Michael Brown - you have to be joking re Uwe Hoegh-Guldberg:

He claims there is global evidence that the oceans are “acidifying” everywhere at once, but some deltas are getting fresher (less alkaline), others are becoming more alkaline. There is NO evidence that the GBR is acidifying, despite Hoegh-Guldberg’s best efforts – if there was we would have heard of it. AIMS at Townsville has striven mightily to prove “acidification” there and failed utterly.

Most scientists’ efforts to show the claimed adverse effects of acidification involve tipping hydrochloric acid into their tanks.

Actually, as Darwin knew, it’s “carbonic acid”, ie CO2 dissolved in seawater, that produces the limestone in corals:

This is from Science, the same issue (2 January 2009) that contained the tissue of lies promoted by De’ath Lough and Fabricius of AIMS (“peer reviewed” as I believe by Uwe H-G):

"The role of acidification in this
decline is far from settled. In the laboratory,
Alina Szmant, a coral physiological ecologist
at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington,
and her colleagues found that neither low
pH nor a lowered calcium carbonate concentration
(which results from increased acidity
and is considered key to calcification) slowed
coral growth. Instead, calcium bicarbonate
proved key, her team reported at ICRS. She
faults previous lab studies because they used
hydrochloric acid, not carbon dioxide, to
lower the pH of the water in the calcification
studies. Hydrochloric acid and carbon dioxide
have different effects on seawater chemistry
and bicarbonate concentration, she says.
Her conclusion: “It’s not clear that carbon
dioxide enrichment will have negative effects
on calcification rates.” (Extract from Science’s Introduction to the De’ath travesty by Elizabeth Pennisi).

De’ath at al actually reported NO increase in “acidity”, they did not because they could find none, so they resorted to outright cooking of their claimed declining calcification rates on the GBR.

Here are Dea'th Lough and Fabricius (AIMS Townsville, Science, 1 January 2009): “We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout (sic) the GBR…” Not true, their archived sampling records are from south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR, most of which is north of 18oS

“.. calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years” Actually there was only a SINGLE sample out of their 328 which had that claimed longevity.

In fact only 12 of their listed sites had data beyond 1991, and only one of those goes back 400 years, contrary to the 69 sites claimed by De'ath et al in their SI in Science. NONE of their sites has data beyond 2001, yet they claimed to have sampled all 69 in 2005 and that ALL had 400 years of data across the length and breadth of the GBR, when in fact only one did, and both it and the other only 11 with data beyond 1990 are ALL in a narrow band of the southern (and colder) GBR.

Let’s consider a concrete example, their Kelso 02A reef, at 18.42 Lat South, their most northerly – and therefore warmest - post-1990 sample (they implied that all their 69 reefs and 328 samples went up to 2005, and extended across the whole GBR to 2005, a blatant lie when most of the GBR extends north beyond 9.58 S, and their Kelso 02A sample ends in 2001. This reef’s Density declined by only 0.002% between 1900 and 2001, while its Calcification actually increased by as much as 0.01% and its Extension also increased by 0.004%.

So by two out of three of their criteria, the most northerly of their samples, supposedly the one most subject to global warming, actually improved its growth performance between 1990 and 2001. In fact only 3 of their only 12 samples with post 1990 data had negative outcomes for all three of their criteria, five had positive outcomes for two, and three had positive outcomes for one criterion.

Thus their Conclusion – “Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the GBR are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years” is pure fiction, worthy like all of Climate Change science of their spiritual brother, Bernie Madoff.

It is pertinent to note that Lough trained at CRU of Climategate’s UEA, and has been a co-author with Phil Jones, who has repeatedly shown (see Montford 2009) he will go to any lengths if it promotes a fund raising agenda, with ample rewards for De’ath & co from Penny Wong’s DCC and the ARC, not to mention accolades from Ross Garnaut who cites them repeatedly without ever having read their paper which never mentions the rising CO2 he rabbits on about in his usual mendacious way (2008, 143-144; 2011:22).

For example, "Another risk to the Great Barrier Reef is an increase in ocean acidity, which lowers the concentration of carbonate ions, limiting the ability of calcifying organisms, such as corals, to form their skeletons. The level of ocean acidity today is as high as it was 25 million years ago, the previous most acidic state in the record. The rapid increase in acidity levels over the last 200 years is unprecedented in the last 25 million years... (SCBD 2009). The impacts of increasing ocean acidity are already evident in some marine species with calcification rates having dropped by about 14 per cent over the past two decades (De'ath, Lough et al. 2009)".

