Open Thread 36

Time for a new open thread.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    December 10, 2009

    Natural warming has been happening, but there is some controversy about the decline since 2000. UHI’s may have had a minor artificial effect on this warming trend, while CO2 doesn’t even rank in my book.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    December 10, 2009

    Well, I guess there is “controversy” for those who put credence in the kooky nonsense from the Lavoisier group….

    It’s interesting that El Gordo puts store in David Archibald’s Lavoisier-hosted work – work which used 5 carefully-cherry-picked met stations to misrepresent global temperature trends and 1 carefully-chosen met station to show a (weak)correlation between temperature and sunspots.

    El Gordo – how do you explain your lack of scepticism?

  3. #3 el gordo
    December 10, 2009

    I get censured by the right for being a global cooling nutter, they think all alarm flags are kooky nonsense. The Sceptics are too polite and just ignore me.

    There is some comfort being here among my old comrades, yarning about politics and the weather.

    Don’t talk to me about cherry-picking, ask mighty Kev what he knows about the cherry-picking of the Yamal tree data. He would probably say ‘I wasn’t aware there were any cherry trees in Yamal’.

    The PM hasn’t a clue.

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    December 10, 2009

    The “cherry picking at Yamal” meme is an artificial product of hysterical blogging on non-climatologist Steve McIntyre’s website.
    No such cherry-picking occurred, as Steve McIntyre was forced to admit, although Steve McIntyre did some undeniable cherry-picking of his own in the creation of his own nonsensical tree-ring graphs.

  5. #5 Janet Akerman
    December 10, 2009

    Carrot Eater writes:

    >*It just seems very far-fetched to say ‘cap/trade will lead to new derivatives, and I don’t know what those derivatives will look like, but I somehow bet you they will bring us systemic risk; I’m not sure how, but it will, so therefore we shouldn’t do cap/trade’. That’s a strange line of argument.*

    Carrot in the context of complexity in financial instruments, lack of appropriate regulation and the underlying lack of transparency, I can’t see what is strange in this argument.

    I thinks it strange to assume that carbon derivatives will somehow be appropriately regulated and transparent, the current plutocratic/democratic environment.

    Complexity

    >*You need to be much more nuanced in your statements on derivatives – identify which ones you’re talking about, and so on.*

    How can I diagnose the detailed flaws in the untransparent derivative market? The complexity and lack of transparency is the problem I’m rallying against! The banks didn’t even understand them.

    Institutions are coy of lending to each other because they don’t know the other’s derivatives exposure. And last time I check the global outstanding derivatives markets was over $600 trillion, that’s 15 times higher than the world GDP.

    If there was transparency, then regulation might have been able to be implanted following the GFC. But we’re still waiting for regulation, and if we do eventually get regulation in this climate of highly concentrated power (and plutocratic political influence), we will probably get a fig leaf wrapped in a wave of PR claims.

    Here is some context of my stated concern with an ETS and derivatives:

    >Hansen’s tax also overcomes the biggest problem [with] an ETS, a problem Krugman fails to mention. Complexity. Complexity makes transparency hard.

    >The Wizards of Money. How many people know how banks make money? What fraction understand what an offset is? And who audits them?

    > If we are to value simplicity as our best hope for robustness, and genuine abatement, our options for simplicity are greatest with a tax.

    I’ve mentioned that I support the Tax and Dividend scheme. Were the tax is applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. And the revenue is distributed equally per capita.

    What are you proposing?

    When I used to support and ETS I would have said (like Gaz), and improvement on the EU model. Fair enough, but how would you [improve it]( http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/03/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2):

    >[Hope] believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme. The heart of the issue is a problem we are all sadly familiar with: financial markets are highly variable, with prices liable to surge and collapse. Hope says that the first two phases of the ETS have illustrated the problem […].

    What is the limit, the bottom most, the least good ETS you would support? What are its critical parameters for you?

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    December 10, 2009

    >*The “cherry picking at Yamal” meme is an artificial product of hysterical blogging on non-climatologist Steve McIntyre’s website. No such cherry-picking occurred, as Steve McIntyre was forced to admit, although Steve McIntyre did some undeniable cherry-picking of his own in the creation of his own nonsensical tree-ring graphs.*

    Ah! Vince, but that doesn’t matter! There was a noise. Its the noise that counts not the evidence. Just like its the noise about the CRU emails that matter. No need to wait for the evidence.

