"2011 also was an El Nino year"

You mean La Nina year right?

James, I checked out the site you referenced which notes: "The algorithms used on this site have not been formally peer reviewed and hence should not be used unverified for academic publication.."

Similarly you have chosen to ignore the prominent graph:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
from the recent Berkley data. - The accelerating temperature increase ( land measurements ) over recent years is striking. ALL of the data sets are then graphed for comparison and are broadly consistent. ie showing an average rise of 0.2 deg / decade.

James Sexton - that is simply pathetic cherry picking.

You are fooling no one except yourself.

Try
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/trend

And yes 2011 was a La Nina year.

"In 2011, on a global scale, La Niña events helped keep the average global temperature below recent trends."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a

Yes, it was a La Nina year, it was also an El Nino year. It really isn't that complicated. The time referenced was of the author's choice, not mine. Do you guys read the articles?

lol, George, I didn't do any Fourier analysis or anything like that. I use that site because it saves me time. The data is pulled directly from the sources. Least squares trends don't need to be peer reviewed. You should indulge and play there for a while.

And, I don't disagree that the earth's temps have generally warmed a bit. But, if you read this article, you can see where the author is wrong in his assertions. I thought it should be cleared up.

William, I mean that it was both. In fact, it was right at mid-year when it changed.

Yes we can read. Dr Glickson referred to "The 2011 La-Niña year ..."

There was no El Nino in 2011.

The real question is - can you admit your mistake?

lol, James.

You chose to start the temp time period in 2001 because it gave you the answer you were after.

That is not science - that is cherry picking.

Sigh..... From the posted article, "Unfortunately from 2001 temperatures continued to rise.........."

You could have just scrolled up and read the article as I suggested.....

lol, Thanks Mike, I'm feeling charitable after pointing out your mistake, in not having read the article........

so, I'll say, I can see why there may be confusion over this subject. Many people only consider NINO 3.4 when referencing ENSO, and perhaps you're not aware that that there are 3-4 more indices to consider when referencing ENSO. (depending upon how one considers 1&2.) In 2011, we can see 1&2 have a fairly strong positive signal, and 3 a milder one for the months of June and July, and 3.4 was only positive for a very brief time, while 4 never quite got there.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif

So, if we only regard 3.4 as the El Nino indicator, then I'd only be just technically correct. And, you, more generally correct. But, if we include the others ..............

You started off by claiming that 2011 was an El Nino year. That was wrong.

Unable to admit your error, you then back tracked to part of the year.

You are still wrong. From the NOAA where you got the SST anomalies chart from.

"El Niño: A phenomenon in the equatorial Pacific Ocean characterized by a positive sea surface temperature departure from normal (for the 1971-2000 base period) in the Niño 3.4 region greater than or equal in magnitude to 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit), averaged over three consecutive months."

Apologies James. While I do not agree that your plots falsify Dr Glickson's assertion that "from 2001 temperatures continued to rise ...", I concede that you had justification for choosing 2001.

When I make a mistake, I admit it. You should try it with your "el nino in 2011" claim.

Sigh, you are mischaracterizing my statements. I'm used to it. But, nowhere did I ever state that 2011 was exclusively an El Nino year. Go back up and look. How is that even when you're correct you are in error? Is that something you've worked on or is that simply some knack you have?

If this statement is indeed, the definition of an El Nino, "A phenomenon in the equatorial Pacific Ocean characterized by a positive sea surface temperature departure from normal (for the 1971-2000 base period) in the Niño 3.4 region greater than or equal in magnitude to 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit), averaged over three consecutive months."

Then clearly, by the information I've offered, It was an errant claim. I hadn't seen that before and was considering it differently. Thanks. It is curious as to why 3.4 is the only reference as opposed to 1&2 or even 3&4, but I'll accept this.

Your words - "lol, did you just say things would be warmer if things weren't occurring to make things cool? BTW, you may wish to check the data when you state things have warmed since 2001. Did you invent your own temp data set? Further, did you forget to mention that 2011 also was an El Nino year?"

