Recent comments & news

Recent Trackbacks:

Do the recent Global Warming Suicides prove The Religon of Global Warming is a CULT?: http://joannenova.com.au/20…
Enviro-Fascist Democrat Killed After Taking Hostages: probably showed him this chart and he just couldn't accept…
EDDNP.com: Nouvelle : Scandale sur la Bourse du Carbone de l’ONU
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan.7th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet: Journalism or activism, it’s all…
Francaisdefrance's Blog: Développement durable: le méga-scandale du Crédit Carbone…

**To reply to these comments (and see them in full) click on the authors name.**

Please stick to news stories (or comments about this page itself).

SITE NEWS:

16-Jan-2010: I’ve added the “Social Events” link to the Navigation List on the top right to go back to the post on meetings and events. Perth event next Wednesday night. Sydney every Thursday evening. Names from France, Germany and others coming in.
17-Jan-2010: The new updated ClimateGate Timeline is coming soon. It’s been re-edited, re-sourced, and double checked from the ground up.

About this page

Comments are not everyone’s cup-of-tea, but if that’s what works for you, then this page is a gift. It’s also a way for me to say thanks to all the informative useful comments that come in and to encourage this open-source form of education and mental-tennis.

Sometimes several threads are active simultaneously on this site, and some of the latest comments are hidden under 300 others, or in a year old post, so it seemed worth dedicating a page just to the most recent comments. (The sidebar is so small.) This is where you’ll find an automatically updated list of the latest comments.

If you post a news item and write <b>NEWS</b> as the first word, it will help your item stand out and this page may end up serving as a quasi-24-hour-wiki-news page.

I don’t know if this type of “comments” page has been done on other sites, it just seemed an obvious idea. Let me know if you are aware of others like this.

Posted on January 17th, 2010 under AGW socio-political, Global Warming • Tags: Comments, Latest Comments, News, Recent Comments. • Print This Post • Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback

Tweets that mention Recent Comments & News « JoNova -- Topsy.com:
January 17th, 2010 at 5:59 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fred Chukkawakka, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: #JoNova : Recent Comments & News http://bit.ly/8bU0Up #HideTheDecline [...]

Valid? 0 0

Ed Moran:
January 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am

Jo,

You’re rocking, girl!
Keep putting the pressure on.

Respect!,

Ed Moran.

Valid? 3 1

murray buzza:
January 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm

NEWS The Weekend Australian dismisses Climategate.Inquirer section page 5.The article refers to a review by THe Associated Press.Pity the reviewers have not taken the time to question the likes of AL Gore and his team of carpetbaggers.Keep up your excellent work.Regards Murray Buzza

Joanne Nova:
January 17th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

If there are coding Wordpress experts out there, I’d appreciate some advice on this page and whether you know of other blogs who do this, or if not, why not? perhaps you could email me joanne AT joannenova.com.au?

Valid? 1 0

mohib:
January 17th, 2010 at 4:36 pm

NEWSFROM TIMES ONLINE: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research.

Valid? 3 0

vg:
January 17th, 2010 at 6:51 pm

Jo anne
OT but might lighten the atmosphere
On Mombiot’s blog. The comments are hilarious 99 to 1 against. I admire Monbiot for hacking it though….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics
This is one of the funniest ones:

I was wondering when the climate change lobby was going to get its mitts off and explain away the cold weather.

I have nothing to say other than that I keep warm by tearing up climate change books and articles and stuffing them under my jumper.

I knew they must be good for something and it works for me.

Valid? 6 0

BJM:
January 17th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Also this from Times Online.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

I think some ‘chickens are coming home to roost’ – as the saying goes.

Valid? 2 0

Bernd Felsche:
January 17th, 2010 at 10:17 pm

NEWS Germany Pulls Plug on Solar.

Germany’s new coalition government has announced reducing the subsidy for solar power by another 16-17% on top of the 9-11% cut announced a fortnight ago. The heavily-subsidised industry is squealing loudly saying that it would be unsustainable for most businesses to cope with those reductions. Article in German.

The “renewable energy” industry seems to be locked into the frame of mind that all industry survives on subsidy. Oblivious that the subsidies are supposed to allow companies to develop products that are commercially-viable in their own right; and turn the company into a nett tax-payer.

Valid? 5 0

mohib:
January 18th, 2010 at 6:09 am

NEWS>/b> MORE ON GLACIERS FROM NEW SCIENTIST (!): New Scientist Wants an Explanation

Sifting climate facts from speculation
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts-from-speculation.html

IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.

The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review – and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC “finding” which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel’s chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked “climategate” emails.

UNIPCC WRONG AGAIN! « TWAWKI:
January 18th, 2010 at 6:17 am

[...] Climategate vote, More induced warmth, Climategate press, [...]

Nate:
January 18th, 2010 at 7:42 am

<3 your work JO!

Hey when you get in contact with that wordpress guru, can you ask him to enable RSS feeds to your site?

I tried to find one through an rss feeder and couldn't see it.
I'd love to have you on my RSS feed.

Nate:
January 18th, 2010 at 7:43 am

ROFL, I take it back. There’s a giant feed button on the top I blindly missed.

Tel:
January 18th, 2010 at 8:00 am

The German power base shifted significantly last election because the Green party was no longer a member of the ruling coalition and they were replaced with a pro-business (perhaps slightly Libertarian) party instead.

I’m sure that at least some aspects of the German solar industry can continue without subsidy, there are significant numbers of people who just want solar because they feel good about it, and German electronic power conversion systems are probably the best in the world right now. For remote and inaccessible areas solar has a lot of advantages, and once you’ve paid for those expensive solar cells you would be wanting a power converter that is 100% dependable.

Bernd Felsche:
January 18th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Tel,

The FDP coalition partner is more than slightly libertarian.

If people want to feel good about solar, then they can pay the full price instead of having it paid for in part (and very inefficiently) by taxpayers through subisidies. Similarly, feed-in tariffs for co-generation should be commercially viable of its own accord; i.e. not at a rate that is much greater than the wholesale rate at which electricity can be sold.

The feed-in tariff in Germany is up to 5 times greater than the retail rate; which makes it economically viable for “producers” to draw electricity from the grid to run through their PV cells in order to melt the snow off them in winter! Taxpayers and other electricity consumers pay.

I have no doubt that several companies in the renewable energy will be able to survive without subsidy. Life won’t be as easy, but there are places and applications where such technologies make sense, commercially, economically and technically. There have been off-shoot technologies in terms of energy management, insulation technology, etc; but it’s very hard to pin those things down to being more advanced than they would have been without disruptive subsidies. Energy price rises due to the usual pressures result in efforts to conserve as long as the consumer has to pay.

