January 2013 Open Thread

Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    January 9, 2013

    Sad when we can’t even get a half-decent troll.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    January 9, 2013

    The normal nightime minimum in Lincoln NE is – 11 C. So its – 2 in the middle of the night, + 9 C above normal.
    Game, set and match.

  3. #3 chek
    January 9, 2013

    “Karen.. can you read?”

    Just about, but clearly doesn’t understand what max and min temperatures are.

  4. #4 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    hehehe, you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson’s tip off.

    I did tell you what temperature it was there last night Jeffery, and 24 hrs later I told you again, lol

    Anyway, my runes have indicated an Arctic blast heading that way, maybe next week :)

    Where did all the little birdies go in the MWP ?

  5. #5 bill
    January 9, 2013

    The Moron and Me: A short, cautionary play.

    Act One: Scene One: Tim’s Place.

    ME:

    “Do you really imagine, à la Watts, that if only a large enough gang of doughty old true-blue, salt-of-the-earth (reactionary) types… [etc.]

    Are you aware of the fate of Watts’ ‘surface stations’ project, a mob-sourcing exercise based on remarkably similar set of assumptions[?]“

    MORON:

    1) Where did I mention Watts?

    I repeat, your incomprehension is truly breathtaking. You stand at the very summit of the art. You even stand out among your peers, a group devoted to taking incomprehension to a whole new level.

    In your case it doesn’t even appear to be willful.

    Incidentally, the italicized section above is the answer to ’2) “Who is ‘you people’?”

    But you didn’t know that already.

  6. #6 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Ah, blockquote fail. In the interests of spelling-it-all-out the italicized section referred to is this bit; ‘your peers, a group devoted to taking incomprehension to a whole new level’.

  7. #7 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Karen, have you ever sustained a serious blow to the head?

  8. #8 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    I see that BirdBrainBill’s multiple personality disorder is kicking in again,

  9. #9 bill
    January 9, 2013

    So I take it we have to assume your condition is innate, rather than the result of brain injury? Tragic.

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    January 9, 2013

    Karenb, your posturing and stupidity know few bounds. All you do is drag the discussion into the benthos. Time waster. Scientific illiterate.Willfully ignorant. All apply to you in equal measure.

    You and Chameleon belong with Maharosey and Nova. They would appreciate the rank simplistic level of your comments. What I found from reading the appalling Pravda article and comments that your brother in ignorance, PentaxZ, linkied, is how many complete lunatics there are out there. Some of the comments on the Pravda link are so utterly appalling that its a wonder the people making them can walk in a straight line and chew gum at the same time. Stuff Like Obama is a communist, C02 isn’t a greenhouse gas, and AGW is a global plot orchestrated by the intellectual illuminati to control entire nation states.

    Seems like you belong with them. Well done.

  11. #11 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    No matter what time I look through the window into the padded room there you are BirdBrainBill, hehe that says quite a bit about your boring, mundane and sad existence, try to be a happy fat incontinent old fairy dear :)

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    January 9, 2013

    Sad when we can’t even get a half-decent troll.

    I’d settle for quarter-decent, but we’re not even getting that these days.

  13. #13 Michael
    January 9, 2013

    Where did the trolls with at least half a brain go??

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    January 9, 2013

    you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson’s tip off.

    That’s a particularly moronic claim about Jeff.

    Let’s face it, you come here because you want to be on the receiving end of ritual intellectual humiliation, right?

  15. #15 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Where did the trolls with at least half a brain go??”

    They were smart enough to know they were beaten.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “hehehe, you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson’s tip off”

    So you admit you knew you were talking bollocks.

    Add to that you knew you weren’t saying anything pertinent to AGW. Add to that you lie with no compunction and no end.

    What, precisely, is your purpose here?

  17. #17 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “So you concur, congratulations.”

    Uh, where did they say they concurred?

    And tell me, when did day become night?

  18. #18 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    Jeffery dear, have you forgotten again !

    Our only disagreement is, “what has caused the temperature’s to climb over the past century”

    You keep confusing weather with climate, and any little localized hot weather you scream CO2 is the culprit.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    So, karen has given more proof that it is a warming planet but thinks that this is somehow proof of it being colder than normal because karenmackspot doesn’t know what night time is.

    Doesn’t know what winter is.

    Doesn’t know what snow is.

    Doesn’t know what ice is.

    Doesn’t know why they are here.

    Doesn’t know arse from elbow.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    You keep confusing weather with climate, karen.

    Where did he say it was climate?

    You are the only one here pretending that weather and climate are swappable.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “any little localized hot weather you scream CO2 is the culprit.”

    So Lincoln (which you claimed was cold) is now a warm spot?

  22. #22 bill
    January 9, 2013

    try to be a happy fat incontinent old fairy dear

    Well, of course, people like you would give anyone the shits!

    However, just for the sake of drawing out just what a repellent bunch of troglodytes you lot really are, shall we assume that the addition of ‘fairy’ to my list of failures is bog-standard mouth-breather homophobia?

    Chammy will doubtlessly be along in a moment to tell us this was ‘witty’. But maybe not: she certainly conveniently failed to notice SD’s (those initials!) obnoxious rantings.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    January 9, 2013

    “Explain, with back up valid evidence, in your own words.”

