ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory is currently the most fashionable climate theory and its proponents have risked much by predicting a continuation in what has been a 150-year general warming trend.
There are already some indications this trend is stalling with no increase in average global atmospheric temperatures for 15 years [1].
For those who subscribe to any one of the many theories that purport to explain natural climate variability the stakes are not so high: whichever way temperatures swing we can claim to be right. Indeed simply claiming that climate change is natural does not constitute a theory amenable to falsification.
There has been some arguing recently over ocean temperatures, in particular heat content, and how it is trending. I am happy to concede the AGW proponents might have one remaining residual warming trend to cling to here.
I’ve been watching the charts of sea surface temperature that have dipped recently [2]. Nothing for the warmists to promote here.
But sea surface temperature is not the same as ocean heat content.
Across at Jo Nova’s blog there is a chart ‘Climate Models versus Argo Data, Global Ocean Temperature’ that shows no increase in ocean heat content. But the chart only goes back to 2003 [3].
A new paper by Sydney Levitus and co-workers entitled ‘World ocean heat content and thermostatic sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010’ is causing some excitement amongst warmists [4]. Key conclusions are:
1. A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
2. One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
3. The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
I can see the linear trend and I’m prepared to trust that one third of the warming has occurred in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean. But the last claim: that the warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. This is an extremely speculative claim.
Clearly Levitus et al. are convinced that carbon dioxide is a key driver of climate change, but aren’t there other more compelling theories.
********
[1] GWPF. April 2, 2012. No global warming for 15 years. http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html
[2] Climate4You Update March 2012 http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_March_2012.pdf
[3] David Evans. The skeptic’s case. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/
[4] Levitus S. et al. In press. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
Sorry,
3 posts in a row but thought this was relevant to some of the discussion here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/anu-releases-abusive-emails-sent-to-climate-scientists/4005132
And just for fun Luke,
How about you add up the billions in assisstance to non Agricultural sectors since the 1980's and perhaps to be fair also the straight cash handouts (like those $900 handouts from Rudd Govt) and do a comparative CBA with Govt assisstance to Agriculture?
Hmmmmm?
Which is the sector that consistently returns a net positive to GDP....ie.....actually contributes to a surplus?????
Actually Luke,
Despite the crippling millenium drought, the high dollar and the interest blow out in the 80's, which is the sector that consistently runs second to mining as a contributor to Autralia's GDP?
Luke,
You still need to balance the ledger.
The very simple sum is that many, many more billions flow in than what has flown out. Even in the period you have mentioned.
It is not rocket science or climate science.
I agree it has not been well managed but that is not 'the irrigators' fault.
It is also a more cost effective way to support Agriculture than what most of the rest of the globe does.
It is one of the reasons why Australian farmers remain truly competetive, because they don't rely continuously on tax payer subsides.
So Luke,
Your constant snide remarks in this particular instance are what you would call, bunkum or codswallop or denialist crap or numerous variations of the same.
Intermittent govt assisstance to Agriculture is NOT a net burden on the economy.
Well Debbie that assumes EC rewards good managers - it probably doesn't.
And after decades of money flowing out seemingly without end - from early 1980s to almost now (we're finally drought free) Treasuries start to get nervous.
Either the parameters are too loose, and/or it's climate change and all bets are off (what they they really worry about), and/or agrarian socialism, and/or hardly something"masters of their environment" need.
It's all there if you do a big google and hunt the dollars in aid down. I seriously suggest you do as an exercise. My attempt is here in the blog archives somewhere. Decades of support. Billions ongoing.
Risk is very real and has been experienced.
(of course you might counter-argue agriculture is nationally strategic, we have more variability than elsewhere (ENSO etc), and other have protectionist policies so some drought aid just evens things up globally ....)
My last post here.
Ehrman states here that the woman taken in adultery was only included in texts from the middle ages on.
I've seen him debate this point and I've never seen anyone dispute this finding, even among the more literal theologians.
He states here that many theologians show little interest in the historicity of the biblical texts, they are just interested in the theology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNMUhk8k6HU
Just including this because it is probably one of the best known and admired stories of Jesus's forgiveness and love. Just a pity it's not true.
Thanks Neville,
Whoever did actually speak those words....it was wise advice.
Luke.....
I don't think you actually understand how EC works or even the rationale behind it.
I suspect your oft repeated 'Agrarian socialism' comments also exhibit a similar lack of understanding.
You appear to be repeating what Jennifer often calls 'invented narrative'.
You do realise don't you that EC and the principles that drive it was around a long time before AGW ?
At a basic level, it is supposed to work in a similar fashion to an insurance policy or even a super policy.....it recognises that the Agricultural sector is vulnerable to the extremes of Australian climate and also the volatility of global commodity markets. It sets aside a fund, from Agriculture, to be used when those things occur....if you could ever be bothered to do as I have suggested and check the balance on the GDP ledger....you will find that Agriculture in Australia is most definitely sitting on the positive/black side and has contributed and continues to contribute far, far more that it has ever needed in terms of assisstance....it has proven to be a good investment....even, paradoxically, during a crippling millenium drought. That does not mean however that plenty of very good operators did not go down during that time.
I personally believe it is a better tool than what most of the globe uses which is a straight out protectionist measure that their tax payers fund 100% of the time.
I also think I should point out to you that EC is for Agriculture and associated businesses in general, not just irrigated Agriculture.
Irrigated Agriculture rarely puts pressure on the EC system....because irrigated agriculture is based on yet another 'risk management' tool that Australia built last century....but is in very desperate need of upgrading and rationalising.
Unfortunately EC it is not run tightly enough and sometimes it gets raided by 'other more pressing needs'.
I am actually in favour of tightening up how EC works but unfortunately I don't have a great deal of confidence in the people/agenda who are doing it, nor do I have confidence in the tools they are employing.
In particular, they have completely muddled up the difference between risk management and the current concept of identifying 'potential risk'.
One examines the best way to progress by building on what works and minimising or fixing what doesn't....the other just focuses on mistakes and reasons why we can't progress and should not progress.
Bob Tisdale has responded to Hansen by open letter, showing why the climate models are incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/tisdale-an-unsent-memo-to-james-hansen/#more-63407
BTW Debbie that story about the young woman found comitting adultery was not part of the original NT. It was added less than 1,000 years ago by a more recent scribe, just a pity Jesus never spoke those wonderful words.
I wish I could abide by them most of the time, but alas I fail fairly often I'm sorry to say.