Peter of Sydney:
January 18th, 2010 at 12:33 pm

It has just snowed overnight in some mountainous parts of Australia in the middle of summer!!! This is very unusual. So much for global warming. Where is it?
Reports here; http://ski.com.au/
Pictures here: http://hangwiththewang.blogspot.com/

Louis Hissink:
January 18th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Peter of Sydney

When we spent xmas holidays at Thredbo during the 1960’s Mt Koz was invariably snow capped.

ANGRY:
January 18th, 2010 at 1:17 pm

SUBJECT: PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF QUEENSLAND

Hi all,
If you read this particular speech from Kevin Rudd from 20/4/2009 at the Adelaide Jobs Forum, he mentions in the last paragraph that he comes from “the People’s Republic of Queensland”.
To me that sounds very OMINOUS indeed!
When was this particular REPUBLIC created I wonder?
Here is the link to the particular speech on the Prime Minister’s website:-

http://www.pm.gov.au/node/5219

Cheers

Cement a friend:
January 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Louis, I remember clearly climbing to the top of Mt Koz in the summer of 1966. There were only a few patches of snow in shady south facing areas and absolutely none at the top. We walked from the Threbo chair lift (about 2 miles) and on the way talked to the chap in the bushfire look out tower which I think has been pulled down. On the other hand snow on Mt Wellington Hobart around Christmas day is not that rare (I have seen the snow there). Melbourne has always had a lousy climate. Too hot in the summer and cold and miserable wet in winter. I am sure back in 1958 that there was a stretch of 4 or 5 days with temperatures above 100F day and night and on one day reaching over108F in the shade. Maybe the weather is getting back to normal. There will be lots of broken records in the years to come of this century.

co2isnotevil:
January 18th, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Cement, re #18

I suspect that there will be fewer and fewer broken records in the future. The history to which records are tested is relatively short, at least relative to the changing climate. If the history went back to the peak of the last interglacial, there would probably never be any more record hot or cold temperatures anywhere on the planet.

Here in California, we had a very cool summer and so far have experienced a cooler than normal winter, despite the El Nino, which is usually associated with warmer temperatures. This year it seems that a multi decadal Arctic oscillation is heading towards a minimum, which may be offsetting the warmer weather associated with El Nino events. El Nino storms frequently have ‘coma’ tails that extend well into the tropics which pick up significant subtropical moisture and warmth. At the moment, there’s a real dry region in the tropics and 10 days of very cold storms (4-5 systems) lined up to hit us where we are expecting >1 foot rain along the coast and > 10 feet of snow in the mountains. There will surely be mudslides and other water and snow events which warmists will undoubtedly attribute to ‘climate change’.

George

Thumbnail:
January 18th, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Kevin Rudd’s singular rush to sign the Kyoto Protocol have put you, me and every other Australian at risk of big fines if we can’t meet our targets as specified under same. Good news – we met the targets – WHOLELY AND SOLEY BECAUSE THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE REMOVED FARMER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS.

I have just come back to my hotel room, from a meeting in Goondiwindi of farmers who have decided to meet publicly to discuss how the State Government are expropriating land rights, with no or little compensation.

I have come back sober, and very afraid for our future.

Our State Governments use tactics like a Wilderness Nomination – all it takes is one disgruntled neighbour and your property is under the microscope with all details shared with the public. By Law in NSW, if one person nominates your land for a Wilderness Assessment, hang on for dear life. Government bullies have threatened to burn the bush and residence of one owner, have used helicopters to harass and threaten another family, have set massive fines (over $100,000) for a third family and have contaminated a water bore during the drought, just to drive them off their land. This is out of Pol Pot’s book. They have turned children against parents by pushing a green agenda. They have stitched up between 45% and 90% of farmer’s land. I cried when I heard this. But wait. There is more.

Did you know that all of the Opposition’s newsletters have to go through a censorship procedure, prior to being mailed out? Yes – Kevin Rudd’s ~~goons~~ staff will censor anything they think is critical of the government, or that uses emotive language. I am amazed that we actually got the message that this ETS is just one big tax. I am sure that Kevins ~~hitmen~~ censors would have hit the delete button on that commentary.

I am afraid for our future. Please, everyone who reads this blog. Please join Agmates and learn more.

http://agmates.ning.com/

Kevin Rudd and his faithful followers will re-present this CPRS/ETS legislation again in the Senate in just a couple of week’s time. We need everyone to lobby against this massive fraud. Ring your Federal Representative and tell them you will not vote for them if they vote for the CPRS. We need to understand the impact on Australian families. How much will it cost? How many degrees will the world cool, Penny?

Ring the Greens Senators and let them know how you feel. It is possible to protect our habitat and respect property rights at the same time, through Regional Vegetation Plans which cater for specific solutions for the Region.

Ring your Labor Senators and tell them what is in store for them (remember six Senate positions are possibily coming up for grabs in each State.)

Ring your MP’s and let them know this will affect your vote.

I am organising a meeting in Brisbane to help our townies understand what the f@%k is happening in the bush.

I will not be silenced.

I will not stand by and let our farmers be abused by our government.

If they can steal farmer’s land, we are next.

READ MORE HERE:-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023540/lord-sterns-dodgy-dossier-exposed/

PS Of course we won’t see this discussed in our censored newspapers in Australia. Nor on the abc or sbs no doubt!

Bernd Felsche:
January 26th, 2010 at 12:15 pm

NEWS Here’s a climate scam run by/for the WWF and generously supported by big oil:

It’s called Arktik (site in German) and is a card systemwhereby you pay a few (Euro-)cents more per litre as ~~indulgences~~ CO2-offsets. The fuel company makes a co-payment of a little more, along with the you paid tax for your ignorance to the Arktik scheme. Germany’s Technical Oversight Council (TÜV) verifies that 100% of the funds collected in said scheme pumps up the “climate protection” ~~racket~~ sector. Which is a little suspect because one has to ask where they get their operating capital; unless Arktik are registered as a “climate protector”.

The fuel company makes a co-payment per litre. So that’s built into the price of fuel sold to everybody; even those who don’t subscribe to Arktik. Methinks one should refuel at stations not part of the “protection” racket.

Bernd Felsche:
January 26th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

NEWS Amazongate

The IPCC made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication

Baa Humbug:
January 26th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

According to The OZ ABC News Radio, Tony Abbott is saying Kevin Rudd has NOT issued a notice paper on the reintroduction of the ETS Bill.

Rats deserting the sinking ship by the looks of it.

oops for the non-Aussies, Tony Abbott is the opposition leader, K Rudd is ofcourse the Prime Minister

Nick M:
January 26th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Baa Humbug @ 55,

I don’t fuly understand the implications. Is there a deadline for Issuing a Notice Paper?