    Why should I? You cAGW mongers claim that your dear CO2 hypothesis is valid, ergo you have to prove it valid. So far no one has ever succeeded.

    Ah! As predicted you Pentax avoid the question and keep your head up seventh rock from the sun.

    And with that you too have qualified as a member of The Wendy Club .

  24. #24 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    Jeffery dear, here is another peer reviewed paper for you :)

    1 January 2013

    Annually resolved temperature reconstructions from a late Pliocene–early Pleistocene polar forest on Bylot Island, Canada

    “Mean annual temperatures determined in this study average − 3.4 ± 3.8 °C, which is 11.4 ± 4.4 °C warmer than present-day Bylot Island (− 14.8 ± 2.2 °C). June–July temperatures average 13.5 ± 1.1 °C, approximately 12.6 ± 1.6 °C warmer than present-day”

    Where did the little birdies go when they got so hot ?

  25. #25 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “So far no one has ever succeeded.”

    Nope.

    Roy Spencer thinks CO2 is a GHG.

    Surfacestations shows the temperature data collection is solid.

    BEST shows that the increase is genuine statistically.

    What you mean is that you’ve refused to listen.

    Why is proving it to you required for it to be real?

  26. #26 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Where did the little birdies go when they got so hot ?”

    For a bath in water.

    Lets add “Doesn’t know biology”.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    And still something else that doesn’t say anything about AGW from KMS.

  28. #28 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv

  29. #29 Karen
    January 9, 2013

    400 ppmv eh wow, good boy for picking that up :)

    So why is the temperature so low there now ?

    394.39ppm now wow http://co2now.org/

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    January 9, 2013

    So why is the temperature so low there now ?

    You could find out, if you actually cared to.

    You don’t.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    January 9, 2013

    All of the following now fully qualified for The Wendy Club:

    chameleon
    PentaxZ
    Karen
    Bolt4PM
    David Duff
    Olaus Petri
    GSW
    janam
    spnangled drongo
    Jonas N
    A N Other

    for it matters not how much evidence is placed in front of them they always behave as if they want, ‘…one evidence…’, just like that original Wendy.

    This is not surprising because the avoid studying that presented which will demand a level of critical thinking which is beyond them. They are truly too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are, there is no fox for this condition all we can do is try to stop its spread. And this is why we keep up with presentation of facts, facts which lead the Wendys to indulge in repeated ‘intellectual humiliation as one of them put it.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “So why is the temperature so low there now ?”

    Don’t you know????

    That’s hilarious!

  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    January 9, 2013

    Karen,

    Before you make an idiot of yourself again, you should read the authors entire PhD:

    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/CsankAdamPhD11.pdf

    Effectively, like most deniers, you are twisting his research to suit your own agenda. Here’s what it states at the very beginning:

    “The high sensitivity of high latitudes to global climate changes is the stimulus for the study of ancient Arctic ecosystems under greenhouse conditions. With an increasing
    number of studies, including the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC) report highlighting Pliocene climate as key example for the study of Earth system sensitivity to higher levels of atmospheric CO2, the need for accurate proxy records for
    this period is crucial”

    As I and others have stated before, its not what conditions were like in various ecosystems before, but the rate of time it took them to get there. If the Arctic was much warmer than it is now, it didn’t get that way in 100 years. It took thousands of years for the kinds of changes that are occurring today to be manifested. Getting the importance of scale through the skulls of the Dunning-Kruger army is virtually impossible when the brains of deniers are laden with inherent political biases. Essentially, what you, PentaxZ and others do here is read coutnless denier blogs, ostensibly set up and run by non-scientists, and cut-and-paste their distortions of empirical and theoretical studies up here as ‘evidence’ to support your denial.

    The kinds of changes occurring and predicted are unprecedented IN SCALE in perhaps many millions of years. They are occurring on huge systems in the blink of an evolutionary and geological eye. Against this background are all kinds of other anthropogenic changes across the biosphere, which make the already immense challenges for biodiversity to respond more daunting. We are living in the Anthropocene, that is for sure. The current rate of warming, in combination with habitat loss, species invasions, draining and eutrophication of freshwater systems will have a huge negative impact on biodiversity.

    Its just too bad that you are so bloody stupid that you cannot understand even the basics. I have met primary school students with more basic scientific acument than you, Karen.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    January 9, 2013

    400 ppmv eh wow, good boy for picking that up :)

    So why is the temperature so low there now ?

    394.39ppm now wow http://co2now.org/

    OK Karen, another dose of intellectual humiliation for you.

    Muddled thinking here for a start, ‘low there now‘.

    Low‘where Karen? Your statement does not stand alone as making sense.

    Whatever the answer is to do with equilibrium and I will leave you to explain the meaning of that, if you can. Or will you dodge this too?

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 9, 2013

    Since Karen’s actually asking why the temperature “there” is “so low now”, she seems to had admitted that it’s going to rise over time – and by a lot.

    Ooops.

    (But sunspot was ever the reliable clown troll).

  36. #36 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    At least, if they wish to claim otherwise, they need to show why it won’t.

    After all, the proof of future temperature rises is that it has happened before. If they want to say it isn’t going to happen this time, then they have to show why it won’t.

