Open Thread 37

Time for a new open thread.


  1. #1 zoot
    January 5, 2010

    I’d be interested (no, really!) in el gordo’s response to the news that Australia has just had [its hottest decade on record](

  2. #2 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    Thanks for the link zoot, but I am holding to my prediction that the next 20 years will be cooler than the past 30 years.

  3. #3 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    Wait a minute, ‘hottest decade on record’ is weather and not climate. That’s some wild cherrypick by BOM and they did it without the help of Ian ‘Harry’ Harris.

  4. #4 Martin Vermeer
    January 5, 2010

    el gordo, they mean the instrument record, not your attention span.

  5. #5 frank
    January 5, 2010

    So it is the warmest deade on record.The continent is also getting wetter.Apart from the fires,which were caused by fuel build up,I dont see why it is such a big deal.

  6. #6 jakerman
    January 5, 2010

    >*’hottest decade on record’ is weather and not climate. That’s some wild cherrypick by BOM*

    Good point el gordo, to better emphasise climate BOM should highlight that the decades of 1990s and 2000s were successively the hottest on record.

    But of course BOM were responding to denialist, amoung them [fools like you]( who claim cooling.

  7. #7 Gaz
    January 5, 2010

    ….I am holding to my prediction that the next 20 years will be cooler than the past 30 years.

    El gordo, I think you made a mistake. I hope you don’t me me pointing it out. You wrote “prediction” when you obviously meant “wild guess”.

  8. #8 Martin Vermeer
    January 5, 2010

    Janet, it seems that the final investigation report is not public.

    There are some University letters posted on Keenan’s site marked in big type CONFIDENTIAL, which aren’t anymore… I suspect once they found out the kind of person they were dealing with, and how any published report was going to be misrepresented, they decided to play hardball. “Oops, we didn’t interview you for the report. And that means, oops, you won’t get to see the draft report.”

    It’s rather hilarious actually if you’re not on the receiving end… they have the better lawyers 😉

  9. #9 zoot
    January 5, 2010

    el gordo, you are correct in your assertion that the last decade is weather not climate. Had you bothered to look for the [source document]( you would have found that:

    On 8 December 2009, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that 2009 is expected to be the globe’s 5th warmest year on record (about 0.44°C above the 1961-90 average). A cooler-than-average global mean temperature has not been recorded since 1985, with the last decade also being the globe’s warmest on record.

    I’ll put that in the simplest way I can: for nearly twenty five years the global mean temperature has been above the average. Are we getting closer to climate now?

  10. #10 wazzamad
    January 5, 2010

    Yes we are getting close to climate,and it seems like a nice balmy one.Too bad that Copenhagen was such a fizzle.What is objectionable is the vast waste of taxpayer money for those 114 freeloaders to achieve….NOTHING!!But back to the science.If we did a calculation of the slope of temp from 1975 to say 1998,and then another calculation of slope of temp from 1998 to 2009,the change in slope would show that the warming has slowed.Does anyone have a link to a peer=reviewed article that explains why?

  11. #11 Dave
    January 5, 2010

    > Does anyone have a link to a peer=reviewed article that explains why?

    Yes, [here]( is one.

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    January 5, 2010

    202 el gordo,

    Well? Wanna bet?

    I recently won a small bet on the 2009 Arctic ice minimum.

    I have 2 bets with GO on the next 2 decades.

    Loser to give to a charity of the winner’s choosing.

    Beer money or something more serious?

  13. #13 zoot
    January 5, 2010


    Yes we are getting close to climate,and it seems like a nice balmy one.

    Balmy as in balmy army? Or are you seriously calling 40+ degrees C “balmy”?

  14. #14 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    Over the last quarter century the ‘global mean temperature has been above the average’. That seems to be reasonably accurate and can easily be accounted for by the warm PDO, along with positive AO/NAO.

    From 1946 to 1976 the oscillations were in the opposite mode, hence the global cooling fears at the time. Between the wars global warming was the worry, here is an article from the Washington Post of 1922.

