October 2012 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    October 2, 2012
  2. #2 bill
    October 2, 2012

    Non-idiots, on the other hand, might gain from looking here.

  3. #3 Wow
    October 2, 2012

    Who said the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE was warming.

    Of course, you’re so insane you cannot escape your private little world in any shape or form.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    October 2, 2012

    Kraken,

    The linking of one graphic from a host of others and out of the context of the background data demonstrates your lack of rigour in any discussion here, and that is to put it mildly.

    Now ask yourself the meaning of that large white area that bounds Antarctica. Come on think for yourself now.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    October 2, 2012

    Climate Progress has just (17:05 BST) been reported to me as ‘An Attack Page’.

  6. #6 FrankD
    October 2, 2012

    I got the same thing, Lionel – from the diagnostics, I would guess its due to a hot link in the comments, since the Google “safe browsing” page reports:
    Of the 3222 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software….
    Over the past 90 days, thinkprogress.org did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites….
    No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days….In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

    Maybe they are just referring to Joe’s combative style ;-)

  7. #7 Lionel A
    October 2, 2012

    Kraken

    Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds.

    A step function would have been nice.

  8. #8 Wow
    October 2, 2012

    You forget that Spots here is misrepresenting my response to his last idiotic statement on another thread about the antarctic ice extent growing when he asserted the AGW answer was “The north pole is warming up, causing more snown in the antarctic”, my response was “The southern hemisphere is warming.”.

    Of course, no grist for this idiots mill in that, so they have to pretend another response was made in the fine traditions of rafia work of deniers through the decades.

  9. #9 bill
    October 2, 2012

    From the Tamino post I linked to above [with modifications]:

    [Insert Denier's name here] is typical of the vast majority of fake skeptics about climate science. [S/]He really, really isn’t qualified to discuss the subject. But not only does [s/]he do so, [s/]he tries hard to influence public policy about it. This is why governments worldwide have been so effectively paralyzed — because there are so many voices, speaking so loud, whose influence (on both politicians and the general public) is way out of proportion to their qualifications even to understand, let alone advise, on the subject. [Insert Denier's name here] is hardly unique in this respect, [s/]he’s actually typical. The loudest voices seem to be those of the most ignorant.

    [Emphasis in original]

    In this case Tamino’s referring to one of those truly remarkable people that lobbied the North Carolina state legislature to structurally disregard AGW-induced sea-level rise.

    But the rule holds true – this is a description of type – exemplifying the combination of arrogance and insouciance that sees talkback-radio level lumpen’intellectuals’ attempting to boorishly lord it over the merely qualified, trained, and competent.

  10. #10 Wow
    October 3, 2012

    IMO it’s made worse in the science fields not because scientists are geeks/aspies/social misfits or whatever, but because you have to have a passion for accuracy to be a good science and this means you have to be accurate about your possible problems, errors and caveats too.

    Whereas the nonscientist or the ex-scientist (see Spencer) gains hugely: they feel no such compunction.

    So the scientist voice is saying “X is likely happening, though we don’t understand Y” and the nonscientist is saying “Z IS HAPPENING!!!!”.

    Well, seeing as “compromise” is a necessity in the mind of the politician, and since the X position is already admitted less likely, lets move a long way to saying Z is happening.

  11. #11 Russell
    October 3, 2012

    Not content with banning climate scientists from what he advertises as the “best science blog” Anthony Watts is exhorting his minions to flock to the defense of Heartland flacks who come under scientific fire when their columns appear in financial journals like Forbes

  12. #12 chek
    October 3, 2012

    Was anyone still under the impression that a floon like Willie milli-Watts wasn’t bought and paid for by Bast’s anti-science mob?

  13. #13 Lionel A
    October 3, 2012

    Of course when the Krakens of the world try to rubbish the scientific data they should consider going out on the ice like Dr. Mauri Pelto on Easton Glacier nr. Mt Baker in the Cascades – a Climate Crocks post and take Watts, Montford, Monckton, Bast, Bastardi, old uncle Tom Cobbly an’ all (that latter BTW shorthand for the short list of high profile one-time scientists turned advocacy shills) with them. Think of the fun they would have howling at the moon that global warming is a hoax. Inhofe & co. should be dropped in by parachute – after all they could find a ready made igloo – in a crevasse.

