I suggest you publish your understandings and interpretations of the evidence immediately - it's important that governments get the best possible advice.

As it seems you know something that CSIRO, the IPCC, the world bank and the vast bulk of the world's scientists don't it's your responsibility to blow the whistle.

Still heading down the up escalator, eh John?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Of course, Fred forgot to mention The Royal Society, The US and Australian (and pretty much every other) National Academy of Science, the World Geological Union, every world meteoroligical institution, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Shell and 100 other major corporation and a collective of the world's largest instituional investors...

But, then again, maybe he just realised it would be pointless to list the multitudes John and Bill have defeated with your godlike genius (I mean, how many others can make it so simply by declaring it to be so, without reference to anything as pedestrian as evidence).

Perhaps you are mistaken, Mr McLean, because the world has most certainly warmed since 1998 (that furphy is dismantled at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong, for example). Air temperatures in 2010, despite being the start of a La Nina, were warmer than those of El Nino-afflicted 1998, and that's just the air temperatures; oceans have warmed (5000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, if I remember rightly).

In fact, the rate of atmospheric heating may slow for the next century or so as oceans take up a greater proportion of the retained heat, and transfer them to polar ice masses. My place is ~50 km upstream from the river mouth, ~14m above sea level; how's yours?

It is interesting that John McLean states what is quite true that there has been no statistically significant warming for just over 16years, the IPCC have acknowledged this as has many other organizations and individuals, I mean the data is there for all to see. Please don't try to say it is not so... I have been told and read so much rubbish coming from some activists and alleged great scientific minds I find it very difficult to believe any of it. However I still just go and look at the data, and the data at this time does not support human caused dangerous warming of the planet via CO2, that is not to say that it has some influence, but the question is.... is it dangerous?, do the benefits or cheap energy out way the dangerous warming? Well, there has been no dangerous warming yet has there? The rise of sea levels are not accelerating are they? The ocean does not appear to be overheating does it? (Argos) In fact more heat is being released by the planet to space.... So at the moment the danger is not imminent, we should be concentrating on helping the poor, providing fresh water for people who have none, making more efficient use of our energy. Artificially making energy so expensive that no one can afford it is an absolute disgrace. We now burn wood in the fireplace to heat our home because we have a good supply of it but it is not the most efficient use of energy... electricity used on a reverse cycle air conditioner I am told is one of the most efficient but... electricity is now so expensive we don't even use them. I mean does this make sense? Not to me I am afraid.

Oceanic Heat Content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Thanks Gary Murphy for the graphic, and yes I have seen it before but I was referring to the Argos mapping which is far more accurate and shows no increase since the time they have been operating, mind you I haven't looked in a little while but please refer me to it and I will reassess my view. But putting all that aside, when a planet heats up by natural causes, the ocean does warm some doesn't it? So that mere fact that the ocean is warming or that the planet is warming is not evidence because it has done it many times in the past as we already know. What I am interested in is the vast and dangerous acceleration and deterioration that I am continually told (for the past 30years) about that is caused by CO2.... please show it to me, I accept that there is some warming from CO2 but it is also logarithmic so its effectiveness is far reduced at the levels it is at now, my understanding is that its greatest effect is from the 0-100ppm or there abouts. Show me the dangerous warming caused by CO2 please. Even the IPCC admit there isn't any statistically significant warming lately they just think there should be and could be. Goodness, even in the last 30years its barely outside the thermometers error zone.

Nice summary of all the denial memes.

@David Simpson: I supplied a link to a news article which explains how and why the "warming has stopped" furphy is just that: a furphy.

Also, what part of "accelerating polar ice melt" do you not understand?

David Simpson: "It is interesting that John McLean states what is quite true that there has been no statistically significant warming for just over 16years"

It's rather more interesting that it is completely wrong and it comes from the conflation of a blatant cherry-pick by David Rose (the "16 years" part) with a not-quite-so-blatant cherry-pick of some marginal statistics (commonly referred to as "no statistically significant warming in 15 years").

The "no statistically significant warming for just over 16years" meme is blatantly false is you calculate the actual statistics for 1996 to 2011 inclusive. This gives a likelihood of random variation producing the trend over those years of 0.4% which is way within the required limit for "statistical significance" of 2.5%.

It's only if you restrict yourself to the 15 years from 1997 to 2011 and ignore correlation that you can JUST manage to avoid statistical significance with a 2.7% chance of the warming trend having been caused by random variation.

But denialists like David Simpson will just ignore these facts and repeat their misinformation over and over again. He does this because his political philosophy is based on this: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

David Simpson

The graphics Gary pointed you towards ARE using the ARGO data David for the years where ARGO is available.

And if you look at the second graph in the series it is showing the total heat added to the top half of the ocean has risen by around 5 - 6 *10^22 Joules. Thats around a billion Hiroshima Bombs since 2003, over 3 every single second. Enough extra heat to boil Sydney Harbour dry every 8 hours.

Taken directly from the data from ARGO.

Which shows how ignorant John McLean's opinions are when he keeps spouting the 'it hasn't warmed since x' denialist meme. And make no mistake. It is a meme, it is an idea that the likes ofJohn McLean cling to rather desperately. Leaves one wondering why they do that but that is another question.

Yup, and NASA faked the moon landings and Elvis is alive and hiding out in [insert name of any place that takes your fancy]...

Congratulations Mr Burrell, you've picked that Carbon Trading is a scam.

I regret to inform you, however, that you're dead wrong about Climate Change. Here's why:

Earth is warmed by absorption of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.

Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth's spectrum from space has big absorption bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC's, and ozone (O3) absorp, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

Heat thus accumulates at the surface. About 90% of retained heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting (sea level rise) and water evaporation (increasing rain and storms).

Warming feedbacks already initiated (ie tipping points already being crossed) are loss of Arctic sea ice, so that boreal summer sunlight absorption in the Arctic Ocean is increasing (less sunlight reflection), the aforementioned sublimation of offshore Siberian methane clathrates, and methane outgassing from thawing permafrost.

Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth's orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

Rest assured, Mr Dean, that if academics were as wealthy as Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers, they'd fuel their personal jet aircraft with biofuel.

Have you been keeping up with biofuel research as I've previously suggested? If so, then you'd already know about "Biofuel Breakthrough: Quick Cook Method Turns Algae Into Oil"
ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2012) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121031123504.htm)
"ANN ARBOR—It looks like Mother Nature was wasting her time with a multimillion-year process to produce crude oil. Michigan Engineering researchers can "pressure-cook" algae for as little as a minute and transform an unprecedented 65 percent of the green slime into biocrude. ..."

Stay up to date at http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/

You'd also know about a US Navy project that plans to electrochemically extract CO2 and hydrogen from sea water, then reform them to jet fuel - not your beloved JetA1 grade, but SP5.

@Gerard Dean

Does your repertoire of climate denial extend beyond reheated Andrew Bolt? Cate Blanchette is usually Bolt's target but fortunately for you it does not take many brain cells to rework it for editors or academics.

Mr Arthur

If you can afford to fly, you are relatively rich by world standards.

As for Bio Jet Fuel. Unfortunately, the manufacture of marketable quantities of algae or crop based jet fuel are far into the future. In the meantime, we must use fossil fuel to make Jet A1 fuel.

So, until bio jet fuels are available, the only ethical think you and other climate change believers should do is STOP FLYING.

After all, the author of this article makes an impassioned plea to stop emissions because we are facing catastrophic levels of warming caused by emissions from fossil fuels.

I am sure she has stopped choosing to fly. In fact, I predict that within the next 48 hours, Ms Creagh will add her voice to mine and call for you all to STOP FLYING.

When all is said and done, surely the health of the planet is more important than our own pleasurable international holidays.

Now, you wait and see.

Gerard Dean

Ahhh, we meet again Mr Hansen

Once again you attack me without bothering to explain the ethical basis for you telling me I shouldn't drive a V8 whilst you choose to burn JetA1 fuel to fly for pleasur.

When will somebody explain the ethical basis for this behaviour?

Please put me out of my misery.

Gerard Denier Dean

@Gerard Dean

You ask "Once again you attack me without bothering to explain the ethical basis for you telling me I shouldn't drive a V8 whilst you choose to burn JetA1 fuel to fly for pleasur."

Well actually many people have responded to you but you ignore the responses. As we all know, you copy and paste this argument from thread to thread.

This argument is simply a proxy for your climate change denial. You rarely comment on the science because it is clear that it goes completely over your head. The only argument even remotely related to the science that I have ever seen you present is the statistically challenged "It has not warmed since <insert year here>" which is easily debunked by looking at the actual data.

Why pick on jet travel. Why not include watching TV. Having the lights on a night. Heating. Cooling. Showering. You could argue that they are all luxury items. They certainly are compared to our grandparent's generation.

So this is what your infantile Boltoid argument reduces to. "If you care about the environment and do not live in a hole in the ground you are a hypocrite"

There are many variations on this argument e.g. "If you care about refugees and do not have them all staying in your spare bedroom, you are a hypocrite"

Clearly we have a collective not an individual problem - our economy is based on fossil fuels which are causing AGW. The problem can only be solved by collective action - by root and branch transformation of our energy production systems.

I would encourage people who fly to take the offsets option but at the end of the day it makes little difference. The fact is that tree-changing will not solve the problem - there are too many of us.

But hey Gerard - you know this - that is why you spend so much time here concern trolling (a behaviour by the way that only someone completely lacking in ethics could perform as consistently as you).

What you are terrified of is that collective action will occur.

Mr Dean, you write: "Unfortunately, the manufacture of marketable quantities of algae or crop based jet fuel are far into the future."

Au contraire, Mr Dean: the articles to which I refer you strongly suggest that marketable quantities of photosynthetically-derived transport fuels will be available within the decade. Another "Conversation" in which we have both participated has included mention of the potential for mallee as a biofuel feedstock.

The urgency of the need to implement any and all fossil fuel-replacing technology is the subject of Prof Karoly's interview with Ms Creagh (did you read the article).

I make similar points in the comments after Chris McGrath's "Energy White Paper plans to burn, burn, burn it all" (https://theconversation.edu.au/energy-white-paper-plans-to-burn-burn-burn-it-all-10616), with specific reference to the onset of large-scale methane release due to thawing of permafrost. Necessity may be a mother, and in this case it is a driver for the rapid implementation of fossil fuel-replacing technologies.

Perhaps one's definition of "far" depends on one's present life expectancy. I'm in my early '50's, so a decade is not what I consider to be "far" into the future.

trust the us navy to squeeze jet fuel from sea water! buckminster fuller was us navy. mr "spaceship earth". -a.v.

Ian Dunlop's CV can be found here and Patrick Hearps and David Karoly are at the top of the page.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/ian-dunlop-35634.html

So that leaves you Geoffrey.

I see you are adopting an approach that is becoming increasingly popular among climate science deniers - claiming to be a "Research Associate" to lend some authority to your anti-science views. You may well be but if you want the credibility, it is only fair that you front up with the field of study and institution.

Over to you Geoffrey.

Muhahaha, unfortunately I expect Mr Henley lacks my distinctly nasty streak, but my advice would be to leave Mr Hansen to stew in his own conspirational paranoia.

Mr Hansen, I have it on very good authority that Mr Henley is being bankrolled by big oil - he gets paid per word he posts here. In fact you will most likely find that me, Mr Henley, Mr Dean are all the same person.

Would I lie to you?

@Sean Lamb

Not convinced Sean. If Henley was being paid by big oil, they would have asked for their money back by now surely.

As to you and Dean being the same person - well I did notice that you both recently changed your name to Denier - but no, not persuaded. If you told me that Dean was a moonlighting Andrew Bolt your argument would have more credibility.

But the issue here is Henley - he has made a big fuss about the author's CV. It behoves him to come clean on his own.

Hey, don't you knock Patrick Hearps!!!!!!

Mr Hearps is a co-author of the famous and dare I say, woeful Beyond Zero Emissions/Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan.

This organisation, funded by our taxes through The University of Melbourne's Energy Institute, suggested that Australia could replace ALL fossil fuel electrical generation with renewable's by 2020. I will repeat that, TWENTY TWENTY.

But, Mr Hearps is famous for one more thing. He flew, courtesy of fossil JetA1 fuel to Spain to review the Concentrated Solar plants in that poor basket case of a country. Whilst there he indulged in his favourite sport of rock climbing and had to be rescued by a - wait for it - A HELICOPTOR.

Now good readers, what do you think the helicopter was powered with - peanut oil, solar panels, lemon juice or extract of climate change venom. No, you will be surprised to learn that his rescue helicopter was powered by, wait for it:

JETA1 FOSSIL FUEL.

For a proud Denier, it just doesn't get much better than this. Sadly,however, Old Mother Earth is not so impressed with the hypocrisy of most climate change believers who tell me I should stop driving my V8, but then CHOOSE to burn JetA1 to fly to Europe for their own pleasure.

Gerard Dean

"Ian Dunlop's CV can be found here and Patrick Hearps and David Karoly are at the top of the page"

Dunlop's and Hearp's CVs make NO mention whatsoever of any qualifications in climate science. It is completely misleading to describe them as climate change experts.

My job title is a 'Research Associate' and I am employed at Flinders University. I have a science degree so I suggest that my understanding of the scientific method is superior to yours. You are the one with anti-science views . Not me.

@Geoffrey Henley

And the field of research? It is easily googled so I am not sure what all the secrecy is about? You are the one who is questioning CVs and implying authority of your own in this debate so why not live up to your own standards.

"I have a science degree so I suggest that my understanding of the scientific method is superior to yours"

Actually Geoffrey - I also have a science degree (not in climate science) so your claim to have superior knowledge of the scientific method has to be judged on your comments here.

Here are 3 articles quickly found where in the comments, you reject climate science without offering any evidence or referring to any peer reviewed science.

Seems like a fail to me.

https://theconversation.edu.au/future-under-threat-climate-change-and-childrens-health-9750
https://theconversation.edu.au/a-storm-of-stupidity-sandy-evidence-and-climate-change-10492
https://theconversation.edu.au/what-happened-to-climate-change-fox-news-and-the-us-elections-9814

18 posts here at the time of writing this comment.

8 of these posts are by deniers, 7 posts are rebutting the deniers.

Yet again The Conversation is just providing a platform for the deniers, and the back and forth between denier and rebuttal drowns out any discussion of article.

If The Conversation is to retain any integrity they urgently need to fix the commenting system.

I think I'm with you on this MWH. Maybe we coould all just ignore them?

After all they routinely behave just like Drew Barrymore in 50 first dates. Every new thread they post on it is as if they have completely forgotten the evidence presented to them on another thread that totally refutes their utter denialist rubissh and just start the cycle of goldilocks fantasies again. At least Drew Barrymore had the excuse that she couldn't help it. :)

Calling for censorship Mr Newlands.

