'A microscopic marine alga is thriving in the North Atlantic to an extent that defies scientific predictions, suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, a study led a by Johns Hopkins University scientist has found.'

'"Something strange is happening here, and it's happening much more quickly than we thought it should," said Anand Gnanadesikan, associate professor in the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins and one of the study's five authors.

Gnanadesikan said the Science report certainly is good news for creatures that eat coccolithophores, but it's not clear what those are. "What is worrisome," he said, "is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function." The result highlights the possibility of rapid ecosystem change, suggesting that prevalent models of how these systems respond to climate change may be too conservative, he said.'

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change

It's worse than we thought. We just don't know.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gaia/esp_gaia01.htm

The arrow of time means everything breaks down: even man-made systems.

It's the beginning and end of the uncertainty principle!

I thought fast growing algae was a good thing.

Eutrophication of oceans! Oh good!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Eutrophication of oceans! Oh good!

More fish food.

Do fish eat algae?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

Do fish eat algae?

Small fish do, then larger fish eat the small fish, etc etc..

miketrees wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

I thought fast growing algae was a good thing.

yes and no

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

It's worse than we thought. We just don't know.

It's much better than you thought. You just don't know.



Prochlorococcus.

Like our planet’s trees, Dr. Chisholm’s bacterium—a sausage-shaped creature that is little more than half a micron in diameter—obtains its life force through the marvels of photosynthesis: it absorbs carbon dioxide, and employing as its agent such sunlight as is visible in the upper region of all the seas, it regurgitates the gas as oxygen. It produces so much oxygen that in fact one in every five breaths we take is likely produced by this tiny, single-celled oceanic creature—a creature that we only learned about twenty-five years ago.

This simple fact is then augmented by another—though more properly a supposition—that is both subtler and more uncertain. Since the beast likes to live in warm water (draw a line between New Jersey and Gibraltar and another between Buenos Aires and Cape Town, and you have the approximate northern and southern boundaries of its home) it will probably increase in both its range and numbers as the world’s seas continue to warm. And since this warming is said to be the result of greater levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere, and since Prochlorococcus absorbs this gas—then the more of them there are in the ever warmer seas, so the more noxious gases will be absorbed and the more oxygen sent back into the atmosphere, until the balance is restored.
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sea/open-waters

CO2 = plant food. More CO2 = more photosynthesis = more oxigen.

See the vid:
https://vimeo.com/39853603

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 4:27pm:

lee wrote on Nov 28th, 2015 at 12:26pm: It's worse than we thought. We just don't know. It's much better than you thought. You just don't know. Prochlorococcus. Like our planet’s trees, Dr. Chisholm’s bacterium—a sausage-shaped creature that is little more than half a micron in diameter—obtains its life force through the marvels of photosynthesis: it absorbs carbon dioxide, and employing as its agent such sunlight as is visible in the upper region of all the seas, it regurgitates the gas as oxygen. It produces so much oxygen that in fact one in every five breaths we take is likely produced by this tiny, single-celled oceanic creature—a creature that we only learned about twenty-five years ago. This simple fact is then augmented by another—though more properly a supposition—that is both subtler and more uncertain. Since the beast likes to live in warm water (draw a line between New Jersey and Gibraltar and another between Buenos Aires and Cape Town, and you have the approximate northern and southern boundaries of its home) it will probably increase in both its range and numbers as the world’s seas continue to warm. And since this warming is said to be the result of greater levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere, and since Prochlorococcus absorbs this gas—then the more of them there are in the ever warmer seas, so the more noxious gases will be absorbed and the more oxygen sent back into the atmosphere, until the balance is restored. http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sea/open-waters CO2 = plant food. More CO2 = more photosynthesis = more oxigen. See the vid: https://vimeo.com/39853603

CO2 = plant food. More CO2 = more photosynthesis = more oxigen.

Is that bit your comment?

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Since the beast likes to live in warm water  it will probably increase in both its range and numbers as the world’s seas continue to warm. And since this warming is said to be the result of greater levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere, and since Prochlorococcus absorbs this gas—then the more of them there are in the ever warmer seas, so the more noxious gases will be absorbed and the more oxygen sent back into the atmosphere, until the balance is restored.

