I have been thinkong and statements such as this:

"Climate change varies from place to place too. Rainfall will rise in one place and drop in another. Around Australia temperatures and seas are rising at varying rates."
Certainly make me think. Australia is an island surrounded by oceans that are all linked together. A body of water, no matter how large, by it's nature, will level itself out over time. How is it possible for oceans to be "rising at various rates"? Surely the rise must level out over time or am I just being a strawman?
"Climate change varies from place to place too" seems a little bit off, if this is really an atmospheric change because the atmosphere flows and mixes, much the same as water and gases dissipate, especially when they are a fairly low percentage gas such as CO2. If the hated gas is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere and the same sun shines on all of us, surely there should be some sort of equanimity throughout the global system? Or are we just discussing localised events such as urban heat traps? I think there's some poor wording going on here.
Am I missing some of the complexity somehow? Am I being a strawman by asking questions?

Ian,

"body of water, no matter how large, by it's nature, will level itself out over time. "

If the body is not being effected by any other forces, then yes. But the worlds oceans are not like this. If you would like to no more you could do worse than start here:

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

"the hated gas is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere and the same sun shines on all of us, surely there should be some sort of equanimity throughout the global system?"

But this is belied by the fact that we already have, and have had throughout the earths history, existing climatic variation from location to location (and that other thing called weather). The earths climate system is not uniform, increased CO2 will not make it more uniform. It is not a closed system.

"Am I being a strawman by asking questions?"

No. A strawman describes a type of argument, not the individual who proposes it.

I've just read some genuine questions about climate change on The Conversation.

What an amazing blast of fresh air after the endless denier vs science discussions on other articles.

If there were a way to down-vote trolls I think that Ian Donald Lowe's post would NOT be down-voted. Genuine questions should be welcomed by all, and for those who can answer the questions it is worth writing a reply because the questioner is wanting to learn.

To me there is a huge difference between the claims made by the deniers (which are often strawmen) and Ian asking a sensible question.

So Ian, assuming that you are learning from the replies, you are not being a strawman.

PS - I wonder why the regular deniers are not present in this thread?

Ian Lowe

"Am I missing some of the complexity somehow? Am I being a strawman by asking questions? "

See my earlier comment.

Ian

"Am I missing some of the complexity here?"

Yes, Ian, loads of it.

This video by Prof Jerry Mitrovica is a much watch if you want some inderstanding of Sea Level. The sound quality isn't always great - Jerry tends to wander away from the microphone. But he is one of the world experts on the subject.

Simple, gob-smacking take away from the talk - if the Greenland Ice Sheet completely melted, global average sea levels would rise 5-6metres. But around the coast of Greenland itself, sea level would FALL by around 100 meters. When you understand why, you are starting to get an understanding of sea level.

Basic point. Sea Level ain't level. Not even remotely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w&feature=player_embedded

Thanks @MichaelEMann for pointing out @skepticscience already exists!

"If ocean level rises are not uniform on a global scale, are they really ocean level rises or are they just temporary localised events?"

If the average global sea level is rising, then no, you would not call them temporary local events.

The fact that there is variability in the rate of change at different locations speaks to the tactic of arguing that because the Sea level has only risen by X at any given point, then we other meausres are doubtful. i.e., Drawing a generalisation from a particular - cherry picking data.

Global absloute sea level is rising. Local variability does not change that fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

"but surely, climate change caused by CO2 emmissions is the same, no matter what form it takes, worldwide?"

The underlying "greenhouse" mechanism of gasses such as Methane and carbon dioxide is the same globally. But if you are familiar with the complexity of the system, why do you believe that climate change would be expressed uniformly across that system?

If the initial conditions are not the same, then the effect of he same agent will be different.

Take a car travelling at 40 kph compared to one travelling at 100 kph. Depressing the throttle to 50% will result in a different amount of acceleartion in both instances. Or, one car is on level surface, the other travelling up an incline. In one instance depressing the throttle results in acceleration, in the other the same amount of throttle may not be sufficient to maintain speed.

The same mechanism. Same degree. different results due to different initial conditions.

"this article seems fairly simplistic and has the awkward facts and complexity removed as well."

The role of this article is not to disseminate the complete picture on climate change. It is to help people to identify disingenous arguments based on selective and deliberate misuse of data, or limited understanding of the nature of the subject matter.

How can science possibly measure something if there are lots of factors involved? By using science Ian.