  37. #37 Chris O'Neill
    January 9, 2013

    Captain Stupid himself, Warren Truss head of the National Party

    Unlike the Liberal Party which is nearly evenly split between conspiracy theorists and otherwise, the National Party would be pretty much hard-line conspiracy theorist.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    January 9, 2013

    Just in from ClimateProgress:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/05/1394711/2012-saw-362-all-time-record-high-temperatures-in-us-but-zero-all-time-record-lows/

    This is incredible. Kind of vanquishes PentaxZ’s “warming stopped in 1996″.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    January 9, 2013

    This is incredible. Kind of vanquishes PentaxZ’s “warming stopped in 1996″.

    Aye Jeff,

    There has been so much going on in the last twelve months and last twelve years to kill this particular ‘no-warming in XX years’ meme but unfortunately we can always trust the media to miss many essential points when reporting about this, my emphasis:

    case in point is David Shukman’s (again – a serial offender but not in the same vein as Rose, Delingpole et. al.) limp effort just yesterday on the BBC News 1800 GMT slot:

    An apparent stand still in global temperature is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated.

    Climate scientists at the Met Office and other centres are involved in intense research to try to understand what is happening over the most recent period.

    The most obvious explanation is natural variability – the cycles of changes in solar activity and the movements and temperatures of the oceans..

    Doh! There is no standstill in global temperatures, apparent or real and so natural variability and solar activity are red herrings.

    Of course this is the stuff that Duff has been crowing about of late.

    I know that I for one have emailed the BBC after earlier Shukman efforts and suggested that they check with such as SkS before completing hackery such as this.

    But of course, in the back of my mind is the government’s (UK) push towards fracking, and reducing the attraction of wind power whilst sending out warnings about shortages of power by 2015. Thus I guess the BBC is being held to ransom with threats of repealing their license fee rights.

    How the BBC can endorse such sloppy writing whilst at the same time produce such stunning documentaries as the new Africa by Attenborough is amazing.

    Of course the take home point for the Duffer’s (and the other members of The Wendy Club) is this:

    It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.

    Note that this does not mean that warming is seen as stopped, it is not warming as fast as was estimated by just 0.11 C. Also, a warming of 0.43 C over five years is still fast by the geological time scale and furthermore warming could increase faster than this. Reality about climate and warming has had a recent history full of surprises. At least for those not attuned to the methods and findings of scientists in the various fields.

    What is the betting that Monckton during his attempt to bolster the machinations of the equally wacky ‘Rise Up Party’ in Oz will lean on such as this Shukman piece?

  40. #40 chameleon
    January 9, 2013

    Bill,
    if nothing else you are entirely predictable.
    If you want to convince anyone about the alarming state of affairs re ACO2, a very poor attempt to ‘ritually intellectually humiliate’ them and an even worse attempt to make totally unsubstantiated statements about a ‘peer group’ is not helping your cause.
    Also, on a scale of rude and obnoxious, you and ianam and Wow score a much higher grade than Spangled D.
    This is supposed ti be a discussion about weather/climate/SL and the surrounding politics.
    Typically (from what I’ve seen so far) you are only interested in trying to outline what you see as personality disorders and question people’s motives based on where you think they come from and/or who they work for.
    Of course you have every right to ponder these things but it is not achieving anything other than making me laugh at you for being an insufferable snob.
    Do you think you belong to an elite ‘peer group’ Bill?

  41. #41 chameleon
    January 9, 2013

    Lionel A,
    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
    The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
    This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “This is supposed ti be a discussion about weather/climate/SL and the surrounding politics.”

    That, however, isn’t why you’re here, is it.

    You’re not here to discuss anything, you’re here to berate and ignore anything inconvenient.

    And meanwhile you were the one slagging off all and sundry here in your first three posts! Another inconvenient fact you ignored.

  43. #43 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.”

    Instead of claiming this, how about proving it?

    Come on, you DO have the figures for that, right? Otherwise you’d have been talking complete and known bullshit, and you wouldn’t be here for that, would you?

  44. #44 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Yep, Spangly believes brown people are way too numerous, and are liars – ‘the truth is not in them‘ – who do so in order to get his money.

    And I’m rude, to you. That’s about ‘equal’, isn’t it? Smiley, Smiley.

    You see, one tires of fools very rapidly, and egregious fools all the more so.

    And the other thing is, this is the pack you’re running with now. Congratulations – you’re a Wing-Nut!

  45. #45 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
    The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
    This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

    ce n’est pas le déni

  46. #46 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Yep, she’s getting the language down pat; ‘simple natural increases in CO2′ and ‘not settled’. What do we reckon – Jo Nova’s?

  47. #47 chek
    January 9, 2013

    “What do we reckon – Jo Nova’s?”

    They’re all so inbred and incestuous it’s impossible to tell.

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    January 9, 2013

    “The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’”

    No its not if you understand the importance of temporal scales. Heck, Chammy, you once said that you have a scientific background then you write this utter tosh. Like other deniers, you expect the relationship between atmospheric C02 concentrations and climate patterns to be short term and virtually instantaneous. Large scale systems do not work that way. There are lags that can take years to manifest themselves.