    Pay attention to this bit, transcript as close as I could make out:

    This is just one measurement. Obviously the last two day we’ve marched around these glaciers, arggh, we’re going to cover about ten miles to get those two hundred measurements. Do that for thirty years on ten different glaciers and you get an idea of what it takes you to – just one little – you look at those graphs and you see a data series, a time series, even for an individual glacier or a series of glaciers in one range it gives you an idea of the kinda effort you need to put in…

    That is what it is about, collecting the data for analysis to provide the information that informs us that global warming is for real. Anybody now continuing to obfuscate this basic fact should be sent for correction training to find out how science really works.

    Hey Watts & co., guess what, it isn’t sitting in a nice office somewhere comfortable confabulating over weather station photographs. You are a despicable deceiving toe-rag to be trying to deflect from the physical and mental effort of real scientists working in hostile and dangerous places. And yes I remember an acquittance of mine who disappeared, never to be seen again, into a crevasse on Greenland.

  14. #14 joni
    October 3, 2012

    I wonder if Dr Spencer will still use his “fun” polynomial if the trend starts to be up? Who bets that it disappears?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  15. #15 Bob
    October 3, 2012

    I enjoyed this comment on Spencer’s latest UAH temperature post:

    Dear specialist of high order polynomial fits,
    do you think we could see an Arctic sea ice increase with a 22th order polynomial fit ?
    (My question is for entertainment purposes only).

    Ah, lulz.

    I seem to recall that the polynomial recently changed from third order to fourth order. No explanation was given; maybe the third order poly wasn’t “entertaining” enough? Naturally, I am assuming a strong correlation between entertainment and a negative gradient towards the right-hand end of the fit.

  16. #16 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    October 4, 2012

    A third order plot starting from an increasing trend always ends up with an increasing trend at long times. A fourth order plot starting from an increasing trend always ends up decreasing at some later time. Evidently someone who passed intermediate algebra pointed this out to Dr. Roy.

  17. #17 Wow
    October 4, 2012

    ‘course what you could do is use the same polynomial as Roy and start from a decreasing line (say somewhere around 1940).

  18. #18 Dave McRae
    October 4, 2012

    This was posted on ABC Science online and SMH – and probably others – Alister Doyle, Routers

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-climate-romans-idUSBRE89212020121003

    “The findings by Sapart’s team questioned the view by a U.N. panel of climate scientists that man-made climate change started with the surge in use of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution.”

    I cannot find where or how Alister Doyle could make this claim – and it be repeated without question

    I looked at the orignal paper
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/full/nature11461.html
    (I’m hopeful that even without a sub that one can see the abscract and images – if not good summaries with images and not the extra bits one doesn’t find in the paper at
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121003132322.htm
    http://www.livescience.com/23678-methane-emissions-roman-times.html
    (bigger img at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/images/nature11461-f3.2.jpg )

    so the 200ppb CH4 fluctuation from 100BCE to 1750, lets mutiply by 100 to get CO2 equiv (I’m exaggerating to make a point and because it’s easy :) ) – 20ppm CO2e excursions

    for this to affect temperature (and no claim was made in the Nature paper), one would have to assume an extremely high valued climate sensitivity (that the paper does not make) — a point lost on deniers

    so I’m stumped at the claim that it knocks on the head the “view by a U.N. panel of climate scientists” re climate change — and why Doyle wouldn’t think that if IPCC was proved wrong there would be a little more said about it from every scientific body and climate scientist – or is Doyle a subscriber to the global and total scientific conspiracy?

  19. #19 Jeffrey Davis
    http://lendmealookingglass.blogspot.com/
    October 4, 2012

    I understand the fun thing for polynomial fits is to push them backward in time to the 19th century.

    Talk about giving them fits!

  20. #20 Lionel A
    October 4, 2012

    Dave McRae,

    As that study by Celia Sapart (I cannot connect to that Nature link at all at the moment – Nature experiencing technical difficulties) is about methane production by Roman Empire and Han Dynasty populations and thus is to demonstrate that there is a long history of human contributions to GHGs and thus warming influence. Therefore this statement by Doyle is scurrilous spin by not indicating that scientists concerned were not committing a sin of omission :

    The findings by Sapart’s team questioned the view by a U.N. panel of climate scientists that man-made climate change started with the surge in use of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution.

    Here is a more nuanced description from the LA Times Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions.

    Of course a greater surge of GHGs began with the Industrial Revolution but it would seem that Doyle prefers a bit of UN Scientist bashing and I doubt he has read any of the IPCC reports in full and so is taking a punt. I wonder if Doyle can be a bit more specific on which UN Climate Scientist panel was supposed to have come to the said conclusion. It seems like Doyle is doing a Plimer – playing fast and loose with quotes etc.

