USA’s top Climate Change Expert Lied

[Old Greg]

Up....sharply up....

Watch out for the match ball!

So let's see your trend line and then you and pj can argue it out.

[pjclarke]

EternalOptimist - In terms of a rise in global temperature by 2100, could you give us a number at which AGW becomes 'catastrophic' AGW? Is it 1C? Or 3C? Maybe 5C? Its useful to define terms, thanks.

The point is, your number will probably differ from mine, and Jim Hansen will have another figure and so on. The relatives and friends of these people might be forgiven for thinking the term is of limited utility

Climate change 'kills 300,000 every year' - Telegraph

[BlasterBates]

EternalOptimist - In terms of a rise in global temperature by 2100, could you give us a number at which AGW becomes 'catastrophic' AGW? Is it 1C? Or 3C? Maybe 5C? Its useful to define terms, thanks.

The point is, your number will probably differ from mine, and Jim Hansen will have another figure and so on. The relatives and friends of these people might be forgiven for thinking the term is of limited utility

Climate change 'kills 300,000 every year' - Telegraph

Temperatures haven't risen for 20 years, there are statistically no change in extreme weather events, there is an impercitible rise in sea levels, I wonder how anyone gets killed.

You also have to ask yourself what is the climate mechanism that counteracts CO2 for 17 years. i.e. for 17 years some "natural process" has completely negated CO2 warming.

This must be a very powerful process since there is an increase of 25% CO2 over that time. If we hadn't pumped CO2 out would the temperature have dropped 0.3 degrees?

Could these powerful natural processes have caused warming in the first place.

and these aren't my thoughts, this is what Prof Judith Curry says.

[DodgyAgent]

I do not believe I said it wouldn't work, I said that it had not been shown to work. As I understand it, the idea is that a lack of iron is the limiting factor for diatom growth in the ocean, adding iron causes a bloom of these plankton, which capture carbon from in their bodies, these then die off and fall to the ocean floor taking the carbon out of circulation.

What seems to happen is that the creatures in the vicinity that feed off the algae detect a free meal, rush in and consume the extra biomass before it gets a chance to sink.

Hungry shrimp eat climate change experiment - environment - 25 March 2009 - New Scientist

Other problems are ones of scale: to make a useful difference we'd probably have to turn huge areas of the ocean into plankton farms, which would almost certainly have a hard to predict impact on the marine ecosystem. For example, depleting the nutrients in one part of the sea is likely to p*ss off those downstream who make a living out of catching the fish that rely on those nutrients....

And the product does not just deliver iron it delivers all elements required by the photosynthesis process so Silica for instance overcomes the Diatom problem. It does this on a micro scale making it easier for the cells to absorb instead of "dumping iron" into the sea.
The problem with the Oceans is that there are not enough "shrimp organisms" which is why fish are depleted and cullulose organisms are taking over.
Finally on the subject of scale, adding micronutrients to for example the Baltic sea would cost around €36 million.

[Old Greg]

And the product does not just deliver iron it delivers all elements required by the photosynthesis process so Silica for instance overcomes the Diatom problem. It does this on a micro scale making it easier for the cells to absorb instead of "dumping iron" into the sea.
The problem with the Oceans is that there are not enough "shrimp organisms" which is why fish are depleted and cullulose organisms are taking over.
Finally on the subject of scale, adding micronutrients to for example the Baltic sea would cost around €36 million.

And the Baltic is a good 0.0016% of global ocean volume. Think of that as your margin if it helps.

[pjclarke]

Temperatures haven't risen for 20 years,

Where did Dr Curry say that? cos it certainly ain't true, nor does a rise from c350ppm to c400ppm CO2 equate to 25%

There's a comprehensive discussion of the recent global temperatures by Stefan Rahmsdorf here

His conclusion

Global temperature has in recent years increased more slowly than before, but this is within the normal natural variability that always exists, and also within the range of predictions by climate models – even despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models. There is therefore no reason to find the models faulty. There is also no reason to expect less warming in the future – in fact, perhaps rather the opposite as the climate system will catch up again due its natural oscillations, e.g. when the Pacific decadal oscillation swings back to its warm phase. Even now global temperatures are very high again – in the GISS data, with an anomaly of + 0.77 °C November was warmer than the previous record year of 2010 (+ 0.67 °), and it was the warmest November on record since 1880.

[EternalOptimist]

What is indisputable is that the people in the front line, who should know what they are talking about have VERY firm views on CAGW.
Tuvalu , the low lying islands in the Pacific, for example , have invested billions.

not on sea defences though. They are building two new airports and fifteen luxury hotels

[Old Greg]

Temperatures haven't risen for 20 years, there are statistically no change in extreme weather events, there is an impercitible rise in sea levels, I wonder how anyone gets killed.

You also have to ask yourself what is the climate mechanism that counteracts CO2 for 17 years. i.e. for 17 years some "natural process" has completely negated CO2 warming.

This must be a very powerful process since there is an increase of 25% CO2 over that time. If we hadn't pumped CO2 out would the temperature have dropped 0.3 degrees?

Could these powerful natural processes have caused warming in the first place.

and these aren't my thoughts, this is what Prof Judith Curry says.

Where did Dr Curry say that? cos it certainly ain't true, nor does a rise from c350ppm to c400ppm CO2 equate to 25%

There's a comprehensive discussion of the recent global temperatures by Stefan Rahmsdorf here

His conclusion

Now I'm confused. Was it a 25% rise or not?

[Old Greg]

What is indisputable is that the people in the front line, who should know what they are talking about have VERY firm views on CAGW.
Tuvalu , the low lying islands in the Pacific, for example , have invested billions.

not on sea defences though. They are building two new airports and fifteen luxury hotels

If they were building sea defences, would that be evidence of AGW or of just how deep the conspiracy runs?

[EternalOptimist]

If they were building sea defences, would that be evidence of AGW or of just how deep the conspiracy runs?

i am unaware of the conspiracy of which you speak. But all countries that have flood risks build sea defences.
The bigger the risk, the bigger the defences. The smaller the risk, the bigger the hotels