Clearly its not doing a very good job then given that measurements from Mauna Loa show that CO2 levels are continuing to increase

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 10:52am:

Clearly its not doing a very good job then given that measurements from Mauna Loa show that CO2 levels are continuing to increase

Now all you have to do is show it is causing AGW. Maybe El Nino's are a function of CO2?

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 10:52am: Clearly its not doing a very good job then given that measurements from Mauna Loa show that CO2 levels are continuing to increase Now all you have to do is show it is causing AGW. Maybe El Nino's are a function of CO2?

No. The onus is on you. You make a very extraordinary claim, despite the well established atmospheric physics that reinforce the fact that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas,  and despite the fact that there are no peer reviewed studies that support your wild claim.

The onus of providing evidence for this very strange theory of yours lies fairly and squarely with you.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

No. The onus is on you. You make a very extraordinary claim, despite the well established atmospheric physics that reinforce the fact that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas,  and despite the fact that there are no peer reviewed studies that support your wild claim.

JT, and I thought you were a scientist. AGW is the theory trying to overturn the null hypothesis. Therefore the proponents of AGW are the ones to provide proof. Not obfuscation.

Please continue.

come on lee mate - it's all over mate

John is on the money on this one.

John has you on the ropes mate. Its finished, done for, its all over mate.

At least show some class when you are exposed to be blatantly wrong in public.

Well done on the effort though - well done mate.

:D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:48pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 6:41pm: No. The onus is on you. You make a very extraordinary claim, despite the well established atmospheric physics that reinforce the fact that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas,  and despite the fact that there are no peer reviewed studies that support your wild claim. JT, and I thought you were a scientist. AGW is the theory trying to overturn the null hypothesis. Therefore the proponents of AGW are the ones to provide proof. Not obfuscation. Please continue.

The null hypothesis cannot be represented as the position of null intelligence.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

The null hypothesis cannot be represented as the position of null intelligence.

Exactly right. So tell us of the settled science.

Climate scientists are still squabbling over whether there was an "hiatus" or not. Climate models assume a relative humidity of 0.8, but papers seem to show seasonal variability.

The other forcings; are they physics, if so why aren't they calculated? What about the inter-dependencies? Why are the models reading too high?

Why do greenhouses stop air circulation, preventing GHG's from escaping?

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:55am:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:40am: The null hypothesis cannot be represented as the position of null intelligence. Exactly right. So tell us of the settled science. Climate scientists are still squabbling over whether there was an "hiatus" or not. Climate models assume a relative humidity of 0.8, but papers seem to show seasonal variability. The other forcings; are they physics, if so why aren't they calculated? What about the inter-dependencies? Why are the models reading too high? Why do greenhouses stop air circulation, preventing GHG's from escaping?

The burden of proof is an age ol' obfuscationary trick but it doesn't work when business confidence is involved!

Governments live off a tax base and that means business confidence rules!

All models are incorrect! All applied science i.e your whole civilised world, knows this!!

This is why Turnbull and his Abbott inspired voters are left eating a shite sandwich: because they don't even know what they don't even know!

Fm this is embarrassing times for the clever country who built the Asian century!

The global embarrassment of copper Internet surrounds this mediocrity on climate change politics: PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIED FOR THIS  :-[ :-X :-X :-[ :-[ :-[

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

lee wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 4:43pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 10:52am: Clearly its not doing a very good job then given that measurements from Mauna Loa show that CO2 levels are continuing to increase Now all you have to do is show it is causing AGW. Maybe El Nino's are a function of CO2? No. The onus is on you. You make a very extraordinary claim, despite the well established atmospheric physics that reinforce the fact that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas,  and despite the fact that there are no peer reviewed studies that support your wild claim. The onus of providing evidence for this very strange theory of yours lies fairly and squarely with you.

But professor there has never been any correlation between CO2 and temperature not like Al Gore tells it anyway.

I'm sure you know that as the Earth heats up more and more CO2 is released from the oceans and land mass, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years or so.

Its not at all like the BS Al Gore tells us that first CO2 rises and then temperature follows.

No correlation between CO2 and temperature then Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't exist.

As observations have shown us.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2eanj9t.jpg

Ajax wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:

No correlation between CO2 and temperature then Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't exist.

I'm interested to know where you got your graph from. I've NEVER seen any claim that there hasn't been any warming since 1980. Not even your most hardened denialist has claimed a hiatus that goes back to 1980.

As for CO2, that is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas. Even Lee accepts that increasing CO2 will increase temperature


lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature.