Thumbnail:
January 26th, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Here is something I picked up from the Agmates site:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article1012008?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2008&num=&view=

In this article, from the Australian Governments abs.gov.au website, the article says:

THE WORLD’S CLIMATE BEFORE THE RECENT ICE AGES

For much of the last 400 million years, the world has been substantially warmer than it is now. Geological evidence indicates that, for most of the period between 40 and 260 million years ago, the world was entirely or almost entirely ice-free, indicating a climate several degrees (at least) warmer than that which exists now. The ocean circulation would also have been very different to the present due to different continental configurations. At earlier times still, there have been numerous ice ages, and it is possible that the entire globe was ice-covered at times, particularly around 700-800 million years ago.

Conditions became cooler from about 40 million years ago, but there were still numerous warm periods. One specific period which has been the subject of some investigation has been the period from 3.0-3.3 million years ago. This period appears to have had global mean temperatures 2-3 degrees Celsius (°C) warmer than the present, with the greatest warming at high latitudes. During this period, sea levels are estimated to have been several metres higher than they are at present.

Baa Humbug:
January 26th, 2010 at 4:12 pm

NIck #57

No but there is for “the most important issue of our times”

Nick M:
January 26th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Thumbnail @ 58

Further to the point as well…

It is very likely that changes in global temperature have been largely driven by human-induced changes in the atmosphere, especially increased concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. It is more difficult to formally attribute climate changes to particular causes over an area the size of Australia than it is over the globe as a whole

“very likely”

ok then, well that proves it doesn’t it? for gaaawwdds sake

bunny:
January 27th, 2010 at 4:01 pm

The Australian is running an opinion poll asking:

How much do you trust scientific projections concerning global warming?

The options are:

Completely

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

The last choice is getting about 62% of the votes so far.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au

ANGRY:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:44 am

Ministry of Justice lists eco-activists alongside terrorists

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/26/ministry-justice-environmental-campaigners-terrorism

Government officials have labelled environmental campaigners extremists and listed them alongside dissident Irish republican groups and terrorists inspired by al-Qaida in internal documents seen by the Guardian.

The guidance on extremism, produced by the Ministry of Justice, says: “The United Kingdom like many other countries faces a continuing threat from extremists who believe they can advance their aims by committing acts of terrorism.”

It was sent to probation staff who were writing court reports or supervising a range of activists, including environmental protesters.

The advice lists “environmental extremists” alongside far-right activists, dissident Irish republicans, loyalist paramilitaries and al-Qaida-inspired extremists as among groups “currently categorised as extremist [that] may include those who have committed serious crime in pursuit of an ideology or cause”.

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesman, said tonight that the documents revealed “a quite astonishing conflation of legitimate protest with terrorism”.

The government has been criticised for tarring environmental protesters as “domestic extremists”, a term invented by the police, who say it can cover activists suspected of minor public order offences such as peaceful direct action and civil disobedience. The internal guidance from the Ministry of Justice’s National Offender Management Service defines domestic extremism as any “unlawful action that is part of a protest or campaign”.

“It is often associated with a ’single issue’ protest such as animal rights, far-right and far-left political extremism, anti- war and environmentalist extremism. The activity of Domestic Extremist Offenders is more criminal in its nature than that of an activist – but falls short of terrorism.”

“Environmental extremists” are described as committing “criminal activity motivated by the broad philosophy and social movement centred on a concern for conservation and improvement of the natural environment”.

Environmentalists reject the extremist label, saying that their protests are peaceful and non-violent.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation service union, Napo, said its members were unhappy with government attempts to lump environmental campaigners with terrorist suspects.

He said the guidance appeared to be part of a wider attempt by some government officials to interfere for political reasons in the work of criminal justice staff.

Ben Stewart, of Greenpeace, said: “The climate movement has never once sought to further its political aims by using violence, which is something that Jack Straw, foreign secretary during the invasion of Iraq, can most certainly not claim.

“His Ministry of Justice would be better occupied reminding itself that peaceful direct action has a long and noble history in this country.”

A ministry spokesman said: “It is not true to say that offenders who have committed criminal offences in connection with an extremist cause are ‘all treated the same’. The National Offender Management Service has a programme of work that covers all forms of extremism.”

ANGRY:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:37 am

SUBJECT: Climate agency going up in flames

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=90f8dd19-4a79-4f8f-ab42-b9655edc289b#ixzz0dpiB0tX3

Baa Humbug:
January 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm

There is a website that is archiving all that has been stated by the alarmist pollies scientists and celebrities here

Called climatequotes.com, here is a sample by Gordon Brown from october 2009

“…in just twenty-five years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely.”

That’ll be one of about hundreds which will be quoted back to him ad nauseum until he is pushing up daisies (in a warm moist CO2 rich atmosphere)

MattB:
January 28th, 2010 at 12:31 pm

In fairness to Gordon… he is only quoting the IPCC.

Valid? 0 1

Baa Humbug:
January 28th, 2010 at 1:41 pm

MattB if the good Viscount Monckton was replying to you he may have said something like…

“Defenditatus non defensus”

ANGRY:
January 28th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

SUBJECT: Save the planet! Stink out the homes and spread the gastro

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_stink_out_the_homes_and_spread_the_gastro/

MattB:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

Humbug – I have no doubt that is what he would have said… and sounded like a pompous toffy while doing it:) If I was his PR agent I’d strongly advise he drop the Latin.

bunny:
January 29th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

Water vapour a major cause of global warming and cooling.

A research team at NOAA have reported a mysterious 10% drop in water vapour in the stratosphere which may have been behind the last decade being cooler than expected.

Their model also suggests that an increase in stratospheric water vapour might have boosted earlier warming by about 30% in the 1980s and 1990s.

Who would have thought it? Water vapour influences global temperatures.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html

Joe Parale:
January 31st, 2010 at 9:40 am

BBC ’s Getting (or rather Giving) the message, at Last !

BBC News 24 has just at this very moment been Discussing tomorros UK papers, highligting an Observer story (Full Front Page) by the Climate Secretary, Milliband, and contrasting that with another story in the Telegraph.

Don’t know who the bloke doing the commenting on the progarm is but he’s getting away with putting a remarkably (for the BBC) skeptic presentation on it, claiming to be skeptical himself, and then the presenter , so matter of factly, mentions that “there’s an awful lot of money tied up with taking the Global Warming view” (owtte)

Joe Parale:
January 31st, 2010 at 10:01 am

From today’s Sunday Telegraph (UK)
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
‘fraid I cann’t find the Observer Front Page article , by Climate Secretary, Milliband , on-line yet…

Joe Parale:
January 31st, 2010 at 11:49 am

Here it is, today’s Observer (UK) front Page (the Guardian’s Sunday sheet)

Climate Change Minister Declares War on climate change sceptics …..

