy industry has:

      * employed lobbying firms to fight against Government plans to cut a near £1 billion a year subsidy
      drafted in eco-activists to drum up support for wind farm projects in the face of local opposition

      * defeated a Tory election pledge that could have triggered local referendums on wind farms before they are built

      A separate study by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank opposed to onshore wind farms, shows that 7,000 turbines are on course to be built onshore across the UK by 2020, helped by a 70 per cent success rate on wind farm planning applications.

      REF expects the total consumer subsidy paid out by 2030 to amount to a staggering £130 billion.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9076458/Wind-industrys-extensive-lobbying-to-preserve-subsidies-and-defeat-local-resistance-to-turbines.html

        1. It should be pointed out that PM David Cameron’s father-in-law receives over 300,000 pounds a year in wind subsidies, and deputy PM Nick Clegg’s wife is also involved in the wind industry. So it’s all a nice little earner for the ruling classes while they suck money out of the population, many of whom are struggling to pay their bills.

          Of course, to the champagne socialists, this is all justifiable on the grounds that it will help stop “global warming”, despite the lack of evidence that wind has any effect on CO2 emissions whatsoever, apart from one Dutch study which showed it actually increased them.

      2. Are you surprised that there is any money spent on UK public relations by UK wind power developers when you have REF getting regular traction in some of the biggest circulation newspapers, 100+ MPs displaying their ignorance/cynicism by calling wind power ‘inefficient’, GWPF doing their NZCSC thing, Adam Smith Inst dredging around until they can find Brian Leyland to trot out his anti turbine egregious tripe, a political party that has Monckton holding the science brief. I could go on and on but then andyS I would be turning into you.
        Just look at the REF claims in that telegraph article (did you spot it when looking up for your daily Dellingpole?) ‘a staggering £130 billion’ Funny they chose to express it this way rather than about £20 per household that helps keep bills down by hedging against fossil fuel price rises and uncertainty. Also have a look at the collection of drivel any telegraph article on climate change and wind power gets in comments below the line. An uncomfortable looking glass experience for you no doubt.
        I sometimes suspect that the Telegraph just runs these to fish for Google ads, their articles get so much imbissilic web traffic.

        1. “I sometimes suspect that the Telegraph just runs these to fish for Google ads, their articles get so much imbissilic web traffic.”

          That could well be the case. You are obviously aware of it, but I’m sure many people are unaware that doing a google search gives vastly differing results for even apparently similarly opinionated people – all based on the the persons web browsing. It’s called “personalization”. When andy here does a search on “climate change” for instance, and when I do the exact same search, the results will be vastly different – most of his results will no doubt refer to that site run by the “failed weather man”, whereas google recognises that I have no interest whatsoever in “sound science” (see john and bill’s discussion above).

          Whether or not this is a good thing for humanity is a moot point. I refer those who wish to look into the matter further to an excellent book “The Filter Bubble” – what the internet is hiding from you – By Eli Pariser. published by Viking 2011

          2. When andy here does a search on “climate change” for instance, and when I do the exact same search, the results will be vastly different – most of his results will no doubt refer to that site run by the “failed weather man”,

            I tried a search for “climate change”, on one computer logged into my gmail account, and on another with no personalisation specific to me, and I got exactly the same results.

            Where you will find quite different results is if you search from different countries. I found this when I spent a month in China, where the results are heavily censored.

            You can easily check this by changing the domain in the URL bar after you have done the search (if you try to change before it will redirect to your own country). e.g change nz -> uk to get the UK results.

            1. ok Here are my results – in order:
              after wiki – which is a frequent first up -usa epa , then IPCC, then Australia Dept CC, then Nasa, The Guardian x2, NY Times, UNEP, for the first page

            2. Google search results for “climate change”

              New Zealand climate change information (top 2 results)
              Climate change – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              Images
              Climate Change – New Scientist
              News for Climate Change
              EPA
              Climate Change – European Commission
              Work Programme – MoE (NZ)
              IPCC
              UNEP
              Climate.nasa.gov

              I am in NZ, by the way.

            3. Yes I’m in NZ too. I suppose the australian site came up so strongly in my results, because I visit “the Conversation” frequently and skeptical science.

            4. Google’s personalzed search blog is here

              It says that they use an anonymous cookie to track your search behaviour even if you are not logged in. This might explain why the NZ climate change website came up for me as I have been there a few times.

              It looks like it just re-ranks previously visited sites, like a kind of bookmark feature. I’m not sure that it is clever enough (yet) to figure out that because you have visited an Australian site on CC that it should suggest other Australian sites.

              Certainly WattsUp is not on my list of search results, but Anthony Watts has been moaning about his poor google rankings for a while now.

            5. Starting on the 4th Dec 2009 Google uses 57 ‘signals’ – everything from where you are logging in, to which browser you are using, to what you have searched for before – to make guesses about who you are, and what kinds of sites you would like. Yes even as you say when you are logged out.

              The question is “what does this do for creativity, serendipity, and open-mindedness if one is fed a diet of ‘sameness’?”

    2. That whole Kevin Myers diatribe does not even contain one useful fact about wind power. I did note however that failure of the Russian gas supply is implicated in the deaths of 300 people.

      Electricity systems are vulnerable to failure in extremely cold conditions whatever the source of the power. To be reliant on electricity alone does not make for a resilient society.

      1. Yes, but gas doesn’t stop just because the wind isn’t blowing.
        For those who were paying attention, Britain’s 3500 wind turbines “contribution” to the grid was 0.1% at one point last week, and it was gas energy that had to pick up the slack.

        .

        1. gas stops for a whole bunch of reasons, including price and politics. At some point it will just stop!.

          I don’t have a problem with gas picking up shortfalls of wind on the British grid – hydro would be nicer. Tomorrow (per that link you provided) the forecast is for wind to provide about 5% of peak and that is a whole lot of gas that won’t be burned

  19. It hasn’t taken andyS long to revert to Worthless Troll / Dr Checkzor standard.

    Of the 10 posts currently in the ‘recent posts’ list, 5 of them are his. And it’s all the same standard – in fact, frequently the exact same dreary arguments! – as before.

    Organic spam-bots just clutter up the place. While he’s been complaining about being ‘snipped’ (I seem to have become snarled in moderation after replying to one of these!) – frankly, I don’t think I’m the only one who’d be happy to see more of it!

    There are, after all, plenty of places to post multiply-debunked crap to an audience who just can’t get enough of it…

  20. Yeah sure. Do you really think that your postings have ‘intellectual substance’ while mine do not?! Wow, let’s do a quick show of hands on that one, shall we?

    And all the ‘Me Me Me’ stuff gets really bloody tiresome, you know?

    I simply don’t see why we should have to put up with the constant spattering of ‘Ehrlich got it wrong Ha Ha!’ ‘Agenda 21 is a Communist Conspiracy’ ‘Greenpeace is a Neo-Marxist Organization’ ‘I can fit any model given a sufficient number of parameters’ type BS.

    A blog is a like a dinner party, Andy, it’s not a place you have some inalienable right to crash and dominate, and the hosts and other guests be damned. No matter what you figure your take on another nation’s constitution lets you do. You’re a guest here, and you’d do well to remember it, as you’re wearing out your welcome pretty damn fast…

  21. Fake sceptics take note:

    How’s that global climate change conspiracy going, again?

    From what’s generally one of your newspapers.

    Tom Chivers not only manages to actually read what last week’s Nature paper actually said (notably, even The Guardian didn’t manage this!), but he’s also pointed out that it’s real science producing this finding, which scarcely fits with all the the UN Black Helicopters / Local Agenda 21 / Crypto-Socialist Takeover / Defrauding $Trillions in Research Funding ‘it’s a conspiiiiiiracy’ theories that are subscribed to by every Denier we have to contend with!

    Those interested in facts will also enjoy Peter Hadfield’s take; he also managed to read the paper itself!

      1. Must be handy to have these external resources to do your thinking for you.

        ‘Pretty weak grasp’? What, he read the bloody paper!

        Ah, I see, he’s wrong because he doesn’t subscribe to the tinfoil-hat grab-bag kit that comes with every mention of glaciers! Lo and behold, Montford, who is supposedly a luminary on your side of the argument, just runs out all the usual black-helicopter woo! As if to prove Chivers’ point! But you guys don’t really do seeing yourselves from the outside…

        I recall another excursion to Montford – then just a ‘sentient’ – being the first link you’d provided I ever followed. That one was just plain silly, too. It’s really not even pathetic, but it is predictable.

        1. You appear not to get the point Bill. Chivers was claiming that the 2035 date was a mistake for 2350, whereas the timeline presented by Montford clearly shows that this was no mistake. I have already explained this somewhere else in this thread.

          I don’t really see why you need a tinfoil hat to see a blatant piece of activism passing off as science.

        2. And I’ve already explained that just because Montford says it don’t make it true. Furthermore, if it was a piece of activism, it was a manifestly unsuccessful one, as the AR4 was published in 2007, and this claim didn’t even make the summaries (if it had it would have been called out immediately); all you were able to show by way of reporting of this ‘propaganda coup’ was one article from one South African newspaper in 2009. Whoop-de-doo!

          Certainly your bogus ‘Glaciergate’ was the first time I’d ever heard of the claim. along with 99%+ of the human population.

          I notice Montford’s dismal little army have invaded The Telegraph to give Chivers what for refusing to toe the Wingnut line.

          Rather like that rabble from WUWT cascading over themselves to post 1 star reviews of Mann’s book (when they hadn’t, um, read it) and vote down the ranking of reviews written by those who actually had.

          Ironically, fully confirming Mann’s account of the grotesque tactics of Deniers in the process.

          1. Regarding Montford, he either cannot read or deliberately falsified a key element of The Hockey Stick Illusion. Of course, he also thought the Journal of Scientific Exploration was a credible source, where as I think it is fair to call JSE a “dog astrology journal.”

            See HSI pp.23-30, 421 … dog astrology”, a long-archived part of the Talk page. That page was getting ~20 edits/day, but after that, there was a stunned silence for a day. Then people kept trying to *delete* the comment (generally a no-no for a *talk* page), but William Connolley kept restoring it. No one was ever willing to discuss the substance.

            , See this for more explanation, including the moniker HWQDAJ, He Who Quotes from a Dog Astrology Journal.

            1. Ah yes I remember that one: the old circular reference trick!

              And the Journal of Scientific Exploration – locals here should probably have a glance at ‘Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed Off the Coast of New Zealand‘, by Bruce Maccabee, Chairman, Fund for UFO Research, though it may not prove as riveting as ‘Three New Cases of Reincarnation Types in Sri Lanka With Written Records.’

              (Reincaration types?! Who knew?!)

              Oh, and who could miss ‘A New Experimental Approach to Weight Change Experiments at the Moment of Death with a Review of Lewis E. Hollander’s Experiments on Sheep’ – read that one again slowly for full appreciation – or Sheldrake’s ‘An Automated Test for Telepathy in Connection with Emails’ (did it involve that dog, I wonder?)

              I’ve just finished reading Mike Mann’s book, John, and your name comes up rather a lot in the later chapters discussing the Wegman Report (unsurprisingly!) That was a great little piece of investigation on your part.

            2. Bill: there was no Reply button to for your JSE notes …
              and indeed, whenever I need my brain cleared, selecting a random article from JSE is good for amusement. The sheep-suffocation piece used to be my favorite, but I think dog astrology nosed it out. BTW, I don’t know if you noticed, but when McKitrick quoted Deming (from JSE) in 2005 in Australia, he at least cited JSE … but a few weeks later, when he and McIntyre gave the talk in Washington for George Marshall, this changed and Deming’s quote was attributed as being in.. Science… Of course, that talk was the blueprint for the Wegman Report…

              Thanks for the kind words for Strange Scholarship …
              but “you ain’t seen nuthin yet,” …
              but you will soon.

            3. John
              ““you ain’t seen nuthin yet,” …
              but you will soon.”

              We wait in eager anticipation!

              bill
              I’ve SEEN those lights off the coast!
              O wait a minute that was A buoy.

            4. we wait in eager anticipation

              Seconded. I don’t doubt that we’ve barely scraped the tip of the (rapidly dissolving) iceberg of, um, interesting Denier ‘Scholarship’; I have a feeling that The Climate Files, like the back catalogue of the JSE, will prove to be a gift that just keeps on giving. 😉

            5. You probably already know HWQDAJ has been commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Foundation to report on the Royal Society. Chutzpah, but sadly ill applied.
              HWQDAJ is a science author – who knew!
              Apparently “The GWPF report criticises the Society for being too narrow minded …” rather than being so open minded that you cite papers from JSE.
              Tells you everything that you need to know about the GWPF if you were ever in any doubt.

      2. So I went to see what the issue really is……
        For Goodness Sake! (I was going to use a more naval expression but there a ladies present).

        I quote from the Report published in Nature:

        “The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. ” That’s in 8 (EIGHT) years not 10.

        What does your link bang on about?
        2035!

        Get over it! Everyone else has. Time to move on. The earth is loosing ice mass at a steady rate. Sea levels are rising, and you lot can’t explain why, and NO it’s not going to suddenly all stop tomorrow, or the next day, or next year or next decade, or this century.

        1. So you are OK with scientists just making stuff up then?

          [Andy, be warned, if you are just going to needle for responses I’ll delete your comments. You’ve made your offering from Bishop Hill, on an issue on which the IPCC long ago acknowledged their mistake and apologised for it. I don’t think there’s any more legitimate mileage to be had from it. Bryan]

          1. So they just made up the report in Nature then? – which you lot are trumpeting on about as supposed to be showing no warming for the past 10 (sic) years!
            There are times andy when you have to accept what is said. As to the so called ‘timeline’ whose to say who makes what up?
            And quite frankly the real issue is nothing to do with a typographical error (or whatever). The simple fact remains that Asia’s glaciers are in a state of depletion – look at the evidence for goodness sake –
            http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/
            Whether they disappear by 2035 or 2350 or even later is not really the issue. The real issue is that they will eventually disappear – and that has serious consequences for the subcontinent and a large proportion or the human population.

          2. Bryan – It wasn’t a mistake. That is the point.
            BTW, I have been to the Gangotri Glacier (Garwhal Himalaya) twice, separated by a 10 year period. The idea that this glacier could disappear in 30-40 years is simply absurd, and even more so that no one sought to fix the issue.

            Anyway, I have made my point, so we can park it here

            1. No, we won’t park it here, Andy, because you are clearly afraid to address the 4.3 TRILLION TON elephant in the room – yes, THAT ONE OVER THERE!

              The idea that you could ignore this extraordinary amount of ice melt over 8 years is simply absurd – what are you, a child hiding his head under the pillows, or just plain gutless?

              As surely even you are aware, it takes a great deal of heat to melt 4.3 TRILLION TONS of ICE. Now where, do you suppose, all that heat is coming from…?

              I’ll give you a clue – it’s not the IPCC!

            2. Look, seriously, I check back in 24 hours later and this buffoon is responsible for 50% of the posts again because he’s completely obsessed with getting the last word in; bombarding us with just a few more brimming buckets of the same noisome slops from the multiply-debunked – and galactically dreary (the man could bore for England) – Montford.

              It’s infuriating enough to have to be subjected to such monotonous smug brattishness, and this Aspergersy devotion to endless restatement (because if people don’t agree with you you just have to say it all again and louder this time), and yet it’s still not enough; it seems we must also endure a continual clangorous braying that it’s other people who are deranged, deluded, defective, dishonest… whatever!

              Oh, poor you! All you wanted to do was poison the well of scientific discourse because reality just won’t conform to your Libertarian fantasies! Its not faaaaaiiiirrr!…

              You do realise your coterie of bedraggled fabulists is actually propagating a theory that the world’s academies of science are engaged in a neo-Marxist conspiracy?! Sometimes I really have to pinch myself and realise, yes, it really is happening!

              It is beyond pathetic. It is stunted. It is crippled. And it is horrifying to discover just how much Stupid and bad-faith there really is in the world…

  22. As expected, Andy Scrase is conspicuous by his sudden absence… maybe his tinfoil hat overheated?

      1. The part I don’t understand, Andy, is the part where you, the so-called seeker of truth, suddenly go all coy and shy when faced with the inescapable fact of huge ice melt.

        You can’t explain this, can you, without admitting that the planet is warming at an enormous rate? Same with the ARGO floats measuring the steep rise in ocean heat, because it gives the lie to your bankrupt ideology that global warming is a scam, imaginary, untrue, not to be concerned with.

        Which part of this might awaken your dormant conscience, Andy?

        1. Still hiding from the melting ice, andyS? Clearly, you lack any shred of credibility or intellectual honesty.

          What’s the problem, can’t you find something on a denier web site you could copy and paste as if you’d thought it up yourself?

          1. Anyway, I have made my point, so we can park it here

            Which part of that don’t you understand Rob?

            1. You’ll have to better than that, Andy!
              Is it cosmic rays that have melted 4.3 TRILLION TONS of ICE in only 8 YEARS, or is it the heat generated by all those light bulbs in Al Gore’s palatial residence?
              Surely you can think up some fantasy to avoid the inconvenient and very uncomfortable reality of anthropogenic global warming?

              But you can’t, can you?

            2. Play fair Rob, andyS has to wait for the next spectacular final nail in the coffin of AGW instalment to come out of the Dellingpole blog, though all he got last time was a great long harumph from someone in the Irish Independent who does not like and does not want to understand wind turbines.
              Give him time Rob, give him time.

    2. Perhaps AndyS has begun to question his own morality. Or it could just be that his Heartland contract has expired, or maybe its just the end of his shift, another one no doubt will be appearing shortly.

      I wonder what it is exactly that Bryan Leyland et al., have to do in return for a bit of Heartland cash and whether Heartland believe that they are getting value for money.

      On the other side, apart from James Hansen, who is making the loudest noise with respect to climate change? I know alot of people have never heard of James Hansen. I wonder, how does one go about making a louder noise?

  23. Looks like the denialist trolls and rent boys have left us now; like delicate flowers, they wilt easily when exposed to heat and light…

  24. For a first hand account of the effects of Global Warming on the people of Greenland (around 56,000 – about 48,000 Inuit) Kathryn Ryan talked to photographer Ragnar Alexsson on nine to noon today from his home in Iceland. He has been visiting Greenland regularly for the past 30+ years and his photography reproduced in a book “The last Days of the Arctic”. There is a gallery of some of his work on the Radio NZ website.
    A memorable quote from an 80 year old “The Ice is sick”
    The podcast is here.

  25. Those proud of their Heartland connections may want to read Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.”

    On the other hand, they may not … but others might like to.
    NZ: see especially App. H.4 – Funny foreign grants – NZ, CA, AU, IN?
    Some people get to be famous. Note fn314.

    Also, see the next few posts at DeSMogBlog, as just today, a giant bluebird (and unexpected deal in sales terms) fell from the sky.

    1. Game On!

      Before sliding over to read John’s latest, I thought I’d point this out.

      I’ve just finished Mann’s book. Because it’s the kindle version I can search it. A search for the letter ‘M’ is particularly interesting.

      ‘M’ occurs rather a lot in this debate; you know, on one side of the ledger we have McIntyre, McKitrick, Milloy, Michaels (Pat), Morano, Monckton, McLean, and on the other Mann himself, Mandia, Mashey (yes, as above!), Michaels (David). (Some might argue Muller gets to play both sides!)

      Guess who’s not on the list?

      Montford.

      Can it be true? Can the author of the ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’, and all-round scourge of the corrupt scientocracy and their most unholy icon really not make the list? I mean, the Stick’s like, in the title?! Michael, can you hear me!? Hello!?

      It’s not just the contrarian luminaries [*cough*] with an ‘M’ who make the cut – Tony Watts is in there, Dick Lindzen of course, Ian Plimer gets an instance, the Pielkes, lots of Wegman; the risible Delingpole gets a couple of Guernseys.