    ‘The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice free water,’

    There will be no global warming catastrophe, at least for the next 30 years of climate change.

  15. #15 el gordo
    January 5, 2010
  16. #16 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    Hammering home the argument that the PDO is a dominant force in climate change, have a look at these temperature anomalies from Alaska.

  17. #17 Joseph
    January 5, 2010

    Here is a better example of how the air con works. Note the GW spike in 1880 is very similar to 1998.

    With the linear detrending, it looks like something similar that occurred in the past. Without the detrending, it looks like an extended upward trend that was interrupted briefly between 1950 and 1970.

    The slope between 1915 and 1945 is actually pretty steep: 1.5C / century. The slope between 1978 and 2008 is slightly more steep: 1.6C / century.

    CO2 was probably already forcing climate back in 1915. The data suggests temperature is sensitive to relatively small CO2 fluctuations. If we haven’t seen more warming it’s probably because climate is also very sensitive to aerosols, and maybe because of some warming in the pipeline.

  18. #18 Dave
    January 5, 2010


    Astonishingly bizarre “analysis”, and yet eerily familiar.

    From this day forth I dub thee el girma in His honour. Truly, your capacity to recycle garbage is boundless.

  19. #19 Dave
    January 5, 2010


    Further to my other post, what’s really funny is that you’ve just shown how craptacular this particular “analaysis” was when it was first waved around here.

    What Girma tried to do was remove a supposedly constant linear trend, and claim that everything else was an oscillation.

    If you look real close, you’ll see that the link you posted shows a *slight upward trend* rather than the original flat line it had when it was originally posted here. This is because the extra few months of data since the original “de-trending” have altered the slope upwards (as they would have to, absent a massive drop in global temperature), thus highlighting once again how totally cretinous, shallow and brittle this supposed “analysis” is.

  20. #20 Gaz
    January 5, 2010

    Gordo, haven’t we been through all this “if you take away the trend there’s no trend” crap before?

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2010


    Occasional upper case hystrionics, multiple exclamation marks, no spaces after punctuation marks… The style of [wazzamad]( reminds me of a previous troll, although exactly which one it is escapes me fro the moment.

    Is this yet another sockpuppeteer attempting to skirt a ban, or to simply make it appear that the Denialati are more numerous here than is actually the case?

  22. #22 Tim Lambert
    January 5, 2010

    wazzamad = frank

  23. #23 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    If you were wondering why El Nino is quickly breaking down, blame the Humboldt current sweeping up the west coast of South America.

  24. #24 el gordo
    January 5, 2010

    Yet BOM predicts this El Nino will be as big as the 1997-98 Nino.

    Incredible as it may seem, the SOI may not be telling the whole story.

  25. #25 wazzamad
    January 7, 2010

    So if temperature is senstive “relatively small co2 fluctuations”,then why is it that temperatures have been flat for 8 years while co2 has risen 4%?

  26. #26 el gordo
    January 7, 2010

    Joseph: ‘CO2 is logarithmically proportional to the equilibrium temperature. So there should be a lag.’ Crikey, I hope he’s right.

    The warm PDO kicked in around 1916 and as Captain Martin Ingebrigteen said in that WP article above, he first noted the warmer conditions in 1918. ‘Since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.’

  27. #27 Eamon
    January 7, 2010

    I noticed a reference to one Garth Paltridge in a discussion on Climate Change in the online version of the Belfast Telegraph – I wonder if another Emeritus is shoving himself more fully into the media limelight?

    Funnily enough he’s got a [new book]( out, though thankfully not on Amazon yet.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    January 7, 2010

    [Wazzamad/frank]( askes in his characteristically poorly-punctuated fashion:

    So if temperature is senstive [sic] “relatively small co2 fluctuations”,then why is it that temperatures have been flat for 8 years while co2 has risen 4%?