Joe Parale:
February 1st, 2010 at 12:13 am

Has Minister pushed AGW theory past it’s tipping point ?

It’s fascinating to watch the reaction to this piece on todays Guardian news website, usually a very hostile environment for ‘denier’ reactions.

Climate Change Minister Declares War on climate change sceptics

When Guardian readership is turned against something like this, it’s all over bar the shouting, and it looks as if the good Minister’s intervention might just have done it.

Baa Humbug:
February 1st, 2010 at 10:19 pm

Groundhog day.

Just in time for the reintroduction of the ETS into the Oz Parliament, our very own ABC focuses on a report here via Australian Climate Madness

An ETS will only raise prices by 1% according to a NEW study. But guess what happens to food prices if we don’t introduce an ETS? Owww go on guess

Baa Humbug:
February 1st, 2010 at 10:36 pm

A new report out from Thailand that Bangkok is SINKING. But wait, it’s NOT from Global Warming caused sea level rise (1.5-2mm p/y) but from bad land/water use practices causing the land to SINK 11mm per year. As reported on the ABC News Network Asia Focus Programme. See their sos here

I didn’t get the name of the report author, heard it on the car radio on the way home.

Baa Humbug:
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:34 am

The MSM in the UK is reporting that the climategate emails were the work of foreign spies. here

I don’t like this. This is a red herring for the UK government to shut up shop on the climategate scandal by evoking national security.

Baa Humbug:
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:29 pm

*************Important News*********

It’s official, Global Warming IS a religion.

+++++++++++++++++

Global Warming Afforded Same Legal Status as Religion in UK

Source: Scott Net

When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms. The bizarre ruling sets a landmark legal precedent and could have broad implications both in Britain and abroad.

via SPPI Blog

MattB:
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Aren’t you literally months out of date on that last one Humbug? next you’ll tell us: “Breaking news, emails leaked/hacked from leading climate research centre.”

Baa Humbug:
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 pm

Yeah looks like I’m showing my age there Matt. You know how it is with us farmers, things move slowly

Joe Parale:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:37 am

That arch defender of all that is AGW,
THE (UK) GUARDIAN, TURNS.

Sunday, it was the Guardian readership turning on an article about the Govt. Minister for Climate Change “declaring War on Skeptics…”

Today, the Guardian itself is claiming in an Exclusive, it’s ‘Own Investigation (!!!)’ into leaked E-Mails discovers Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws

Their most emminent AGW commentator is also calling for heads:-
Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations
.

Baa Humbug:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:10 am

Jo you did a piece late last year about women in science from memory. I think you’ll be interested in this from pajamas media

“Now, I am not a scientist. I am just a mother who raised 9 kids and trains horses for a living. Nothing scientific about that, but it seems to me everything should always be open for discussion…..
…”Outrageous to me was one scientist who claimed our high school students would not be able to understand the information and especially when the opposing side was paid off and presenting lies”.

But now a reply from Michael Tobis “Well, let’s leave aside the business of what the 9 kids tells us about you, and how much time you’ve had to think about complicated grownup stuff. I’m not sure you want to go there, really”.

The above via Lucias Blackboard

Baa Humbug:
February 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

Donna Laframboise details some more “peer review” by the IPCC. Seems they were citing newspaper articles as well.

Baa Humbug:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:48 am

*********Hey Jo How about***********

Hey Jo, how about drawing the opera house on stilts???? for the next time we do a piece on rising sea levels.

Michael:
February 11th, 2010 at 6:57 pm

NEWS Just reviewed Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper regarding proof that increased CO2 will not cause runaway climate. A NASA scientist, he had to resign in order to get his paper published, in the January-March 2007 issue of IDOJARAS, the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

I have not seen this article so if it is old, my apologies. Enjoy.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

There is also an article:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d9-New-research-into-greenhouse-effect-challenges-theory-of-manmade-global-warming

Another at:

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/

And Finally:

http://www.climategate.com/former-nasa-scientist-debunks-co2-greenhouse-theory

I went overboard but feel each offers a bit of a different twist and thought more might provide better validity.

MattB:
February 11th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Dear god why is it that skeptics feel the need to see a piece of news and then run to every skeptical blog they can find and post it, repeatedly.

co2isnotevil:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:57 am

Matt,

Why is it that when an alarmist reports on one of the many newly acknowledged faults in the IPCC reports, they throw in a bunch of noise in order to deflect the reader from the significance of the errors?

One of the more recent ones was claiming that all of the faults were in the effects of climate change and not about the science. Of course, it’s the emotional response to the fabricated effects that drives alarmism and even you should know by now that the ’science’ behind climate alarmism is so fundamentally flawed that no serious scientist can possibly accept it as ‘undeniable’.

The bottom line is that while man’s CO2 emissions have a finite effect on the climate, this effect is far smaller than IPCC claims (i.e the science part that is undeniably incorrect) and no where near large enough to cause catastrophic climate change. I suggest that you take off your green tinted glasses so you can perceive reality as it is and not as you want it to be.

Michael:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:00 am

Matt, thou dost protest too much. You are too sensitive! Your overwhelmingly reactive cry of indignation at having to see not just one post revealing how wrong AGWarming alarmists are, but four, makes a statement in and of itself. You no longer need to try to defend your position (as if you ever did) for each and every assault you make actually provides evidence that skeptics are indeed correct. Our evidence of truth makes you proclaim deep within your soul, “TRAVESTY!” Your cries actually provide status for our opinion. If you were sincere in bringing credit to “your side” then you would proceed to actually present empirical evidence, or results which lends credance to what you so faithfully implore is the truth.

My posting four sites, and there were more, resulted from the fact I was trying to determine if I was being misled by alarmist’s who would then post how Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi was a fraud. For your information there are more than just these “four” posts. Amazingly, each post actually provided greater depth of truth to the story.

One of the benefits of using the Web is having at ones finger-tips instant knowledge, unfortunately, much of said knowledge can be nothing more than propaganda. But you must already know this, or your effort to convert us would contain more substance. But thank you for allowing us to see how deep your faith is in Al Gore and et al.

MattB, I wonder if you need to try to find evidence for both sides of the argument. In fact it would be good for you to practice the art of debate and pretend you are trying to support a skeptic’s point of view. But wait, then you would have to allow the truth to actually get past your religious screening system. Never mind, the pain would be unbearable for you. Better to leave the searching to individuals actually seeking truth, not fooling themselves into thinking they have it. Michael

lambroast:
February 15th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Hi I was just reading about Lord Monctons visit and I noticed there wasn’t any pics of him talking to the crowd outside “the J” in noosa. I have 4 pic of the crowd and lord Moncton speaking. If anyone is interested in these pics please email me on lambroast@yahoo.com.au.