The only reason you want us few proud Deniers to go and hide is so you can keep flying, keep burning JetA1 Fuel and keep telling others not to do the same.

It doesn't take any scientific skill to question the ethical basis of those who claim “You really have to move to an emergency response.” and then continue to burn JetA1 fuel for their own pleasure.

Also, the author did not divulge that the author of those words, Mr Dunlop was a retired executive at Shell Oil Company. Don't get me wrong, I love nothing better than putting Shell premium fuel in my 7 litre Holden Commodore, but having an ex-Shell man tell me to stop driving my car is a bit rich.

Gerard Denier Dean

I agree John - an idiot filter would be useful. Unfortunately we just have to acknowledge the constant posts from the Drew Barrymores of climate science are proof of what Einstein had to say "only two things are infninite, the universe and stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former"

At some point the idealists and sundry hangers on have to realise the genie is out of the bottle. You have to admit a Eurocentric political and philosophical agenda to save the world has ended in abject failure. No point slagging off at "deniers". The game is over, overtaken by much larger economic imperatives in the developing world.

You need a different, and more practical approach, and certainly one driven by a sober understanding of the science and the economics.

Time to grow up.

Hey John

Is it really so easy to sort 'denier' and 'scientific' comments? It is possible, for example, to accept the scientific consensus on climate change and still make an illogical argument.

Would you consider such a filter for all topics - for example, posts advocating alternative medicine would be redirected to a 'non-scientific' thread somewhere?

Cheers

James

Mr Newlands, I'd rather see comments from these Denialists remain in "The Conversation" for the reason that I can explain to them how and why they are wrong.

My hope is that they will achieve some enlightenment before they die, that their pride in their "integrity" is no more than the vainglorious stubbornness of viciously stupid old men.

They will understand why their grandchildren hate them.

David Arthur - It is a pity that your passion is so badly misdirected.

Firstly it is clear from reading all the conversations here that the deniers will be posting similar rubbish in a years time and you might well be posting the same rebuttals.

These deniers are ignoring the rebuttals - you won't change their minds.

What we urgently need to do is get the majority of people who already accept the science to recognise that more action needs to be taken soon. The deniers don't matter.

The vast majority of readers of The Conversation accept the science. They have quickly learned that these endless and repetitive discussions with the deniers achieve nothing. I have given up reading most of it.

What the deniers have achieved (and you are encouraging) is the hijacking of any real discussion on what to do next.

I'm sorry, but I really do think that you are achieving nothing by posting here to advance progress on climate change. Almost no-one is reading your posts, and it is clear that even the deniers are not engaging with what you say.

Mr Wilbur-Ham, thanks for your comments ("David Arthur - It is a pity that your passion is so badly misdirected.
...
"What the deniers have achieved (and you are encouraging) is the hijacking of any real discussion on what to do next.
"I'm sorry, but I really do think that you are achieving nothing by posting here to advance progress on climate change. Almost no-one is reading your posts, and it is clear that even the deniers are not engaging with what you say.")

Thanks for that. The Good News is, I've also worked out what to do next, and that's to not bother with multi/international agreements or anything else like that, but to simply introduce, then steadily increase, a fossil fuel consumption tax (FFCT), until fossil fuel use is priced out of the market, and all fossil fuel users have invested in non fossil fuel equipment and technology.

Please have a read of my comment that begins "Peter Sommerville points out ..."; that pretty well outlines my proposal.

So where does it say that only fully fledged members of the Church of CAGW are allowed to comment at this site?

If us sceptics wish to comment here, that is our right, and if you warmists don't agree with our views, too bad. Its called free speech, something that you warmists seem to have a major problem with.

Quite frankly, if there are websites out there 'shunting sceptical comments to another thread', then I wouldn't give these websites the time of day.

Perhaps you warmists are the real deniers. The the deniers of free speech!

@ David Arthur - I think we close to each other on solutions. I also agree that countries should move individually. That this means carbon taxing imports. And that taxes are the best way to reduce carbon.

The problem is that we can't debate these ideas with others who accept the science because every discussion is hijacked by the deniers. Most people who accept the science don't bother reading these comments.

@ Geoffrey Henley - There is free speech - you are welcome to set-up your own website. But a website about Islam should be able to ban people who are on their site only to denigrate their religion, a website about cricket should be able to ban posters who just keep posting the cricket is boring and football is the only real sport, and a website to promote rational academic based discussion should be able to ban people who flood their discussion with irrational non-science.

"Maybe we coould all just ignore them?"

Yes we should simply acknowledge that their position is based on the observations in this: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

i.e. their position is that the "red Marxist socioeconomic" action required to deal with global warming will NEVER be worth whatever benefit it will bring because electing a government that performs any sort of "red Marxist socioeconomic" action is the beginning of the end and carries the risk that we will succumb to "red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine". To them, this is worse than any climate catastrophe.

So denialists don't care that their arguments are dishonest and wrong. It's just a smokescreen for what they really think. That's why they will never change their minds regardless of the facts.

@ MWH - progress I think! Look here https://theconversation.edu.au/renewable-energy-sector-grows-but-barriers-remain-10986 and note TC policy :)

John Newlands put in a vote for censorship and blocking commentary by suggesting: "I wonder if The Conversation could adopt the practice of other popular websites by shunting climate change denial comments to another thread."

Messrs. Newlands and Wilbur-Ham would fit in well at the BBC where, we learn, there actually has been a program for years to push the AGW notion and to block input by those honestly sceptical that man's emissions of CO2 are causing the world to warm. Here is a good discussion of the BBC actions: http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/13/bbcs-best-scientific-experts/.
Much the same mindset is in play at the ABC, CBC, and other national (i.e., government-supported) broadcasters. It is certainly true of the CBC, and most likely of the ABC (as well as of any number of academic institutions), that it is overflowing with leftists who use their power to promote their own viewpoint.

IanM

Thanks for the question, Dr Veerman ("But is it really likely that it is the emissions trading that engenders much of the resistance, and that a straightforward carbon tax would be more popular?")

1. Emission trading sticks in the craw of all of us who understand it AND are not in the bankster classes.

2. Abbott's got nothing: you remember his scare campaign in the lead-up to this "toxic tax"? Well, people aren't that stupid: they've noticed that the 1 July price rises weren't that bad, and anyway, they had some tax cuts.

3. Remember, a crucial part of the FFCT I propose is its revenue neutrality: the idea is not to rip a whole lot more money out of the productive economy, but to take exactly the same money out of the economy while simultaneously discouraging fossil fuel consumption ... which is pretty much the same as encouraging people to look for alternatives to fossil fuel using technology.

Technological transformation is the only way that this emissions abatement is going to happen - so why on earth should it involve transferring vast sums of money from the productive economy to the pockets of banksters?

@Lennart Veerman, you've raised four issues in response to my advocacy of not following the EU down the ETS rabbit hole, and instead following British Columbia's enlightened lead with a revenue-neutral fossil fuel consumption tax (I've used the abbreviation 'FFCT' in other "The Conversation" discussions).

To begin, you'd "oppose the withdrawal of renewable energy targets, feed-in tariffs & such like ..." I'm insufficiently versed in the Game Theory of electricity pricing, so I can't comment on the merits of feed-in tariffs. Regarding emission targets, there is only one target that matters: 100% cessation of recycling geosequestered carbon to the atmosphere as quickly as our economies can so do. Any target other than that is just politicians getting up on their hind legs and trying to out-moralise each other.

"Revenue-neutrality is also a fine principle, but it raises the question of how to distribute the proceeds." That is something for the politicians to work out; they've got Treasuries and Depts Finance full of highly paid economists (Brains Trusts), and they've even had a Henry Tax Review to tell them what taxes to eliminate.

Mind you, the Henry Tax Review justified emission trading in preference to carbon taxing by citing the seminal paper on taxation of pollution, Weitzmann (1971) "Prices vs Quantities", when in fact Weitzmann established the superiority of simply taxing a "bad" instead of setting a "bad cap".

"If such a scheme has sufficient political support it would give businesses more certainty that a trading scheme, and thus better enable them to plan ahead." Correct. Businesses need certainty to thrive, whereas trading markets (which would be zero-sum at best if there were no trading commissions) thrive and actively engender business-destroying volatility. If the GFC has taught us anything at all, surely it's to minimise the amount of the economy that is subject to financial derivative trading?

" The big advantage of carbon trading is that it is being implemented. From where we are now, wouldn't it be a more realistic and therefore effective strategy to try and strengthen the ETS, rather than advocate for something new?" I bet the same arguments were used in the US during Prohibition, and they're still being rolled out in the "War on Drugs".

Put simply, the ongoing attempts to "fix" the EU ETS tell us that it's a turkey that will never fly. It's sort of like CCS.

Guess what we never hear of: the revenue-neutral carbon consumption tax already operating in British Columbia (which Reagan Secretary of State George Schulz advocates for the US) . Why do we never hear of it? Because it never needs fixing, because it works.

@Lennart Veerman: I have not yet responded to the question: "Could it not be that the narrative that emissions trading only benefits bankers and does nothing to reduce emissions is a furphy?"

Well, no it is not a furphy. Emissions trading does nothing to reduce emissions, because any and all emissions reduction comes from the imposition of an emissions cap ie old-school, Soviet-style, centralised planning. If ever there was a recipe for sub-optimal goal-seeking, that's it.

I summarise the mechanics of "cap-and-trade" schemes as a blend of market-based pricing ("trade") and Soviet old-style centralised planning ("cap").

Now, the "trade" part of the scheme is market-based, but is a market-based zero-sum game. [Nearly a zero-sum game, if we forget about the obscene fees of the trading houses]. That means that for every dollar someone makes out of emission trading [less brokerage], someone else is losing. Yes, you might say, someone else might be losing money, but at least emissions are being reduced.

Well, no. There is no emission reduction as a result of emission trading. All the emission reductions come from the initial emissions cap. That is, from old-school centralised target-setting, Soviet-style.

The same emissions reduction would be achieved without emission trading at all, simply by imposing the emissions cap. Looked at this way, the emissions trading has nothing to do with emissions reduction, but has everything to do with adding a sweetener to emission capping, to at least buy the enthusiastic support of the people who stand to make a mint out of emissions trading.

Now, that's "progressive" politics for you, Tony Blair style.

Its just as easy as ever to take the David Karoly's of the world seriously. Having met the man, what did I see?Someone knowledgeable about his subject, and a decent gently soul.Whats notto take seriously in that?

Contrast that with a lack of knowldege among some folks combined with a serious, chip-on-the-shoulder anger and all the ingredients for presumed doubt and distrust of them are present.

This is what so many Deniers don't get. Their whole attitude-filled, bovver-boy aggro thing that infuses their comments means that they won't be taken seriously. Their opinions will be discounted and distrusted.

Why?

Because anger is the most powerful emotion that can cloud our judgement. If you want to convince some one, anger doesn't do it. For every person who might think your anger is justified, 100 others will see your anger as the thing that renders your judgement suspect. People distrust angry people.

In many ways Spiros, the underlying anger of many denier comments speaks volumes. If they wanted to influence peoples opinions they would mask their anger to make their case. That they can't keep their anger in check says it all.

No one takes the posts of Spiro Vlachos seriously - and why would they? They are clearly such a laughable joke of repetitious recycled discredited deniliats memes without a shred of evidence to sustain them

Chris O'Neill, you are truly a climate alarmists groupie. On your knees boy.

"you are truly a climate alarmists groupie"

That's right. I'm part of the green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine whose objective is global wealth redistribution.

Believe it or not, this is the basis of Spiro Vlachos's denialism: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Whyn - if you are an engineer - riddle me this. If I add heat to a room with a large ice block in it what happens first? Does the ice melt or does the average temperature of the air in the room go up fiest?

Unless and Until you start presenting evidence instead of recycling denialist memes that have no substance don;t expect to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you should consider and reflect on the evidence before continuing to post the silly tubbish that you do on this topic.

Other "Drew Barrymores" on this thread (see 50 first dates) would do well to consider the same - instead of continuing to post laughable idiocy that has been refuted on the evidence more times than I've had hot breakfasts.

If AGW is not real, what, exactly, is causing the following??

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint4.gif
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif

And that's just a small sample. Those who actually study the problem conclude that it is real

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.

US National Academy of Science's report America's Climate Choices 2011:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
"Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."
US meterological society
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate."

What possible evidentiary basis do you have for denying this? From your armchair? Seriously??

In reply to Dr Mark- if you are a Dr, Dr. of what?
I think the sanest way to answer your first para is, "What do you think?" Hint: look up latent heat, conduction, convection and radiation in Wiki. That way I shan't add greatly to your literature survey armchair work.
As I endeavored to say, emotive language, name calling and begging the question don't add to the serious side of the consensus debate.
Confining discussion to your own views won't help.
If you have an idea and I have an idea and we tell each other, we both end up with two each.

Whyn Carnie: "As I endeavored to say, emotive language, name calling and begging the question don't add to the serious side of the consensus debate."

That's right, we should just leave those things to the denialists: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate :

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

@ Whyn - I have a phd in Physics. It appears you are incapapble of answering even a basic science question. The ice will melt before the overall ambient temperature rises.

Please provide your explanation as to why the earth's ice mass is disappearing or else plese cease your science denialism posting on this thread.

You can address any and all of the numberous links to evidence I have provided (I note you provide none)

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/8-before-and-after-images-of-ice-melt

With due respect, Dr Tonkin, I view "binding cuts in emissions" as so much rhetorical hot air.

In my discussion with Lennart Veerman, I've set out why unilateral cation in the form of a revenue-neutral fossil fuel consumption tax is a superior, workable, response. Indeed, British Columbia has already adopted this approach, and it is the preferred response of James Hansen (although the dividend component of his "tax-and-dividend" seems somewhat utopian.

I would appreciate it if you had a look through my comments to this effect on this page, and comment accordingly.

"argue strongly at Doha for major countries to agree on binding cuts in emissions"

What does "binding" refer to in this case? This is where conservatives start getting petulant and complain about "a violation of sovereignty".

David Arthur,

I've taken some time out today to re-read your earlier discussions with Lennart Veerman and Peter Sommerville. In a lengthy reply to Peter Sommerville, in which you spell out in some detail your proposal that countries should unilaterally introduce taxes on fossil fuels, you cite the CEDA publication (June 2011), 'A Taxing Debate: The forgotten issues of climate policy'.

On page 11 of that CEDA publication, William D Norhaus discusses harmonized global prices, fees or taxes as an alternative to quantitative limits on emissions, and as a method of coordinating policies among nations. The key words here are 'harmonized' and 'coordinating'.

