James - with your familiarity with "with the laws of physics, thermodynamics, statistics, computer programming, and a whole host of other schools of thought necessary to climatology" I expect that you have written a number of articles for the scientific literature disproving the findings of climate scientists.

Perhaps if you could give some references.

Otherwise there is a risk some some people could assume that you are just another blowhard driven by ideology not science.

Mike, thanks.... I'm still waiting on the proofs to disprove. I would write a paper on computer programing, but it would be redundant. A model will give the results the program tells it to. Any college freshman in computer programing will tell you this. The instructor will verify this posit. Do you wish me to submit that posit to GRL? What I've stated is accepted fact...... it turns out, there is no AI. But, climatology doesn't believe this. What are my odds of being published in GRL and would it make my posits any more or less true? I'm a network administrator/programmer. I can write a program that states 1+1=3...... every time. I don't need to be published to state this.

You wish me to give references to statisticians stating and showing how it is wrong? If you're not familiar, you've no business in this discussion. Start with M&M..... go on to Wegman..... from there to M&W....... keep going until you find some mathematical acrobatics to affirm the silly posits of models. Again, I don't need to be published to state the obvious. Again, and please tell me.... what are the odds GRL would publish the obvious and, PEER REVIEWED OBVIOUS STATEMENT?

As far as the rest..... please show me how the earth has warmed in the last decade or so....... in spite of the exponential increase of CO2 emissions. Please show me sea level rise..... in spite of the insipid corrections. Please show me the snow extent reduction........ I don't have to publish to say 1+1=2. But, I can show every bit of what I've stated. To the temps, snow, sea level.... go here..... http://suyts.wordpress.com/
If you can refute any of it..... I'll retract.

Published? That's laughable. If anyone didn't know by then, the Spencer/Dessler debacle showed what and where the journals were about and their advocacy. They are as about as credible as SkS today..... which, again, is a source of humor.

Argue the maths, argue the science..... don't appeal to authority.... those publications are only recognized by alarmists. Most importantly, please come to my blog and explain how a computer program will provide results that it wasn't programed to provide. I welcome all comers.

Just one story: Edward Lorenz ... the story is in the Gleick Chaos book ... a computer program that includes recursive feedback on equations with a multiplier above a certain level yields ... chaos. If you were actually a professional network administrator, you'd know that. It is, after all, one of the problem scenarios that network administrators should know about and be able to deal with.

"I can write a program that states 1+1=3...... every time"

Well good for you James but that does not require any great skill.

It appears that your claims to be familiar "with the laws of physics, thermodynamics, statistics, computer programming, and a whole host of other schools of thought necessary to climatology" falls short.

So you mean Dennis that climate models are self-validating?

How would it appear that I'm not familiar with the posits I've stated? Again, I'll state, I'm waiting for the proofs of the posit. Have you some new information that confirms CAGW?

Just to be clear.....atmospheric CO2 is still increasing. Temps are decreasing, as is sea levels, snow extent is increasing...... ACE values are decreasing.

Tell me again.... because it gets fuzzy after a few beers.... what is it that I'm supposed to be so alarmed about? Please show me the proofs. Feel free to reference any peer-reviewed publication...(please don't take offense when I laugh) and show how any of this is meaningful..... other than extracting wealth from the private sector to the public.

As I see it, some people say CO2 emissions will soon cause our damnation. I say, please show how this is happening. I'd even give extra credit if you quote the ideal gas law. Or even tell me the unique absorption of IR energy CO2 presents.

It isn't for me to disprove the unprovable. It is for the people that are crapping their pants about advancements for humanity to show how things are going to be bad if we fire up a coal plant.

To be purposefully redundant, CO2 is a gas. Why don't climate scientists discuss the ideal gas law? More yet, infrared energy is what we're talking about, but we don't specify the amount of energy CO2 can uniquely absorb and emit per freuquency. Science ... I love this stuff!!! Again..... feel free to comment on my blog..... I will post it. Or anyone else that wishes to participate in the discussion. I don't have to publish to refute the CAGW hypothesis.....science already has, and reality continues to show it.

James

James Sexton's understanding of science is in a parallel universe to the vast body of those who are actually scientists.