So I'm afraid you are on your own Ajax 

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

Even Lee accepts that increasing CO2 will increase temperature lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:50pm: CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. So I'm afraid you are on your own Ajax

Wrong. As I have said before "Are all other things equal"? Is relative humidity the same, is precipitation the same.? All those things that affect weather and hence over a 30 year time span (WMO approved), climate.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

Ajax wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 7:11pm: No correlation between CO2 and temperature then Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't exist. I'm interested to know where you got your graph from. I've NEVER seen any claim that there hasn't been any warming since 1980. Not even your most hardened denialist has claimed a hiatus that goes back to 1980. As for CO2, that is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas. Even Lee accepts that increasing CO2 will increase temperature lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:50pm: CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. So I'm afraid you are on your own Ajax

You're a dip stick and one of those nutters that would burn witches at the stake.

Yes the Earth is warming and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to this warming.

But to claim that man's emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for the current warming trend, is like saying pigs can fly....!!!

Do some research dude and stop believing the hearsay.



Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/2rr441c.jpg

The IPCC computer model forecasts have been proven wrong by observation, the last 25+ years.

Does this not spark an interest in you mind as to whether or not we should be taxed on something that has been proven wrong........????

Have you contemplated such a thought......????

http://i66.tinypic.com/nz0xeo.png

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

You're a dip stick and one of those nutters that would burn witches at the stake.

Do you always revert to personal abuse when you have lost a debate?
Please, no more graph spamming. They have all been discredited.





Ajax wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:

No correlation between CO2 and temperature then Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't exist.

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Yes the Earth is warming and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to this warming.

So one minute you are saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and the next minute you are saying there is.

If you can't make up your mind it is no wonder that the denialists have to resort to dishonest arguments to try and reject AGW

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:03pm:

Do you always revert to personal abuse when you have lost a debate?

Only when your theory has been shown by observation to WRONG.

What else can I say so you can wake up...!!!!



Quote:

Please, no more graph spamming. They have all been discredited.

Those graphs are from credible sources.


Quote:

So one minute you are saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and the next minute you are saying there is. If you can't make up your mind it is no wonder that the denialists have to resort to dishonest arguments to try and reject AGW

If you cannot understand English, I'm certainly not going to try to teach you that.

What skeptics have always argued is that the current warming we are experiencing is not solely because of mans emissions of CO2.

And if you bother to look into our history you will see that CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth EVER.

Al Gore got it the wrong way around, CO2 rises when temperature rises here on Earth.

Temperature doesn't rise when CO2 rises as our history has shown.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to the warming but in a very minor way.

I cant say it any better than that for you to understand why and where the skeptics are coming from.

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to the warming but in a very minor way.

Poor Batman

;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 20th, 2016 at 12:23pm: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to the warming but in a very minor way. Poor Batman ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

είσε ένας πίθηκος

ξέρετε μαϊμού

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 11:11am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20th, 2016 at 9:55am: Even Lee accepts that increasing CO2 will increase temperature lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:50pm: CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. So I'm afraid you are on your own Ajax Wrong. As I have said before "Are all other things equal"? Is relative humidity the same, is precipitation the same.? All those things that affect weather and hence over a 30 year time span (WMO approved), climate.

Relative Humidity is actually irrelevant in the upper atmosphere. What is important is the absolute concentration.

You might have to do some book larnin' after all if you want to keep up.  They avoid topics like that in the blogs.

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

είσε ένας πίθηκος ξέρετε μαϊμού

Let's keep it in English.

Είναι ένα παίρνει να γνωρίζει ένα.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 3:47pm:

Relative Humidity is actually irrelevant in the upper atmosphere. What is important is the absolute concentration. You might have to do some book larnin' after all if you want to keep up.  They avoid topics like that in the blogs.

Ah yes tell us about the precipitation, thta's always a good one. or the models.

I see Carl Mears new adjustment for RSS uses TMT and RH 0.8. Is that right?

Keep digging. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 20th, 2016 at 3:47pm: Relative Humidity is actually irrelevant in the upper atmosphere. What is important is the absolute concentration. You might have to do some book larnin' after all if you want to keep up.  They avoid topics like that in the blogs. Ah yes tell us about the precipitation, thta's always a good one. or the models. I see Carl Mears new adjustment for RSS uses TMT and RH 0.8. Is that right? Keep digging. ;)

Yeah, very good. I can see from that response that my post went way over your head.