    In 1994, Tilman and May wrote a very important paper which was published in Nature (where I used to be an Associate Editor, by the way). The paper discussed the ‘extinction debt’ and the authors argued that the destruction of natural habitats in North America decades or even centuries ago were still rippling through systems today. This is hard for the so-called environmental optimists (deniers is a far more appropriate term in light of the scientific evidence and prevailing opinion) to reconcile. They seem to think that the loos of habitat area ‘y’ must, by some law of human logic, mean the virtually immediate loss of species ‘a-x’. When temporal lags are mentioned in cause-and-effect relationships for largely deterministic processes, they tilt their heads like Nipper the dog and claim to be ‘in the dark’. In other words, well-established scientific reasoning does not resonate with them. They do not understand the concepts of relaxation times in species demographics or critical thresholds in genetic viability of declining populations. They think that the number of extant species in the Mata Atlantica forests in Brazil a few years after the forests were largely cleared is a good indicator of the future, when we now know that most of the extinctions or species left teetering on the edge of extinction took up to 50 years or more after the event to be fully manifested. The same can be said for climate – the patterns being realized now are probably to a large extent based on the burning of fossil fuels up to decades ago, whilst the more recent and current effects have yet to be realized. This is because the system operates over immense spatial scales leading to the temporal lags I discuss above.

    Since deniers do not understand important differences between stochastic and more deterministic processes they invariably go back to square one, denying the fact that large scale anthropogenic changes in landscapes or in the composition of the atmosphere are characterized by lags in the realization of effects.

    I also find it almost impossible to fathom why people cannot get their heads around the fact that humans are by now a global force that can influence a huge array of natural cycles and processes. Humans certainly have affected biogeochemical cycles that operate over large scales, as well as the hydrological cycle. Our species co-opts 40-50% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows. Humans are the driver behind an extinction spasm in which the extinction rate is some 100-1000 times higher than natural ‘background’ rates, and certainly many times higher than the rate at which new species are evolving. We have adopted a slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere, and by now its obvious we are living in the Anthropocene. Yet many vainly cling to the notion that our species cannot force climate, and that human ingenuity can overcome any number of assaults we inflict across the biosphere. Its time we woke up to reality: at no time in human history has our species been in more of a collision with the natural world then we are now. Climate change is just one – albeit a very important – symptom.

  49. #49 chameleon
    January 9, 2013

    I expect no such thing Jeff Harvey,
    what tosh (to use your terminology)
    Where did I say what I expect?
    What I pointed out was that the figs posted could also indicate.
    Wow, for someone who thinks he is so smart, your ‘prove it’ question is a spectacularly stupid question.
    How does one prove or disprove anything if it is ‘not settled’.
    If you believe it is ‘settled’ Wow then the onus of proof is acyually on your shoulders.
    Where is the ‘undeniable’ proof that ACO2, as distinct from other forms of CO2 is driving dangerous or catstrophic global warming.
    Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.
    Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence.
    Nowhere have I ‘denied’ that we currently have a climate anymore than I have ‘denied’ that climate has an observable propensity to change.
    I do claim however that the science is far from ‘settled’.
    Can you prove it is settled Wow?

  50. #50 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Blather, gurgle, *pop!*…

  51. #51 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “What I pointed out was that the figs posted could also indicate.”

    You didn’t finish your.

    A was missed out on the end.

    “How does one prove or disprove anything if it is ‘not settled’.”

    It happened before, dufus.

    Permian. 400ppm. Much warmer.

    Today: 400ppm. Getting warmer with more warming to come.

    “After all, the proof of future temperature rises is that it has happened before. If they want to say it isn’t going to happen this time, then they have to show why it won’t.”

    You don’t read too good, do you, cham.

  52. #52 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “If you believe it is ‘settled’ Wow then the onus of proof is acyually on your shoulders.”

    It’s already BEEN proven.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    Go there.

    Read something.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence.”

    Yes you did.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

    Good grief – that’s wrong on so many levels! It’s a Comprehension Fail AND a Logic Fail all wrapped up in a big ball of Denial Fail.

    The hypothesis is NOT that they are “correlated”, nor is it about “ACO2″.

    The hypothesis, which is heavily supported by actual data showing actual playing out in reality that you deny, is that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet than would otherwise be. It’s a hypothesis of a causal relationship which is not established by “correlation”. (Heck, even if you go looking for a correlation, it’s NOT between surface temperature and CO2. The CO2 forcing is approximately logarithmic, and warming occurs at places other than the surface too. And even THEN you have to account for the effects occurring on multiple different timescales …)

    The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.

    Utter bullshit – and at odds with your previous statement!

    You now argue that the correlation you seem to think mainstream climate science is based upon is not there because of other factors simultaneously at work. But you could only expect to see a signal if you remove the influence of other factors first in your data which you haven’t done!

    Which version of you wins when you argue with yourself? Are you COMPLETELY scientifically incompetent, alleged “academic science credentials” notwithstanding, or do you entirely abandon any pretense at scientific integrity in order to reach conclusions that you prefer?

    Note – heck, everyone else has because it’s your modus operandi – that you don’t provide any evidence for your claim, and that even the evidence you cite by implication, the ‘this’ of your comment, is that provided by Lionel which is evidence against your claim. If only you were as as scientifically literate as the average high school physics student you might understand that.