    And if there is enought noise that is proof of something!

    Proof of what? Either a cospiracy that never quite gets exposed; or a bunch of people who want to believe (or want others to believe) that there is a conspiracy, which never quite gets exposed.

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    December 10, 2009

    El gordo,

    I’m [still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2136578) for your explanation of the relevance of volucano’s to the current 30 year warming trend.

  8. #8 Steve Chamberlain
    December 10, 2009

    Janet #206: “Just like its the noise about the CRU emails that matter. No need to wait for the evidence. And if there is enought noise that is proof of something!”

    OTOH if there’s no noise that proves “things are being hushed up” and so … it’s a CONSPIRACY! Burn her!!

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    December 10, 2009

    ["Crazed Hitler Youth!"](http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/12/09/us-youth-crash-climate-denier-live-webcast-in-copenhagen/)

    —Lord Monckton, Third Viscount of Bunchedpanties

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    December 10, 2009
    I know the sun has been quiet of late, but these things take time. Because nothing has happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen soon.

    So the cause of global warming hasn’t happened yet even though global warming has already happened. El credulo just gets funnier and funnier.

    Natural warming has been happening, but there is some controversy about the decline since 2000.

    There are fewer sunspots now than there were in 1970. Why is the global five-year-average temperature 0.6 deg C warmer now than it was around 1970?

    Let me get this straight, sunspots go from a maximum to a minimum, global temperature increases by 0.6 deg C and you think that means that some supposed “increase” in solar activity caused a significant part of that warming?

    No wonder you’re el credulo.

    there is some controversy about the decline since 2000

    Thanks for the weather report. Yet again you need to be reminded that the determination of climate, let alone changes in climate, takes a lot more than 9 years of data.

    CO2 doesn’t even rank in my book

    An opinion worthy of a credulous ignoramus.

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    December 10, 2009

    The PM hasn’t a clue.

    said the clueless ignoramus.

  12. #12 el gordo
    December 10, 2009

    Why don’t you get out and educate the masses? There is little value in preaching to the converted.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    December 10, 2009

    I’ve got it – El Gordo is an intellectual nihilist: he doesn’t actually believe in anything but likes the idea of tearing down knowledge.

    Normally, that’s not a problem.
    But what you are involved with at the moment is kind of the opposite of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre. The fire is burning and you are standing on your seat yelling at the top of your voice “Ignore that fire alarm!”, confusing people and risking lives. Reprehensible.

  14. #14 Janet Akerman
    December 11, 2009

    Vince,

    El gordo is a nihilst only when the evidence contradicts his beliefs.

    He is profoundly driven by faith that we are in a dangereous cooling climate.

  15. #15 el gordo
    December 11, 2009

    Over the past few months I have been persuaded to lower my alarm flag.

    The right are correct, nothing untoward is going to happen. Global cooling, as in a Dalton Minimum, now looks out of reach. But I will still be cherry-picking freak weather out of season, especially in the midlatitudes.

    Nihilist ideas are old hat, except amongst the Green faithful.

  16. #16 Janet Akerman
    December 11, 2009

    Short el gordo:

    In other words, people who believe the evidence about the damage to the exosphere, and how to reduce that damage, are the people who don’t believe in anything.

    And those people who don’t believe in anything are those who we “sceptics” like to label “religious zealots”, mainly because they believe evidence rather than our preferred religion and ideology.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    December 11, 2009

    Nihilist ideas are old hat, except amongst the Green faithful

    said the clueless, nihilistic ignoramus.

  18. #18 Fran Barlow
    December 12, 2009

    Actually, whoever introduced the idea here of El Gordo as a nihilist was onto something. The methodology underpinning the use of the term “skeptic” by the filth merchant propagandists like El Gordo is incipiently nihilistic.

    If even the most daffy and implausible accounts are to be granted the same status as well attested science, in the interest of affirming that absolute certainty in science is impossible, then drawing conclusions about anything at all is impossible.

    Back here in the real world, where people do draw conclusions from observable data, giving priority to the data that are most impressive in their scope and apparent pertinence, we have people employed to care for those who, regrettably, follow this particular filth merchant mantra to its logical conclusion.

    Inhofe and his crowd of course are selective in their “skepticism”, as Janet notes. They are convinced that using the biopshre as a cheap tip for industrial effluent is a damn fine thing.