You might have to resort to some book larnin' if you want to keep up. Start with a paragraph at a time. If you don't understand the first paragraph, discuss it with your cat.

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

Those graphs are from credible sources.

You think whatsupwiththat is a credible source?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Graph (1) - The temperature has been taken from a single source in Greenland. Additionally Greenland is affected by the gulf stream so is clearly not representative of global climate.
discredited

Graph (2) - shows a good correlation between temperature and CO2 but bizarrely is rejected by the good people at whatsupwiththat for no good reason.

Graph (3) - As I have mentioned previously this graph has been doctored to remove the large uncertainties prior to 400 million years ago. It is also over such a large time scale that continental drift and changes in the sun and earths orbit affect the climate.
discredited

Graph (4a) - the time scale is just 10 years. This does not represent climate.
discredited

Graph (4b) - this is the most dishonest graph. This one claims there has been no warming since 1980.
discredited


So Ajax as you can see the only graph of yours which is any good is (3) and that one happens to show a rather nice correlation between temperature and CO2.

But I can expect you'll still spam us with these same discredited graphs in the future

'Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring
Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice'

'Abstract
It  is  widely  promulgated  and  believed  that  human-caused  global  warming  comes  with  increases  in  both  the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real  conundrum  when  any  engineer  tries  to  make  a  professional  assessment  of  the  real  future  value  of  any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?'

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf

perhaps this is more to your taste. After all it is CAGW that is supposedly going to kill us all.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 11:20am:

Graph (1) - The temperature has been taken from a single source in Greenland. Additionally Greenland is affected by the gulf stream so is clearly not representative of global climate. discredited

Actually the graph comes from climate4you.


And yet you agree with taking CO2 levels from a single source - Mauna Loa. It that because it is supposed to be a well-mixed gas? Yes I do know there are other sites - how often are they quoted?

I take it you don't accept Antarctic Ice Core data either. :D :D :D

How can Greenland not be representative of global climate? Is it from another world? There are ocean currents all over the world; some warm, some cool. Therefore by your logic we can not use any dataset.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 20th, 2016 at 1:05pm: είσε ένας πίθηκος ξέρετε μαϊμού Let's keep it in English. Είναι ένα παίρνει να γνωρίζει ένα.

Ok Professor, good try not quite but I get the jist of it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 11:20am:

You think whatsupwiththat is a credible source?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

WUWT is nothing more than a presenter of facts, unlike that algorian web site your feeble mind is fixated on "Skeptical Science" (SS)which is biased and dishonest, snake oil that's what you get on SS.


Quote:

Graph (1) - The temperature has been taken from a single source in Greenland. Additionally Greenland is affected by the gulf stream so is clearly not representative of global climate. discredited

You're pissing against the wind again, are you suggesting U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C dispense nonsense, well don't ever quote them again, or we'll have words.


Quote:

Graph (2) - shows a good correlation between temperature and CO2 but bizarrely is rejected by the good people at whatsupwiththat for no good reason.

Ah yes BINGO the algorian scale, ever wondered why that dear boy Al only shows you this scale around the 500,000 year mark, its because its the only scale that suggests temperature and CO2 move hand in hand like a jock strap on a bum.

Well don't get a mungrul its only the scale that we are zoomed out at here that makes it appear that temperature and CO2 might have any correlation.

Ask yourself this question why does dear old Al only show this scale??


Quote:

Graph (3) - As I have mentioned previously this graph has been doctored to remove the large uncertainties prior to 400 million years ago. It is also over such a large time scale that continental drift and changes in the sun and earths orbit affect the climate. discredited

Its still widely accepted by the scientific community, ok ok I'll be fair lets drop that fact that we once had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Many alarmists have confirmed that we have had at least 3000 - 4000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and there was still no runaway greenhouse effect.

Let me refresh your mind, today we have some of the lowest temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our history.

Since our temperature is always cyclic that means that once we have reached rock bottom it will climb again and then drop again and then climb again.

It is time for it to climb again.

Show me a period in our history when the temperature and CO2 have flat lined.


Quote:

Graph (4a) - the time scale is just 10 years. This does not represent climate. discredited Graph (4b) - this is the most dishonest graph. This one claims there has been no warming since 1980. discredited

Well you can still see that despite the natural CO2 levels going up and man pumping out more manmade CO2 than ever before temperatures have stabilized.