    Here’s a little graph of evidence for you. I predict that rather than demonstrating that the evidence supports your claim, you will once more attempt to drown out the signal of the graph and its underlying evidence with noisy fallacious argument.

    Here’s another one which shows the impact of removing just two of the known natural sources of variability which you allege is “drowning out the signal”. Instead of demonstrating why one should deny what is in front of one’s eyes and claim there is evidently no signal in that graph, you will once more attempt to drown out the evidence with more noise.

    And those graphs don’t account for the massive ongoing warming of the oceans which is currently the largest signal of them all.

    Your comment shows that you don’t even know what the evidence is, and that, contrary to your claims, it’s you who are trying to drown out the clearly evident signal by covering your ears and noisily chanting the mantras of incompetent hacks who are in desperate denial.

  55. #55 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence.”

    Where had anyone said you’d claimed this, cham?

  56. #56 bill
    January 10, 2013

    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
    The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
    This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong/Strawman.

    And here’s a timely video from SkS.

    Further discussion here. I’ve posted this separately as I’d like to increase the chances of the video actually being watched by certain parties

  57. #57 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Chammy offered the same sort of nonsense when she first arrived here on Dec 18:

    It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation.

    Since then she has not offered a single piece of evidence to support it. It seems that she believes it based entirely on what her hairdresser has told her.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    That’s a pretty good video, bill.

    (I predict either pointed ignoring or a lot more verbal noise from certain parties ;-)

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Since then she has not offered a single piece of evidence to support it.

    She’s been offered plenty of opportunities to provide that evidence, but she plays the game (as pointed out by someone earlier) of only ever offering claims that are either definitionally vague or unsupported by evidence.

    I don’t think she has a scientific bone in her body, “academic science credentials” or not. The hairdresser theory remains difficult to rule out, although cutting and pasting things she doesn’t actually understand from pseudoscience sites is still a strong contender.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Chameleon, here’s another graph to ponder – check out Figure 2.

    Is this another example where noise is overwhelming the signal?

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    And just to pile on a bit more, here’s the original post about removing a few sources of natural variation from the temperature records and seeing if there’s any signal evident.

    What do you reckon – does the “adjusted data” graph or the “Average of 5 adjusted data sets” show “noise overwhelming signal”?

  62. #62 Karen
    January 10, 2013

    More from the Unsettled Science Bureau.

    Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

    “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

    “If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    CO2 will soon be relegated to “a minor player” in CC. lol

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    CO2 will soon be relegated to “a minor player” in CC.

    Your misinformed fantasies and fallacies are not particularly interesting. lol

  64. #64 Karen
    January 10, 2013

    I might add Lotharsson,

    From the report [page 7]:
    “Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences”

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

  65. #65 Karen
    January 10, 2013

    HE HE HE UNFOUNDED !!

    They’ll work it out, lol

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Yes, indeed, as the evidence pretty clearly shows otherwise. Not sure that such unfounded conjecture rises to the level of highly amusing though.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Chameleon, Karen here is a living embodiment of desperately seeking signal in noise. She’s just certain that the signal is there and the scientists will eventually find it and it will be so large that they’ll realise their understanding of CO2′s effects was somehow horribly mistaken and it really wasn’t contributing very much after all because it was the Sun wot dun it and all of those lab measurements and stuff of CO2′s characteristics were irrelevant.

    Or something.

  68. #68 MikeH
    January 10, 2013

    What is Karen the krank on about? The quote is clear enough but for the brain-dead Karen, let us add the next sentence from page 8.

    Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences.

    The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years.

  69. #69 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Does Karen even understand that the unfounded conjecture is her own?

  70. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    ….but there are a couple of cranks who predicted 2012 would be the coldest year since 1956 who say that sun spots are what’s causing it.

    Why would you trust scientists, when you could believe cranks who lie about having a PhD, instead?

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Does Karen even understand that the unfounded conjecture is her own?

    No.

    This has been another edition…

  72. #72 bill
    January 10, 2013

    I still think it’s Korsakoff’s. Only the other day she thought it was still 2011…

    Also, have you noticed that the Karen persona and the Olaus persona appear increasingly to be merging?

  73. #73 chameleon
    January 10, 2013

    JeffH,
    I have had a few moments to read your post more thoroughly while waiting for a delayed plane.
    The base of your argument is that humans affect environment and if there were no humans or maybe way less humans or maybe if humans had developed differently, then the planet and the climate would be different.
    Well how incredibly profound of you!
    Or maybe:
    Who’da thunk?
    Or maybe one of my son’s favourite latest sayings:
    Thankyou Captain Obvious!
    Of course humans affect their environment Jeff H.
    That is actually entirely natural human behaviour.
    To argue it would be different or better if it wasn’t for human habitation is just a tad unrealistic (and possibly just a tad misanthropic) don’t you think?
    Further, unless you hold with some crank theory that humans are not a natural species on earth and were flown in from somewhere else, then humans are a part of the global environment too.
    It seems pretty obvious that homo sapiens are one of the more successful species on planet earth. They even have complex societies where people can study science and do PhDs and be editors for scientific publications among other things.
    So Jeff H
    What’s your solution to this conundrum?
    I would respectfully suggest you remember that there is a significant percentage of humanity who are far more concerned about where their next meal is coming from than anything much else.
    I would also suggest there is a significant percentage of humanity who consume far less of earth’s natural resources than you do and would love to have your privileges and your advantages.
    BTW, most of your post is only focusing on negative.
    I agree that humanity is far from perfect. Our history is littered with some powerfully stupid and irresponsible behaviour.
    However, it is also full of powerfully clever and responsible behaviour.