      And even other fiction writers like Michael Crichton! (But maybe he’s in it because he has one name that begins with ‘M’?)

      No Bishop on The Stick, however.

      You’d almost think Montford’s opus was an inconsequential pile of conspiracy-spotting nonsense with nothing to contribute to the debate… 😉

        1. Isn’t it amazing how andy and his ilk CONSISTENTLY – miss the point.

          They miss the point about increasing GHG.
          They miss the point about Global Warming.
          They miss the point about the loss of 4.3 Trillion tonnes of melting ice in 8 years.

          Now:

          They miss the point about undeclared funding of non-charities, and other financial falsehoods.
          And on and on it goes…..

          No wonder they are called “denialists” – because they live in a little world of their own creation, consistently having to act like ostriches – heads in the sand and bums in the air. If you can’t see it – it doesn’t exist – is that it andy?

          1. I posted a link to Bishop Hill, which talks about the Heartland funding leak.

            I believe this is on topic for this thread.

            This short post links to an article on The Register.

            The Register links to Skeptical Science. It does this because other sites such as ThinkProgress” are having their servers overloaded causing unitentional DoS.

            So my question is, why is this deemed so offensive? Do I need to mention the “trillions of tonnes” of ice being lost with everything I write? Why is linking to Bishop Hill deemed “neural outsourcing” yet links to The Guardian is not?

            1. Andy, I’m genuinely interested in how you reconcile trillion-ton ice melt with your AGW denialist ideology – or will you just go on pretending to ignore these measurements, while trumpeting that the high Himalayan melt is less than previously estimated?

              If the latter, then the depths of your intellectual vacuity are truly awe-inspiring.

            2. Rob Taylor February 16, 2012 at 9:46 am

              Rob, If you can provide me with some links or citations to your “trillions of tons of ice” statement, then I might be able to discuss it.

              What percentage of the total ice on the planet are we talking about? It’s easy to throw big numbers around but as a statement in isolation it is pretty meaningless.

            3. “posted a link to Bishop Hill, which talks about the Heartland funding leak. ”
              And completely misses the point! AGAIN!

              It’s just “head in the sand stuff” all over again – the modus operandi of those who do not want to know.

              As, I might suggest, you are persisting on doing right now – waffling on about what your heros on WUWT and Bishop Hill think – nothing to to with the actual substance at all.
              To remind you what the actual substance is – its NOT about how much was spent; it’s about HOW it was spent:

              ‘a) Heartland sending $ to foreign non-charities. NO-NO
              b) Foreign non-charities engage in clearly non-exempt activities (the IRS-?E codes). NO-NO
              c) Some of those involved in the NZ non-charities show up and make comments that repeatedly support the non-exemptness.’
              Not to mention the proposed funding of unscientific propaganda to schools, in the same manner as the religious right who wanted and still want creationism and the teaching of pi = 3 (because its in the bible).

            4. Macro February 16, 2012 at 9:56 am

              “posted a link to Bishop Hill, which talks about the Heartland funding leak. ”
              And completely misses the point! AGAIN!

              The key point is that Heartland are claiming that the documents were stolen, some faked and some altered. They intend to pursue criminal charges against those involved. Since the means of obtaining the documents is known to Heartland (i.e a person pretending to be a Heartland member asking for the documents to be re-issued) then there would appear to be a strong case for prosecution.

              If you wish to post or comment on documents that may be fake and used as evidence in a criminal prosecution case, then that is your problem, not mine.

          2. The link you provided made NO SUCH CLAIM.

            Again you are just making stuff up.

            Heartland’s defence may well NOW be: “OH! my God It’s all lies!” Yeah right!
            But what is TELLING was that initially Heartland DID NOT DENY the allegations when interviewed by the Guardian.

            1. One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute says the link I posted.

              Furthermore, it states The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

              So which bit did I “make up”?

            2. The link you provided to Bishop Hill made no such claim!

              AND as I i said above: The Heartland response may now well be – OH it’s all lies! – But that was not their position yesterday indeed they made no comment. NOW that they see themselves in a difficult position, well – “It’s all lies” and “they were stolen”.
              As for the “It’s all lies” that can be sorted with a proper investigation. We’ll wait and see. But why would I want to believe an outfit whose stock in trade is the perpetuation of lies?? They are a bunch of liars to the core.

            3. Macro February 16, 2012 at 12:15 pm

              The link you provided to Bishop Hill made no such claim!

              Correct! It was the Heartland Press release I was referring to, which I posted earlier, which I will re-post for your convenience here

          3. Macro, you say:-

            “They miss the point about the loss of 4.3 Trillion tonnes of melting ice in 8 years”

            I’m missing the point simply because ice has been melting since the last ice age but let’s look at that quantity:-

            # 4.3 trillion tonne 8 yr ice melt is 0.013% of total ice sheet mass

            # At this rate 0.14% of the ice sheets will be gone by 2100

            # Adding about 132mm to sea level

            # If the ice melt component to total sea level rise ratio of the 18.5mm rise over the 8 yr period is 12 : 18.5 and the ice melt contribution to sea level rise over the next 88 yrs is 132mm at the study period rate, total sea level rise by 2100 will be 203mm or 20.3 cm

            # IPCC Scenario B1 (least case) * Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm]

            So what exactly is the point?

            1. The point is quite simple:

              It’s a clear sign of global warming.

              As you quite rightly say “ice has melted since the last Ice Age”. Not arguing about that. (And been replaced at a similar rate – which you want to overlook). The other fact that you seem to want to gloss over is that the melting today is more than it has been in the recent past.
              Sea level has been pretty static for the past 10,000 years – which some would suggest is the point when humans stopped continually having to migrate inland and began to establish settled communities near the sea. If sea levels had continued to rise at the rate they had been previously this would not have happened.
              And I’m fully aware that ice melt represents just a tiny fraction of total global warming see fig 2, the point is that glacial and Ice shelf depletion is as visible “thermometer” of planetary heating as you are likely to get.
              The context of all this is also pertinent. On the announcement of the measured 4.3 trillion tonnes of Ice loss by glaciers and ice shelves those who wish to deny global warming completely missed this point preferring to concentrate on the incidental fact that glaciers at high altitudes had not had significant ice loss. (ie choosing – as you appear to be doing – to ignore or pass this evidence of global warming off as “insignificant”).

            2. Further to the above and to address some of the calculations you have done.
              You base the calculations on the assumption that nett ice depletion will be linear, which is unlikely to be the case.
              Glacial depletion has occurred previously I know, but not in the recent past. So obviously there was ice replenishment at the same rate of ice loss. Now we are seeing increasing ice loss over replenishment, ie an acceleration in ice loss and a slowing down in ice replenishment. The IPCC which you quote states that continuing to increase CO2 in the atmosphere, (as is happening) warming will increase. So that will result in a further increase in the rate of ice melt and a possible further decrease in ice formation.
              I’m not going to make an projections on this, but my perception is that we are following a business as usual approach to GHG emissions at this point in time and the projections of the IPPC in that regard are not as rosy as scenario B1

            3. “It’s a clear sign of global warming” ?

              That’s a rather innocuous point given everyone knows the evidence of global warming.

              And if there is anthropogenic warming in that global warming, it’s only bottom of B1 least case at 2100.

              Hardly a point to be concerned about.

        2. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about any output that results from your neural-outsourcing arrangements. Rearrange the words a bit to pretend you thought of it yourself or don’t bother posting. On second thoughts, just don’t bother posting.

          I’m just reading The Guardian piece. They appear to have mainly looked into DeMelle’s material at this stage, so it will be interesting to watch the further progress of the story.

        3. On the Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project:

          Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science [emphasis added].We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.

          And more.

          In the golden words of red Dwarf – talk your way out of this one, Smeghead!

            1. Yeah, right… so let’s have five inquiries into DenierGate, as there were into the re the hacked CRU “ClimateGate” emails.

              Please also note that DeSmogBlog are not quoting snippets from the documents out of context, as the denialosphere did with the CRU emails…

            2. Rob Taylor February 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

              Please also note that DeSmogBlog are not quoting snippets from the documents out of context,

              Heartland are claiming that some of the documents are fake, so “context” is irrelevant until this has been established, I would have thought.

            3. AndyS,

              Please explain why you feel motivated to defend the Heartland Institute.

              Perhaps you could also provide a theory as to why Microsoft think Heartland is a worthy charitable cause. I must admit I have always had my doubts about Bill Gates, not that he necessarily approves of the donation, but he hasn’t exactly come out enraged about the company dealings. Anyway last time I checked my Office software was still running without fossil fuels, unless you count Huntly, but then I am with Meridian anyway.

              I also see Wattsup have put their spin on the leak, arguing it is just a pittance. I think they miss the point, it is not the amount, it is the blatant use of lies and truth concealment that bothers some of us.

            4. Tony February 16, 2012 at 10:21 am

              Well, I am not specifically defending Heartland. Like I say, if you wish to post links to documents that are potentially fraudulent, then that is your problem.

              With regard to Microsoft, I presume that corporations give money to lobby groups of all persuasions. Gates has suggested some rather radical geo-engineering proposals, so I imagine that he has some genuine concerns about the climate. Bill Gates is also a philanthropist who prefers the hands on approach, and intends to give most of his wealth away.

              If your Office software has no dependencies on fossil fuel, then you live in a “special place”.

          3. …….”with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor”………

            These are the key words. Some anonymous donor chooses to pay Dr Wojick to prepare a curriculum. The donor apparently considers Heartland an appropriate agent to convey the money.

    2. That’s QUITE a read John.

      I’m not sure that those of a contrary opinion would agree though. It’s a shame that a such capable person as Singer obviously was, should choose a path that will, in the end, end in infamy.

      I see a few links to some “prominent” kiwi names on p3!

      1. Kiwi names on p.3: well, yes, I thought that might be fun.
        Read the 501(c)(3) tutorial (section 0.6), especially the items coded IRS-?E and IRS-10F, combined with pp.63-64.
        (See also p.55 where Heartland says no tracking necessary since “Friends”)

        The read might draw inferences about the likely effects of:
        a) Heartland sending $ to foreign non-charities. NO-NO
        b) Foreign non-charities engage in clearly non-exempt activities (the IRS-?E codes). NO-NO
        c) Some of those involved in the NZ non-charities show up and make comments that repeatedly support the non-exemptness.
        Already gone, but nice icing on the cake. When reading “puppets,” I sometimes had to hold back from commenting, lest I spoil the fun.
        But all that’s on the record now.

        It is very likely that neither the non-charities nor Heartland understood the US tax implications. Of course, if NZ citizens got money for a non-charity and spent it, without declaring income … well that’s for Kiwis to sort out.

        1. Is there an NZ tax lawyer or accountant reading this who cares to comment? I’m sure we’d all love to see these NZ Climate Scamsters under IRD investigation….

  26. Don’t be disingenuous, Andy, you raised the ice issue yourself!

    “andyS February 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    Well at least the The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years according to The Guardian.
    which is not quite what the IPCC were telling us a while back.”

    As for a link, why not just use the one Gareth provided on this very page?

    To save you mouse fatigue, here it is again:
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-much-ice-is-vanishing-into-the-seas-you-dont-want-to-know

  27. As should be obvious to all by now, andyS is merely a PR flack for Heartland and their rentboy minions, such as the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition.

    Whether he is paid for his troubles – ultimately by US fossil fuel interests – is a matter between himself and them, but a Congressional enquiry might shed some light on the matter.

  28. Professor Carter did not deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money.

    WAToday

        1. Newspapers might be a bit less responsive if they have to check their facts first.

          Let’s take, for example Richard Black’s piece on the BBC website
          where he issues this statement


          (UPDATE 2145GMT – Heartland has posted a release on its website saying one of the documents is a fake. Elements of the remainder of this post have been re-worked accordingly.)

          By the way, read the comments on Black’s blog. There are some, anyway, that haven’t been deleted by moderators.

          1. Are you on the Heartland payroll, Andy, or do you defend them out of admiration for their sociopathic shilling for the tobacco and fossil fuel pollutocrats?

            Meanwhile, the ice is still melting, the seas are still rising, weather extremes are ever more frequent, and you are still dodging the only question that matters – WHY is this happening?

          2. Earlier in this thread andy you said you were not very familiar with Heartland – a so called right wing “think – tank” which has to be a oxymoron of enormous proportions.

            It’s about time you became a little more acquainted.

            Over the years this “crowd” have been responsible for the promulgation of numerous lies designed for the sole purpose of the companies and corporations they represent being able to continue with business as usual despite the fact that those activities have serious consequences for humanity. This is their sole reason for existence, and the litany of lies they have promulgated has been examined and found wanting in the very highest courts of the land in the USA, and yet they still persist.
            They have had their filthy little fingers in the Tobacco “debate”, the CFC “debate”, the DDT “debate”, the AGW “debate”, to name a few, and now I see the fracking “debate”. There is no debate on any of these issues, the facts are quite clear, but to modify behaviour would be detrimental to the profit margins of the corporations involved. Most of what you read on denialist blogs comes directly from Heartland. They are the puppet masters who pull the strings.
            So why would I want to read ANYTHING they say.
            In a court of law they would be shown to be the liars they are, as they have been on numerous occasions.
            Why any media would place any credence on their utterances is simply evidence that the media are also controlled by unscrupulous interests. Yes Fox News et al. I’m looking at you.

            1. They have had their filthy little fingers in the Tobacco “debate”, the CFC “debate”, the DDT “debate”, the AGW “debate”, to name a few, and now I see the fracking “debate”

              and who is involved in the wind energy “debate”, the solar power “debate”, the nuclear power “debate”, the population “debate”, the GE “debate”?

              Of course, no one. There is no debate. The only voice in town is yours. No other opinions are to be tolerated.

            2. ***Sigh***
              Typical answer andy – just what I expected unfortunately.
              ‘Head in the sand” stuff again.
              Go ahead – believe all the lies fed to you by Heartland. They are lies andy – they have been shown to lies after intensive examination by thousands of people in courts, in scientific journals, by direct observation, by any and every manner of verification known to mankind. BUT when ideology is involved, well that overrides all reason and intelligence. You accuse the thousands of scientists and commentators who understand the very real dangers associated with continuing to burn fossil fuels in an unregulated fashion as being “alarmists” and “religious cranks” worshiping the god of climate change. The sad fact is that the truth is there for all to see. 4.3 trillion tonnes of ice just doesn’t melt by itself, it requires HEAT. Lots of it. You can calculate it if you like.
              It takes 333.55 kJ/kg to change ice to water.
              So you believe what you like – I’ll stick to the facts.

          3. It’s worth reading ALL of the BBC article – and it’s still all there. Certainly goes to the points that John M is making.

            So, read the Fairfax article/s, Andy (they’ve been updated in response to Heartland too) – I know it’s hard, being potentially disconfirming and all – and examine what they still say and how Carter actually responded.

          4. Macro February 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm
            Go ahead – believe all the lies fed to you by Heartland. They are lies andy – they have been shown to lies after intensive examination by thousands of people in courts, in scientific journals

            Heartland haven’t fed me anything. I was completely unaware of Heartland until blogs such as this one started banging on about them, and I am sure they are grateful for the publicity.

            Incidentally, I don’t recall referring to climate scientists as “religious cranks”, but if my memory is failing me I’d be happy to be corrected on that point.

            1. “Heartland haven’t fed me anything. I was completely unaware of Heartland until blogs such as this one started banging on about them, and I am sure they are grateful for the publicity”

              oh so you came to your conclusions all by yourself did you. without any help from WUWT or Bishops Hill or any of the other sites you consistently link to. All puppets of Heartland.

              Pull the other one.

            2. Macro February 16, 2012 at 3:10 pm
              oh so you came to your conclusions all by yourself did you. without any help from WUWT or Bishops Hill or any of the other sites you consistently link to. All puppets of Heartland.

              Damn. foiled again!

    1. Anonymous donor = DONORS CAPITAL/TRUST, see Appendix I in ,a href=”http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax”>Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.
      Really, I skim the first 21 pages and study the ToC to see what’s there.
      The blogosphere is full of questions that are easily answered by opening the PDF and doing a Full Search.

  30. C’mon, Andy, is that the best you can do?

    Surely there is some denialist blogger you can cite, somewhere, with a hare-brained theory to explain the ongoing TRILLION-TON ice melt?

    Here, I’ll help get you started: giant trolls are real (Peter Jackson hired some for “Lord of the Rings”), and live in cities in caves under the ice in Greenland.

    Unfortunately, they are experiencing a overpopulation crisis that has seen heat from their cooking fires melt the ice overhead.

    Al Gore knows this! George Soros does too!!

    See how easy it is? Now it’s your turn….

  31. Gareth
    Funding questions seem to be more fun than climate science on HT. Why don’t you set up a register so all contributors can declare how much money (cash or kind) they’ve received from the following sources during the past 10 years:
    Governments – local
    Governments – foreign
    NGOs – Greenpeace, Heartland, EDS, Forest & Bird, etc
    Chambers of Commerce
    Private charities or foundations
    Trade groups – Wind Energy Assoc, Petroleum Explorers Assoc, etc
    Listed companies – fossil fuels, other fuels, clean-tech,

    Then we can guage the value of everybody’s comments based on their dollar take.

    1. No Need.

      It’s not the funding of the organisations that’s the issue.

      It’s what they do with it when they have it.

      And from previous well documented history we know that Heartland’s contributions to the welfare of humanity is all about the protection of corporate interest and greed – nothing more nothing less – and they will stop at nothing in order to do that.

    2. No, no, no, what is ours is ours , what is yours is negotiable.

      Now where did I hear that before?

    1. Gosman,
      I am reading Moore’s “Greenpeace Dropout”book at the moment. He describes in autobiographical detail the movement he was part of until the mid-eighties.
      I am about half-way through the book. I think I agree with a lot of his points that the modern environmental movement seems to be focused on problems rather than solutions.
      There seemed to be a “zero-tolerance” approach to many issues like forestry and aquaculture, for example

    2. So this one bloke’s ‘gone emeritus’. So what? Next.

      Care to comment on some of the more bizarre antics of the NZCSC, since they’re actually relevant to the debate?.

      1. Care to comment on his points he made or do you you not bother simply because his views don’t align with your preconceived ideological bias?

  33. I picked this up on your Twitter feed above:

    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/economy/article2916878.ece

    Chennai, Feb. 21:

    Tapping its abundant thorium reserves, the Government has decided to commence the construction of 300-MW thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor in the next 18 months, a senior official said on Tuesday.

    “Under the third stage of nuclear programme based on thorium utilisation, a reactor of 300 MW will be constructed in a year and a half from now..,” Kalpakkam-based Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Director, Mr S.C. Chetal, told reporters here.

    This actually looks pretty exciting to me. Thorium holds a lot of promise for creating safe, reliable, low-emissions energy for thousands of years.

    1. It does, which is why I tweeted it! Barry Brook is the go to man on this subject. Check out Brave New Climate in the blogroll. We interviews him for The Climate Show after Fukushima last year.

      1. That sounds promising. I have read quite a lot of Barry’s stuff on BNC with respect to nuclear,

        One thing I picked up from the Energy From Thorium facebook page, when I cross-posted this link there, is that this technology is Heavy Water Reactor as opposed to MSR (molten salt reactor).
        My understanding is that MSR is much safer than HWR, but I’d be interested to hear Barry’s views on this. Certainly the EFT guys are into the LFTR design (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor).

        1. On this topic, Gordon McDowell is looking for pledges for his Kickstarter project to make a documentary on Thorium power. So, if, like me, you think Thorium is exciting and you’d like to make a contribution, go to the link.

          I think you get a whole bunch of stuff for pledges of more than $50.

  34. The SkS Meehl article is very good in terms of ENSO, PDO, interdecadal oscillation etc and consistent with everything I’ve posted here at HT except causation (also consistent with Scafetta BTW).

    The problem though is that still no mechanism is described that introduces the anthropogenically-forced heat into the ocean.