  19. #19 Marion Delgado
    December 12, 2009

    I saw this a long time ago and immediately the urgent question was – what evidence do we have that Chung is not part of a cover-up of the fact that 30% of the patients that die in hospitals later get up and walk out of the morgue? None. Absolutely none.

    Robert CHUNG

    Robert Chung is a health policy and health services researcher who has worked in the public sector, the private sector, and the academy. Substantively, his work has focused on the quality of healthcare delivery; he developed and directed the largest-ever public-private system to examine the quality of hospital care. Methodologically, he pioneered the use of generalized additive and recursive partitioning models in health services research. He is also expert in techniques for handling flawed data, and in multivariate data visualization.

    A theoretical mathematical demographer by training, he received a PhD in Demography and an MA in Economics from UC Berkeley, and has taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in demography, health policy, and statistics and data analytic methods.

  20. #20 el gordo
    December 12, 2009

    Fran

    The Greens are nihilists! Not me,

  21. #21 el gordo
    December 12, 2009

    More importantly, my heart goes out to those trolls who once infested the Bolter. Right on Xmas and without a second thought as to how they will sustain themselves.

    The new standing orders have eliminated these characters and gives the host a cleaner platform to become Senator Bolt.

    We can at least reach a consensus on one thing – the MWP was real in Greenland.

  22. #22 el gordo
    December 12, 2009

    In this recent study they also found the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Age cold that followed and the LIA on the tail of the MWP.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_narsaqsound.php

    Hope you’re right about global warming, from where I’m standing the future looks decidedly bleak.

  23. #23 Janet Akerman
    December 12, 2009

    El gordo,

    Fran has caught on that you named yourself a Nihilist via projection, and she’s noted how denialists demonstrate Nihilism by their/your actions.

  24. #24 Marion Delgado
    December 12, 2009

    Is Fran a she? I mean, like Marion, it’s not necessarily a woman’s name.

  25. #25 el gordo
    December 13, 2009

    I sense that Fran is a woman in favor of the nuclear option.

    If the models can’t replicate reality, then they can’t reliably predict the future of climate change.

  26. #26 Fran Barlow
    December 13, 2009

    Is Fran a she? I mean, like Marion, it’s not necessarily a woman’s name.

    It is in this case.

  27. #27 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    It has been my singular ambition to have the last word on a Deltoid ‘open thread’, but now that I’m here my mind is a blank.

  28. #28 Fran Barlow
    December 14, 2009

    now that I’m here my mind is a blank

    So, business-as-usual then?

  29. #29 Gaz
    December 14, 2009

    Someone has to say it and it may as well be me:

    …now that I’m here my mind is a blank.

    So what’s new, el Gordo?

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    December 14, 2009

    el gordo:

    It has been my singular ambition to have the last word on a Deltoid ‘open thread’,

    That’s easy. Just say something a few times that everyone agrees with such as that you are an idiot.

  31. #31 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    Carbon dioxide follows temperatures, which has long been suspected.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/

    The Eemian came to an end 115,000 bp, that’s what I’m focussed on.

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2009

    [El Lipido](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2143274).

    You and Jo Nova are about 8oo years behind climatology.

    CO2 is also a forcing.

    It must be embarrassing to be so obviously slow.

  33. #33 Fran Barlow
    December 14, 2009

    Actually, by his own admission, Bernard, our own hispanic Mr Greenstreet is about 115,000 years behind the present.

  34. #34 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    BJ

    CO2 is not a forcing, it is quite clear from 150.000 years of evidence.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2009

    CO2 is not a forcing, it is quite clear from 150.000 years of evidence.

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again – [Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-21442110) is either a Poe, or he is redlining on the staggeringly-ignorant-o-meter.

    As you have raised the claim though, bubble-guts, perhaps you could provide your best piece of peer-reviewed evidence that supports it. And whilst you’re at it, answer [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083) too.

  36. #36 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    You would be hoping for some kind of proof for amplification. If you look at that graph again at 117,000 bp, that’s about where we are now.

    Pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you like, it won’t stop temperatures falling.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2009

    Strange how the Denialati are dragging their heels on the rather efficient way that real science uncovered a real story of data hiding and of data misrepresentation, with the [Tamiflu scandal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2136113).