    It is clearly obvious that Wazzamad/frank and an operational understanding of statistics are separate entities that have never met. For his enlightenment it should be pointed out that the trend for the last eight years is not statistically different to the warming trend for decades prior; nor is the variance of the data over the last eight years significantly different to the preceding decades. If he stops a moment and considers what this means, he might be a little more cirsumspect in the questions he poses.

    Nevertheless, since he raised the issue, I will ask this of him:

    1) what forcing of temperature does Wazzamad/frank ascribe to CO2, and to other factors such as Milankovitch cycles and other astronomical phenomena, to solar variability, to aerosols, to (non-human) biological effects, and to sundry other parameters that impact upon climate?

    2) what lag times does Wazzamad/frank ascribe to each of the forcings/parameters listed above; and if his times differ in magnitude, how does he believe they would interact in the final temperature signal that results from the cumulative effect of the forcings/parameters that operate on the planet’s climate?

    3) given (1) and (2) above, what is the nature of the temperature response, that Wazzamad/frank expects, to increases in atmospheric CO2, when considered in the context of the other forcings/parameters that operate simultaneously?

  29. #29 bi -- IJI
    January 8, 2010

    Via Joanne Nova (via the International Climate Science Coalition), I see that one Mohib Ebrahim has drawn up a totally hilarious “timeline” of “Climategate.

  30. #30 Bud
    January 8, 2010

    A friend of mine recently asked if there had been any more revelations on who was ultimately responsible for the hacking. I said I knew of nothing beyond certain circumstantial evidence around the location of the computers used. Anyone know any more than this?

  31. #31 el gordo
    January 8, 2010

    Bud: You probably already know that the Russian FSB has admitted the hack was carried out through the Siberian city of Tomsk, but it was only the link and they deny any involvement.

    ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done outside Russia.’


  32. #32 Dennis Williams
    January 8, 2010

    All in all it was a dismal year for AGW: Copenhagen was a farce, Al Gore revealed his tenuous grasp on science, the NH is colder than a well diggers ass this winter, the US public has turned sceptical, the most liberal US congress in memory can’t pass climate change legislation, Beijing and Moscow are apathetic at best. We REALLY need a WARM year, team.

  33. #33 zoot
    January 8, 2010

    What, the warmest decade on record isn’t enough?

  34. #34 Gaz
    January 8, 2010

    Maybe not, zoot.

    Some people will never be convinced by anything less than every day – winter or summmer – being hotter than the next in perpetuity.

    Of course, there will always then be diehards who see nightfall as the smoking gun…

  35. #35 el gordo
    January 8, 2010

    BOM is predicting that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. For obvious reasons I strongly disagree.

  36. #36 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    Bud: Bishop Hill had a chat with the Norfolk Police about the hacked emails and they are seeking the help of the National Domestic Extremism Team. No, they are not the ‘thought police’.

    The NDET are looking for campaign activists being involved, presumably members of the Denialati.

    Ultimately, they will blame Russian extremists who are very much in favor of global warming.

  37. #37 zoot
    January 9, 2010


    For obvious reasons I strongly disagree.

    Care to share them with us?

  38. #38 bi -- IJI
    January 9, 2010

    Hmm. “National Domestic Extremism Team”. does this mean that the Norfolk Constabulary thinks that ideologues within Britain may be involved in the CRU crack?

  39. #39 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    bi IJI: You mean ‘freedom fighters’ against the ‘great delusion’.

    zoot: It has nothing to do with the weather, grim as it looks for the UK Met, their failure to predict seasonal patterns will be their undoing and the BOM.

  40. #40 zoot
    January 9, 2010

    Who said it had anything to do with the weather? I asked if you’d share “the obvious reasons” why you “strongly disagree” with the BOM who you claim are predicting “2010 will be the hottest year on record”.

    As far as I can see the most they are predicting is warmer than average in the north and west and cooler in the southeast for the Jan – Mar of 2010. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to provide a link to the prediction you are quoting?