    I’m well aware that ENSO is a recharging mechanism capable of creating a climate shift for several years (e.g. post ’98) but what causes a prolonged positive or negative phase?

    There’s plenty of hypotheses looking at natural causation (e.g. vulcanism) or correlation (e.g. sunspot cycle, solar-magnetic) but without a clearly defined physical mechanism the anthro-forced OHC paradigm breaks down.

    This goes a long way to explaining why the AO-GCMs are overshooting OHC this century IMO.

  35. Macro/Rob Taylor – just ran across this.

    What’s really interesting is that the observations seem to support the modeling seen in Meehl (2011). Here’s the warming trend (including non-hiatus decades) for the 0-700 metre layer of the global ocean based on Levitus (2009): http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/OHC1967-2009basedonLevitus2009.jpg. Note the latitudes of the downward circulation (vertical warming trend).

    Also interesting are the heating rates for the 0-700 metre and 0-2000 metre layer from the NODC based on the Levitus OHC methodology. The 0-2000 metre layer is warming faster than the 0-700 metre layer.

    We’ll have a post up at SkS when Levitus’ new paper is published, but it sure looks like Meehl (2011) and Palmer (2011) were headed in the right direction.

    I’ll keep harping on about it at SkS, because it’s important for people to understand why it’s going to get very hot in the next 3-5 years, and why we’ll see major episodes of mass coral bleaching, severe Amazonian drought, and rapid (but temporary) global sea level rise.

  36. Richard C2 either can’t read or he does not know the difference between “heat content” (as shown in the Figures linked by DW) and “temperature”. Any high school student who has taken basic physics understands this difference. Too bad scientifically illiterate people try and muddy the waters with such misinformation to support nonsense such as “Indicating a heat source other than solar radiation (or any radiation from above surface)”.

  37. Farce? Tell that to the Earth Scientists.

    I note none of you here has addressed H&Q73 (and corroborating experiments) and the negligible anthropogenic radiative effect at the ocean surface (if any and even that aided by clouds).

    BTW, passed high school physics. Also NZCE Eng science (electricity and heat).

  38. A compendium of recent studies of the Kermadec Trench:-

    ‘The Kermadec volcanic region: An overview of geological discoveries from the last decade’
    http://www.thekermadecs.org/symposium/abstracts

    Includes:

    ‘Submarine massive sulfide mineralization and hydrothermal activity along the Kermadec Arc, the world’s most hydrothermally active’

    Matthew I. Leybourne,
    GNS Science, Lower Hutt

    Map of known hydrothermal vent fields

    The map below documents all known hydrothermal vent fields. Use the pan and zoom controls to explore, and click on the points for details about each. Unconfirmed vent fields have so far mostly been detected only by the plume of smoky water that they emit — their dates of discovery will be revised to the date of visual confirmation, if and when they are visited.

    http://www.peteraldhous.com/vents.html

  39. If Richard C2 had been writing about a change of government in Outer Mongolia would you has replied in similar vein? On past performance I expect that you would.

    1. I sure would have, Roger, if he had said that Oompa-Loompas, or some other fictional characters had taken over the government there.

      Has it never occurred to you deniers that scepticism is a two-way street; your theories must be held to the same exacting standards of evidence that you insist on for, say, the “Hockey Stick”?

      Or are you just as you appear – a bunch of grumpy, out-of-touch fantasists and hypocrites?

  40. Richard – You have to be joking!
    How many of those beggars do you think you would have!
    Sure the numbers of the mega volcano were impressive but:
    The plume was up to 1500m – the average depth of the oceans is over 4200 m. We are are talking one hell of a lot of water here.
    I served in the Navy when HMNZS Tui (now a playground for divers) did a full underwater survey of of NZ’s EEZ and saw the results. Heaps and heaps of “volcanos” out there for sure – but none erupting. There are Hundreds of volcanos on land and how many are active right now? You can count them on one hand. Why would underwater volcanos be any more active?
    And remember that volcanos are limited to subduction zones – not scattered all over the earths surface.
    The OHC is huge. 93% of global warming.
    A bit like dark matter and dark energy. We only “see” 5% of the universe, and we struggle to understand that. The other 95% we are aware of, but have no idea of what it is, but we do not deny its existence.
    We are aware that 93% of Warming is in the ocean. You can’t have approx 2 watts per sq m not going anywhere. However unlike dark energy we can investigate and find out just what happens to it. The models seem to be reflecting the observed data. As we gain more knowledge we will hopefully gain more understanding. That’s the process of science.

  41. Rob Taylor – Richard C2 sure if funny alright. He likes to come across all intellectual as he’s putting forward some of the most preposterous ‘dog ate my homework’ excuses I’ve ever heard.

    Apparently these magical vents and volcanoes, which just so co-incidentally occurred when humans began burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal, spew out lots of heat but no extra gases. Now that really is magical thinking!!

    I’d just leave him to wallow in his fantasy world. The world is going to warm up very abruptly soon. Both he and his denier brethren are going to struggle to handwave that away.

      1. “Unfortunately, they are hung like albatrosses around our collective necks, and saying “I told you so” will be little satisfaction as things go to hell!”

        Some of us have rather different ideas about the nature of hell. Mine, which I think is not widely shared among the sceptics, is that exploding third world population coupled with idiotic immigration policies will contribute significantly to that hell. That global cooling is more probable than global warming and that the consequences of that will be catastrophic is, I think, a view more widely shared among sceptics.

        1. Except, Roger, that you “sceptics” have no labs, research programmes or evidence “that global cooling is more probable than global warming”, so who gives a toss what you “think”?

          Whatever you do, it does not appear to involve actual thinking, merely the regurgitation of whatever pseudo-scientific babble the Heartland PR flacks want you to believe.

  42. “magical thinking” ?

    Climate change will shake the Earth

    Bill McGuire

    The idea that a changing climate can persuade the ground to shake, volcanoes to rumble and tsunamis to crash on to unsuspecting coastlines seems, at first, to be bordering on the insane. How can what happens in the thin envelope of gas that shrouds and protects our world possibly influence the potentially Earth-shattering processes that operate deep beneath the surface? The fact that it does reflects a failure of our imagination and a limited understanding of the manner in which the different physical components of our planet – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the solid Earth, or geosphere – intertwine and interact.

    >>>>>>>

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth

    McGuire is of course, touting his book ‘Waking the Giant’: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

    Reversing cause and effect, I’m inclined to agree with him:-

    How can what happens in the Earth-shattering processes that operate deep beneath the surface possibly influence the thin envelope of gas that shrouds and protects our world?

    The fact that it does reflects a failure of our imagination and a limited understanding of the manner in which the different physical components of our planet – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the solid Earth, or geosphere – intertwine and interact

  43. In May 2010 Gleick was a signatory to the lead letter in Science magazine on ‘integrity in climate science’ which stated, inter alia:

    ‘Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence… We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.’

    1. Gleick was right, rent boy, as the Heartland documents he released clearly show.

      So, are members of the NZ Climate Scam Coalition paid per post / op-ed, or just a retainer, like the others?

      1. What the HI documents show is that: there’s no Koch funding of HI’s Environment foci (which includes Climate and doesn’t even get it’s own department); The NIPCC is externally funded; the K12 Curriculum project represents a mere 1% of HI’s expenses; and, that with a mere fraction of overall HI US$4,638,398 income, they, in mgt terms, have been vastly more efficient and effective than all the IPCC, govts, INGOs and advocacy groups combined in communicating their point of view.

        e.g. Bast to Curry:-

        “We send publications to every national, state, and 8,400 county and local officials in the U.S. on average about once a week. 79% of state legislators say they read at least one of our publications. “Environment & Climate News,” one of six monthly publications we produce, is read by 57% of state legislators, a higher percentage than read the New York Times. It has been published continuously for 15 years, and every issue features the work of leading climate realists. No other organization produces a regular publication that reaches more people with this message.”

        That’s just the work of their Editorial Department. In addition to that the Editorial Department must also address issues of:-

        * Education
        * Health Care
        * Telecom
        * Energy
        * FIRE
        * Budget & Tax
        * Legal

        Only FIRE warrant’s enough focus to get its own department.

        HI’s success in their climate communication indicates that it is the message rather than the budget that finds the audience.

  44. Your problem, RC2, is that AGW is not a hypothesis, it is an observation, and your willful blindness to that fact matters not a jot.

    It is also not a “cause”, but an entirely predictable outcome of basic physics, chemistry and recent history. Reality does not take sides, and we ignore it at our peril.

    2. “Your problem, RC2, is that AGW is not a hypothesis, it is an observation, and your willful blindness to that fact matters not a jot.”

      You are, as usual, wrong. There are theoretical grounds for believing that an increase in carbon dioxide will bring about an increase in temperature. However it is agreed, even among the shroudwaving fraternity, that the increase is very small. That part is your basic physics and that is as far as basic physics goes. It is that that point that the shroudwavers insist that water vapour multiplies the effect by about three. That is pure speculation and supported by nothing at all, least of all common sense.

      1. It’s only the anthro OHC forcing mechanism that I’m trying to pin him down on Roger – fat chance.

        1. “Pure speculation” that comes with a name.”

          That relation is all to do with phase changes and nothing to do with the supposed amplification effect of carbon dioxide. It is a fancy name that you have dropped but it bears to relevance to the issue.

          1. I’m afraid you need to do a little more reading. It describes how the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases as temperature rises. Expected from theory, measured in fact.

            1. No. You do Gareth.
              The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius[1] and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron[2], is a way of characterizing a discontinuous phase transition between two phases of matter of a single constituent. On a pressure–temperature (P–T) diagram, the line separating the two phases is known as the coexistence curve. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation gives the slope of the tangents to this curve. Mathematically…………..

              “It is that that point that the shroudwavers insist that water vapour multiplies the effect by about three. That is pure speculation and supported by nothing at all, least of all common sense.” That is still true and the Clausius-Clapeyron relation has nothing to do with it.

            2. From a little further down the Wikipedia page you quote from:

              Since there is only a weak dependence on temperature of the denominator of the exponent, this equation shows that saturation water vapor pressure changes approximately exponentially with T.

              Really Roger, read the stuff. Don’t jump to your own conclusion in the absence of facts… Oh, wait a minute…

  45. “lol You can talk! You have been regularly chastised here for your foul abuse.”

    I can indeed. I do not go around referring to people as male prostitutes, or even female ones. I have not libelled anybody here. I have not gone much further than referring to a certain American gentleman as “Piltdown”. I have not suggested that someone should remove his head from his colon. I would suggest that can well be described as foul abuse.

  46. “ROFL, Roger. Just for starters we we have the instrumental record from weather stations, satellites and ocean floats, plus textbook chemistry and physics grounded in 150 years of replicable scientific experiment, not to mention support from every science authority and government in the world.”

    Your instrumental record is very ropy. Satellite and Argus float data do not support your case. Your textbook physics and chemistry only support trivial warming. As for every science and government authority think only of Galileo. Recorded history does not support you. In reality your whole case rests on uncalibrated numerical models and mere guesses at the way carbon dioxide amplifies the warm blanket effect of water vapour. You have not got a leg to stand on, thus you resort to rude abuse and as Gleich demonstrates, theft and, it appears, forgery.

  47. “Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-1.html

    So it’s only a suggestion and it’s only likely. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5. No mention of Minnet’s variation of conventional cool-skin physics.

    Until the IPCC can come up with some hard-and-fast verifiable and validated mechanism I think we can forget about anthropogenic OHC forcing.

    Someone call Martin Manning.

  48. The average heat flow from Earth’s interior is 0.09 W/m2. This is a fairly well known value because most of the heat is produced from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium and potassium whose concentrations can be constrained by the study of meteorites from which Earth was constructed. In contrast, Earth receives 340 W/m2 from the Sun. Geothermal contributions to Earth’s oceans and atmosphere are trivial – at least for the last several billion years or so.

    Recent research indicates that ocean ridge seismicity is a response to ENSO rather than associated with its cause (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2481.abstract):

    “… increased seismicity is associated with ENSO-driven sea-surface gradients (rising from east to west) in the equatorial Pacific, leading to a reduction in ocean-bottom pressure over the EPR by a few kilopascal. This relationship is opposite to reservoir-triggered seismicity and suggests that EPR fault activity may be triggered by plate flexure associated with the reduced pressure.”

    1. “suggests” Mike. This highlights the cause-effect divide in the sciences. We have Bill McGuire stating “Climate change will shake the Earth” but as I’ve already commented, this from another point of view can be stated “Seismicity will shake the climate”.

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30091

      These are 2 schools of approach and now we have papers cited here from each approach aligned against each other. It seems to be a seismicity vs atm pressure argument. I’m inclined to subscribe to the influence of the incredible force of magnetism on seismicity if that’s the case in a magnetism => seismicity => ocean => climate cause-effect sequence but I’m probably over simplifying.

      Do you subscribe to the sequence: climate => ocean => seismicity?

      (This comment in response to Mike P’s here http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30169)

      1. I hope you meant “magmatism”, not “magnetism”, but one never knows with you guys.

        In any case, the long term geothermal heat flow into the oceans is trivial. So, whatever the cause behind the reported correlation between ENSO and ridge seismicity, the (geo)physics rules out any role for geothermal heating. Do you agree?

        1. No Mike, I did mean “magnetism”.

          That sequence (and I don’t see yours) was climate related but we can look at it in terms of extreme weather, quoting Piers Corbyn:-

          “….earthquakes and extreme weather events have a common solar-lunar based cause. They are in the same PARALLEL family.

          Solar events + lunar etc modulation => jet stream shifts + weather especially extremes
          Solar events + lunar etc modulation => tectonic stresses & quakes-volcano especially major ones”

          Corbyn is an astrophysicist turned weather forecaster. He uses influences of solar magnetic field oscillation, coronal mass ejections, solar wind, proton bombardment, etc effects on earth magnetic field oscillation, jet stream movement, ionospheric pumping, etc…as well as earth/sun/moon alignment effects on blocking/diverting/enhancing such effects…

          1. Corbyn made a lot of money betting on his weather forecasts against those of the Met Office. Eventually William Hill, one of the largest bookmakers in the UK, declined to take his bets. He was right too often!

          2. Another Ken Ring!
            You people will grasp at any straw – no matter how flimsy or loony.
            Talk about lunatics…

            1. That particular “lunatic” happens to be beating the pants off the UK Met Office.

              The people whose model NIWA’s is based on.

            2. I don’t know that much about Corbyn’s forecasts, except that he got banned from a bookmakers in the UK because he consistently out-performed the Met Office in weather forecasts.
              (He used his forecasts to bet against the Met Office ones)

              I think he uses a computer, and no cat paw readings were taken to the best of my knowledge.

            3. “Niwa concedes summer outlook off the mark’ – NZ Herald

              “Niwa has conceded last month’s record-breaking rain and flooding was a far cry from the average rainfall predicted in its summer weather outlook.

              The outlook for November to January was for near-normal rainfall across the country, with temperatures near average in the North Island and above average in the South Island.

              Instead, wet weather lashed the country and a state of emergency was declared in Nelson last month following record-breaking rainfalls that closed roads, caused flooding and slips and forced households to evacuate.

              Niwa principal climate scientist James Renwick today said the pre-summer outlook did not turn out quite as expected, but…….”

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10778465

              NIWA – “Seasonal Climate Outlook: December 2011 – February 2012″

              In the notes at the bottom of the image below are the immortal words:-

              “In this example the climate models suggest that below average conditions are likely (50% chance of occurrence)”

              “…the chance of normal or above normal is also shown (30% and 20% respectively)”

              http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/niwa%20outlook.jpg

              NIWA bought a lemon. People with the experience of Dr Renwick could make an educated guess better than that.

            4. Corbyn claims to have been banned – not quite the same thing. He also claims to be able to produce accurate forecasts, but so does Ken Ring. People who have looked at Corbyn’s record find it to be unimpressive. Check Stoat for more.

          3. OMG, magnetism, really? Roger, please step-in and set this man straight on the basics of heat flow. Roger, roger, over, over.

            1. Mike, do you read about CO2 disrupting electricity networks and satellite communications as just one CME can do?

              And does CO2 produce phenomena such as the aurora borealis?

              Is CO2 capable of reversing the earth’s polarity?

              Your puny little “forcing” hasn’t got a prayer in that company Mike.

          4. Does Corbyn use a divining rod as well? I expect it would be just as useful for someone foolish enough to claim:

            “CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so.”

            Hardly surprising he refuses to divulge his “methods”!

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

    2. Thank you Mike for that confirmation.

      That is an interesting development with regards ENSO and ocean ridge seismicity.

      1. “Thank you Mike for that confirmation.”

        Bias comfortably assuaged Macro?

        Suggest you look up the meaning of “suggests”

        1. I suggest that you demonstrate the truism “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and instead of waffling on about something you really have no idea about, you might like to do a little more study. Starting with a basic course in physics. Preferably one not taught by andy.

          1. Starting with a basic course in physics. Preferably one not taught by andy.

            Cheers, I don’t need the work anyway.

          2. Moved on a bit from the basic course Macro.

            BTW, your thoughts on the “cool space” vs “neutral space” paradigms controversy acrimoniously raging between GHE luke-warmers and the GHE cooling faction.

            Ironically it places GHE warmers on the side of Spencer and Lindzen (who are defending GHE warming on the warmers behalf by default) whether they like it or not.

            Involves a bit of physics as we’ve discovered in discussion at Treadgold’s.

            1. Not surprised you want to change the subject fast, Richard C2! Despite your pontificating on “paradigms controversy”, you’ve demonstrated such breathtaking ignorance of basic physics (e.g. confusing heat with temperature and magmatism with magnetism) that I doubt you know what you are talking about.

              Memo to Heartland: Can we have some new trolls, please? These ones are getting stale.

            2. RT, You are able to make the assessment “breathtaking ignorance of basic physics” from an admitted basis “I am not involved in current research to identify the physical mechanism whereby the planetary energy imbalance is transferred to ocean heat content, nor have I ever claimed to be” ?

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30025

  49. AndyS: “It’s quite hard to have a conversation using these childish pejorative terms, but that is the nature of the climate “science” these days so I have to speak the lingo”

    Me warmist. Me shroud-waver. Me programmed by Gore, Soros to destroy economy. And capitalism. Me no understand your problem.

    1. How much do you get from Heartland, Andy? Or do you place no value on your own self-respect?

      1. I get no money from Heartland. I have nothing whatsoever to do with Heartland. But as the graphic clearly shows, government funded scientists have a very large pool of money to draw from.

        The biggest message I got from this whole Heartland affair is the notion that there is a “massive well-funded campaign of denial” is pure fantasy, one concocted by the environmentalists.

        I’d like to thank DeSmogBlog and Peter Gleick for bringing that to everyone’s attention. You have done the world a service.

          1. . The fossil fuels industry is the most profitable in the history of the world
            I guess that’s why Jeremy Grantham has all those millions invested in ExxonMobil.
            He intended to keep it that way too.

        2. “I get no money from Heartland.”

          So who pays you then? And how can we get a slice of the action?
          If you tell us that posting nonsense on the net is just a hobby, we won’t believe you.

          1. Why am I spouting nonsense? Don’t you believe what I telling you? I have provided plenty of evidence to support my claims.

            Or do you prefer to inhabit your little fantasy world of denial and self-delusion?

          2. “So who pays you then? And how can we get a slice of the action?”

            So who pays you then Tony? And how can we get a slice of the action?

            If you tell us that posting your nonsense on the net is just a hobby, we won’t believe you. Why should we?

    2. That’s overall HI expenses – CC is a fraction of that.

      Efficient and effective.

    1. It’s broken. I think it started because I moved a post to another thread, but can’t be sure. Happens sometimes, and it’s impossible to fix. I’ll a start a new open thread soon so that conversations stay linked.