This is why good science takes into account many factors to determine what is having an effect rather than just taking a measurement and saying "look, God did it."

Ian

Sea level is complex. Really complex. the first point is that sea level isn'tlevel. Not even remotely. Oceanographers refer to that simple idea as the 'bathtub model'.

Gravitational attraction isn't just about the moon andtides. Sea level is significantly higher near the continents due to the gravitational attraction of the mass of the continent. And Ice sheets on top of a continent increase that attraction. If the Greenland ice sheet totally melted, average sea levels around the world would rise by around 5-6metres. But on the coast of Greenland, sea level would fall by around 100 meters. Even as far away as Scotland the net effect would be a slight fall.

Sea level relative to a point on the land can vary due to the land at that location rising or falling. Isostatic rebound is one factor, but even being on land near a subduction zone can mean the land might be rising or falling.

Next factor is the Earth's rotation. Water nearer the equator tends to bulge out due to the Earth's rotation. Oceanographers have even used estimates of how much the Earth's speed off rotation has varied over time, based on ancient records of when eclipses occurred, to estimate past ice levels at the poles by the effect that had on the mass of water at the equator, and thus the rotation rate.

Next there are local height differences due to local phenomena. Warmer water below causes a slight swelling of the level above,and this can have a seasonal component to it. Ocean currents can cause raised and lowered regions - currents moving in a circulating pattern for example tend to cause a swelling in the center of the circulation. Oceanographers actually use observations of regional height differences to map out ocean currents. And another local phenomena that can confuse readings based on tide gauges; if the gauge is near a city that is pumping groundwater this can cause subsidense that distorts the result.

So far these factors are fairly static, or varying very slowly, no faster than seasonally.

Next we need to add faster moving phenomena - The weather. In regions where there are High pressure systems, the greater air pressure pushes the sea level down. In Low pressure regions it is higher. This is why, when you look at sea level graphs fromplaces like the University of Colorado, they willhave 2 versions of the graph, with and without 'inverse barometer applied'. Inverse barometer means you take weather observations of air pressure as well as sea levels and apply a correction to remove the pressure variation effect.

Then finally you need to allow for the normal daily tidal variations.

This is why satellites are used to measure sea level. They are sampling all the time, over all of the globe. And they have a common reference point,their orbit, that isn't affected by local geological changes in the way tide gauges are. Then you can apply corrections such as the inverse barometer.But primarily, because you are measuring the entire planet, not just a few fixed locations, variations fromplace toplace largely cancelout - if it is higher here, it will be lower somewhere else. So if we then look at how the average changes over time we can get a reasonable reading of the long term trends

It is exactly because we use methods that average out the entire planet that we can get a good reading.

And to return to the topic of the post, one argument 'skeptics' like Bob Carter use is to point out that there is evidence from the coast of Greenland of sea levels there several meters higher 1000's of years ago as if this refutes the idea that GLOBAL sea levels are higher now.

But that ignores Isostatic rebound - Greenland is rising, and it ignorres the fact that a with more ice on itin the past, sea levels around Greenland would be higher, not lower.

Oceanographers don't just take old tide gauge readings at face value. They look at the local factors around the gauge. And they look at the types of processes at work in determining seal levels to ask the what if questions; what if ice quantities here were this much higher/lower? What wouldthe effect on a tide gauge somewhere else actually be? Tide gauges are used to decipher what the different sources of sea level rise/fall were in the past.

But not for the practitioners of Strawman Science.For them the raw tide gauge reading is all you need to look at in their woefully simplistic view of Science.

So what is the average depth of the ocean?
Just as a guess lets say it is 1000 meters. What you asking is that a complex system that has a variation of 0.01% over 30 years can be reliably extrapolated for centuries. Let alone the potential for scientists to consciously or unconsciously bias the algorithms they use to create their "global" figure.

The body of water contained in the oceans is massive, it is pointless to demand that unless the variation of the oceans is absolutely zero we are in a situation of catastrophe.

Clearly a PhD in astrophysics does not include training in logic, but must include training in obfuscations.

It is not a logical fallacy to use a clearly flagged back of the envelop calculation - I welcome a precise figure for the average ocean depth - nor did I suggest anywhere that it was too hard. Although the concepts I raised do appear to have overwhelmed Dr Brown's intellect.
.

Yet again, The Conversation, which aims to promote "evidence-based research" is acting as a platform for promoting climate change denial.