That latter citation is untrue, as De'ath et al (2009) offer NO evidence at all for increasing acidity at the GBR.

But when you are pocketing at least $1 million for promoting the Government's Green credentials, why would accuracy concern you?

I understand that a return flight to Sydney to London releases over 11 tons of CO2 per passenger. That is substantially more emissions than I use in a year.

How can climate scientists justify such selfishness in order to preen in front of their peers?

However, I am a compassionate man, and I will allow exceptions for funerals and the weddings of children.

Douglas, why dont you check out this experiment with CO2 on absorption of IR radiation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

Now i put it to you, IR radiation is readily observed exiting earth. even at night you can see IR radiation leaving earth - and there is even a website where you can see this http://www.nightearth.com/

So combine the two facts, that IR radiation is being emitted from earth at all times of the day (more during day, less during night). It makes perfect sense that if you increase the greenhouse layer, the IR flow back out to space is going to be restricted. The "pressure" will have to build up (i.e. temp on earth and lower atmosphere) to force IR through a thicker GHG layer at the same speed as it was going before.

So the Global warming theory is perfectly justified. I have not tried to disprove your theory nor will i try to do that, i am simply trying to get you to at least acknowledge that the basic theory behind AGW has merit. So what do you think?

I've been to Doug's website. It's pure crank. Right up there with TimeCube.

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

If he had a point, Doug would go back do a PhD and do the hard work rather than cut and paste onto blogs and forums like this.

Sorry to have to tell you this James but the model is not the climate.

We can tell that climate change is happening from the land and satellite temperature record, the melting of glaciers, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rise in sea levels, the response of plants and animals to changing temperature etc. etc.

We know the likely effect of AGW from the work of paleo climatologists looking at past climate when CO2 was as high as it is now.

Climate models are part of the tool set that climate scientists have available. Their strengths and limitations are extensively discussed in the scientific literature.

As statistician George EP Box said "All models are wrong, but some are useful".

James' claim is repeated so frequently by climate change deniers that the web site Skeptical Science has a section devoted to it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-we-trust-computer-models.html

Have I got this right?: Co2 emmissions don't contribute to global warming because the earth's core is affected by gravity.

Are the deniers more shrill? I could ask what's your measure of shrillness but I'll address it another way. This series of articles have come from a bunch of believers in significant and dangerous man-made warming, not just any bunch but one that seems to hold some influence with the government.

In point of fact not one of these articles has demonstrated credible empirical evidence for significant CO2 driven warming. Most have been about belief and consensus (as if that determined scientific truth!), combined with nonsensical analogies (eg. HIV, as per the article above), a misguided belief that peer review is a rock solid yardstick and with plenty of ad hominem attacks thrown in.

Anyone coming here in the expectation of credible and detailed scientific discussion would have been sorely disappointed.

And by the way, although purporting to show the vested interests of its authors it curiously fails to mention funding granted to their universaity departments for research supportive of the IPCC view. No I wonder why that could be.

For all these reasons it is not surprising that this tax-payer funded website (indirectly through the cponsoring organisations) has provoked the wrath of many readers.

It's been claptrap from start to finish, from people with strong vested interests who seek to influence governments and the public.

It really has been unworthy of Australian academics.