  52. “Gareth March 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    From a little further down the Wikipedia page you quote from:

    Since there is only a weak dependence on temperature of the denominator of the exponent, this equation shows that saturation water vapor pressure changes approximately exponentially with T.

    Really Roger, read the stuff. Don’t jump to your own conclusion in the absence of facts… Oh, wait a minute…”

    Of course temperature and pressure determine the phase or phases which will be in equilibrium.

    That is not the issue. You claimed that the Clausius–Clapeyron relation explains the supposed amplification of the water vapour effect by carbon dioxide. It does not. There is no connection whatever. There is no mention of carbon dioxide on that Wikipedia page. Do you understand the meaning of phase in this context?

  53. Another comments:

    “A better measure of the accuracy of Corbyn’s forecasts are the fact that British betting shops would not take his wagers and some members of the British Parliament have asked why he should not replace the United Kingdom Met Office.”

    I put the latter question to a dedicated, though normally sane, British shroudwaver. He suggested that Corbyn should donate his expertise free to the UK government!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. As you should know, Roger, anecdotes are not evidence of anything, especially credibility.
      For the record, neither are repeated exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Anyone who takes Corbyn seriously needs a brain transplant. He has been exposed time and time again as totally incompetent. Corbyn relies on acolytes who are too dim and unfocused to even remember any of his howlers. Who’s next on your list – Bastardi perhaps?

        1. Didn’t read the audits RW ?

          Or this apparently:-

          “The unique power of the forecasts has also been proven by the profits on Scientific Weather Bets with William Hill at odds and verification organized independently by the UK Met Office.

          In 4,000 Weather Test Bets over 12 years with William Hill, Weather Action forecasts made a profit of some 40% (£20,000). The Odds were statistically fair and set by the Met Office before being shortened by William Hill by a standard 20%; the results were then provided by the Met Office for William Hill to settle each bet. Piers Corbyn was excluded by the bookies from such account betting in 2000.

          Bets and notional bets can be used to estimate Forecasting Power which is the % profit (or negative for losses) on stakes that would come from bets placed at fair odds. For general long range forecasts for the three most extreme recent seasons, namely Summer 2007, Summer 2008 and Winter 2008-09 The Met Office long range forecast Power is minus 100% (ie Met Office long range forecasts failed in all three cases) and WeatherAction (Solar Weather Technique) scores about plus 500%.”

          http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact45

          Still baking the ULMO’s -100% record RW ?

          1. It would be hard to devise a better test. Would any NIWA forecasters bet THEIR money on their forecasts? I think not.

            1. Actually Roger I think the NIWA forecasters could make money here:
              If you have nothing better to do you might want to take a look at what a real meteorologist has to say on this VERY topic.

              To quote from the article:

              “Research shows us that, at best, only about 70% of our year-to-year seasonal climate is predictable; the other 30% is chaotic random (weathery) stuff. (It must be one of the few fields where you expect to be “wrong” occasionally and just have to cop it.)

              A typical climate forecast will calculate there’s a 60% chance of more rain than normal in a general region next season.

              Does this help?

              Well, we know that hedging one way or another, over time, will let you win in the end.

              Think of it this way – a European roulette wheel has one “0”, 18 red and 18 black slots. If you only bet one colour and the payout is double for a win, the casino would still win in the end because they have the 0. (In reality, when odds and payouts are taken into account, a casino has about a 2.7% edge).

              The casino knows it will always make a profit if the game is played often enough.

              Climate forecasts give you far better odds than 2.7% and, used wisely over a period of time, will give an edge and ultimately a win overall.”

    3. @ Roger March 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      So I take it Roger that you also believe in this lunacy?

          1. Not exactly Richard – but your on to it… that is after all, where the word “lunacy” comes from!
            How you can honestly believe that one can predict weather accurately, months in advance, from phases of the moon, defies rational thought.

            1. Not just the moon macro. And your rational thought has not stopped this farmer:-

              Notes on what ( ‘S’ – who will talk to other farmers) – a long standing farmer WeatherAction customer – said – and which was given to a meeting of North Devon Grassland society (farmers) in Barnstaple on 15th Oct 2008

              S: “I have been with WeatherAction for ten years. Every farmer needs WeatherAction forecasts. they might think they don’t but they do. There are many practical examples of how I have saved money by applying WeatherAction forecasts:

              Selling Corn (Wheat) this year. Piers’ forecast made it clear that the rain to come meant we had to harvest early or the potential milling wheat would be devalued into feed wheat.

              Hay: I could see from the forecast it was going to be tough. I have saved a lot on hay because of Piers’ forecasts. I got a second cut by careful timing

              Fertiliser: Dry / Wet forecasts makes it clear if you need to buy and use

              Maize. The frosts forecast meant it should be planted late. Those who planted early lost out.

              Dairy: The cold spring forecast means that grass would be late so it would be worth spending on fertiliser.

              Planning. Use forecasters to book contractors and avoid hiring labour that has to stand idle because of adverse weather.

              BUY the forecasts for two years. They are a guide not gospel but and you will find you are lost without them. There is no-one else in the world who can do it.

              http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact45

              Also I refer you to this comparison:-

              WHAT IS THE MAIN FACTOR CONTROLLING THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN SYSTEM RAINFALL (SOUTH QLD-NEW SOUTH WALES-VICTORIA & SOUTH AUSTRALIA AREAS)?

              Rainfall in the vast Murray Darling Basin Area of South QLD/ New South Wales/ Victoria and South Australia, and (1) Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (CO2), (2) Sunspot Numbers, and, (3) The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model

              http://www.holtonweather.com/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20MAIN%20FACTOR%20CONTROLLING%20THE%20MURRAY%20DARLING%20BASIN%20SYSTEM%20RAINFALL.pdf

            2. Macro, a new paper in the same vein:-

              Lunar Tides and the Long-Term Variation of the Peak Latitude Anomaly of the Summer Sub-Tropical High Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia

              Wilson, 2012

              The main conclusions from this paper are that:

              1. The most important influence upon the climate of Northern NSW and Southern Queensland after the La Nina/El Nino phenomenon is the Peak Latitude Anomaly for the Summer Sub-Tropical High Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia (L(SA)).

              2. The interannual variability of L(SA) is major mechanism influencing inter-annual rainfall variability in Eastern Australia. It has also been shown to be connected to the inter-annular variability of the annual mean maximum temperatures, zonal westerly winds, meridional winds and mean air temperature.

              3. The long-term (i.e for periods of 2 to 20 years) variations of L(SA) are dominated by (significant) periodic signals at 9.4 (+0.4/-0.3) and 3.78 (+/- 0.06) years.

              4. L(SA) systematically moves away from the Equator as the angle between the Earth-Sun axis and the line-of-nodes of the Lunar orbit (at the time of perihelion) decreases. The magnitude of the movement of the mean summer peak latitude anomaly can amount to 1 degree of latitude over the 9.3 year semi-draconic spring tidal cycle.

              5. L(SA) moves towards the Equator as the number of days (to the nearest full day) that New/Full is from Perihelion decreases. The magnitude of the movement of the mean summer peak latitude anomaly can amount to 0.7 degree of latitude over the 3.8 year peak spring tidal cycle.

              6. The 9.4 year signal in L(SA) is in-phase with the draconic spring tidal cycle, while the phase of the 3.8 year signal in L(SA) is retarded by one year compared to the 3.8 year peak spring tidal cycle.

              7. This paper supports the conclusion that long-term changes in the lunar tides, in combination with the more dominant solar-driven seasonal cycles, play an important role in determining the observed inter-annual to decadal variations of L(SA).

              8. The IPCC does not take into account the important effects upon climate of long-term lunar atmospheric tides.

              http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/49TOASCJ.pdf

            3. Richard – I served in the navy for 15 years and one of my friends was the Tidal officer with the Hydrographic service of the RNZN. I am well aware that there are many influences on the tides the phases of the moon being the most dominant.

            4. “Not exactly Richard – but your on to it… that is after all, where the word “lunacy” comes from!
              How you can honestly believe that one can predict weather accurately, months in advance, from phases of the moon, defies rational thought.”

              Who, do you allege, is doing that? It is not Corbyn.

            5. “Who, do you allege, is doing that? It is not Corbyn.”

              A quote from his blog site:
              “7.30pm Piers Corbyn speaking at PONLAF on “Solar-Lunar effects on weather, climate and earthquakes and their long range prediction”

              So yes he does…

    1. From The Age, August 30, 2009

      SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

      A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

      Scientists working on the $7 million South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative…………

      But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models……..

      ”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

      But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

      ”Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.

      Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html#ixzz1o2cOP73D

  55. I have been watching this dialogue for some time. As an academic, it provides me with such rich material. Thank you AndyS and RichardC2 for your nonsense. It is so useful for my teaching.

    AndyS: can I suggest that if you want to know how climate science is handled at high school, you enrol for a high school science course? You might actually learn something, and you will at least find out how much the curriculum has been corrupted, as you seem to suggest. At any rate, you might find some enlightenment, if such a thing is possible.

    I suspect for Richard C2 it is possibly too late.

    1. I take it that you have no idea what goes into high school climate science then Keith?

      I do.

      Nothing.

      1. By the way, if you intend to use my “nonsense” in your teaching, then I’d appreciate some acknowledgement. although I do take cheques, direct credit, Paypal and credit card.

        I can provide payment details if required.

          1. Please supply details. I’ll pay exactly what it is worth
            …which is precisely zero in your opinion, I presume. I’m glad you got the joke.

            I am interested in which particular “nonsense” of mine your are interested in, especially if you intend to parade me in front of your students as some kind of bearded lady or circus freak.

            After all, my questions were aimed at determining what is in the NZ secondary curriculum with respect to climate.

            My personal views are that climate science, at least the bit called atmospheric physics, is not really a topic suitable for secondary level science, since it requires a good grounding in physics and thermodynamics.

            Of course, I am interested in your views on this too.

          2. Ah, please do immortalise the ignorance of Andy S!

            Classroom 2032: “This is what those who actually understood the dangers were up against, kids, and yes, this combination of profound ignorance and the continual regurgitation of half-digested snippets of propaganda was pretty-well it as far as the ‘argument’ went! Hard as it is now for us the believe, the self-interested – and often contradictory – opinions of those who simply endlessly recycled the broken half-truths (at best!) they sought-out on the disinformation blogs were held to be as valid as the findings of qualified scientists who had studied in their fields for years, and the most prestigious national academies of science in the world!”

            And for all the fellow-travellers, did it ever occur to you that naming-and-shaming is probably the least of your worries in the coming decades? You’re not just allies of the tobacco industry, guys – eventually you’re going to be them, with all the unhappy hours in courtrooms that entails!

    2. Keith Hunter March 4, 2012 at 12:13 am

      I went on my son’s school camp to Mt Cook earlier this week.
      Despite lots of interaction with DOC during the camp (they do a very good job on that front by the way), there was no mention of “global warming” or “climate change” at all.

      One of the kids asked why the glaciers were receding, and even this had no mention of AGW from the DOC person.

      There is one poster on “Global Warming” in the visitor centre, which didn’t seem to get a lot of interest.

      The kids were aged 11-12, by the way.

  56. Roger, as a former geoscientist, can you say something more on how ridiculous it is for Richard C2 to suggest that geothermal heat flow in the ocean basins can have any significant effect on sea surface temperature compared to solar influences?

    1. My understanding was that Richard C2 was commenting on the heat in the deep ocean, not the sea surface temperatures.

      1. Who knows what Richard C2 was talking about, Andy, as he certainly doesn’t.

        Beginning with imaginary seabed vulcanism he moved on to solar magnetism and, by now I expect, the Tooth Fairy.

        Talk about the blind leading the bland!

    2. Mike, you really need to do a bit of catch-up in the rest of this disjointed thread because this “for Richard C2 to suggest that geothermal heat flow in the ocean basins can have any significant effect on sea surface temperature compared to solar influences?” indicates that you are away with the birds.

      That was NEVER my reasoning, neither was RT, RP or Macro taking me to task on anything like that (or if they were they were in the same flock as you).

      Hydrovent heating comes in mostly at 2000 – 2500m. 0 – 700m OHC has been relatively flat this century but 700 – 2000m OHC has risen.

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

      RT, RP and Macro as I interpret, are saying that the excess heat in the 700 – 2000m layer has migrated DOWN from the upper layer.

      I am simply saying on the other hand, that there is unaccounted superheated water (far hotter than solar can ever heat it) at 100% efficiency already flowing in just below the 700 – 2000m layer.

      In view of the scientifically unsupported notion that GHG forcing is the cause of OHC build-up in the 0 – 2000m layer (and solar doesn’t penetrate that deep), geothermal sources are more likely and there is growing investigation of oceanic geothermal heat by earth scientists and oceanographers.

      Given that the plumes have been observed to flow UP it seems sensible to me that this heat should be accommodated in O-GCMs and moves are afoot to do just that.

      It is also my experience that in air and water, up is the general direction of flow, or as Abdussamatov put it “Heat rises up, not down”.

      The discussion then progressed to the opposing views of:-

      Seismicity => ocean => climate (conventional thinking)
      vs
      Climate => ocean => seismicity (Bill McGuire)

      And similarly but in terms of extreme weather:-

      Solar events + lunar etc modulation => jet stream shifts + weather especially extremes
      Solar events + lunar etc modulation => tectonic stresses & quakes-volcano especially major ones

      That you have not provided an alternative to so far.

      1. Richard C2, your conjectures regarding the role of geothermal heating of the oceans are simply ridiculous. Compare these values: solar energy input to the top of the atmosphere = 342 W/m2, geothermal energy output of Earth’s interior = 0.09 W/m2. The later value powers all the volcanic, hydrothermal and tectonic phenomena on the continents and in the ocean basins. Yep, that’s every volcano, mountain chain, earthquake and hydrothermal vent across the face of the planet.

        Any geoscientist would be able to confirm these basic facts to you. I’ve repeatedly asked Roger to so, but he seems very reluctant to call you to task for this foolishness. Part of the contrarian code I suppose.

        1. “0.09 W/m2” – yeah right. And you didn’t do the catch-up did you Mike? See:-

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30175

          Just to make sure I’ve got RT, RP and Macro’s process right (remembering RP’s “Dude – ….the heat’s traveling down”): the tepid water in the upper layer is overturned; it travels down past the hot water moving up; the tepid water settles on the ocean floor.

          Gottit.

          After the initial pressure impetus, the hot water turns about and settles on the ocean floor too.

          Then at some indeterminate time (sometime between now and 2100), the now-mixed warm water inexplicably defies the temporary suspension of convention to rise to the surface causing the oceans to boil (according to Hansen).

          This is a VERY complicated process and I hope y’all understand that my limited understanding of thermodynamics imposes considerable constraints on my ability to grasp the concepts involved.

          I’ll have to think about it for a while if you don’t mind

          1. Clarifying my previous “0.09 W/m2″ – yeah right

            Firstly, D&K09 states:-

            “The flux into the ocean and trenches averages 101 mW/m2 and into the land and shelves averages 65 mW/m2 (globally averaged 87 mW/m2)”

            But just quibbling, the bigger picture is this:-

            “A report in May of 2003 listed a radioactive isotope of Potassium (see Potassium-40) as being responsible for additional geo-nuclear energy that raised the then estimated geo-nuclear energy to a total 8 to 10 terawatts. In July, 2005 the first actual measurements of this energy were estimated to be at least 24 terawatts and possibly as high as 60 terawatts (see KamLAND antineutrino detector).

            One hundred percent of this geo-nuclear energy flows thru the Earth’s crust, atmosphere and into space. The sun provides 84 terawatts (see solar incident radiation) of energy and is subject to reflection from clouds and ice packs. A terawatt is 10 to the 12th power. We are dealing with a variable force that can be nearly 75% of the solar energy and at times can exceed solar input. These natural forces are almost beyond comprehension and are profoundly indifferent to human existence” – Joseph A Olson, PE

            No doubt the man be be disparaged remorselessly but there does appear to be a discrepancy.

            0.1/342*100 = 0.03% (using the ocean figure)

            24/84*100 = 28.6%

            60/84*100 = 71.4%

            “exceed” = 100%+

            If you see what I mean.

            1. RC2, I really was hoping that your soulmate Roger would join in to help you understand that your notion that the mid-ocean ridge hydrothermal vents could explain the observed heating of the oceans is ridiculous. Alas, he has chosen to adhere to the contrarian code and never criticise those of a like-mind.

            2. Mike let’s get to the crux.

              The argument is NOT solar versus geothermal ocean heating.

              The argument is: (solar + geothermal) variations (all of them, not just TSI) versus mysterious anthro OHC forcing mechanism.

              The IPCC were completely mystified in AR4 but they made a stab in the dark anyway, and made their stab sound like they knew what they were talking about despite the conspicuous absence of supporting science, see:-

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30158

              Perhaps the mechanism will be demystified in AR5, what do you think Mike ?

            3. Corroboration for Postma’s article:-

              What Keeps the Earth Cooking?

              A main source of the 44 trillion watts of heat that flows from the interior of the Earth is the decay of radioactive isotopes in the mantle and crust. Scientists using the KamLAND neutrino detector in Japan have measured how much heat is generated this way by capturing geoneutrinos released during radioactive decay. Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

              What spreads the sea floors and moves the continents? What melts iron in the outer core and enables the Earth’s magnetic field? Heat. Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth’s interior into space. Where does it come from?

              Radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth’s crust and mantle is a principal source, and in 2005 scientists in the KamLAND collaboration, based in Japan, first showed that there was a way to measure the contribution directly. The trick was to catch what KamLAND dubbed geoneutrinos – more precisely, geo-antineutrinos – emitted when radioactive isotopes decay. (KamLAND stands for Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector.)

              KamLAND scientists have now published new figures for heat energy from radioactive decay in the journal Nature Geoscience [2011, see link below]. Based on the improved sensitivity of the KamLAND detector, plus several years’ worth of additional data, the new estimate is not merely “consistent” with the predictions of accepted geophysical models but is precise enough to aid in refining those models.

              Article continues

              ‘Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements’

              Nature Geoscience
              Volume: 4, Pages: 647–651
              Year published: (2011)

              http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n9/full/ngeo1205.html

              Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Antineutrino Detector

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

            4. Mike (and RP, RT et al), as a preemptive measure to save me some grief, please understand that the hydrothermal ocean heating is but ONE component of the energy transfer from the earth’s core and mantle to space estimated by geo-science to be 44 TW in total.

              I’ve made a rough-as-guts estimate elsewhere of hydrothermal heat based on data from a paper on the subject (in lieu of any published figure that I could find) but was called out at WUWT by Willis Eschenbach who pointed out how I had over-estimated probably by a factor of 2. Obviously, the quantity must be less than 44TW. Willis however (being a luke-warmer) subscribes to the 0.09 W.m2 that you do. 0.09 W.m2 is clearly a gross under-estimate as KamLAND proves.

              The disturbing aspect of all of this is that climate science has not calibrated their models to the geo-science models.

            5. “Willis however (being a luke-warmer) subscribes to the 0.09 W.m2 that you do”

              Should read:-

              Willis however (being a luke-warmer) subscribes to the 0.09 W.m2 [total geo flux] that you do

            6. Surface Area of Earth: 510,065,600,000 m2 * 0.09 W.m2

              = 45,905,904,000 = 45.9 GW (climate science geo flux)

              Should be 44 TW (geo-science geo flux)

              Someone check this.

            7. “…called out at WUWT by Willis Eschenbach who pointed out how I had over-estimated probably by a factor of 2.”

              Should be “over-estimated probably by a factor of [100 more or less]” on second look.

              I’ve left a link at the relevant WUWT post in comments with a copy of HT comment 30322 (March 4, 2012 at 6:17 pm) so maybe Willis and others might join the fray

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#comment-912063

            8. Correction to comment Richard C2 March 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm

              Surface Area of Earth: 510,065,600,000,[000] m2 * 0.09 W.m2

              = 45,905,904,000,000 = 45.9 TW (climate science geo flux)

              This approximates 44 TW (geo-science geo flux)

              Thank you Ian for checking this.