Why can't the readers be given the option to down-vote people like Sean Lamb so that his comments are not shown (unless readers click a link to show it) so that the majority of readers can get on with rational debate?

If The Conversation wish to give a platform to right-wing loonies (some of who I suspect are paid to disrupt) then these conversations are a waste of time.

Mr Wilbur-Ham,
I am certainly open to higher offers.

It is interesting to read all the comments, whether evidenced based or not, as it shows The Conversation has a broad spectrum. Straw man is an approach than can be useful and the degree of argument does provide justification for climate research.

MWH, there is some irony that the level of denial you are disappointed with might actually be helping build argument for science funding. And without discussion, researchers are unable to see gaps whether in research or communication. Science is rarely able to gain consensus.

Michael, you are clearly incorrect. Sean has done his calculations to show you can't measure oceans, he doesn't know, therefore aliens.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens

" It is assuming back of the envelope calculations can prove that something cannot be done."
Errr, no. My point was that we should very small changes in measuring large complex systems. It would be ridiculous to expect absolutely no variation in sea levels and there is no evidence to show that the observed variation is out of the ordinary.

" For example, that sea level rise cannot be estimated (albeit with considerable uncertainties) for the next 30-years. "
You can predict all you like, that doesn't mean your predictions have any validity. What you seem to be suggesting you can extrapolate that line for the next 30 years, you present it at the level of assertion only.

The "impact" doesn't seem to be as great as was predicted at this stage.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/coral-islands-left-high-and-dry/story-e6frg6z6-1225878132101

I couldn't help but notice that Sean (shorn) Lamb is signed in through a Facebook account with only one "friend". It's likely that the whole purpose of the account is simply to be a nuisance, so it would probably be best to simply not engage.

Good read though, Michael.

@ Stephen McCormick - We all know that some major companies and some of our very rich put large amounts of money into promoting a right-wing agenda. As well as expensive Canberra and state lobbyists, they fund organisations such as the IPA and much more.

My suspicion that some of the regular looney-right posts here are part of an organised campaign has not got much support. Yet when we think about how much money is put into promoting right-wing views it is hard to believe that they would ignore the internet and forums such as this. And employing just a few people (who probably use many different names) is one of the cheapest ways to influence public opinion (incredibly cheap compared to a professional advertising campaign).

How would things look if there was an organised campaign to push right-wing views?

I think it would look exactly like what we see now. Not proof. But highly suspicious.

It is often quoted that for a phenomenon to be universally accepted, it must not only be accepted by the discipline from which the phenomenon is discovered, but for disciplines that are related, those that are affected, and those which use similar tools. This is why we call those places universities. Climate science uses statistics. Would you call a straw man the problem in the scientific community of statisticians of how to adequately define the concept of climate? Before we make probabilistic statements it is necessary to define your subject:

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2012/stephenson.pdf
Environmetrics June 2012
(no paywall)

Another problem highlighted by this article is the treatment of uncertainty. Uncertainty regarding future events is no straw man.

Lord Kelvin was convinced Charles Darwin was wrong, just had to be...

Yet again The Conversation publishes rubbish like the above without anyway for educated, rational thinkers to down-vote this rubbish.

The Conversation isn't one sided - it is platform for deniers to post non-science.

I am really replying to Michael Wilbur Ham, who really just seems to be a pusher of left wing rhetoric. Perhaps people who describe themselves as "writer" rely on Arts grants for their income --- I wouldn't really know. My name sake (Michael W H) posts the following:-

"Yet again The Conversation publishes rubbish like the above without anyway for educated, rational thinkers to down-vote this rubbish.

The Conversation isn't one sided - it is platform for deniers to post non-science."

I am not a scientist, but I really enjoyed the article we are commenting on --- but for Mr Wilbur Ham to dismiss anybody who does not share his total view of climate science in the arrogant way he always does, does no credit to him! If nobody who disagrees with Mr Wilbur Ham is allowed on this site --- then how can we have a CONVERSATION?

All you would end up with is a bunch of sycophants in a circle all patting each other on the back!

@ Mike Butler Snr - Interesting response.

Saying that I'm a "pusher of left wing rhetoric" shows that he thinks this is about politics. I'm criticising The Conversation for promoting non-science and irrationality. As far as I'm concerned this is non-political.

Then the line "Perhaps people who describe themselves as "writer" rely on Arts grants for their income." An attempt to imply that 'left views' are funded to counter my point that I'm pretty certain tht many poster's here are funded by right-wing lobbyists.