  41. #41 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    It’s not exactly from the horses mouth, but I believe everything the Liberal says.

  42. #42 wazzamad
    January 9, 2010

    Bernard J to your questions.
    1]The temperature forcings of all the things you mentioned?
    Well the stephan-boltzman predicts about 1 degree celcius for a doubling.As for all the others you listed,there are only educated guesses as far as I have seen.Eg the IPCC has admits it has a poor understanding of aerosols.That is the problem;we just dont know.
    2]Time lag?
    The only time lag that I know of is the one where temperature leads co2 by 800 years in the ice core studies.
    3]the nature of the temperature response…?
    Again nobody knows.The IPCC has said that climate is a chaotic system and predictions are not possible.A perfect example of that is the present 9 year stasis period which the models did not predict.

  43. #43 bi -- IJI
    January 9, 2010

    el gordo: Freedom as in the freedom to steal e-mails to support some ideological cause? Sounds like extremism to me.

    * * *

    Shorter wazzamad: I don’t know a lot of things, therefore I know that global warming is a scam.

  44. #44 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    The 1998 -2007 warm period was caused by natural variability rather than a sign of AGW.

    bi-IJI : The NDET won’t find the whistleblower, nevertheless this heretic has done us all a big favor.

  45. #45 wazzamad
    January 9, 2010

    You must be very clever,knowing that I apparently think that global warming is a scam.How about you stick to evidence based remarks.If you can answer Bernard’s questions better than be my guest.

  46. #46 TrueSceptic
    January 9, 2010

    219 Dave,

    You can see the numerical trend by looking at the [Raw Data](, of course.

    By the same token, someone wanting to present an exactly detrended graph would make the effort to check the data and adjust the tweaking accordingly. Still, we can’t expect such care, can we?

  47. #47 bi -- IJI
    January 9, 2010

    Shorter el gordo: Ideologues aren’t extremists, and even if they are, they’re whistleblowers.

    * * *

    Shorter wazzamad: I didn’t say global warming is a scam, I only insinuated that global warming is a scam. But it’s natural for me to ask if global warming is a scam, even though I’m not saying it is.

  48. #48 dhogaza
    January 9, 2010

    All in all it was a dismal year for AGW: Copenhagen was a farce, Al Gore revealed his tenuous grasp on science, the NH is colder than a well diggers ass this winter,

    Last time I looked the Pacific Northwest was part of the NH, and we’re warm. So is much of Alaska and western Canada, eastern Siberia and western portion of the North American Arctic.

    Not only is the eastern and midwestern US and Canada not the world … it’s not even the northern hemisphere.

  49. #49 dhogaza
    January 9, 2010

    El Gordo’s World Climate Report includes a graph from NCDC that includes a regression line that shows a clear century+ rising trend in temperature, then of course claims that temperature has returned to “normal”.

    Hilarious own goal by people who can’t even read a regression line.

  50. #50 Marco
    January 9, 2010

    add significant parts (if not the whole) of Greenland to that list of “warmer”. They’ve got temperatures normal for spring.

  51. #51 Bruce Sharp
    January 9, 2010

    Dhogaza: “…includes a graph from NCDC…”

    Wasn’t that the band formed by the ex-members of N Sync and AC/DC?

  52. #52 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    We can all read a regression line, WCR is extrapolating. In their heart of hearts they are hoping it levels off, Virginia is taking a battering.

    If the present AO/NAO pattern remains in place it will be a backward Spring in the UK and flooding after the thaw.

  53. #53 el gordo
    January 9, 2010

    Bud: After forensic analysis they now know that the hacker is someone at East Anglia University with ‘root’ privileges to UEA’s secure computer systems.

    There are 33 Russian students studying at UEA and the FSB has used ‘hacker patriots’ in the past, especially from the Siberian city of Tomsk where the leaked emails were linked. The main users of that particular server are the students at Tomsk State University.

    Russia is the third largest emitter of ‘greenhouse gas’ and were reluctant to get involved with the AGW theory, but they also recognized a useful scam at Kyoto. Since Copenhagen they are backing off.