Michael Ashley:
The point I make is that you completely exclude the possibility that a person could read up on the science, and the challenges to it, looking at all sides on the corruption of the scientific process....and remain sceptical about the consensus view, and the claims that the science is over.
It seems that the climate scientists expect the general population to pretend the fudging of results, denial of data legitimately requested under FOI, the corruption of the peer review process by the small group of scientists at the heart of all this ....and much more....is of no consequence...that it just doesn’t matter.
To put it mildly, it’s puzzling that you don’t see that such behaviour in any endeavour would raise suspicion and mistrust.
But in the endeavour that’s cast as the greatest scientific issue of our time...an issue that’s being used to completely reshape our future, to water down our sovereignty, that promises upheaval and a hit on our children’s futures...such behaviour , with its arrogance, abuse of process, lack of transparency , and authoritarian contempt for dissent ....is terminal, without a change wherein respect is shown to the people and to the scientists who disagree with you.
Your last paragraph , which comes over as a sneer, is a perfect illustration of your contempt for dissent.
You make the explicit assumption that anyone who’s still sceptical is only so , because they’re unable to think for themselves, and have come under the bad influence [ as you see it] of The Australian.
Do you draw such firm conclusions from such shaky assumptions and zilch evidence in your science?
I am a very infrequent reader of The Australian, which has only come to this issue with much seriousness in recent times.
Many of us who are sceptical have been reading widely from publications of all kinds worldwide on this issue for many years.
We’ve read the CRU emails...the details of the sham inquiries in the UK and the US...inquiries that are an insult to citizens who are expected to comply....and that scream out that there’s something to hide.
We’ve read the damning reports to the British House of Commons on the emails and the revelations therein that raise questions about the calibre of the scientists and their methods.
We’ve read the Wegman Report and seen the attacks on Wegman since.
We’ve seen the treatment of questioners on Real Climate, and been given the same treatment there ourselves in some cases.
We’ve seen Garnaut, Steffen, Flannery et al trying to raise alarm about tipping points...Arctic melt, glacier melt, potential melt of the permafrost, sea level rise etc....attributing it all to CO2, so that we’ll ‘say yes’ to a carbon tax and carbon trading.
But they must know, but intentionally leave out , the research from Drew Shindell of NASA and numerous others including James Hansen, that finds that ~50% or more of the melting is caused by black carbon [ soot] from burning of forests and biomass of various kinds in China, India, Indonesia and Brazil .
Shindell’s advice ---
[ "We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."]
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0016
This is never mentioned---the focus is all on CO2, because it can be traded, and allows UN oversight of the economies of sovereign countries---and the burning of forests etc goes on around the world while the consensus wrings its hands about the disappearance of Arctic ice.
This leads us to believe the consensus scientists don’t really want that ‘leverage over climate’---just leverage over people....and they don’t want ‘to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades’, because the melt is useful for generating alarm.
It’s especially strange because they know that melting land ice contributes 70-90 times more to the sea level rise [ that was the other focus of the alarm they want to engender] …than does thermal expansion of the oceans, so dealing with black carbon is the most effective response there as well.
How could you possibly expect that we wouldn’t be sceptical when you want us to believe that the ‘science is over’....that at some point in the last decade[ or several decades ago, as Professor Lewandowsky has said], there came a moment when all that needed to be known about climate science was already known....that no more input or alternative research was needed or to be tolerated...that dissenting scientists were to be demonised and marginalised, ridiculed and shut out of the peer review process.
A sceptical person can see from their own reading, that there are a great many unknowns in very important aspects of climate, that are not factored in to models, as well as challenges on the aspects that climate scientists claim to be certain of.
The attitude of the climate and other scientists on this blog, with their name-calling and other expressions of contempt, and looseness with the truth at times, only serve to deepen the scepticism and suspicion.
Rather than an effort to persuade the population with reason and rational discourse, there seems to be an urge to shame, ridicule, or failing that, to bludgeon us into submission.
I think they’ll find that doesn’t work with Australians.

