February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Willimilliwatts, it goes without saying, is both crazy and mendacious. As the UCS banner says – “Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions”. That Willimilliwatts tries to imply that by joining UCS anyone or his dog becomes an accredited concerned scientist as opposed to a member of their organisation, is just normal everyday Willimilliwatts level crazy.

    As with most organisations that have a sign up procedure via their website, it assumes a modicum of good faith by the applicant – something missing entirely from Willimilliwatts makeup. On the other hand I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the dog were smarter than the owner.

    Regarding the story, I haven’t time to check now, but IIRC it was actually found that lower layers of the atmosphere were being mixed by the turbines but no extra heat was actually being created.

    But once again, if Willimilliwatts can get something wrong, he will.
    If he can get something wrong while attempting to damage any environmental issue, he will.
    If he can get something wrong while attempting to damage any environmental issue, and make himself look stupid at the same time, happily he still will.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    I see BK is now reduced to demanding evidence of the consensus for the mainstream conclusions of climate science, apparently so that he doesn’t have to provide evidence-based reasons for taking positions (whether in the past or now) that are ruled out by the evidence – and hence for which demonstrating consensus is not necessary.

    Perhaps now we see why BK has spent so much time complaining about “consensus”. He appears rather keen to avoid arguing his positions on the evidence.

    I’ll leave identification of his other lies as an exercise for readers.

  3. #3 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “I’ll leave identification of his other lies as an exercise for readers.”

    They’re all hideously obvious. The idiot is relying on having to trawl 3000 posts and because he “rephrases” so often, you can’t just grep, you have to read every entry, making it far more effort than that little cumstain is worth.

  4. #4 Sou
    February 27, 2013

    Thank you Lotharsson and chek. Yes I remember the study and associated misreporting quite well. The deniers had a field day at the time – ie the more deluded among them. Doubly whammy, the deniers figured – wind + global warming.

    The research reported local warming at night in the area covered by the wind farm. It’s just shifting the air/energy around a bit.

    Not sure if the work has even been corroborated (I see no particular reason to doubt it) – but that’s irrelevant to the point made at WUWT or in my article.

    Watts has a very short fuse and isn’t all that bright. Not a good combination. He’s blocked me from twitter so now he doesn’t see my tweets in his timeline, but I can still see his if I’m so inclined. (I”ve never bothered to ‘follow’ him on twitter but occasionally have a dig at his ridiculous articles via tweets.)

  5. #5 Sou
    February 27, 2013

    I agree about the cranks – that engaging them is fun sometimes but there’s not a chance in hell you’d ever change their deluded minds.

    I’ve come across some people who are impervious to irony and don’t ‘engage’ at all. They just keep posting nonsense, ignoring the discussion going on around them and act as if they are the only person posting anything in a thread.

    That doesn’t mean it’s not worth refuting what they write for the benefit of other people. Sometimes that’s worthwhile, sometimes not.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    Yep, engaging the cranks is almost never about changing the cranks’ minds. That only happens once in a blue moon. It’s all about the readers who might be tempted to think the cranks are making sense.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Wow,

    other commenters exhibit coprolalia in defeat, but your “tell” revolves around another bodily fluid, doesn’t it?

    because he “rephrases” so often, you can’t just grep, you have to read every entry, making it far more effort than that little cumstain is worth.

    LOL…

    Feeling routed, loser?

    I “rephrase” “so often,” do I? Nonsense. But then, losers are liars.

    I use the blockquote tag as much as anyone—and follow wherever reasonable a policy of paraphrasing my victims only if their comment is too many pages back and “far more effort than [the lovely person] is worth.”

    I’m sure you had no trouble grepping this one:

    This is how a palindromic pervert speaks to women …

    “Amazing how you had to say that here on this thread, chubby.

    Go fuck off, you ignorant twat.”

    Plenty of unique character combinations there, cretin.

  8. #8 chek
    February 27, 2013

    But then, losers are liars.

    And you exhibit the hallmarks of both.

    Back to your cage “Brad”, where you might consider providing honest answers to straightforward questions.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Back in your kennel.

  10. #10 mike
    February 27, 2013
  11. #11 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    You seem to have mixed up who is proving who a crank mike.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Hey, mike, why the anger? We’re just poking fun at you deniers! So laugh!

  13. #13 Sou
    February 27, 2013

    Mike, are you taking the Mickey or are you a real live one of these?

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2012/12/denier-memes-communist-socialist.html

  14. #14 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    What the fuck is Keyes doing out of his box? Can someone email TL and get him banned if he keeps this up?

    Thanks.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Don’t forget Nazi.

    Because they’re National SOCIALISTS, therefore socialist, not right wing! IT’S IN THE NAME.

    Of course, the People’s REPUBLIC of China is communist because they’re commies, the name has nothing to do with it.

    Rightwingnuts are welded to the “No True Scotsman”, just like the xtian wingnuts that have been recruited into the party line.

  16. #16 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    mike

    Read Oreskes & Conway. Follow up random selections from the thousands of references provided and check for accuracy.