Kelly:
February 20th, 2010 at 8:09 am

Absurd images from “Climate Change Gone Dutch” including subversive use of “The Skeptic’s Handbook” at recent Dutch National Climate event “Beat the Heat”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPwFQT9RK8I

Baa Humbug:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 pm

Jo “the last 20 posts” don’t seem to be listed any longer?

Joanne Nova:
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 pm

Thanks Baa Humbug. I will look into it… JN

Joanne Nova:
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 am

Thanks. All fixed and the page now shows the latest 30 comments, with slightly longer text for each…

Baa Humbug:
February 26th, 2010 at 12:20 am

Oh Jo please please could you do something with THAT pic at the 10 Wong reasons post? I get upset each time I see it. Maybe a morph is in order.

Baa Humbug:
March 1st, 2010 at 12:17 am

Andrew Bolt gives Jo a nice plug HERE about her deconstruction of Lambert

Joe Veragio:
March 13th, 2010 at 8:48 am

Hi Jo,
Do you know where NoVA, Canada might be ?
Well I have no idea, but Lord Monckton appears to have found it, where he seems to be wowing the crowds again.
InsideNoVA.com
My how he gets around.
It’s refreshing to read such a civilised article too, so I couldn’t resist sharing your site with such pleasant sounding people.
Joe.

su arıtma cihazları:
March 15th, 2010 at 11:09 pm

this is a cool one!

Joe Spencer:
April 1st, 2010 at 6:40 am

NEWS : Science & Technology Committee of the UK Parlaiment’s Report on:-
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

published today.

Read it & weep.

Paul V. Sheridan:
April 2nd, 2010 at 3:27 am

My latest oped here:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100401/VIEWPOINTS02/4010322/1129/Sectors-of-academia-cling-to-denial-in-Climategate

Here is a hyperlinked original in pdf:

http://links.veronicachapman.com/Climategate_Academia_Exploitation.pdf

I would like to modify for other publication venues; any ideas/takers?

P.S. The Climategate Deniers are REALLY worked up about my use of the
phrase “political ponerology.”

Robert:
June 20th, 2010 at 5:01 am

Page 3,
Temperatures are not rising.
Satellites circling the planet twice a day show
that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising…

Actually, this is so incorrect a statement it isn’t funny. See the AMSU satellite data, so far the satellites have recorded this year as being the warmest winter on record by far… But hey, distorting the truth is good too…
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

100

Bush bunny:
June 30th, 2010 at 5:04 pm

New UN IPCC report, the ice is melting in Greenland and
Antartica. However, one is in summer and the other in
winter. And the vice president is coming to the Gold Coast next month, during their winter, should be interesting? Sydney Morning Herald 30/6 pg 10 ‘IPCC expects big increase in sea-level forecasts by Tom Arup.
And the government should give loans to people whose homes are threatened by sea level rises??? Everyone is getting on the gravy train, and who believes the UN IPCC anyway. But they have 831 new scientists enrolled to prepare their 2014 report. I’m surprised
and wonder who they will be? From undeveloped countries and those who think they will be compensated for environmental damage due to developed countries negligence? Go pull the other one!

And Sydney suffered the lowest temperatures for 60 years, and my rhubarb got hit and I live in an area where minus C in winter nights is not unusual. And its been there for 20 years.

101

Bush bunny:
June 30th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

Robert @ 99 Your link doesn’t work. And Paul your first link doesn’t work, but the second one does. Thanks.

102

jazznick:
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:15 am

Hello from UK.

Thought you might like to see how the Sir Muir Russell inquiry is getting along here !
Well, the Hockey Team have all sent a letter to Sir telling him how to handle
the whole thing and present a perfect whitewash – it’s autographed and everything !!
view at:-
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/30/a-late-submission-to-sir-muir.html

A-maze-ing – the sheer front of these people !

103

Bush bunny:
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Did they send him a cheque too? What a cheek.

Hope he’s an honest man.

Cheers from Oz.

104

Denny:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:55 am

Hey there! Received this article from the latest edition of the Alarmist “Popular Science” magazine…My BS Meter is broken! Check it out!

Six Quiet Climate Villians: Brick Tamland, James Inhofe And Cows! @

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2675.last

105

GBees:
July 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm

The American Power Act: MARKET REVIEW

The American Power Act represents a key landmark for global carbon markets and the international corporate community. RepuTex’s Market Review breaks down key elements of the Bill, notably the inclusion of a ‘carbon tariff’ on imports with high carbon intensity, a component likely to impact supply focused companies globally, notably in China and Australia. A summary is provided by RepuTex below.

The Kerry- Lieberman Climate Bill (American Power Act) was released on 12th May 2010. The Bill applies different regulations to different sectors, with utilities directly exposed to a carbon price from the inception of the scheme in 2013.

Over 7,500 facilities are expected to be integrated under the scheme, manufacturing will be included under a cap from 2016. The overall target for the scheme remains at 17% emissions reduction by 2020. The Bill allows for the use of up to 2 billion credits of domestic and international offsets, including CERs (certified emission reduction). Refer to the summary below:

• Cost containment measures including a price cap of $25 and a floor price of $12;
• Free allocation of large portion of permits (i.e. 75%);
• Full auctioning of credits for utilities from 2030;
• Carbon tariff on imports;
• Compensation for energy price hikes for manufacturers and consumers; and
• 20% discount rate for CDM based offsets from 2018.

The inclusion of a carbon tariff on imports puts immense pressure on Asian exporters, notably Chinese companies, which will need to assess the carbon intensity of their products and subsequent carbon tariff costs. Given the carbon price containment measures which include a carbon cap and floor as well as a strategic reserve of allowances, RepuTex anticipates limited price volatility in the early years of the scheme. Table 1 summarises the important aspects of the American Power Act.

Table 1: Summary of the American Power Act

Target Midterm: 17% by 2020 (below 2005 levels)
Long term: 80% by 2050 (below 2005 levels)
Mechanism Cap and trade
Sectors Utilities ( coal plant performance standards to be established)
Manufacturing/Industries
Oil Refining (separate cap, ‘Pollution permits’)
Excludes Agriculture/Farming
Eligibility Facilities emitting > 25,000 tons CO2-e (22,679 tonnes)
Participants Approximately 7,500 facilities
Timeline Utilities: covered under cap from 2013
Manufacturing: covered under cap from 2016
Price Control
Mechanism Price cap: $25 (increase by 5% + CPI)
Price floor: $12 (increases by 3% + CPI)
Permit Allocation It is expected that approximately 75% of allowances will be allocated for free until 2028. Details regarding the exact distribution of permits are yet to be announced.

Manufacturing: free permits until 2026 coinciding with the end of ‘Transitional’ phase. EITE (emission intensive trade exposed)
approach for direct & indirect compensation.