Page 12.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

Looks like Pitman is on the money, but it isn't a simple question. If ALL human activity ceased, miraculously, the first thing that would happen is the planet would warm ... because the sulpate aerosols would disappear quickly. Would that increased warming push the planet into an ice melt that changed the albedo and was unstoppable? Tough question.

Ah. But does it really matter. Is warming really catastrophic? After all, the planet is in a coldhouse phase and well below its normal operating temperature, so what’s the problem with a bit of warming? May not warming be good, or at least onot as bad as the Alarmists would have us believe?

• Most of the warming would be in the high latitudes – that’s mostly good.
• Small change in the tropics
• Most of the mid latitude warming would be in winter and at nights; little in summer and in the days. So what’s the issue? Longer growing seasons are good for food production.
• More water vapour in the atmosphere – more rain – that’s good.
• More stable climate when there is no permanent ice caps – that’s good. (IPCC AR4, WG1, Ch6, Fig 6.1 and James Hansen, Fig 1: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

The alarmists have not done a good job at persuading people that their scaremongering is based on anything more than the belief of ideologues who habitually uses scaremongering as a way to advance their ideological beliefs – like wealth redistribution, more regulation, more nanny state, more government control over what everyone can do, say, think and eat.

Peter, globally, agriculture is geared to current rainfall patterns ... it isn't just how much but the peaks and troughs, the floods and droughts. All kinds of crops got smashed in the NSW floods and 20 million Pakistanis got displaced in the 2010 floods. The figures you refer to don't give any information at sufficient precision relevant to agriculture.

Geoff,

"globally, agriculture is geared to current rainfall patterns ". We adapt. We always have and always will. Farmers adapt, and do so much faster than most people realise. People move and migrate, much faster than climate change occurs. And much faster than sea level changes occur. This is what so many researchers seem to leave out of their analyses.

Tsunamis are catastrophic events. I am not persuaded that climate change is catastrophic. I am persuaded there are costs of adaption, but at the moment I am convinced the costs of the very bad policies being advocated by the alarmists will be much higher than the costs of adaption and of "no regrets" policies to reduce emissions.

"all kinds of crops were smashed". They always have been and always will be by storms and droughts. There is no convincing evidence that such events are caused by the coal miners - as Bob Brown would like us to believe" nor by CO2 emissions (and yes I know about the many studies each way and I know that many of them are by notorious alarmists). There is no persuasive evidence it will be worse as the planet warms. Indeed, life thrives when the planet is warmer and as it warms. As IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 6 admits, more carbon was tied up in the biosphere when the planets was warmer - i.e. life thrives when warmer.

The models cannot predict regional variations - the uncertainty is enormous - as is widely acceptable.

Your arguments are repeated ad infinitum, but always by the same people with the same ideological objectives. So I don't find them persuasive. Clearly most other people don’t either and people are moving away from accepting the scaremongering in droves.

There are all sorts of problems with this Peter.

Firstly, as a geologist you would know the Holocene era has been characterised by very consistent climatic conditions ( geologically speaking ). But even within this timeframe regional cliamte variations have had catastrophic effects.

This era coincides with our agricultural success and we do not know if or how we can adapt agricultural practices to a significantly different climate. The published studies suggest that food security will be a problem with even modest temperature change ( 1 deg ) and clearly changing rainfall patterns can be even more disruptive.

You seem to believe that uncertainty in regional variation ( with current climate models presumably ) is somehow reassuring. Clearly it isn't. The fact that we don't necessarily know how regions will be impacted does nothing to allow us to plan adaptation.

Coal mining clearly does contribute to significant emissions, and the carbon budget described by Meinshaussen http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html ( Nature, 2009 ), Allen and others tells us that we can liberate approx 1 trillion tonnes CO2 to have a 75% chance of avoiding 2deg rise in global temps. Bob Brown really has nothing to do with this - other than providing a focus for your ideological bent - it is simply mathematics.

George Crisp said:

"But even within this timeframe regional cliamte variations have had catastrophic effects. "

Dead right:

Cold bad - warm good.