    Is this reluctance to comment because they all have Tamiflu stocks of their own, secreted in preparation for the enactment of the One World Government’s Conspiracy to Kill Them AllTM? Or is their silence due to their embarrassment that it was a shining example of Capitalist ScienceTM that was caught fudging the data?

    Or is it simply because the Cochrane exposé shows clearly how easy it is to gather real proof of a fraud, and how simple it is to show that, by comparison, the climate change denialist stance is a big pile of stinking, steaming manure?

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    December 14, 2009

    el gordo, aka village idiot:

    CO2 is not a forcing

    must be those sunspots.

  39. #39 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    Don’t talk to me of old sol, I recently recanted.

  40. #40 Janet Akerman
    December 14, 2009

    el gordo,

    I’m [still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2136578) for you to back your claims about relatively low volcanic activity in the 30 years prior to 2000.

    Or you can recant on that as well.

  41. #41 el gordo
    December 14, 2009

    JA

    Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and is believed to have been the largest disturbance of the stratosphere since the eruption of Krakatau in 1883, but ten times larger than Mt St Helens in 1980.

    In 1992 and 1993 temperatures around the world dropped .5 C as a direct result. A slight pause then back to natural warming.

  42. #42 Janet Akerman
    December 14, 2009

    el gordo,

    What are the implications of this volcanic activity for your [pet theory](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2136578)?

  43. #43 el gordo
    December 15, 2009

    There were five very large volcanic eruptions in the seventeenth century, fairly evenly spaced, but presumably the effects only lasted a couple of years.

    So the LIA needed a more dominant forcing than just a volcano to drive temperatures down 2 degrees over a few hundred years.

  44. #44 Janet Akerman
    December 15, 2009

    El gordo, your apparent deduction in post @243 is a non sequitur.

    And I’m waiting to see your answer to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2144884).

  45. #45 Fran Barlow
    December 15, 2009

    Anyone who is interested, watch Plimer v Monbiot on Lateline

    Plimer repeatedly exposed and named as a fraud on national TV and calls Monbiot ill-mannered and ‘not a scientist’ in response.

  46. #46 Bernard J.
    December 15, 2009

    Plimer’s performance on Lateline is a travesty of scientific etiquette, protocol and fact.

    He offered no scientific papers or studies as evidence for any of his statements, he conspicuously and frequently waved a copy of his book at the camera in an obvious attempt to promote it, and he used his cutesy ploys to divert the focus of questions from himself on to Jones and on to Monbiot.

    Curiously, he refers to H&E as “the book”, as if it is separate and independent from himself. Delving into my university psychology, I might produce several theories about why this is so, but even without a considered session of shrinking it is apparent that Plimer is off the dial. He has lost it, there are kangaroos in his top paddock, he’s a few snags short of a barbie, he gone Emeritus…

    From a scientific point of view, I would strong urge people to contact the ABC and ask them to interview a group of scientists to deconstruct the allegations and misrepresentations that Plimer has made tonight. It’s all stuff that we’ve dissected ad infinitum here and on other places on the Interweb, but it’s about time that there was a serious mainstream addressing of the points that are always lost in the obfuscation and diversion when Plimer puppeteers an interview.

    Make the bugger address each error, lie and misrepresentation that he has made on television, in front of an audience of his scientifically credible peers. Make him address the Monbiot questions if they are not otherwise addressed, but do not let him continue to slither away from confronting his garbage.

    I firmly believe now that Plimer is not a Poe, that he is no longer competent in assessing scientific evidence, and that he is completely ideologically- and agenda-driven. It’s time that he had the bright light of professional scrutiny turned on his climate nonsense, whether he deigns to participate or not.

    Monbiot was not too bad, although I still believe that he has let himself and science in general down with his cursory analysis of the history behind the CRU data theft, and the subsequent distortions thereof.

    Plimer has let himself down, and as a former student of his he has let me and my colleagues down too. Back in the 80s he was largely credible and slightly smug: now he has no credibility and is an insufferable prat. He makes me ashamed to have come from an institution where he has taught, and he represents to me a compelling reason to fear for the education of any student who might come within a bull’s roar of his influence.

    How one such as he can maintain a position in Australian science without scrutiny, challenge or otherwise being called upon to justify his malfeasance is beyond me. Make no mistake: Plimer is not simply a maverick exploring the bounds of understanding – he is willfully, maliciously and selfishly bastardising the public perception of scientific process and understanding in order to achieve his own non-scientific, ideologica ends.