On page 11 of the same CEDA publication, Geoff Carmody stronly endorses international policy action rather than countries acting unilaterally: "... a global policy response is needed, something so far lacking. Indeed, securing a genuinely global, comprehensive policy deal should be the 'main game'."

Roger Tonkin

Correction:

William D Nordhaus' discussion of harmonized prices, fees and taxes in on page 43 of the CEDA publication, not page 11.

@Roger Tonkin, who points out that even Nordhaus and Carmody accept that co-ordinated imposition of carbon pricing is required to minimise the climate change processes we've already initiated.

There are a couple of comments that need to be made here, so I'll be posting a couple of comments.

First, note that Carmody, Nordhaus and Porter are economists; their discussion revolved around taxing "carbon emissions", whatever that is.

Now, our climate problem is NOT carbon emissions; our problem is that the carbon our processes emit is FOSSIL carbon; if we used no fossil fuels, but used 100% biofuels we wouldn't have a climate crisis. Biofuels are emission neutral because they are derived from biological carbon which was in the atmosphere until fixed by photosynthesis.

Another way to think of it is to realise that, tens of millions of years ago, the earth's climate was much warmer than it has been for the entire history of human civilisation. The reason it cooled down to the state in which human civilisation developed, and to which civilisation is adapted, is biogeochemical processes acting over deep time to geosequester carbon. It is this geosequestered carbon that we have exploited as fossil fuels, thereby returning this carbon to the atmosphere, that is causing the earth to warm up once more, moving the earth system to states completely outside human experience, and to which we (and the ecosystems on which we depend, are not adapted).

It also happens that taxing consumption of fossil fuel is a damn sight easier to administer than taxing carbon emissions, because it is very east to measure the amount of fossil fuel consumed, and very hard to measure the carbon emitted. Look at the difficulties they're experiencing measuring fugitive emissions from coal and from CSG, for example.

So, taxing carbon emissions is suboptimal in that it does not quite address the specific problem we are trying to solve; on the other hand, taxing fossil fuel consumption is straightforward and has the virtue of directly targetting the exact problem that we are trying to solve.

@Roger Tonkin, who points out that even Nordhaus and Carmody accept that co-ordinated imposition of carbon pricing is required to minimise the climate change processes we've already initiated.

That's quite correct: the required cessation of fossil fuel use applies to all nations. Note, however, that Carmody sets out how Australia could unilaterally set a consumption tax using the GST as a model (recall that the GST was introduced in Australia without affecting Australia's overseas trade).

Consumption taxation is vastly superior to production taxation (essentially what emission cap-and -trade is about) because consumption taxation passes the no-disadvantage test for ustralian industry against its foreign competitors with flying colours; I trust you read Carmody far enough to see that the very design of "cap-and-trade" schemes creates huge disadvantages for Australian industry.

So yes, you cannot have cap-and-trade schemes unless the entire world does likewise, and yes, you cannot solve the climate problem without worldwide action. However, Australia can easily eliminate fossil fuel use from its technological base unilaterally (the new technologies could themselves be licensed into overseas markets, generating an IP income for Australia).

It gets better than that. If Australia's border adjustment tax includes the fossil fuel used in transporting goods to Australia from their overseas port of origin, this is of automatic benefit to Australian-sourced goods.

It gets better than even that. If Australia processes its mineral exports, extracting the metal in Australia before export, then there is a substantial addition of value to the export, while simultaneously decreasing the volume and tonnage of material exported: that is, less fossil fuel is required to transport steel or aluminium than to transport the iron ore or bauxite from which these metals are extracted. So, if and when Australian exports are subject to the border adjustment taxes of the importing nation, then shipping decreased volume and higher value is a win for Australia, both ways.

Mind you, we'll need that win. The upshot of the article to which we are posting comments tells us that Australia's coal and LNG export markets are going to cease to exist sooner rather than later.

Gday Mark, sorry for the delay, but I'd not noticed your comment before now (Thursday 29 Nov). The questions you pose demand a considered response, so I'll want to give them some thought before I respond.

Thanks David - take your time. Your lack of response had led me to think you might have taken my approach to FFCT as cynical. Please be assured that is not the case.

I am genuinely interested in exploring all viable possible strategies to address AGW - whilst I am also skeptical about any suggestion (you know - the genuine kind of skepticism - unwilling to accept anything on face value but also unwilling to condemn something as bad/false unless there is a clear evidentiary basis for doing so as opoosed to making a virtue out of doubt fueled by ignorance) - I think pricing mechanisms MUST be part of a considered whole of government policy response to the issue.

If we can apply suitable pricing mechansisms that help to change consumption patterns in a superior way to an emission tax or trading scheme hybrid then it is worth exploring.

By the way one thought I had in relation to a defence for point 3 woiuld be to grant full tax credits for any imports of goods and services associated with fossil fuel consumption when those imports came from a jurisdiction that had it's own recognised or near equivalent FFCT regime - in much the same way we grant an income tax offset for income tax arleady paid on overseas earnings. I don't have the specialised skills to articulate exactly how that would work but in principle it seems workable?

Gday Mark, Thanks for these engaging questions. My responses follow your numbering, with the addition of '5' to respond to your closing questions.

1) Regarding mining and agriculture, I understand that they are presently in receipt of diesel fuel excise rebates of around 23.14 cents per litre (ie 100% of the diesel fuel excise).
Diesel fuel contains about 734 g of carbon per litre, so excise rate of 23.14 c/L is 31.5 c per kg of contained carbon. It would be equivalent to a carbon tax of $315 per tonne, or $1156 per tonne CO2, whereas the present carbon price for the 500 largest emitters (or whoever wound up subject to the convolutions) is $23 per tonne CO2 [commonly referred to as $23 per tonne carbon pollution, another bit of obfuscatingly lax terminology]. Therefore, if an FFCT is introduced at a rate anywhere in the range $10 - $50 per tonne carbon ($37 - $167 per tonne CO2), its impact would still be small relative to a withdrawal of diesel fuel excise rebate.

2) FFCT would use the administrative structure of the existing consumption tax, the GST. The additional information required on BAS statements would be pretty much concerned with quantities and carbon content of fossil fuels consumed (biofuels are exempt, because they are not fossil fuels). How are those most hurt by the imposition of the FFCT compensated? Well, those most "hurt" are not actually "compensated". However, Treasuries are full of Brains Trusts otherwise known as economists who should be able to allocate equitable tax-cuts; they've even got a book of suggestions, in the form of the Henry Tax Review. It is expected that prudent people will use these tax cuts to invest in ways and means of using less fossil fuel, thereby avoiding future FFCT costs as the FFCT rate is to be increased year by year until the requisite decrease of fossil fuel consumption occurs.

3) If I remember rightly, Geoff Carmody's view is that his border adjustment tax is WTO compliant, as is the "border adjustment" treatment of imported goods under the GST. I am not certain, but do expect that a border adjustment calculation that takes note of fuel used to get goods to Australia's orders would also be WTO-compliant (not that WTO compliance is a particularly high standard of moral probity, since the WTO seems pretty much a club for the biggest baddest proponents of dodging labour laws; but I digress). If my FFCT border adjustment is not WTO-compliant, although international shipping consumes 4% of global fossil fuel use, then there's a good case for getting WTO rules changed; they were drafted, after all, in complete ignorance of climate change.

4) The (closet Denialist) Opposition is experiencing something of a credibility gap between its scare campaign rhetoric of earlier in the year, and the relatively mild cost of living adjustments experienced since 1 July, most likely because of the (over) compensation in raising the income tax threshold. If I was in charge of implementing the FFCT, it would not be a Great Big new tax on anything: it would be introduced at a modest rate (although not as modest as $23 per tonne CO2 ~ $6.36 per tonne C; I might start it around $10 per tonne C, and increase it by $5 per tonne C every year thereafter, with requisite cuts in other taxes).

5) Are price signals more effective than the current Clean Energy Futures package? Well, my FFCT is pretty much the same as the current Clean Energy Futures tax, except tat as a consumption tax it would be piggybacked on the administrative structures of the GST, rather than arbitrarily targetting any particular group of tax-paing entities. After all, everybody who uses fossil fuel is contributing to the problem, so everybody can be encouraged to find their own optimal contribution toward a solution; this is what I call egalitarianism.

Are price signals more effective than the curent carbon tax? As at 2012, the "current carbon tax" is purely and solely the imposition of a price signal; as yet its emission trading component hasn't yet been introduced. To my recollection, no public statement by any member of the Federal Government has asserted anything other than words to the effect that a price signal is the best way of decreasing CO2 emissions - no pretence at claiming that an ETS is of any value at all.

More generally, you ask if a price signal is the optimal way of encouraging behaviour: I'm not seeking behavioural change, I'm expecting technological substitution of non-fossil fuelled equipment and technology for present equipment and technology. For this purpose, a price signal is the optimal guide for decision-making, as shown by Weitzmann's seminal 1971 paper on pricing pollution, "Prices vs Quantities". (The Henry Review comments on carbon taxation seemed to be based on a misinterpretation of Weitzmann.)

My response to your supplementary on point 3 is based on what I glean from Geoff Carmody.

Mr Carmody's proposal for taxing carbon emissions (note that I propose simplifying this to taxing fossil fuel consumption, since is is much easier to measure and automatically excludes 'benign' (climate-neutral) CO2 emissions from biofuels (and respiration!), is modelled on the GST, which deals with exports by 'zero-rating' (GST exemption) goods at the port of exports, and deals with imports by imposing a 'border adjustment' tax at the point of entry. This allows for 'level playing field for internationally traded goods, since the consumption tax regime of exporting nations are excluded from tax treatment in their trading partners.

Of course, any nations is free to not 'zero-rate' their exports, thereby drawing taxation revenue directly from exported goods. However, importing nations may have the discretion to treat imports from that nation as though the goods were zero-rated, so why would a government burden its exports in this way?

@ McQueen

A genuine skeptic is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly)

A genuine skeptic also does not condemn something as false unless it can be shown to be false
Someone with healthy skepticism who may doubt something if it has not been proven to be true, but would not condemn it as false unless he obtained verifiable evidence that it is false - which you have not.

On the other hand a "denier" is a cynic who refuses to believe anything is true that one does not already believe, regardless of evidence and a Pseudo-skeptic who, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational. You post indicates you are the latter. Not a sceptic as you claim.

Here are some "inconvenient" facts for you to deal with
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint4.gif
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif
alonf with the conclusions of the main science bodies who represent those have actually studied the matter
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial."

US National Academy of Science's report America's Climate Choices 2011:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
"Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."

US meterological society
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate."

Ian

Of course H2O is the main GH gas.That is well known. But it can't accumulate in the atmosphere so it can never drive a change. Soemthing else has to change the temperature of the atmosphere to change how much water vapour can hold. Then the atmosphere responds by the H2O concentration increasing of decreasing to follow. So CO2 (and lets not forget Methane) has a modest effect on its own but then changes the possible water vapour content of the atmosphere producing a magnifying effect. And the evidence is that water vapour concentrations are increasing. Satellite observations have measured a 4% increase in H2O concentrations in the last several decades.

As someone whom I haven't communicated with before, just to clarify what your undestanding of the processes of climate change please giive your best answer to the following question - you can select more than one answer.

At which level in the atmosphere does changing GH gas concentrations have the biggest impact on climate change?
a. The surface & lower Troposphere
b. The mid Troposphere
c. The upper Troposphere
d. The lower Stratosphere
e. The mid Stratosphere

Next basic concept - that CO2 emissions could affect Climate. The knowledge of the basis of how CO2 could do that was developed through the 1960's. By the early 70's that aspect was quite well understood. One of the leading agencies involved in the research? The US Defense Department.

That CO2 is affecting climate. Over the last 1/2century the amount of heat that has accumulated in the oceans is over 2 * 10^23 Joules. A huge number. That much added heat is the equivalent of 2-3 Hiroshima Bombs every second for 50 years. Or alternatiively, boiling Sydney harbour dry 2-3 times a day. for all those years.

Importantly, there is no available heat source here on Earth that could have possibly supplied that much heat. The closest contender is Geothermal heat. And that would need to be 4 times larger than geologists have actually observed. So that extra heat can't have come from here on Earth. Which leaves something affecting the Earth's heat balance with space.

We know that the Sun hasn't warmed over that period - if anything it has cooled slightly. We have near continuous observations of the Sun for nearly 40 years that confirm this.

So that only leaves one option. Something is restricting the flow of heat to space. And we have some satellite observations supporting this - that it is GH gases.

As for the word Denier/Denial. No, it's not generally used as a reference toHolocaust denial even if the occassional person uses it in that way. It is actually a reference to the psychological concept of Denial.

That when some information is too difficult for us to 'process', accept, we enter into a state of denial of it. When your doctor tells you you have cancer, most people go through anger, grief etc. But some people go into denial instead. That is the context in which the word Denier is used.

You better stop writing Ian. You are accusing us of being 'sociologists, economists, political commentators, and others who have the least knowledge of science.'

That's highly polemical, begging for the uninitiated.
And it sux..

Anyone can find the facts actually. There are a lot of papers on the Internet reporting about various experiments and local as well as global measurements over time. But you are trusting in that people are lazy it seems? And cater to the guy with the most flaming polemic?

There will always be politics involved in a issue that change peoples way of living, and living standards, of course. But when it comes to survival ones political standing will take a second place for the majority, survival of oneself, as well as ones offspring, becoming the first. And nobody are stating that democracy is dead, although the idea of 'the market' as being our sole conveyors of 'truth' surely is.

Alex, you say: "So we know without doubt that not only is the CO2 in air largely ours, the same is true of the seas." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that only about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources. Does this sound right or did I misunderstand the context of your statement?

Your point about 'who pays you' is irrelevant in a discussion about facts - it doesn't matter whether a person works for Exxon or the government or Greenpeace or drives taxis for a living. All that you should be concerning yourself with is the validity of their argument. If they have it wrong then politely direct them to the data which explains why.

Malcolm, the pre-industrial CO2 was ~250ppm. We now have ~400ppm. That's a 60% gain you could have calculated fo yourself.

We're also dumping ~10 billion tons of carbon per year into a system that natural processes can only recycle up to about 200 million tons, mostly via carbonaceous sea life depositing as limestone on sea floors, which then get subducted and returned to the geologic source -- volcanism..

A true conservative would raise flags just on that. You have the refs for the Carbon Cycle elsewhere here.

The seas contain over 40% of all the carbon we've dumped into the air as CO2 from burning. The Carbon14 to Carbon13 isotopic analysis we believe for ancient cave paintings works for air & sea carbon as well, which you should also know already. If not, Google Carbon dating.