Cooling bad - warming good

Cold = Dark Ages, Little Ice Age, starvation, disease, famine, conflict

Warm = Roman Warm Period, Mediaval Warm Period, Current warm period = good times, people thrive, health and prosperity, love-ins, group hugs, Woodstock. :)

Peter. Even by your standards this argument

Cooling bad - warming good

is infantile.

Russian heatwave killed 11,000 people
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-18/russian-heatwave-killed-11000-people/2265184

Economists fear Thailand's most severe floods in decades may cost the country $5 billion and reduce its gross domestic product by about one percent.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Thai-PM-Says-Bangkok-Largely-Safe-From-Flooding-131848618.html

The 2003 European heat wave was the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[1] France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in Southern Europe. More than 40,000 Europeans died as a result of the heat wave.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

So Peter will you, I wonder, therefore desist from commenting on climate change, an area well outside your area of "expertise' ?

But your criticism is unprovoked and entirely misplaced. Prof Glikson is commenting on climate change as an academic and geologist and it is well within this scope to discuss the causes of atmospheric change ( which in any event are well documented and entirely accepted by the scientific community ).

No, George Crisp, I won’t.

The reason I wont is that I've been involved in policy on this since 1991 and I've been involved in low emissions electricity generation plants (in the real world) virtually all my life (since I first stood on the coffer dam at Guthega dam when they opened the diversion tunnel and then inside the headrace tunnel when it had been excavated about 30 metres and looking at diamond drill cores at the age of about 8 years old.

Also given my background as a geologist (in the real world), I believe I have a perspective on time scales that are quite different to most climate scientists – a perspective of time, the past climatic changes and evolution of the atmosphere that most other climate scientists do not have.

Andrew Glikson is also a geologist, but he has been an impassioned socialist and extremist Left wingers all his life, so I believe he is incapable of being objective. I believe his science is more like religion than science. So I do not find him credible. His completely irrational outbursts about nuclear power are convincing evidence that he is inherently an alarmist and not capable of objective analysis. That of course is just my personal opinion.

Your response and anecdotes also suggest an "impassioned" viewpoint, soyou are rather "hoisted by your own petard".

Does your ideological viewpoint make you a more credible source than Prof Glikson ? Does a fervent nuclear advocate have a more objective standpoint on climate action? Your arguments are rather inconsistent if not contradictory, perhaps irrational.

As a geologist, you should know full well that the IPCC (and peak bodies that have summarised climate science eg Royal Society, Aus Acadeny of Science etc ) have indeed assessed and included paleo climate data. It is of course a integral to the evidence for AGW. So why is your perspective superior to everyone elses?

Peter Lang only has one argument.

"Andrew Glikson is also a geologist, but he has been an impassioned socialist and extremist Left wingers all his life."

On this site, he has labelled everyone from Ross Garnaut and on as a left-winger. Peter prefers looking for reds under his bed - that way he does not have to confront the science or the scientific evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Here we go again, misrepresenting what I've said.
"Does a fervent nuclear advocate".
I've cleared this one up ad nauseam.

My advocacy is for economically rational solutions. Prioritise problems and risks for attention and use our sources (including research capacity) in the optimum way to address all problems and risks - not just the one (CAGW) that the alarmists and ideologues want to focus on at the moment. When CAGW blows over we'll be o to another scaremongering adventure.

My advocacy is for no regrets policies. Therefore, if you want emissions reductions the way to achieve that is with mostly low cost nuclear. But if you won't allow nuclear to be low cost - as the anti-nuclear activists have been ensuring for 50 years - then we should stick with fossil fuels until the anti-nukes are convinced to change their beliefs.

My advocacy is for economically rational, not nuclear. But if you want low emissions, then the way to do it is with nuclear - but only if you allow it to be low cost.

Andrew Glikson

“In other words, it is the rate of change more than the absolute levels of change which matter. “

The goal posts keep changing. If this is what you are concerned about why hasn’t that been the primary argument all along?

Continually changing the goal posts, as has been done from the start, together with misrepresentations and dishonesty in taking a “the end justifies the means” approach, has severely discredits climate science and climate scientists.