While he "waits the proofs" (I doubt he even understands what that means since Science doesn't "prove" anything) bodies like the US National Academy of Science sate in their recent report America's Climate Choices 2011:

"Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781

I personallt prefer their understanding of what the science actually says to some one who may (or may not) competently adminster a network

"But, hell, if like these two muppets you can pretend that thousands of scientists have made up two decades of research about global warming, you can attribute anything to anyone without any hesitation. It's what they do. "

Pretty much sums it up.

I don't deny anything, unless it is wrong.

1 Sea level rate of increase has not risen, in fact it has fallen; see Watson, Dean and Houston and NASA:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

2 Extreme weather events are not increasing; see Ryan Maue, Compo and Jo has a good overview of this false claim:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/questions-real-journalists-ought-to-be-asking-about-yasi/

3 Whatever institutions promoting AGW get back is karma; if they have peddled false or unproven claims which have had major policy implications then they deserve to be closed or overhauled. Or are you saying that scientists like you, Dr Glikson, are beyond reproach? For a start learn to spell.

Bit of an own goal Anthony.

The JPL article that you link to explains why sea levels have fallen.

"Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States."

and

"This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist.

and

"We're heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise," says Willis. "But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash."

"Own goal" haven't you noticed Mike; with AGW it's always going to happen, never already happened; it's car salesmanship 101. Note what the man said:

"sea levels actually fell over most of the last year"

It's a water world; CO2 is plant food; "get with the program"; support the trees.

First, CO2 isn't pollution...... it is a natural gas that is beneficial to the flora of this world. Lastly....you haven't made a compelling argument as to why this is bad. Going into more detail.....

[a]....Have you checked the sea levels lately?
[b]....We've had snow storms before .....and, really ecologically, shouldn't we have them from time to time?
[c] Intra-continental? That should mean inside the continents..... is that bad? If so, why?
[d] Precipitation in oceans retard sea level rise? Please explain that one.

1. The skeptics have always maintained that our climate is cyclic. It is the brief linear moments in time which makes the alarmists wet their pants. Lately, the linear results have falsified the alarmist claims. Skeptics never stated there was a linear relationship between CO2 and temps.....alarmists have, did and do today....irrational as it is.

2. Now some people are stating that big fire ball in the sky may have something to do with our temp variations? Welcome to reality.

3. To compensate? We've been waiting for you people to catch up. You guys still aren't quite there....... no worries....we're a patient lot. If you people would quit insisting on destroying the free societies we have today, we'd have time to sit down and explain it all to you.

See above for James Sexton's understanding of science, any science. It's zero.

To still run the argument about CO2 being a natural gas as if somehow this is relevant is astoundingly silly. It is well refuted here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

James.

If you had even a passing familiarity with climate science, you would know that scientists argue that there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature. That is why climate sensitivity is defined as the is the estimate of how much the earth's climate will warm if carbon dioxide equivalents are doubled.

The linear relationship is a figment of your imagination.

Perhaps you should stick to writing computer programs that calculate 1+1=3.

Nice Mark.....CO2 isn't a natural gas..... go with that. Please show me the science that states where it isn't....... it doesn't even have to be peer reviewed. As far as SkS is concerned....given that they consistently edit...(deletes pertinent points) valid arguments, I'm surprised someone would try to use them as a valid scientific argument. SkS is a ideological blog. Nothing more, nothing less. If Mr. Cook wishes to debate me, I'm available at his discretion.

If you could be so kind, present the argument yourself, without that Pravda wanna be.

BTW, I encourage all people to read your link you've given to SkS and then come back and tell me how much that was founded in science.

1.....water? Question.... is it fixed or is the amount of moisture upon the earth variable? I say it's pretty much fixed. But, if some one can show me how we can consume it or if there's another source for it.... I'm all ears.

2. His posit is fallacious. Where does he think our waste goes? Recall our laws of physics. We cannot create energy. Conversely, we cannot expend it either. It simply moves from one place to another.

3. He makes a correct statement. But, see number 2. While some plants see a decrease in growth and nutrition, others see an increase. Why? See number 2. If further explanation is required..... stop by and ask.

4. Let's go back to number 1. Water doesn't go anywhere. As much as you drink, it will leave your body. Same goes for plants. Deserts will increase in a warmer climate? No, they will not. Rain will increase. That is, unless you believe the climate god's will punish you and only rain where you don't want it to. Where do you guys think the water will go?

5. Insects play a crucial role in our flora and fauna. Again this goes back to our laws of physics.....try Newton...... equal and opposite....