              This doesn’t change the fact that geo flux to ocean = 44,000*0.6903 = 30,373 GW = 30.37 TW

            9. RC2, 0.09 W/m2 is Earth’s average measured heat flow. How much of this should be attributed to radioactive decay in the crust and mantle versus deeper residual heat from accretion and core formation is a subject of ongoing research. However, the fact remains that it is a miniscule amount compared to the energy Earth receives from the Sun (340 W/m2). How this incoming solar energy is transfered within the atmosphere and ocean depends to a very large degree on their composition and thickness/depth. In the case of our N2-O2 dominated atmosphere, minor constituents such as water and CO2 are hugely important in controlling radiative and convective processes. In the oceans, dissolved salts are important in controlling convective processes (because density is salinity and temperature dependent).

            10. Mike Palin March 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm

              Firstly, my contention is that solar+geothermal (the 2 sources) heat the ocean and that GHGs have nothing to do with it (or the escape of ocean heat) and I’ve cited plenty of papers to support that.

              Now, you say “…..the energy Earth receives from the Sun (340 W/m2)” TF&K09 ‘Earth’s Global Energy Budget’ (Fig 1) states 161 W.m2 “Absorbed by Surface”. When we multiply that by the area of the surface of the earth (the correct area) 510,065,600,000,000*161 = 82E+15 = 82 PW

              Please check this.

              IF 82 PW is the correct product, how can this be? It is my understanding that the sun provides an average of 84 TW of energy in a 24 hour day and that is subject to reflection from clouds and ice packs i.e. reduced at surface.

              The sun provides 84 TW (reduced by albedo etc))
              Geothermal provides 44 TW.

              Mike Palin March 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm

              Yes “overestimated” but I’ve made the correction. Time to move on now Mike, you’ve scored your points.

              It is inevitable that I make errors and that is why I invited correction but it does not detract from my original case.

              Solar and geothermal energy heat the ocean – GHGs do not. Neither do they inhibit (insulate) the escape via radiation, conduction and evaporation

            11. Mike, working backwards.

              My figures:-

              84 TW / 510 Tm2 = 0.16 W.m2 (solar)
              44 TW / 510 Tm2 = 0.09 W.m2 (geothermal)

              Your figures (TF&K09)

              82,000 TW / 510 Tm2 = 161 W.m2 (solar)
              44 TW / 510 Tm2 = 0.09 W.m2 (geothermal)

              I cannot find a reference to your figure of 82,000 TW (82 PW) but I can find 84 TW (Google it). Can you provide a link to a reference supporting 82 PW please?

            12. RC2, I could tell you the correct answer or direct you to credible sources for the information on the web, but I doubt it would it get through to you. Perhaps it is best that you make the measurement yourself, directions are available here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Activity_3.pdf. It is a simple enough procedure, one which you should find illuminating.

            13. Mike Palin March 6, 2012 at 4:07 am

              You appear to be using instantaneous values but in order to make an apples-to-apples comparison with the geo flux, you have to use the appropriately averaged value for solar.

              The geo flux is a constant 44 TW over 24 hours of the day and divided equally over the surface of the earth yields a square metre value. That square metre value remains the same over 24 hours.

              The solar flux is completely different. If I stand on the same square metre of earth for 24 hours beginning at midnight, the sequence is: no sunlight; dawn; peak sunlight midday; sunset; no sunlight again. The global average of this sequence over the day for 24 hours is 84 TW according to Dr. Greg Bothan, professor of physics at the University of Oregon

              Dr. Greg Bothan’s Bio:-
              ————————————————————————————
              Dr. Bothun is the Director of the University of Oregon’s Pine Mountain Observatory, located near Bend, Oregon. By day, he is Dr. Darkmatter [Google it] – teaching cutting edge astrophysics in the University of Oregon’s Physics Department, specializing in observational astrophysics. He is also a professor in the Environmental Studies and Sciences Program at the University of Oregon, a program he helped develop.

              Dr. Bothun has authored two college textbooks on cosmology, dozens of articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines, and 170 papers in peer reviewed journals. He also initiated the Electronic Universe Project – a Web server dedicated to public outreach and education by delivering real data, explanation and analysis to the lay public.

              His research Interests include: Properties of Galaxies; Observational Cosmology; Climate Change; Sustainable Energy; and Applications of Instructional Technology.

              Ph.D. 1981, University of Washington
              ————————————————————————————-
              I’m inclined to accept that he is an expert on the subject.

              That’s my support for 84 TW, what’s yours for 82,000 TW ?

            14. RC2, I gave you the means to make the measurement yourself and you’re still grasping at straws on the web. When will you contrarians learn that you cannot trust everything on the web!

              That value of 84 TW is an interesting one. I managed to trace it back to Bothan’s website as well. The correct value is 84 PW – it appears the good professor got his Peta- and Tera- mixed up. It can happen to the best of us, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

              Not that it will do any good, but the 340 W/m2 already takes into consideration the geometric issue you raise. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant. No matter how you look at it, the solar energy flux overwhelms the geothermal heat flux by several thousand times. That’s why the future is solar.

            15. Mike Palin March 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm

              There is nothing in the Wiki link about PW, nor is there anything about a 24 hour globally averaged value.

              Can you provide a reference that documents Dr Bothan’s error (if indeed he has made one) ?

              While you are doing that I will endeavour to contact him myself.

            16. Dr Hothun responded with this:-
              ————————————————————————————
              ah yes
              sorry for propogating bad information and I thought
              that particular page had been corrected.

              Indeed its 84,000 TW (84 PW)

              The way to look at the heat balance is as follows:

              The earth is in mostly thermal equilibrium with incoming
              solar radiation. The amount of stored heat coupled with
              the specific heat of water vs rock necessarily means
              that the great majority of the heat must be stored in the
              oceans (which is why OTEC works, conceptually) and not
              in the crust of the earth.

              A more proper unit is the average solar incident radiation
              on the earth’s surface which is 164 watts per square meter.

              multiply that by 4piR^2 (where R is the radius of the earth
              in meters) and you get 84,000 TW of incident power.
              ————————————————————————————
              Yes you do but unfortunately that raises the “P/4” (p-over-four) issue. Quoting ‘The Model Atmosphere’, Postma 2011:-
              ————————————————————————————
              Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an input flux amounts to the denial of the existence of day-time and night-time, and violates the application on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which deals only with instantaneous radiative flux.

              http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
              ————————————————————————————–
              There’s more in the Summary at the conclusion of the paper (page 40).

              The “4” refers to Equation [7] Postma 2010 – not to 4piR^2 (but I think it’s a re-arrangement)

              I’ve queried Dr Hothun on this and will report his response. I think Postma and others are working on a new paper so I might query him too.

            1. My recounting of the views of yourself, Rob Taylor, Macro, Trenberth and Hansen is crackpot ?

              Good that you find yourself amusing.though. We all need to be able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.

          3. RC2, as an educator, I rejoice in your learning accomplishments!

            In just a few days, you have learned that your original estimate of the geothermal heat flux was too large by a factor of 1000 and then that your estimate of the solar energy flux was too low by a factor of 1000.

            You have learned that you should always be skeptical of anything you read on the internet and check with multiple preferably peer-reviewed published sources for reliable information.

            You have learned that you cannot trust fellow contrarians to ever point out an error in your thinking – no matter how egregious.

            You have learned that when a real scientist is made aware of a mistake they acknowledge it, thank you for pointing it out, and correct it.

            You have learned that most of the folks here are trying to provide you the best possible information and will continue to do so even in the face of your continuing, apparently willful, ignorance.

            You need to reflect on all that you have learned and move forward.

            1. Mike Palin March 7, 2012 at 4:18 am

              You need to reflect on all that you have learned and move forward”

              Done a lot of that Mike. I’ve had a series of email exchanges with Dr Bothun and it turns out we (you and I Mike) are at cross-purposes. Here’s part of the exchange:-
              ————————————————————————————
              As you say, “the average of 164 watts per square meter, I agree is not useful in the context of harvesting solar power”. This is the figure Mike is focused on but I am wondering about what the ACTUAL global average AFTER cloudiness albedo reflection etc and taking day/night into consideration over a 24 hr period i.e. the net absorption (the night side is radiating out).

              How much would you reduce the 84 PW 164 W.m2 figure by to account for the attenuation and night-side radiation to arrive at an absorbed-at-surface figure comparable to the constant 24 hr 44 TW geo flux operating in all directions?

              Richard
              ————————————————————————————-
              if you after the technical precise planetary energy budget
              that is extremely difficult to figure out because you have
              to estimate the effects of the ocean as a buffer, changes
              in the atmospheric scattering properites, deep ocean
              transport, and about 100 other things.

              Greg Bothun
              ————————————————————————————
              The plot thickens.

              I’ve also been in contact with Joe Postma who disputes the method of arriving at the 161 W.m2 (or 164) figure and planetary equilibrium temperature as in this article supplied by Greg Bothun:-

              http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2004/ph311/lec01.html

              Joe has yet to reply but I guess you wont be interested in his calcs anyway.

              Re geothermal heat. Extending Roger’s point about different crust thicknesses (oceanic/continental).

              If we think of the mantle as a hot stove element and the crust as an insulator placed on top of it, there will be heat passing though it analogous to the 44 TW geo flux.

              But if we slide the insulator off a bit (crustal stretching) exposing the element (mantle), there is considerably MORE heat available.

              Therefore I’m wondering if hydrothermal heat from vents, megaplumes, exposed mantle etc should be IN ADDITION TO the background flux because there is obviously significant ocean heating in the vicinity of this activity.

              I guess that you wont be interested in this either but I would value your ideas nonetheless.

            2. Oh Dear, Oh Dear, more embarrassing comments from Richard:

              If we think of the mantle as a hot stove element and the crust as an insulator placed on top of it, there will be heat passing though it analogous to the 44 TW geo flux.

              But if we slide the insulator off a bit (crustal stretching) exposing the element (mantle), there is considerably MORE heat available.

              No Richard, the amount of heat coming from the stove element is dependent on the setting. If it is a 500W element and it is turned on full it will generate 500W no matter what is placed on it or moved around on it. That surely is high school level science is it not?

              Why do deniers keep on showing us that their “knowledge” of science is in fact “ignorance” of science?

            3. Ian Forrester March 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm

              You can put your hand on the insulator (it wont burn you).

              But you can’t put your hand on the bare element (it WILL burn you).

              Gettit ?

            4. And Richard, could you please, please learn the html code for a blockquote?

              (cross fingers this works!)

              <blockquote> </blockquote>

              (Roger has outrightly refused to, as, interestingly, have several other Deniers I’ve encountered. One might almost conclude they were dogmatic and inflexible!)

        2. Can I just get a summery of the position here?

          The theory is that CO2 induced warming has heated the deep oceans. This warming is not evident in the sea surface temperatures or the land record.

          Is this a reasonable summary or have I missed something?

          1. AndyS hasn’t a clue (what else is new?):

            This warming is not evident in the sea surface temperatures or the land record.

            Here are the sea surface temperatures:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/trend

            And the land temperatures. I have used the BEST data since deniers claimed that they would accept it as factual no matter what it said (LOL).

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/plot/best/from:1980/trend

            AndyS can no longer claim that he has “no evidence”. He does not like finding evidence which shows his nonsense about global warming to be absolute nonsense. That is why he spends so much time on denier sites, to make sure he never finds any thing factual.

            Get an education or demand a refund if you already have had one.

            2. Naturally, being of an inquisitive denier nature, I get a bit confused by the message.

              For example, this article in Skeptical Science says:


              Multiple studies measuring from the ocean surface down to 700 metres show very little warming, or even cooling, over multiple years in the last decade. This is surprising given that some studies estimate that the imbalance at the-top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA), the difference between energy entering and leaving Earth’s atmosphere over that time, has actually grown. So we might have expected the 700 metre sea surface layer to show increased warming. However the average depth of the ocean is around 4300 metres, and in a recent SkS post, we saw that when measurements were extended down to 1500 metres, the oceans were found to still be warming, indicating that heat is somehow finding a way down to the deep ocean.

              This would appear to be approximately the same as I was trying to express in my comment before.

          2. RichardC2 – What really had me laughing out loud was your claim that heat only travels upward. Ever noticed snow on mountains?

            I gather your problem is that you are so used to spouting and reading nonsense on denier blogs, coupled with the fact that deniers don’t call each other out on their bunkum, that it has emboldened you to such an extent you cannot see how ridiculous your ideas are. I think that is what Professor Hunter was alluding to (you being beyond help).

            For example:

            1. Why does the heat accumulation in the 700 metre layer over the last half century show strong downward circulation around 35°S and 35°N, just like the decadal hiatus’ shown in the modeling by Meehl 2011? Are there now mystery volcanic vents at these locations on the seafloor now?

            2. How does heat travels upward, when the observations show it is propagating downward? Is this a particle duality thing?

            3. How do these magical and mystical volcanic vents release heat without releasing volcanic gases too?

            4. Why do satellite measurements show that carbon dioxide is blocking more outgoing heat – in accord with the increased greenhouse effect?

            5. Why is the stratosphere cooling?

            6. Why does ocean warming track the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as seen in the ice cores?

            Let’s go through these, given that they are observations, and see how poorly your ‘idea’ explains them eh?

            1. “…..your claim that heat only travels upward” – rubbish.

              My claim:-

              It is also my experience that in air and water, up is the general direction of flow, or as Abdussamatov put it “Heat rises up, not down”.

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30314

              And’

              “….the tepid water in the upper layer is overturned” (we agree at this point)

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30285

              I will answer 1 – 6 if you will answer the following:-

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-29494

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30158

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30176

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30195

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30307

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-29965

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30026

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30111

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30128

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30175

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30276

              It may seem unfair to you that my list contains more questions but given that I’m basically asking the same question over and over in most comments, I think it’s entirely fair.

              I will point out that in comment 30128 I said this:-

              “I hold the null in terms of the AGW hypothesis RT (in respect to OHC), YOU have to prove it. But so far you have not even come close.”

              Furthermore, the null is a documented hypothesis that has been submitted to the US Senate, see ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’, Clark 2009.

              http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

              I think it is only fair that if you have the advantage of addressing ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’ that I should be able to address ‘A Hypothesis For CO2’.

              If you can produce said hypothesis for CO2 I think we can get cracking on this.

              Deal ?

            2. Dappledwater March 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm

              RichardC2 – What really had me laughing out loud was your claim that heat only travels upward. Ever noticed snow on mountains?

              Snow on mountains is a side-effect of lapse rate (cooling of atmosphere with altitude). This is entirely consistent with the statement “heat rises” which is a popular way of describing heat convection, whereby warmer air due to decreased density moves upwards against denser air.

      2. Hi RC2. In the post above you said, “I am simply saying on the other hand, that there is unaccounted superheated water (far hotter than solar can ever heat it) at 100% efficiency already flowing in just below the 700 – 2000m layer. In view of the scientifically unsupported notion that GHG forcing is the cause of OHC build-up in the 0 – 2000m layer (and solar doesn’t penetrate that deep), geothermal sources are more likely and there is growing investigation of oceanic geothermal heat by earth scientists and oceanographers.”

        This is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of the energy supplied to the oceans comes from above. Period, end of report. The fact that Roger – who has at least some knowledge of basic geophysics – can sit on his hands while you flounder with this claim is amazing. Your bond must run deep.

        1. So you think it is a plausible hypothesis that the deep oceans are being heated by CO2 “forcing”, yet none of this is evident in the shallow oceans? (unless I am missing something)

          1. AndyS said:

            unless I am missing something

            You are missing lots of things, a complete set of neurons for one and any sense of honesty for another.

            Did you not look at the graph I gave you? Did you lie when you said you did or was it your complete lack of functioning neurons which made you unable to interpret it?

            1. Ian, unfortunately I had a pre-post-modern education, so I tend to look at physical processes to explain phenomena around me, rather than how I feel, or whether I might be embarrassed by my questions.

              If you can unravel your thinking to address my “difficult to meet needs” I’d appreciate any insight you have to offer.

            2. AndyS said:

              to address my “difficult to meet needs”

              I’m afraid my qualifications cannot help you, I suggest you seek professional help, I’m sure you can find some one in the Yellow pages.

        2. “This is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of the energy supplied to the oceans comes from above. Period, end of report” –

          No Mike, the earth’s heat flows are:-

          84 TW solar (reduced by albedo)
          44 TW geo (KamLAND)

          See:-

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30319

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30307

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30314

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30317

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30318

          http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30320

          From the last comment (30320):-

          45.9 GW (climate science geo flux)
          44.0 TW (geo-science geo flux)

          Climate science is under-estimating geo heat by a factor of 958.6.

          But feel free to check my calcs.

          1. Finally an explanation! RC2, your calculation of the surface area of your home planet indicates that you must inhabit one the moons of Uranus.

            1. Mike (disgusting ad hom aside), as you will see I have made the corrections and I did ask that someone check my calcs (twice). Ian did so for which I have thanked him.

              But it doesn’t change the fact that 30.37 TW of geo heat is passing through the ocean on the way from core’mantle to space.

              That’s 30.37 TJ per second of heat (Q).

              Unless the ocean is transperant in some way to this heat transfer, there must be some mechanisms operating that move the heat from the ocean floor to the ocean.

              One of those mechanisms is hydrovents and there must be also be radiation (anything with temp greater than 0 K radiates), conduction then convection.

              The general direction of this heat transfer is from ocean floor to space i.e. up.

              So variations in solar + geo ocean heating (ALL of them, not just TSI) account for the build-up of ocean heat (slowing this century) in the SkS graph:-

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

              Given that geo science is only now getting to grips with geo heat, they CANNOT have known the geo ocean flux (in J/sec) at the beginning of the 20th century prior to 1963 when the graph starts.

              Or if the geo ocean flux (in J/sec) was known somehow back in 1900 say, what was it?

            2. Miranda – innermost moon of Uranus – has a surface area about 1000 time less than Earth’s. Look it up.

          2. Richard C2: You show once again that you have no comprehension of the matter whatsoever.

            Climate change is all about CHANGES in energy fluxes, their causes and effects, not about the absolute values of underlying fluxes.

            Imagine a very sensitive weight balance that is in balance. On either side of the balance you have 1000Kg of weight.
            Now you ADD 1 g to one of the sides. What will happen do you think?

            We know that adding CO2, Methane etc… to the atmosphere is reducing the flux of the outgoing IR radiation balance AT THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE. In order to regain a new balance with a net zero flux Earth will need to WARM UP. This is the cause for rising temperatures. As temperatures rise on the Earth surface so does the heat content of anything in contact with it, especially the oceans and the phase changes from ice to water as polar and glacial ice melts.

            The otherwise existing and stable energy flows (Geo, Solar) are not causing this CHANGE, no matter how large they may be in total as per the example with the balance.

            1. “…..otherwise existing and stable energy flows (Geo, Solar)”

              Stable? You have GOT to be kidding! Even the solar “constant” is not constant. It varies +/- 3% due to elliptical orbit and by a very small amount due to changes in total luminosity. The solar constant varies 0.1% over 30 years (same over 11 sunspot cycles) and over the last 400 yeas, the power output may have varied by up to 1%.

              More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

              These heat sources (Geo and Solar) are the ONLY heat sources available to heat the ocean. Geo heat is uniform in ALL directions from the centre of the earth and is 100% efficient (there’s NO losses) 100% of the time. I challenge you to provide evidence that geo heat output has NOT changed (varied) since 1850 (or 1900 say).