If you are now saying that the rat of warming is the issue, then you need to explain why local rapid warming (which is what life responds to) has been great for life. Life flourished each time Greenland warmed rapidly for example. The Great Barrier Reef thrived as the planet recovered from the last glaciation.

It strains credulity to argue that the planet is at the perfect temperature for life just when we happen to be living on it. It seems naive and arrogant.

As I’ve pointed out to you on other threads you cannot compare rates of change over 30 years with rates of change over millennia. So your rates of change comparisons are total nonsense.

Andrew Glikson,

You say "Where it comes to science-based discussions, it is essential to "play the ball, not the man""

But, as pointed out on many of your previous threads, you don't play by this rule. You continually disparage those who do not accept your beliefs. For example, you continually screech "Denier" all over the web sites. Most other Alarmists do the same. So its too late to try to stop people who are totally un biased, objective, and in the dead centre of the political spectrum - like me - to stop calling people like you: Alarmists, exaggerators, scaremongers, catastrophists and anti-nuke zealots.

So how do "Allow nuclear to be low cost" ?? !! What a ridiculous assertion. The fact is that nuclear power is expensive due to its inherent safety and waste issues. The full costs are externalised thrugh various mechanisms ( eg loan garuantees and state insurance etc ).

If we included these costs we could "allow nuclear to be high cost".

And as for "no regrets" and "economic rationalism" how can large scale Nuclear with its fundamental economic, waste and safety flaws fir these descriptions

George: Peter Lang and I are on opposite sides of the climate change "debate" but pretty much in agreement about nuclear. What are the safety issues? Do you travel by plane? There are over a thousands aircraft deaths every year. Has anybody died at Fukushima from radiation? No. It it likely that even a single cancer will be caused? No. The latter isn't my opinion but expert calculation:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gale-fukushima-20120311,0,945227.story

With newer reactors such as are being built now by both the Chinese and the Indians and similar to one which the US ran for 3 decades, waste can be a fuel, not a problem. I was fervently anti-nuclear until the prospects of climate change and the choice of mitigation technologies forced me to spend a few months reading and getting upto speed. I realised I'd be scammed on the safety issues and much else. George Monbiot has similarly changed sides. I urge you to consider the issue rationally, consider the total failure of renewables in Germany and everywhere else to scale to the level relevant to the problem.

Until and unless Peter Lang understands the following fairly straightforward climate science, his commentary regarding political beliefs of others remain confabulation.

1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

4. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature.

5. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.

6. Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

7. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorbed in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

8. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

9. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

These pages are not the venue for speculation on Peter's own psychological functioning.

How illuminating !! Who woul,d have guessed?

Peter, your challenge to the Beyond Zero Emissions has been of great value in terms of informing the debate on what we should do about climate change.

On the other hand, you continued Denial that climate change is an issue that must be addressed is no more than unthinking churlishness.

The simplest no regrets policy is to abolish all taxes, also all subsidies and rebates, and replace them, tax dollar for tax dollar, with a tax on fossil fuel consumption.

It would be rather along the line of the consumption tax proposed by Geoff Carmody, with a border adjustment carbon tax on imports to include the fossil fuel used to transport them to Australia, and "zero-rating" of exports as is presently done under the GST.

The Government would be taking no more tax revenue out of the productive economy than as at present, exports would not be harmed and full carbon cost of imports would be paid.

Oh, and forget about the Clean Energy Futures package; we have something about which we agree.

Boring. You complain about repetition yet post the same nonsense on almost every thread you infect, despite having had your beliefs shown as silly every time you post them.

Hi Geoff,
Not sure this is the right place for nuclear debate - and there are better things to do on a Friday afternoon! Firstly I am not ideologically opposed to Nuclear power at all, I used to be in favour of nuc power.

Briefly - if nuclear is so safe, why do countiries with reacors ( eg UK ) have their own special "secret" police to monange them. We can't manage long lived radioactive waste. Why is there an agreement between WHO and IAEA that does not allow publication of health data without IAEA s prior consent..

I think you are mistaken about the health effects of radiation. I would suggest you review the consensus (as stated in BIER VII and by the peak health bodies) that consider there is a "linear, no safe threshold" response to ionising radiation.

