Plimer

Q1 Andrew Watson. Says that submarine volcanoes are included. A: IP says that degassing before and after eruption not measured.

Climate catastrophists are engaged in trade and business. They are similar to creationists. Ignore data. It's a cash cow. We're all doomed, pay the rent. They use consensus and frighten the politicians. Punter knows the argument has moved on and the cake has been overiced.

Cacophany about agw has damaged science enormously

Calling people climate deniers is advertisement of people's ignorance. co2 is good

Long term record shows little relationship between co2 and temp

Warm times are good

Nothing unusual about the present

Current temperature changes are pathetic compared to past

Development of plants reduced co2 in atmosphere

Lots of calculations show that atmospheric lifetime of co2 is short. Only one or two suggest not.

All this co2 not going into calculations of carbon balance

Seamounts on ocean floor still erupting. giving off co2. But these are not measured. Known for years.

Supervolcanoes under the ocean are little studied.

Gas volcanos have been investigated thoroughly, but not included in normal measurements of volcanism because no lava.

Reaction of seawater with volcanic rock is a buffer. When we run out of rocks on sea floor we can worry about acidic oceans

Submarine volcanoes are the elephant in the room

Degassing of c02 before and after relationship. Close relationship of atm co2 to volcanoes

About 1500 volcanoes. Only hear about terrestrial volcanoes

% co2 in atmosphere has been up to 20% in the past

Comments

[stephen richards]

20% ? Really? When was that, I wonder? several tens of millions of years ?

[GrantB]

@stephen richards - 200 Myr BP. Even longer. From the IPCC no less

[GrantB]

Although that doesn't equate to an atmospheric concentration of 20%, but it's still rather high.

[kim]

I still maintain that 1999 submarine vulkanism along the Gakkel Ridge had an effect on the Arctic Ice. I've seen a breakup of the ice overlying it in time lapse reconstructions of the ice. Apparently, satellites have photos of cloud cover over the area at the time. I'd like to know if the clouds were ordinary seasonal Arctic clouds or whether they were the sort of cloud that would appear over warmed ice, or open sea.
=================

[kim]

This is the irony. Warmer is better, for plants and animals. One particular animal is making it artificially warmer, but it doesn't seem to be by very much. The oceanic oscillations and the Cheshire Cat sun make cooling more likely than warming, near term, medium term, and long term.

We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know.

Will anthropogenic CO2 keep us warm enough?
=============

[BBD]

kim

We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know.

Why do you say this?

Full records:

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS.

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. Annual mean.

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. Five year mean.

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. Common 1981 – 2010 baseline; five year mean.

Satellite era 1979 - present:

HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; trend.

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend.

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; annual mean; trend.

Decadal trend 1979 - present (degrees C):

GISTEMP 0.16

HADCRUT 0.15

UAH 0.14

RSS 0.14

[AJStrata]

Looks like a good debate, noting all the holes in the models and theories. That's the first step to recovery.

The ocean models are pathetically inadequate, as are the energy transfer models.

[lapogus]

BBD - I don't dispute that there has been some slight warming in the late 20th century, but there has been bugger all warming in the last 10-15 years. The Wood for Trees graphs are much less scary with some context:

http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

http://vodpod.com/watch/2692853-the-hockey-stick-vs-ice-core-data

Where I live was under mile of ice until 15,000 years ago. A decadal trend of 0.15C is fine by me, in fact long may it continue, considering we still only have a growing season 4 months long.

[BBD]

lapogus

Of course you are right. And here are the graphs ;-)

HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1998 – present.

GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS. 1998 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend.

Decadal trends 1998 - present (degrees C):

GISTEMP 0.12 (0.123)

HADCRUT3 0.0 (0.006)

UAH 0.05 (0.049)

RSS 0.03 (0.031)

But this has to be taken in context. So I refer you back to the earlier comment.

One does wonder where the energy went though ;-)

[Frosty]

shouldn't we really be looking at longer series for "trends" ? 10,000 Yr trend seems to say current temps are unremarkable.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

[BBD]

Frosty

30 year climatologies are considered long enough for meaningful trend analysis - and some now argue that shorter series are preferable:

Due in large part to climate change, the thirty-year average has become a less viable metric of “typical” climatic conditions. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommends that member nations re-compute their climate normals only once every ten years, a practice that further diminishes the utility of climate normals in a changing climate.

Arguez & Vose, 2010 (abstract)

Long paleoclimate series do not provide insight into C20th climate change in the way you suggest. We are a long way from the end of the last glacial maximum, and more pertinently, the end of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Note the latter: ~11kya - 5kya.

Read up on Milankovitch forcing and the time delayed response on climate as mediated by the global ocean and ice albedo feedback.

TIme-shifted Milankovitch forcing is not driving the current warming, so comparisons with the HTM are invalid.

Try not to misinterpret paleoclimate like this. It doesn't help.

[BBD]

Frosty

Your link to JN's misuse of GISP2 data prompted me to go on a hunt for an interesting interview with Richard Alley by Andy Revkin at Dot Earth:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

I strongly recommend that you read it. From the horse's mouth and all that.

[kim]

BBD, we are cooling for two to three decades from the concatenation of oceanic oscillations, and perhaps for a century from the Cheshire Cat Sun. 2005 was about the peak.
===========

[BBD]

kim

I understand your point, but remain to be convinced. Level trends for a decade do not equal falling trends for the next three decades (or more).

Furthermore, we do not know what will come after SS24. Really. Nobody knows. Maybe there will be a Minimum; maybe not. Perhaps it will be sufficient to offset warming from CO2 and BC forcing. Maybe not.

The ocean cycles argument rests on the apparent C20th 30yr and 60yr temperature oscillation. But is this truly cyclical? You would have to show more than a century of data to make this case. Again, it's a maybe.

So, your claim that we are cooling is unfounded. 'Not currently warming much' is more accurate.

Let's see what the next decade brings. And avoid the hand-waving.

[BBD]

Sorry - "SC24".

[Paul in Sweden]

"I understand your point, but remain to be convinced. Level trends for a decade do not equal falling trends for the next three decades (or more). "
----------------------------------------

"The professor [University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences Professor Cliff Mass] said the warming trend is “sort of exponential; it starts slowly and then revs up at the end.”

This concept would be more readily understood with the release of an online CO2 Balloon Payment calculator?

[BBD]

Paul in Sweden

My understanding is that the projected acceleration of warming is not due until after ~2020 at the earliest. Whilst I do not directly endorse the projection, it is not invalidated by a decade of flat trend in GATA.

However, the trend derived from the multi-model mean referenced by AR4 is 0.2C/decade (1979 - present) This is high relative to observations, which suggest ~0.15C/decade 1979 - present.