Were is the correlation.......??????

You're theory is CO2 goes up temperature goes up...!!!


Quote:

So Ajax as you can see the only graph of yours which is any good is (3) and that one happens to show a rather nice correlation between temperature and CO2.

You want to buy snake oil, go right ahead.


Quote:

But I can expect you'll still spam us with these same discredited graphs in the future

Until you can produce a credible source that has conducted a study that shows they are redundant and can be refuted, you're damn well right I'll shove them under your nose.

Now what about the fact that the IPCC computer models have got it all wrong, what have you to say about that.

IPCC computer models say
+2.78°C at the end of this century

Last 25+ years of observations say
+1.01°C at the end of this century.

Hell we don't have to do anything to try and keep this false religion under +2°C by the end of this cenntury.

It will happen naturally.

Do you still want to provide the oligarchy with a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market so they can play their games on the stock exchange at your expense.

lee wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 2:01pm:

How can Greenland not be representative of global climate? Is it from another world? There are ocean currents all over the world; some warm, some cool. Therefore by your logic we can not use any dataset.

The key word here is GLOBAL.
You can not make an assumption about global climate by taking temperature readings from just one location, that is clearly absurd. We need to use data from many locations, not just cherry pick our data from Greenland like the warming denialists have.

CO2 levels are also measured at other locations and all show CO2 is rising. Interestingly the CO2 readings at Cape Grim in Tasmania are slightly lower than than those taken in the northern hemisphere. The reason being that industrial and other population-based sources of carbon dioxide emissions are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere.

http://theconversation.com/how-is-atmospheric-co2-measured-in-the-southern-hemisphere-14219

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 10:37am:

The key word here is GLOBAL. You can not make an assumption about global climate by taking temperature readings from just one location, that is clearly absurd. We need to use data from many locations, not just cherry pick our data from Greenland like the warming denialists have.

So you are saying that we can make assumptions for the world based on 30% land measurements and the 70% ocean measurements hat are taken by those unreliable satellites?

Crutem4 ~5,500 earth stations, land area 148,429,000 sq km, about one every 27,000 sq km on average. Accurate to 0.18ºC. ;D ;D ;D

'Greenland Ice Sheet'

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

Uh Oh, NOAA are now denialists. :D :D :D

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:30am:

So you are saying that we can make assumptions for the world based on 30% land measurements and the 70% ocean measurements hat are taken by those unreliable satellites? Crutem4 ~5,500 earth stations, land area 148,429,000 sq km, about one every 27,000 sq km on average. Accurate to 0.18ºC. ;D ;D ;D 'Greenland Ice Sheet' http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html Uh Oh, NOAA are now denialists. :D :D :D

I am saying that you can't make assumptions about GLOBAL climate from data taken from a single source in Greenland.
I can't believe you are even arguing about this. It is a no brainer.

Ajax I'm still waiting to hear where you got this graph from which claims that there has been no warming since 1980. It is clearly wrong.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2eanj9t.jpg

Do you concede that this graph has been dishonestly changed?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:57am:

I am saying that you can't make assumptions about GLOBAL climate from data taken from a single source in Greenland. I can't believe you are even arguing about this. It is a no brainer.

But NOAA one of the greatest AGW vehicles out uses it. So I guess it must be ok.

Why don't you go on a rant against them? :D :D :D :D

NASA too-

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-peers-into-greenlands-ice-sheet/

'World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep'

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html

Makes you wonder how they got there, with all that global warming.

Actually if you look at the graphs they are accurate. It just depends on the CO2 scale used to show the "warming".

lee wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 1:54pm:

Actually if you look at the graphs they are accurate. It just depends on the CO2 scale used to show the "warming".

No they are not
In particular this one which Ajax has been using is particularly dishonest.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2eanj9t.jpg


It shows that there has been no warming since 1980, something that not even the most ardent denialist would claim. I have been asking Ajax for an explanation for this but he seems to be avoiding the question.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

It shows that there has been no warming since 1980, something that not even the most ardent denialist would claim. I have been asking Ajax for an explanation for this but he seems to be avoiding the question.

Except 1988, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012. Even the trend line would show an uptick

list the warmest decades on record

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

list the warmest decades on record

Which record.

1880 that BoM says is no good?

1910 record that BoM says is top notch?