Whilst there have been some animal experiments that suggest low level radiation may be safe, the weight of evidence supports a linear relationship with no safe limit.

You are in danger making the same argument that was made against smoking, ie that you cannot prove causation by exposure for diseases that also occur in the absence of that exposure. The answer is, that on a case by case basis it may not be possibleto attribute cause, but large epidemiological studies determine this.

We may not know for some time what the health imapcts of Fukuyshima are, but hopefully Japan's documentation and reporting will be far suprior to the former USSR states, and we will find out.

Proponents state that new nuclear "can" .. reduce / avoid waste, be safe, avoid proliferation etc but we are still waiting, there is always a design that will be the answer.

Promises, promises... I don't believe we have time to wait for a nuclear solution. We need to reduce emissions now.

“On the other hand, you continued Denial that climate change is an issue that must be addressed is no more than unthinking churlishness.”

Your personal opinion based on your ideology and your beliefs.

I am not persuaded. But no point in repeating your standard nonsense, I’ve been involved in this for much longer than you, so I’ve seen what you keep parroting more than enough times. It’s just plain boring now, especially when it keeps being sprouted by the same old ideological zealots.

By the way, Andrew Glikson says he wants sceptics to play the man not the ball. Pity the Alarmists don’t take notice and set an example. After all, they are the shrillest by far – with continual shrieks of “denier” as you like to use so often.

Leaving aside your continued ill-natured perpetuation of the self-serving misrepresentations of billionaire fools, your response to this specific proposal is?

More ideological tripe - same as waht's behind all your beliefs. "Rich are evil. Business is evil." Oh yea. Where do you think your salary comes from, out of an ATM?

The link I gave is to an estimate in accordance with LNT. For the workers the life time risk has gone from 42% to 42.2%. ie., most likely no cancers. Adding meat to the Japanese diet has taken bowel cancer from a minor disease to over 100,000 new cases every year. Which
is safer red meat or nuclear? No contest.

Nuclear can supply large amounts of power very safely and I agree we can't afford to wait. In France they built 100 TWh of nuclear in 10 years between 1970 and 80. In the next decade they built 100 TWh.

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf

What has Germany done in past 15 years with Solar PV?

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DEELEC.pdf

Not even 50 TWh. Promises, promises. Why bet the planet on promises when we have a proven technology which works.

Such comments are foolish, but common amongst the alarmists, catastrophists, extremists, CAGW activists.

Why don't you just argue we should tell the Chinese they may as well come and take Australia now.

You cannot tell buyers they cannot have something. They will get it elsewhere or come and take it - as Japan was forced to do to ensure its oil supplies would not be blocked by UK and USA in the second world war.

You cannot stop people having energy. It is one of the most critical inputs for modern society. We cannot live without it.

And you cannot breach international trade rules. So you cannot impose trade restrictions.

The correct solution is an economically efficient ETS on the CO2-eq embodied in the products and services we buy. That requires a consumption tax on embodied CO2-eq. We’d need a separate account system as complicated a the one we have for money – that has taken thousands of years to develop and mature to the stage it is at now. But we have to apply it to trading a substance we cannot measure accurately enough for trade and never will be able to.

The compliance cost for any CO2 tax or ETS will be absolutely enormous and will grow over a rapid rate over time, far outstripping economic growth and wages growth. It will reduce productivity.

There is a much better way. Remove the impediments to low cost nuclear power. Allow nuclear plants to be cheaper than coal. Allow small plants to be built like Boeing and Airbus aircraft on production lines and shipped to buyers wherever they want them.

The Hyperion is an example of the sort of thing I mean. See picture here. It runs for about 10 years on a fuel load then is replaced with another, returned to the factory, and returned or sent to someone else. You can put many of them together so you might have four or ten lines up so that there is always power on demand. They automatically respond to the demand for electricity.
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hyperion-to-build-nuclear-pod-at-doe-test-site/

Andrew Glikson,

You say "Where it comes to science-based discussions, it is essential to "play the ball, not the man""

But, as pointed out on many of your previous threads, you don't play by this rule. You continually disparage those who do not accept your beliefs. For example, you continually screech "Denier" all over the web sites. Most other Alarmists do the same. So its too late to try to stop people who are totally un biased, objective, and in the dead centre of the political spectrum - like me - to stop calling people like you: Alarmists, exaggerators, scaremongers, catastrophists and anti-nuke zealots.