Michael Ashley
Thank you for your reply.
I’m sorry I’m so late in answering, but I thought comments had closed.
You ask what a scientist should do if he thinks he can prove GW is not significant.
‘Publish the proof!’ you say.
You ask is the climate science conspiracy so strong that----etc etc
What is strong is the yearning for relevance---to be part of the successful group---the group that gets all the approval and star treatment from media and government---where membership puts a scientist on the side of the angels [ to a brainwashed populace that just wants to ‘save the planet’]---the group that gets all the funding---the group that has a cosy shelter to hide in for the individual should things go wrong---the group that the most powerful people and entities in the world are captive of.
I know it’s useful for you to pretend there’s a level playing field in climate science---that peer review and funding are open to any good scientist with credible research findings should he wish to put them out there.
Sounds good—but you must know it isn’t so.
A very bad advertisement for your claim and for science is the case of Clive Spash, [ a warmist, not a sceptic] and his treatment by the CSIRO because his paper was critical of the CPRS.
There are many more as you would know, and the following is an example.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf
You would no doubt dismiss McKitrick and Michaels as ‘deniers’ , but would you approve of their treatment—and that of Spash ?
We know the peer review process has been corrupted, because it was spelt out loud and clear in the CRU emails---with no ambiguity.
Those heroes of AGW conspired to keep sceptics out of the process ---and it was done.
In that climate, how would a working scientist get the funding to do research and a paper of such rigour that he would have a chance of successfully running the vicious gauntlet that protects the warmists’ domination of this issue?
You said I imply corruption in the process---well that’s been clearly demonstrated by the CRU emails---not just in the peer review conspiracy---but in the fudging of the graph to hide the fact that tree rings proved unreliable as proxies for measured surface temperature, after 1960, and therefore could not be considered reliable for historic temperatures---in the paucity and cherry-picking of Briffa’s tree samples, where trees that would not give the desired end result were discarded---in the refusal of FOI requests for data--- that continues still---and the anti-science statements that data would not be shared because the person requesting it only wanted to prove the scientist wrong—etc
There’s the fact that researchers were able to show that the hockey stick inner circle’s algorithms were programmed to produce hockey sticks with any data.
There’s the Wang et al affair with data out of China from non-existent or shifting weather stations---that’s a very large part of the earth with dodgy statistics presented as solid.
And then there’s the response by universities and other institutions to this anti-science and corrupt behaviour on such an important issue---their treatment of Douglas Keenan and his allegations of fraud on the Wang et al research.
You would think, since your side of this issue is so alarmed and supposedly so anxious to get the whole world on side for mitigation--- the institutions would wish to be scrupulous in their investigations and questioning of the complaints---and would want maximum transparency in discussions of the science and would mandate that publicly-owned data be made available for other scientists to validate or falsify the hypothesis----in the interests of truth.
But no---the inquiries were shams that a cursory examination would reveal-----headed by people with a vested personal interest in maintaining the alarmism created by the scientists they were investigating—the British inquiries and the Albany State ‘inquiry’ into Douglas Keenan’s allegations on Wang et al.---with predetermined outcomes ensured.
What this indicates to anybody taking notice, is that there’s definitely something to hide---and since the warmists’ solution to this perceived problem they’ve built careers and personal fortunes on , threatens to cause massive upheaval and dislocation and loss , for whole countries and their people---the obfuscation and trickery cannot be ignored.
It’s not necessary for all climate scientists [ or geophysicists, as you say] to be corrupt to keep this juggernaut going.
For some it’s fear and self-preservation, and for some it’s groupthink---for some it’s the excitement----and for some politicians ---those who aren’t in it for the global ideological fix----political survival.
To pretend to believe in AGW has after all become compulsory in Australia for any politician of any ambition.
The media are waiting to pounce and tear to shreds any Coalition politician who even hints at questioning the compulsory consensus.
And in the US look at the treatment of Inhofe.
The juggernaut started with an arrogant scientist who , with colleagues, decided he had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age---and they spelt that out in their own words too.
Their hockey stick graph needed to show alarming warming now---so they couldn’t let it be as warm or warmer back then.
Environmental activists and the rest of the international Left saw an opportunity for their eternal dreams of global governance, and got together with the dysfunctional UN.
The morally-vacant media found the whole thing great copy---and doesn’t give a damn about anything else—not truth---law—human beings---nothing.
Once the media was in the loop , politicians had to be in, because the media hold all the cards when it comes to the alternatives of success or political death for politicians and governments [ except totalitarian governments ].
You ask why no mining company put up a $100million prize for anyone who can disprove global warming.
Mining companies have pressing bottom lines and shareholders to navigate, and are busy most of the time fitting in with government, with one eye always on sovereign risk issues that might scare investment away.
It’s not a legitimate proposition.
It will be years , if ever, before enough science has been done for the world to have any sort of handle on climate, because so many of the most vital aspects are unknown
We do know---officially---that the earth didn’t warm from 1998 to 2008, and in fact cooled from 2005 to 2008.
1998 was an El Nino spike, and the years before that, from the days when the late Steven Schneider was trying to alarm the world with warnings of the coming ice age, were the years of mitigation of the cooling aerosols, which inevitably resulted in some net warming.
Before that, no one can know for sure how warm the earth as a whole was, because measurements were ad hoc, with proxies, both tree rings and ice cores unreliable and challenged----and SST was measured using wooden buckets and later canvas.
Anecdote tells of canvas buckets of seawater left on decks with evaporation and consequent cooling of their contents occurring, so who knows what the precise SST was then---even now with the Argo floats, since 2003, they struggle to know.
So it’s ludicrous and beyond reason to say that the ‘science is over’---‘the science is in’---that the science has been over for several decades, as Professor Lewandowsky says-----when there is no certainty or confidence in the precision of historical temperatures, and therefore no one can be confident that it’s significantly warmer now..
Without knowledge of historical temperatures, there can therefore be no significant warming trend---other than that which might be expected in an interglacial period.
The side that wants the whole world reshaped and moulded on the strength of its hypothesis---that wants global governance and wealth redistribution as per the Copenhagen framework---that wants whole countries thrown into turmoil , and their future prosperity compromised---that’s the side that has an obligation to adhere very strictly and conscientiously to proper scientific process---that needs to be scrupulously honest and conservative in their science ---that needs to encourage, in fact facilitate, rather than put obstacles in the way of , scientists with alternative ideas.
Failed model predictions--- fudged science revealed----faulty scientific method---corruption of peer review process---attempts to deny dissenters freedom of speech----suppression of information----shutdown of democracy on the issue----intimidation of citizens who disagree , by smear, name-calling ---calling them fringe-dwellers, flat-earthers and worse for not swallowing whole the warmists’ mad proposition that the science stopped last decade or even before, and from then, no alternative research or ideas were needed or to be tolerated---all of this and more , is too much for reasonable human beings to accept , without questioning the core of the whole thesis.