    CRU is the biggest scientific fraud in history? Hardly – Plimer’s frauds dwarf anything that might possibly be found from the UEA hack.

    Plimer’s antics, and the front and centre attention that the Denialosphere grants them, are the real story here.

  47. #47 P. Lewis
    December 15, 2009

    …but it’s about time that there was a serious mainstream addressing of the points that are always lost in the obfuscation and diversion when Plimer puppeteers an interview.

    Whilst that is indeed true, I think more needs to be done by his university employers. Have they no shame?

    Plimer’s frauds dwarf anything that might possibly be found from the UEA hack

    And while Jones magnanimously steps aside whilst an independent enquiry reports, Plimer sails on spreading his disinformation, to put it more euphemistically. The world is warped. Have his employers no shame?

    Indeed, were I to get a question in on one of his Q&A stunts I would ask that very question. “Have your employers no shame? Do they endorse the distortions that you preach?”

  48. #48 Chris O'Neill
    December 15, 2009

    Make him address the Monbiot questions if they are not otherwise addressed, but do not let him continue to slither away from confronting his garbage.

    Plimer knows he’s lying. He changes the subject whenever he can. That ABC Lateline interview is an absolute classic. One item in it was his claim that the USGS ignored undersea volcanoes (which they didn’t) in calculating CO2 emissions from volcanoes and his claim that these undersea volcanoes produce more than 130 times as much CO2 as land volcanoes which they would need to do to produce more CO2 than human activity. One of the things that never seems to occur to Plimer is that this extraordinary volcanic activity only seems to have started in the last 200 years which is an amazing co-incidence.

    This is one of the ways Plimer works. He makes statements that may or may not be correct, e.g. the volcanoes one is incorrect and the one about Greenland warmth in the MWP is correct, and these statements superficially support his argument. But if you know more information, e.g. Greenland is not the whole world and the whole world average was not particularly warm in the MWP then you know his statements don’t really support his argument or there’s something bizarre about his argument. Plimer could easily realize this so his superficial statements are dishonest even when they are part of the truth (but not the whole truth).

    Anyway, I noticed Monbiot, unlike Jones, doesn’t let Plimer get away with lying without telling him his lying. Whenever Plimer lies to Jones, Jones just says “no” and states what the appropriate authority says contrary to Plimer’s lie. Monbiot doesn’t have any problem telling Plimer when he’s lying.

  49. #49 Chris O'Neill
    December 15, 2009

    I think more needs to be done by his university employers.

    Yes you’d think the University would make or have some general disclaimer that’s Plimer’s views are personal and in no way necessarily reflect the views of the University in whole or in part.

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    December 15, 2009

    el gullibo:

    Don’t talk to me of old sol, I recently recanted.

    Easy come, easy go. That’s what being credulous is all about.

  51. #51 Bud
    December 15, 2009

    Did anyone see BBC4’s The Environment Debate tonight? I only turned on from the back end of the science discussion. It was all pretty poor to be honest. For some reason, Bob Watson was put up against Richard Lindzen and Bjorn Lomborg, resulting in a pretty skewed and artificially ‘balanced’ debate. The presenter (who I’ve seen before, and she wasn’t particularly fussed about accuracy then either) managed to exacerbate the issue when she brought up Svensmark and, following Watson’s dismissal, said “yes, but how can you expect the public to know what to believe when even the scientists disagree?”

    She also gave Watson a much toughter grilling than the other two. Lindzen was allowed to get away with whatever the hell he liked, and Lomborg seemed to wow her with his rhetoric and pretty face. For some reason, though, she seemed obsessed with pinning Watson down to plucking random figures out the air (at one stage she was asking him repeatedly to specify exactly how much of a difference individual action could make to reduce carbon emissions, and wouldn’t shut up about it until Watson, exasperated, said “10%” seemingly at random).

    The whole thing was ridiculously dumbed down. Watson didn’t seem to come across great to be honest, he wasn’t very comfortable under the ignorance of the presenter, the rhetoric of Lomborg and the usual crap from Lindzen. Yet another example of why science shouldn’t be decided by public debate. On the other hand, it’s on BBC4, so it’s not like anyone watched it…

  52. #52 el gordo
    December 15, 2009

    There were no large volcanic eruptions in the eighteenth century, while in the nineteenth century there were five more big ones.