    The hacker left a note: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps”. MI5 must now be looking for a ‘privileged’ Russian student.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2010


    I suspect that fantasies of tweed and trench-coats have gone to your head.

    The Cold War is long over, and the ‘Hot Wars’ will have little to do with conservative nostalgia for reds under the bed.

    The culprits will not turn out to be Russian students.

    Oh, and I guess that you’ll have to scramble now to come up with the [last word]( again…

  55. #55 el gordo
    January 14, 2010

    Spoil sport.

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2010


  57. #57 John
    January 14, 2010

    El Gordo, in the other thread you were saying someone was collecting data for an FOI and just plumb left it around where it was found by a “whistleblower”. Now you’re saying it was a Russian student.

    Personally, I think it was the Bildeberg Group…

  58. #58 el gordo
    January 14, 2010

    It’s in the Bildeberg Group’s best interest to see humanity enslaved and addicted to a green pill. No motive for that shadowy group.

    If the FSB are not implicated then the police will be seeking a member of the Denialati who has the required skill to hack a fairly insecure system.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2010

    In a perverse moment I wandered over to the last page on Marohasy’s eutrophying bog.

    Besides the notable lack of direction and momentum from the bridge (last thread started 7 October 09, last update on 12 December 09 to say that Marohasy has retired from posting, and consequently 46 pages for the darned thread) I found this gem from our fantasmagorically scienced friend, first mate cohenite:

    [Comment from: cohenite January 15th, 2010 at 7:15 pm](

    Deforestation is a seperate issue to AGW but the attachment of deforestation to worsening AGW through release of CO2 from removing trees and the removal of the tree sink is just plain garbage; if indigenous forest is removed for the planting of crops those crops will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the original plants even taking into account the emission amounts from cropping.

    [Emphasis mine]

    Whoa boy! I understand that such a post will whip the blind of that kingdom into a frenzy of chainsaw-weilding, foaming fury, but after he has basked in the adulation of his awed subjects, perhaps the one-eyed monarch would care to come here and apply some science to his proclamation.

    I note too that on the previous page this little exchange occurred:

    [Comment from: spangled drongo January 12th, 2010 at 10:02 am](

    This cooling must be a blow to the projected “1/4 mile poleward” migration of all species to keep abreast of the warming.
    I wonder who blows the whistle and tells us when to advance and when to retreat?

    I hope Bernard J. is paying strict attention.

    [Comment from: spangled drongo January 12th, 2010 at 10:05 am](

    that shoul [sic] be “1/4 mile ANNUAL poleward”

    [Comment from: cohenite January 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am](

    SD; an ice-berg could drop on BJ’s noggin and he still wouldn’t change his mind.

    Thereafter (and I am sure that for many many pages prior) followed much pseudoscientific gobbledegook on a range of subjects about which the mewling gulls have no actual understanding. The level of discourse there is reaching new heights in demonstrating that there is no bottom to Stupid.

    Although it’s flattering to be perceived as a gadfly amongst their herd of stampeding “facts”, I ceased and desisted from delving further back than this page.

    I apologise in advance if my mere mentioning of incoherenite’s further debasements of science invokes the the Ancient Mariner and his crew to sail over here in order to seek an outlet for their Denialist angsts, but I just had note how said sailor of the I-do-not Sea persists in putting arrows through every scientific principle that soars overhead.

    It is concerning indeed that folk may be so clueless, and yet still pretend to be sufficiently informed that they might act as the secretary for a national political party…

  60. #60 Fran Barlow
    January 17, 2010

    I wonder whether it isn’t time for us to consider the question of geoengineering.