              Solar heating is NOT 100% efficient on the other hand. The angle of incidence is only ever perpendicular in the tropics, then there’s losses from reflection, scattering etc. And it is only acting during the day (NOT 100% of the time)

              And it matters a zot if CO2 levels rise (in respect to ocean) because as I’ve already pointed out (over and over and over), IR-C is an ineffective ocean heating agent (or insulator)

              You seem to be saying by this “As temperatures rise on the Earth surface so does the heat content of anything in contact with it, especially the oceans”, that the atmosphere heats the ocean by conduction. This is nuts.

              The ocean has a far greater specific heat capacity than the atmosphere. For there to be a constant atm to ocean heat transfer by conduction, a unit of atm in contact with the ocean MUST contain MORE heat than the adjacent unit of ocean. How often does this occur?

              .

            2. Thomas, solar UV activity increased almost 50% over the past 400 years

              Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

              N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010

            3. Thomas, cloudiness levels vary on a decadal scale

              Solar Heating in the Upper Ocean

              http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf04/extended_abs/stamnes_k.pdf

              Note the difference between clear sky and cloudy sky heating rates i.e solar ocean heating EFFICIENCY varies with cloudiness (and turbidity) even though the solar “constant” remains constant.

              Cloudiness changes over time overwhelm any GHG changes (even if GHGs had any heating effect – they don’t) in terms of heating in the upper ocean.

              In addition, the solar effect in the charts is determined down to 30m depth. IR-C effective penetration is only 10 microns!

              This is radiative heating. I challenge you to come up with a similar study that documents conductive heating of the upper ocean by the atmosphere.

            4. Thomas. Low Level Cloudiness (Blue) 1984 – 2005

              http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/sun-climate01-239.jpg

              Source: Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute

              http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate.aspx

              Cloud variations on this scale directly modulate the efficiency of solar ocean heating, therefore solar ocean heating is NOT stable even though TSI may only vary minimally.

            5. Thomas, are you disputing the convention that generally heat transfer is from ocean to atmosphere by radiation (also directly to space), conduction and evaporation?

            6. Richard C2 – “You seem to be saying by this “As temperatures rise on the Earth surface so does the heat content of anything in contact with it, especially the oceans”, that the atmosphere heats the ocean by conduction. This is nuts.”

              Well someone around here sure is batshit crazy, and it isn’t the mainstream scientific community!

              As you have been repeatedly told the oceans are the main source of heating of the atmosphere. Over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans. How can it be any other way?, the oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and are dark coloured, so they effectively absorb solar radiation. Heat is given up to the atmosphere (from the oceans) through evaporation, conduction and radiation. The governance of conduction – through the greenhouse gas forcing of the ‘cool skin’ layer of the ocean – is why levels of atmospheric CO2 correlate with global temperature in the ice core records.

              At least that’s what actual science, and observations indicate.

              “As temperatures rise on the Earth surface so does the heat content of anything in contact with it, especially the oceans and the phase changes from ice to water as polar and glacial ice melts’

              This is just more batshit crazy stuff. The last couple of days you were claiming imaginary volcanoes were causing ocean heating, now it’s the atmosphere?

              Would it actually kill you to sit down and read some actual climate science, instead peddling crackpottery?

            7. Dappledwater March 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm

              You’ve got your wires crossed badly here. I was quoting Thomas. You say:-

              “….the oceans are the main source of heating of the atmosphere”

              I agree with you but Thomas doesn’t apparently.

              You say:-

              “The governance of conduction – through the greenhouse gas forcing of the ‘cool skin’ layer of the ocean”

              This I disagree with and have done up and down this thread. The science disputes it and I’ve cited so much of it the blog is in danger of blowing a fuse.

              You on the other hand have failed to address the science and cannot support your assertion with ANY literature. The opinion of Peter Minnet that you have been pushing does not appear in IPCC AR4 2007. In short, you are making stuff up.

              You say:-

              “This is just more batshit crazy stuff.”

              Again, I was quoting Thomas. Please address your objection to him.

            9. RC2 quotes a paper by Krivova et al. It seems that quoting is not the same as reading and understanding. He makes a big deal about a 50% increase in UV since the Maunder minimum. So what? Here is what the paper says about UV:

              Whereas the total solar irradiance is the main external source of energy entering the Earth’s climate system, solar UV irradiance governs chemical and physical processes in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.

              For a start, the 50% increase in UV is not for all UV but a very narrow band of UV at about 122 nm. Secondly, if you look at the graphs showing changes over the past 400 years the level of this UV is dropping since the 1950’s as it is for most of the UV energy.

              Thirdly this whole paper is based on models, nobody was around 400 years ago with a spectrophotometer to actually measure the different wave lengths. I though that according to deniers, all models are worthless, meaningless and wrong, except of course if they “prove” some of their lies.

              This is just another example of deniers clutching at straws.

              Another common song by deniers is “correlation is not causation: RC2, please enlighten us with this wonderful physical mechanism whereby increasing of UV at 122 nm causes increases in global temperature, especially when it has been decreasing over the time-frame when AGW has been increasing.

              Like everything else posted by RC2 it is more akin to black magic than actual science.

            10. Ian, I was simply pointing out a few examples (there are more) in a series of comments that solar and geothermal are not “stable” as Thomas claimed.

        3. Clearly, Mike, Roger has no interest in the truth. He is, after all, a member of the corporate shill group NZ Climate Psuedo-Science Coalition…

          1. I am still burrowing through the Yellow Pages looking for someone who can explain The Forcing and its role in warming the deep oceans.

            I’ve got plumbers, electricians, real estate agents.
            Any thoughts folks?

            1. If you are looking for like-minded company, Andy, try Male Escorts; you should find the NZC”S”C and other professional deniers listed there.

            2. Look under “B” for Brain Surgeons….
              After a bit of adjustments in the thinking department perhaps your participation in the discussions here might cause a moderate degree of understanding….
              Alternatively look under “O” for an Ophthalmologist to remove your libertarian dark discolorations of the cornea, which might allow some light to pass, revealing reality as it is….
              😉

          2. Richard c2 – “The opinion of Peter Minnet that you have been pushing does not appear in IPCC AR4 2007. In short, you are making stuff up.”

            Oh, the irony! So why is it that the spectra of outgoing radiation shows carbon dioxide blocking more heat escaping the space? Nothing to do with the tropical tropospheric hotspot by the way – that just shows, once again, that you don’t know what you’re on about.

            1. “So why is it that the spectra of outgoing radiation shows carbon dioxide blocking more heat escaping the space?”

              I’ve already answered this:-

              “The “outgoing thermal radiation” is merely the warm ocean (heated by solar and geothermal heat sources) radiating. Any matter with temperature greater than 0 K radiates. The average temperature of the ocean surface is 290 K so of course it radiates.”

              I don’t dispute that OLR is intercepted but that is an atmospheric phenomenon. What has that got to do with ocean heating?

              If you are saying that GHGs re-emit as DLR, I don’t dispute that either. What I dispute is the effectiveness of DLR as an ocean heating agent or an insulator.. It is incapable of heating or insulation (see my citations).

            2. Dappledwater March 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm

              Re: “The opinion of Peter Minnet that you have been pushing does not appear in IPCC AR4 2007. In short, you are making stuff up.”

              Given that AR4 has become known as the “climate bible” I would have thought that I would be able to read all about Minnet’s forcing mechanism there.

              The fact that I can’t (to continue the biblical analogy) indicates to me that you are undertaking a Joseph Smith-esque writing of ‘The Book of Minnet’.for your own ends i.e. an unsanctioned extension to AR4.

              Either that or the omission of Minnet’s forcing was an oversight by the IPCC and they should be notified post haste.

              Which is it?

            3. Dappledwater March 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm

              Re “Dude – …..the heat’s traveling downwards”

              With deference to two climate scientists that I’m sure you will find acceptable:

              Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist: “Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,…they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down.”

              James Hansen, climate scientist: “All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses….that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,…“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ….it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed.”

              I’m hearing mixed-messages RP, how ’bout you?

        4. Richard C2 – “It is also my experience that in air and water, up is the general direction of flow, or as Abdussamatov put it “Heat rises up, not down”.

          So snow on mountains is just an illusion?

          This inability to understand the difference between heat and temperature is but one of your fundamental failings. Heat can indeed propagate downwards – as the observations of ocean heat content clearly show:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/OHC1967-2009basedonLevitus2009.jpg

          But note how the surface remains warmer than the underlying layers. Do you understand now? The surface ocean will remain warmer than the subsurface layers.

          Of course mainstream science expects ocean warming because of the longwave forcing of the ‘cool skin’ layer. Something experimentally observed in Professor Minnett’s work, and supported by numerical modeling.

          Furthermore, we know the heat content of the oceans is strongly correlated with the level of atmospheric CO2, because this is seen in the ice core records, going back hundreds of thousands of years. And we also have paleo-thermometers which reveal that the deep ocean was much warmer during Earth’s ‘Greenhouse Periods’, i.e a smaller surface-to-deep ocean temperature gradient.

          When we look at the outgoing heat, the longwave radiation escaping Earth’s atmosphere, we see that CO2 is blocking more of the heat from leaving Earth’s atmosphere. We also observe that the stratosphere is cooling – another signature of the increased Greenhouse Effect.

          This is all internally consistent. The scientific understanding, modeling and observations reinforce each other.

          On the other hand we have your crackpot idea which is not supported by seemingly any observation whatsoever. Indeed, even fellow skeptic scientists, Douglass & Knox (2012) disagree with you. They accept that the geothermal heating component is tiny- at around 0.087 W/m2, based on work by Pollack (1993).

          Yes, geothermal heating is an important component of the thermohaline circulation, as it causes warming and therefore rising (along with decreased salinity) of bottom water of the abyssal ocean as it travels north from Antarctica, but falls way short in terms of energetics (think energy budgets) to explain the observations.

          You will, of course fail to address these fatal flaws in your ‘idea’ because denial is your game. Repeating bunkum does not make it so. I wonder what dog-ate-my-homework excuse you are going to dredge up for the abrupt warming (based on understanding of the physics involved) we are likely to experience in the next half-decade?

          That will be illuminating. I wonder whether you are going to slink away or simply deny harder?

          1. “….longwave forcing of the ‘cool skin’ layer” ?

            That “forcing” only penetrates 10 microns!

            That LWIR (IR-C) originates from ALL the GHGs including ALL of the water vapour and ALL of the atm CO2 of which anthro is a fraction, PLUS, ALL of the clouds.

            A “forcing” that only penetrates 10 microns and absorption of which DECREASES 1000 times relative to IR-A in the solar range at 1 micron wavelength is completely ineffectual, see:-

            http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

            You have NO case.

            On the other hand the case for solar plus geo heating is building rapidly as you would have noticed if you had been following my other comments re KanLAND (geo science) that relegates the climate science view that “geothermal heating component is tiny- at around 0.087 W/m2” to pure fallacy and gross under-estimation.

            “(think energy budgets)” – yes exactly, KamLAND reports a geo flux of 44 TW (44,000 GW), If the area of the surface of the earth is 510 Gm2, the geo flux is 44,000/510 = 86 W.m2.

            ‘Earth’s Global Energy Budget’ (TF&K09) allocates a geo flux of, wait for it………

            0 W.m2

            1. Richard, please stop embarrassing yourself. You are living in a different world from the rest of us. Your world has a surface area 1000 times smaller than ours.

              I suggest you go to some math classes and learn some simple arithmetic then you might, just might, stop embarrassing yourself with your mistakes.

            2. The salt water/fresh water/land split is: Total salt water surface area: 69.03%; Total fresh water surface area: 1.77%; Total land surface area: 29.2%. http://chartsbin.com/view/wwu

              Therefore;-

              Geo flux to ocean = 44,000*0.6903 = 30,373 GW
              Geo flux to land = 44,000*0.292 = 12,848 GW

            3. You are quite right Ian, thank you for checking.

              So if the area of the surface of the earth is 519 Tm2, the geo flux is 44/519 = 0.085 W.m2.

              My bad

              The fact remains that the geo flux to the ocean is: 44*0.6903 = 30.37 TW

            4. Richard C2 – “That LWIR (IR-C) originates from ALL the GHGs including ALL of the water vapour and ALL of the atm CO2 of which anthro is a fraction, PLUS, ALL of the clouds”

              Errr no, a near 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by human activities – predominately fossil fuel burning – is pretty substantial. That’s why there are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on global warming – a whole bunch of very clever people (you know scientists) are very worried by humanity’s present course.

              And you can cut the pseudo-intellectualism, it fools no one when you post utter crap.

              “You have NO case’

              Yeah right! Except for the experimental observations you mean? Oh, and the numerical modelling. And the hundreds of thousands of years of ice core records where ocean heating strongly correlates with levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide too.

              Clearly I’m going to have to adopt Doug Mackie tactics here, and focus on one issue so you don’t keep throwing out smoke bombs. If you satisfactorily answer that (and I know you can’t) then maybe I can move on to other glaring flaws in your ideas.

              1. How does imaginary geothermal heating of the oceans explain the spectra of outgoing thermal radiation? The satellites actually measure carbon dioxide blocking more outgoing heat, which is in line with scientific expectations. Why is that?

            5. Dappledwater March 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm

              You say:-

              “Errr no, a near 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by human activities”

              You are confusing the IPCC definition of “forcing” with the observed DLR that I was referring to. Observed DLR includes all of the sources I cited.

              You say:-

              “Except for the experimental observations you mean?”

              No, I do NOT make that exception and in fact I have presented you with experimental science over and over but you fail to address (willfully I have to conclude). See this comment for example:-

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30276

              I alerted you to this ““The data is surprisingly consistent. Plot a couple for yourself, or you can just look at (Segelstein) or (Hale and Querry) or (Wieliczka). [all hotlinked] ”, but to no avail.

              You say:-

              “How does imaginary geothermal heating……..”

              It’s not imaginary RP, it is real . It is one of 2 ocean heating mechanisms, the other is solar. Solar is the major TOP-DOWN heating agent of the UPPER ocean. Geothermal is BOTTOM-UP heating of the LOWER ocean but the heat of both rises eventually (by convention). There is an estimated 30.37 TW (30.37 TJ/sec) passing through the ocean on the way to space. This equates to the 0.1 W.m2 (for ocean) that I miscalculated but have since corrected.

              It is sensible to speculate that the 0.1 W.m2 does not represent reality because I have shown that there are concentrations (plumes) of superheated water (sometimes hotter than 400 C) along seismically active ridges, trenches and crustal spreading i.e. the heat is escaping via paths of least resistance. In that case there are probably vast expanses of ocean floor that exhibit negligible heat transfer.

              A major concentration is in the eastern Pacific and this has been posited in papers cited here to effect ENSO.

              The “outgoing thermal radiation” is merely the warm ocean (heated by solar and geothermal heat sources) radiating. Any matter with temperature greater than 0 K radiates. The average temperature of the ocean surface is 290 K so of course it radiates.

              If OLR is being “blocked” heat will accumulate but you will have to provide evidence of this e.g. a tropospheric hotspot above the tropics.

              I really don’t want to get in to an argument about what is happening in the atmosphere because as you say the significant heat is in the ocean, The question is: how did it get there?

              My answer is that the heat in the ocean was from solar and geothermal sources and that CO2 had nothing to do with it (or it’s ability to escape) And I’ve cited the science supporting my case.

            6. Hang on a minute. I’ve just reread these. Seems to be something missing. Regardless of how small or large this sea floor heating is, where are the observations or some other data showing that it is increasing?

              It doesn’t matter if it’s the biggest heat source on the planet. If it’s always been there, and it doesn’t have significant variations, then it cannot, by definition, have any relevance to any recent or historical period of warming or cooling.

              Or did I miss something in the threading chaos.

            7. adelady March 6, 2012 at 3:48 pm

              “……where are the observations or some other data showing that it is increasing?”

              Exactly adelady – very astute.

              They were only discovered in 1977:-

              http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/expeditions/blacksmokers/black_smokers.html

              No-one even knows the variations since then let alone back to 1850 say.

              But that escape of geo energy is only a component of the total 44 TW heat flux and the same situation exists there. Geo science has only in the last few years been in the process of confirming 27% of that estimate let alone variations (and indications are that it does vary) going back to 1850.

              You can get in on that discussion here:-

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30371

              I posit that the earth’s energy sources are

              84 TW solar (astrophysics)
              44 TW geo heat.(geophysics)

              Mike Palin posits:-

              82,000 TW solar (climate science)
              45.9 TW geo heat (climate science)

              As you can see, there is something of a discrepancy in the solar figures – astrophysics vs climate science.

    3. And STILL away with the birds going by this Mike “for Richard C2 to suggest that geothermal heat flow in the ocean basins can have any significant effect on sea surface temperature compared to solar influences?”

      WHERE EXACTLY did you get this from? Or did you just make it up?

      And PLEASE READ my response to your earlier attempt to put the same words in my mouth:-

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30280

  57. William Hill had a 20% margin built in before they took a bet. Corbyn still won overall! If the owner of the roulette wheel had a whole bunch of zeros nobody would play. Corbyn made money even with a 20% bias against him. So much money indeed that the bookies would not take his bets. if the Met Office staff had been betting THEIR money and not the taxpayers’s they would have all gone broke.

    “Research shows us that, at best, only about 70% of our year-to-year seasonal climate is predictable; the other 30% is chaotic random (weathery) stuff. (It must be one of the few fields where you expect to be “wrong” occasionally and just have to cop it.)”

    “Well, we know that hedging one way or another, over time, will let you win in the end.”

    Not when the odds are 20% stacked against you.

    It sounds as though you are one of those idiots who double their bet every time they lose thinking that they must win in the end. Only the long suffering taxpayer has to pay for that sort of idiocy.

    It seems that Corbyn ‘cops it’ rather less than your so called meteorologist. It seems that you are not quite smart enough to figure out why.

  58. “The fact that Roger – who has at least some knowledge of basic geophysics – can sit on his hands while you flounder with this claim is amazing. Your bond must run deep.”

    The threading has been completely lost and following the argument has become increasingly difficult. It is not helped when you and others misquote misunderstand and misinterpret what RC2 says.

    I am far from satisfied that much is known about heat transfer from hotspots along the mid oceanic ridges and elsewhere. Ocean floor spreading is occurring along the mid-Atlantic Ridge and others. Sea floor spreading exposes the sea to molten rock. When the oceans are properly surveyed we will doubtless know more about heat exchange on the ocean floor. Until that happens I am inclined to believe that the heat input has been underestimated.

    1. I am inclined to believe

      Yes, Roger, we bet you are. 😉

      You guys really do bend over backwards not to criticize each other, no matter how ridiculous the claim, don’t you?

    3. C’mon Roger, come back and stage another dismal attempt to defend what you know to be wrong while simultaneously attempting a mealy-mouthed wording sufficient to entertain the feeble hope of claiming (im)plausible deniability in the future! It’s fun to watch…

    4. So you don’t accept ocean floor heat flow data? How far off could it be? A factor of 2 or 10 or 1000! And why underestimated instead of overestimated? Come on Roger, you know Richard has made an absolute mess of this. Why suffer the fool?

    5. yet again, when the going gets tough we get- *crickets*… might have to put together a little compendium of the points at which the various NZCSC alumni suddenly discovered they really needed to wash their hair… 😉

  59. Despite your evident logorrhea, Richard C2, it has not escaped attention that you are unable to answer DW’s questions, namely:

    1. Why does the heat accumulation in the 700 metre layer over the last half century show strong downward circulation around 35°S and 35°N, just like the decadal hiatus’ shown in the modeling by Meehl 2011? Are there now mystery volcanic vents at these locations on the seafloor now?

    2. How does heat travel upward, when the observations show it is propagating downward? Is this a particle duality thing?

    3. How do these magical and mystical volcanic vents release heat without releasing volcanic gases too?

    4. Why do satellite measurements show that carbon dioxide is blocking more outgoing heat – in accord with the increased greenhouse effect?