And I'm very happy for The Conversation to have places where people can debate whether climate change is true or not.

What is a waste of time is every conversation about climate change being hijacked by the deniers so that any sensible discussion is lost. I think that there should be places where non-science is off topic and deleted to enable the majority of readers to have a conversation without the usual few (probably organised) deniers wasting every bodies time.

Mike Butler Snr: "Michael Wilbur Ham, who really just seems to be a pusher of left wing rhetoric"

Exactly, he's part of a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine as detailed here: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0#

Amazing responses from MWH and Chris O'Neill. What is it about being a telecommunications engineer or an ex-telecommunicatons engineer that makes them think they know all about climate change and that I might be some sort of Tea Party troll. (Sorry, guys, I did verbal you then, but you get the drift!)

For many years, I have subscribed to (and been a regular contributor to) Alternet (the most left wing website around), and am also a subscriber to The Nation. Unlike some of the contributors to this page, I keep a very open mind. Perhaps it comes from living (so far) for 66 years and being reasonably intelligent! Over my 66 years, I have met many people like MWH. So, so, sure of their facts and positions --- but ultimately to suffer the ignominy of their certainty dissolving in the face of further evidence. Never ever be sure you are so right you can dismiss all opposing views! It can be a recipe for lots of googie-egg on your face

Right on Geoffrey.
Lots of other examples of believers evading the issue, but no straw men.

The pulling of an argument by Cox in this thread was shamelessly disgraceful.

..With what authority do the respondents to Conversations presume to judge the conclusions of others on this subject. Have they analysed any data or examined any models ?

I see no direct evidence of the CO2 forcing + feedback argument. There is some circumstantial evidence and lots of conjecture..

@ Mike Butler Snr - There is no certainty about the science of climate change.

But I am certain that if the science is to change it will have nothing to do with the deniers.

In years of reading posts by deniers I have yet to read anything that casts any rational doubt on the big picture of climate change. I've yet to read any rational explanation of the big social picture e.g. how have so many climate scientists got it wrong for so long? Are they ALL stupid? Is this just a giant conspiracy?

Post such as yours might appear rational. But really you are as foolish as someone who believe that Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny are real because no-one has proven that they are not.

Wrong on AlanJE (& Geoff) -- "I see no direct evidence of the CO2 forcing + feedback argument"

Kinda like that bus you didn't see because you weren't looking, eh?

If either of you actually studied the data and science before writing so naively, your words might carry weight.

Plenty of very clear references are available -- some presented here. The isotopic analyses of air & sea are irrefutable. The behavior of CO2 & other GHG molecules in air is irrefutable. The rise of the seas is irrefutable, both from ice-melt content and thermal expansion.

So playing chicken with IPCC reports, models & variations in air-temp data just exposes an unscientific, dishonest approach to the problem.being left to our descendents, with your help.

So either if you -- man up and let's see some arguments "ripped apart". C'mon, show some real science mates!

MBS says: "Perhaps it comes from living (so far) for 66 years and being reasonably intelligent! " -- only 66 years, Mike?
;]
Sounds like a Managing Director should have learned in that many years how to discuss, rather than how to label.

What's your iron in the combustion industry fire, Mike?

Mike Butler Snr: "am also a subscriber to The Nation."

In that case you should have some interest in the article I cited: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0#

What is your response to a question it contained?:

“To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?”

This is the attitude behind "Heartland" and most climate science denial activity.

"Never ever be sure you are so right you can dismiss all opposing views!"

Oh the irony. To put you in the picture, folks like those at the Heartland conference don't care if the science is right or wrong. Their view is that the costs of avoiding global warming ("socialist" action) will never be worth what benefit it may bring because it will put us at risk of being taken over by "socialist" governments and subjected to "global wealth redistribution".

If you don't believe me, read the article: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0#

Seemingly, unlike some of the contributors to this site, I have a business to run and employees to actually keep in a job --- so I can't spend all day logged in. It does bug me however when correspondents such as Alex Cannara can make statements like:

"Sounds like a Managing Director should have learned in that many years how to discuss, rather than how to label." --- and then goes on to LABEL me as some sort of plant from the "combustion industry".

"What's your iron in the combustion industry fire, Mike?"

Sorry to disappoint, but have never been near a coal mine in my life! Alex, I happen to be interested in the topic and the science of the topic, though I am not by training a scientist.

Why is it that my totally innocuous comments about MWH's certainties raises such vitriol in you?