    The case set out in Merchants of Doubt is in fact watertight. Everyone who actually bothers to check will eventually be forced to admit this. I speak as someone who approached the text sceptically.

    The idea that there *isn’t* an anti-environmentalist, tendency among corporations and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the political right is naive.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Are they called cranks because they’re easy to wind up, or because they try to wind everyone else up?

  18. #18 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Both work well ;-)

    I believe the original (and I haven’t checked!) is derived from the germanic ‘krank’ meaning ill, as in mentally ill. But I could be wrong.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Googling “etymology crank”:

    crank (n.) Look up crank at Dictionary.com
    Old English *cranc, implied in crancstæf “a weaver’s instrument,” crencestre “female weaver, spinster,” from Proto-Germanic base *krank-, and related to crincan “to bend, yield” (see crinkle, cringe). English retains the literal sense of the ancient root, while German and Dutch krank “sick,” formerly “weak, small,” is a figurative use.

    The sense of “an eccentric person,” especially one who is irrationally fixated, is first recorded 1833, said to be from the crank of a barrel organ, which makes it play the same tune over and over; but more likely a back-formation from cranky (q.v.). Meaning “methamphetamine” attested by 1989.

  20. #20 mike
    February 27, 2013

    BBD,

    Thanks for providing an island of normal human-being wholesomeness on this blog. I’ll be glad to address your last comment, but in my usual, round-a-bout way, if you will be so kind as to bear with me, BBD.

    Just out of curiosity, BBD, do you find the idea that there *isn’t* an anti-democratic, authoritarian, make-a-greenwashed-buck/make-a-gulag tendency among the old-line, makin’-a-comeback-try bolshie-utopians within the “environmental” movement and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the brainwashed-dumb-kid and fashion-conscious, status-anxiety-obsessed, limousine-liberal, cash-in-on-the-good-eco-deals, fellow-traveller ilk to be naive? I do. Just as I expect crony-capitalists threatened by such lefty conspiracies to respond in kind and that it is naive to expect otherwise. I don’t need to read Oreskes or anyone else to figure that one out.

    Conspiracy is the stuff of humanity in my view, BBD–kids conspire against parents (reading comic books under the covers with a flashlight late at night, for example), parents conspire against kids (the Santa Claus conspiracy, for example) and on it goes to include lefty and righty con-artists conspiring to rip-off and oppress Joe Six-Pack. I think it naive to think otherwise.

    And when I see an agit-prop tack that demonizes “conspiracy theories”–those approved by the hive excepted, of course–then I smell a rat. The test of the worth of a “conspiracy theory”, for me, is the evidence offered in its support and the persuasiveness of its interpretation of that evidence–not whether it lends aid and comfort to some scam of either the right or the left or crosses or re-inforces some self-serving taboo of this, that, or another string-puller faction.

    And one other thing, BBD, I don’t use smarty-pants, ivory-tower logic, in the main, in devising my “estimates of the situation.” Rather, I use that “coup de l’oeil” logic of the sort that has served us “little-guys” so well within those shark-infested waters in which we’ve been generationally forced to swim. Let me offer you an example:

    Those pushing the CAGW rip-off,–those who most profess alarm at the carbon-peril– with the rarest of exceptions, choose not to LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE when it comes to the carbon-austere lifestyle. Think: Al Gore. Think: All those carbon-piggie, party-time, taxpayer-funded, eco-conference obscenities attended by the hive’s greenshirt worthies. Joe-Six-Pack’s “coup de l’oiel” conclusion?–don’t practice what they preach: SCAM!!

    But don’t take my word for it, BBD. Just pose to the hive-niks on this blog that they could do nothing better to promote their chicken-little CAGW-con than show LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE in their own, personal lifestyle, as opposed to their current, exclusive reliance on agit-prop trickery and incessant, big-bore, scare-mongering flim-flam to push their little frauds. See what reaction you get when you suggest even a really minor adjustment to the Deltoid lifestyle, but one with a big cost-and-carbon reduction pay-off, like video-conferencing all future eco-confabs. Again, see what sort of reaction you get. Fair warming: Savonarola was excommunicated and burnt at the stake.

  21. #21 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Bah. Wikibollocks. I’ll stick with my own private definition in the highest tradition of the Interwebs.

    ;-)

  22. #22 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    ‘course, your post there mike didn’t mean anything, since you insist you’re just joking.

  23. #23 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    mike

    We were discussing Oreskes & Conway’s documentation of the activities of an anti-environmentalist tendency among corporations and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the political right.

    Things seem to have drifted a bit…

  24. #24 lord_sidcup
    February 27, 2013

    Mike is lonely and just looking for someone to talk to.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “At”, Lord Sidcup.

    Talk at.

  26. #26 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Mike

    I really should have said this first: you are implying false equivalence between climate science and environmentalism.

    Basic confusion = broken argument = hot air and wasted time.

  27. #27 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    And Al Gore is fat.

  28. #28 lord_sidcup
    February 27, 2013

    I missed the latest from David Rose over the weekend. Check out the stupid:

    MYTH The Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in a few years.