  74. #74 chameleon
    January 10, 2013

    And the rest of you rabbitting on about cranks!
    Maybe you need to talk to the PR depts and the AGW celebrities like Tim Flannery and that Prof from WA (Lewandowsky ?) and even some of your ‘climate scientists’ like Joelle Gergis?
    And please think about talking to some of those insufferable snobs on the ABC.
    They have very seriously over stated your case with such gems like ‘snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012′.
    I could continue with thousands of other gems.
    Unfortunately for you, they are the ones who get all the attention and they are not doing you any favours.

  75. #75 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    What’s your solution to this conundrum?

    Uh, behave differently?

    I would also suggest there is a significant percentage of humanity who consume far less of earth’s natural resources than you do and would love to have your privileges and your advantages.

    Al Gore is fat!

  76. #76 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    Chameleon: ” ‘snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012′.”

    Do you have a reference for that one? I’d love to know who is that stupid.

    “I could continue with thousands of other gems.”
    So long as you realise that any inability to properly reference these “gems” rather detracts from the entertainment.

    Anyway, *personally*-speaking, I don’t believe in individuals consuming less, I believe in ensuring there are far fewer individuals doing the consuming, thus bringing consumption under control, so that I can continue to consume at a reasonable level.

    In the absence of any genuine political will to engage in a largescale culling of the over-populous humans who plague the planet, we will need to sterilise as many as possible as soon as possible.

    For starters, anybody on any form of welfare should be sterilised – no way should you be breeding if you are living off taxpayer charity.
    Criminals should be sterilised, no questions asked.
    In countries where the standard of living is below the global average, everybody should be sterilised – if they can’t get their shit together, humanity just doesn’t need them.
    Stupid people shouldn’t be breeding either, they just clog up the internet with their poorly-written moronicisms.
    We need to be aiming for a 85% reduction in world population within a generation, so a hell of a lot of people will need to be stopped from breeding.

  77. #77 bill
    January 10, 2013

    snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012

    That’s it; I’m claiming victory in Denier Chum Bingo!

    Who actually said this? Commenter ‘Debbie’ at Jo Nova’s!

    She claims it was Flannery, and we’ll await any actual proof of that with little anticipation and much amusement.

    This answers the question I was asking above.

    And I suspect we have another ID for Chammy. ‘Debbie’ seems right somehow, don’t you think?

    Oh, and the comment above hers is -

    Gees I hope we get a really good downpour in the Warragamba catchment, and the new spillway is forced into action. (that’s one massive spillway !!)

    Watch Flannery’s little house float out to sea, with him in it, hopefully :-)

    So, not a bunch of Redneck yokels, then?

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Also, have you noticed that the Karen persona and the Olaus persona appear increasingly to be merging?

    Shhhhh, they haven’t noticed you’ve noticed ;-)

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Well how incredibly profound of you!

    Considering that there are still people turning up and arguing that “ACO2″ might not be contributing to the kinds of changes mentioned – yourself included – that’s kinda profound (at least for them). Or at least it will be once you realise that you’re apparently arguing against your self.

    The rest of your comment is the usual unfocused attempt at sowing red herrings and ignoring the points made…

  80. #80 Olaus Petri
    January 10, 2013

    Only for you Lothar ;-) : http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    “There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), ”The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.”

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    January 10, 2013

    Chameleon predictably writes a mind-numbingly simplistic response to my last posting. Her reply assumes that humans are essentially exempt from the laws of nature; that whatever damage wed do to complex adaptive systems won’t rebound on us simply because we are the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution; apart from the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms, and therefore immune from the consequences of our collective actions.

    I have dealt with this kind of garbage so many times in my career that I have lost count. She also actually correctly identifies a major challenge for our species (in a kindergarten-level sort of way), in that grinding poverty and hunger are major obstacles. What she doesn’t say – and this point applies to pretty well the whole of the anti-environmnental community and the climate change deniers as well – is what social, economic and political factors underpin these human problems. Unfettered corporate capitalism, free market absolutism, the ‘Washington Consensus’, call it what you like, but powerful political and corporate elites in the north have never taken social justice and poverty eradication seriously, simply because it conflicts with their own short-term agendas of capital repatriation and profit maximization. This salient little point rarely seeps from the lips of the deniers, because many of them are on the far end of the political right and support the same agendas that drive environmental destruction and retain poverty in the south. Oh, they won’t say that – people like Morano, Nova and Maharosey, uber-right wingers, constantly bleat about how much actions to deal with climate change and other environmental threats will harm the poor, except that they are lying. Lying through their teeth. They represent a totally opposite constituency, the privileged few, but of course they cannot and will not ever admit to that, because it doesn’t score points. I’m sure Morano backs the extreme right wing of the Republican Party (the ‘Tea-Party movement), with its constant beating of the war drum and desire to eliminate social programs and health care. They are a bunch of hypocrites, in that that they couldn’t give a toss about aiding the poor in the south and reducing the poverty gap.