Your defensive response to querying your pay source(s) --

"All that you should be concerning yourself with is the validity of their argument."

is suitably pompous for someone who has something to hide beyond their lack of study as illustrated above. And yes, your argument so far lacks "validity".

@ Mr Short - more ignorance and denialism recycling? That benefit of the doubt is disappearing.

I'll keep it simple since apparently that's what you need.

Imagine you have stable weight. Calorie intake matches calorie conversion to energy.

Now you add 3% calorie intake per day but increase your energy out put by only 1-1.2%. How long before you get seriously fat??

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

The CO2 we add each year to the atmosphere is indeed only a small percentage of the total amount that is added - but the natural cycle also removes about the same amount that natural systems add. roughly 60% to 2/3 of what we add is each year is not absorbed.

This particular denialist meme is a deliberate falsehood that confuses net with gross.

Yep, Whyn, when you haven't facts with you, play the victim card!
;]

I also see the absence of warming for the last 16 or so years as being a problem for the AGW hypothesis. To say that natural internal variability explains the pause seems to contradict an important part of the AGW premise - limited natural internal variability was invoked in order to attribute the unremarkable increase in global mean temperature anomaly at the end of last century to man-made CO2 emissions i.e. we know that CO2 was the cause because internal variability is small. Of course, I could be wrong with my reasoning and logic here and would be grateful if anyone could let me know of any failings.

IanM, how many years of rising CO2 with no warming trend do we need to have before the AGW hypothesis can be safely rejected?

Malcolm Short: "I also see the absence of warming for the last 16 or so years as being a problem"

Pity you don't see that it's a lie: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996.83/plot/gistemp/from:1996.83/trend

Are you normally taken in by lies so easily?

"Of course, I could be wrong with my reasoning and logic here"

Getting the facts right would be a good start.

Ian, you sure have a low opinion of folks other than you. Yet, like many deniers, you wear some ignorance like a badge!

"The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, and will always be alkaline (buffering will ensure that), so the word "acidification" is just plain wrong"

Acidification doesn't mean acid. It means a reduction in alkalinity, The pre-industrial alkalinity averaged about 8.2pH. It's now about 8.1, the least alkaline being the N. Atlantic, which gets CO2 from both Chinese & N. American emissions.

At about pH8.0 the calcifying organisms, like plankton and any sea life depending on skeletons or shells, begin to fail. Organisms can no longer extract the carbonate from the seawater from which they construct their rigid parts. This is already being seen in the N. Atlantic.

So, in <200 years, we've brought the world's oceans half way to shutdown of the bases of most all sea food chains, and even much of the sources of photosynthesis.

So, before ~2050, we may see ~20% of the world population's protein disappear, and, of course, Oxygen production fall. A sort of corrective feedback to human stupidity of not dealing with emissions in the '60s, as some responsible folks proposed.

This is from your 1srt link above...

"The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities1"

So, I wonder what you thought in the piece supported anything you said.

Then you say": "There is zero scientifically valid reason to believe that the concentration of CO2 in the air (now only 0.0004) has any appreciable effect on climate;" -- very clearly an ignorant statement. So you don't understand how microwave ovens work either, eh Ian? You can find plenty of easy to read explanations all around the web, from peer-reviewed pieces too (I know "peer review" is a key for deniers, despite their own inability to stand reviews). And, you can look at the links I posted elsewhere here.

You further indicate you don't read other info here with...

"We have been coming out of the miserable conditions of the Little Ice Age since the early 1800s; since that time the world has warmed about 0.7°C, quite naturally; -The sun passed through its most active stage (of millennia) in the second half of the 20th century and now is less active; we may be headed for a prolonged cooling spell, not warming."

Indeed, we should have been cooling now and around 2010, but we weren't and aren't. The 2010 flat temps were explained elsewhere here, if you bothered to read.

But, the sun actually has two main activity cycles: the 11-year one, peaking soon, and a ~90k year one, now ebbing.

So, we should have been cooling around 2010 and warming only slightly now. Neither is true -- we're warming significantly. Even . Monckton refused to my 2009 bet offered him re the 2010 to now period, because despite being a paid denier, he's not dumb.
;]
Again, plenty of refs you could have read here, but here's one to lessen you work..
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

You say: "attempting to silence us sceptics (of man-caused warming) is a fool's game", I agree. I love to see what you think, because it's always good for a laugh.

You really think playing victim helps anyone believe what you say, when you clearly don't bother to study facts? C'mon Ian.

This is fun, because I don't care what you think. I just appreciate each opportunity to call out misinformation so others don't get bamboozled by fluff & nonsense.

Who pays you, again? They may be getting disappointed in seeing how easily your fake skepticism gets flattened. Remember, combustion folks want value for their $, which is why the Kochs dumped Muller.
;]

Malcolm & remaining deniers -- you really need to read. The reason why there was a pause in warming, now gone, was explained quite simply elsewhere here, just as it was in 2009 to quash Monckton's fluff.

See if you can find the explanation here. We're not your servants.

Ian

Let me cover a few of your points:

"By stating that you have shown your ignorance of the chemical concept of buffering. The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, and will always be alkaline (buffering will ensure that), so the word "acidification" is just plain wrong"

The term Ocean Acidification is used as a short hand label to name something that would be harder for people to remember if a more accurate label were given to it such as "Aragonite saturation decline due to lowering of ocean pH'. More accurate but a bit of a mouthful.

I don't know if Alex understands about buffering but that process is well understood by the ocean chemists. This details of this were first worked out 3/4 of a century ago.

Because it is the chemical changes that the buffering causes that are the actual problem. The chemistry of CO2 buffering is complex but it revolves around how the ratio of carbonate to bicarbonate ions in the oceans changes as CO2 is added or removed. And the important consequence of this is that as CO2 levels rise, concentrations of carbonate ions in the water drops. When they drop below key thresholds calcium carbonate is unable to remain solid and starts to dissolve back into the water.

This can be observed from the rocks in the ocean. Rocks nearer the surface tend to have lighter colours since they include calcium carbonate. As you go deeper they take on a darker brown colour since they don't contain calcium carbonate any longer. This is because deeper waters are under saturated with carbonate ions. There is a clearly defined boundary depth below which the water is below the carbonate saturation concentration. And as CO2 is being added to the ocean, the buffering mechanism is raising that depth closer towards the surface.

Calcium Carbonate comes in 2 main forms, Aragonite and Calcite. While both are affected here Aragonite starts to dissolve at a higher threshold than Calcite. So it responds first to a lowering in the concentration.

The problem associated with 'Ocean Acidification' is that a lot of small organisms in the ocean that have shells build their shells from Aragonite and or Calcite. So the threat from 'Ocean Acidification' is that these small creatures will find it harder if not impossible to form shells or prevent them from eroding away. This is already being observed in some species. For example, pterapods are very tiny, free swimming marine snails found all over the oceans. They are a significant food source for larger creatures. And observations frommany places around the world are reporting pterapods with thining and degrading shells.

So you can quibble over some semantics of a phrase. But the chemistry of adding CO2 to the oceans is clear cut and well understood. And there is a real threat.

Did WUWT tell you any of this? I doubt it - I absolutely don't share your view about that place.

Another one:

"But evaporation-convection-condensation of water (oceans, lakes, rivers) moves a huge amount of heat upward for radiation back to outer space. Liquid water plays a large role in regulating climate.
As for water vapor, there is up to 100 times as much water in the air as CO2, so any effect of CO2 is literally swamped by water."

Yes evaporation-convection-condensation transports heat away from the surface. But radiation from the surface is the larger component. Thermalsand Evapotranspiration lifts about 100 Watts/M^2 away from the surface - averaged out over the entire Earth. Radiation from the surface is nearly 400 Watts/M^2 - 4 times as much

So water is a major part in that climate process. Water is also a significant GH gas - estimated to contribute 50% of the GH Effect where as CO2is 20%. But it doesn't swamp the effect of CO2. Your statistic on H2O concentrations is partly right. It is that high AT THE SURFACE. But H2O concentrations drop of rapidly with altitude - essentially falling out as precipitation. By the time you reach the Stratosphere H2O is down to around 1/100th the levels of CO2.

This is important because the many process that determine how strong the GH Effect is occurs in the upper Troposphere and lower to mid Stratosphere. What happens at the surface is a much smaller factorin the GH Effect.

Did WUWT tell you any of this? I doubt it - I absolutely don't share your view about that place.

Another:

'-There is zero scientifically valid reason to believe that the concentration of CO2 in the air (now only 0.0004) has any appreciable effect on climate;'

Apart from decades of research starting in the 1950's, much of it funded by the US Defence Dept as part of the Cold War research program across many branches of science that shows in detail how and why the GH gases have the effect they do. You might care to research subjects like Molecular Dipoles if you want further understanding.

And satellite observations from 1969 onwards showing the GH effect operating in exactly the way the science predicts, iincluding a huge 'notch' in the Earth'sInfra-Red spectrum showing the effect of CO2 - have you ever actually looked at the Earth's IR Spectrum fromSpace Ian? The fingerprint of CO2 is right smack bang in the middle of the graph.

And paleoclimate studies of past climate going back 100's of millions of years that only make sense if we include the effect of CO2.

'-The world has gone 16 years without statistically valid warming;'

No. The ATMOSPHERE hasn't warmed much over the last decade or so. The WORLD is still warming just as much as ever - see my comment to Malcolm above.

'-The "global warming" scare is based only on incomplete computer "models" and worthless temperature data and have been "adjusted" to show warming where there has been none;'

And radiative Transfer Physics that has been understood since the 50 Nobody has adjusted anything except to remove biases. And besides we know the WORLD is still warming from a totally different source. Sea level is rising. That can only happen from a combination of 2 factors - sea water expanding due to warming, or more water being added due to more ice melting. If sea level is still rising, warming is still happening. The oceans are the Earth's thermometer

-The sun passed through its most active stage (of millennia) in the second half of the 20th century and now is less active; we may be headed for a prolonged cooling spell, not warming.

No it didn't. It was quite active during the 1st half of the 20th century. Since then it's heat output has been declining slightly. Yet the world has actually warmed most during this period of a cooling Sun - that sea level thermometer again. In fact if you add up the heat accumulation in the oceans over the last 1/2 century the amount of extra heat is at least 4 times too large to have come from anywhere here on Earth.

And since as you point out, the Sun is cooling, something else must be operating to change the Earth's external energy balance. And since it can't be more heat coming in from the Sun -there is is actually less - then something must be further restricting the flow of heat out to Space tocause anet heat accumulation here. And we know what that is.

But Chris, if one starts the curve fit at 2002, a denier will get exactly what's desired -- flatline!
;]

Finally

"...that attempting to silence us sceptics (of man-caused warming) is a fool's game..."

Nobody is trying to silence them Ian. People are trying to educate them. Because if your comments here are any indication, your skepticism is based on a lack of understanding of the evidence. That and perhaps being peddled a lot of junk science and distortions by some very good con-men. People with names like Anthony Watts. And if you think the comments at WUWT are examples of an informed audience, you obviously haven't been exposed to many people who are REALLY knowledgeable.

So to this comment:
"but when one is correct one can easily withstand the attacks of the mistaken. I have devoted well over 5000 hours to learning about climate, so I don't have anythig to fear from those who do not know anything more about the subject than what appears in the MSM."

Well I have put in something like 50,000 hours reading and understanding the science - 10-20 hours a week for some years. And my knowledge of Climate Change doesn't come from the MSM. Or the likes of Watts. It comes from reading the scientific literature and looking at the data - all of it. Not just the cherry-picked subset that passes for it in the Denialosphere

And I have heard just about everything imaginable from those who think they have an understanding when actually they don't - thats what can happen when we use highly biased and partisan sources such as Watts as our source of information. If we only listen to the con-men it is easy to get conned.

Very good summary of the numbers, Glenn. I'll just add that the warming now in the Arctic, exposes permafrost, which is melting and releasing its CO2 and methane burden -- the latter being many times more absorptive a GHG.

And, Arctic sea ice melt has exposed more sea to absorb more direct solar input, thus more heating, more ice melt.....

Then their are the continental-shelf methane ices beginning to evaporate, as in the Nordic region.

So, the feedback effects are starting to take hold, which will make quibbling over CO2 silly.

It's always amazing to see people with biases reveal they don't bother to study things that counter their bias. For example, Malcolm just wrote:

"Given that atmospheric temperatures have not risen for ~16 years and..."

Which is incorrect by both land and satellite data (seas too), and the reason for the apparent warming slowdown around 2010 was already given elsewhere her.

So, Malcolm, why should anyone take what you say seriously, when you don't take outside info seriously? Just asking?
;]
Here, for your review, should you dare take a factual risk...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce

Malcolm

"ocean heat content (as measured by ARGO) appears to be decelerating/flat in recent years"

The understanding starts with the fact that that statement is flat out,100% wrong.

This link http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ takes you to an animation at NOAA of various OHC related data. Figure 1 is measurements down to 700M whiich was the maximum depth measurable before ARGO. Graph 2 covers everything down to 2000M which is the depth ARGO can operate to.

The first graph is the basis for the repeated claim that the oceans aren't warming. But if you look at the total heat buildup in the 2000 meter range, it is obvious that warming in the oceans hasn't stopped at all. It hasn't even slowed.

What appears to have been happening over the last decade or so is that circulation patterns in the oceans have changed, drawing more warmer water down from the surface levels to the middledepths. This may be associated with changes in the circulation of major ocean current systems called gyres.

With this sort of pattern occurring, the surface waters are warming less because more heat is being drawn down deeper. And if the surface waters aren't heating as much, then that stops the atmosphere from warming much as well. This change in heat distribution patterns is a major part of why air temperatures haven't risen much over the last decade or so.

And that the oceans could go through periods like this - they have been labelled hiatus periods - has been shown in the results of some climate models; see Meehl et al 2011.

Skeptics often like to make much of the current period of reduced warming in the atmosphere as if that is main measure of whether and by how much the Earth is warming.In fact Ocean Heat Content is the number one measurement. And it is showing clearly that warming hasn't slowed in the slightest. Its just happening more somewhere else at the moment.

Glenn - thank you very much for your explanation. I see where I've got the wrong impression - I was looking at the 0-700m data: www.oco.noaa.gov/oceanHeatContentProduct.html
Chris - I accept what you've said but am not quite ready to accept that the claim is an outright lie. Using exactly the same period that you've used but using RSS we get the flatness:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.83/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend
Of course, this is a perfect example of cherry-picking, as is this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.83/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.83/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996.83/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996.83/trend

All I'm driving at is the validity of Ian Dunlop's statement - IMHO the language that he's used speaks to something entirely different to what's observed. Whilst it's clear that my statement isn't really valid, I'm still very interested to know how long a pause would have to last for before the AGW hypothesis becomes doubtful. By extension of the reasoning that Glenn has kindly presented is it possible that the warming of the late 20th century was a result of the oceans giving-up heat which had been moved somewhere else back in the seventies or eighties?