    Maybe Doyle is trying to step into Andrew Bolt’s shoes.

  21. #21 jerryg
    October 4, 2012

    Did I see a message a while back from Bernard J about a “gertboard”?

  22. #22 MikeH
    October 4, 2012

    The “Early Anthropocene” view has been around for a while. e.g. Bill Ruddiman ( “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum” ) . It is discussed by him at Real Climate here
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/early-anthropocene-hyppothesis/

  23. #23 Dave McRae
    October 5, 2012

    Thanks Lionel A

    Sapart’s team’s Nature paper is a wonderful read, top paper. I do like the history of smelting, energy consumption, warfare and civs and that paper puts some facts to that.

    But it has nothing to say on “questioning IPCC” that Mr Doyle asserts

    Looking at Doyle’s twitter feed, he doesn’t seem a denier. He may well have no idea of what he is writing about. Or maybe, he’s thinking of doing a Plimer and getting in on the denier output because it’s a heck of alot easier to make stuff up. Much easier than reading, understanding and writing accurately on science – I do grant that that is a difficult task to continuously do and I admire those that can do it.

    I posted a question at Mr Doyle’s blog, a nicer, more respectful toned question of my earlier post. But it has failed to escape moderation – yet others who are ignorant of science seem to have no worries posting rot (then again, I may be too harsh – I sub to Nature, and read ScienceDaily for heads up that references sources, rather than made up general consumption gear that do not reference sources but misrepresents them – this is another topic but why can tabloid Sports assume a high level of domain knowledge of their readers, but tabloid science not only assumes it’s readers are stupid but makes no attempt to lift up that knowledge)

  24. #24 Dave McRae
    October 5, 2012

    Thanks MikeH for that link.

    To be fair to Sapart, and hopefully the Nature paper will be back soon, that paper does not mention anything to do with early anthropocene – but rather it’s a meticulous study of ice core methane isotopes over 2000 years. Awesome for history buffs.

    It was Doyle’s attempt to make it, I guess, more “meaningful” to today, more “topical” by adding stuff that wasn’t there.

    And “skeptics” not being skeptics – you would think that if IPCC was overturned by a published paper that every scientific organisation would be doing press conferences, every climatologist from universities across the globe would be plagued by reporters after their views on the paper that overturned the IPCC .. but sadly for Doyle and his readers this is not what is happening but they don’t seem to notice .. I am beginning to worry that they really are that stupid?

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    October 5, 2012

    Yes, stupid they are.

  26. #27 Lionel A
    October 5, 2012

    I think that anybody who has read Jared Diamond’s ‘Guns, Germs, & Steel‘ in particular, but also ‘The Third Chimpanzee‘ and ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed and also explored other aspects of the Earth’s biological and geological history will be aware that humans by hunting and then forest cutting for home, hearth and industry could have an increasing impact on the environment, an impact out of proportion to the numbers of humans. Economists might think of it as leverage – but something has to give and in the literal sense too.

    It is clear that wherever humans migrated then so large herds of herbivores, and also their predators, dwindled with a huge impact on the vegetation that then flourished or declined. In Britain, and probably elsewhere, cattle are being re-introduced to increase the diversity of species of plants and insects, including almost extinct species of butterfly. It is far more than flatulence that requires consideration here no matter what Dana Rohrabacher might think.

    I have often had thrown at me the argument that humans are too puny to destroy the Earth’s life support system but there the ignorance of present understanding of how the Earth’s atmosphere that we know now developed in the first instance – after all cyanobacterial are too small to bother about aren’t they?

  27. #28 Lionel A
    October 5, 2012

    And our more immediate problem, one picked up on again from Tamino’s ‘Oh Shit’ post is Permafrost Projections at ClimateSight.

    We have been warned as well as warmed.

  28. #29 Wow
    October 5, 2012

    SkepticalScience also have a section on what will happen.

    Basically, at the lower end of sensitivity, we’re stuck with the given CO2 levels and temperature levels for a few hundred years now.

  29. #30 Robert Murphy
    October 5, 2012

    “I wonder if Dr Spencer will still use his “fun” polynomial if the trend starts to be up? Who bets that it disappears?”

    It’s still there, and it drops now, because they adjusted the last few months of data because they say there was “spurious warming” in the signal.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sep_2012_v5.5.png
    Last month was dropped about .2C.

  30. #31 Nick
    October 6, 2012

    Geophys Michael Asten has attempted a sensitivity estimate pitched low ,to the delight of the luvvies at WUWT. Seems to depend on some contentions about the lie of the land during the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

  31. #32 Lionel A
    October 6, 2012

    So, according to Pat Michaels increased CO2 levels are good for crops?