Oil refining: free permits till 2026

Utilities have to buy all their permit needs from 2030 (other sectors from 2035).
Compensation Manufacturers will receive enough permits in 2013-16 to cover
increases in energy costs.
Reserve (allowances) Strategic reserve of 4 billion tons of credits
Can be released into market to stabilise carbon price
Offsets Domestic offsets: 1.5 billion tCO2-e. This includes agriculture based, coal gas capture, landfill gas, biomass emissions reduction projects.

International offsets: 0.5 billion tCO2-e . Offsets from CDM (clean development mechanism) projects have been included as well as credits from sector based mechanisms. However a discount rate of 20% applies from 2018.

Excludes offset credits from REDD (reduced emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation)
State & Regional Schemes This Bill pre-empts all regional and State based schemes (RGGI, WCI, and California B32).
Clean Energy
Measures The Bill allows $70 billion for clean/natural gas transportation over
ten years. Nuclear energy expansion has also been flagged.

Carbon Tariff Places carbon tariff on imports
Consumer Protection The Bill includes provisions to compensate low to moderate income households through ‘monthly refunds’ for increases in energy costs.

106

GBees:
July 9th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Watch for Labor to rename their ETS to something a bit more patriotic (like the Americans) so the gullible swallow this crap.

107

Denny:
July 17th, 2010 at 6:11 am

Here’s the latest goin’s on:

Pachauri Orders IPCC Members To Shut Their Mouth
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2716.last

A very interesting read: Do IR-Absorbing Gases Warm Or Cool Earth’s Surface?
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2715.last

And Richard North, George Monboit are at it again: Amazongate: Round Two
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2713.last

108

Mark Hladik:
July 19th, 2010 at 10:54 pm

Greetings to all:

I looked over the “Abbreviations” portion of the website, and wondered about the definition in use for “GCM”. The listed expansion of this abbreviation is “Global Climate Model”, and, while this is certainly what they do (projecting ‘future’ climate some decades, or even centuries, into the future), I was under the impression that they were actually “General Circulation Models”.

I recall seeing some discussion about GCM’s in the early 1990’s (about the time I became interested in the topic), and the author of the work I was reading was somewhat appalled at the uses GCM’s were being put to. His statement about GCM’s indicated that they were designed to be classroom exercises for meteorologists-in-training, and attempting to use them as ‘global warming forecasters’ was not only inappropriate, but also doomed to failure, as the global climate system is orders-of-magnitude more complex than the limited simulation capacity of digital computers.

How prophetic his words were, more than a decade later!

I am painfully aware that numerous readers of this comment will ask, ‘what were you reading?’; not only would I love to supply the reference, I would enjoy seeing that work again, but alas, my aged memory (oxymoron) does not recall which, of the many, excellent works on the subject I was reading at the time. The author, however, was considered an expert in the field, hence, any assistance from the JoNova website would be appreciated.

My best to all, and get those thinking caps on, and see if we can find this reference. It is likely that it is (or was) in the professional literature, and not a book, but I cannot rule any possibility out at this time. I have read no less than a thousand different references over the decades on this subject, from ‘blogs’ to published professional papers, and everything in between.

Mark Hladik
Casper, Wyoming
United States

109

Filmdizi:
July 25th, 2010 at 10:12 am

110

Bush bunny:
July 25th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Filmdizi. Carbon price fixing, eh? However, it seems offering anyone with a car older than 1995 has the option of getting a $2000 rebate to update their car to a NEW one.

Only a NEW one? Where the heck are they going to get a new car from or afford one. I always buy second hand cars so those traded in, will be bought up by other people won’t they? Meaning there will be more cars on the road. Unless the trade in is an absolute
wreck and is squashed?

If that swings voters in ALP’s favor, how the hell will this country survive another term of the Labor party
and Greens.

111

Bush bunny:
July 25th, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Of course folks, if they put a carbon tax on old cars
then the price of cars older than 1995 will go up, or the price of petrol? Just wait and see.

112

Bernd Felsche:
July 25th, 2010 at 10:24 pm

End of a dry spell in Perth it seems.

It might seem unusual. So I’ve downloaded some data from a nearby Ag. Research Station and plotted cummulative rainfall (blue – left axis) and insolation (red – right axis) as a moving average over 365 days. Station data from the beginning of 1996 were used. Because it’s amoving accummulation, the first year (365 days) wouldn’t show anything, but is obviously reflected in the 1997 plots.

NOTE!! There are some significant *HOLES* in especially the earlier data (pre 1998), so the accummulated totals are lower than what they would be. We can’t assume that the sun didn’t shine just because there wasn’t data collected for a week or more.

That may account for the low insolation totals at the beginning.

Spreadsheet with data. (1.7MB)

113

Bush bunny:
July 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Hi folks, I wrote to Richard Torbay about the climate change models offered by the NSW government. They were
taken from the BOM site you can check yourself. But only covered the last 60 years. Plus sea rises were estimated to increase by .7 mm a year and expected to be
177mm higher than today by the year 2100. Now who is
panicking. I sent back a letter. Received two back.
One the minister will take immediate action, and the other that Frank Sartor (the Minister) would investigate what I had written.

I mentioned the MWP and MIA, must be taken in consideration but the most important matter was CO2
is a tiny part of Greenhouse gases, and although AGW
enhances GHG, it does not drive the climate. Weather
kills us and an ice age will definitely harm the ability of people to grow foods.

At least some are listening, and even some Greens are now adopting their attitude. They want to stop pollution. Well I agree with that.

114

Bush bunny:
July 26th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Bernde it is interesting to note, that during the last
ice age, South Australia received more rain than today.
This is what happens. Some parts of the globe receive
less precipitation, particularly when sea levels drop.
Others receive more. Lake Mungo was a lake that Aborigines lived around.

It was only in the last 10,000 yrs when it separated from New Guinea that the top end was used along the coastal areas as semi permanent settlements for Aborigines, and most lived in coastal regions that received more rain. They lived there before this, but the sea levels were much lower than today. I always think that people followed the animals they wished to hunt, and when the sea levels
rose up, fishing was utilized so humans benefit by using sea craft.

Keep at it folks, Obama has failed to pass his climate change bill. Australian newspaper, Friday.

115

letsnotpanic:
August 15th, 2010 at 4:43 am

Why the lag for CO2 take-up in oceans is longer than for CO2 release from oceans.
I’m not sure if this has been pointed out by others – it probably has been explained somewhere. The 800 year CO2 release lag has been explained by the fact that it takes time for oceans to warm up and to release CO2. If you think about it, the release process must be faster than the take-up process. As the ocean warms the CO2 is released from a volume of water. However, as the ocean cools the CO2 can only be taken up at the surface of the ocean. I am not certain is 5,000 years is the correct take-up lag, but you can see all across the Vostok data that CO2 take-up is slower than CO2 release.