    TRUTH Although last summer saw a return to the relatively low levels of ice seen in 2007, the growth of Arctic winter ice this year is the fastest on record. Canadian archaeologists have been finding evidence the ice cover shrank to half its current extent during a warm period 7,000 years ago – but never vanished entirely.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Well, yes, it IS a myth.

    However, it’s very similar to the myth that the great green arkleseizure is living in David Rose’s sock drawer.

    I.e. it is definitely a myth, and I definitely just made that up.

  30. #30 mike
    February 27, 2013

    BBD,

    W wr dscssng rsks…tc.”

    Nt qt, BBD. Y wr nd r ttmptng t lmt nd cntrl th dscssn f “cnsprcy thrs” n wy tht prmts th rvvl f Lwndwsk-bgr, pg-bsh, sldrty-cll, hv-lylty-tst, gt-prp cmpgn, tht rlr fld t fly, nd ‘m dng my ppty-psnt, pn-wth-n-tttd, wht’s-wrng-wth-ths-hlt-dsn’t-h-knw-hs-plc? bst t jm th whl dl p. t f my rnst slctd fr trth, jstc, nd th “kds”, f crs.

  31. #31 mike
    February 27, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr: “y’r mplyng fls qvlnc…”

    BBD, lt’s gt rl. Sphstrs lk yr bv r nt gnn sll yr Lysnk-scnc f th clmt.

    gn, “cp d l’l”, lttl-gy lgc:

    -f scnc s rlly n th grnshrts’ sd, thn why rn’t thy cnvncd–wht dn’t thy prctc th crbn-str lfstyl thr scr-mngrng “scnc” dmnds by mplctn? Why dn’t thy prvd LDRSHP BY XMPL ND FRM TH FRNT?

    -f “scnc” s rlly n th lfts’ crnr, thn why r th lfts mplyng hv-hck prpgndsts t dvs gt-prp cmpgns t dmnz thr crtcs wth “cnsprcy thry” smrs nstd f tlkng-p th sppsd “scnc”?

    -nd thn thr’s th Clmt-gt, s-wht-ths-gys-rlly-thnk-nd-sy-bhnd-t-bcks -mls.

    RG: Clmt Scnc s thr cmplt scm r hs bn thrghly h-jckd by mk–bck/mk–glg scmstrs. S hv nthng t d wth th whl “clmt scnc” dl–t lst s lng s th crrnt crp f sll-t, trgh-hggr, n-yr-fc-hypcrt scntsts rmns n plc.

    S, BBD, s slss-trs rn’t s dmb ftr ll.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Someone needed a hug from mommy when they were young.

    You know, today.

  33. #33 Lionel A
    February 27, 2013

    Strewth, Rose sure can crank ‘em out as that headline to that propaganda piece that lord-sidcup quoted from:

    Eco-tastrophe! How MPs in the pay of subsidised eco-firms set insane new carbon targets that send your bills sky-rocketing… and drag us to a new Dark Age

    But what is worth Rose is repeating the already debunked tosh in that, ‘EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE‘ panel.

    And guess who he uses to support his second piece of misdirection:

    MYTH Global warming is already causing extreme weather.
    TRUTH If anything, weather has become less, not more extreme in the past 50 years. Professor Roger Pielke Jr of Colorado University – no climate sceptic – last week said that the past seven years had been the longest period ever recorded without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane hitting America, and that drought has decreased since the mid-20th Century. The IPCC admits there is no evidence that global warming has caused more storms in the tropics.

    Yes. BK’s pal, good ol’ Roger Pielke Jr.

    But of course BK doesn’t deny AGW he believes it, like a child believes in Santa or an adult child believes in the Bible.

    Rose must be from the same box as ol’ Rush. It isn’t as if he hasn’t been informed.

  34. #35 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    And liars:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress

    Right? I mean you denier trolls wouldn’t run a double standard, would you?

  35. #36 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    mike

    Again, “coup de l’oeil”, little-guy logic

    Not even that, as far as I can see. Either demonstrate some understanding of what is actually written or continue to rant away to yourself.

    It makes no odds to me.

  36. #37 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    # 29 lord_sidcup

    I wonder if Rose actually knows that the high NH latitudes were warmer until ~6ka as a result of orbital forcing?

    Always the same from the deniers though: misrepresentations that might as well be lies since the effect they have is the same.

  37. #38 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    the past seven years had been the longest period ever recorded without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane hitting America, and that drought has decreased since the mid-20th Century.

    Cat 3 US landfalls over 7 years? Fluke.

    Drought decreased since mid-C20th? Now that’s a lie. Discussion of the Sheffield vs Dai scrap here.

  38. #39 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 27, 2013

    @BBD #27:

    “Al Gore is fat.”

    According to the latest peer-reviewed paper by Wow, Lionel, Michael, Sidcup et al, their models (heh,heh, heh) indicate a definite shrinkage in Al Gore’s waist-line. The problem with ‘deniers’ is that they are unscientific ignoramuses who have, in their idiocy, been confused by the increased bulk of his wallet brought about by his investments into ‘Green firms’ in receipt of buckets of dosh from his mate Obama.