Or some other. Satellite, surface, SST?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

lee wrote on Mar 23rd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Actually if you look at the graphs they are accurate. It just depends on the CO2 scale used to show the "warming". No they are not In particular this one which Ajax has been using is particularly dishonest. http://i63.tinypic.com/2eanj9t.jpg It shows that there has been no warming since 1980, something that not even the most ardent denialist would claim. I have been asking Ajax for an explanation for this but he seems to be avoiding the question.

Why is it dishonest barnacle..?? because you present us with your dishonest graphs you think everyone is like you dishonest....!!!!!

Ok I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you just don't know any better and follow the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion verbatim.

The graph on the left is the UAH satellite based temperature of the global lower atmosphere.

From this site.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Compare the running centred 13 month average of the graph on the left (in red) to the graph on the right, do you see any similarities barnacle.....???

http://i63.tinypic.com/5y59x4.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/5y6v12.jpg

The graph on the right is from Prof. Murry Salby's video presentation in Hamburg on the 18th April 2013 where he has combined this temperature graph with the then current CO2 levels, to show the observations of both at that time (2013) on the one graph.

Watch this video barnacle and educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

The evolution of global surface temperatures can not be measured by satellite. Apart from that, there is a lot more noise in the data.

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 8:59am:

The evolution of global surface temperatures can not be measured by satellite. Apart from that, there is a lot more noise in the data.

Is that right professor, talk about cherry picking.

You alarmist are a real joke.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/18/satellites-not-good-enough-to-tell-us-global-temperature-but-apparently-good-enough-to-tell-us-global-climate-sensitivity/

http://i68.tinypic.com/9gy06v.jpg

Quoting that idiot Watts again.

Ajax wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

The graph on the left is the UAH satellite based temperature of the global lower atmosphere. From this site. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Compare the running centred 13 month average of the graph on the left (in red) to the graph on the right, do you see any similarities barnacle.....???

Interestingly this blogger adjusts the data


Quote:

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all?  Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. .

So it is ok for denialist bloggers to adjust their data but it is not ok for climate scientists to homogenize data?

The satellite data measures temperature in the Lower Troposphere rather than the surface and it turns out that the adjustments were incorrect.


Quote:

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995). Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data. There are differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005). When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased. https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

So you have cherry picked your graph from a satellite measuring temperatures in the lower troposphere that has been incorrectly adjusted. All other graphs from surface temperature and other sources show a warming since 1980 which aligns quite well with the increase in CO2.

So once again Ajax. Your graphs are discredited

---

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 8:59am:

The evolution of global surface temperatures can not be measured by satellite. Apart from that, there is a lot more noise in the data.

But they can be used for SST's?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

So it is ok for denialist bloggers to adjust their data but it is not ok for climate scientists to homogenize data?

Please define "climate scientist".


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

Please compare to RSS data.


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

All other graphs from surface temperature and other sources show a warming since 1980 which aligns quite well with the increase in CO2.

Ah yes the surface "data" and other sources. The historical  "data".

NOAA - "The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record"

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

NOAA - "the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

That would make 2015 58.62°F. (1.62°F + 57.0°F)

AGW caused temperature rise of 62.45°F -  58.62°F or -3.83°F based on the historical data from NOAA.

And this equates well with CO2 increase?

Barnacle your dishonest graph for you to ponder.

http://i66.tinypic.com/vp972v.jpg


Quote:

The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Cherrypicking is bad  -- except when I do it That seems to be the Warmist idea.  The amusing Phil Plait has praised to the skies a long article by Tamino, an inveterate Warmist, which sets out incontrovertible evidence that global warming is real.  So I had a look at that article.  Tamino says: "The satellite data for temperature in the troposphere is what senator Ted Cruz likes to use when he claims global warming isn’t happening. But he doesn’t show all of it — just the part after 1997. That way, he can start his graphs with that big fluctuation in 1997-1998, so that fluctuation will look like it’s part of the trend. It isn’t. But Ted Cruz wants you to think it is, so he won’t show you what happened before that — proper context would reveal how shallow his argument is." So it's bad to choose  your starting points for a graph.  But Tamino himself does exactly that. His first graph starts from 1880 and his next one starts in 1970.  And so it goes.   He has many graphs and many different starting points for them.  They start wherever he needs them to start to make his case.  I won't reproduce anything further from his article but you can log on and see for yourself. Tamino is very good at lying with statistics.  It would be amusing to see him start all his graphs from 1880.  In fact, if you look at his graph that does start from 1880, you can clearly see that warming levelled out from around the year 2000.  There was a rise last year but that was  due to the El Nino weather cycle. So there was some slight warming in C20 but none in the present century.  Will it resume?  Nobody knows. Read the rest here. http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/cherrypicking-is-bad-except-when-i-do.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/yet-even-more-nonsense-from-grant-foster-tamino-et-al-on-the-bias-adjustments-in-the-new-noaa-pause-buster-sea-surface-temperature-dataset/

