On Nov 25, 2:17Â*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:



On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here.

Hello to you, Mr D. Very honest of you to state your position so
openly.

Â*You don't think the oceans warm? Â*The
surface changes temp very quickly.

Well that accounts for the bit above the thermocline, 0.1% of the
volume. The other 99.9% hasn't changed by the 1 deg Celsius that the
lower troposphere has this last 100 years.

Â*The further down you go the longer
it takes. Â*The old pattern is still there. Â*If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic.

So perhaps you can explain the recent rise in ocean acidity, which is
a matter of oceanographic record. Or is that forged too, like all the
other climate data out there?

You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.

Err... historic global temperatures are all fudged and forged, aren't
they? That's what you denialists insist on telling us.

The lag traditionally found in the paleo record is of the order of 700
years. I don't see 700 years of data here - not even 70 years.

snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).

Are you saying Pulver is fluent in Slovenian? I doubt it to be so. He
read a blog in English that was probably sourced from another blog
too ;-(

On Nov 25, 1:04 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:37 pm, Bruce Richmond

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...a25c9c c78c3f

wrote:"Why,
do you think it has more affect on the ocean's surface temperature
than the troposphere which contains approximately 75% of the
atmosphere's mass and is in direct contact with the ocean's surface?"

If you remove the stratosphere what happens to live on earth? Do not
play your word games, i asked a simple question if you had looked at
temps in the stratosphere, and you dodged, so that would mean you did
not take the time to really explore the issue. Instead as usual, like
all deniers you stop at some arbitrary "feel good" point, that appears
to make your argument valid, but in actuality fails to do so.

You can say all this, but then you are unable to do any basic
quantitive analysis. Your 'science' is nothing but some lyrical
exercise in philosphical statements not based anywhere on direct
scientific establisment of facts.

Back to your name calling and character denigration, the backbone and
basis of your 'science'.

The stratosphere has a thermal inversion. At the top of the
stratosphere the temperature is, 270 K (-3°C or 29.6°F)
At the tropopause, or bottom of the stratosphere the temperature is
about -55C.

This is because of absorption of incoming solar energy which does not
reach to the bottom of the stratosphere.

The contemporary idea, is that this energy is in the ultraviolets. The
ultraviolets compose 9% of the solar radiation.which is 123Wm-2 of the
original 1370Wm-2 of the solar constant.

Of this, only a total of 1% of the solar constant is absorbed by the
stratosphere, in the ultraviolet, which is about 14Wm-2.

Clearly not enough energy to warm the top of the stratosphere to near
surface temperature.

Of the 1370Wm-2 of the solar constant, under optimal conditions, at
sea level at the equator, only 1000Wm-2 makes it to the surface after
passing the 100 miles or so through the atmosphere.

Visible light composes about 50% of the solar constant, infrared about
41%, and ultraviolet about 9%.

Most of the visible light passes through the atmosphere without being
absorbed and re-emitted. The missing 370Wm-2 is mostly in the infrared
of the solar radiation. It is ONLY THIS ABSORPTION which could
possibly make the top of the stratosphere at the temperature that it
is.

This absorption is occuring with the O2 and N2 of the atmosphere. The
critical and integral premise of greenhouse gas theory that these
gases are transparent to infrared is false, which can also be PROVED
by simple direct laboratory analysis.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...g/sunspectrum/

This graph is a little deceptive since the vertical scale is
logrithmic meaning that each increment is actually a square. It would
be difficult to put this graph on the page with a 1:1 relationship in
the vertical scale. The horizontal scale, shown as the inverse
relationship of wavelength, is directly proportional to frequency.
However, one can see that up to about 7um or 8um, the solar radiation
is greater than earth radiation.

CO2 has important dark bands at 2.7 and 4.2um, which are not relevant
to earth's radiation. Only the 15um band is considered important in
GHG theory.

If one were to consider increased absorption by increase of certain
gases, one would have to consider increase in absorbed incoming
radiation which would reduce energy reaching the surface. But the
mentally defunct global warming kooks find some way to avoid this
fact, just like they attribute earth's temperature to the atmosphere
and cosider earth and ocean temperature not important to these
calculations.

This graph is one of the few graphs on the internet which shows the
proper Planck distribution curve and the fact that the sun radiates as
a blackbody although it is almost entirely composed of simple hydrogen
gas.