Malcolm Short: "I accept what you've said but am not quite ready to accept that the claim is an outright lie."

David Rose's lie is well known: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

"Of course, this is a perfect example of cherry-picking, as is this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.83/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.83/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996.83/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996.83/trend";

Funny how all of a sudden you know about using woodfortrees after making the statement "I also see the absence of warming for the last 16 or so years".

"I'm still very interested to know how long a pause would have to last for before the AGW hypothesis becomes doubtful."

Just as an example off the top of my head, this shows what forces other than CO2 are capable of doing over a 15 year period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1955/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1955/trend

The question you've got to ask is what happened to the 15-year cooling periods the world used to get up until the 1950s? They don't happen anymore. Why?

@ Malcolm Short Do you realise your posts look remarkably like the tired regurgitation of denialist memes that have been falsified more times that there are comments on the TC?

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. I will try and add to the explanations others have given

1) The 16 year "pause" is a falsehood http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif
as the graph shows

2) If you combine a linear trend of amplitude increase over a period (say ten years) equal to the amplitude variation of a variable parameter with a wavelength/frequency of the same period you will get a combined signal that not only shows periods of a pause but reductions. If you are mathematically literate and can use excel plot the combination of a linear trend y = 1/90 x theta with the sine of theta (in degrees) for values of theta from 1 to 360. You will get a curve that shows an increase for the 1st 3rd of values of theta, follows by a gradual decline, followed by another increase

3) This is a very crude (but surprisingly accurate) model for how climate - as measured by average global temperature - responds in a system that has increasing heat energy being added (in our case from increasing levels of GHGs retaining more heat) to a system with significant natural variation in temperature due to the presence of dynamics - the ability to circulate that heat within the system (ocean and air currents) and large heat sinks (oceans and ice mass for example).

4) Have a look at my post to Whyn Carnie - who apparently understands none of this - and why I would first expect the oceans to heat and the ice masses to melt (exactly what is happening) WAY before I would expect large increases in average temperature in a system where the increase in heat energy was being delivered predominantly radiatively (where the energy penetrates deep into the ice and water due to the combination of its radiative transparency and heat capacity compared to air) and being circulated around the globe.
5) You might also like to examine this paper
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
Key Points
• Models run with human forcing can produce 10-year periods with little warming
• S/N ratios for tropospheric temp. are ∼1 for 10-yr trends, ∼4 for 32-yr trends
• Trends >17 yrs are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temp

Malcolm

" Whilst it's clear that my statement isn't really valid, I'm still very interested to know how long a pause would have to last for before the AGW hypothesis becomes doubtful. ... By extension of the reasoning that Glenn has kindly presented is it possible that the warming of the late 20th century was a result of the oceans giving-up heat which had been moved somewhere else back in the seventies or eighties?"

Try this way of thinking about it.

If AGW is valid, the primary observation we expect to see is heat accumulating here on the Earth. Then a secondary observation is about how well we can predict the distribution of that extra heat.

Primary observation is the OHC data. Warming of the oceans accounts for around 90% of all the extra heat observed over the last 1/2 century, melting ice 3%, warming the land itself 4% and warming the air 3%. So if OHC heating is continuing apace then warming hasn'tstopped. So the first point is that the AGW 'hypothesis' doesn't have any issues with that.What is less certain is how well wecan model the patterns of circulation in the oceans that determines where the heat goes and thus how much the atmosphere responds - the atmosphere (what we think of as Climate) really is the tailbeing wagged by the dog that is the oceans.

What Climate models haven't been as good at so far, although we won't know how well the current models perform until the IPCC's next report in a year, is shorter term predictions on timescales of a decade or lless.This has been a big thrust in recent years in the direction the IPCC has requested reesearchers to go in their research - decade scale and lower predictions.

People often think that the predictions are of a single line intothe future. They aren't. Predictions from individual models or ensembles of models are always given as bands - a centraltrend line with plus/minus estimates around that. This is because the models don't and can't model short term weather variability, only the longer term trends so the predictions always include these bands to allow for short term fluctuations. And the actual observations are still tracking inside the predicted band.

What time scale should we use to judge climate? If we are looking at just the atmosphere, expected increases are of the order of 0.2 DegC per decade. But natural climate variability is of the same order of magnitude -around 0.2 DegC. So at the absolute minimum looking at time periods less than 10 years is meaningless. Only at that timescale is the signal starting to emerge from the background noise of natural variability. To see the signal more clearly then needs longer than 10 years.

As a point of reference, the World Meteorological Organisation that coordinates most standards related to weather and climate science defines Climate as weather averaged over 30 years. If you look at a lot of the data sets where an anomaly is being calculated relative to some baseline period, the baseline is usually 30 years forthis reason.

Another approach that can be taken is to try and filter out the short term variability to see if we can see the underlying trends. At its simples we can use running averages to dothis. A 12 month running average will filter out the annual cycle in data. Watch out for people making claims about any sort of trend based on monthly values. Comparing April in one year with August in another year for example is quite meaningless. If they aren't using 12 month averaged at least, ignore it.

Then we can apply 36 or some times 60 month running averages. Again multiples of a year to avoid annual cycle biases. Averaging over these sorts of periods filters out the effects of the ENSO cycle. Then you can also do 132 month running averages. This filters out the effects of the 11 year solar cycle.

Another simple approach is to look at El Nino, Neutral and La Nina years separately. Doing this and calculating separate trends for all three give 3 lines with essentially the same trend but shifted vertically to reflect the temperature difference between the 3 types of weather systems.

Finally one can do a more technical analysis of the data, using Regression Analysis techniques to try and extract the contribution that different factors make to the observations then remove them tolook at what the underlying trend looks like. One such recent study was Foster & Rahmstorf:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf.

After analysing for and then removing the effects of ENSO, Volcanic activity (actually they look at Aerosol Optical Depth which would actually capture the effects of human air pollution as well) and Solar Cycles, their results show an underlying trend that hasn't flattened at all. Much in line with the continued rise in OHC as well.

Quite simply, AGW warming hasn't stopped or even slowed down. Its just that some other factors have been masking that in the atmosphere recently; but not in the oceans. The Sun has been cooling in recent times, air pollution is rising due to the economies of countries like China & India, ENSO has been particularly busy since 1998.

But underneath all of that AGW is just continuing on.

Glenn, thanks again for taking the time to present the facts. As best I can tell from your responses, the original metric (GMTA) that was used to form the evidential basis for the AGW hypothesis has effectively been relegated, quite rightly, to its appropriate position - it is simply the residual of regional climate anomalies as determined by equator to pole energy distributions, ocean circulations, ENSO, radiative and convective fluxes etc... I agree that we should be looking to the oceans to understand what's really going on with the energy budget.

Perhaps the best discussion of OHC is here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content
Gavin readily acknowledges that the movement of energy to the deep oceans isn't likely to cause us problems any time soon:
"The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)."
Pielke Sr makes a fair observation which Gavin addresses in his piece:
"If heat is being sequestered in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been seen."
It should be noted that observation of this energy build-up tells us nothing about the source of the energy - attributing it to man-made CO2 emissions doesn't leave much room for the possibility that it originated in the upper layers - the 0-700m data shows a steady cooling for a few short years from ARGO's inception to 2009 and it's not unreasonable to suggest that this heat was moved further down by the processes that Glenn described. If this were to be the case then we can get the observed deeper-level energy increase without the need for an external forcing.

Anyway, in the context of Ian Dunlop's statement, when can we expect this 700-2000m store of energy to manifest itself the GMTA and SST data?: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.83/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.83/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1997.83/plot/rss-land/from:1997.83/trend
Sure, 15 years is too short a time-frame to make any meaningful inferences about the direction of a trend but it wasn't expected to look like this, nor does it suggest a new and highly dangerous phase of climate change.

Malcolm recites a much jargon to Glenn and says

" I agree that we should be looking to the oceans to understand what's really going on with the energy budget."

Nice, but the pieces quoted don't cover the bases. Imagining "deep oceans" can store massive heat from solar input and atmospheric warming misses basics, like overturning of deep, warmer, lighter waters, thus acidifying regional fisheries, etc., as happens off coasts like Calif. here.

Warming and melting sea ice and the edges of grounded glaciers, as in Antarctica, thus accelerating their movement to the sea and thus sea rise.

It also ignores the reality that present-day pollutant particulates are responsible for a net cooling of about 1-2W/sq meter, while atmospheric GHGs contribute about 1W/sq meter on the warming side. So a large swing is in place to occur, if and when India & SE Asia clean up their acts. In the Arctic, their pollutants have the opposite effect -- darkening snow/ice and increasing thermal absorption, melting, sea exposure and tundra/permafrost GHG emissions. All leading to further sea warming.

The "deep oceans can take heat" myth also ignores that the oceans aren't everywhere deep and off continental shelves lurk vast amounts of clathrates -- methane ices -- produced by millennia of bacterial digestion of oceanic organic debris. These ices sublime & can be lit with a match, illustrating their high methane content. So they are potentially devastating to climate warming and further feedback interactions with CO2 emissions, solar absorption, etc. These ices in N. Atlantic waters are already emitting methane rapidly, as sonar studies show.

Since methane is 25-100 times better than CO2 in absorbing solar energy, the potential is there for any ocean warming to accelerate a rapid transition that will be very much more unpleasant than just warming due to CO2. Of course, methane oxidizes to CO2 & water, which is why its equivalence is a variable multiple over its atmospheric lifetime.

So talking about deep oceans somehow allowing us to avoid GHG emissions effects is simply meaningless. And it certainly doesn't aid combatting ocean acidification.

Malcolm

Let me respond to several things you have said

Note to the moderators. This conversation might seem somewhat off-topic but actually it isn't. The articles topic is the need for rapid action on CO2, which I agree with. When skeptics suggest there is no AGW problem at all they are arguing against rapid action as well. Therefore the validity or otherwise of their arguments goes directly to the question of the need for action. Except when their claims are so as outlandish as to be riasable and should just be ignored.

"...the original metric (GMTA) that was used to form the evidential basis for the AGW hypothesis..."

Some misconceptions here Malcolm. GMTA was always just one indicator of what was expected to occur. And importantly it did not form any sort of evidence that the AGW 'hypothesis' was developed from. The formation of AGW was based on other factors, with warming of air or oceans or whatever being a predicion of the theory, rather than the basis for it.

AGW theory evolved from around WWII to the late 60's/70's. By then the foundations were all well established with a solid evidence base for the mechanismsw involved formuch of it. The basic absorption character of CO2 etc were known from the start of the 20th century, although only in a very crude sense. The consensus prior to WWII was that CO2 couldn't build up in the atmosphere because the oceans would absorb virtually all of any extra, and more CO2 couldn'tcause more GH Effect because of the so called 'Saturation Effect'

Then things started to change. In the 1930's Revelle cracked the complex problem of the chemistry of CO2 absorption by the oceans - see some of the other comments here about pH, Buffering etc, they are a part of this. CO2 could build up if added. And people were speculating that it was. Then from 1957 onwards, starting in the International Geophysical Year, Keeling began the observation programme confirming that CO2 actually was increasing. Since confirmed by observations from met' stations around the world.

The theory of Radiative Heat Transfer had been under development for years. So much so that the Eqn of Radiative Transfer was included in undergraduate physics textbooks by 1960 - Ramanathan. In 1956, using the first primitive computers Gilbert Plass produced the first attempt at calculating the radiative balance of the atmosphere. He got some things wrong but he set things on the right path. Bolin & others got it far more right by 1960. And the key conclusion was that the Saturation Effect argument was wrong.Changes in the GH Effect aren't driven by changes in absorption near the surface. They are driven by changes in emission at high altitude. At low densities and pressures where the atmosphere isn't remotely saturated.

Then through the 60's a huge research program funded by the US Cold War research program produced massively more detailed understanding of the absorption/emission properties of gases - currently for example the HiTrans Spectroscopic database contains data on around 2,400,000 individual absorption lines for over 30 gases. Why was the military interested in this stuff? On example; if you want to build an IR seeker head for heat seeking missiles that will work reliably in different air pressures, temperatures and gas mixtures, you damn well want to be sure that you understand how IR radiation actually travels through the air. Similarly for Early Warning Satellites. You wouldn't want to start WWIII just because the satellite confused a missile launch with a lightning strike in Siberia.

And developements of Radiative Transfer Codes - programs that could calculate the instantaneous radiative balance for a column of air across a range of wavelengths based on the detailed properties of thoe gases were being developed. By the end of the 60's these programs could predict what IR spectrum you would expect to see looking up or down, from any altitude, from the surface to space, for different surface temperatures, air column temperatures,and mixtures of gases. This was understood by the end of the 60's - see Conrath et al 1970.

So when Ian talks about their being no evidence for the effect of CO2 he is, sadly, just plain ignorant.

Similarly the understanding of other processes involved in the GH Effcet, particularly convection, was being detailed through the 60's, culminating particularly in Manabe & Wetherald 1967. This understanding was considered strong enough that the first report to government on the possible threat of AGW was delivered in 1965, to President Lyndon Johnson. When I was still in primary school and watching Bugs Bunny.

By the early 70's they expected warming, and had early estimates of how much was likely. And there were preliminary reports that maybe temp's were actually rising. But this wasn't clear. It wasn't until well into the 80's that the first studies that looked back through the temperature record started reporting on that actual increase. But they knew full well that the main heat build up had to be happening in the oceans. It wasn't until the start of the 2000's, that the first studies looking back through the record of observations of the oceans was analysed to seehow much warming might have happened. Bingo. It was called at the time the 'smoking gun'.

And during those key years from 1957 (the year I was born) to the 70's, Al Gore & James Hansen were still going through High School and College.

Malcolm

Some comments about the discussion at RC - I've read it before. RPSr has pushed for some time that OHC is an important measure of AGW. And he is correct. But he is also doing it to distract people away to somethingthat is less tangible to many people. Roger himself, after arguing for the importance of OHC, has then put up posts arguing not much warming based on just using the 0-700M data. He is a denialist who masquerades as something else - a real sly old fox.

As to causing us problems 'any time soon', while that might buy us some time that isn't the issue. Will it cause humanity problems eventually? This isn't just about the comfort of our lives today. Its about what world we leave (or inflict) on our children & grandchildren. Hence the topic of urgency in this article. It is urgent that we act quickly now because of the long lead times in the climate. Our grandchildren's lives and well being are tied to the urgency of our actions today.

