Extra-salty sea

[chrismb]

But all is not lost. You can burn your pets to stay warm:

I love the link.

One thing I figured out: Performing one's normal ablutions is literally throwing thermal energy into the sewer. If everyone urinated into bottles and then allowed it to thermalise in the domestic environment before disposing of it, the planet could save the same amount of CO2 it'd take to manufacture enough padded cells to lock the stupid muthers away who come up with these kinds of figures that actually think their figures mean a goddarned rat's arse.

[KitemanSA]

A veritable feast of straw men...

Equally as nutritious as the feast of AGW models.

[Mumbles]

Equally as nutritious as the feast of AGW models.

Sorry, both kinds of those foods give me indigestion!!

Be Safe
Mumbles

[MSimon]

...

A veritable feast of straw men...

No Alex it was ridicule. Because nothing is going to come of Copenhagen and the Germans are already determined to build a LOT of coal plants because German Greens don't like nukes. So no one is going to die from lack of fuel or electricity. Or global warming for that matter.

I guess the CO2 religion is not very strong in Germany.

[MSimon]

But all is not lost. You can burn your pets to stay warm:

I love the link.

One thing I figured out: Performing one's normal ablutions is literally throwing thermal energy into the sewer. If everyone urinated into bottles and then allowed it to thermalise in the domestic environment before disposing of it, the planet could save the same amount of CO2 it'd take to manufacture enough padded cells to lock the stupid muthers away who come up with these kinds of figures that actually think their figures mean a goddarned rat's arse.

Got a right good larf out of that one. (I'm an Anglophile - could you tell?)

[alexjrgreen]

...

A veritable feast of straw men...

No Alex it was ridicule. Because nothing is going to come of Copenhagen and the Germans are already determined to build a LOT of coal plants because German Greens don't like nukes. So no one is going to die from lack of fuel or electricity. Or global warming for that matter.

I guess the CO2 religion is not very strong in Germany.

Your aim must be off...

I'm not so concerned about CO2 - we already have the technology to capture it if we need to.

Methane is another story.

[MSimon]

A veritable feast of straw men...

No Alex it was ridicule. Because nothing is going to come of Copenhagen and the Germans are already determined to build a LOT of coal plants because German Greens don't like nukes. So no one is going to die from lack of fuel or electricity. Or global warming for that matter.

I guess the CO2 religion is not very strong in Germany.

Your aim must be off...

I'm not so concerned about CO2 - we already have the technology to capture it if we need to.

Methane is another story.

Methane is no problem. You just burn it and turn it into CO2 which is less of a problem. Then you plant trees to capture the CO2, bury the trees in landfills, and capture the methane given off and burn it to make electricity.

Now if I could just get a HUGE government subsidy for all this it could be very economically useful - for me. The peasants can support me in a style to which I would like to become accustomed. I'd like to have a house bigger than Al Gore's and an airplane that runs on bio-diesel - suitably subsidized of course. And maybe I could have a talk with Eliot Spitzer about getting suitable attendants for my airplane. It could be a very wonderful life.

BTW I'm looking forward to a movement in the UK to tear down all those energy inefficient castles of the aristos and replacing them with green houses. Preferably with sod roofs. To capture CO2. Now that would be some serious environmentalism. Perhaps you could get something like that started Alex. No time to waste. Every little bit counts. Perhaps you could enlist Prince Charlie. He probably needs something to do.

[chrismb]

BTW I'm looking forward to a movement in the UK to tear down all those energy inefficient castles of the aristos and replacing them with green houses.

I know you're kidding, but....

The death duties in the 60's already did that. The taxes were so high, people pulled their houses down just to avoid the taxes (that exceeded the houses values). Only a fraction left.

Big, thick-walled houses work very well. In summer they are intrinsically cooled by the high ceilings and thermal inertia of the walls, in winter the outer rooms are little used and become large insulating volumes, and the inner rooms are used more.

I always thought you guys found it quaint and odd, on your vistis, that Windsor Castle was built so close to the airport!? Don't worry, it won't get pulled down with airport expansions (it's not that close, it's just that it's under the finals for runways 09L/R).. it'll still be here when you come to visit there, and your other favourites, Oxford, Stratford, &c. and buy a little bear in a little red Guard's uniform.

[MSimon]

BTW I'm looking forward to a movement in the UK to tear down all those energy inefficient castles of the aristos and replacing them with green houses.

I know you're kidding, but....

The death duties in the 60's already did that. The taxes were so high, people pulled their houses down just to avoid the taxes (that exceeded the houses values). Only a fraction left.