In this discussion thread to date, the word "denier" has been mentioned 4 times - all 4 times by Peter Lang.

(It is now 5 because of my reference - and yes I expanded all the "see full comment" before doing a page search)

Meantime the word "alarmist" has been used 28 times - 24 times by Peter Lang and 4 times by other commenters observing Lang's use of the word "alarmist".

So much for playing the ball.

"Denialism",

There it is again. Funny that,eh. Used by Alarmists all the time, but not a word from Andrew Glikson or any of the other Alarmists to discourage their own ilk from "playing the man rather than the ball".

How pathetically hypocritical the Alarmists are.

And yet, we see the ice right at the 1979-2006 average, today.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Byron Smith said:

"Compare the "burning embers" diagram of IPCC TAR with the updated version a couple of years ago: ..."

Of course, you are referring to one of the parts of IPCC TAR and AR4 that were written, reviewed, edited, checked and approved by WWF, Greenpeace, and FOE, right?

By the way, your usual attempt to dismiss what doesn't suit your beliefs has been revealed once again. Tol is being quoted by Nordhaus as THE authority on cost benefit and the paper quoted abovce is one referring to the work underpinnign the AR5. You show your bias every time you write something.

I found NASA aerosol forcing data and an associated time series plot of aerosol forcing. It shows that aerosol forcing is becoming less significant this decade i.e. it is brightening not dimming. James Hansen would appear to be debunked in terms of the aerosol masking theory.

http://www-cave.larc.nasa.gov/cave/plots/ts.65299.00.jpg

Thanks James. Smith et al, "Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 1850–2005", Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1101–1116, 2011
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/
doi:10.5194/acp-11-1101-2011 surveyed data only to 2005.

The US SO2 emission profile declined since ~1970, the Chinese emission profile increased strongly over the same period other than a sharp decline in the period 1995-2000. Globally, emissions peaked ~1985, then declined to ~1998, stayed ~level for a couple of years then resumed a strong upward trend.

The data series you cite does not seem to be a "debunking" of anything, since it appears to be a aggregation of a lot of factors.

Would you be so good as to advise what the plotted data actually represents?
What does "ARM/SGP E13: SW Dn Sfc Aer Forcing(All Sky)" mean?

ARM = Aerosol Radiological Meteorology
SGP = Surface Group
Short Wave Down = SW Dn
Sfc = measured at the earths surface
Aer Forcing= Aerosol Forcing
All Sky = all days (cloudy or clear)

The E13 was a single site

All sites plot here shows same trend to less aersol effects with passing of time.

http://www-cave.larc.nasa.gov/cave/plots/ts.4616.00.jpg

What data is hansen using that shows aersols are masking incoming SW radiation increasing CO2 warming?

Andrew, the link to updated aerosol history you gave is to "stratospheric optical depth" changes due to upper atmosphere aerosols. Man made emissions of aerosols are primarily lower troposhphere emissions. Hence I gave you the link to NASA surface measured aerosol forcing which takes into account solar insolation at top of atmosphere and man made and volcanic aerosols at all altitudes and shows that aerosol dimming in the lower troposphere this decade appears to be a myth/furphy. PS the link to Hansens paper is producing a 404 error - object not found as at 9:35pm Sunday WA time

Good points, James. Nevertheless, North Asia is under a substantial sunshade due primarily to Chinese sulfur emissions. To date, these are increasing.

E13 is a single site? It wouldn't be in, or near, the USA would it?

In that case, any apparent decline in solar dimming due to sulfate aerosols follows from decreases in US SO2 emissions. As I've stated elsewhere, the worldwide trend is increasing SO2 emissions, so that what you're reporting is a local effect only.

That is, it is a debunking of nothing.