AGW can make predictions about future climate. But it is primarily the oceans that will determine what path we trace out getting to that future. Steady, even change? Erratic Stop-Start change? Slow at first then hitting hard at the end? Fast change early then slowing down later? It is the oceans that determine the path, but not the final destination.

The notion of heating in the pipeline has never been about heat 'coming out of the ocean'. It is about the fact that since it takes massive amounts of heat to warmthe oceans,most of the extra heat goes into the oceans. This restricts how much heat can be added to the atmosphere because if the atmosphere warms to quickly, some of its extra heat willbe drawn into the ocean, restricting warming of the atmosphere. The pipeline isn't the oceans heating the atmosphere.It is the oceans no longer restricting the heating of the atmosphereby drawing heat from it.

Roger's arguments about being able to observe heat moving in the oceans is also wrong, as Gavin points out.We can only directly observe the presence of heat, not any movement of it - that has to be inferred. Heat transfer can happen because warmer water moves. Or it can happen because water at the same temperature moves in larger quantities. Since we can only observe the temperature of the water and not changes in the flow rate we can't observe any increased heat transfer due to increased flow rates - changes in ocean currents. So: "...The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been seen..." is wrong. Argo can't measure changes in water flow rates, not vertical movements which is what we would need to look for.

That said, detailed examination of the distribution of data does indicate patterns in the heat accumulation associated with specific regions in the ocean - it isn't a uniform change across the whole ocean.

"It should be noted that observation of this energy build-up tells us nothing about the source of the energy - attributing it to man-made CO2 emissions doesn't leave much room for the possibility that it originated in the upper layers - the 0-700m data shows a steady cooling for a few short years from ARGO's inception to 2009 and it's not unreasonable to suggest that this heat was moved further down by the processes that Glenn described. If this were to be the case then we can get the observed deeper-level energy increase without the need for an external forcing."

Not when we look at the numbers Ian. The 0-2000m data is just that, 0-2000, not 700-2000. So any movement from the 0-700 layer to deeper wouldn't show up as a change in the total 0-2000 figures, just an internal redistribution within it, not affecting the aggregate. So it must have come from outside the 0-2000 layer. We know it hasn't come from the really deep ocean since, although the data for down there is sparse, what there is shows slight warming there as well.

And the amount of heat says something important. There is just too much of it to have come from any other terrestrial source. It really is a smoking gun pointing at the GH Effect as the source. Here is an article I wrote some time back at SkepticalScience exploring this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

"it wasn't expected to look like this, nor does it suggest a new and highly dangerous phase of climate change."

Up to a point. What we have seen is still within the bounds of what was expected - predictions include bands on the prediction to allow for expected short term natural climate variability. However, it is possible that the models aren't capturing the behaviour of the oceans that well so the trajectory of warming might be somewhat different from what was expected a few years back. Not whether it warms but by how much and at what pace.

That said the paper Meehl et al 2011 discussed by Gavin & Roger deals directly with the fact that at least some models do predict periods much like this, with changes in where the heat in the oceans goes for periods of time. What the models can't do yet is predict exactly when these periods will occur - just that they will.

As for a new and dangerous phase, well warming could accelerate again if any of several things happen. This overturned warming pattern in the oceans reverses back to the previous mode, as the models suggest will happen eventually. China, India etc get serious about air-pollution controls and stop adding cooling aerosols to the atmosphere. The Sun's current cooler phase it just a hiccup and the next cycle is warmer again. Arctic sea ice melt and land snow cover decline - on current trends we might see a virtually ice free Arctic ocean in September within 3 years - starts adding more warming.

And there are already concerns that the amount of warming already seen so far may be starting to have significant impacts on NH weather, particularly extreme events due to changes in the Polar Jet Stream.

Ian

The discussion on 'Ocean Acidification' isn't reliant on what the pH is. It is actually that the chemistry of what causes the change the pH is chemically tied to changes in carbonate levels.The reactions occur at any pH.

Here is an series of articles written by Doug Mackie & Keith Hunter of the Chemistry Dept at Otago University and Christina McGraw of Clark University.

Titled 'OA not OK' - not the best of titles admitedly. It is a 20+ series posts on the chemistry of all this. Each post is fairly brief,that is why there are so many of them. It is available from http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/OA_not_OK_Mackie_McGraw_Hunter.pdf

I am familiar with the area you are talking about - off the coast of New Guinea if I recall correctly. The problem with trying to draw the conclusion you have from that location is that whatever effect the CO2 venting at that location might have, it as been happening for a very long time so the local impact isstable. So whatever population of marine life lives there will be those that are tolerant of those local conditions. You don't see the species that can't tolerate the conditions.

And different species have different tolerances. Some use calcite rather than aragonite in their shells, each specied will have a slightly different biochemistry to how they form their shells. Also that was a coral reef environment. It says nothing about free-swimming open ocean species which form the vast bulk of the biomass that is potentially affected.

Also,without more information about the location, it is hard to evaluate how much of an impact the CO2 vents have. How much of the CO2 bubbles to the surface rather than dissolves? What are local currents,waves etc like - do they disperse any CO2 effect more widely thus dilluting it. Or do they let it remain locally concentrated?

Where as OA is an issue because it is causing a CHANGE in conditions, and over a widespread area of the ocean. And those impacts are also being observed. The WUWT article you pointed to was actually about a British Antarctic Survey report on the effect, including an image iof the effect on pterapod snails. For example there has also been significant impact observed on pterapods observed in the Bering Sea which has local conditions that are exacerbating the pace of OA.

WUWT doesn't censor views!!! You obviously haven't been on the recieving end of Anthony's censorship as I have. Posts that never get past moderation and just vanish. Not because of language. Just because it was too embarassing.

As for the quality of comments (and posts) at WUWT. We will have to disagree on this. My experience of this having read quite a lot of the content at WUWT is that the standard isn't very high at all. Where there is knowledgeability it seems to be quite patchy. And a lot of the uncensored opinions that Anthony does let up often contain quite uninformed views.

Just look at the farce that was Anthony's recent attempt at a scientific paper that still hasn't been published. Trying to draw conclusions about the surface station temperature record without allowing for the well documented Time-Of-Day observation bias in that record. Result; worthless results.

Good explanation Glenn. And, by the way, Nordic waters already see the lowest pH and see deformations of larvae of creatures upon which fish feed. Obviously, this is a serious problem for nations depending on ocean fisheries. AAAS Science had a piece on this over a year ago, and there are plenty of ocean surveys of pH available on line.

While Ian make correct chemical statements, "acidification" can occur at any pH, as can "alkalinization", if we wished to say that. So quibbling over equivalent terms just wastes time, like measuring your car battery as having +12 volts between two terminals, or -12V, when flipping the meter leads. But, deniers try anything to avoid facts.
;]
The reality is, just as here along Calif. coasts, that more acidic waters often upwell and drive fish & their food sources away from fishing areas. Continue the CO2 injection via our combustion, and the situation only gets worse, faster and over larger sea tracts.

It's no joke that quibbling about acidification is as dumb a thing as one could do, since we've less control over the seas' pH and no real chance to remove excess carbon already there, since we've swamped the Carbon Cycle by a factor of 30+..

The recent symposium about "negative carbon" systems at Stanford touched on the issue of how to prevent oceanic pH from falling to 8.0 and below. There are no good solutions, even if all combustion were to stop worldwide at this period. <-- that one.

Perhaps nations requiring, as we do for airlines & mail, cargo ships to carry CaO or other buffers, and disperse many tons along their paths, would be a baby step. Given that most humans are coastal and ~20% of all food protein comes from the sea, this problem is far larger, catastrophic, and more imminent than global warming effects.

Avg. ocean pH is heading for 8.0 well before 2050. It's current 8.1 is the least alkaline (most acidic), in ~300 million years.

Wake up time.

Nothing wrong with being a believer and a optimist :)

But when a overwhelming majority of professionals dealing with this issue don't agree with your optimism, and beliefs, I suggest it's time to see over ones convictions. That's science at its best, adapting to facts.

And see Dec Scientific American for a good summary of the effects of Arctic ice coverage on the N. Atlantic region too.

Whyn, good to see you boning up on something you apparently had never thought about!

Actually, there's no point in averaging pH. and no one is suggesting that. So let's remove that straw man from your desk.

Ocean pH in the Southern Ocean and the Atlantic and most of the N. Pacific has decreased by 0.8 or more, 1700-1995. The N. Atlantic is worst, having decreased by 0.1

But all those figures are wishful, because we've dumped ~8Gt/year of C into the system since 1995. The natural cycle can handle 0.2 Gt.

This is good, though: "Too many equilibria in play simultaneously, chemical, thermodynamic, kinetic to name some." -- it sounds so scientific, Whyn!
;]
Unfortunately, not only is pH a seriously important parameter for sea-life chemistry, it also has highly non-linear effects on what those creatures need to survive & reproduce, especially so you & we can have the seafood we enjoy.

So, the functional reality is that the N. Atlantic;'s leading the way with pH dropping fast enough that the critical vale of 8.0 will soon be upon us.

Those depending on fisheries there are indeed concerned, whether you are or not. So, there are adults trying to address the problem, even if deniers, who just heard about it, continue with their traditional & comfortable delaying fluff, like...

"To make general assumptions deriving from local measurement within a massive body is fraught with danger. "

You obviously have no idea about how oceans are surveyed for even more than just pH, eh Whyn? Study time?

What I said as briefly as possible still stands. Apparently there are some experts around who think the ocean has just one value of pH while others acknowledge it is a point specific property dependent on point specific conditions in the all important buffering process. I do wish Mr Cannara would stop attempting to display his motivational analyses and limited knowledge of complex physical issues. That is not helping the discussion, merely bringing it back to his level.
My (dictionary) definition of ocean acidification was just that. Don’t know how the dictionary advisers estimated pH before 1909 but the point at issue was they also thought one pH figure covers everywhere throughout the ocean, while localised variations exceed the total change mentioned (0.075). What I was taught 50 years ago about pH and buffer solutions still seems to hold true. They inhibit the sort of changes Mr Cannara hangs his hat on.

Whyn, old boy, if you really remembered your 50-year old chemistry, you'd realize that "buffer" chemicals are consumed when combined with low-pH chemical solutes.

If you wanted to grasp what it means for us to have swamped the natural buffering and carbon recycling mechanisms by a large factor, you'd have studied, instead of fluffing up straw men like "some experts" you don't name doing something "experts" don't do, while your words show you don't understand.

But you can still do that, perhaps from papers referred to here...
http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/461
http://eps.berkeley.edu/development/view_person.php?uid=6449&page=72

And, there you go again, trying to substitute mean for nice discussion...

" I do wish Mr Cannara would stop attempting to display his motivational analyses and limited knowledge of complex physical issues"

On the "complex physical issues", just for you, Whyn, it's Dr. Cannara.
;]

Ian, I almost missed this gen of skeptical denial swag!

Now you have had chemistry in school, right? You've heard of fossils, right? Ho about ice cores? Sediments?

Isotopic analysis might be a bit much, but you could master its basics, I'm sure.

So, if you believe fossils and sediments and ice cores are old, then you can use the chemist's and radio-dating tools to do all sorts of amazing things, like deduce temps, salinity, pH, etc. of ancient environments. Why, ice cores actually contain air samples, as bubbles, from years long ago -- over 600,000 years for the Vostok cores. Sediments & fossils go back even further.

But, if you were really interested, you could simply Google the topics that concern you. Just for a push-start, note the isotopic info here...http://esd.lbl.gov/research/facilities/cig/

You can do it, Ian!

Ian

The main quantitative point they make is recycling the 16 year not warming claim.

Please read my comments to Malcolm on the subject.

If these guys are experts in this field they would know all the things I said. If they are expert and honest they wouldn't use a single rather dodgy number like that as a basis for their letter.

So are they inexpert or dishonest? As for the names, yep, the usual suspects who regularly work 'the circuit', no surprises there.

Ian. Why do you believe the people in the Financial Post article but not accept what 95% of the worlds climate change scientists say?

Why don't you respect the qualifications of the vast majority of scientists?

"As for the names, yep, the usual suspects who regularly work 'the circuit'"

including one Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. What a laugh.

Ian McQueen, and others,

In climate terms, a 16 year warming, or a 16 year cooling, or even a 16 year flat line, proves nothing.
Statistically, it is possible that natural variation could mask an underlying positive or negative trend in the short run. In climate terms, a 16 year span is very, very short run. Climate Change phenomena can only be analysed meaningfully over much greater spans of time than 16 years.

Roger Tonkin

Hey Chris, be respectful! It's THIRD Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (and Fox News).
;]
https://www.facebook.com/LordMonckton (a young pic)

Wyan, not sure what you mean by discussing different acidity? Maybe you mean that there are different contributions to the oceans becoming acidic, killing of our food fish etc? If so I agree, fertilizers have a lot to answer for there, as well as our man made use of oil, methane, coal, etc etc. They all are man made phenomena though.

http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification/faq.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

Nev, on your last question: yes.

We've all already "staked lives on it", for decades, and not just our lives, but lives of those not at the table and not even born..

We simply accomplished this by inaction induced by various typical means: laziness, ignorance, financial benefit, cupidity -- all the usual suspects of human behavior.

You're quite right: "n emergency is something that is attended to immediately"

Some of us were attending to it: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Then some of us dropped the ball: http://tinyurl.com/73p7ler
(have to invest ~12 minutes to see the punchlines)

So yes, many people of science & engineering offered plans, even to the US Congress. They even included planting 1 trillion trees per year (~200.capita)., because even in the 1950s it was obvious what burning valuable fossil hydrocarbons meant, both economically and environmentally.

So, indeed we could have eliminated combustion power by 2000. Oops.

Ian L. McQueen:

"That huge majority is obtained through simple trickery which is described very well at either of the following two URLs"

I'm sorry Ian, you'll have to do better than come up with citations from a newspaper and a blog written by a pathological liar (Anthony Watts): http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/

Here is an example Ian
http://www.jamespowell.org/

13950 peer-reviewed papers on Climate.
24 Reject AGW.

Not a peer reviewed paper perhaps but.

Ian L. McQueen: "I read all the comments at the URL that you supplied. Very many comments personally denigrating Antony Watt and little scientific fact."

So you don't care about about Watts' lie pointed out in the article. The comments following do not change his lie. Watts claimed that he consistently displayed many sources of sea ice data. Tamino pointed out Watts' series of articles that proved that was a lie.

"I'll stick with WUWT, thanks, for he does present both sides of a question"

That's just not true. Watts series of articles with sea ice data pointed out in http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/ showed that he was almost entirely only interested in presenting a very cherry-picked and biassed part of the data. The fact that you want to stick with WUWT just shows that you are in denial of reality.