http://i68.tinypic.com/ivcx1v.jpg

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

Quoting that idiot Watts again.

Professor we want facts not pseudo science found on skeptical science blog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUo8x2M2qBc

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

[quote]John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995). Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data. There are differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005). When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased. https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Ah yes skeptical science blog has all the WRONG answers its run by a cartoonist who should be in jail for fraud.

You know that paper he wrote that there's a 97% consensus amongst scientists about AGW.

My goodness the sources you quote no wonder you don't know weather, climate science is true or false..... :-[

How about you tell us about the signature foot print of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) the undeniable evidence that AGW is true and real and only exists in the IPCC computer models.

Cause that's the only place observations can find this signature foot print.

Radiosonde data from thousands of weather balloons and satellite measurements in the tropopause have failed to find this hot spot.

Now if the key evidence that shows AGW to be true on IPCC computer models is absent from the real world by real world measurements and observations what does this mean......???

barnacle can you think for yourself................!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

barnacle can you think for yourself................!!!!!!

I certainly can, and that is why it is so easy to dismiss the blogs and crackpots that you cut and paste from.

You obviously don't understand the science behind the graphs that you use otherwise you would realise just how easily discredited they are.

Also the fact that you also believe in an Illuminati, that the moon landings were faked and 9/11 was an inside job shows that you are nothing more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist with non existent critical thinking skills.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

Also the fact that you also believe in an Illuminati

They even have their own website-

https://www.illuminatiofficial.org/does-illuminati-worship-satan-or-god/

If they believe they exist, shouldn't we?

"History of the Illuminati"

http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam481/groupa/illumhist.html

"The Illuminati Cult"

http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam481/groupa/illumhome.html

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

I certainly can, and that is why it is so easy to dismiss the blogs and crackpots that you cut and paste from. You obviously don't understand the science behind the graphs that you use otherwise you would realise just how easily discredited they are. Also the fact that you also believe in an Illuminati, that the moon landings were faked and 9/11 was an inside job shows that you are nothing more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist with non existent critical thinking skills.

I think I'm wasting my time here. If these two actually had any credibility then it would just possibly be worth refuting every last bit of nonsense that they spew.  The fact is that in both cases they have been refuted many times, yet they continue to regurgitate the same nonsense that has already been shown to be incorrect, while probably thinking "I wonder if I can get away with bringing this up again" 

Their credibility is shot.

You don't have to dig very far below the surface to expose bloggers like Watts for the mendacious hacks that they really are.  They are very good at pretending to be knowledgeable, but that's as far as it goes.

Once Watts and others have been shown to be deliberately wrong once, most ordinary people would be too embarrassed to bring them up again. It takes a very low standard of personal integrity to revisit them time and time again.

Maybe they are not dishonest. I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt.

The only alternative is that they are both as thick as two short planks, but honest. 

Don't go JT.

At least you could explain how satellites are good for SST's.

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 12:06pm:

Don't go JT. At least you could explain how satellites are good for SST's.

well done lee

you certainly collapsed all of JT's arguments in one shot. Well done.

I really cant believe how talented you are in this forum.

Do you practice a lot? Or is it just naked raw genius?

Incredible stuff mate. Well done

JT, It was the Barnacle who brought up belief in the Illuminati. All I said was that if they believed they existed, why shouldn't I? I didn't say anything about believing any stories of them. You really must learn to read better.

Ajax wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 12:08pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 25th, 2016 at 10:57am: Quoting that idiot Watts again. Professor we want facts not pseudo science found on skeptical science blog.

I don't frequent blogs.

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

JT, It was the Barnacle who brought up belief in the Illuminati. All I said was that if they believed they existed, why shouldn't I? I didn't say anything about believing any stories of them. You really must learn to read better.

Well done mate.