    Of course we have for long anticipated the downside and here it is brought to us by increased warming The Impact of the 2012 U.S. Drought: Pick Your Poison.

    Will Australia be immune to such effects? Probably not.

  32. #33 Wow
    October 6, 2012

    If that’s true, how come with all this extra CO2 corn yields in the USA are crashing?

  33. #34 john harkness
    October 6, 2012

    The permafrost findings are indeed an “oh shit” moment.

    Even just including this one part of one feedback–CO2 from top 3.5 meters of terrestrial permafrost, and with the standard climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C per doubling–we get no reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels for centuries, at least, even if we stop all further CO2 emissions essentially immediately.

    But in fact there are lots of other feedbacks that are kicking in now or soon will be: methane from terrestrial permafrost, methane and CO2 from deeper than 3.5 meters, seabed permafrost, sea bed methane hydrates, other soils…

    What this means is that we are now inside of runaway global warming. This is bad news indeed.

  34. #35 clarencegirl
    Northern Rivers
    October 6, 2012

    Where are you, Tim L? I miss your posts.

  35. #36 chek
    October 7, 2012

    Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam Sep 8, 2012 – 6:06 PM;
    The Third ‘Skeptic’ Sep 10, 2012 – 9:20 AM; Lewandowsky Censors Discussion of Fake Data Sep 10, 2012 – 4:04 PM; Lewandowsky: study “Useless” unless authors demonstrate “data integrity” Sep 12, 2012 – 10:22 AM; Lewandowsky’s Unreported Results Sep 12, 2012 – 11:24 PM; Lewandowsky’s Fake Results Sep 13, 2012 – 9:46 AM; The SkS “Link” to the Lewandowsky Survey Sep 14, 2012 – 11:19 AM; The Lewandowsky Census Sep 14, 2012 – 4:37 PM; Lewandowsky’s Cleansing Program Sep 15, 2012 – 1:05 PM; Trying (Unsuccessfully) to Replicate Lewandowsky Sep 16, 2012 – 2:20 PM; Lewandowsky’s Fake Correlation Sep 18, 2012 – 8:29 PM; Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt Sep 20, 2012 – 11:58 PM; More Deception in the Lewandowsky Data Sep 23, 2012 – 11:09 AM; Kahneman Scathes Social Psychologists Oct 5, 2012 – 3:10 PM
    … from a selection of the posts over the past month over at CA in which The Auditor seeks to firmly establish that Steve ‘red noise’ McIntyre is in no possible meaning of the term an obsessed nutter and conspiracy theorist.
    Some, of course, may find the point well proven by now.

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    October 7, 2012

    What this means is that we are now inside of runaway global warming.

    From my reading of it – which may or may not be accurate – we’re not sure of that at this point.

    On the other hand that doesn’t bring much comfort: we’re not sure that we’re not in a self-sustaining warming system either.

  37. #38 Lotharsson
    October 7, 2012
  38. #39 Bernard J.
    October 8, 2012
  39. #40 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2012

    I’m sure David Duff will rise from the mire when he reads this from Nature Geoscience via the BBC:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19848112

    Essentially, latent warming of the Atlantic is directly responsible for increased summer precipitation in much of Europe, esp. Britain, northwestern France and Benelux.

  40. #41 Olaus Petri
    October 8, 2012

    Nothing new at Deltoid. The great climate scare geezer (with his arm candy) rambles on. :-)

  41. #42 Wow
    October 8, 2012

    So the 2cent rise is due to what?

    Over here in blighty the price hike has been high, but 90% of the rise is due to the price of gas going up on the international market.

    I note the reporter didn’t bother attributing what caused the rise and prove it.

    How does he know the carbon tarriff caused the rise? Electricity prices have risen before without the carbon tarriff, so how do they know it is the cause this time? It’s just a natural change.

  42. #43 Lionel A
    October 8, 2012

    On Rowan Sutton and what appears to be a rather blinkered study outlook [1] I noted this supposed quote by narrow thinking lack of ability to provide context Shukman::

    Professor Sutton said that “clearly there is a link between Atlantic warming and Arctic sea ice though the details are not well understood.”

    Of course there is a link, they are both linked to a warming globe which in turn is being driven by increases in atmospheric GHGs because of human activity.

    Shukman clearly didn’t get this memo, just one of many which could be produced, Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat.