    5. Why is the stratosphere cooling?

    6. Why does ocean warming track the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as seen in the ice cores?

      1. Crap, Richard C-squared, your gibberish “theories” can’t explain these observations and you know it!

        1. RT, I refuse to address a moving target i.e. stuff you make up as you go along, unless there is equivalent effort on your part to address the documented hypothesis that I have presented.

          1. Dick, if your hypothesis can’t explain observations such as stratospheric cooling and preferential absorption of outgoing IR in the CO2 band, why should anyone waste any time and thought on it?

            Life is too short to debunk every crackpot theory; answer DW’s questions coherently, and you may gain some respect.

            2. Richard C2 – “The climate has already answered DW’s questions RT”

              Indeed it has. The Earth has continued to build up considerable heat. Much of which is in the sub-surface layers of the ocean (not the deep ocean). The solar cycle is now on it’s way up to the peak of the next cycle. So the combination of increased solar warming of the oceans and a return to El Nino-dominant conditions will see some pretty hefty warming of global surface temperatures over the next 3-5 years.

              See SkS posts: NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future

              This is quite useful because we can compare observations with scientific expectations, and those expectations of crackpots.

  60. Richard C2: “Given that AR4 has become known as the “climate bible” I would have thought that I would be able to read all about Minnet’s forcing mechanism there”.

    Perhaps, Dick, Prof. Minnett’s time machine was broken and he was unable to get his paper peer-reviewed and published in time to be included in AR4?

    Lest you complain that time machines don’t actually exist, HOW DO YOU KNOW? After all, didn’t the prestigious time traveller H G Wells describe one in detail at the start of the last century?

    Are you suggesting he just made it up, as you do with your absurd “theories”?

    2. “Richard C2: “Given that AR4 has become known as the “climate bible” I would have thought that I would be able to read all about Minnet’s forcing mechanism there”.”

      Climate Bible is most appropriate because it is all about belief without supporting evidence.

      1. Nice faith-based assertion there from the Church of Denialism, Roger!

        Got any evidence or miracles to back it up, or should we just take your for-hire word for it, rent boy?

  61. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the biggest heat source on the planet. If it’s always been there, and it doesn’t have significant variations, then it cannot, by definition, have any relevance to any recent or historical period of warming or cooling.”

    The hot spots along the mid oceanic ridges are only now being discovered. It is far to early to make and comment on changes in their heat production.

    1. More mealy-mouthed obfuscation, Roger?

      Seriously; can you point to any bloody evidence – even one skerrick – that this is some new – or, for the pedants, newly-altered – phenomenon that could be driving current warming?

      Or are you really content to join Ian Plimer and Richard C2 in the “it’s the magical undersea volcanoes wot is doin’ it” camp?

      This is the internet, Roger; this is going down on your pemanent record! Don’t think anyone is going to conveniently forget, no matter how hard you may try to, or assume that this little example of you supporting the unsupportable – no matter how woolly the wording – will stay safely confined on this post.

      1. bill March 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm

        “Seriously; point to any bloody evidence – even one skerrick – that this is some new – or, for the pedants, newly-altered – phenomenon that could be driving current warming?”

        Sure.

        ‘The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24′, Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum 2012, Corroborated by Matti Vooro

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

        El Nino Tectonic Modulation in the Pacific Basin
        Leabourne and Adams

        http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf

        ‘More evidence indicates link between El Niños and seismicity’
        Daniel A. Walker 1995 Cited 29 times

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/EO076i004p00033-01.shtml

        All found hiding in plain sight right here on this page at Hot Topic:-

        http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30035

        “This is the internet, Roger; this is going down on your pemanent record! Don’t think anyone is going to conveniently forget, no matter how hard you may try to, or assume that this little example of you supporting the unsupportable – no matter how woolly the wording – will stay safely confined on this post.”

        Well aware of THAT Bill and it works BOTH ways. I save this page after every comment for the permanent record (remembering SkS tactics). Kudos to Gareth that he has not stooped to SkS level.

        This is an important showdown because opposing views go head to head exposing strengths and weaknesses in both arguments. This does not happen when both sides stay in their respective comfort zones and I thank Gareth for the opportunity to present my argument.

        Note that I represent no-one but myself, I have no affiliations, receive no funding for my efforts, and I participate in very similar forums where there are opposing views within my side of the divide where I also win some, make errors, correct them, learn, and move on.

        Saving now…..

        1. Frankly, Richard, your paranoia is showing.

          And I really don’t care about sunspots. It really won’t make much difference. Ask a proper scientist. Sorry. Feel free to SAVE all the copies you like of me saying this.

          And I just read the abstract and the conclusion of the Leybourne paper, noting that it’s not been so much published as plonked on his website, and fail to see, given the extraordinary level of supposition involved, that it supports anything you’re adducing it as evidence for. Extraordinary claims and all that. Ditto for the other paper, which was at least published (and it’s been cited 29 times! 29 times! since 1995! Whoa! You’ll forgive me for not being overwhelmed…)

          Anyway, I wasn’t talking to you, RichardC2, because I seriously doubt that any amount of doing so will make the slightest difference.

          I do, however, suspect that Roger also believes your ideas to be garbled absurdities, but, since he can’t bring himself to call out any Denier belief as simply ridiculous, he’s reduced to dancing around verbally in order not to say so outright.

          1. bill March 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm

            “I really don’t care about sunspots”

            I realize that bill but others do, Matti Vooro for example who fully supports the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum. Quoting:-
            ——————————————————————————————
            I took the Annual sunspot numbers for each year since 1900 and noted the solar maximums and solar minimums. I also noted all the years around the solar maximums that had sunspot numbers over say 60-70. These solar active periods around the solar maximums can last as many as 3-5 years . Then I lagged the data by 9 years. Then I looked at the global temperature anomalies Hadcrut3gl for the all the actual years and noted the associated and lagged sunspot numbers. I then added and noted the El Nino active years using the ONI index.

            I discovered that global temperatures were rising during the years around the lagged solar active period around the solar maximum and they were down during the period around the lagged solar minimum. Also there were El Ninos at the beginning or during the lagged active sun or solar active or maximum period. In another words the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations] and ultimately contributes to the warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters and modifies the PDO spatial patterns or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America .

            Similar event happens in the Atlantic as indicated by the AMO. The longer solar cycles means fewer solar active periods or maximums and less heating 9 years later. A series of short solar cycles in a row will cause more frequent heating and the PDO and AMO will both turn positive or warm simultaneously causing what we now refer to as global warming. The extended global cooling happens when there are series of longer solar cycles with lower maximums.
            …
            Thus our long term climate is all in the cycles of sun lagged about 9 [ 9-11]years later in its effect and interacting with the oceans which then in turn affect our atmosphere 9-11 year later.
            —————————————————————————————–

            And whether you care or not bill, the science will progress in BOTH areas without caring about whether you care or not.

            1. Funny how, yet again, the overwhelming bulk of evidence in relation to cimate is not convincing, but this there’s this one little area supported by a handful of papers – some of highly dubious merit – you’ve chosen to be obsessed by and swallow unreservedly…

              As I’ve said, Richard, debating your personality type is, in my experience, a waste of time, and even the demonstration value is highly limited as the ‘anorak-y’ component of the discussion has probably put any general readers off long ago.

              It’s not the bloody Sun, Dick, nor is it magical undersea volcanoes. But believe what you like. You clearly do, anyway.

    2. “Roger Dewhurst said:

      The hot spots along the mid oceanic ridges are only now being discovered. It is far to early to make and comment on changes in their heat production.

      That is utter rubbish and shows that he knows nothing about geothermal heat. The amount of heat given out from the core is a constant based on radioactive decay and heat from previous gravitational contraction. Whether it comes from undersea vents, volcanoes or just slowly leaks through the crust the amount is the same. Why don’t you deniers go and actually learn some science then you wouldn’t look so stupid?

        1. Richard, stop embarrassing yourself. An uncertainty figure does not mean that the geo-heat is varying by that amount it means that the measuring technique is not particularly accurate. Good grief, high school science should tell you that. Or are you just being a typical denier and throwing mud around and hope that some of it sticks? Whatever, you are not doing science, I hope that science and math and logic are not required in your day job or heaven help us or whoever needs the information you provide.

    3. Roger, as you well know, ocean-ridge hydrothermal vents do not produce geothermal heat, they simply redistribute it via convection. Production of geothermal heat is dominated by radioactive decay from the crust and underlying mantle and is, for the purposes of this discussion, a well-known constant. The oceanic lithosphere cools as it travels away from the spreading ridges by a combination of conduction and convection. As more cooling is accomplished by convection, the less will be by conduction. Seafloor heat flow measurements clearly show this pattern.

      1. Mike Palin March 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        “….a well-known constant” ? Really? By whom?

        http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talking-6/#comment-30289
        —————————————————————————————————
        BTW Mike, I’ve emailed Dr Bothun seeking clarification on his “mix up”. He might make an appearance here because I quoted your comment and linked to it.

  62. “Author: Rob Taylor
    Comment:
    Nice faith-based assertion there from the Church of Denialism, Roger!

    Got any evidence or miracles to back it up, or should we just take your for-hire word for it, rent boy?”

    Just take my word for it arse bandit until you start eating crow.

    1. Rob, Roger: stop calling each other names, please, or both your comments will be subject to snips/moderation or both.

  63. “Author: bill
    Comment:
    And Richard, could you please, please learn the html code for a blockquote?

    (cross fingers this works!)

    <blockquote> </blockquote>

    (Roger has outrightly refused to, as, interestingly, have several other Deniers I’ve encountered. One might almost conclude they were dogmatic and inflexible!)”

    Perhaps you could learn to write ordinary English.

    1. Ah, Woger, iwony in infinite wecursion! As Elmer Fudd never said 😉

      The trouble with trying to write them out is you get the

      thing

      itself, and not the description of the <blockquote>thing</blockquote>.

      So you’ll be using them then, Roger, after this post, eh?

  64. “Author: Ian Forrester
    Comment:
    Oh Dear, Oh Dear, more embarrassing comments from Richard:

    If we think of the mantle as a hot stove element and the crust as an insulator placed on top of it, there will be heat passing though it analogous to the 44 TW geo flux.

    But if we slide the insulator off a bit (crustal stretching) exposing the element (mantle), there is considerably MORE heat available.

    No Richard, the amount of heat coming from the stove element is dependent on the setting. If it is a 500W element and it is turned on full it will generate 500W no matter what is placed on it or moved around on it. That surely is high school level science is it not?

    Why do deniers keep on showing us that their “knowledge” of science is in fact “ignorance” of science?”

    Imagine, if you can, an asbestos mat on top of one of these fancy new glass oven tops. The mat is split across the middle and the two parts are placed about 5mm apart. I think something like that might be the image in Richard’s mind.

    1. So, Roger, how much have these asbestos mats slipped off the element recently in order to suddenly warm the oceans, then? Evidence please? (Note, RichardC2 – I’m not asking you, you’ve had plenty of goes telling us what you think. Anyone who still cares can always scroll up.)

      And all miraculously coincident with the global increase in CO2, meaning that the climate would need to be even less sensitive to it than anyone with any credibility whatsoever maintains – whether warmist or ‘skeptic’ – surely, given that this remarkable and yet stubbornly undetectable submarine forcing has been doing all the driving?

      Wow, it will turn out the Wingnuts at Watts were right after all – the ones even Monckton had to argue with – and CO2 won’t be a Greenhouse Gas at all after all and we’ll have to redo Physics, too!…

      You’ve talked about Occam’s Razor – seriously, now, this is all bullsh!t, Roger, and you know it. Why not just come out with it?

      Sure, we don’t know as much as we might about what’s going on down in the deeps, but if we’re going to embrace this kind of thinking I reckon we can’t rule out waste heat from all those Thorium reactors in Atlantis as causing the problem… 😉

      1. Bill, how can you be so wrong… everyone knows that the Atlantean undersea cities use Zero Point Energy generators…

        It must be true – I read it on the Internets!

        http://www.dnaalchemy.com/zero_point_merge.html

        PS: This link also PROVES the Theory of Crustal Displacement, which Woger and Wichard have been trying to tell us ALL ALONG!!

      2. bill March 7, 2012 at 11:23 pm

        Trenberth’s missing energy has no correlation with CO2 whatsoever, it only BEGAN in 2004. See the plot:-

        http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/missing_energy.jpg

        Given crustal spreading is episodal, Trenberth could be right that the missing heat WAS in the deep ocean un-measued (“observing systems inadequate”), just that the heat source producing it was at the sea floor – not the surface.

        Over time the heat rises to the surface where it is measured through the 0 – 2000m layer then radiates to space where the energy is measured again.

        Alternatively, what is your explanation for the missing energy since 2004 ?

      3. DixieToo, I didn’t ask you. Specifically.

        As I say, believe what you want. As you do. Do you have your lunch money and a clean hanky? Good. See you.

        And Rob, while I don’t weckon Woger weawwy bewieves it, if he won’t come out and say so I guess we just have to number him among the New Atlanteans… Whaddya say, Woger? Maybe it might be mystic movements in the mantle?

    2. Roger, since you are so convinced that Richard’s rubbish is right can I ask you a simple question? Will you be willing to leave your hand on the asbestos mat as the element is turned on? What do you think will happen to your hand once the mat heats up to the same temperature as the element. Insulators only slow the rate of heat flow they do not stop it as you and Richard seem to think.

      So please tell us, will you keep your hand on the “insulated”‘ mat as the element heats up? Some how I doubt it but you may be as stupid as the boiling frog.

      How many people reading this blog worked in chemistry labs a generation or so ago when you heated beakers with a Bunsen burner? Can you remember what was placed between the flame and the bottom of the beaker? Yes, it was an asbestos (one of the best insulators) mat.

      1. Ian Forrester March 8, 2012 at 5:11 am

        The crust is not at the same temperature as the mantle Ian. We would be in trouble if it was.

        1. Stop being so stupid. There is a temperature gradient from upper mantle to surface. It even has a name. It is called the “Geothermal Gradient”. It has a value of approximately 22 degrees C per kilometer.

          Since you don’t seem to understand this, why not read about it:

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

          Do you honestly believe that an “insulator” will allow no flow of heat and will stay at room temperature when heated from below? That just shows your lack of common sense and simple scientific ability.

          1. Ian Forrester March 8, 2012 at 9:51 am

            If the mantle is exposed, there is no gradient Ian.

            BTW, I’ve queried Dr Kevin Trenberth for his thoughts on this.

            1. Stupidity is very apparent in the trolls infecting this blog. Can we please have better trolls.

              The mantle is not exposed. There are a few cracks in it but they are minor in the big picture. Why do yo have trouble understanding such simple concepts?

              The heat in the mantle has been escaping for eons ever since the earth formed. It is relatively constant, certainly over millennia, but is decreasing over billions of years. The heat in the core cannot be increasing so how can heat migrating from the mantle be responsible for global warming? You are just a denier of AGW, using nonsensical physics does not make you right.

            2. Ian Forrester March 8, 2012 at 9:51 am

              Mid Ocean Ridges

              http://whatonearth.olehnielsen.dk/tectonics/ridges.asp

              Mid-Ocean Ridges are places where the Earth’s tectonic plates are gradually moving apart, and as they do, upwelling magma rises up to fill the gap

              There are three great classes of ridges: fast, slow and ultraslow

              “Fast-spreading ridges” like the East Pacific Rise (100 to 200 millimetres per year)

              “Slow-spreading ridges” like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (20 to 40 millimetres per year)

              “Ultraslow-spreading ridges” like the Southwest Indian Ridge (less than 20 millimetres per year)

              The rate varies e.g. fast “100 to 200 millimetres per year”

              Black smokers

              The diagram shows the principle of a hydrothermal vent. Magmatic processes provide the driving mechanism for hydrothermal circulation through oceanic rocks. Seawater with a starting temperature of around 2°C seeps through the lavas above a magmachamber and are heated to around 400°C. The hot water dissolves minerals in from the surrounding rocks. We now have what is called a hydrothermal fluid. When the hydrothermal fluids exit the chimney and mix with the cold seawater sulfide and sulfate precipitates.

              Most black smokers are found at an average depth of about 2,100 meters in areas of seafloor spreading along the Mid-Ocean Ridge System. The vents are formed in fields hundreds of meters wide.

              Solar variation top-down, geo variation bottom-up, anthro “forcing” ineffectual, QED

            3. RC2 continues to repeat rubbish over and over again. It does not make it right. Geothermal energy has got nothing to do with the recent increase in global temperature. GHG’s are causing an increase in atmospheric temperature which is causing a rise in sea temperatures. It is as simple as that.

              Idiots like RC2 have to resort to impossible scenarios to claim that geothermal heat is causing the increase. The impossible scenario which they are clinging to is that since undersea vents were only discovered in the 1970’s, the same time as global warming was readily apparent then the vents are responsible for this increase. That is just rubbish. RC2 do you not think that the vents have been around for a long time before they were discovered, probably millions and millions of years?

              Thus, if they have been increasing temperatures for that long, and we know that geothermal heat has been going on for even longer, the oceans should have boiled off millions of years ago.

              Here is how ocean temperatures have risen for the past 40 years:

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970/trend

              The trend is approximately 1.3 degrees C per century. So how long have these vents been increasing temperatures? Since they have probably been around for millions of years how come they have only recently caused a rise in ocean temperatures? See the stupidity of your argument? Extrapolate that rate back just 2,000 years and the oceans were blocks of ice!

              You are either incredibly stupid or dishonest, I have a hard time distinguishing which.

            4. Ian Forrester March 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm

              “GHG’s are causing an increase in atmospheric temperature which is causing a rise in sea temperatures. It is as simple as that.”

              I see white gloves waving Marcel Marceau but no citations. And the actual mechanism? More white glove waving of course.

              Air heating water in bulk is a novel concept Ian. Have you a patent for it?

              “The impossible scenario which they are clinging to is that since undersea vents were only discovered in the 1970’s, the same time as global warming was readily apparent then the vents are responsible for this increase”

              I agree with you Ian that:

              “That is just rubbish”

              Because that’s not the scenario at all. The scenario is century-scale variations over a multi-millennial time frame And BTW, what was OHC in the “unusually warm” Roman Warm Period 250 BC to 400 AD?

              You might like to acquaint yourself with hydrothermal cooling of magma to the oceanic heat sink (ocean heating) in relation to crustal spreading rates:-

              The Genesis of Oceanic Crust:
              Magma Injection, Hydrothermal Circulation, and Crustal Flow

              Phipps Morgan and Chen, 1993.

              “…it may be a reasonable hypothesis that crustal extension through faulting opens channels for hydrothermal flow and these channels lead to a higher effective hydrothermal cooling enhancement in slow spreading environments where large median valley bounding normal faults and 6- to 10-km-deep seismically active faults are present (Figure 8a). In this study we will only briefly explore a spreading rate dependence to the efficiency of hydrothermal heat transport. If this dependence does exist (which we feel is likely), it is likely to be an enhancement from Nu =8-10 at fast spreading ridges to Nu =12-15 at median valley ridges. We choose not to include this effect because it will only enhance the already strong trends that are seen in the following suite of numerical experiments.

              http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc545/Reading/PhippsMorganAndChen_OceanCrustFormation.pdf

              And to clarify, the scenario is: variation of top-down solar PLUS variation in bottom-up geo.

            5. RC2 is suffering from some form of mental illness, Dunning Kruger perhaps or maybe even worse. He not only does not understand simple science he lacks in common sense.

              He says:

              Air heating water in bulk is a novel concept Ian. Have you a patent for it?

              There is all sorts of evidence to show that air warms first then the water warms because of the warmer airr. Check out this link to see how the Great Lakes water temperature follows closely behind air temperature. The peak for both is a long time after peak for solar influence which would be June 21 in the NH.

              http://www.angelfire.com/on3/soaw/erieann.gif

              How do you explain that, Mr “its hot magma whot does it”C2? Are you going to tell us that there are hot vents under the Great Lakes which miraculously pour out magma with such regularity that the water temperature closely follows air temperature?