"And I looked at his references on ice; it looks to me that he has endeavored to list everything available"

Perhaps you're deliberately missing the point. Watts wrote a series of blog posts with sea ice data. Here is what Tamino pointed out about them (refer to http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/ for the links):

"Let’s survey your last 5 posts on arctic sea ice:

This one (the most recent) shows DMI (less than 6 years) and JAXA (less than 8 years). You left out everything before 2002.

This one shows JAXA (less than 9 years) and DMI (less than 6 years), and throws in a plot from NSIDC showing less that 2 years data just for good measure. Nothing before 2002.

This one finally gets around to graphing the September average since 1979 — but only because it reproduces the sea ice news from NSIDC and they included it. When you get to your part of the post, all we’re offered is DMI (less than 6 years) and JAXA (less than 9 years).

This one is the bulk of your contribution to that one, where you show DMI (less than 6 years) only.

This one shows a graph from the NSIDC news release which gives less than 2 years data, you then add JAXA (less than 9 years) and NORSEX (less than 4 years).

In your last 5 posts with graphs of arctic sea ice extent/area, only one of them shows anything prior to 2002 — and that’s only because you quoted an entire NSIDC news release and they included it. Then you have the gall to claim that you “consistently display them all.”"

If you ignore all this Ian, then you are simply in denial of reality.

Whyn Carnie: "I can see now that the name Church of Climate Change was wrong."

I'm glad you agree that "Church" is a name-call.

"The movement is patently politically inspired and politically funded."

Thats right. It's a green trojan horse containing red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine whose objective is global wealth redistribution. Read the details here: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0#

Yoron, somewhere in the responses you mention "when a overwhelming majority of professionals dealing with this issue don't agree with your optimism, and beliefs, I suggest it's time to see over ones convictions. That's science at its best, adapting to facts."
Could it be that the professionals are the paid climate warmists while the others are the non-professionals who must fund their own efforts/ and yes to the bit about adapting to the professional's facts. That is the whole basis of CO2 warming and climate change claimed realism, adaptaton of facts to suit a theory. Proof is still better..

Whyn

"Could it be that the professionals are the paid climate warmists while the others are the non-professionals who must fund their own efforts" No. Most Climate skeptic scientists are still employed academics. So everyone is on an equal footing. All earn a wage.

"...the professional's facts..." Facts don't have owners Whyn. Facts are just Facts. What distinguishes the 'professionals' from the rest? They know all the facts, they engage with all the facts. Whereas the 'other's run a mile before engaging with all the facts. The 'others' have an agenda, a need to deny reality for extraneous reasons. So they never engage with all the facts.They always seek to look at just a few of the facts, selectively, to try and argue that black is white.

So the 'others' do things like "...adaptaton of facts to suit a theory..." Because they know they can never find proof for their theory the AGW isn't real. The professional skeptic scientists know enough of the science to understand that if they tried to engage with all the facts they would fail. It is only by avoiding lots of facts that they can maintain a semblance of having something meaningful to say. And thus why they prefer to 'debate' in the media and the blogosphere - away from the gimlet-eyed glare of their colleagues who can see just how fullof it they are. But the public won't know that, so go talk to the public instead:

Example.

Richard Lindzen does a study trying to estimate Climate Sensitivity. Compare incoming and outgoing radiation in the Tropics with surface temperatures. And lo and behold, he gets a low number. Joe Public's reaction - 'Well,gee, maybe he's got something there?'.

Professionals reaction - Weather systems include huge energy flows from the Tropics towards the poles. Doing an analysis this way without allowing for that flow will massively underestimate Climate Sensitivity. Didn't they teach you in your undergraduate days Richard that if you get your system boundaries wrong in an analysis the results will be garbage! Other scientists repeat the study, but doing it the correct way, using radiation data forthe whole planet. CS way more than Lindzen suggests. But since those scientists only publish in the scientific press and not in the public sphere, Joe Public never hears about it.

Example
Roger Pielke Snr argues that the best single metric for measuring warming is Ocean Heat Content. And he is right about that. Then he (and many other 'skeptics') use the 0-700 meter data to claim that warming has stopped recently when the more complete 0-2000 meter data says the exact opposite. Either they are so incompetent that they only look at small parts of the data and don't look any deeper. Or their motives are more nefarious and their avoidance of the data is intentional. And poor Joe Public - 'Warming has stopped? Well, gee, maybe these guys have got a point'. Poor Joe, conned again.

Now I think it likely that you will not respond to the susbstance of my points here Whyn because that would involve you questioning your sense of certainty too much. But you might prove me wrong.

Whyn. The 0-2000 meter OHC data says the world is still warming.

Yes or No.

Yuron Hamber,

An ETS will reduce the level of CO2 emissions. Countries, or rather corporations in those countries, cannot indulge in spewing out more CO2. The carbon pricing mechanism under an ETS means that it is too expensive for them to do that.

Roger, to me it's a mechanism indulging the 'rich countries' and those newly industrialized into the 'freedom' of polluting. It may in the long run slow it down, maybe, possibly, whatever you dream of, but so far it hasn't, as far as I can see and read. Take a look at how many such letters of indulgence was created 2011 and then tell me that we're fighting a good fight :)

Yoron Hamber,

Rich countries are not 'indulged'. Under an ETS, corporations in both industrialised and newly or under-industrialised countries, in both developed and under-developed or undeveloped countries, will face a cost incentive to shift from using CO2 emission intensive fuels and technology, to less CO2 emission intensive fuels and technology. They can ignore the incentive, and pay the higher cost, by purchasing carbon permits, but they place themselves at a clear competitive disadvantage if they make that decision. The corporations that survive are those that seek to maximise their competitive advantage. That is why the mechanism works. The net outcome, globally, will be that corporations and countries will shift from CO2 emission intensive fuels and technology to less CO2 emission intensive fuels and technology, and consequently, the levels of CO2 emissions globally will fall.

Well Roger. Don't think it's enough, and it's not enabling a fast change either. To me it's more of a way to draw out on the time needed for the western industry to make that change to a green(er) technology.

Actually Whyn, any answer you gave would convince me. They just would convince me of different things. Sadly you convinced me of what I expected which is that you would evade the question. An all too common reaction from most so called skeptics. Their refrain has often been "Why won't 'warmists' debate us?" Then when someone does and confonts them with an argument or piece of evidence that refutes some point of theirs, rather than doing what one does in debate which is to concede a point when itis justified, their standard response is to go slip-sliding away to something else.

So I will give you more opportunity. Does the warming of the 0-2000M layer of the ocean indicate that the Earth is warming.Yes or No.

As for temperatures, no I can't give you a temperature Whyn. You didn't even say which temperature you were after. However, I can give you lots and lots of different temperatures, for different points in the ocean, at different times and at different depths. More than enough temperatures to get you started. Plus pressure and salinity readings as well.

http://www.usgodae.org/argo/argo.html

When you've finished doing the math - it might take you a while certainly - you will be able to do the same calculations that the scientists do with the same data.Or you could just rely on the people who do this as their day job.

So, ribbing you aside Whyn, why is it so profoundly hard for you to concede a point, to accept that some of what you think isn't supported by the facts, that some of what you think might be wrong. Why do you find that so hard to do that you have to resort to the sort of mental gymnastics and smart arse comments like your last one that just leave you looking a bit foolish in front of the audience here?

Why are you so afraid of admitting you might be wrong about this that you have to do the slippery thing?

I haven't got you Whyn. The facts have. Why does that disturb you? Why evade them? If you are really skeptical, surely you want to embrace the facts, where-ever they lead you.

As a wise man once said - only 2 years ago:

"A skeptic changes his mind, a denier just keeps on denying"

Michael Schermer,
Editor
Skeptic Magazine.

See , Whyn, hiding in temp variances is so 2009 denier stuff.

You need to start trying to deny the isotopic makeup of the Carbon in the seas, as well as the air, and also deal with far higher specific-heat systems, like th oceans, which have indeed been warming. You know a large percentage of the very real 8" of sea rise since 1880 is due to thermal expansion -- remember JHS science?

Then we can go into what the ice cortes, loike Vostok, show of the last 700,000 years or so.

After that, maybe move to sediments & fossils, which all point to us acidifying the oceans more than at any time in 300,000,000 years; and to raising temps & CO2 faster by ~100x than at any time in the same period.

Facts are inconvenient, we know Whyn, but you demand them from your physicians & investment advisers, eh?
;]

Trying once more before I give up, Glenn. The immediate response has parallels to, "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
The Temperature I sought was a single Temperature in degrees Centigrade, Farenheit or Kelvin, taken for the macro sample of water you introduced, that is not affected by the system heat energy dynamics and mass dynamics as it is being measured instantaneously throughout.
The dynamic influences need to be eliminated in order to introduce the concept of a change (warming) over time. Otherwise the investigator would lose track of the parcels of mass and energy and likely count them more than once. My opinion only, but warming or cooling is not easily nor properly measured throughout a large body of matter by temperature, when it is total heat content that may be changing. This heretical opinion may cause others to fly off the handle again. All I have asked initially, is for the published value of this mysterious Temperatrure. Someone must have it. The purported temperature 'anomalies' so often appearing on vertical graph axes eliminate the need to state absolute Temperatures.

"Trying once more before I give up" -- your sainthood is on the way, Whyn!
;]
So the way you phrase your statements/questions make clear you're no scientist or true engineer, so you shouldn't be at all surprised that they have no sensible answers.

But, you could stop wasting your and our time here and do some study of reports on historical temps around the world -- plenty of honest data freely available, including the references we've posted here,which you clearly haven't bothered to study, eh Whyn?

Ian, if only you were scientist or engineer, you might have your words carry some weight.

But again, Ian, I don't scare what you think. I only care that misinformation, as you put out, doesn't mislead others.

So, for anyone interested in why Ian is wrong, or just plain fibbing, start with the July 2011 Scientific American article summarizing all the climate and sea data to that date, and the Dec 2012 issue for the effects of Arctic ice melt on climate up here. Then for more detailed reports. these are good...

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce
UCB DePaolo Carbon Cycle follow various links on the Carbon Cycle....
http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/461
www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

And one can always Google "ocean acidification" to get the various published results on current & past ocean pH

Thank you, Dr Alex, for your gratuitous insight on my past working life and religious aspirations. Think you've got that wrong too.
If your past efforts are indicators you seem to understand my question. Perhaps your wide experience, deep knowledge, and access to facts will allow you to throw Ian McQueen and I a bone and give some example values of the Temperature sought? Just the numbers and units will do. As littler obfuscation and elitist comment as possible so we can understand, and so I can then give up.

Ian L. McQueen: "As for "raising temps", the world has not warmed for the past 16 years despite a slow increase in CO2. Why do you keep repeating incorrect information?"

Why do you keep repeating lies Ian? The probability that the warming trend from 1996 to 2011 inclusive did not arise simply from random variation was 99.6%, easily higher than the probability required for statistical significance of 97.7%. This lie originated from a tabloid newspaper journalist, David Rose, who corrupted a quote from Phil Jones about 15 years, not 16 years.

Whyn, you very question about some "Temp" indicates you're either: a) not serious, b) not an engineer or scientist, or b) simply serving some denier interests that aims to chaff discussions like these to deflect reality from onlookers.

A "challenge" Whyn has to be meaningful. You've failed in that. And you've failed the challenge to come up with a rational challenge.

By the way, what kind of engineer do you claim to have been?

@ Alex - Whyn is "the kind of engineer" that blusters false bs and then runs away when asked about whether (radiant) heat would first raise the air temperature or contribute to expansion of water and melting of ice.

The kind that fails to understand that "warming" refers to increased heat content of which "temperature" is an imperfect and delayed measure.

The kind that doesn't understand eveidence presented in graphs like these

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint4.gif
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif

The kind that thinks he knows better than the main science bodies who represent those have actually studied the matter
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial."

US National Academy of Science's report America's Climate Choices 2011:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
"Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."

US meterological society
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate."

In short - the kind who is ignorant (deliberately or due to lack of capacity?) of almost any relevant science and who is in DEEP denial

Whyn Carnie,

You will have to explain 'the challenge' again. Exactly what temperature details are you requesting?

Whyn

Your question doesn't, at least at face value make sense. Which 'temperature figures' are you seeking and why are the ones you are seeking the meaningful ones. I gave you the link to the ARGO data repository where you can find all the temperatures,as well as salinity & pressure data that the OHC calculations are obtained from. You need to be far more clear about what you mean and why.

You also commented on the use of anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. Anomaly base calculations are used in all sorts of applications because they give us a more accurate result. Take simple example. We have a thermometer that has a bias - it always reads 1 degree too warm even though we don'tknow that. So, on day 1 it gives a reading of 15, and on day 2 a reading of 18.

If we said that the temperatures wher 15 and 18 we would be wrong - actually they were 14 and 17 although we don't know that. However, if we say that day 2 is 3 degress warmer than day 1, that statement is accurate. This is why anomaly based calculations are used - they remove a lot of the fixed bias problems from our calculations.

So too does taking averages, both in space and time. If we have readings that include some random biases, perhaps observation error or system noise, by taking the average of many readings the random biases cancel out, giving us a more accurate value.

So if we combine using anomalies, and then averaging the anomalies, we are removing all the easily removable biases and sources of error, giving a more accurate result. And this is why it is used - in ocean heat content measurements, surface temperature measurements, Satellite temperature measurement etc. And in many other branches of science other than climate science.

Asking to see absolute values is asking to data that is less accurate.

Good, Ian, you have a masters in Chem Eng. Then you should have no excuse not to understand what "acidification" means -- just as you understand that the "sweetener" you put in your coffee may not make it "sweet", unless you put more in.

So the game you play is not one I, or any other engineer with a few degrees will play.

"Acidification" means the same as "sweetening". We don't have words like "acidening", or "aciding" to describe the process of changing pH downward.

But you know all that, if you're really a ChemE.

Your straw man that "the oceans will never be acidic" has nothing to do with the pH values of concern, which are pre-industrial >8.2 and now ~8.1, with real sea-life problems arising nearer 8.0.

But, you should know all that too, if you understand the various carbonate chemistries involved in sea life, and their large, esential contributions to recycling carbon out of the oceans.

And, a ChemE will certainly understand isotopic analyses that provide accurate historical ocean pH, carbon origins, etc.

Maybe you could justify your carbon tax by touring the Great Barrier Reef, and see the effects of carbon-emissions-induced stresses? A country with such an impressive legacy might find it worth preserving. Or just do as China is and calculate the GDP fraction wasted by coal emissions on healthcare, eh Ian?

Via Ian L. McQueen: "The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years."