    Sheeesh! And to think that it was only yesterday that I emailed the BBC registering my increasing disappointment (a polite way of saying anger) at the lack of any attempts by politicians to put economy, growth and GDP in the context of climate change, unstable weather patterns, rising sea levels and the general destruction of ecosystems.

    I would like to ask the Prime Minister ‘the slick Cameron’ why he and his buddy ‘the smirk’ Osborne have no clue as to how many economists it takes to wreck the Earth’s life support system.

    Also why is the media avoiding this Elephant in the room?

    Yes I know the answer to that, report anything not politically acceptable and you are out of the door. Cowards.

    Are the stories about power vulnerabilities by 2015 being put about to prepare us for coal fired power stations to be resurrected and new such built. Maybe Gina ‘no heart’ Rinehart’s long reach means that we will be importing this crap from Australia before long so as to also provide the gas for our gas-fired power stations. That was a bad move if ever there was one and as for burning chopped up trees are these people insane for that is as bad as pushing the use of bio-fuels based on maize or other land crops.

    That last is really going to play out well in the US isn’t it now. They will have cheap petrol (which is not gas you lummocks) for their tanks but ‘no food on their families’ (to paraphrase a lummock in chief).

    [1] Yes I appreciate that scientists have had to focus their findings to the data collected but in this day and age more context should be provided to prevent such studies being used in isolation by ‘the usual suspect in these crimes against humanity’.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2012

    Electricity prices have risen before without the carbon tarriff, so how do they know it is the cause this time? It’s just a natural change.

    Touché – but cue denialists arguing the opposite ;-)

  44. #45 Wow
    October 8, 2012

    Thought you’d like it.

  45. #46 John Mashey
    October 8, 2012

    Some folks here may find interest in:
    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/
    Including the comments by Tom Curtis.

  46. #47 Lionel A
    October 8, 2012

    Indeed that Stoat article is interesting John. Slowly but surely these emperors are losing their clothes. Must be the warmer temperatures dropping the fig leaves, one by one but now there is a strengthening breeze blowing through such foliage.

  47. #48 john harkness
    October 10, 2012

    Lotharson wrote:

    “‘What this means is that we are now inside of runaway global warming.’

    From my reading of it – which may or may not be accurate – we’re not sure of that at this point. ”

    I would be very interested to know how one does _not_ come to the conclusion that we are now in runaway gw from connecting the results of this study (especially their graph at figure 3) with known other carbon feedbacks.

    I really would love for someone to convince me that there is some other conclusion that could be drawn from this study. It would help me sleep better.

  48. #49 MikeH
    October 10, 2012

    john harkness @ 12:56am.

    This is the place to start:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    October 10, 2012

    blockquote>I really would love for someone to convince me that there is some other conclusion that could be drawn from this study. It would help me sleep better.

    Apart from that SkepticalScience article, IIRC the graphs in the paper show outcomes for different scenarios and a number of them do not have significant self-sustaining CO2 increases. (But some certainly do…)

  50. #51 Lotharsson
    October 10, 2012

    Gack. Blockquote fail.

  51. #52 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    October 10, 2012

    No, for that to happen there has to be enough methane to wipe out the HO in the atmosphere. That signals runaway

  52. #53 Wow
    October 10, 2012

    John is talking of “runaway” in the same way as a runaway car you left without the handbrake on on a slope.

    Going too fast for you to actually stop moving until possibly too late (to keep it out of traffic).

    Not runaway as in Venus.

    The large minority of expected sensitvities to climate change for the methane stores have a cut to zero carbon resulting in a continuing (though improved over BAU) increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Given the models have been underestimating the change so far, that large minority may become a small majority.

    Possible.

  53. #54 bill
    October 10, 2012

    Lewandowsky gets guernsey in Sci Am.

    Comments thread collapses into parodic reinforcement of article’s message shock!

  54. #55 bill
    October 10, 2012

    Further on Lewandowsky.

    One might well anticipate further ironically confirmatory hi-jinks in the comment thread if previous posts are anything to go by!

  55. #56 john harkness
    October 11, 2012

    Thanks, Wow.

    Can you point me to some links to any models within this ‘large minority’?

  56. #58 Lionel A
    October 12, 2012

    And so it continues, the deluges on Britain Fife floods: Storm’s house is swept away by flood this soon after flash flooding in Clovelly, North Devon and not forgetting the flats marooned on their piles in Newburn nr’ Newcastle – see link at end of video linked above – I hope it plays for you down under.

  57. #59 Bernard J.
    October 13, 2012

    Lionel, the video played with no problem.