Why is this important? It is important because all through the CO2 take-up lag period we see temperature falling even though CO2 remains high. Pretty strong evidence in my view that CO2 is not the temperature culprit.
(Graph © Jo Nova’s Skeptic’s Handbook)

116

co2isnotevil:
August 15th, 2010 at 9:34 am

Letsnotpanic,

The cause for the delay is not as you described. The way temperatures are inferred from the ice cores is effectively a measurement of the temperature of the oceans. It counts on the fact that di-hydrogen oxide evaporates differently than di-deuterium oxide and the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in the ice reflects the ocean temperature (where most of the evaporation occurs).

The only mechanism that can account for the lag is biology. Any change owing to changes in the ocean temperature and relative CO2 solubility will occur concurrent with temperature changes. Life on the other hand takes time to adapt CO2 to optimum levels, which as far as biomass is concerned, is far higher than it would be in the absence of biomass.

The planet wide biomass is dependent on 4 factors. The amount of sunlight, the amount of water, the amount of CO2 and the amount of surface conducive to biomass growth. It’s crucial to recognize that all of the carbon sequestered in the biosphere was at one time part of a CO2 molecule. This even includes the carbon in plastics derived from hydrocarbons!

As CO2 levels rise, biomass will grow faster. As planet wide biomass increases, more biomass dies on an annual basis. As biomass dies, it decomposes into CO2 and CH4, which increases the steady state atmospheric CO2 and CH4 allowing biomass to grow faster. This process can occur relatively fast as temperatures are increasing, sequestering natural sources of CO2 into the biosphere as fast as it’s released. As temperatures decrease, the CO2 levels will remain relatively high as a larger proportion of biomass dies than is replaced in the following season and the accumulated CO2 must leave the atmosphere by being sequestered as fossil fuels and carbonates which is a far slower process than the build up of biomass as temperatures increase.

If you look at newer cores, the asymmetry is even more apparent. However the temporal resolution of the Vostok core is rather poor, so the 800 year lag has a lot of intrinsic error, plus this specific measurement reflects a worst case. The newer cores show a lag from rising temperatures on the order of 1-2 centuries and a lag as temperatures fall of 3-4 centuries. These measurements I quote are not the worst case lag (as is implied by this specific Vostok analysis), but the average lag over a million years as calculated using a time slewed correlation procedure. This identifies the lag which when applied to temperature variability is the most highly correlated to the CO2 variability and is a normal statistical process used to determine cause and effect from sampled data where the sample space is on the order of the relative lags.

117

letsnotpanic:
August 17th, 2010 at 8:03 am

CO2 solubility changes with water temperature. The surface temperature of the ocean follows air temperature fairly quickly – one could say concurrently. The temperature of the ocean down to about 250 feet also follows air temperature reasonably swiftly – on the order of a few decades.

However, we are not interested in the surface temperature, or even the water temperature down to 250 feet. We are interested in a column of water at least 1,000 feet deep, probably more. In order to release the huge amounts of CO2 that are required to change the atmospheric CO2 content by, let’s say, 100 ppmv, you require a huge volume of water. This change requires exposure to warmer air on the order of hundreds of years. As mentioned in my first post, CO2 can only be re-dissolved into water at the surface, so when the water cools it takes hundreds of years for the water temperature at depth to change, and it is a much slower process to dissolve CO2 at the surface and for its concentration to increase with depth.

118

co2isnotevil:
August 18th, 2010 at 3:37 am

Panic,

You analysis assumes energy is stored uniformly within this column of water. This is not the case. Deep water has a constant temperature, independent of surface temperature. This is a consequence of the density of cold water being greater than warm water, causing it to sink. As long as there is any frozen water on the planet, the deep ocean will remain close to 0C. This illustrates a prime flaw in the CAGW argument, where the ocean is assumed to uniformly store heat. In fact, only the surface stores heat while the deep ocean stores cold. This makes the ocean respond very quickly to changes in forcing power so it doesn’t exhibit the sluggish response assumed by warmists. Simply noticing that the global average temperature changes by about 3-4C during the course of a single year and that the Earth is primarily covered by water should be enough evidence that oceans respond rapidly to changes in forcing. That is, the global slew rate of the Earth’s thermal mass is between about 0.5 and 0.7 C per month, which is light speed compared to the slow response required to support CAGW.

The ocean stores energy as a thermal difference across the thermocline. The invariant deep ocean cold is on one side and the more variable warm surface waters are on the other. It’s important to recognize that relative to the steady state average surface temperature, half of the stored thermal energy in the ocean is less than the average surface temperature and the other half is greater than average and the 2 cancel! It’s no coincidence that the temperature at the mid point in the thermocline is approximately equal to the average surface temperature. In effect, the thermocline acts as a layer of thermal insulation separating the deep ocean cold from warm surface waters. This becomes clear once you examine the non linear nature of an ocean temperature vs. depth plot and the significance of the inflection points. Consider the temperature profile across an insulated wall with hot on one side and cold on the other.

119

letsnotpanic:
August 18th, 2010 at 6:32 am

The average air temperature changes by a few degrees over the course of a year, but this is not evidence of the oceans changing by anything near this amount. The surface temperatures do change, but there is not nearly enough CO2 in the surface water to account for the CO2 changes that we see in the Vostok records. I have been doing some calculations and will post them in the near future on my website. The calculations are straight forward. Data on the variation of ocean temperature with depth is readily available. Data on the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature is readily available. The weight of the earth’s atmosphere is known and available, or you can compute it yourself – it is the pressure of the air at the earth’s surface times the area of the earth. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is given as ppmv in the Vostok data – the calculations to change this to ppm by weight are simple. You can then compute how many tonnes of CO2 have to be given up by the oceans in order to change the atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv. From this you can compute the volume of water that must be warmed in order to give up this amount of CO2. If you do the math you will see that a great depth of water must be affected in order to release the amounts of CO2 required. I am familiar with the thermocline and all of your comments are valid – and these arguments are the reason that it takes a very long time to release significant amounts of CO2. Do the math.

120

co2isnotevil:
August 18th, 2010 at 8:43 am

Yes it is evidence of ocean temperatures changing by large amounts. Satellites measure power radiated by the surface not the near surface air temperature. The power radiated by the surface is all that matters, relative to the Earth’s energy balance. The near surface air temperature is related to surface temperature, but only as a consequence.

If you filter satellite measurements by selecting only ocean data, you see a relatively large global change in the average radiated temperature of all oceans. This is still on the order of a couple of degrees globally and far higher when the hemispheres are considered on their own. This is important as there is very little energy transferred across the equator as a consequence of seasonal variability. While circulation currents within a hemisphere smooth out local change, hemispheric averages are independent of each other and indicative of how the system responds to seasonal change, and in fact, any change, in the forcing power.