Who says the IPCC favours the out-of-date HadCrut3? Watts of course. HadCrut4, which is the up to date version, shows a probability of the warming trend from 1996 to 2011 inclusive not being due simply to random variation of 98.7%. The probability required for statistical significance is 97.7%. So the information we have now (and have had for a while) allows to say there is statistically significant warming for the those 16 years.

So please stop spreading lies from Watts. In case you still don't realise what a liar he is, I'll repeat the demonstration of his lying:

Watts wrote a series of blog posts with sea ice data. Here is what Tamino pointed out about them (refer to http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/ for the links):

"Let’s survey your last 5 posts on arctic sea ice:

This one (the most recent) shows DMI (less than 6 years) and JAXA (less than 8 years). You left out everything before 2002.

This one shows JAXA (less than 9 years) and DMI (less than 6 years), and throws in a plot from NSIDC showing less that 2 years data just for good measure. Nothing before 2002.

This one finally gets around to graphing the September average since 1979 — but only because it reproduces the sea ice news from NSIDC and they included it. When you get to your part of the post, all we’re offered is DMI (less than 6 years) and JAXA (less than 9 years).

This one is the bulk of your contribution to that one, where you show DMI (less than 6 years) only.

This one shows a graph from the NSIDC news release which gives less than 2 years data, you then add JAXA (less than 9 years) and NORSEX (less than 4 years).

In your last 5 posts with graphs of arctic sea ice extent/area, only one of them shows anything prior to 2002 — and that’s only because you quoted an entire NSIDC news release and they included it. Then you have the gall to claim that you “consistently display them all.”"

If you ignore all this Ian, then you are simply in denial of reality.

Ian

You rather breathlessly keep saying 'look, look, look, WTFIUWT just said something. Gee that's really interesting. ' No Ian. It's not. Just sad that you are rather fixated on the place.

Consider this snippet from the early comments, 2 posters, one after the the other:

"Kev-in-Uk says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:40 am

I suppose it is good that someone bothers to visit that site(?)(SkS) – and report back – but to be fair, I couldn’t bring myself to visit there ever again! IIRC, the dross being promoted there is quite poor (or certainly ‘was’ a couple of years ago) and one sided – but what struck me were how a large number of the comments reminded me of wailing infatuated schoolgirls fawning over their latest pop idol heartthrobs…

highflight56433 says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:40 am

Bravo Christopher Monckton of Brenchley!"

All with not the slightest trace of irony.

One of the High Priests of the Cult speaks - BRAVO BRAVO!

Then you come back here, one of the "infatuated schoolgirls", to breathlessly tell us all about it.

Ian, take a long hard look at your infatuation with flim-flam men and schonks. What is the attraction?

Along with Chris' info & sites, how about actually taking an easy ride through some real data, Ian?

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

Whyn can tag along too, to maybe see how his key "temp" question fits with the 10,000 years of stability that was + or - 1 degree, and is no longer. Beers might help.
;]
And, for the nth time, you can both also check out the clear article on millions of years climate in July 2011 Scientific American -- a trip to the library can be fun!

...

Whyn Carnie,

On the substantive issues you raise, I think Glen Tamblyn dealt with the relevant technical aspects very clearly in his last comment, certainly better than I could. However, I have to question your insistence on making comparisons in a very narrow span. You focus on only two years, 2009 and 2010. Meaningful statistical analysis needs more than two data points, even if they are averages. As I pointed out in a previous comment, in climate terms, to see what is happening without having those effects masked by natural variation, it is necessary to consider comparisons over a much greater span of time than even just the last 16 years.

Whyn

The simple answer is yes, of course temperatures at the beginning and end exist, for what ever period we are considering. So of course the difference is available for calculations. And it isn't modelled, it is measured using the ARGO array of buoys. But I said temperatures, plural. The notion of a single temperature forthe ocean isn't a very usefulidea.

I still don't get the point of your question. If you could explain why you are seeking these numbers, perhaps we would have a common basis for discussing things. What is the utility of trying to get a single temperature? What is the purpose that you want to put these numbers to?

The ocean certainly isn't at a single temperature - temperatures vary from the low 20's in the Tropics to just below zero on the sea floor. And they vary over time with the seasons. So it isn't a 'body' with a 'temperature'. It is a 'body' with a 4-dimensional (3D & Time) temperature Field. And then the Heat Content of this 'body' doesn't exactly match the temperature field since Specific Heat also varies over the body as well. So there is a 4D Specific Heat Field as well.

To obtain a single temperature you would need to measure temperatures over the oceans area and depth,then do an area or volume weighted average of them to get your final single temperature. One could do that - there are sources such as Wiki that will give you approximate answers to that question. Or you could crunch the numbers from the ARGO site.

However, doing so won't be very illuminating because there is too much loss of precision in that process. Particularly due to the variations in specific heat.

The process of measuring changes in Ocean Heat Content goes something like this. The ARGO array of buoys - around 3000 of them scattered over all the worlds oceans - are continually diving to depth, drifting with the currents forawhile and surfaceing again, all the while reading temperature, pressure & salinity. When they surface they transmit their data, including position information from GPS, to satellites. Then each buoy does this again, over and over, all over the world

The result of this is therefore a huge array of reading spread over 3 dimensions in the oceans and over time. But what they don't do then is calculate the average temperature of the ocean to compare it to the average at a previous time.That calculation could be done but it doesn't have any utility.

Rather they take a single set of readings from one buoy, for separate depths and calculate the heat content of that patch of ocean at that point in time. They need the pressure and salinity data to calculate the specific heat that applies forthat locale since this varies with temperature, pressure and density - hence the salinity reading. After this stage they have a series of discrete OHC readings for each location.

Next they need to integrate all these readings together to get values over larger regions, even the entire globe. However to do this they need to do an area weighted average of the calculated data. This is because the buoys aren't equally spaced. As they drift the distances between them fluctuate. So any single buoy may be responsible for sampling a larger or smaller volume of the ocean than other buoys. This is also why the countries that run this program (including Australia - we do some heavy lifting here because we have responsibility for lots of the Southern Ocean) have ships at regularly, picking up buoys that are reporting problems, but more importantly, launching new buoys to maintain a reasonably even geographic distribution of the buoys.

Only once they have the area weighted average can they then say 'this was the OHC at that point in time'.Then the process is repeated, for the next point in time,and the next. And in fact some of the ideas from my previous post are applied. They don't compare the global figures over time. Rather they take the anomalies over time for each parcel of ocean, then sum these anomalies to get the total value.

Whyn Carnie,

I am tempted to attempt an answer, but I suspect it would not satisfy you. Statistical and econometric expertise does have a role to play in the answer. I am not prepared to concede any ground to you yet on that score, but given one shot across my bow, the more judicious course of action for me at this stage is to defer to the relevant scientific experts.

Whyn

"why do the proponents of warming still revert to temperature and its (single figure at any time) anomalies, when you (correctly) say at one point"

I think it is because most people, most of the time, try and pitch their argument to someone else in terms they think that person will best grasp and understand. The members of the scientific community well understand the relative signifcance of allthe different factors. But when they are trying to talk to a non or less technical audience they tend to both simplify what they say, and also focus on those aspects that their audience can more easily get their head around. Also, most people tend to evaluate information by how they can relate it to the observable worldimmediately around them. Most people evaluate things by starting with what is familiar then moving out from that.

Whereas a lot of strong knowledge actually starts by considering basic concepts then homing in on the more specific aspects. Which can leave some people non-plussed when the progression from the general to the specific isn't able to get close enough, specific enough to engage peoples more normal modes of understanding - criticisms such as 'They can't even predict the weather more than a few days out, how can they predict climate decades into the future' is an example of this. Future climate is about broad energy balance questions, not extending the prediction of minutiae.

Think about all the folkswho think they can invent a Perpetual Motion Machine. Usually they start with an idea grounded in local concepts like '... if I build a machine that does this,and this, and this ...'. Rather than starting with the broadest concepts - '...the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says fundamental things about Entropy in Closed and Open systems. So step one - what are my system boundaries...'. Natural thinking to a Physicist perhaps or an Engineer - alien to a non-technically educated person.

So there is a reason of trying to ground comments and arguments in the framework that fits how most people think, even if that doesn't match the sensible technical perspective.

Secondly, the long term issues that matter to us are actually the surface temperatures - that where we live (and importantly grow our food). How much the 1000 meter layer in the ocean actually warms doesn't have a DIRECT impact on us. It's INDIRECT, consequential impact through changes in energy balance, energy distribution and thus impacts on surface climate may be profound. But it isn't visceral or communicative.

Add to this that many skeptics of AGW will focus on things like the surface temperatures, this Satellite record vs thatr etc as a basis for their criticisms means that unfortunately, they determine what field the contest is played on. So in seeking to rebut a skeptic's argument,the skeptic (and the perspective of most people) forces the discussion to remain focused on the surface temperatures, even though they aren't the main evidentiary battleground.

Then add to this that most people not only ground their perception of things in the local perspective, they also tend toevaluate issues in non-quantitative ways. My observation of life is that most people regard quantitative reasoning as something to be relegated to only certain categories in life - 'numbers stuff'. Evaluating the magnitude of something isn't the normal mode of thinking for most people - we excel at qualitative reasoning, not quantitative.

So most people would take 2 items of information - 'surface temparatures haven't increased much in the last decade but the oceans have kept warming' - and regard them as two equal pieces of information.

Whereas 'the air hasn' t warmed much but the oceans have continued to do so AND the magnitude of the warming in the ocean is a factor of 30 or more times greater than that in the atmosphere' is a quantitative argument that carries far more weight - if the listener is willing and able to judge things quantitaively.

So many people arguing the case for AGW may be hesitant to use quantitative arguments because they no most people aren't at ease with that. In contrast a skeptic who wants to knock AGW down knows, even if only unconsciously, that qualitative arguments are more powerful with their target audience. So there is a natural bias from all parties to avoid quantitative reasong too much.

Then you get the reverse problem, exemplified by some of the more strident skeptics here. Having taken a set against the idea of AGW, they then react as if the public discourse about AGW is the accurate version, rather than a simplified version. They then seek to critique this simplifed version, find limitations with it - of course they will, its the simplified version - and then claim that therefore its BS, its a hoax/scam/<insert preferred insult here>. Or "why won't 'warmists be honest'?".

When in fact they are honest. They are presenting the ideas as accurately and expressively as possible within the limiitations of the medium being used that requires very simplistic expression. If the skeptics want the real, warts and all complex detail, it's all out there, in the scientific literarature. But it is unsuited to the simpler world of the MSM and the blogosphere.

So when reading any argument, comment opinion etc, what is important is considering the question - what audience is this person pitching their comments to, what level? And a personal view; when climate skeptic scientists - you mentioned Plimer - are commenting in more mainstream fora rather than the scientific literature, what are they doing? Are they going to locations where they can present a simplified, and inaccurate version of things that will be accepted rather than the scientific world where the standards are much higher? Why? Maybe because they know that they can say things in those fora that they won't get pinged for?

For me there is a simple measure by which I assess the possibilty that a publically commenting scientist has merit - that the scale of their public commentary is matched by the scale of their published science - on the topic at hand.

Whyn

"How does the ARGO methodology allow for the flux of heat energy and mass in the element of ocean undergoing sampling during the period that the buoy traverses the sample?"

This rests on some basic Oceanography, derived from measurements over many decades. Quite simply, that the change in these fluxes are quite small over the sampling time. Not that the magnitude of the fluxes aren't huge - they are massive. But the magnitude of these fluxes changes very, very, slowly. So much so that over the sampling times associated with the the ARGO buoys, changes in the magnitude of these things is trivially small. What ARGO is measuring is very small (percentage wise) changes in these fluxes but measured over long time scales - months, years, and soon decades.

It can be hard to get our head around the scale of things in the ocean. The volume flow rate of ocean currents are measured in 'Sverdrups'. A Sverdrup is 0.001 Km^3 per second. So if we draw a line across the ocean and measure how much water crosses that line in 1second, if it is 0.001 km^3, then that is a 1 Sverdrup flowrate. All the worlds rivers combined add up to around 1 Sverdrup.

The West Spitsbergen Current (WSC) flows to the west of Spitsbergen, between it & Greenland, and in to the Arctic Ocean. It has a flow rate of around 1 Sverdrup. On the scale of the worlds oceans, it is a tiddler.The Gulf Stream varies from 30 to 150 Sverdrups. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is around 125 Sverdrups - yet its average velocity is 4 kph.

The West Spitsbergen Current has increased in temperature by around 1 Deg in the last few decades. Doing a simple back-of-the envelope calculation, this means the heat flow along the WSC has increased by over 4 MegaWatts. And this is a very small current and an even very much smaller percentage of the oceans total volume. Most of the temperature increases in the ocean are small fractions of a degree. But that represents huge amounts of energy. Some scientists have even coined a unit of measure to try and convey the scale of things, if only a bit.The Hiro - the energy content of the Hiroshima Bomb. 65 TeraJoules.

And if these are the scales of things in those smaller parts of the ocean where larger changes are, what of the bulk of the ocean where change is slower. The relatively slow pace of that change, percentage-wise, is why fluctuations over individual dive profiles for a single buoy are insignificant - it is the long term changes between buoys over time that matters.

A very interesting observation,made in the late 50's, encapsulates the ponderous nature of much of the oceans, and why localised observations don't vary much over time and space,and thus we don't need super dense sampling programs to obtain reasonable estimations of things.

In the late 50's,at the height of the Cold War, America was in the middle of a huge Nuclear Weapons testing program - a Bomb for every situation. Including Nuclear Depth Bombs! Forget WWII movies with Destroyers chucking garbage cans of TNT over the side to chase a submarine.

One small Bomb - Hiroshima size or a bit smaller. Detonate it at 1000-3000 feet down .No more Russian submarine!

So they were testing one of these Bombs in the Pacific. Several months later an Oceanographic reserach vessel went back to the test site to take water samples, looking at how far the remnants of the bomb had spread. They found debris from the bomb spread over around 100 km^2 from the blast site. This patch of ocean had been selected because there weren't any currents that would carry radioactive material away. But even so, only an average of 6-7 km from the blast site months later. After a Nuclear Blast! That patch of ocean really doesn't want to mix things up much.

But that was the horizontal dispersion. It was the vertical dispersion that blew people away. After a Nuclear explosion, what they observed was that debris from the blast was only found in a layer of water 1 METER thick!

That is astounding! That is a body of water that REALLY, REALLY doesn't want to mix things up.

The conclusion to draw from this - and this is the tip of the iceberg, just the most dramatic data point in the data set, is that huge volumes of the ocean are very stable, don't experience major perturbations in their properties over shorter timescales,and thus variability over buoy dives, between buoys etc is very low. So the differences between and during dives aren't significant over short time scales. Only longer timescales matter. And that is exactly what is being measured.