    I’m amazed at the amount of flood damage that you’ve had over there. In Australia we perceive Old Blighty as wet, but not as being wet on that scale.

    Given the amount of extraordinary flooding that has occurred around the planet in the last few years it certainly seems from a non-statistical and purely perception-based perspective that climate is achanging. I wonder how long before there’s a paper confirming or refuting this apparent phenomenon?

  58. #60 Olaus Petri
    October 13, 2012
  59. #61 Lotharsson
    October 13, 2012

    Lewandowsky stirs the pot a little more.

  60. #62 Wow
    October 13, 2012

    Bernard, one (extremely daft) change is that people are paving up their gardens.

    I’ve had people coming round trying to ask me if I wanted my front garden set as a hardpad to park a car on. Not known for its water retention properties.

    Add to that the endemic crass stupidity of the government in building yet more flood defenses, despite the recent history of this on the Danube, where they have “discovered” that if you stop it flooding in one place, you make it worse in further downstream. Eastern Europe around there are dismantling flood defenses and working out how to make it flood little but often and plan for it.

    But no, flood defenses mean government handouts to private companies to build, therefore this shitehole Tory government (and NuLabour would have been no damn different, with the liberals too damn spineless) goes and pays out for their dogma.

  61. #63 GSW
    October 13, 2012

    Olaus,

    Ha!
    ;)

  62. #64 Wow
    October 13, 2012

    Don’t you two have a room you can go to for your “self-appreciation”, trollsters?

  63. #65 Chris O'Neill
    October 13, 2012

    I don’t get it.

  64. #66 Bernard J.
    October 13, 2012

    Chris, I think that the trolls are tacitly admitting that one can construct a wall of denial around the truth, but sooner or later it will start to crumble and collapse like so much rotten sea ice smothered under a blanket of “greenhouse’ gas.

    Of course a good denialist troll will rush to put the falling bricks back up in another part of the wall, and hope that no-one noticed the laws of thermodynamcis peeking through from the other side, but the only people they’re fooling are themselves.

    The trouble is that the wall in question, like many other walls in history, will be responsible for holding up progress and thus causing the loss of many many lives, even when the wall itself is nothing more than illusion – or delusion…

  65. #67 Lionel A
    October 13, 2012

    I’ve had people coming round trying to ask me if I wanted my front garden set as a hardpad to park a car on. Not known for its water retention properties.

    Yep, that is why I groan when I see neighbours garden their whole front gardens for vehicles, there are many David Duffs out their i.e. clueless. Talking of Duff didn’t he mention being somewhere in Devon, not Clovelly surely.

    As an alternative to paving the stuff that used to be laid down on grass airfield areas to harden up for heavier aircraft could be useful. This ‘Summerfield Tracking’ as it was called consisted of sheets of slotted metal which could be linked together for a more even surface. The slots allowed water to drain through. Much used during WW2.

    When the IRA were ‘kicking up’ in the 1970s this stuff was brought into use again so that we could park our cars way over on the airfield away from buildings – dashed nuisance that was.

  66. #68 Olaus Petri
    October 13, 2012

    @GSW

    :-)

  67. #69 Olaus Petri
    October 13, 2012

    For you Bern..sorry…McFly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9PYtmVybU

    ;-)

  68. #70 GSW
    October 13, 2012

    A clue for you Bern….(McFly). Sing along if you like…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtUkbW4a1aY

    ;)

  69. #71 Chris O'Neill
    October 13, 2012

    I still don’t get it. Is it something to do with the ice-age that’s starting next year?

  70. #72 Karen
    October 14, 2012

    LoL,

    Talk about desperation !!

    Every time it rains somewhere you whacker’s start flapping your wings about gwowbull worming, hahaha,

    I didn’t see any flood water in the UK going over the top of a bridge !!!!
    The water was going under all the bridges, so how could those floods be worse than what those bridge’s were designed and built for ?

    Here is some news that you all already know about but won’t admit to.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H

  71. #73 chek
    October 14, 2012

    … which goes to prove deniers will believe anything. Any old unattributed graph and mangled quote from David ‘liar’ Rose is fine.

    But riddle me this Karenmoron, if warming stopped 16 years ago, why is there record arctic melt in 2012? Or is joined up thinking not in your repertoire?

  72. #74 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2012

    PZ reports on a paper that takes another stab at estimating the cost of protecting biodiversity for various classes of life.

  73. #75 Karen
    October 14, 2012

    au contraire wet check, why is there record Antarctic ice in 2012 ?