    And here we have our new contributor, Chameleon, wading in here with her sandbox-level discourse. There is a solid connect between anthropogenic change and human welfare. As humans lay waste to massive tracts of nature, we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. Humans are utterly reliant on a range of conditions that emerge from natural systems, in the form of what are known colloquially as ‘ecosystem services’. I have said thus so many times here and by now it has become tiresome. But Chammy clearly doesn’t know anything at all about the link between human well being and ecosystem services. I am sure she’s never heard of the 2006 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which concluded that humans have seriously degraded 60% of critical ecological services that sustain human civilization. These services effectively permit humans to exist and persist. Supporting services do not carry prices in economic scenarios and are therefore totally under-appreciated. Water purification, mitigation of floods and droughts, maintenance of soil fertility, pest control nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, pollination, et al. These are just some of the myriad of supporting services that freely are provided by natural systems and the species and populations that make them up, and they are worth literally trillions of dollars to the global economy every year – certainly more than the combined GDP of all nations on Earth (Costanza et al., 1997; Nature). We know that the human assault on natural systems is reducing the capacity of nature to sustain mankind, and yet our understanding of how complex adaptive systems evolve, assemble and function is still in its relative infancy. What we are doing at the global scale right now is to conduct an experiment with no replications on systems that sustain us and for which there are few or no technological substitutes.

    Against this background we have the ignoranti (Chameleon has applied to join their ranks) who, with their limited knowledge base, expound pure and utter bullshit.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Petric, as far as I’ve read none of the ways that “solar activity can make itself felt” have a long term trend that strongly contributed to recent warming, or suggest that CO2 doesn’t have the kind of impact that is easily measured in a lab and via satellite.

    I’m sure you and others think otherwise, but your track record at misinterpretation is substantial and impressive.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    s/Petric/Petri/

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    … wading in here with her sandbox-level discourse…

    Sandbox as in feline ablution box? Sounds about right to me.

  85. #85 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “I could continue with thousands of other gems.”

    What’s the opposite of perls before swine?

    I think we can call your “factoids” “nuggets” rather than “gems”.

    Little nuggets of brown steamy stuff.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “CO2 will soon be relegated to “a minor player” in CC.”

    And the science showing this is what, exactly?

  87. #87 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    I note that cham hasn’t managed to find an instance where someone claimed she had claimed zero or no influence from CO2 on climate.

    I think this amply demonstrates that she asks in order to demand work off others and knows her bullshit is indefensible.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    The thing that would be amusing (if it weren’t so grim) about Chameleon’s predictable progression through the pantheon of denialist tropes finally reaching the pearl-clutching “But won’t you think of the poor?!” is that the poor will be (and are already) some of the earliest to be affected and the most severely affected by climate change impacts.

    That particular gambit is one of the most disingenuous and cynical in their “arsenal”.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    …she asks in order to demand work off others…

    Yes.

    NONE of them do their homework, but they all demand that you do theirs as well.

  90. #90 bill
    January 10, 2013

    I suspect chameleon really is Debbie from Jo Nova’s, and this whole ‘new to the debate and open-minded to-the-point-of-my-brains-falling-out’ thing was a sham from the get-go.

    Follow the link back to the ‘Tim Flannery says snow will be a fleeting fancy by 2012, oh yes he did!’ comment I provided above, then scroll back through the posts using the Ctrl+F window to find her comments.

    Yes, I know it’s unpleasant.

    The prim/bustling/fussy manner is identical, as are many of the tropes.

    ‘Debbie’ is, you’ll be astonished to learn, a died-in-the-wool anti-green zealot in her natural environment.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Also amusing: Petri and Karen approvingly citing a nasa.gov website report of a bunch of climate scientists. You know, that bunch who are totally corrupt and fraudulent and only in it to get rich off the sweet sweet government cash?

    Consistency ain’t their strong point.

  92. #92 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    Not consistency.

    Thinking.

    If they could think, they would be able to think their way through to the inconsistency and avoid it.

    But thinking is more effort than they can manage and don’t consider it useful in any case: thinking can only be an impediment to making confident statements.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    …Follow the link back to the ‘Tim Flannery says snow will be a fleeting fancy by 2012, oh yes he did!’ comment I provided above…

    In which she agrees with (IIRC) the abject lie that Flannery said that Warragamba (I assume from the context) would never fill again, apparently not understanding the conditional part and the time scale part of conditional statements about likely future occurrences.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    January 10, 2013

    Lionel A,
    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

    chameleon-Debbie, WTF are you on about? You have just missed your litter tray deary.

    Try again in parse-able English.

  95. #95 Lionel A
    January 10, 2013

    Aargh!

    Lionel A,
    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

    chameleon-Debbie, WTF are you on about? You have just missed your litter tray deary.

    Try again in parse-able English.

  96. #96 Richard Simons
    January 10, 2013

    Chameleon said of me:

    Apparently what you wrote wasn’t what you meant to write and someone rewrote it for you.