My dear departed mother would have said,"Son, have a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down". For my American friends a "Bex" was a brand of analgesic popular in Australia in the Fifties and Sixties. Alex, the advice is still sound, and I am sure you can find a substitute for the Bex.

To MikeB: Since when is asking a quearion "vitriol"? Glad to hear you're not a combustion shill, as we have indeed had here before.

Supposedly it was Lenin who coined the term, although there is scant documentation for it.

You might have to work on your anecdote because I am not sure I am understanding it. Even when accepting that the "blood transfusion of death" is a typo.

Well, that's the first time Sean Lamb has been correct. Indeed, Blood transfusion OR death.

Sorry ...seems to me ..The ETS is another financial RORT.

"Is Communication the problem?"

Nope. This is the problem: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0# :

“To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?”

Thankyou Chis O'Niell for posting this....

"Nope. This is the problem: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0# :"

Seemed just more political rhetoric & didn't make much clear to me re "The Consensus" we keep hearing about on "The Scientific Facts"...

"Seemed just more political rhetoric & didn't make much clear to me"

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Chis says....."You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Do you mean to offend? I read a lot of things into that article and what it didn't say about who was behind ETS schemes & profits.

Why don't you make your point clear?

And Chris why doesn't someone table a list of this "Consensus" we keep hearing about the "The Scientific Facts"?

"The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well above the long-term average, they have fallen significantly since the record seen in 2010." Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times, 18-11-2012"

I guess Leake wouldn't put the word "statistically" in front of "significantly" or else his hypocrisy would become definitive. Leake is from the crowd who complained that the warming trend from 1997 to 2011 inclusive was "not statistically significant" meaning it was only 97.3% likely to not be caused by random variation. "Statistically significant" requires 97.5% likelihood.

Of course, the cooling trend since 2010 is nowhere near statistically significant, but that doesn't stop shameless hypocrites like Leake from calling it "significant".

When he says "we burn coal pretty cleanly..." he's talking about the US.

"Can the moderator please explain why a series of posts by Anthony Cox were removed from this site?"

Pretty simple really. Michael Brown had already pointed out some of the strawman arguments used by denialists. Further examples were superfluous.

@ Chris O'Neill

That's right. Publish your article at a sceptic hostile website. Shut out any dissenters. Avoid any scrutiny. And then you win the argument. Congratulations on your hollow victory!

I don't knpw why Anthony's comments were removed. I totally diasgree with the guy and what he said and would have commented on the posts he made before they were belatedly removed.

However, since lots of folks saw the comments via the email feed and they didn'tseem to breach comment policy guidelines, the reason for their removal is confusing.

A simple statement from the Moderators as to why they were removed would be enough - perhaps Anthony has had commenting priviledges revoked - I dunno.

The Mod's have the right and responsibility to control their site, but they should offer some sort of basic reason for the action - all part of the Conversation. The Conversation has responded to issues related to site layout etc. But this might the next area to tackle and improve.

Moderation: Fairness, consistancy, equity, transparency.

Moderating a blog is a hard gig - I am involved at SkepticalScience and appropriate moderation is one of our big, hard issues.Perhaps something as simple as a brief reason from the mod' when they remove something.

Hopefully Anthony has been supplied with an explanation for being edited out.

Mod's. A simple statement here would be appreciated

I missed this from Geoff: about a "sceptic hostile website".

Why are these self-described "skeptics" so sensitive? Why do they scurry to claim the victim mantle?

If they actually commanded facts and argued honestly, they might find all sorts of amenable folks around them.

@ Geoffrey Henley

Thank you for providing another example of a strawman argument.

Funny how none of these "skeptics" try to argue that the examples stated by Michael Brown aren't strawman arguments. Very telling.

"It probably broke one or more of the community rules outlined at..."

Try as I might, I can find nothing in any of Anthony Cox's posts that comes even close to contravening the community rules.

So it appears that no-one can provide any compelling reason why these posts were removed. What does it say about this site when it appears to not even follow its own rules?

Gerald - just look at the answers to the last time you asked this, and the time before, and the time before, and the time before, and the time before .....

Gerard.

Can we assume that you never fly anywhere? No domestic flight Sydney? No turbo-prop flights to Launceston perhaps.

And who is asking you to stop driving a car. Go get a nice prius and drive a car and produce fewer emissions.

More seriously Gerard, you endless repitition of this point has a common character to it: The comparison of the behaviour of one individual's actions against those of another.