    Or is your dis-joined thinking some kind of mental dysfunction or simply a sign of retardation ?

  74. #76 Lionel A
    October 14, 2012

    chek,

    The Met’ Office have produced a response to that dreadful Rose article here: Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 but I am sure there will be others pitching in soon.

    Note how coy he is about the sources for his judgements and where the hell did that graph come from?

    And I guess that he has been urged to create this piece of puffery by agents of the ‘Slick’ Cameron and ‘Smirk’ Osborne given this section:

    The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

    At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

    Which is a trend that I have suspected and alluded to earlier.

  75. #77 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2012

    Or is your dis-joined thinking some kind of mental dysfunction or simply a sign of retardation ?

    One should not parrot the form when one does not understand the function – or the semantics – and especially when one is re-asking a previously answered “gotcha” question that “gets” the asker by demonstrating they don’t know what they’re talking about.

  76. #78 Marco
    October 14, 2012

    Oh dear, David Rose in another hit piece. Cherry picking August 1997 as start point (extreme El Nino) and August 2012 as end point (thus including two times a La Nina year). Scientists should be shocked at this type of unscientific behavior, and indeed, real scientists are. No surprise Curry isn’t…

    Oh, and the Met Office has reacted, too:
    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

  77. #79 Wow
    October 14, 2012

    “why is there record Antarctic ice in 2012″

    There isn’t. Well unless you want to take “since summer down south.

    http://www.yumanewsnow.com/index.php/news/latest/1384-nasa-s-operation-icebridge-resumes-flights-over-antarctica

  78. #80 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2012

    Meanwhile some of the commenters on that post by PZ discuss the value of the benefits of the ecosystem (e.g. this one, which provides some very useful financial context.

  79. #81 Chris O'Neill
    October 14, 2012

    The water was going under all the bridges

    and the houses. Haar, haar.

  80. #82 chek
    October 14, 2012

    As expected, the Karenmoron can only respond “Look over there (Antarctica) – a squirrel!”

    The seasonal behaviour of Antarctic sea ice (which almost completely disappears in summer) so beloved by those spoonfed the talking points which they don’t understand anyway by Denier HQ is undermined by the ongoing loss of Antarctic ice mass.

    But although that strategy’s worse than having nothing at all and keeping quiet just as they have been for the past two monthsl, it allows the karenmorons to now flap their gums and punch their keyboards as though they had an answer to explain away the unprecedented Arctic loss after “16 years of no warming.”

    Being a denier truly is having no shame in being idiotic.

    .

  81. #83 Karen
    October 14, 2012

    wet check try to assimilate the text in the link that you supplied http://www.yumanewsnow.com/index.php/news/latest/1384-nasa-s-operation-icebridge-resumes-flights-over-antarctica

    “IF” you can do that you understand that there is NO evidence of the Antarctic ice mass melting, if you open the fingers that are across your just a little further will also find that Antarctica this year has the largest sea ice extent ON RECORD dunce. LoL

    By the way nitwit have you read the first post in this thread ?

  82. #84 Wow
    October 14, 2012

    “resumes-flights-over-antarctica”

    flights.

    What do you think this means? That planes can’t fly unless there’s something solid under them?

  83. #85 Wow
    October 14, 2012

    ” is NO evidence of the Antarctic ice mass melting,”

    Apart from the disappearance of millions of tons over the antarctic as measured by gravitometers.

    You know, that evidence.

    Apart from the evidence of disappearing ice, there’s no evidence of disapprearing ice.

  84. #86 Bernard J.
    October 14, 2012

    Lotharsson at 11:15 am 14 October.

    It’s small change isn’t it? And still our governments lack the wherewithal to maintain basic bilogical functionality.

    Of course, if they wait 50 years the discount rate on any action will make it so much cheaper do act in the future…

    …not.

    If only there was a mechanism to ensure that the stupid and the greedy suffered first, rather than the poor and the innocent.

  85. #87 Bernard J.
    October 14, 2012

    Speaking of stupid, how many timesin the last few threads has USKMS had explained to him the inherent property of noise superimposed on a signal leading to a minimum interval of time required to identify the latter from the former, and how many times has it been pointed out that the Antarctic is centred over a continental land mass whilst the Arctic is open ocean?

    I wonder if his significantly below-average IQ is a reflection of brain damage?