"If anyone is able to provide a valid explanation as to why it is that all the world’s major scientific organisations are convinced that AGW is occurring, can you please explain it to me."

Most of those scientific organisations are closely affiliated with the ICSU, formerly known as the International Council of Scientific Unions, a body that was instrumental in the establishment of the IPCC. Following the criticisms of the IPCC's 2007 report those organisations published statements of support, all within such a short time that one could reasonably suspect that the ICSU had asked them to do so. There is no evidence that any or these organisations surveyed their members, but good evidence, including specific verified instances, of executives and executive subcommittees wrote thse statements. If you doubt me, then contact the AAS and ask them for a copy of their survey of members or their account of how the statement was written.

"Are they all simply incorrectly interpreting the data? Are they all financially motivated? Whatever the reason is, please explain and provide some detail.

"This is a double edged sword for me personally, because if someone can provide a well reasoned explanation as to the circumstances that have given rise to CSIRO, BOM, NASA, all the major universities and so on from coming to similar conclusions about AGW, well I would naturally have to rethink my position, as would many other lay people who do not pretend to have as much scientific understanding as expert scientists."

My first comment is that as a lay person you should read far more widely than the tracts written by these people, and you should be trying to examine data that is as far upstream as possible, with minimal if any processing.

My second is that organisations compete for research funding and that funding is increasingly determined according to relevance to government policy. If an individual in these organisations stood up and said the manmade warming scare was nonsense, his employers would suffer a loss of income unless of course it acted quickly to disown him.

And consider the financial world. If a statement by someone could conceivably mean that they benefitted from the reaction, such as a recommendation to buy certain shares, they are required to clearly state any financial interest they have in the companies or entities they are discussing. Climate researchers, although they could conceivably benefit financially from their claims are under no such obligation. (I trust you noticed that no authors of these articles stated how much funding they received for research that supports the IPCC's hypothesis.)

Another reason for supporting the notion is that many people have built their reputations on belief in man-made warming. Yes, it's a hypothesis that has been financed to the tune of about $200 billion over the last 20 years and still lacks conclusive proof. What climate scientist who has built his reputation on this would now announce that it was all based on hot air?

Not all scientists are in this for their own gains, in fact I'm confident that believers run the entire gamut from genuine belief, through channelling their organisation's wants etc to outright disbelief supressed in favour of income and a job.

Scientists should by nature be sceptical. They should test every hypothesis and they should demand clear evidence.

Lay persons should be sceptical of scientists who are not.

Im really not sure what your point is. Are you trying to suggest that there is a strange force at work that scientists are not aware of?

Did you read the last report i gave you? It is only 7 pages plus a few of graphs. It answers the exact questions you are asking. This is the conclusion of the report http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

"What does this say about the variability of the climate system? Climate models
are often criticized for producing a more or less monotonic-type response to anthropogenic forcing in 21st century simulations. Part of this may be due to the lack of volcanic and solar forcing in the SRES scenarios of anthropogenic forcing increase for the 21st century and part could be due to the fact that large-scale oscillatory climate features, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation are not well simulated.