If we cannot create energy....and we can't....then neither can we subtract energy. And, we can't.

Again, Mr. Cook is more than welcome to respond on my blog......I will post his comments in their entirety.

I didn't say it wasn't a natural gas - of course it is - but apparently you can't read. I siad your point that it was a natural gas is irrleevant. There are plenty of things that are natural that, in excess, are a problem. Why donlt you take some arsenic and find out?

As for SKS - they have won a prestigious Eureka prize for Science - what have you won? - on their comments they routinely snip personal attacks - not arguments - or perhaps you are incapable of distinguishing the two?

Lol Mark...... this is beautiful, we can agree CO2 is a natural gas. And, we can also agree the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't anywhere close to being as toxic as arsenic. In fact, doctor, why don't you tell the readers how long it will take, given the increase remains constant, that CO2 would be as poisonous as arsenic?

As far as your attempt to appeal to authority.....I've won a box car derby and a foot race and a chess game ..... once. All of that makes me no more right nor wrong. I find it interesting that you state you've a doctorate, but appeal to someone that doesn't have one.

The facts are, Mr. Cook is no more qualified than I am. In many ways, we are qualified in the same manner. It is only that I've investigated more than he did.

Mark, this has been fun. Sadly, its late on my side of the world. We must do this again! Please stop by at http://suyts.wordpress.com/ any time. On special occasions, bring Mr. Cook. It would be more ....... challenging if you did.

Best wishes,

James

Keep going James - your arguments show their emptiness. You offer no evidnece, no data, no links to peer reviewed literarure - just recycled myths from the bloggosphere - if you really think suyts has anything to offer other than bloggorhea well then, there's no helping you :)

perhas at suyts you can explain why you apparently know better then every single national science body of credibility.

who do accept the reality of AGW

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/ImportanceOfChemicalSciences/ClimateChange.asp
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science policy/positions/climate change2008.shtml
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

ah! of course - your box car derby win makes you qualified to spout nonsense without evidence to support a single claim

lol, uhmm... dip in 2009-2010? Go here....That's a graph of sea level from Envisat data. That's 5 1/2 years.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/no-sea-level-rise-in-over-5-12-years/

But, we can go with Jason 1&2 if you like....2009,2010 and 2011.... we're moving into 2012 soon. Michael.... please show me where in the satellite data where such dips have occurred in the past. They have not.

The dip in the sea level is because it rained? I'm thinking the sea level didn't lower because lake Meade filled back up. How's this for a posit..... the dip in the sea level is because it is cooling. See the opening statement in your linked article.

lol, I've offered no evidence? As far as I can see, I'm the only one here that has even remotely breached into any science! I've talked about conservation of energy, and you talk about how taxing CO2 is scientific, reference an AWARD WINNING BLOG and pretend the award is relevant to ....something. My goodness Mark, how is it that I can't get into a science discussion with people that purport to be scientific?

I've offered to discuss thermodynamics, physics, and spectrometry. And you reference a silly page from SkS and position statements.

I've even offered to discuss the hydrology budget, but no takers. .... just fallacious arguments, mostly wrapped in appeals to authority, even though the authority isn't recognized as such.

If you think what you have offered is "evidence" you are delusional. You've offered to discuss a great many things you know nothing about and, frankly, I couldn;t be bothered.

You;ve only pointed to bloggorhea - I;ve referecnes actual published scientific papers and conlusiona of real science bodes.

PERHAPS it may have escaped your notice but on threads like this is NOT where science is conducted (despite the efforts of many denilaists to obfuscate). It's conducted in the lab, in research instiutions, even in classrooms - not be ignorant buffoons who cheery pick what they wish to believe.

IF you have some real science to offer - get it published. I take the time to read them - (and web sites that back up what they are saying with actual science papers like SKS always does). If you publish something - i will enjoy reading it. Honestly - until then - you are just an oxygen thief :)

Of course when you put the preceding sentence back into the quote, the context changes

"Very few people, even among environmentalists, have truly faced up to what the science is telling us.

This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of "emergency" responses such as the suspension of democratic processes."

"This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible"

All those of the totalitarian persuasion hang their demands for control on imminent catastrophe; but seriously, Dr Mark what is so bad about a 4-5C increase; increases well in excess of this happen already; they are called winter and summer.