    Incidentally, Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming in the UK – give you a nasty shiver, does it?

  39. #40 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    David Duff

    Go back to the Daily Mail. You will be happier there, I think.

  40. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Hi Lionel,

    how are you? I hope the A family is well and has gotten over my distasteful confusion between you and a Forest Troll.

    Yes. BK’s pal, good ol’ Roger Pielke Jr.

    Ah my pal, good ol’ Roger Junior—”no climate sceptic”—back to his old truth-based trickery, trying to offload a steaming crock of absolute bullfact on us:

    Professor Roger Pielke Jr … no climate skeptic—last week said that the past seven years had been the longest period ever recorded without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane hitting America … The IPCC admits there is no evidence that global warming has caused more storms in the tropics.

    But here you wander into denialand, Lionel:

    But of course BK doesn’t deny AGW he believes it,

    Are you denying that I deny it?

    Congratulations. I don’t.

    (*shh*—don’t tell Vince, or he’ll have you up on apostasy charges.)

    like a child believes in Santa

    Er, not *quite.*

    A child believes in Santa on the authority of her parents and the consensus of her peers.

    An adult believes in AGW on the basis of the chemical equations describing industrial respiration, the empirically-demonstrated radio-absorptive properties of the CO2 molecule and the temperature of the Earth.

    “Believing in” climate change, AGW, continental drift and gravity are examples of justified true belief, also known as “knowledge.”

    or an adult child believes in the Bible.

    Hmm. You’ll have to ask bill about that particular cognitive feat. Try not to call our avian acquaintance an “adult child” though—he’ll either call you an “anti-religious bigot” or simply fly away in a huff.

  41. #42 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Brad, I’m almost certain that if you keep posting outside the Brangelina thread you will be banned. TL is bound to notice eventually.

  42. #43 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Actually, yeah, Brad – keep going; we’ll see if we can’t get you bounced entirely!

  43. #44 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Incidentally, does anyone else suspect that ‘mike’ and BK are actually the same person?

  44. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    The IPCC admits there is no evidence that global warming has caused more storms in the tropics.

    Considering Pielke’s chronic unreliability, would it be sensible to be sceptical of this statement in the absence of any direct quote of reference to primary material?

    The first problem is Pielke’s obvious misuse of the word “admits” – I’m not aware of the IPCC having appeared at any inquiry where questions were put to it. Pielke’s use of loaded language like this is obvious political spin – and who wants political spin to cloud this subject? Not those with the truth on their side, obviously.

    Or, to put it another way, Pielke’s full of shit.

  45. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Hey mike,

    Again, “coup de l’oeil”, little-guy logic:

    I just asked my colleague, who is French, and she says what you’ve just typed there has no meaning in French.

    Maybe if you deniers attended first to your education you would have fewer problems with the reality of climate change?

  46. #47 bill
    February 27, 2013

    I suspect the sub-literate, sub-Nietzschean ranter meant ‘trompe l’oeil’.

  47. #48 Stu
    February 27, 2013

    Oh hey, Brad, I must have missed it. In which comment did you publicly apologize for being openly, utterly and abjectly wrong about there being a well-funded climate denial network?

  48. #49 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Vnc, bll

    “Cp d l’l” s “lttl-gy” Frnch. Th trm fr gys wh, nlk m, rlly spk Frnch (nd Frdrck th Grt) s “cp d’l.”

    Thnks fr drwng th rrr t my ttntn, Vnc. nd, n, bll, ddn’t mn “trmp l’l” bt d pprct yr lttl, dfs, vr-nxs, smrty-pnts ttmpt t hrn n n Vnc’s “fnd”.

  49. #50 Andrew Strang
    February 27, 2013

    bill @ 45

    Brad doesn’t have the exemplary Americanness of mike’s glib, bitter bullshit,

  50. #51 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Duffski: “According to the latest peer-reviewed paper”

    More made up fantasy from duff.

  51. #52 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “Incidentally, Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming in the UK”

    Not even the Victorians were parochial enough to confuse the entire earth with the UK alone.

    Duffer, however, has a very small brain.

  52. #53 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Intriguing. At a glance, WTF does ‘coup d’oeil‘ have to do with anything? Well, it certainly indicates pretension way-outstripping ability; but we knew that already.

    Rather like a completely incongruous ‘lubricious’, really…

  53. #54 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Or faux-erudite “consensei” which bray has managed before.

    What is it with deniers and pretend education?

  54. #55 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 28, 2013

    Wow @#55: it’s the basic pathology of denialism of all flavours. The practitioners are usually from the science-phobic end of the educational pool, mostly employable only as propagandists and solipsists-for-rent by the robber barons of capitalism or theocracy, hence the less stupid of them are usually lawyers or “neoliberal” economists. The spectrum extends from biblical creationists and their “people-of-the-one-true-book peers, via the John Birch Society and Big Tobacco to Dick Cheney and Monckton. The ones who buzz around Deltoid like Tabanids (?Talibanids) tend to be the rejects who can’t find a nice warm pile of neocon think-tank to succour them. Hence the BK with the DKness, lil’mike, the Scandinavian Troll Collective etc. Mind you, lil’mike’s personal pathology is particularly pathetic – it’s a bit like being forcibly transported to Hogarth’s cartoon of visiting Bedlam in 17 C. London. The fact that people can discuss information unconstrained by commercial gain or fear is deeply disturbing to the denialists. I rather enjoy that.