Person X is burning JetA1 vs Person Y might be burning more petroleum or some such.

But you are totslly missing the point. This isn't about the actions of individuals - you, me, anyone. It is about the operation of the entire system.

When some one (me for example) advocates for the idea that 'we need to do X', I am not saying that Glenn & Gerard need to do X.

I am advocating for the idea that 7 billion human beings all need to do X.

Which actually means that we need to change the systems and processes of the world to have the same impact as 7billion people doing X.

The change needed issystemic change, not ppersonal.

So, instead of:
'you burn't X kilograms of JetA1, Oh you bad individual human being you',

rather,

'x million human beings travelling each day use this much JetA1 - not good. How do we find a way for x million human beings to travel each day and not use that much JetA1'

Systems answers,not the irrelevancy of trying to turn systems thinking into some sort of personal judegement thingy.

Why is the thust of your endlessly repetitive comments always about comparitive personal morality? Responding to AGW isn't about the personal, it's about the systemic. Not everything in life can be reduced to just personal morality (thank God) - the world is too big an complex for that

AGW is a systems/complexity/abstraction problem, Personal scale morality isn't applicable. It is systems level morality that needs to be applied.

So basic question. Why do you keep posing personal morality scale questions to an impersonal morality scale problem?

Mr Dean, I have a Straw Man question for you.

Whereas most of us are not in a position to choose an airline that fuels its aircraft with carbon-neutral biofuels, it may be that Rupert Murdoch is able to exercise such choice.

After all, did he not include in his address at the Hudson Theatre, New York, 9 May 2007, the following statements?
"Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.
"We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change... "

"Our carbon footprint last year was 641,150 tons. This includes the electricity used in all our operations globally, and any fuels we burned."

"Today, I am announcing our intention to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses, by 2010."

"But becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate problem will not be solved by one company reducing its emissions to zero, and it won't be solved by one government acting alone.
"The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe.
"And that's where we come in.
"We're starting with our own carbon footprint. Not nothing. But much of what we're doing is already, or soon will be, little more than the standard way of doing business."

Mr Murdoch is in the happy position of fuelling his personal aircraft with biofuel, should he so choose.

After all, it's not as if extensive progress his not been made in recent years, as a quick perusal of Reuters collection of alternative fuel news shows (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/alternative_fuels/)

There's the work done by the US Navy to synthesise fuel from sea water, using its dissolved CO2 content ("Fueling the Fleet, U.S. Navy Looks to the Seas", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120924111824.htm).

There's the "Biofuel Waste Product Recycled for Electricity", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904193054.htm. and then there's "Fueling the Future With Renewable Gasoline and Diesel" from municipal waste (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120820121046.htm).

Why, there are even scientist who have been "Teaching a microbe to make fuel", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120820143904.htm

There are even interesting reports here at "The Conversation": Did you know that "Plant-eating algae a hope for biofuel" (http://theconversation.edu.au/plant-eating-algae-a-hope-for-biofuel-10907), or that there has been a "Bioengineering breakthrough for marine algae as biofuel" (http://theconversation.edu.au/bioengineering-breakthrough-for-marine-algae-as-biofuel-11005).?

Mr Murdoch gave his speech five years ago: would he be a hypocrite if his personal aircraft is still fossil fuel-powered?

Alan, I've no idea what you're talking about. I recall no exchanges with you. But, I;ll point out that your logic is faulty as it realtes to use of statistical procedures to somehow magically determining "the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence".

As a degreed statistics guy, who's even taught it, I'll just say what I've said on Day 1 of any university class -- Statistics is what we use to make decisions when we're ignorant of how something works.

If you wanted to assess the causes of recent earth-average temp behavior, you'd need go no further than the summary presented by the head of the AAAS in the Spring Conference of 2009. I'll be happy to email or fax it to you, if you wish.

The bottom line is that while we're ~10,000 years beyond the end of the last ice age, when Canadian ice finally melted from my folks' NJ homestead, and should be heading gradually into another, we're not.

And, just 4 parameters explain why, including why there was the Medieval warming and the later Little Ice Age cooling -- both very mild, within 1 deg C.

What are these real parameters with real physical effects on real land, sea & air?

1) Volcanism -- a cooling influence, now added to by the massive particulate pollution cloud from India across S. Asia & China.

2) Solar activity -- sunspot minima & maxima, plus the ~90k-year solar modulation of that. That's well recorded by astronomers way, way back & largely influenced the Medieval warming & Little Ice age that deniers so naively love.