Outgoing radiation, and it's supposed absorption in the stratosphere
by GHGs is irrelevant to the temperature of the stratosphere.

KD

On Nov 25, 5:15*am, JohnM wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:17*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:

So perhaps you can explain the recent rise in ocean acidity, which is
a matter of oceanographic record. Or is that forged too, like all the
other climate data out there?

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Atmosphere (1990) 750
Surface ocean 1020
Terrestrial vegetation 610
Marine biota 3
Soils & detritus 1580
Dissolved organic carbon 700
Deep ocean 38100

(in GTC, by 3.7 = billions of tons.)

140,970,billion tons of CO2 in the deep ocean.
Human contribution is now about 30 billion tons per year. Actual
atmospheric increase is not more than about 15 billion tons per yr
which would be 1.9ppm, since 7.8 billion tons is 1ppm in the
atmosphere

Look at these quantities of CO2 in the ocean and lithosphere. One can
see why it is a viable theory that increased circulation from warmer
conditions causes the increases of CO2.

The studies on ocean acidity are completely laced with corrections to
the raw data, which seems to be highly fashionable in the 'scientific'
world these days which has also forgone the need or the use of the
concept of 'proof' to go along with their theoretical rhetoric.


Err... historic global temperatures are all fudged and forged, aren't
they? That's what you denialists insist on telling us.

Well the burden of proof is certainly upon you to provide the raw data
and methodology in 'correcting' this raw data.

The fact is that this is UNAVAILABLE for the GHCN statistics, which
are the collected world statistics compiled by CRU, and for which most
of the hard copies and original computer code has been lost.

Provide reference for raw data. Sorry, but you are simply **** out of
luck, for the failure of Phil Jones and CRU to archive by microfiche
the hard copies before they were destroyed to save storage space, and
their following CATASTROPHIC accident in which they lost their
computer codes while moving. The original code could have been
analyzed for modification of original entries.

So now we only have GHCN modified statistics with no scientific
establishment of where this collection of numbers comes from.

AND ABSOLUTEY NO OBLIGATION TO MERELY TRUST JONES AND THE 'SCIENTISTS'
OF CRU.

Someday you assholes may be in a REAL hearing to determine facts of
this matter.

GOOD ****ING LUCK WITH YOUR CHILDISH APPROACH TO ESTABLISHMENT OF
FACTS AND MERE BELIEF IN YOUR DOGMA AND RHETORIC WHICH YOU CALL
'SCIENCE'.

KD

On Nov 24, 8:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:19*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:13*pm, "
wrote:"" snip

dude, shut up

Don't you ****ing wish.

You can always stick your head up your ass like usual, and enjoy the
peace and quite you demand.

You need to forget your pretense of being a supposed grown man or
intelligent person or explain why you think you have any grasp on
reality to accept Trenberth's analysis of the natural greenhouse
effect in which he claims that 324Wm-2 is returned TO THE SURFACE by
the 1% water vapor and trace gases. The other gases in the atmosphere
are supposedly 'non-reactive' to infrared radiation.http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstract...vin1997_1.html

And yet you can refer absolutely no direct laboratory evidence that
these gases cause any effect whatsoever upon temperature.

And to point out simply and clearly your SCIENTIFIC INSANITY,

Your laboratory data is of dark bands in the spectroscopy of certain
gases. From this, Hansen has deduced their 'greenhouse property'.
These dark bands are supposedly, 'absorption bands', as agreed with by
the charlatan's of theoretical physics.

Apparatus can be purchased which is used to analyze these bands. It
consists of a small chamber in which a gas is housed, and a filament
which radiates continous spectrum of the infrared. Dark bands of the
spectrum are noticed from the radiation of the gases which are
irradiated with the continous spectrum. (all frequencies at intervals
of hv), of the filament.

THERE ARE NO BRIGHT EMISSION BANDS WHICH THE CARTOON OF TRENBERTH AND
THE PSEUDO RELIGION OF AGW CLAIM MUST EXIST FOR THE GHGS TO RADIATE
324Wm-2 OF THE CRITICAL ENERGY OF 390Wm-2 OF AVERAGE EARTH TEMPERATURE
OF 287K.

NO BRIGHT BANDS IN THE SPECTROSCOPY, DILDOSUCKERS FROM ****ING HELL.