Big, thick-walled houses work very well. In summer they are intrinsically cooled by the high ceilings and thermal inertia of the walls, in winter the outer rooms are little used and become large insulating volumes, and the inner rooms are used more.

I always thought you guys found it quaint and odd, on your vistis, that Windsor Castle was built so close to the airport!? Don't worry, it won't get pulled down with airport expansions (it's not that close, it's just that it's under the finals for runways 09L/R).. it'll still be here when you come to visit there, and your other favourites, Oxford, Stratford, &c. and buy a little bear in a little red Guard's uniform.

That really is so sad. A cultural heritage of a thousand years destroyed by the tax man.

We are just as careless in America. Only we call it development.

[flying_eagle]

BTW are you aware of how much worse the models are than we thought? They neglected to add the PDO in (known since 1997) and so missed predicting the current cooling. What else are they leaving out? Could it be worse than we thought?

Seems no real cooling after all with all due respect. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 74088.html

[MSimon]

BTW are you aware of how much worse the models are than we thought? They neglected to add the PDO in (known since 1997) and so missed predicting the current cooling. What else are they leaving out? Could it be worse than we thought?

Seems no real cooling after all with all due respect. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 74088.html

I'm not buying it. The "rise" of temperatures has flatlined while CO2 has been going up. This was not predicted.

In addition statistics is not science - it says nothing about causes.

And guess what - even the IPCC says we will be cooling until 2020. So who are you going to believe - statisticians or the IPCC?

[djolds1]

BTW are you aware of how much worse the models are than we thought? They neglected to add the PDO in (known since 1997) and so missed predicting the current cooling. What else are they leaving out? Could it be worse than we thought?

Seems no real cooling after all with all due respect. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 74088.html

Qualified Rebuttal

This article, however... is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers;

trends and anomolies in the upper ocean heat content permit a quantitative assessment of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.

Jim Hansen agrees on the use of the upper ocean heat content as an important diagnostic of global warming.

As discussed on my weblog and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), the upper ocean heat content trend, as evaluated by its heat anomalies, has been essentially flat since mid 2003 through at least June of this year. Since mid 2003, the heat storage rate, rather then being 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750m that was found prior to that time (1993-2003), has been essentially zero.

Nonetheless, the article is correct that the climate system has not cooled even in the last 6 years. Moreover, on the long time period back to 1880, the consensus is that the climate system has warmed on the longest time period. Perhaps the current absence of warming is a shorter term natural feature of the climate system. However, to state that the “[t]he Earth is still warming” is in error. The warming has, at least temporarily halted.

The article (and apparently the NOAA study itself), therefore, suffers from a significant oversight since it does not comment on an update of the same upper ocean heat content data that Jim Hansen has used to assess global warming.

[djolds1]

And guess what - even the IPCC says we will be cooling until 2020. So who are you going to believe - statisticians or the IPCC?

UK Met Office backpedals on Arctic Ice prediction.

http://tinyurl.com/yjz4r8n

[flying_eagle]

BTW are you aware of how much worse the models are than we thought? They neglected to add the PDO in (known since 1997) and so missed predicting the current cooling. What else are they leaving out? Could it be worse than we thought?

Seems no real cooling after all with all due respect. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 74088.html

I'm not buying it. The "rise" of temperatures has flatlined while CO2 has been going up. This was not predicted.

In addition statistics is not science - it says nothing about causes.

And guess what - even the IPCC says we will be cooling until 2020. So who are you going to believe - statisticians or the IPCC?

If you look at longer trends than say a few years, you are correct. We should have been in a cooling phase as scientist say is due to orbital influences among reasons given. However...
"The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns"
http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/index.php

[MSimon]

Seems no real cooling after all with all due respect. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 74088.html

I'm not buying it. The "rise" of temperatures has flatlined while CO2 has been going up. This was not predicted.

In addition statistics is not science - it says nothing about causes.

And guess what - even the IPCC says we will be cooling until 2020. So who are you going to believe - statisticians or the IPCC?

If you look at longer trends than say a few years, you are correct. We should have been in a cooling phase as scientist say is due to orbital influences among reasons given. However...
"The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns"
http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/index.php

But there is a confounding effect in the arctic - ocean currents.

And once cooling sets in with a vengeance and the warming hysteria dies down the aliasing of the PDO for CO2 will be corrected and we will get some more realistic models and possibly some real predictions that are of value will get made. I expect it should take about 30 years.