  55. #56 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Why does little mike go on about “lysenko-science”?

    Lysenko was the guy who faked his research in order to please his political masters, right?

    What does mike think all this crank-blog-nonsense from incompetents like Watts, McIntyre and Pielke is all about?

    Has he not read about what happened to Wegman?

  56. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/australia-holding-back-east-timor/story-e6frg6ux-1226587171600

    Good article about Australia’s shameless and dishonest behaviour in relation to East Timor’s territorial waters.

  57. #58 bill
    February 28, 2013

    Seems his Serene Lordship doesn’t appreciate upstart interlopers.

  58. #59 Sou
    February 28, 2013

    Lysenko was the chap who sent scientists to labour camps to prevent them from doing genetic research (some he killed I believe). He was a senior bureaucrat who held back plant breeding (in particular) in the USSR for almost half a century. Deniers efforts are pitful compared to Lysenko. They don’t have the clout. (But not for want of trying – eg Inhofe wanting to jail climate scientists to prevent them from doing research. The ATI, the Auditor and various anti-science bloggers trying to slow or stop research by tying up scientists in paperwork responding to frivolous FOI requests etc etc)

  59. #60 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Ah, so a better comparison for Lysenko would be Virginia Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli who uses his government position and government resources to attempt to criminalise honest scientists whose work he opposes on political grounds.

    Remember what happened to Charles Monnett when he wrote his honest and considered opinion on the effects of unprecedented ice melt on polar bear populations?

    http://www.ktoo.org/2013/02/19/agency-declines-to-continue-research-investigation/

  60. #61 Lotharsson
    February 28, 2013

    John Cook has an article about the Recursive Fury paper at Huffington Post, where conspiracy theorists add comments to the article that reinforce the findings of the paper.

  61. #62 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/21/gji.ggt029.full.pdf+html
    New peer reviewed paper in Geophysical Journal International.
    Summary:
    The last interglacial stage (LIG; ca. 130–115 ka) provides a relatively recent example of a world with both poles characterized by greater-than-Holocene temperatures similar to those expected later in this century under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.

  62. #63 rhwombat
    upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 28, 2013

    Lotharsson: …”oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse (?race) open (?-access, peer reviewed article) sleigh (?self-sustaining, “skeptic” slaying meme)!”. Jingle bells, indeed.

  63. #64 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 28, 2013

    Chubby: No, we will not translate this into kinderspeil for you.

  64. #65 bill
    February 28, 2013

    Chebbie: congratulations, you found a paper! And?…

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    February 28, 2013

    I have a suspicion that Lewandowsky et al. and collaborators are just screwing with the denialists for fun (and academic profit) now. They’ve realised they can re-demonstrate the paper’s conclusions at will at practically any media outlet with reasonable amounts of traffic and are running an office pool on how many conspiratorial comments will turn up at each new location, meanwhile mining the results for a 3rd level recursion paper which will itself generate data for a 4th…

    ;-) ;-)

  66. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    This one’s for the silly Duffer:

    Alaskan community faces supply problems due to unusual warm weather:

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/early-ice-road-melt-threatens-cut-albertas-arctic

    Early ice road melt threatens to cut off Alberta’s Arctic

    Many are welcoming the above average temperatures in the province this winter — except those in Fort Chipewyan who say the unseasonably warm days are threatening to cut the northern community off from the rest of the Canadian province of Alberta.

    Usually the ice road that connects Fort Chipewyan to the community of Fort McMurray is busy with truck traffic this time of year.

    However, warm weather has taken a toll on the road, causing the province to close it to heavy loads during the day.

    “We were supposed to have a truck today, and now it’s stuck in Fort McMurray,” said Donna MacKay, who manages a general store in the community.

    “I’m out of my fresh fruits and lettuce, tomatoes and a few things like that.”

    MacKay said this is when many retailers stock up for the rest of the year, which means melting ice roads now cause long-term problems.

    William Tuccaro, who works at Fort Petrol, says there’s a chance of rationing his fuel if reserves aren’t topped up.

    “We’ll have enough until late fall and then we’re in trouble,” he says.

    The community may rely more heavily on supplies flown in to Fort Chipewyan, with at least one aviation company considering shipping in twice as much cargo.

    However, items brought in by air are generally more expensive than those brought in by ground.

    People are holding out for colder temperatures, but it looks unlikely. Environment Canada is forecasting warmer weather all week and into the weekend.

  67. #68 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Interesting paper Chameleon – during the LIG, there was a period during which sea level rise exceeded 3mm/year, and sea level peaked at 6m-9m above today’s level.

    We’re already getting the 3mm+/year sea level rise – does this mean we’re headed for a 6m sea level rise?

    Here’s a thought – maybe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to try to prevent that from happening – what do you think?