    Pre-Copenhagen, there existed the (remote) hope that something like the beginnings of a satisfactory agreement top staunch emissions might emerge. Post-Copenhagen, it’s hard to believe one will arrive anytime soon, and yet, emissions will continue to rise and therewith all of the impacts we are now seeing. The last Assessment report, was based largely on data published by 2005, and known in 2003. Since that time we have learned that emissions are growing more rapidly, sea levels rising faster, sea ice extent in decline with its valuable protective albedo dissipating, glacial mass decomposing more quickly and the prospects are that by 2030-2035, temperatures will have risen enough to put Arctic permafrost on track to dissipate and release its stores of CH4 and CO2, wiping out whatever cuts in emissions growth we’ve managed by then. If we lose the permafrost, end of century temperature rises of 4-6 degrees C are pretty much certain, absent some serious geoengineering — and I’m not talking “no regrets” measures either. Such rises would be catastrophic, especially for the poles and for Africa which would get a lot warmer than that. We would get massive growth in desertification around the 25 degree north and south latitudes which would encroach on major food growing areas. People depending on glacial meltwater for irrigation would be in dire trouble.

    If we are going to start doing geoengineering, it would be as well to start early in a very modest way, precisely so that we can gather data about possible undesirable and unintended consequences, the precise positive impacts of particular measures and so forth.

    Crutzen suggests admixture of sulphur dioxide to the stratosphere. This would be fairly cheap to do if for example, aircraft flying over either the north or southern hemispheres during the respective summers used fuel with about 0.1% sulphur added. This wouldn’t be enough to materially affect stratospheric ozone (possibly as little as 0.5-0.8W/M negative forcing) and it could be enough to stop the uptick in CO2-forced temperatures beyond the predictions current in 2001. It would be a light foot on the brake which might buy us the time we need to stabilise emissions before we lose the permafrost and Arctic sea ice extent in the northern summer.

    Another possibility would be ocean fertilisation, which if it aimed at no more than returning the levels of algae on continental sea shelves to about what it was in in 1980 would make a contribution to the effectiveness of marine sinks and possibly reinvigorate sections of the marine food chain.

    The moral hazard issues are not small of course. This is why (rightly) many of us are reluctant to go this way. Giving the polluters a partial pass opens a wedge against doing something about emissions. That’s why I believe such measures should be very modest in scale and aimed at nothing more than buying us time to get the right kind of international agreement in place on emissions and eliciting the modelling needed to do accurate risk trading. Using SO2 to protect albedo values is a fairly modest and semi-’natural’ exercise. We’d be underpinning a natural negative feedback.

    And of course we should do re-vegetation and biochar or whatever we can.

    Thoughts anyone?

  61. #61 el gordo
    January 18, 2010

    This is no time to consider geo-engineering, because the science is not settled.

  62. #62 jakerman
    January 18, 2010

    el gordo, as its is your goal to have the last post (no matter how inane) on an open thread, wouldn’t you have less risk of being superceeded if you picked an [inactive open thread](

    Just a thought.

  63. #63 el gordo
    January 18, 2010

    The science of geo-engineering is not settled. In the early 1970’s the Soviet Union was thinking of building a land bridge along the Bering Strait to keep the ice out, but it all came to nought when global warming kicked in.

    So it might be prudent to let nature take its course until we know what’s going on.

  64. #64 Fran Barlow
    January 18, 2010

    El Gordo wittered

    The science of geo-engineering is not settled.


    The science (of AGW) is not settled.

    This is what happens when your kind mindlessly repeat a mantra. You miss the point in your reflexive Elizabeth-style program responses. What one believes about CO2-forcing is moot. Increasing stratospheric albedo will mititgate warming, the effects of which are significant, pernicious and long-lived. Where technical and organisational feasibility applies, the case is made out.

    It’s true that the science of geoengineering is not settled. That’s precisely why I suggested a modest start be made. Hence my caveats above:

    If we are going to start doing geoengineering, it would be as well to start early in a very modest way, precisely so that we can gather data about possible undesirable and unintended consequences, the precise positive impacts of particular measures and so forth. […]

    That’s why I believe such measures should be very modest in scale and aimed at nothing more than buying us time to get the right kind of international agreement in place on emissions and eliciting the modelling needed to do accurate risk trading.