              You are such an idiot.

            6. Ian Forrester March 9, 2012 at 4:46 am

              The lake lagging air in the Great Lakes plot is explained by thermal lag of water wrt air after solar input but I’m more interested in this:-

              There is all sorts of evidence to show that air warms first then the water warms because of the warmer airr.

              This is great Ian because you will be able to provide us with a couple of sets of calcs:-

              1) a) The quantity of heat (Q) transferred to a unit of ocean by conduction from an adjacent unit of atmosphere to raise the temperature (T) of the unit of ocean 1 K (from 17 – 18 C say).

              1) b) The temperature (T) of the unit of atmosphere in order to achieve this feat.

              2) a) The quantity of energy (E) transferred to a unit of ocean by radiation from a unit of atmosphere at 1000m altitude to raise the temperature (T) of the unit of ocean 1 K (from 17 – 18 C say) and accounting for the negligible penetration and absorption at the ocean surface by DLR

              2) b) The temperature (T) of the unit of atmosphere in order to achieve this feat.

              Given that 2) a) and b) is a redundant exercise in view of DLR’s ineffectiveness as a heating agent, you are stuck with 1) conduction as your sole means of air introducing heat to water so 1) a and b) will suffice..

              Ta

            7. Good grief RichardC2, when faced with evidence, which he requested and then is shown, that disproves his stupid theory of heating by leaking magma from deep sea vents goes on a Gish gallop of the most ridiculous questions imaginable.

              The graph I linked to shows that both of your theories are wrong. The water is not heated by either UV since maximum temperatures occur well after maximum for solar irradiation (which occurs on June 21 in the NH) and there are no known sources of leaking magma in the Great Lakes.

              Is that as admission of defeat? I sincerely hope so since I hate wasting my time on idiots.

              Water is heated by down welling IR radiation. See here:

              http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/168969/files/2011WR010529.pdf

              Pay particular attention to Figure 8 where the effects of skin layer under calm and windy conditions are clearly demonstrated.

              To analyze in more detail how the interplay between conduction and radiation affects the water temperature profile, we focus on two days with very distinct meteorological conditions: a calm clear sky day, 4 September (Figure 8a), and a windy day, 18 August (Figure 8b). On a calm clear sky day, the effect of radiation clearly manifests in the important warming of near-surface water (Figure 8a). On the windy day, turbulent mixing is enhanced by the wind and the temperature changes are weak and homogeneous
              through the whole vertical profile (Figure 8b). The effect of
              radiative warming of the near-surface water is no longer
              apparent since locally heated water is effectively mixed.

            8. Ian, in the real world the complication is that (in reference to global averages, not lakes) SST is around 3 C warmer that the near-surface atmosphere or as Tallbloke puts it:-

              The Sun heats the ocean, the average surface temperature of which is around 3C higher than that of the near surface air above it. Changes in the sea surface temperature precede the consequent changes in lower troposphere temperatures by around three months. Cause precedes effect, the ocean surface temperature drives the near surface air temperature. The tail does not wag the dog.

              See HadSST2 vs UAH here:-

              http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sst-lt.png?w=614&h=460

              Your process Ian, of atmosphere heating the ocean becomes somewhat problematic because you will have to apply some kind of work to force the direction of heat flow from cold to hot e.g.:-

              Heat Flow to Hotter Region

              Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system<. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause energy to be transferred from a cold area to a hot area. Usually this is done with the aid of a phase change, i.e., a refrigerant liquid is forced to evaporate and extract energy from the cold area. Then it is compressed and forced to condense in the hot area, dumping its heat of vaporization into the hot area.

              http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/refrig.html#c1

              Your process seems unusually complex Ian. I’m looking forward to seeing the details of it.

            9. Ian, from the very FIRST sentence of Vercauteren et al:-

              In lentic water bodies, such as lakes, the water temperature near the surface typically increases during the day, and decreases during the night as a consequence of the diurnal radiative forcing (solar and infrared radiation).

              “Solar” being UV-A/B, visible, IR-A/B i.e. conventionally DSR

              GHG DLR being IR-C and of no consequence in comparison to solar DSR.

              Confirming my earlier prognosis, thanks.

              Clue for you here Ian: Infrared

              BTW, I don’t see your calcs for 1) a) and b). Would you like me to do them for you?

            10. Wow, such a source of authority, idiot Tallbloke. He encourages people to use Pi=3, did you know that? A complete crank but I didn’t expect you to go to someone knowledgeable for your information, after all you would get the wrong answer. Always better to go to another crank since you know he will give you the answer you want.

              For your information the temperature of large bodies of water (oceans and lakes” lags ambient air temperature through Spring and early Summer. In the Fall this is reversed and the water cools at a slower rate than the ambient air temperature.

              I have wasted enough time on stupid idiots and dishonest liars like you.

            11. Ian Forrester March 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm

              Do you have a link where Tallbloke encourages people to use PI=3?

              I’d be interested to see that.

            12. Ian Forrester March 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm

              Didn’t look at HadSST2 vs UAH did you Ian?

              Why not?

            14. Tallbloke = ether crank.

              This is entirely consistent with magical undersea volcanoes and mainstream-science-is-a-covert-neo-Marxist-drive-for-global-domination conspiracy theories, of course.

              Oh, and ‘peer to peer’ review, overseen by the likes of eminent geniuses such as Delingpole and Watts. Oh, and the great minds of the NZCSC, and the Galileo Group, let’s not forget.

              It’s called crank magnetism. Once you start believing expertise is old-hat, and the world can be whatever you want it to be, it’s a one-way and essentially uncontainable process.

            15. Gee whiz, *crickets* on Tallbloke’s ether-crankery, too!

              What, no-one’s going to step in to defend his ‘alternative way of knowing’, then?

      1. Thanks, Ian, that works for me.

        Now we wait with bated breath for the next installment of RC2’s story of “The Little Volcano that Could”.

  66. You are backing the wrong horse!

    Delingpole comments:
    “Something extraordinary is happening in the great Climate Wars. I had a taste of it just the other day on an LBC talk show. The producer had only booked me in for a ten-minute slot, in case the listeners weren’t interested in my boring new book about that tediously hackneyed subject Man Made Global Warming. But the switchboards were jammed and the station ended up keeping me in for a full hour to reply to all the calls.

    There was one big problem though: “We can hardly find ANYONE who disagrees with you,” whispered the show’s host, Julia Hartley-Brewer. This was true. By the end, things had got so desperate that I found myself accidentally picking fights with callers who were on my side. An easy mistake to make for someone on my (sceptical) side of the debate: we card-carrying Satanic “deniers” are so used to being vilified at every turn it really feels kind of weird suddenly to be in tune with the popular mood.”

    2. Oh for God’s sake! Imagine taking the rantings of the ‘intellectually raped’ ‘interpreter of interpretations’ seriously!

      Yeah, what a reasonable and sane, not at all delusional voice this egregious turkey is!

      Why not just refer us to Glenn Beck? Fail.

  68. I see you’ve moved on from your obsession with shy volcanoes, RC2 – did things get a bit hot for you, or are you really only here to waste time (yours and others)?

  69. Good grief RC2 has looped the loop. What exactly was your “earlier prognosis”? Didn’t you say earlier (I’m, not going to try and find it but it is there) that the heating of the oceans was due to your fantasy of underground volcanoes and magma seeps. Typical denier, go round and round in circles to get everyone dizzy. You are just a complete waste of time. You lie and lie and try and confuse everyone. Well, since you are not being barred for your stupidity and mendaciousness I am stopping arguing with you. It is a waste of time since you neither know anything about what you are discussing nor do you want to learn. Your whole raison d’etre is to confuse and waste everyone’s time. Why do we have to put up such time wasters?

      1. You’re a fine one to speak. I guess your ignorance and stupidity is considered a badge of honour in the company you keep.

            1. I’ll leave it up to you to read the comments on this piece in the Telegraph which explain the real reason Kiribati is sinking

            2. Speaking of islands sinking Andy, I see Dana Nuccitelli at SkS made a goof up (didn’t read his own post) and Rob Painting fell for it here at Hot Topic.

              Dappledwater January 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm

              Bryan Leyland -”When the facts change, I change my opinion”

              How about you make on good on this? We’ve shown that your recent article in the Dompost was rubbish.

              Sea level at Tuvalu has risen by 5.1mm per year since the mid-twentieth century. You claimed otherwise. You were wrong – the peer-reviewed scientific literature refutes your falsehoods.. You have not changed your opinion.

              […]

              http://hot-topic.co.nz/puppets-on-a-string-us-think-tank-funds-nz-sceptics/#comment-28780

              Quoting dana1981 at Skeptical Science:-

              What the science says…

              Between 1950-2009 sea level at Tuvalu rose at the rate of 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year. This is almost 3 times larger than average global sea level rise over the same period

              […]

              Becker (2011) [linked] has examined sea level rise in the western tropical Pacific Ocean using a combination of tide gauges, satellite-based measurements, ocean modelling and GPS, and found that the region is experiencing sea level rise much larger than the global average. At Funafati Island, the study authors found that between 1950-2009 ‘total’ sea level, which also accounts for the rate of island subsidence or sinking, rose at 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year, almost 3 times larger than the global average over the same period.

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm

              Table 5. Sea level trends for additional Pacific Forum data holdings on the Joint Archive for Sea Level (Span 10 yrs and greater).

              http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/picreports.shtml

              025a
              Funafuti-A
              Tuvalu
              1-Jan-77
              31-Dec-99
              23 [yr span]
              0.9 [mm/yr sea level rise]

              5.1 – 0.9 = 4.2 mm/yr, rate of island subsidence or sinking

            3. Richard C2 – “Speaking of islands sinking Andy, I see Dana Nuccitelli……”

              Note whom the author of that SkS piece is. How do you get even the simple things so wrong RC2?

              Note the sea level trend in Becker (2011) = a rise of 5.1mm per year since 1950.

              And the Pacific sea level monitoring project trend you linked to, for 2007:

              “The sea level trend to date is +6.0 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +5.3 mm/year. A
              nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year”

              And for 2010:

              ● The sea level trend to date is +4.0 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +3.7 mm/year. A nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year.

              And lurkers are encouraged to read the SkS article and note figure 1. See how RC2 morphs seamlessly from crackpottery to deception?

            4. My apologies to Dana Nuccitelli for the error attribution.

              If it’s 5.1 mm/yr AFTER subsidence is removed, they must be in a localized bubble because the rest of the Pacific is not following suit:-

              From South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project: Pacific Country Report

              Kiribati
              December 2010

              http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/picreports.shtml

              Table 5. Sea level trends for additional Pacific Forum data holdings on the Joint Archive for Sea Level [Span 10 yrs and greater].

              JASL
              STATION
              COUNTRY
              START DATE
              END DATE
              SPAN (years)
              TREND (mm/yr)

              001b
              Pohnpei-B
              Fd St Micronesia
              1-Jan-74
              31-Dec-04
              31
              1.8

              002a
              Tarawa-A,Betio
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-74
              31-Dec-83
              10
              -5.3

              002c
              Tarawa-C,Betio
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-88
              31-Dec-97
              10
              3.3

              004a
              Nauru-A
              Rep. of Nauru
              1-Jan-74
              31-Dec-95
              22
              -0.4

              005a
              Majuro-A
              Rep. Marshall I.
              1-Jan-68
              31-Dec-99
              32
              2.3

              006a
              Enewetok-A
              Rep. Marshall I.
              1-Jan-51
              31-Dec-71
              21
              1.3

              007a
              Malakal-A
              Rep. of Belau
              1-Jan-26
              31-Dec-39
              14
              -6.3

              007b
              Malakal-B
              Rep. of Belau
              1-Jan-69
              31-Dec-09
              41
              1.8

              008b
              Yap-B
              Fd St Micronesia
              1-Jan-69
              31-Dec-05
              37
              -0.5

              009a
              Honiara-A
              Solomon Islands
              1-Jan-74
              31-Dec-95
              22
              -5.7

              010a
              Rabaul
              Papua New Guinea
              1-Jan-66
              31-Dec-97
              32
              -2.2

              011a
              Christmas-A
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-55
              31-Dec-72
              18
              -3.8

              011b
              Christmas-B
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-74
              31-Dec-03
              30
              0.8

              012a
              Fanning-A
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-57
              31-Dec-58
              2
              -21.7

              012b
              Fanning-B
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-72
              31-Dec-87
              16
              1.8

              013a
              Kanton-A
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-49
              31-Dec-67
              19
              3.2

              013b
              Kanton-B
              Rep. of Kiribati
              1-Jan-72
              31-Dec-07
              36
              0.8

              018a
              Suva-A
              Fiji
              1-Jan-72
              31-Dec-97
              26
              4.7

              023a
              Rarotonga-A
              Cook Islands
              1-Jan-77
              31-Dec-97
              21
              4.3

              024a
              Penrhyn
              Cook Islands
              1-Jan-77
              31-Dec-10
              34
              2.3

              025a
              Funafuti-A
              Tuvalu
              1-Jan-77
              31-Dec-99
              23
              0.9

              029a
              Kapingamarangi
              Fd St Micronesia
              1-Jan-78
              31-Dec-08
              31
              2.7

              053a
              Guam
              USA Trust
              1-Jan-48
              31-Dec-08
              61
              1.3

              054a
              Truk
              Fd St Micronesia
              1-Jan-63
              31-Dec-91
              29
              1.8

              055a
              Kwajalein
              Rep. Marshall I.
              1-Jan-46
              31-Dec-08
              63
              1.7

              056a
              Pago Pago
              USA Trust
              1-Jan-48
              31-Dec-08
              61
              2.1

              The mean trend for datasets that span more than 25 years is 1.3 mm/yr. Data from JASL as at March 2011.

            5. Becker 2010:-

              We estimate the total rate of sea level change at selected individual islands, as a result of climate variability and change, plus vertical ground motion where available

              And,

              We use GPS precise positioning records whenever possible to estimate the vertical ground motion component that is locally superimposed to the climate-related sea level components. Superposition of global mean sea level rise, low-frequency regional variability and vertical ground motion shows that some islands of the region suffered significant ‘total’ sea level rise (i.e., that felt by the population) during the past 60 years

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001445

              2 components to “‘total'”:-

              #1 “climate variability and change”

              #2 “vertical ground motion”

              Sea level rise (#1) = “‘total'” – #2

      1. I’m going to respond once more and only once more to this idiot. Temperature in lakes and oceans lag solar by about 60 days. How can solar be responsible for heating? Of course it is the thermal energy in the air which causes the water temperature to rise. Where does that thermal energy come form? It comes from IR radiation which is being prevented from leaving the atmosphere by the green house gases, levels of which are increasing due to burning of fossil fuels.

        As for your comments on “thermal diffusivity of water” Have you never read in the papers discussing water temperature that the main cause for heat to get into the water column is not by diffusion but by mixing caused by surface winds?

        Why are such idiots allowed to waste peoples’ time with their lies and misrepresentations?

        2. Ian Forrester.

          Thank you for your classic comment. I will circulate it far and wide for the enjoyment of 1000s.

          It would be a shame to keep it to myself

          Cheers

          RC2

          BTW, what’s the speed of light Ian?

          1. Mission accomplished, RC2! You have successfully wasted much time on this site, now please open the sealed envelope for your next target…

            PS: The speed of light varies with the medium; in the case of your cranium, we can safely assume the vacuum value of 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/sec

          2. I will circulate it far and wide for the enjoyment of 1000s.

            Paranoia and now delusions of grandeur, DixieToo?

      2. RC2 – “….they (Tuvalu) must be in a localized bubble because the rest of the Pacific is not following suit”

        No shit Sherlock! You clearly haven’t read (or understood) the SkS post: What’s happening with Tuvalu sea level?. Tuvalu happens to be at the epicentre of a region of anomalous sea level rise, due to the strengthening easterlies.

        Note the differing trends as highlighted in figure 1 (truncated for the post): http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/5_TuvaluSLR-tidegauges.gif

        RC2 – #1 “climate variability and change”#2 “vertical ground motion”
        Sea level rise (#1) = “‘total’” – #2

        Oh I’m sure people who read the post can work it out. It is encapsulated in the summary at the end of the rebuttal:

        -Sea level rise is not level. Although the oceans are gaining water mass from melting land ice, and the oceans are expanding due to increasing heat content, this water mass and heat is not spread evenly over the oceans.

        -In the tropical western Pacific the dominant short-term influence on sea level is the extremely large fluctuation due to the ENSO events El Niño (falling sea level at Tuvalu) and La Niña (rising sea level at Tuvalu).

        -Sea level at Tuvalu can vary by 20-30cms from the influence of ENSO. This is 40-60 times larger than the annual rate of sea level rise at Tuvalu.

        -This regional susceptibility to ENSO is because of the weakening (El Niño) or strengthening (La Niña) trade winds near the equator, which push warm water mass toward the tropical western Pacific.

        -Becker (2011) uses a combination of tide gauge data, satellite observations, ocean modelling and GPS to assess sea level change around Tuvalu.

        -Removing all the factors which affect short-term sea level fluctuation, the study authors found long-term sea level at Tuvalu from 1950-2009 rose at the rate of 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year. This almost 3 times greater than the global average sea level over that time of 1.8 mm per year.

        –10% of this ‘total’ sea level rise at Tuvalu is due to land subsidence

        -Becker (2011) builds on earlier work by Church (2006) , and the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, which also confirm that sea level at Tuvalu is rising.

        1. “-10% of this ‘total’ sea level rise at Tuvalu is due to land subsidence”

          OK, so using Becker, the ACTUAL long-term sea level rise to 2009 was 5.1 – 0.51 = 4.6 mm/yr

          But there’s more recent data from SEAFRAME (that has to be purchased as I understand) but can be seen plotted in Fig 11 page 27 here:-

          http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.201106.pdf

          Since the ’98 El Nino to June 2011 (last 13 years reported) there’s been no 4.6 mm/yr rise, in fact it’s been flat or as Fig 13 page 29 indicates, falling since mid 2006 (last 5 years reported). You might like to highlight the same period in Fig 1 of your SkS post for your readers because it shows the same.

          The falling trend since 2006 is consistent with the trend in HadSST2 BTW (falling since 2005)

          The crisis seems to have eased somewhat and Bryan Leyland is vindicated.

          1. Can I give you a one way ticket to Tuvalu then Richard so you can go over there and set their minds at rest? I’m sure that being the bearer of such tidings that they would be delighted to have you for lunch.

          2. By the way – having referred us to the graph on page 27 – it seems you forgot about the graph on page 28 – you know – the one that shows the continuing trend in sea level rise.

            1. Macro March 10, 2012 at 9:21 pm

              I understand your predilection for linearly regressed “long-term” trends Macro but assuming that you have not yet completely lost the ability to accommodate other methods I point you to the EMD signals and polynomial trends in HadSST2:-

              http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/HadSST2.xls

              SST is consistent with SSL including the Pacific Islands and Tuvalu. Clearly, a linear regression is not representative of the trend in SST or SSL.

  70. For fans of the inimitable Dellers, this is a must

    Who wouldn’t want a body like that?

    (Must be all that tofu and mung beans I reckon)

    1. Re the preternatural Delingpole, would any of you let your daughter go out with this man? Or your son, for that matter?

  71. It must be cold comfort to discover that those of you here at HT who subscribe to the GHE warming – cold space / cooler things make warmer things warmer paradigm, now find yourselves on the same side as Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Singer and Miskolczi. See:-

    ROY SPENCER AND THE VACUUM BOTTLE FLASK

    WHY VACUUM OUTER SPACE IS NOT “COLD” (AND COLDER OBJECTS DON’T MAKE HOTTER OBJECTS EVEN HOTTER)

    By Alberto Miatello
    Febuary 2012

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Vacuum_space_and_Spencer.pdf

    From this compendium:-

    http://www.tech-know.eu/

Comments are closed.