  68. #69 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Bill and rhwombat?
    Aren’t you interested in reading and discussing some of the latest published peer reviewed research re climate and SLR?
    I thought I should at least give you a chance to read it before it was discussed.
    I seriously thought it would be more rewarding and informative than rehashing Lewandowsky theories about ‘deniers’.
    Perhaps not?

  69. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Fossil Fuel proponents suffer $5billion failure in Alaska oil drilling this year:

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/swift-reaction-shell-suspends-2013-arctic-alaska-offshore-drilling

    After a spate of mishaps and mechanical issues that beleaguered Royal Dutch Shell’s bid at offshore drilling in Arctic Alaska, the company announced Wednesday it would suspend its 2013 drilling season.

    Meanwhile….
    http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Renewable-Energy-is-already-Cheaper-than-Coal-and-Gas-in-Australia.html

    New wind farms in Australia can produce electricity at $80/MWh, which is far cheaper than coal power stations which produce at $143/MWh, and even natural gas power stations at $116/MWh.

    Michael Liebreich, the chief executive at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), stated that “the perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date.

    The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head.”

    AND, it isn’t necessary to persecute government scientists such as Charles Monnett in order to build wind farms, as the US Government in cahoots with Shell did to get the Alaskan drilling under way.

    Let’s not forget, it was Shell that was successfully sued by the survivors of its campaign of human rights violations against protesters at its environmental mess in Nigeria:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa
    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/justice-under-the-law-of-nations.html?_r=0

    from 1992 to 1995, multinational oil companies working in Nigeria aided the military dictatorship that tortured and killed protesters who fought the environmental damage caused by the oil operations.

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Fossil fuel companies support dictatorships, start wars, cause uprisings and civil wars:

    Oil production in Nigeria is running at half its capacity, the Petroleum Minister Odein Ajumogobia said last week. And the Niger Delta has been transformed into a war zone. The peaceful protests that peaked in 1993 with an estimated 300,000 Ogonis marching against Shell demanding compensation and an end to environmental destruction have been succeeded by armed militias in open revolt.

    The demonstrations and sit-ins have given way to kidnappings, bombings, sabotage and armed assaults on oil rigs, pumping stations and multinational targets. The region is overrun with corrupt authorities orchestrating pirate gangs and wholesale oil theft.

    As the preliminary hearings begin in New York tomorrow, hundreds of people in the Niger Delta are feared to have been killed in the crossfire during a counter-insurgency which the Nigerian government launched this month.

    A joint task force carried out sea and air attacks against targets in the Delta and ground troops were sent in to flush out militants. Amnesty International condemned the operation.

    The main militant group in the region is now the Movement for Emancipation of the Niger Delta, and unlike Mr Saro-Wiwa’s Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, its tactics are avowedly violent.

    The violence has affected all oil companies but analysts say that Shell’s onshore fields have been the worst affected. The oil industry was judged to have fed the violence in the Delta, according to a report that Shell commissioned five years ago.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shell-on-trial-1690616.html

  71. #72 bill
    February 28, 2013

    Less of the cheap and boring debating tactics, please, Chebbie. Those of use who do context understand that the wombat and I are wondering what you think should be concluded based on this paper. Given your bizarre misinterpretation of something as basic and primitive as a Delingpole ‘article’ virtually anything might be anticipated!

  72. #73 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 28, 2013

    Chubby: so where’s your discussion of the Kopp paper? Could it be that you can’t escape the Lewandowsky trap.

  73. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Well, I just tried discussing it Chameleon, but apparently you have no intelligent opinion to offer on the subject.

  74. #75 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    OK Vince,
    Can I assume that you have read it?
    Your comments all seem to relate to CO2 and then links to reports on fossil fuel companies.
    You have also linked to reports that wind power is cheaper than coal power and gas.
    This paper does not link to that type of information nor reference that type of information.
    This paper finds that during the last interglacial, global sea levels likely rose more than twice as fast as the present rate, to more than 6-8 meters higher than the present. The authors, using updated data and using probablities, find that the maximum 1000-year-average rate of sea level rise during the last interglacial could have exceeded 6 mm/yr.

    I’m unclear why you think your links are an attempt to discuss this particular paper?

    I note that Bill and rhwombat are far more interested making dismissive comments about me, rather than the paper.

    Maybe you would all prefer to wait until RC or SKS or Tamino or Rabbet or maybe even Lewandowsky have reviewed it? Or perhaps Jonova or WUWT etc?
    I have no idea if they have reviewed it or not.
    I just read the paper.
    It’s not pretending to be anything other than what it is.
    A more recent study of SL data.
    Some of the results are not disimilar to the recent Church et al paper.
    ( please note I said not disimilar and I avoided saying anything like ‘confirmed’)

  75. #76 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    This excellent article from Media Lens (UK) is for anti-science acolytes like chameleon who think the scientific community should pay undue attention to a few peer-reviewed articles downplaying AGW whilst ignoring many hundreds of times more articles that support it:

    http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/721-forever-groundhog-day-for-climate-a-tale-of-ice-smokescreens-and-rebellion.html

  76. #77 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    And here’s the clincher:

    “When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate ‘scepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 ‘clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.’