    Yes. It was you. But I’m no longer interested in playing your silly little games where you refuse to admit you were being dishonest.

    Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.

    Which original hypothesis? As always, you phrase things so vaguely that, whatever interpretation is made, you can deny them later. Are you referring to Arrhenius’ 1896 prediction that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in Earth’s temperature of 5-6C? That one seems to be well on the way to being realized. If not that, then which?

    Of course humans affect their environment Jeff H.
    That is actually entirely natural human behaviour.

    Ah! So you are phrasing it so that in future you can use the fall-back position of ‘I never said that people are not the cause of all the CO2 production that is resulting in the devastating climate change we are going through’. Typical of your dishonesty.

  97. #97 Lionel A
    January 10, 2013

    The Delinpole troll strikes again this time in the Daily Fail, H/T The Rabett. At a guess this is Duff’s paper of choice:

    Recall up-thread I wrote this:

    Of course the take home point for the Duffer’s (and the other members of The Wendy Club) is this:

    It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.

    Note that this does not mean that warming is seen as stopped, it is not warming as fast as was estimated by just 0.11 C. Also, a warming of 0.43 C over five years is still fast by the geological time scale and furthermore warming could increase faster than this. Reality about climate and warming has had a recent history full of surprises. At least for those not attuned to the methods and findings of scientists in the various fields.

    and sure enough here comes one of those lying little sycophant story makers with his usual serving of half truth and downright lies for his only excuse could be dyspraxia when as caption to an image we find:

    The Met Office confirmed in a press release earlier this week that no more global warming is expected till at least 2017

    , and the Duffers believe it.

    Did Delingpole cut his teeth on The Magic Roundabout I wonder?

    Duff and Delingpole, and also other members of The Wendy Club, the game had changed, you are now the prey in this battle for ecological survival as scientists and others recognise your droppings for what they are – ‘bad faith’ which is what chameleon has displayed coming in here under a false flag. Unfortunately we are so familiar with the BS phrases so beloved of denier blogs and the Delingpoles that your true nature is quickly unmasked and by yourself at that..

  98. #98 chameleon
    January 10, 2013

    :-) :-) :-)
    Chuckle
    Anti environmental community?
    Climate change deniers?
    American TEA Party?
    That’s hilarious!
    So Jeff H?
    If you percieve that people are ‘right wing’ (whatever that actually means) and don’t share your views about man’s inhumanity to man, that automatically means they are ‘anti’ the environment?
    Seriously?
    BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’. That was a good guess.
    Finally guessed right about a person.
    But I am not jonova or jennifer marohasy or karen or debbie or suburban or any of the other guesses.
    I know it’s impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.
    I guess that’s why it’s so easy for all of you to try and play like schoolyard bullies or in this case I guess we would need to call it ‘cyber bullies’?

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    January 10, 2013

    No chameleon, I am just saying that your reply to my last post yesterday was about as deep as a puddle. You made a frankly absurd point about ‘noise’ drowning out the anthropogenic signal on short-term climate patterns without appearing to understand anything about scale and temporal lag effects. Predictably, you glossed over that part of my posting and went off on some diatribe about me supposedly hating humanity (pure tripe) and then stating the obvious: that humans have changed the surface of the biosphere (well, gee, smarty pants, that is an understatement). Nothing in there about the extent of change or of the consequences for us down the road – again, another indication that you don’t have much of a clue about the field of environmental science. That’s brazenly obvious.

    Then you make the obvious point about the plight on billions whose minds are literally wasting away without any kind of analysis exactly why that is, except some snarky witless remarks about how lucky we overfed over-consumptive northerners (I’ll include OZ in there) are. No comment on the fact that there is no interest whatsoever on the part of those with power and privilege to address social injustice, poverty and malnutrition. Ever hear of George Kennan or Smedley Butler, Chammy? What about Henry Kissinger;s infamous Memo 200, in which western agendas were laid bare?

    I have said it many times but its worth repeating: the solutions to the planet’s environmental problems are locked up in politics. But the politics means ensuring the ‘unpeople’s’ of the world – the poor in other words – have social and economic justice. But western corporate/government planners are only interested in maintaining the status quo. That entails the subjugation of other countries assets, nullification of alternatives to the current nakedly predatory capitalism and outright expansionism. Its just too bad that those most vehemently opposing any kinds of government regulations to deal with climate change and other environmental threats loathe any form of government regulation, and wish to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Hence why so much money is sloshing around the think tanks, corporate lobbyists, PR industries and astroturf groups in an attempt to ensure that the wealth remains concentrated and that corporations can operate outside of public control.

    Given how green chammy is behind the ears, its worth noting how many of the climate change deniers have also been very much involved in downplaying other environmental threats. Morano wrote an appalling piece some years ago about why the Amazon rainforest was not threatened. It was the usual anti-scientific bilge.

  100. #100 chameleon
    January 10, 2013

    Not ‘deep’ enough?
    Seriously?
    Did you miss the word ‘ basic’?
    Sometimes JeffH, things are just basically bleeding obvious.
    It has nothing whatsover to do with wings oranything else.
    It’s basically bleedingly obvious that the planet would be different (though not necessarily better) if there was no human impact.
    No need for a ‘deep and meaningful’ to understand that.