However, even considering these criticisms, it is clear that the models can and do produce sustained multi-year periods of “cooling” embedded within the longer-term warming produced in the 21st century simulations. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the natural variability of the real climate system can and likely will produce multi-year periods of sustained “cooling” or at least periods with no real trend even in the presence of longterm anthropogenic forced warming.

Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural variability and are misleading."

In essence - stop being so focussed on such a short time period, its happened plenty of times before which you can easily see in the global temp graphs.

You should also enlighten me as to where i said the temerature records shows a few 30 year periods of cooling.

Hi John, the Skeptical Science website was last updated May 23, 2011
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

I really couldnt debate with you about the solar magnetic fields. I wouldnt know what is significant or not. Perhaps you should make a comment on the SS site. But apart from solar magnetic strength it says other things also:

"Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period."

"n fact cosmic ray flux has lagged behind the global temperature change since approximately 1970 (Krivova 2003)."

"And since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased - "the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). In fact, cosmic ray on flux recently reached record levels. According to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, "In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years.""

"Despite this record high GCR flux which we would expect to increase cloud cover and cause cooling, 2009 was tied for the second-hottest year on record, and the 12-month running mean global surface temperature record was broken 3 times in 2010 (NASA GISS)."

There is a fair bit more there in the advanced section also. Those second two paragraphs seem pretty telling to me.

So to my untrained eye it seems GCR Warming theory doesnt seem to be standing up so well.

Gavin indeed we would expect cosmic ray flux to be higher over the next decade with a lower solar geomagnetic activity solar cycle so this should either debunk svensmark forever if we see significant warming resume or perhaps go some way to vindicate him if we see significant cooling. If he is correct in the cloud cover link I would not expect to see near instantaneous cooling in the global average temperature record with cloud cover changes of 1 or 2% but I would expect to see a decelleration of warming and a gradual change of trend to cooling if the cloud cover was increased consistently for a decade or two , which if he is correct you would expect in a sequence of 2 low geomagnetic activity solar cycles. We live in interesting times

Its an interesting theory. I suspect that at best it would have a moderating affect on global temps but not halt global temperature rises over the long term.

All things need to be explored however, good on Sven. Do doubt his research and subsequent follow up research will add to the body of knowledge. It's just dissapointing to see some deniers out there touting it as further proof that global warming is not man made - but that cant be helped i suppose, Global warming has become a somewhat religous experience for many people.

The earth is extremely complex filled with random events such as massive volcano eruptions which i assume can have significant flow on effects and so on. Until we have sensors blanketing the earth and all the way down to the core i guess we'll never be able to accurately know and map what the future holds (may need sensors throughout the sun also), but for now i think our science has been pretty darn good considering, and world leaders should heed their advice as best as possible.

Lets leave that gravity machine link alone for now. I still have major problems with it but will get to that later.

So let me get this 100% clear - a small portion the gravitational energy of the earth relative to the sun is converted to kinetic energy which is then converted to heat (obviously if it was all used it would be beacuse we have crashed into the sun!). The earth then cools as this heat energy is then converted back to kinetic energy which pushes the earth back to its original orbit position so that it has fully regained its gravitational potential energy - thus energy in = energy out.

Then the process starts again?

This raises interesting questions, but for now i would like to know if my understanding of the basic principle is correct.

Perhaps you could explain something to me regarding your gravity "theory".

Io is Jupiter's innermost moon, and feels the strongest tidal forces of any planet in the solar system. The competing pull of Jupiter's enormous gravity and the other Jovian moons is sufficient to raise its crust up and down by 100m, and the resultant heat and friction is sufficient to keep its core molten and causes its spectacular vulcanism. It experiences *far* more gravitational heating than Earth ever will.

Yet its surface temperature is around -170 degrees Celsius. What gives?

Are you seriously doubting that the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect? the Green house effects of gasses can be unequivocally tested in the laboratory and in the environment. Even monckton, the self declared lord wouldnt side with you on that one, he simply doesnt think the extra carbon we are putting out will significantly increase the greenhouse effect.

Why dont you check out the temperature of the light and dark side of the moon?