David, one could understand enhanced local cooling effects around major manufacturing sites in China, but are these aerosol emissions in the lower troposphere subsequently being distributed globally and resulting in global dimming masking global CO2 warming? As per the NASA Aerosol forcing plot for all global sites it would appear that aerosols (from all sources) are having a reduced effect not an increasing effect so it would appear east asian aerosol emissions are not being distributed globally. Temperature is bouncing around a plateau line around +0.5 above the 1961 to 1990 GISTEMP baseline. Aerosol masking theory as an explanation of the recent lack of further warming would appear to be dead end.

Thanks James. there are, of course, numerous factors that may account for the recent slowing in lower troposphere warming, including the following.

1. Sunlight-reflecting aerosols.

2. Ocean absorbtion of retained heat - once the troposphere starts warming, additional heat is then transferred to the oceans, as well as increased retention by the ocean of insolation that penetrates the ocean surface.

3. Phase change - ice => water,

4. Phase change - increased water evaporation (the latter factor also facilitates heat transfer through the lower troposphere up to where water vapour condenses, but is only partial compensation for warming due to increased greenhouse gases).

5. Decadal and longer fluctuations in ocean currents. For example, the start of this last decade was an El Nino period (elevated surface air temperatures), whereas the end of the decade is a La Nina period (generally lower surface air temperatures).

It is erroneous to think that slowed rate of global average air temperature shows slowed warming. Oceans and icecaps are continuing to absorb heat, so that the overall rate of thermal energy accumulation is undiminished.

David, The slowed rate of change of temperature of the atmosphere is the definition of slowed atmospheric warming but I take your point that the change in heat content of the planet is not just the atmosphere. How do you explain that heat content of ocean and icecaps can increase without the heat content of the atmosphere increasing given that mankinds CO2 emissions are into the atmosphere and observed to be increasing at 2ppm per annum?

The issue is that atmosphere and oceans heat at different rates.

Ocean heat capacity (J/K) is the product of seawater specific heat capacity (J/kg/K) and mass of ocean (kg). Similarly, atmosphere heat capacity (J/K) is the product of the specific heat capacity of air (which may or may not be humid; J/kg/K) and mass of the atmosphere (kg).

Ocean heat capacity is about 5000 times atmosphere heat capacity, so that ocean average temperature will track atmosphere average temperature provided the heat transfer rate into the ocean (J/s) is 5000 times the rate of heat transfer into the atmosphere.

David,

if the oceans are warming and the atmosphere is not warming then this is very interesting for the theory of atmospheric CO2 being the primary driver of warming of the planet. We have to be careful to look at appropriate time scales of course... If we don't see atmospheric warming on a 30 year time scale when CO2 increases 60ppm I think we could say that the models parameters for CO2 sensitivity will need some adjustment. I think we are just over 30% of the way to that point but it all could change in the near future. We live in interesting times.

So you think every measure of "value" can be converted into monetary terms ?

We put a nominal price on life - but every sane person knows there is no satisfactory real price. How much do we "value" a species ? Or a forest or clean air or uncontaminated water.

Yes we do cost-benefit analyses to try to capture or reflect costs, but they can only ever be a guide when considering the things that are of real value. Like the natural world.

There is no price for these things. On the contrary, it is our "money" system that is defective, as it is the height of hubris to believe that our "economy" is the "real world" when it is merely a rudimentary and flawed trading system for goods and services.

George Crisp,

If we can't value we can't make decision as to where we should invest. Therefore, we have to place a value on life and on the other assets you mention (as Tol has done). Otherwise we are left with making value judgements - something the Left love to do using their moral code. However, many find the Left's moral code repugnant because it causes so much hardship and fatalities for so many humans - something the Left cannot understand because they simply do not understand money, business and finance and how these control everything we have and all the good we can do. So it is pretty well pointless talking about anything important with Left ideologues.

Peter, do you really not get this ?

Perhaps your neo-liberal world view is so skewed that you cannot recognise the fallacy of viewing the world in purely economic terms..

You the paragon of "someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

Every comment or critique to you appears to be met by a barrage of insulting derogatory ideologically driven drivel. I wonder why you bother.

"The value of a life is 200 times average weekly earnings. On that basis an Australian life is valued at $16 million." Really?