    You really are a persistently moronic troll. Perhaps we should dub you El Perl

  65. #65 el gordo
    January 18, 2010

    The Royal Society’s Report put forward 12 methods, no doubt you would have seen it already.

    The idea of shooting giant mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight, isn’t very bright. Nor the scattering of carbon absorbing rocks upon the landmass.

    Scary stuff and also very expensive.

  66. #66 Fran Barlow
    January 18, 2010

    El Gordo wittered again

    The idea of shooting giant mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight, isn’t very bright.

    It’s not supposed to be bright but reflective.

    And it wasn’t giant mirrors, but lots of tiny ones that could be oriented to control the extent of albedo. Can’t you get anything right?

    Scary stuff and also very expensive.

    Not that scary except to someone like you who is an ignoramus, and not particularly expensive — how much is life on Earth worth? One trillion dollars? Since no life = wiping out all value, this would be a bargain unless we found something cheaper.

    I didn’t propose this yet of course. I proposed things that were much cheaper and were not technologically cutting edge.

    It’s like Jakerman says. You really want the last word even when all you can offer is mindless wittering.

  67. #67 el gordo
    January 18, 2010

    They commence scattering the CO2 absorbing rocks and it works, then a 1000 years from now Milankovitch cycles come into play and we enter an ice age.

    Who will take responsibility for picking up those rocks when CO2 follows temperatures down?

  68. #68 Mark
    January 19, 2010

    Milankovitch cycles have an effect in the last 800ky of glacial/interglacial periods.

    Is anyone aware of evidence to suggest tht Milankovitch cycles have a decernable effet in a greenhouse (hothouse) world?

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2010

    El Gordo,
    Your prediction about a coming ice age is alarming!
    Might I ask what data and what modelling have you done to support your theory?
    Does your prediction meet with agreement among your fellow scientists, or is yours a minority opinion?
    You *are* a scientist, qualified to make this sort of prediction, right?

  70. #70 Deep Climate
    January 19, 2010

    The latest on ClimateGate – Google censorship!

    Just when you thought commentary on the CRU hacked emails could not get any more absurd, along comes National Post columnist and “environmentalist” Lawrence Solomon to up the ante. Believe it or not, Solomon’s latest over-the-top screed accuses Google of censoring search results to downplay the so-called Climategate scandal. But, as they say in the newspaper biz: “Check a story, lose story”.

  71. #71 el gordo
    January 19, 2010

    We know that interglacials last about 12,000 years, so we may have reached our used-by- date.

    Note the CO2 lag of about 800 years.

    It might be cheaper and safer to put ‘little’ mirrors in orbit, than throwing rocks about. If the climate gets cool they could adjust the mirrors and warm a cold spot

  72. #72 zoot
    January 19, 2010

    Is it true Fatso’s heart is set on making the final comment on a thread?

  73. #73 jakerman
    January 19, 2010

    >*Is it true Fatso’s heart is set on making the final comment on a thread?*

    [Sad but true.](

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2010

    Nice graph, El Gordo, – shows an amazingly close correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past several hundred thousand years!

    Did you notice something funny? – *nowhere* in the last several hundred thousand years has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere *ever* reached even 75% of the level it currently stands at due to human action over the last 200 years.

    In other words, you may have noticed that what is currently happening to CO2 levels is *unprecedented* in the time period that you have chosen to make your point. Whatever it was your point was.

  75. #75 jakerman
    January 19, 2010

    Then el gordo had sufficient lack of self-awarness to [claim that](, “*Attention seeking behavior’ is not [his] style.*”

  76. #76 Bernard J.
    July 26, 2010

    Ah, Duffy has John Abbott as his ‘expert’ – Abbott of the Abbott and Marohasy article recently published…

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    July 26, 2010

    Oops… not sure how I managed to dredge up this thread! I was trying to post on Open Thread 51.