We can measure the incident power minus reflected power and measure radiated power as surface and cloud radiated power filtered by atmospheric absorption. The difference between them is the instantaneous power flux in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass. Knowing that the Earth is 70% covered by water and the known heat capacity constants associated with water and rock, we can calculate how much water must be moved (at 1 calorie per degree C per gram) to affect the measured temperature change. This will tell us exactly how much of the oceans participate in the Earth’s thermal mass. It turns out to be not very much, which is why the planet responds far quicker to changes in forcing than CAGW proponents would like us to believe.

Regarding the Vostok cores, I would suggest you look at the DomeC cores or other newer data with finer temporal resolution and which used more modern tools and methods for extraction. Nonetheless, the temperature reported by relative deuterium concentrations is a measure of average global ocean temperatures, which given the sampling periods involved can be reasonably assumed to be in steady state conditions relative to the oceans thermal mass, thus any temperature related variability in CO2 solubility will have already occurred. Attributing the delay in atmospheric CO2 to the delayed response of the oceans doesn’t explain why CO2 concentrations continue to rise as the global average ocean temperatures drop or why they continue to fall even after average global ocean temperatures have started to rise. BTW, I have done the math,

121

letsnotpanic:
August 19th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

RE: “The power radiated by the surface is all that matters” – this is just not so. What matters is the temperature of the water itself. The temperature of the water determines how much CO2 it can hold. As the temperature of the water changes so changes the amount of CO2 that can stay in solution. The temperature of the water varies with depth, so the amount of CO2 the water can hold also varies with depth. In order to compute how much CO2 the water will release you need to know the change in temperature of the water from the surface to a considerable depth.

Your comment does not address this basic point. You seem to be missing the point completely.

122

co2isnotevil:
August 19th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

The temperature of the water and the power radiated by the ocean are one in the same and related by Stefan-Boltzmann. The ocean temperature profile is dictated by density considerations more than any thing else. As such, the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is anchored at 0C and everything below the thermocline (most of the oceans mass) is similarly anchored, moreover; this mass of cold water is thermally isolated from the warm surface waters by the thermocline. Just as only a skin on the top of the land participates in the thermal mass of the planet, only a thin skin on top of the ocean participates. This is why ocean temperatures swing over such a large range. Your assertion is similar to saying that we need to wait for the rest of the earth to catch up to surface temperature swings. The significant thermal difference between water and rock is that rock is a better thermal insulator.

While you may think of water as a conductor of heat, it’s not a particularly good one and at thermocline thicknesses is such a poor conductor it becomes an insulator. Something else you are missing is that the oceans arrive at thermal equilibrium in response to changing temperatures at the surface by varying the thickness of the thermocline, not by changing the temperature of the rest of the ocean.

123

letsnotpanic:
August 20th, 2010 at 4:50 am

You’re still missing the point. The black body radiation properties of the ocean do not tell us anything about the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold in solution. The solubility of CO2 varies with water temperature, and the temperature of the water varies with depth. Thus we need a model of temperature variation with depth and of CO2 solubility with temperature and we then need to integrate the amount of CO2 dissolved as a function of depth.

124

co2isnotevil:
August 20th, 2010 at 8:48 am

No, I’m not missing your point, I know what you’re trying to say, but you are mistaken because your assumption that the ocean responds slowly to change is incorrect. The temperature profile of the ocean changes in a different way than you think in response to changing surface temperatures, moreover; it adapts to change in weeks, not centuries.

The Hydro cycle evaporates water from the ocean where it subsequently falls as rain. Polar latitudes have more precipitation than evaporation, while equatorial latitudes have more evaporation than precipitation. The results in a net movement of ocean water from the equatorial surface to polar waters and is the driver of the thermohaline circulation. Polar precipitation feeds the deep ocean cold waters, which through the action of gravity, pushes the thermocline and surface waters up near the equator to replace the excess evaporated water.

The slow migration of the thermocline upwards cause by excess evaporation (about a few cm per month) never really manifests itself as changes to the thermocline boundaries as new boundaries are adapting at the same rate of it’s upward motion, although these new boundaries will adapt to the conditions dictated by the instantaneous difference in temperature between the deep ocean cold and warm surface waters. The mechanism of adaption is that water has a finite thermal conductivity of about 0.6 W/mK. Given a known temperature differential between the deep ocean cold and surface warm (about 20C at the equator) and a required amount of heat to warm up the cold water replacing the hot water lost by evaporation, the required width of the thermocline for the steady state can be calculated. This will be the case as long as the depth of the water is deeper than the required depth of the thermocline.

The point here is that there’s a fast acting, dynamic process that adjusts the ocean temperature profile by varying the boundaries of the thermocline. As such, the lags seen in the ice core have nothing to do with temperatures of the deep ocean changing more slowly affecting future CO2 solubility. Biology can explain the lag precisely as well as explain the asymmetry between the rising lag and the falling lag. While there is a component due to temperature dependent CO2 solubility of the ocean, this component if concurrent with temperature change (at least relative to ice core samples), it is not the component responsible for the lags.

125

letsnotpanic:
August 21st, 2010 at 5:52 am

The deep ocean temperature does not change in weeks. I refer you to “Do deep ocean temperature records verify models?” by Richard S. Lindzen: (http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/lindzen.pdf)

Quote – “Stated differently, the ocean temperature increases present some support for the surface temperature record, but they do not provide support for the climate models themselves. It must be added that we are dealing with observed surface warming that has been going on for over a century. The oceanic temperature change over the period 1950–2000 reflects earlier temperature changes at the surface. How early depends on the rate at which surface signals penetrate the ocean. In the present simple ocean model, this is determined by our choice of k {thermocline diffusivity}, but in the real ocean undoubtedly other processes can be involved.”

As you can see, the key variable is thermocline diffusivity, not thermal conductivity. As you can also see, the jury is still out as to the actual delay involved down to the bottom of the thermocline (~475 m). However, you need to warm the oceans to a level deeper than this in order to release the amount of CO2 that is observed in the Vostok record, which creates further delays. As Lindzen observes. this does not rule out other delay processes.

The bottom line is that we do not know what the actual delays are down to the bottom of the thermocline, but we know that they are more likely to be on the order of decades rather than weeks. When you extend the model down to the ocean depth that is required to achieve the water volume necessary to release the observed amounts of CO2 then we are completely off the radar screen as far as observed data is concerned, but the delays are no doubt longer than decades.

On the other hand, the arguments for a biological cause of the delay are extremely speculative. There may be a component there, but there is no clear model nor is there any hard data to support this hypothesis.