Getting rid of lots of taxes and replaces them with a fossil carbon consumption tax is just such a no regrets policy, because all it does is extract taxation revenue from the productive economy in a different way.

I notice that you still haven't commented on my outline of what sensible climate policy for Australia would look like, other than the usual stream of invective and smear. I assume the absence of a relevant and coherent response is the Lang way of saying "congratulations, that is a jolly good idea, well done"?

Sorry, my mistake. Tol (2011) states: "The value of a statistical life is set to be 200 times the annual per capita income."

Australian average weekly earnings = $1,330 pw http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0

Average annual earnings = $66,500
x 200
= $13 million

Now you are lying again. You know full well the reason I am not bothering to respond to this nonsense is because it has been put to bed repeatedly on other posts and now it is just boring, repetiitve and silly.

You complain about others being repetitive, you are incessantly repetitive.

Makes more sense, but Peter the fact remains that CO2 has no understanding of politics, yearly earnings, GDP, statistics or ideologies. Nor do the natural systems changing at empirically observed rates. Science and economics are complete strangers. Economics and politics know compromise and rationale, natural systems will not and cannot understand either. In economics and politics we can negotiate and reach compromise. We can't negotiate with nature. (You could probably try with your all knowing mind)
The fact your replies to sincere posts CONSTANTLY revolve around the same irrelevant non scientific points is confirmation you have bought the snake oil being espoused by the MSM, special interest groups and by direct extension most sides of politics. And has someone who so strongly disagrees with the polarising nature of politics that I just write exactly that in capitals on my ballot paper and nothing else, don't bother with any of the insults you reserve for other people you barely know and judge in the most condescending and wildly inaccurate way.

Mr Lang, your claim that I am lying is defamatory. I nevertheless choose to respond to that claim publicly, rather than request that it be removed from the site. My reason for this action is that I consider it important that others observe the extent to which your reasoning is distorted by the combination of your own ignorance and your cartoonish political views.

In short, your views are ridiculous.

The proposition that my proposals have been "put to bed" on other posts is untrue. The only responses that I have seen from you to my proposals are invective, smear and non-comprehension.

Oh, and someone has had them removed from this webpage; I assume that is your endeavour to suppress sensible discussion.

Your vitreol never ceases does it? Not just to me and not just on this nthread. It is all over the web and directed at anyone who does not accept your beliefs.

No, I did not ask for any comments to be deleted. It's the loony left that are continually asking for censorship, for shut doen of views that conflict with theirs, and to shut down anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs. The evidence is in nearly all the loony left web sites and CAGW alarmist web sites.

Vitreal from loony left is considered normal and acceptable. Equivalent responses from those who do not accept the loony left's views is deleted.

David Artuur said:
"I assume the absence of a relevant and coherent response is the Lang way of saying "congratulations, that is a jolly good idea, well done"?"

That is the lie I refered to in my previous comments, that David Arthur has taken offence at (there was also the lie he later admitted about his denial of defending Juil Gillard's lie). He knows it is an out and out lie because he knows full well why I am not responding to his silly ideas. And the reason he knows is because he has repeated the same silly nonsense on about a dozen previous posts on other threads. Initially I responded and told him why his ideas are nonsense. But there is no point in responding again because David Arthur just keep on repeating over and over again his silly ideas.

Mr Lang, I've based my proposals on the fact that AGW is real, and requires that we cease using fossil fuels. The only argument that I've been able to discern against this is that the fact that AGW is real is 'Leftist', whatever that is.

The only argument against my proposals to address AGW seems to be that my proposals are 'Leftist', whatever that is. Have I missed something?

With respect, Mr Lang, please repeat why my proposals are nonsense, because I am unable to discern coherence from your comments on other 'The Conversation' pages.

David Arthur,

Since you think very little of me, and I think very little of you, I'd suggest there is no point in addressing your comments to me.

Your repetitive comments about Geoff Carmody and CO2 tax have been dealt with before so there is no point in going through that again. Send your sugestions to Guliar Gillard.

I ask you to not address any more of your comments to me. Send them to someone who is as ideologically bound to your beliefs as you are.