3) Oceanic cycles like El Nino, La Nina, etc.

4) And, the one we have some control over -- CO2 emissions.

With just those 4 parameters, representing real physical entities, with measurable values, all recent global temperature averages are accurately fitted.

Of course, we've also had satellite, ice-core, sedimentary, isotopic and fossil data for a while now that extend our ability to test & estimate long past temps, etc.

A nice summary for laymen is found in the July 2011 Scientific American. And, there are some important papers here...

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html..
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce
http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/461

The DePaolo Group's papers at UC Berkeley are particularly relevant to understanding how our emissions have trashed the natural Carbon Cycle by a factor of over 30, committing us to thousands of years of 'challenges' (a euphemism).

Wonder if the combustion folks will ever pay recompense, even to their own descendents?
;]

Bob Cormack: "I notice that a significant number of comments here refer to "climate change deniers" or those who "deny climate change"."

I could only count one but I guess that is significant to you. Most of the time it's about denial of something somewhat different but there are some who do indeed deny recent climate change (and the issue is recent climate change). They are the ones who repeat lies such as "there has been no global warming for the past 16 years". I'm sure you've read some of these people even if you didn't realise what they were.

Ok Bob, one more run at your request

"I would like to see somebody give an example or two of people who are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis that actually deny that the climate is changing" -- as I gave you an example before, Monckton said this many times.

The problem you have is imprecision of meaning. That's why I asked you to define the length of time that would be valid for "climate", since :climate" is not an instantaneous measure. Otherwise, your request is meaningless.Got iit?

But you do go overboard with pomposity......

"Given that I've only been trying to get you to understand simple English, while you've been accusing me of being a paid lackey of unnamed industrial interests"

Chris O'Neill:

"I could only count one [instance of "climate change denier"] but I guess that is significant to you."

OK, I'll grant that the other 20 or so times people just said "denier". Perhaps I made a hasty assumption and they were only referring to people with rational objections to the latest "projections" of the GCMs. Nevertheless, "denier" seems a bit strong in a rational argument.

"They are the ones who repeat lies such as "there has been no global warming for the past 16 years". I'm sure you've read some of these people even if you didn't realise what they were."

You make a good point -- it never occured to me to think that Phil Jones (former director of the CRU) was a 'denier' when he said this back in February of 2010. (Who would have thought?)

*******************

Still, it is puzzling that those whose main 'argument' appears to be to denigrate anyone who doesn't share their beliefs post freely here, while those (such as Anthony Cox) who attempt to actually discuss the science are removed by the moderators.

If a 'lie' is simply something you don't believe, and a 'denier' is someone who doesn't agree with you -- and this is the official position of the Conversation, as evidenced by the moderators' actions -- then this whole site is a trivial waste of time.

Alex,

'AGW' stands for "Anthropogenic Global Warming". It is the hypothesis that the recent warming of the globe is human-caused. Strange that you didn't know that, being as how you are up with the 'facts'.

The 'blatant falsehood' I obviously was referring to was the claim that those who think that the AGW hypothesis hasn't been proven 'deny climate change'. If you don't see how this is also a straw man, you should look up the definition.

What's amazing here is the ability you have to wildly speculate, based on poor reading comprehension. If your kind of scatter-shot ad hominem "argument" is the norm around here, then I guess the site's Charter is just hot air. Based on the quality of comments I see here, and the quality of those that have been removed (which I accessed on other sites), I would have to say that the Charter is obviously just propaganda.

Oh, and saying that recent climate change is "not unusual" is not equivalent to saying that it hasn't happened. Perhaps you also need some remedial education in logic.

Bob, you seem to be the problem reader here. What I said was that there indeed are some deniers who say climate is effectively not changing.

So the question is why do you raise your straw man?

You do fo overboard when challenged, eh?

"What's amazing here is the ability you have to wildly speculate, based on poor reading comprehension"

"Oh, and saying that recent climate change is "not unusual" is not equivalent to saying that it hasn't happened. Perhaps you also need some remedial education in logic."

That last one is particularly revealing, Bob -- what is unchanging "climate"? Maybe for a day? Maybe a month? A year? A decade? Century? Millenium?

Your logic about how to use "unchanging" seems to be the fault here.

And yes, your 'blatant falsehood' is a straw man. My question is why did you bother writing any of it?