  86. #88 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2012

    …how many timesin the last few threads has USKMS had explained to him the inherent property of noise superimposed on a signal leading to a minimum interval of time required to identify the latter from the former,…

    I just think of it as a form of interpretive dance for the Blog Age. You know, where the USKMS contributions represent, nay embody, a process that:

    (a) overlays a clear signal, and
    (b) (over sufficient time) can be demonstrated to be entirely noise

    I can only give it 5/10 though – USKMS really hasn’t captured essential attributes of the situation because “over sufficient time” for this performance turns out to be “almost immediately”, or worse.

  87. #89 Lionel A
    October 14, 2012

    “IF” you can do that you understand that there is NO evidence of the Antarctic ice mass melting,..

    Dumber & dimmer does not know the difference between sea ice and continental ice mass. Must have skipped comprehension classes in English.

    Dumber & dimmer, what do you think happens to continental ice when ice shelves crack off and disperse in the Southern Ocean?

    Another thing and with respect to sea level rise, what effect do you think this will have on watercourses that flow out to the coasts? What impacts will this have on communities on the coast , including communities of tide range organisms, and those further inland?

  88. #90 Wow
    October 14, 2012

    “If only there was a mechanism to ensure that the stupid and the greedy suffered first, rather than the poor and the innocent.”

    There isn’t.

    The only version is to hang the law and ignore this “Oh, they’re entitled to their free speech” BS.

    They’re abusing it.

  89. #91 Lionel A
    October 14, 2012

    That David Rose creative writing effort also appears here:

    http://www.sott.net/article/252368-Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released

    and I have been looking for that Ben Weller – source of the graphic and have turned up the one herein who used to work for Hoosier Energy as Communication Assistant:

    http://www.hepn.com/assets%5Cfiles%5Cenergylines%5CJuly%202010.pdf

    What was that graphic based on?

    I note that WUWT are touting this piece of BS too. I noticed that on Googeling ‘Ben Weller Global temperature changes’ as I don’t wish to step in shit.

  90. #92 Lionel A
    October 14, 2012

    Of course Rose has a recorded track record recorded here at Deltoid Rosegate: Rose hides the incline reporting on another abysmal piece in the Mail Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague.

    Where Judith Curry is the one hurling accusations of scientific abuse. Why do I think of that children’s TV programme ‘The Magic Roundabout’ whenever I see that picture of Curry?

  91. #93 lord_sidcup
    October 14, 2012

    Rose’s article is useful in exposing 1 thing. He approvingly quotes Tory Energy Minister, John Hayes:

    “the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport”

    Assuming Rose hasn’t fabricated or misrepresented the quote it reveals an alarming and deep prejudice against science and learning from a member of the UK government.

  92. #94 Wow
    October 14, 2012

    “fuel for heat, light and transport”

    But the point is we DON’T need the CO2.

    It’s human-poison.

    But this dickhead is fighting tooth and nail to continue to poison mankind by conflating energy with CO2.

  93. #95 Bernard J.
    October 14, 2012

    “the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport”

    Expect the same in Australia when the Coalition wins the federal election next year.

    The only caveat will be if Malcolm Turnbull performs a return-Brutus on Abbott – then a goodly proportion of his party will find the courage to accept the science again, although it will all be too little too late.

  94. #96 chek
    October 14, 2012

    “But this dickhead is fighting tooth and nail to continue to poison mankind by conflating energy with CO2″.

    Quite so, with the addendum that it is exactly what the fossil fuel magnates (and only the fossil fuel magnates and their brainless 2-cents-a-pop-fuckpuppets) would have us believe

  95. #97 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    October 15, 2012

    “ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport”

    “Ordinary people” don’t give a hoot about the fuel so long as the heat and light switches work and the trains roll in the right direction. We need lighting, heating and transport of various kinds at various times.

    We don’t need dirty versions of those things – which is why we no longer have cinders flying into our eyes from open windows on steam trains and our ceilings aren’t marked by smoke from candles and oil lamps. In fact, most people want ‘clean’ power. Until now they’ve got it by putting power stations where they’re out of sight, out of mind.

    Having power generation that is, in fact, clean is a huge improvement and we should have done it decades ago.

  96. #98 Jeff Harvey
    October 15, 2012

    Further evidence demolishing Karen’s kindergarten-level analysis:

    http://www.countercurrents.org/cc111012B.htm

    This has been known for some time. But the deniers, who are incapable of non-linear thought, stick to the same tired, old refrain.

  97. #99 John
    October 15, 2012

    Karenmackspot believes the government are surpressing perpetual motion so it’s no surprise he’d swallow a David Rose article.

  98. #100 lord_sidcup
    October 15, 2012

    Is anyone surprised to find David Rose also misrepresented Judith Curry?

    I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?)

Current ye@r *