    So: 24 studies out of 13,950. That is 0.0017%. In other words, chammy is telling the scientific community that we don’t pay enough attention to 0.0017% of published papers, or that we ought to. What I have found, given the huge number of AGW denial sites on the internet is quite the reverse: far too much attention is paid to a miniscule number of contrarian studies.

    Moreover, since most denier sites on the internet are operated by non-scientists, its hardly surprising that these pundits don’t know a thing about climate science and are camouflaging their own personal political agendas under the banner of ‘sound science’.

    Chammy, give it a rest, will you? You are beating a drum out of pure and utter ignorance of how science works and of the massive overwhelming consensus amongst researchers in the field.

  77. #78 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    OK Vince,
    Can I assume that you have read it?
    Your comments all seem to relate to CO2 and then links to reports on fossil fuel companies.
    You have also linked to reports that wind power is cheaper than coal power and gas.
    This paper does not link to that type of information nor reference that type of information.

    I don’t know what planet you are on, Chameleon, but my comment on this paper
    was not about CO2
    was not about fossil fuel companies
    was not about wind power
    but
    was about sea level.

    Here is my comment, again:

    Interesting paper Chameleon – during the LIG, there was a period during which sea level rise exceeded 3mm/year, and sea level peaked at 6m-9m above today’s level.

    We’re already getting the 3mm+/year sea level rise – does this mean we’re headed for a 6m sea level rise?

    Here’s a thought – maybe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to try to prevent that from happening – what do you think?

    I’ll make two observations about your comment:

    1/ You don’t discuss its findings in any way shape or form.

    2/ You compare it with Church et al. Bizarre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Church et al. Nothing at all.
    oh
    except
    It’s about “sea level”.

    I notice you came very clear to making a true statement for once:

    I’m unclear why you think your links are an attempt to discuss this particular paper?

    I’ll fix it for you:

    I’m unclear why you think your links are an attempt to discuss this particular paper?

  78. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Oops, what I meant was:

    I’m unclear

  79. #80 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Oh, and Chameleon, when you say,

    I just read the paper.

    Big
    Fat
    Liar

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    Vince,

    She may or may not have read it but she sure does not understand it…

  81. #82 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    I’d say Chameleon got her latest talking point from the execrable crank-blog
    “The Hockey Shtick”

    Let’s see what lies they tell about it:

    A new paper published in Geophysical Journal International finds that during the last interglacial, global sea levels rose more than twice as fast as the present rate,
    FALSE
    to more than 8 meters higher than the present.
    FALSE
    According to the authors, the maximum 1000-year-average rate of sea level rise during the last interglacial exceeded 6 mm/yr,
    FALSE
    which is double the rate claimed by the IPCC of 3.1 mm/yr, and 5 times the rate claimed by NOAA of ~ 1.2 mm/yr.
    irrelevant and meaningless distraction
    The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed studies demonstrating there is nothing unusual,
    FALSE
    unnatural,
    LOGICAL FALLACY NUMERO UNO
    or unprecedented
    FALSE
    regarding current sea level rise, and that there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels.
    FALSE

    Don’t you get sick of getting your misinformation from liars?

  82. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Jeff, “Reading” necessarily means “understanding”.

    You can give me a paper in Serbian and I can “read” it.

    It would be a lie for to say I had read it, however, as I doubt I would understand one word in 50.

    Chameleon’s failure to make any sort of intelligent comment on the paper, coupled with her bizarre comment about Church et al, indicates she has not read it.

    Maybe she could start by telling us how it relates to Church et al, because I’m totally lost on that one?

  83. #84 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    JeffH and Vince?
    WTF?
    Do you want to discuss the paper or do you want to invent an argument with me?
    Who the hell is Hockey Shtick Vince?
    It must be yet another effing blog that I don’t read?
    WTF?
    And Vince?
    Which part of this comment was not about CO2?????
    “…maybe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to try to prevent that from happening – what do you think? ”
    That was your actual discussion question wasn’t it?

  84. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    The discussion is about sea level – why is it you still haven’t offered any comment on the paper you mentioned?

    What is it about that paper that you think makes it relate to Church et al?

    And if it wasn’t the execrable crank blog, “The Hockey Schtick”, then I’m sure you won’t mind telling us where exactly, this paper was brought to your attention?

  85. #86 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    to more than 8 meters higher than the present.
    FALSE

    Well, not really false, since the range is 6-9m.

    It’s rather like saying CO2 climate sensitivity is over 4C per doubling.

    What is obvious is that the above statement would have chubbie and all the other deniers SCREAMING “ALARMIST!!!”.

    Yet their blogroll stain says the similar statement and it’s all fine and lovely.

  86. #87 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Actually, I have it – Chameleon has a subscription to, “Geophysical Journal International”, and avidly reads every page of every edition the minute it is published.

    Naturally, she also has subscriptions to the 100-odd other important Geoscience, Physics, and Biology-related science journals, and unlike real scientists, who struggle to keep within 6 months of being up to date just in at least 50% of papers in their own field, Chameleon manages to read every science paper within a week of its publication.