Alex,

What in the world does your question:

"... -- what is unchanging "climate"? Maybe for a day? Maybe a month? A year? A decade? Century? Millenium?"

have to do with my statement:

" ...saying that recent climate change is "not unusual" is not equivalent to saying that it hasn't happened."

???

Here's a hint, Alex: the phrase "change is not unusual" is not equivalent to the phrase "change is non existent". And neither phrase is useful as a definition of "change". Are you grasping it this time? You seem to have a real problem reading for content -- I'm having a hard time imagining you are actually able to write computer code.

"You do go overboard when challenged, eh?"

Given that I've only been trying to get you to understand simple English, while you've been accusing me of being a paid lackey of unnamed industrial interests, I would say that you have it exactly backward.

My first post made a simple point which seems to be beyond your ability to grasp. For us to actually have a discussion, you would first have to start responding to what I actually said. I'm not hopeful.

Considering you are using the internet which uses the same principles of physics that were used to understand absorption of energy by molecules, your claims that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist must mean your internet post doesn't exist.

I guess this is all just a dream then.

Berthold is back! With all his pages of links that don't mean anything he thinks they mean, because he hasn't actually bothered to study the science!

Welcome Bert! Comic relief, finally.
;]

Your usual attention to detail, eh Berthold?...

"Mann-made climate change does not exist. " -- I agree with that, though I don't know Mann and wish he/she would stop it.

When you get some study of sea rise and acidification in, write back.
;]

Problem is Berthold, Carl is wrong.

“An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”

What he doesn't understand is that the water vapour feedback doesn't depend on increased evaporation. Perhaps it could be better worded as:

"water vapor feedback - that if air temperatures increase, water vapour content in the air must increase to maintain relative humidity (RH) at high enough levels to allow cloud formation. Since without clouds, evaporation from the surface can't be returned back to the surface as precipitation,enough of the atmosphere must be maintained at a high enough (RH) to allow cloud formation. Evaporation will continue to pump water into the atmosphere and raise RH levels until they high enough to allow clouds to generate enough precipitation to balance the evaporation. If the air is warmer, more total water vapour content is needed to achieve that RH level"

Increased evaporation will produce increased precipitation, but it isn't needed to produce the water vapour feedback.

Michael

O'Sullivan is so ignorant of science that he actually thinks that the Stefan-Boltzmann eqn is the work of one person - supposedly knows a bit of science but has never heard of Ludwig Boltzmann? Nuff said

Jane,
If you want a limit on the number links, then why isn't this stipulated somewhere within the 'community rules'? Anthony Cox's posts do not contravene any of these rules. The appropriate action should have been to leave Anthony's posts in place and make a comment to keep links to a mimimum in future.

Notably, a number of posts here do appear to contravene the rules. Ad hominen attacks and the use of condescending labels such as 'denialist' and 'climate change denier' are relatively common here. I don't claim to be 100% innocent here as I have been a bit abrupt when provoked by 'smear tactics'. If these types of comments are removed, then it might create a more civil atmosphere.

Neil, the data hasn't changed at all. You are just confusing what is being quoted. This is just another example of disinterest or active opposition to information, such that people see inconsistencies because they have cherry picked information rather than taking in all of the information.

"the ever changing historical data which prevents any simple analysis" -- really?

Did you bother looking at the physical reasons for the "ever changing" bit? You know, the ~700,000-year Vostok core data, the various Greenland core data, the millions of years of sediment & fossil data?

Plenty of all that is publicly available, if you actually want to ask real questions, Neil.

Here are some summary links, if you haven't bothered to look at them in the other msgs here...

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce

Plenty more, even IPCC--free, to avoid the straw-man phobia.
;]

Neil Gibson: "Somewhere around 1997 the historical average global temperature changed by a degree which could only happen in climate "science"."

If Neil was honestly interested in global absolute temperature (which he isn't), then he could find out why it is far more difficult to determine global absolute temperature than changes in global temperature by reading documents such as this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

But we know that Neil is bound by a political agenda so we can't expect any honest interest from him.

By the way Neil, did you ever get around to explaining what the word "bible" means in "global warming bible"? What dictionary did you use?

MichaelB, to see where hacks like "Am. Thinker" get their presentation ideas, just watch one of Monckton's old videos of him flipping graphs with umpteen lines & numbers on slides in front of a dozing, captive audience.

I must again render apologies across the Equator for our US dementors Heartland, American Tradition, etc. and their $ influences on Aussies who deserve better.