    So we can agree volcanic eruptions have only a fleeting effect on climate, although if we are in a cooling phaze then it would amplify that effect.

    Here’s a hundred questions for you.

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

  53. #53 Janet Akerman
    December 15, 2009

    el gordo,

    I’m [still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2145078).

    Let me remind you of your claim:

    Chris: *What is the natural cause of of our current global warming?*

    El gordo writes:
    >*A spotty sun and no large volcanic eruptions, plus a warm PDO up until ten years ago when it changed to its opposite.*

    Don’t be a Plimer, answer my question, Given the significant volcanic eruptions in the 1980s and 1990s, the period of great warming, how can you support your above claim?

  54. #54 el gordo
    December 15, 2009

    The period of natural warming from 1976 to 2000 came about because of the warm PDO. Pinatubo and Mt St Helens had only a slight effect on the upward trend. AGW is a crock.

    Don’t try to get smart with me Akerman, it doesn’t suit you.

  55. #55 J Akerman
    December 15, 2009

    el gordo, lets be clear you cannot support solar or lack of volcanic forcing to support your pet theory is that correct?

  56. #56 Chris O'Neill
    December 15, 2009

    el gullibo:

    The period of natural warming from 1976 to 2000 came about because of the warm PDO.

    So now it’s mainly the fault of the PDO? So the scientists are wrong when they say the cycle time is 15–30 years because then the temperature should have gone back to what it was in 1976 by 2006 at the latest. El gullibo informs us that the PDO half-cycle time can be 24 years and thus the cycle time can be 48 years, not just 15-30 years.

    Those scientists are so wrong. How did they ever get by without el gullibo.

    By the way, our “cooling phase” since 2001 or whatever hasn’t actually started yet, in fact it’s still warming.

  57. #57 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    We know that the world warmed by 0.7 degrees C from 1998 to 2000, not the 0.20 degrees expected by the IPCC. This is within natural variability.

    ‘ENSO is a radiative oscillation that has the potential to cause long term climate change.’

    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/

    Looks like I will be returning to my original faith – sun worship.

  58. #58 Fran Barlow
    December 16, 2009

    Mr Greenstreet can’t even get his talking points right or understand their implications:

    We know that the world warmed by 0.7 degrees C from 1998 to 2000, not the 0.20 degrees expected by the IPCC. This is within natural variability.

    By all means he should go back to sun worship. He sucks at actual science.

  59. #59 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    The ENSO adjusted global sea surface temperature anomalies graph is particularly interesting. While I’m not ruling out the PDO influence, it may not be as dominant as ENSO.

    Note the Mt Pinatubo eruption, as suspected it appears to have produced no impact on the upward trend.

  60. #60 Janet Akerman
    December 16, 2009

    You are a lot like Plimer the way you run away from straigh forward questions.

    >Note the Mt Pinatubo eruption [...] it appears to have produced no impact on the upward trend.

    How do you reconcile this statement (and your acknowledgement of several other major volcanic eruptions in the 1980s and 1990s), with your [earlier claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2146990) that “*no large volcanic eruptions*” was one of the three natural drivers of recent global warming?

    (As Chris notes, easy-come, easy-go).

  61. #61 el gordo
    December 16, 2009

    You appear to have a stuck picture. Since this conversation began I have ruled out volcanoes as a major climate forcing.

    I’m not yet dropping the PDO in favor of ENSO, because the radiative characteristics might just be feedbacks on the temperature change.

    Please take MapleLeaf’s advice and ignore me.

  62. #62 j akerman
    December 16, 2009

    el gordo writes:

    >You appear to have a stuck picture. Since this conversation began I have ruled out volcanoes as a major climate forcing.

    That’s interesting, when did rule out volcanoes? Can you point to the part of the conversation were you made this ruling out?

  63. #63 Chris O'Neill
    December 16, 2009

    el gullibo:

    We know that the world warmed by 0.7 degrees C from 1998 to 2000,

    Which ass did you get that assertion from?

    Looks like I will be returning to my original faith – sun worship.

    Easy come, easy go, easy come.

  64. #64 Dave R
    December 16, 2009

    [James Randi taken in by denialist propaganda](http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html)

    I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. [...] we’re aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. [...] The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all the infrared rays have been “captured” by the greenhouse gases there is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.

    :facepalm:

Current ye@r *