  87. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Well, not really false, since the range is 6-9m.

    Exactly, the finding is a range of likelihoods, therefore the abominable liar who writes the “Hockey Schtick” crank blog, when he states that the paper asserts,

    global sea levels rose …to more than 8 meters higher than the present

    he is lying.

  88. #89 chek
    February 28, 2013

    What is it about deniers and their aversion to honesty?

  89. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    And if you have to lie to support whatever point you are trying to make, that indicates that you are unable to find any factual position on which to base your argument, indicating your position is not based on fact, ie, it is false.

  90. #91 FrankD
    February 28, 2013

    ‘Coup d’oeil‘ doesn’t have anything to do with “little guys” – it means “a stroke of the eye”, or more freely “at a glance”. It favourably describes the ability to see important but non-obvious features that others miss. Pretty much the exact opposite of what he apparently meant. mike was so busy type-type-typing, he didn’t stop to check what he was wittering about.

    Stick to rabid strings of hyphenated neologisms, goose – at least they are amusingly original (faintly), mon petit gars.

  91. #92 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    # 63 # 70 # 76 etc

    Kopp et al. (2013) examines rates of sea level change during the last interglacial which it terms the LIG and I will call the Eemian because that is standard terminology and more memorable than yet another TLA (three letter acronym).

    The Eemian interglacial was warmer than the present (Holocene) interglacial*, but not by much. From Kopp et al. (2013), hereafter K13:

    Analyses of palaeo-temperature data suggest that global mean temperature was ~1.5C warmer than today (Turney & Jones 2010) and that global mean sea surface temperature(SST) was 0.7 ± 0.6C warmer than pre-Industrial conditions (and hence about 0.2 ± 0.6C warmer than today; NOAA National Climatic Data Center 2011; McKay et al. 2011).

    Despite this modest difference in GAT – within expected warming based on conservative estimates of ECS – global average sea levels rose *at least* 5m, with many estimates (including those of K13) suggesting MSL highstand was >6m.

    What exactly is your point? Because if you are simply waving the Eemian about and saying ‘look mum, it wasn’t CO2′ then you are *missing* the point. The Eeminan is an imperfect analogue for the Holocene, but still suggestive of what can happen if GAT rises by ~2C. The change in summer high latitude insolation that triggered the Eemian deglaciation took thousands of years. Modern anthropogenic forcing seems very likely to produce an equivalent change in GAT within a century. I would suggest considering this carefully before re-reading K13.

    ***

    * Earth’s orbital eccentricity varies on a ~400ka cycle. Eccentricity modulates the effects of axial precession (~23ka cycle arising from the ‘wobble’ in the axis of rotation). The effect is strongly felt in hemispheric seasonal variation in insolation – summers get more (or less) sun, with the variation becoming increasingly pronounced at high latitude.

  92. #93 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    # 92 FrankD

    Thank you. That was my interpretation too. But I am no francophone.

  93. #94 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Vince?
    I did comment on the paper.
    WTF are you claiming at comment @ comment # 88?
    Do you want to discuss the paper or do you just want to argue about effing nothing at all?
    Maybe you do need to wait for the ‘academic pissing contest’ between RC et al and WUWT et al?
    Just remember Vince that I am not a regular reader of any of them :-)

  94. #95 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    The *point* of K13 is that there appears to have been considerable variability (~4m) in MSL *within* the Eemian, presumably as a result of orbital forcing. Which is to say, if GAT rises *during* an interglacial, then considerable SLR occurs additional to that associated with the deglaciation phase. The final sentence of K13 sounds a cautionary but properly caveated note:

    Despite these caveats, the record of LIG sea level variations suggests that the ice sheets currently extant are likely capable of sustaining rates of melting faster than those observed today for at least a millennium.

    Perhaps that is the point you missed?

  95. #96 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    No, chubby didn’t miss it. Chubby hadn’t been told about it.

    Never read the paper, see.

  96. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    I suspect “meaning” is of secondary importance to the Deniers.

    Pollution is their primary mission.

  97. #98 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon actually is giving me the giggles again:

    Vince?
    I did comment on the paper.

    Where?
    You can’t even explain why you thinkn it has something to do with Church et al. Why is that?

    WTF are you claiming at comment @ comment # 88?

    Ah, a bit subtle, was I?
    Let me rephrase it: the idea that you detect and read any science paper of any description without having been led to it by a crank blog is an idea to which I would ascribe an infinitesimally small chance of likelihood.
    No, less than infinitesimal.
    No, not even that.

  98. #99 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Vince?
    I repeat.
    Do you want to dicuss the paper or do you want to just invent an argument with me?
    If you just want to invent an argument with me, I’m not really interested.

  99. #100 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    This is a mess:

    Despite this modest difference in GAT – within expected warming based on conservative estimates of ECS – global average sea levels rose [were] *at least* 5m [above late Holocene MSL], with many estimates (including those of K13) suggesting [Eemian] MSL highstand was >6m [above Holocene].

    Pre-coffee. Apologies.

1 4 5 6 7 8 10