Are you really that foolish? Do you not understand the implications of an increase in the evarge temperature of 3-5 degrees C?

here's just one paper that talks about the impact sof 2 degree rise

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ew7038803558p4j0/

here's a greet summary at new Scientist of the implications

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11089-the-impacts-of-rising-global-temperatures.html

Mr Cox you are apparently not only completely ignorant of even basic science but also guilty of peddling dangerous misinformation (no doubt through the same ignorance of course)

Dr Mark, I have read the paper; I dismiss it; it is speculative and borderline hysterical; Lomborg and other noteworthies such as Nordhaus have done exhaustive cost/benefit analysis of temperature increases up to 2C and found the benefits outweigh costs by great margins.

Your quick decline into personal attacks says more about you than me.

I'm with Shirley. Given that you cannot tell the difference between a 3-5C increase in global average temperature and the seasons, where did you get your climate science degree from?

In any event, I am not in favor of any suspension of democracy - we need more not less.

Our democracy is currently subverted by a single proprietor controlling 70% of the print media and waging an "war on climate science".

http://theconversation.edu.au/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639

We have already had limitations placed on our civil liberties by the "war on terror".

As Professor George Williams points out
"From September 11 to the end of the Howard government, Parliament passed 44 anti-terrorism laws, an average of one every seven weeks. This volume of law-making has no parallel in any other democratic nation."

"Australia's anti-terrorism regime runs to hundreds of pages. It extends to sedition offences that imprison people for their words rather than their actions, control orders that permit house arrest without trial, laws that allow the secret surveillance of innocent people and ASIO being able to have non-suspects detained for up to a week to gather intelligence. These powers can often be exercised in secret, and even where mistakes are made or the power is misused, this cannot always be reported in the media."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/time-to-change-terrorism-laws-20090223-8fr1.html

There is no shortage of precedent for "state of emergency" style laws.

If a "state of emergency" was declared in response to a climate crisis, I doubt it would be to benefit the ordinary Australian citizen.

Anthony - I know you dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your climate science denial. But your comment really was foolish - as is most of your commentary on here.

You apparently think you know better than every single national science body of credibility. to which I have posted numerous links.

Yet you offer no evidence to rebut their conclusions?

Laughable and silly, sad and shameful

No evidence??? I just offered Lomborg and Nordhaus; are you in a parallel universe?

Nordhaus?? Apparently you can't even properly represent your own referecnes Mr Cox.

The Nordhaus report says (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf ) (a reputable source funded by Yale University, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation) an optimal policy respone to AGW is a carbon price of $27/tonne gradually being introduced and ramped up over the rest of the century around the world - based on economic modelling of suitable reductions in emissions over time would have net present value in around $3 trillion positive to the world economy.

No, you are wrong Mark Dr Harrigan; Nordhaus looked at the favored programs of Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern; his conclusion was these would cost the world more than unmitigated global warming. Nordhaus found, according to CEI and with which I agree:

"that global warming under a business as usual case would inflict damage on the world amounting to $22 trillion. Sir Nicholas Stern’s proposed course of action would reduce that damage to $9 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion, for a total cost to the world of $36 trillion, $14 trillion more than unmitigated global warming. Al Gore’s package of measures would reduce global warming costs to $10 trillion at a cost of $34 trillion, for a total cost of $44 trillion, twice the total cost of global warming. A variety of measures aimed at keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius would have similar benefits and costs to the Stern proposal. Nordhaus proposes a modest carbon tax as the best way to tackle global warming, providing the most benefit at the least cost, but does not fully analyze a resiliency/adaptation approach such as that advanced by Prof Julian Morris and others, including CEI. "

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

With due respect (which is to say - none) either you do not understand what you read (or you choose to deliberately misrepresent it).

I provide the link again for anyone to check http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

page 84 "The optimal policy has a very substantial gain in net economic welfare totaling
$3.4 trillion."

Also on page 15 "The efficient climate-change policy would be relatively
inexpensive and would have a substantial impact on long-run
climate change. The net present-value global benefit of the optimal
policy is $3 trillion relative to no controls. This total involves
$2 trillion of abatement costs and $5 trillion of reduced
climatic damages. Note that even after the optimal policy has
been taken, there will still be substantial residual damages
from climate change, which we estimate to be $17 trillion.
More of the climate damages are not eliminated because the
additional abatement would cost more than the additional
reduction in damages."

and

"We calculate that the economically
optimal carbon price or carbon tax would be $27 per metric
ton in 2005 in 2005 prices."