KD
CO2Paranoia is a dangerous psychological disease.
Seek professional help, buy an air conditioner, and hire a criminal
defense attorney.

This 324Wm-2 is then added to the 168Wm-2 of radiation energy from the
sun, from which is subtracted the 92Wm-2 of the loss of heat from the
surface of 'latent heat' and 'thermals, to bring the SURFACE energy to
the 390Wm-2 which according to Stefen's Law is the energy density for
the temperature of 13C or 57F.

KD

On Nov 25, 2:04*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:37*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:"Why,
do you think it has more affect on the ocean's surface temperature
than the troposphere which contains approximately 75% of *the
atmosphere's mass and is in direct contact with the ocean's surface?"

If you remove the stratosphere what happens to live on earth? *Do not
play your word games, i asked a simple question if you had looked at
temps in the stratosphere, and you dodged, so that would mean you did
not take the time to really explore the issue.

Have you looked at the tea prices in China?

Have you looked at the price of coal?

The above could all affect how much CO2 gets pumped into the
atmosphere. Don't dodge these questions. I EXPECT ANSWERS!

When you have answered those I have a list of fifty more questions
that are related to the price of tea in China.

I did not answer your question because you have become a troll and
asked a question that wasn't directly related to the discussion I was
having with JohnM.

BTW, have a good Thanksgiving day.

Instead as usual, like
all deniers you stop at some arbitrary "feel good" point, that appears
to make your argument valid, but in actuality fails to do so.

On Nov 25, 7:25*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:" I did
not answer your question because you have become a troll and asked a
question that wasn't directly related to the discussion I was having
with JohnM."

Just recently you in another thread linked temps to the stratosphere.
Now you call me a troll, because i asked you if you had connected the
link showing surface temps, to the temps in the stratosphere. Thats
called science, attacking me does not excuse your idiotic use of
blinders. So now you think you are in such a special place that you
cant answer a question that is germaine to the issue, instead you need
to squirm and run. Now thats funny, thanks for the holiday laugh. No
pardons for a turkey like you today. And i hope you have a Happy
Thanksgiving as well.

On Nov 25, 6:15Â*am, JohnM wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:17Â*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:





On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here.

Hello to you, Mr D. Very honest of you to state your position so
openly.

Sorry but I'm not the one that said there was no warming. That would
be you. You denialists are all alike, denying things and then denying
that you deny them.

Â*You don't think the oceans warm? Â*The
surface changes temp very quickly.

Well that accounts for the bit above the thermocline, 0.1% of the
volume. The other 99.9% hasn't changed by the 1 deg Celsius that the
lower troposphere has this last 100 years.

Oh thank you for calming my fears. Some around here claim that the
ocean is rising due to thermal expansion.

Â*The further down you go the longer
it takes. Â*The old pattern is still there. Â*If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic.

So perhaps you can explain the recent rise in ocean acidity, which is
a matter of oceanographic record. Or is that forged too, like all the
other climate data out there?

That is likely due to the addition of CO2 into the system. But that
is a different topic. We were discussing how temperture affects the
balance of CO2 in the water and air. It is a balance. The water will
only absorb so much at a given temp. Lower the temp and it will
absorb more until balance is restored. Raise the temp and it will
outgas until balance is restored. Introduce additional CO2 to the air
from other sources and the water will absorb part of it to reach a new
balance. Sequester CO2 in plant matter, sea shells, etc and the
balance tips the other way.

As for the climate data being forged, your denialist tendencies are
showing again. It may not accurately reflect what is happening, but
that is not the same as being forged.

You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.

Err... historic global temperatures are all fudged and forged, aren't
they? That's what you denialists insist on telling us.

You're the denialist here, you tell me.

The lag traditionally found in the paleo record is of the order of 700
years. I don't see 700 years of data here - not even 70 years.


Your claim was, "Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm
because of their huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that
CO2 and acidify." In light of that I thought it was more appropriate
to show what is happening "Nowadays".

The 700 years is due to the depth of the water affected. As I wrote
above, "The further down you go the longer it takes." The cycles
shown in the graph

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...n:12/from:1958

are only about five years long, so the depth of the water affected is
much less.




snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).