The optimal policy is as I have described.

Page 26 is a pretty interesting read on why a carbon tax is the best approach

It's true they debunk the Al Gore approach - but that is hardly what is on the table here is it Anthony??

The report also says (page 22)

"Whether someone is serious about tackling the globalwarming
problem can be readily gauged by listening to what
he or she says about the carbon price. Suppose you hear a
public figure who speaks eloquently of the perils of global
warming and proposes that the nation should move urgently
to slow climate change. Suppose that person proposes regulating
the fuel efficiency of cars, or requiring high-efficiency
lightbulbs, or subsidizing ethanol, or providing research support
for solar power—but nowhere does the proposal raise
the price of carbon. You should conclude that the proposal is
not really serious and does not recognize the central economic
message about how to slow climate change. To a first
approximation, raising the price of carbon is a necessary and
sufficient step for tackling global warming."

Pretty damning for Mr Abbotts approach!

Now Anthony - a test - you have been clearly shown to be incorrect. Do you have the intellectual inegrity to acknowledge this????????

Your paper is different to the Nordhaus one I linked to; open the one I linked to and look at Tables V-2 and V-3; they deal with not only the Stern and Gore options but all IPCC options; in all scenarios the cost of abatement exceeds the benefits.

Doesn't change a thing except for the page references. You are still incorrectly misrepresenting it's conclusions. Well - more likely you just have no understanding of what you are reading - bit like your approach to climate science really.

Page 23 - "The efficient climate-change policy would be relatively inexpensive and
have a substantial impact on long-run climate change. The net present-value
global benefit of the optimal policy is $3.4 trillion relative to no controls. This
total involves $2.2 trillion of abatement costs and $5.2 trillion of reduced
climatic damages. Note that even after the optimal policy has been taken, there
will still be substantial residual damages from climate change, which we
estimate to be $17 trillion."

"In the ideal world, the
carbon price or carbon tax would be $27 per metric ton in 2005 in 2005 prices" also page 23

"The measure of whether someone is serious about tackling the global
warming problem can be readily gauged by listening to what they say about
the carbon price. Suppose you hear a public figure who speaks eloquently of
the perils of global warming and proposes that the nation should move
urgently to slow climate change. Suppose that person proposes regulating the
fuel efficiency of cars, or requiring high-efficiency light bulbs, or subsidizing
ethanol, or providing research support for solar power – but nowhere mentions
the need to raise the price of carbon. You should conclude that the proposal is
not really serious and does not recognize the central economic message about
how to slow climate change. To a first approximation, raising the price of
carbon is a necessary and sufficient step for tackling global warming. The rest is
largely fluff." Page 29

You clearly have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT - farcical!

"The choice, from the precautionary and insurance principles, should be obvious."

Yep. Nuclear.

I find it bizarre that climate change deniers are also invariably nuclear boosters e.g. Andrew Bolt. Their much vaunted "skepticism" is suddenly parked when it comes to nuclear energy.

What's with the opposition to renewables? The companies building wind and solar farms raise capital, have shareholders employ workers etc. so they are not a sign of incipient socialism. In fact given the right-wing idealogy of most deniers, you would think they would be keen for the market to make the final judgement.

Their stance is a clear indication that their ideas come from idealogy - not science or even economics.

Nuclear works, renewables don't; except hydro and the Greens don't like it.

Good luck ever getting nuclear energy in Australia, especially after recent events in Japan. In light of these events, wouldn't building more nuclear power be throwing out the all important precautionary principle out the window?

Beyond Zero Emissions have provided significant evidence through their stationary energy plan that 100% renewable energy is feasible in Australia using solar thermal technology as a baseload.

BZE's SEP has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Brooks along with Peter Lang and Martin Nicolson; they found the plan would require a 50% reduction of electricity use and cost up to $4 trillion by 2020.

That's 50%; you know, having NO electricity for 1/2 the week.

People who advocate renewables don't know what they are talking about.

"Nuclear works, renewables don't; except hydro and the Greens don't like it."

Confirmation of what I was saying Anthony - you views are based on your hatred of the Greens i.e. it is idealogy based.

"...cost up to $4 trillion by 2020."

I was not aware that BZE were proposing gold plated wind turbines. The problem with hyperbole is that it easy to spot.