Are you saying Pulver is fluent in Slovenian? I doubt it to be so. He
read a blog in English that was probably sourced from another blog
too ;-(- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 25, 6:09Â*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:15Â*am, JohnM wrote:



On Nov 25, 2:17Â*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.

On Nov 25, 12:09Â*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:15Â*am, JohnM wrote:



On Nov 25, 2:17Â*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.

On Nov 25, 12:52Â*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:09Â*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:





On Nov 25, 6:15Â*am, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 25, 2:17Â*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here.

Hello to you, Mr D. Very honest of you to state your position so
openly.

Sorry but I'm not the one that said there was no warming. Â*That would
be you. Â*You denialists are all alike, denying things and then denying
that you deny them. Â*

Perhaps I should have wasted more space on my statement, but I was too
naive in assuming I was writing for a sapient audience. I meant that
the oceans don't warm like the troposphere warms, when extra heat is
added, as they have a massive heat capacity..


You're just digging your hole deeper. When you add heat to the
troposphere it warms. When you add heat to the ocean it warms. They
both do the same thing. You wrote, "the oceans don't warm" because
you wanted to eliminate them as a possible contributor to atmospheric
CO2.


Â*You don't think the oceans warm? Â*The
surface changes temp very quickly.

Well that accounts for the bit above the thermocline, 0.1% of the
volume. The other 99.9% hasn't changed by the 1 deg Celsius that the
lower troposphere has this last 100 years.

Oh thank you for calming my fears. Â*Some around here claim that the
ocean is rising due to thermal expansion.

So it is. Even 0.1 deg will produce measurable change. I spoke of 1.0
deg.

You wrote that it had not changed by 1 deg Celsius, which was an
attempt to back your statement that it hadn't warmed. Now you're back
peddling and saying it has warmed. It's good to see you realized that
your claim could not be supported.

Â*The further down you go the longer
it takes. Â*The old pattern is still there. Â*If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic.

So perhaps you can explain the recent rise in ocean acidity, which is
a matter of oceanographic record. Or is that forged too, like all the
other climate data out there?

That is likely due to the addition of CO2 into the system. Â*But that
is a different topic.

Really. What difference does the origin of the CO2 make, when you
claim the outgassing oceans are responsible for the temperature rise.

I didn't claim that, are you?

That's clearly a dog that won't hunt. Either CO2 (nett) is going in,
or it is coming out. It can't do both.

Â*Â*We were discussing how temperture affects the
balance of CO2 in the water and air. Â*It is a balance. Â*The water will
only absorb so much at a given temp. Â*Lower the temp and it will
absorb more until balance is restored. Â*Raise the temp and it will
outgas until balance is restored. Â*Introduce additional CO2 to the air
from other sources and the water will absorb part of it to reach a new
balance. Â*Sequester CO2 in plant matter, sea shells, etc and the
balance tips the other way.

Thanks for the grade six science. You missed the point, which you may
get when you move up to grade seven, that time scales in various
oceanographic processes are quite disparate.

Yes I did miss where you were trying to make that point. Looking back
I still don't see it. Care to point it out?

As for the climate data being forged, your denialist tendencies are
showing again. Â*It may not accurately reflect what is happening, but
that is not the same as being forged.

I see irony is lost on you, but you are correct in identifying the
notion of forged thermometric data in climate science as a denialist
tenet.


And the denial that there could be anything wrong with the AGW
interpertation of the data is a warmist tenet.




You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0.....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.

Err... historic global temperatures are all fudged and forged, aren't
they? That's what you denialists insist on telling us.

You're the denialist here, you tell me.

The lag traditionally found in the paleo record is of the order of 700
years. I don't see 700 years of data here - not even 70 years.

Your claim was, "Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm
because of their huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that
CO2 and acidify." Â*In light of that I thought it was more appropriate
to show what is happening "Nowadays".

The 700 years is due to the depth of the water affected. Â*As I wrote
above, "The further down you go the longer it takes." Â*The cycles
shown in the graph

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

are only about five years long,

And therefore totally meaningless.
Interesting, yes. But in the current context, meaningless


It demonstrated that the process still works "Nowadays". Are you
denying that the process still works? Perhaps you could explain to us
how the laws of physics have changed recently.


so the depth of the water affected is
much less.

snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).

Are you saying Pulver is fluent in Slovenian? I doubt it to be so. He
read a blog in English that was probably sourced from another blog
too ;-(- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -