March 2013 Open Thread

Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    March 24, 2013

    Don’t ya just love how the denier-illiterate D-K acolytes here write as if they have all of the scientific angles covered? RN has obviously never been near a university science lecture room in his life, yet he comes on here parading nonsense from denier web sites (No tricks zone? Now really. The bottom of the barrel is being literally scraped) and then dismissing peer-reviewed studies by real, bonafide scientists showing that, as one would expect, huge losses in Arctic ice will affect weather patterns across much of the northern hemisphere (the polar regions playing a major role in circulation patterns).

    Where do these army of overconfident illiterates ‘glean’ their smug, self-confidet5n wisdom? From a glut of denier weblogs set up by – you guessed it – pundits and other non-scientists and the like. Pretty well all of them share a common political and philosophical ideology: libertarian/far right anti-regulatory agendas. Science kind of gets in the way, so its a necessary evil that they wade in and distort, twist, mangle and obfuscate the empirical and theoretical literature, whilst camouflaging the real underlying agendas.

    Most of the denier blogs are either linked with, or supported by people who would comfortably fit in with the agendas of the Tea Party in the US. Look at Duffer: on his web site he claimed that Obama is a Marxist/Socialist, when the reality is that Obama and his administration are every bit as embedded in the corporate/free market expansionist/Washington Consensus ideology as Bush, Clinton and their predecessors were. The current president is probably to the right of Goldwater and certainly Nixon. This just shows how far to the right this lot of science manglers is. And by quoting shills like Nova, Milloy, Morano, and others, they can’t help but play their true hands for all to see.

    To reiterate what I also said earlier, when some of the vacuous gaps in the scientific acumen of the deniers is exposed, they just switch topic and ignore the points raised. I discussed the essential element of scale, and Rednose, either cleverly or in just exposing his rank ignorance, made a dismissive comment then went straight back to making dumb, essentially pointless remarks about weather in a tiny corner of the biosphere, blithely unaware clearly what scale has to do with the rules governing the functioning of systems at different levels of organization.

    What RN and idiots like him hope is that they can keep the discussion pinned down within an exceedingly narrow range of parameters. Since they have not even a basic understanding of complexity, and even only a kindergarten-level understanding of simplicity, they desperately try and keep the boundaries of debate stuck to the very lowest common denominator. To be honest, most of the deniers do it, for the simple reason that their ignorance is laid bare once the discussion enters the realm of dynamics.

    As I said yesterday, as a senior scientist in population and evolutionary ecology, some of the first things I was taught in ecology were the importance of (1) hierarchies, (2) scales, (3) flows, (4) non-linear dynamics, (5) lags, and (6) feedbacks. These also apply to processes that regulate weather and climate are concerned. Most trained scientists clearly understand this but the armchair experts don’t. They’ve started out with a blank slate that appears in many cases to have been filled in with ‘information’ from web logs. Its clear that many deniers did not start out with an open mind and set out to discuss with scientists or to learn from basic books about complexity; instead, they possess deep-rooted political views and sought out blogs which they would use to arm themselves (however incompetently) against the bulk of scientific evidence.

    I have yet to encounter a single AGW denier on Deltoid – and I have been reading and writing in here for almost a decade – who has even a basic understanding of scale, complexity and non-linear dynamics in the Earth and environmental sciences. Not a single one. These idiots remind me of the expendable fighters one encounters in a Bruce Lee film like ‘Enter the Dragon’. No matter how many of them come forward and are easily and summarily despatched by our hero, more fill the ranks in a never-ending procession of profound ignorance.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    March 24, 2013

    Vince @ 99:

    You nailed it. This is EXACTLY what I mean. How the far right has seen the internet as a tool to attack and undermine scientific integrity. I honestly thought – naively as it turns out – that Deltoid might attract open-minded people who admitted that they do not posses the scientific acumen but were nevertheless interested to learn more about human effects on climate as well as these effects on natural and managed ecosystems. That they wold enquire as to useful sources of information. Instead, amongst those people I have encountered a coterie of individuals who by many factors over-estimate their knowledge in the field, who consistently smear some of the world’s best scientists, and who endlessly parrot garbage spewed out by denier blogs. When their clear lack of understanding of even basic processes is exposed, they get all uppity, ignore the arguments and dig in on the most flimsy of bases.

    Its depressing and I honestly think that, if the comments I see on blogs are anything to go by, our species is screwed, well and truly. David Roberts laid it out in his TED lecture. We are heading for a cliff in the dark of our own making and many of us just do not want to accept that we are riding blind. Its pure and utter folly.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    March 25, 2013

    So there’s a bit of a fuss over the recent Lewandowsky papers.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911001036

    Just sayin’…

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    March 25, 2013

    One of my colleagues who has persisted in reading the Brangelina thread, in the face of repeated admonitions to the contrary, emailed this to me this morning:

    Then it follows that an atmospheric CO2 of 550 ppm would be associated with a warming of

    ~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

    Hence my true statement (to zero decimal places!) that

    Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures [...] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    And now that I’ve refreshed your memory on how logarithms work, you’ll grasp why

    There *is* no implied baseline.

    To insist, as BBD does, that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is dyscalculic, innumerate, mathematically illiterate, or however you want to euphemise it. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no implied baseline.

    It seems that as a mathematician, Brad Keyes makes a cunning linguist. Keyes needs to understand that there is a baseline. Sensitivity refers to the temperature response to every doubling of of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starting at 275* ppm.

    There was much laughter up and down the corridors.

    Keyes’ equation:

    ~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

    is nonsense, no more than meaningless mathematical Thimblerig. If equilibrium climate sensitivity results in a 2.5° Celsius increase in in temperature per doubling, subsequent operations with divisors and further logarithms will not alter this fact.

    Keyes might fancy that he speaks fancy, but his is a mathematical ignorance that could be unpicked by a smart 13 year old.

    And Keyes, if you’re reading this, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 550 ppm will be catastrophic for billions of people, many societies and cultures, and a significant proportion of the species in the biosphere. I’ll stake my reputation an an ecologist on this, and let posterity be the judge.

    Our ecological requirements are tuned to the Holocene (not the emotive spin-doctoring term “Amish” with which you tried to taint the facts) concentration of ~275 ppm, and like it or not excursions of more than about 50-75 ppm from that figure will have long-term effects on how (and if) the sweaty naked ape lives.

    [* It's salient to reiterate that the best (read 'parsimonious') median estimate for equilibrium sensitivity is still a hair over 3° Celsius. Pulling a lower value out of the air because it's more amenable to one's ideology doesn't change the objectivity of the laws of physics or of the scientific method.]

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    March 25, 2013

    The longer Keyes goes on the less intelligent and informed he looks.

    I’m not entirely sure that’s the effect he was going for.

  6. #6 Rednose
    UK
    March 25, 2013

    Jeff#1

    So as one of those ecologists, I suppose you are repeatedly reporting about earlier springs and the relentless march Northward of all those little critters trying to escape the effects of global warming. Its a great pity they have probably all now frozen to death under 3 feet of the stuff.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298421/UK-weather-Deep-drifts-high-winds-deadly-ice-Britain-faces-perfect-winter-storm-forecasters-warn-perilous-conditions-White-Easter.html

  7. #7 Rednose
    UK
    March 25, 2013

    How the far right has seen the internet as a tool to attack and undermine scientific integrity.
    Do you think its a conspiracy?

    If you want to undermine scientific integrity, look no further than the latest gems from staff at the UWA. Soon to be renamed Crawley Comp if it carries on being associated with publications of that stature.

  8. #8 Karen
    March 25, 2013

    Rednose, hehehe, Jeff Harvey also waffled on about how warm it was in Canada, lol, look at it now.

    He never could work out the difference between weather and climate, he was constantly on the look for hotspots to feed his neurosis.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    March 25, 2013

    DuffassRedNose:

    Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

    Note the emphasised text which indicates the localized nature of the colder events and that temperatures have continued to rise.

    Just you wait ’till all that heat that has been accumulating in the oceans starts to be pushed back into the atmosphere and is also used increasing the melt rate of ice at the polar edges. Interesting events happening in the Arctic right now:

    Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack,

    and if you had bothered to follow up my suggestion to use GeoMapApp to investigate the topography of the Antarctic you would realise how the above could suddenly tip the Antarctic into rapid melt on top of that taking place up North.

    So Duffski, you fail again and need to attend extra-curricular classes so that you understand the bigger picture and thus not get taken in by the garbage from those Beno & Dandy sites.

    I wish you were correct in your thinking and that there is no problem. Sadly, for my children and grandchildren that is not the case and idiots like you help slow down any action to ameliorate this dire situation. For that you should eventually be pilloried at the very least for your actions are those of a socio-path.

  10. #10 FrankD
    March 25, 2013

    Bernard, if you really feel you must join the crowd of Brad-enablers, could you do us all a solid and not clutter up a fourth open thread with his twaddle? If you feel you must rebut such obvious boneheadery, there is a thread for it. Thanks.

    Meanwhile, Karen enjoins us to “lol, look at it [Canada] now.”
    So I did, and I notice the Canadian Arctic is currently showing temps 10 – 15 Celsius above normal for this time of year. So obviously self-defeating; it makes me wonder what Karen’s point is.

    No, let me rephrase – I wonder what the point of Karen is….

    Meanwhile, meanwhile, Duffer witters on about late snow in England. He is doubtless unaware that recent research has shown Arctic Sea Ice melt producing more extreme fluctuation in the jetstream causing, by turns, more unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold weather. So we see summer temperatures in later winter in the continental US last year, and damn cold *weather* in the UK this year.

    Pretty much exactly as has been predicted for years. I’m sure climatologists appreciate your endorsement of their work, David.

  11. #11 Rednose
    UK
    March 25, 2013

    LA#8
    Well as the whole paper was about Solar Influence on winter severity in Central Europe its bleeding obvious it would sort of be about Europe. I also showed evidence that European winters were getting colder recently, coinciding with a period of low sunspot activity.

    And when exactly is this accumulated heat going to get pushed back into the atmosphere.
    More to the point how exactly is it getting there, into the deep oceans?
    Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.
    Is all that energy sort of queing up to go down sink holes or is it by some mysterious beam technology or an example of quantum linkage. i would like to know.
    Whats happening to the extra energy thats hitting the land surface. doesnt seem to be affecting the land surface temperatures much. Is that being beemed to the deep ocean and adding to it as well.
    OMG. Its worse than we thought.

    I am more concerned about people alive today. Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.
    We should be able to adapt to future changes. generally the more affluent and more resources the greater the ability to adapt.
    The policy of green miserablism is no solution.

  12. #12 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Bernard J

    Thanks for posting this.

    One brief point:

    [* It's salient to reiterate that the best (read 'parsimonious') median estimate for equilibrium sensitivity is still a hair over 3° Celsius. Pulling a lower value out of the air because it's more amenable to one's ideology doesn't change the objectivity of the laws of physics or of the scientific method.]

    The egregious Keyes got the 2.5C ECS figure from me. In an effort to illustrate for him that even rather low estimates for ECS require emissions controls I used a conservative estimate of ~2.5C – ~3C in discussion with the Buffoon. Needless to say, he picked the bottom of that range.

    It’s interesting to note that the first time BK actually ventures out of rhetoric into the concrete in ~5000 comments, the great scientific genius reveals himself to be incompetent on several levels (see also the TCR vs ECS confusion).

    But always ready to sneer at the supposed ignorance and naivety of others. What a loathsome little shit it is.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    FrankD

    Apologies. No more will be said on the subject here.

  14. #14 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Rednose

    Why do you keep ignoring the important things? First, Central European winter temperatures ≠ GAT. That’s just a basic denialist bonehead conflation and you can stop doing it now because it is tedious.

    Second, you ignored this graph on the previous page (twice, if you are in fact Rednose as well).

    So, let me ask you again to explain what we see.

    Compare TSI (yellow line at the bottom) with forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gasses (W-M GHG; green; mainly CO2) and the remarkable increase in ocean heat content (OHC, red).

    TSI and OHC *diverge* from about 1980 onwards. TSI *declines* and OHC increases.

    ?

    Here’s a clue: it’s not the sun. Stop being a denialist bonehead.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    March 25, 2013

    FrankD, yup, that’s right. Its warmer over much of the Yukon and NW Territories than it is in central Europe and farther south in the USA right now. Way above normal. As it has been through much of the winter and pretty well non-stop since the early 1990s….

    Note how Rednose attrempts to use a one year outlier in one small geographical area as a proxy for spring temperatures. Again, the system over the short term exhibits non-linear dynamics; only over longer time scales and larger spatial scales do processes become more predictable. Rednose again cannot get the process of scale through his thickly boned skull. Its not even like he tried to get around it; its inconvenient to his argument and thus must be ignored.

    Essentially its just another example of his scientific illiteracy. Like other deniers, he thinks central Britain is some huge expanse of terrain and that 10-15 years is an eternity when it comes to climate. This is like me studying one smalkl region of boreal forest in canada in one season and attempting to make predictions of biotic processes and system functiioning on this basis. Longer term trends don’t figure into this kindergarten level thinking; Rednose thionks that it is warmer now than last year, then next year must by his law of linear thinking be warmer than this year. Every dot on the graph must be higher than the one preceding it in on the y-axis. Forget doing long term regression anlyses in which trends are elucidated; his regressions are based on as few as two data points. Aha! Its colder in 0.0001% of the globe this March than last March! This proves that GW is a myth!

    I’ve had idiots make it easy to debunk their nonsense but Rednose might just be the easiest.He’s be laughed out of any science room or lecture hall with this kind of comedy.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    Meanwhile, meanwhile, Duffer witters on about late snow in England. He is doubtless unaware that recent research has shown Arctic Sea Ice melt producing more extreme fluctuation in the jetstream causing, by turns, more unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold weather. So we see summer temperatures in later winter in the continental US last year, and damn cold *weather* in the UK this year.

    Actually no, duffer has admitted this and used it to explain the drought the Kiwis are having. Here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/03/07/march-2013-open-thread/comment-page-5/#comment-153669

    Which makes you wonder what his point was.

  17. #17 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    Its a great pity they have probably all now frozen to death under 3 feet of the stuff.

    So you’re saying that we’ve never had 3ft of snow before?

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    March 25, 2013

    Then he writes this gibberish:

    “We should be able to adapt to future changes. generally the more affluent and more resources the greater the ability to adapt”

    I’ve debunked this crap so many times I have lost count. The old ‘humans can adapt’ canard. Of course, as I tirelessly repeat over and over and oevr and over again, its beyond our control. Human technology cannot replicate the conditions necessary to create functioning ecosystems that generate conditions which permit us to exist and persist. In other words, if natural systems fail to produce vital services upon which human civilization rests, then it does nopt matter how brillaint and innovatgive we think our species is, we will go down the drain. End of story.

    Human technology cannt effectively replicate the following ecological servcies with any kind of efficiency: water purification, breakdown of terrestrial wastes, nutrient cycling, pollination, seed dispersal, pest control, maintenance of ecosystem functions and stability, mitigation of floods and droughts and regnerations of soil fertility. These services freely emerge from natgure and our species is the main beneficiary; no species depends more on nature or utiolizes more of it: up to 50% of net primary production and freshwatger flows are co-oped by man. As we continue our assault on natural systems, effectively simplifying them, we push them towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves – and us. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) showed that human activities have already negatively affected some 60% of critical ecosystem services, and the social and economic costs of business-as-usual will be profound. Al;ready, overharvesting of marine ecosystems has put many of the brink of irreversible collapse. Terrestrail systemjs are not far behind. We should count our lucky stars that these systems have been resileint enough to withstand that diverse human assault thus far – but there is no reason to believe that ecological services are as resilient as the systems themselves.

    But since Rednose is just another scientifically illiterate denier, he does not know any of this (don’t worry RN, your lot is brimming with equally vapid throngs). What people like RN illustrate, almost without exception, if a lack of even a basic understanding of systems ecology and how this translates into the well being of humans and the material economy. They write as if humans are virtually exempt from the laws of nature. Pretty much every AGW denier I have encountered has a similar hole in their understanding of systems ecology and what it means for civilization. No problem there, except when they write into blogs and play the ‘adaptation’ hand, whilst lacking even a basic understanding of what this involves.

  19. #19 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    I’ve debunked this crap so many times I have lost count. The old ‘humans can adapt’ canard.

    Well, going extinct is an adaption.

    I wonder if they know that they appear to prefer the extinction of the human race to having to clean up their mess and the mess of previous generations.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    March 25, 2013

    RedNose,

    Having deliberately evaded the context of my post, hint links, you then produce this gibberish:

    I am more concerned about people alive today. Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.

    The state of the economy has nothing to do with your so called green policies, maybe you would care to share what you think those are EXACTLY, or carbon taxes and everything to do with greedy bastids like this who helped precipitate the financial crisis. Also consider the behaviour of the one time heads of RBS and Barclays. But they, like Gideoneorge Osborne and Cameron or just puppets dancing to the tune of those who wish to recreate a medieval society where most have been stripped of their assets. See Cyprus here some time but much modified so that the one percent have let outs.

    You seem a typical Daily Fail, Sun, Star, Sport reader who works his frames of reference from opinion columns in such and of course the worst blogs on the net which belong to what the Ehrlichs termed the ‘Brownlash’ in their Betrayal of Science and Reason:
    How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future
    . Now I suggest that you find a copy and read it, you will then discover why regulation of industry and taxes to cover externalities not factored into the way business has been carried out up to this point in time.

    You will also find examples of how miscreants of the Brownlash have distorted the writings of scientists. Of course you do this yourself by your selective quoting, quoting without context.

    Have you not noticed that across the country many have suffer from flooding as the result not only of global warming induced climate change and extreme weather but because of bad development policies where the fast buck is king building real estate without adequate infrastructure. This is the result of altered patterns of jets stream behaviour from Arctic ice loss which also puts more moisture into the atmosphere. That some of the increased precipitation falls as snow is just one aspect of the same phenomenon.

  21. #21 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes

    Since most of the rise has been because we’ve been at the mercy of international sellers of fossil fuels, you should be demanding that they are replaced.

    and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy

    Which is made worse by our balance of payments being hit by

    1) Austerity measures, ensuring nobody has any money, therefore nothing is bought, therefore nobody employed making or selling it
    2) Importing gas, coal, nuclear material.

    which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.

    The only “green taxes” are subsidies to renewables and that costs about £2. Compared to £66 from the increase in fossil fuels cost, you should be pointing your wagging finger elsewhere.

  22. #22 Lionel A
    March 25, 2013

    ruddyshnozzle:

    And when exactly is this accumulated heat going to get pushed back into the atmosphere.

    If you had bothered to view pages cited you would have seen this:

    Additionally, after the very strong El Niño event of 1998, a cooling of the upper 300 and 700 meters of oceans is visible as a result of heat being transfered from the surface ocean to the atmosphere.

    You also wrote this:

    Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.

    Emphasised part; who says?

    Whatever that statement again makes it clear that you didn’t bother to go to source for then you would appreciate the nonsense that is.

    On affluence, in general the prosperity gap is widening and with the percentage of those on the wrong side increasing. HTF do you think those washed out of their homes, off their farms and out of their jobs are going to adapt.

    How do you think organisms are going to adapt when temperatures, salinity, atmospheric pressure or some other factor goes outside of their liveability zone faster than they can move, assuming they have anywhere to move to. You just don’t get the scale or scope of this issue do you.

    You are clearly educated to the guidelines that Gove is trying to return to. Narrow education to produce narrow little minds.

    BTW RedNose isn’t a Keyes sock emulating Duffspeak is it?

  23. #23 Rednose
    UK
    March 25, 2013

    maybe you would care to share what you think those are EXACTLY,

    Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich, useless, industrialising the landscape and acting as a sop to the “we must do somethingto save the polar bear brigade” to gain popularity and votes

  24. #24 Lionel A
    March 25, 2013

    Bleeding windmills.

    Oh! Is that all.

    As Wow indicated, wag your finger at the oligarchs (and then hide perhaps).

    Wait ’till you have been ‘fracked’. Snag is I don’t want to be fracked and neither would anybody else if they understood the hazards. We will have enough trouble finding plentiful drinking water without this crazy.

  25. #25 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    Bleeding windmills

    The subsidy for that is £2 on the average bill.

    The subsidy for the banks was, what, £3,000 per household? Gas price increases £66.

  26. #26 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Rednose

    You ignored my comment at # 13 again

    This is surprising as it also demonstrates that your statement is false:

    Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.

    This is of course bollocks. Here is another view of OHC, this time showing 0 – 2000m (black) as well as 0 – 700m (red).

    Why are you spouting nonsense and ignoring correction?

    Do you find these explanations difficult to follow?

  27. #27 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Rednose

    bleeding windmills

    Not this tripe again. Gas companies are killing the poor, not ‘green taxes’. Do your homework. Check your numbers. This lie was concocted by the GWPF and inserted in to the British popular imagination by the Daily Fail.

    It has since been formally retracted by that rag, but only after action by the Press Complaints Commission and not before the damage was done. You should be more careful what, and who, you believe. Some people out there are not using the correct numbers.

  28. #28 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Up to date numbers on cost of bleeding windmills embedded in energy bills. Less than £10 a year.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    March 25, 2013

    “Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich”

    Good grief, does Rednose have no shame? Diverting funds from poor to rich? That’s the whole ethos of the Washington Consensus, man! Why on Earth do you think the electoral system in the US has long been co-opted by the privileged few? Your comment is so utterly flippant, its akin to a drop of water in a bottomless sea….

    And the las thing those who have their hands on the reins of power want is for us to be weaned off of our dependence on fossil fuels. Heck, we essentially eat the stuff, since every facet of our lives is dependent, either directly or indirectly, on them. The social and environmental costs of extraction, refining, delivery and use is externalized; in other words, society is subsidizing the ecological costs without understanding how likely to be. It explains why at Rio in 92′ the corporate lobby was there big time, ensuring that full-cost pricing was kept well away from the political agenda whilst working more towards fighting for the right to treat nature as intellectual property, rather than to protect it.

    You really are a loon.

  30. #30 Wow
    March 25, 2013

    “Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich”

    Good grief, does Rednose have no shame? Diverting funds from poor to rich? That’s the whole ethos of the Washington Consensus, man!

    Yeah I think duffer here has an envy problem with rich people.

  31. #31 Russell Seitz
    March 25, 2013

    If anyone wants to er, revise , Fred Singer’s Crank Climate Cyclopedia, he’s put out a call for reviewers.

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    March 25, 2013

    FrankD:

    Meanwhile, Karen enjoins us to “lol, look at it [Canada] now.”

    Actually, there’s a thread for that too – it’s called the Sunspot Thread

    ;-)

    Fair point though. I’ll go over and see if Keyes has justified his rubbery equation.

  33. #33 JohnL
    March 25, 2013

    I see that Brad has forfeited his right to post at SKS;

    Moderator Response:
    [DB] Note to all participants: The posting rights of Mr. Keyes have been deemed forfeit due to dishonesty on the part of Mr. Keyes, earlier
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1934&p=2#92682

    Cue up the anguished cries of martyrdom.

  34. #34 metzomagic
    March 25, 2013

    Brad’s swan song on that SKS thread was to refer to the likes of WUWT, Morano, CA, et. al. as ‘science defending’. I suppose that kinda explains why he has his own self-contained thread here. At least when you bang your head against a brick wall, you can eventually get back something for your efforts, even if it is only a severe headache. Whereas trying to engage with Brad…

    Anyway, in other news, the WUWT echo chamber is delirious with itself for managing to stack the voting to gain yet another Bloggie for best anti-science site. Any attempt to explain that they essentially voted for themselves of course falls on deaf ears.

  35. #35 bill
    March 25, 2013

    Cue us not getting rid of him.

    Sadly.

  36. #36 MikeH
    March 26, 2013

    New paper in Nature Climate Change – “Temperature and vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands”
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1836.html

    Check out the inline ad to the right of the article.

    Piping Bitumen Without the Use of Diluents
    Deadline:Mar 27 2013 Reward:$10,000 USD
    A group of progressive oil sands companies are looking for creative and innovative ways to flowing bitumen through pipelines…

    Eventually leads you to here
    https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9932959

    Nature Publishing Group – you have to be fucking joking.

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    March 26, 2013

    Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich

    Delingpole, is that you?

    ;-)

  38. #38 bill
    March 26, 2013

    Nah, Delingpole’s just the hand up the-
    never mind… ;-)

  39. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    March 26, 2013

    IPCC hopelessly wrong:

    http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/arctic-death-spiral-leaves-climate-scientists-shocked-and-worried

    This jaw-dropping acceleration of Arctic sea ice collapse is completely out-stripping the worst case scenarios of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

  40. #40 Sou
    March 26, 2013

    Is Anthony Watts a creationist as well as a climate science denier? (Or ‘Why real scientists don’t debate climate science deniers and creationists’.)

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watt-whopper-of-religious-fervour.html

  41. #41 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    BBD#28

    You must be every salesman’s dream customer.
    I will make you an appontment now. Have your cheque book ready. Better still I will knock 10% off if you pay the full amount cash upfront, but the offer is only open today.

    A different perspective here
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/wind_power_how_much/page2.html
    Hughes calculates that the national and EU policies favouring wind will incur an additional cost to citizens of £120bn for the turbines, and the backups they require, to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets, when the same electricity could be generated for just £13bn if the UK used open cycle gas plants instead.

    Meeting the 2020 renewable target using wind will require 36GW worth of wind backed up by 13GW of the rather more reliable gas. “Overall, the net saving in fuel, operating and maintenance costs for the wind scenario relative to the gas scenario is less than £500m per year, a very poor return on an additional investment of over £105bn,” concludes Hughes.

    Wind turbines may even increase the UK’s CO2 emissions – depending on when the wind blows.

    Hughes adds: “The response has been to rig the market to (in effect) guarantee the return on investment in immature technologies which are not economic at any reasonable price on CO2 emissions or if their impact on landscapes and the environment was properly internalised.”

    Slightly different perspective here

  42. #42 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    BBD#14

    Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page.

  43. #43 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    Hughes calculates that the national and EU policies favouring wind will incur an additional cost to citizens of £120bn for the turbines,

    And why do you think he is right?

  44. #44 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    Slightly different perspective here

    “Wrong” is another perspective.

    Just because you have a different perspective doesn’t mean you have a valid one.

  45. #45 Wow
    March 26, 2013
  46. #46 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    LionelA#22

    Emphasised part; who says?

    Try this
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend

    Re the new paper you referred to, as I undersdtand there have been no measurements below 2000m and very few from 700-1500m by the Argo buoys. Before Argo there were no measurements at depth and very few in the Southern Hemisphere. .
    Also the Argo data even very recently has been described as “Provide limited value due to missing and erroneous data and calibration.”
    Also in this article, there does not seem to be a process descibed which explains adequately how this heat reaches below 2000m at the speeds necessary to mask its build up elsewhere.
    So the models might predict it going there but measurements do not seem to have confirmed this yet.
    A work still in progress.

    Also other sources suggest it takes upwards of 1000years for water to circulate from the surface to these depths and back to the surface.
    Are you suggesting our climate is influenced today by events in 1066.

    Agree about the crazy building on flood planes.

  47. #47 Rednose
    Uk
    March 26, 2013

    So who is gift aiding the other 110 odd billion necessary for the bleeding wind farms?

    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php

    And wind is producing about 2.5GW from a demand for about 50GW presently.

    110 billion pounds to produce 2.5GW. Fantastic value.

  48. #48 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    So who is gift aiding the other 110 odd billion necessary for the bleeding wind farms?

    So who says there is another 110 odd billion necessary?

  49. #49 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    Really, duffer, you’re pathetic.

  50. #50 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

    “It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW

    Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion”

    Then fuel it, run it, fix it and clear up. The latter costing something north of £60Bn.

  51. #51 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    And remember, Nukes get about 60% nameplate capacity in output. 960MW.

  52. #52 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    And as we’ve seen, without gas, a gas generator is just a pile of metal. And that can happen because a valve went wrong.

  53. #53 lord_sidcup
    March 26, 2013

    Rednose should learn to be sceptical of what he reads in the Dail Fail/Fail on Sunday/Fail online:

    The £110 billion figure is quoted fairly often in discussions about UK energy policy. It’s the amount of private sector investment that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates will be needed to construct new power plants and upgrade the UK’s electricity networks over the next eight years. DECC breaks this down into £75 billion for constructing new generation capacity and £35 billion for upgrading the network grid. This total sum will not be paid directly through taxes – or even consumer energy bills. It’s an investment the government is seeking from the private sector – which will presumably expect a return.

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/david-rose-and-the-%C2%A3110-billion-energy-bill

    Rednose wants to leave the UK’s ageing energy infrastructure to rot away.

  54. #54 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    It doesn’t even say that it’s for wind power, never mind only wind power generators.

  55. #55 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    “It’s an investment the government is seeking from the private sector – which will presumably expect a return.”

    Hang on, a small business, for example a high street shop, is expected to keep their place in good repair or they can lose the building and license to operate.

    That cost of repair is taken from the profits. It isn’t expected that fixing the roof will be an investment that will pay back directly.

    So why are the owners of the grid allowed to expect the cost of maintenance of their infrastructure to be a profitable venture?

    Hell, it’s the same for the bloody water companies: “We must be allowed to increase the rates so we can pay for upkeep on the stuff we bought but didn’t do and now have to”.

    Sod off. If you can’t keep it running, you shouldn’t be making ANY profit.

  56. #56 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Rednose

    Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page

    Oh fuck off with evasive your nonsense! Download another browser if whatever junk you are running is that badly borked.

  57. #57 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    He’s got the UKIP browser. It won’t display discouraging information for UKIP ideology.

    Sort of a racist “peril sensitive sunglasses”.

  58. #58 Turboblocke
    March 26, 2013

    Always useful to divide those big scarey numbers by the number of people paying for it and the number of years…

  59. #59 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Note the chain of causality:

    GWPF (Lawson) ->

    Daily Fail – Paul Dacre; Editor and buddy of Lawson’s ->

    David Rose; Daily Fail hack and serial climate science misrepresenter ->

    British electorate

    This is how fake charity fake ‘think tanks’ use influential media to distort public perceptions and warp public policy.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    March 26, 2013

    rudyschnozzle

    Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page.

    Try using browser settings so as to handle the appropriate graphic file format. Shouldn’t be that difficult.

  61. #61 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    BBD#56
    Following on from my reply to you link to a crappo SKS post:

    And the Ocean Heat Content 0-700 metres for thr Atlantic and Pacific, for which there are Argo readings also seem to be decreasing. So its not hiding there.

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png

    Something else to put you in a good mood:
    Piers is forcasting the Worst Easter Bank Holiday for decades. Blames it on the comming MIA.
    http://climaterealists.com/?id=11388

    And Die Welt reports “Scientists Warning of an Iceage”
    http://notrickszone.com/
    maybe its related to the low sunspot activity.
    Interesting to see what happens when the AMO goes negative.
    Find an uptic in that lot..
    You only need one outlier.

  62. #62 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    Always useful to divide those big scarey numbers by the number of people paying for it and the number of years

    You still end up with a number at least ten times bigger than the one given in a trade magazine.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    March 26, 2013

    Emphasised part; who says?

    Try this
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend

    Aha! Another step on the Up Escalator and one with a decided up slope at that. What happens when all dates are set from 1980? Just saying.

    As for the rest of your answer, which from one quote within ‘Provide limited value due to missing and erroneous data and calibration‘ appears based upon effluent from WUWT and what does not reflect that betrays a lack of parsing of all element of the article cited so here is some more suggested reading which will provide you with a better grounding in this aspect.

    It could be a novel experience for you to read about this topic in depth as well as breadth but stick at it.

    As for sources suggesting 1000 year ocean turnover – which ones have YOU studied YOURSELF?

    As for human effect on climate back in 1066 – well yes and way before. Check out works by William Ruddiman.

  64. #64 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Rednose

    Following on from my reply to you link to a crappo SKS post:

    No, I did not, you lying buffoon. I linked you directly to an image on the NODC OHC data site.

    Don’t start the Bray-style blatant misrepresentations/evasions here. Do not lie about what I write.

    Bob Tisdale is not a reliable source, so please don’t link to any more of his stuff.

  65. #65 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    maybe its related to the low sunspot activity.

    Read the words and look at the graph with your shiny new browser. Sort your nonsense out instead of repeating it endlessly.

    Notricks is a another unreliable source. Don’t bother linking to it again.

  66. #66 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Another bonehead fucking troll.

  67. #67 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Primary reference: Levitus et al. (2012). (Full paper pdf).

    Abstract:

    [1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    March 26, 2013

    Trust our latest resident moron to cite crap from Bob Tisdale, another non-scientist blogger, and not the primary literature. Well, two can play the blog game:

    http://wottsupwiththat.com/tag/bob-tisdale/

    Note how RN has, as expected, slithered on from several of his older weather-related/human adaptation posts which were comprehensively debunked. Bait and switch. Its the deniers main strategy.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    March 26, 2013

    …to follow on from my last post, note also how Tisdale mangles his data: by selecting a time scale that fits his narrative. A very short one, of course, as is keeping with the scientifically illiterate denier hordes out there who claim to embrace science but in the end do not understand (or deliberately ignore) vitally important concepts including scale. I am still waiting for RN ot cite some of the primary literature, but it seems to much to ask. Instead, as with most of the deniers, we are inundated with links to right wing blogs run by a veritable army of nincompoops whose ideas wouldn’t last 5 seconds were they exposed to serious peer-review.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    March 26, 2013

    RedNose,

    Bob Tisdale, (and don’t just lob in graphics out of context – that’s a Monckton Manoeuvre).

    Climate Realists

    and

    notrickzone

    and Potty Piers (to add to a Potty Peer)

    You gotta be kidding us.

    But then Piers is only going on what our senses, the Met Office and the current state of warming disturbed jet stream is telling us. Heck I have pointed you at the Master’s site which should have given you a clue.

    Here is a take on Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy? dragon that you have awaken and here is some stuff on Tisdale’s tricks with tracks.

  71. #71 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available,

    Is that early data when they used to chuck a bucket over the side on the end of a rope and measure the temperature after it had been pulledback in. Probabbly left hanging around for a while ot next to a hot fiunnel. Get some really good data with that.

  72. #72 lord_sidcup
    March 26, 2013

    Calling all Daily Fail/Fail on Sunday/Fail Online readers. Here is the latest, and probabably my favourite, demolition of David Rose:

    http://www.theccc.org.uk/ccc-blog/

  73. #73 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Rednose

    Instead of more witless prattle, why not STFU and RTFR?

    ;-)

  74. #74 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    You dont like Piers, you don like WUWT, nor notrickzone, bob Tisdale, CR

    Hears the original source

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2F131.253.14.98%
    2Fproxy.ashx%3Fh%3DqpwvCYCZC_k_Sr4T1qS7zgQ-nyy-kE46%26a%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.welt.de%252Fprint%252Fdie_welt%252Fvermischtes%252Farticle114733276%252FWissenschaftler-warnen-vor-Eiszeit.html

  75. #75 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    lord_sidcup

    At a skim, this looks good. Thank you and will read properly this evening.

    I wish I could convey this to the Thing In The Basement (BK):

    Our advice is framed around an overall objective to keep a 50:50 probability of a temperature rise close to 2°C and a negligible chance of reaching 4°C by 2100. Modelling work with the Met Office Hadley Centre in 2008 showed that global emissions therefore ought to peak by 2020 and halve by 2050. Results showed that this still gave a 10% chance of reaching at least 3.5°C. If new findings confirm a reduction in this high-range possibility this would clearly be good, but would not suggest that delaying action is a sensible way to meet our objective.

    But Brad doesn’t get it at all.

  76. #76 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Oooh! It’s in Die Welt so it must be true!

    You buffoon.

    STFU and RTFR. Levitus.

  77. #77 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    We are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising.

    Sort your nonsense out. *THINK* instead of prattling.

  78. #78 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    Poor link. try again
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fprint%2Fdie_welt%2Fvermischtes%2Farticle114733276%2FWissenschaftler-warnen-vor-Eiszeit.html

    To some extent it was able to win a series of tests a picture of how the solar wind affects the ionizing cloud formation and thus the temperature of the Earth. (Pixie dust)

    he two researchers came to the conclusion: “The anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been in the second half of the 20th century probably overestimated by a factor of two,” actually only half as large as expected. The flow and pressure conditions in the oceans and on the other hand, would fundamentally underestimated.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    March 26, 2013

    More clueless from he who makes Clouseau look bright:

    Is that early data when they used to chuck a bucket over the side on the end of a rope and measure the temperature after it had been pulledback in. Probabbly left hanging around for a while ot next to a hot fiunnel. Get some really good data with that.

    Not that old nutshell. Daily Fail standard though.

  80. #80 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    We are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising.

    Yagger. Yagger

  81. #81 Rednose
    UK
    March 26, 2013

    Lionel
    you really should try to broaden your reading matter. Restricting it to Tamino and SKS will give you a very cyclops view.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    March 26, 2013

    RuddyschNozzle:

    you really should try to broaden your reading matter. Restricting it to Tamino and SKS will give you a very cyclops view.

    Unfortunate and erroneous assumptions are your forte as in that prime example.

    So, you have nothing useful to offer. Thought so.

  83. #83 Wow
    March 26, 2013

    ” maybe its related to the low sunspot activity.”

    That hypothesis has been falsified.

  84. #84 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Rednose

    From the Die Welt article

    Die beiden Biogeochemiker – eine Disziplin, zu der auch die Ergründung der Erdatmosphäre zählt – haben das Papier für das Forschungsinstitut Vniigaz des Gazprom-Konzerns erarbeitet, eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.

    Oh my sides. This solar wind stuff is coming from two geezers nobody has ever heard of, who work for GAZPROM – “eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.” ‘Not exactly free of the suspicion of vested interest’ or words to that effect ;-)

    You credulous buffoon, you!

    [T]he two researchers came to the conclusion: “The anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been in the second half of the 20th century probably overestimated by a factor of two,” actually only half as large as expected. The flow and pressure conditions in the oceans and on the other hand, would fundamentally underestimated.

    This bit has *nothing to do* with Bashkin & Galiulin (the Gazprom crew). It refers to the latest badly flawed AMO analysis from Tung & Zhou which demonstrates convincingly that the authors’ confidence in their methodolgy was overstated by a factor of at least two ;-)

    Here’s a link to a really thorough debunking of Z&T’s stuff at Skeptical Science! Just for you!

    :-)

    And we still are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising. See Levitus et al. (2012).

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    March 26, 2013

    Its been cold in Germany for a few weeks and a newspapers warn of a potential ice-age? Seems that December wasn’t so long ago which was once of the warmest ever recorded in central and western Europe. But of course the job of the corporate media is to emphasize every tiny bit of weather-related news that can be used to downplay AGW.

    Strange they aren’t reporting temperatures in the Yukon and NW Territories now, which are some 5-15 C above normal (and presage another year of alarming ice loss in the Arctic). Again, par for the course. Downplay events that do not conform with the business-as-usual model, and highlight the far smaller number of weather-related events that do.

    To repeat: Rednose ran out of arguments (well, he never really had any) pretty soon after arriving. Since everything he says is nonsense, its been bait and switch ever since.

  86. #86 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    I love the way I reference Levitus (2012) and the Rednosed Clown comes back with a crappy article from Die Welt ;-)

    Which the Clown hasn’t even understood!

    Does it juggle?

  87. #87 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Jeff – Presumably you speak Dutch, which is close enough to Deutsch to be named after it – can you sharpen up my crap translation of this?

    eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.

  88. #88 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    The Clown seems to react quite strongly to certain types of content. Let’s try an experiment (apologies for repeat comment):

    Note the chain of causality:

    GWPF (Lawson) ->

    Daily Fail – Paul Dacre; Editor and buddy of Lawson’s ->

    David Rose; Daily Fail hack and serial climate science misrepresenter ->

    -> British electorate

    This is how fake charity fake ‘think tanks’ use influential media to distort public perceptions and warp public policy.

  89. #89 Craig Thomas
    St Leonards
    March 26, 2013

    I’ve been reading some posts that are being left at Jo Nova’s website by somebody who is showing some above-average dedication in the face of the abject stupidity Joanne Codling encourages over there.
    Calling herself, “Nice One”, she’s having a go with plenty of facts and then some cracking good lines such as the following:

    Because as an amateur it’s quite easy to make up some convoluted mixture of bogus theories, mash them together and blog about them in some difficult to follow manner and then claim “Climate Science hasn’t caught up”. When the truth is that you’re a possible lunatic with an overstated opinion of your own skills.

    I like it!

    The thread it’s on is an article jointly written by the idiotic conspiracist Jo Nova in cahoots with professional know-nothing and liar Anthony Cox:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1258893

    Yes, Anthony Cox claims to have disproved man-made global warming. What an utter moron.

  90. #90 Craig Thomas
    March 26, 2013

    Lol – apparently Joanne Codling is extremely sensitive about being called a “nutter”.

    But what else could you call somebody who has that freak Monckton as a house guest?

  91. #91 BBD
    March 26, 2013

    Profoundly confused.

  92. #92 chek
    March 27, 2013

    Awww, so ‘Cohenite’ (Anthony Cox) found a natural home for his lawyerly (lack of) talent after all in Mama Codling’s batshit crazy apron strings.

    Likely “Brad’s” eventual resting place circle of hell too.
    Peas in a pod, and all that.

  93. #93 MikeH
    March 27, 2013

    A UK version of “The Conversation” web site is starting in May.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/jaspan-takes-the-conversation-back-home-to-the-old-dart/story-e6frg996-1226604579809

    The Australian climate cranks (including Cox) attacked the comments in the Oz version aggressively because it regularly published articles from our leading climate scientists. They seem to have dropped off in recent times – probably punch drunk :-).

    Expect the same in the UK.

  94. #94 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2013

    Marcott 9 from outer space? ;-)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marcott-9-show-no-warming-past-1950/#more-82849

    I’m sure you well behaved cineasts can give me a review…

  95. #95 Jeff Harvey
    March 27, 2013

    Olaus, true to his high-school science drop out form, still cannot find the primary literature and has to constantly paste up here bilge from a second rate weatherman…

    What else is new. They ALL do it. Deniers live, breathe, eat and sleep on right wing denier blogs.

  96. #96 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2013

    Hey Jeff, EdWood seems to be a good proxie as any in climate astrology. ;-)

    And now the horrific low temps in the NH is caused by Lobal warming as well. The correlation between ice extent in the arctic region and temps are truly abominable. As clear as a Yeti in Himalaya… ;-)

  97. #97 Wow
    March 27, 2013

    So you’re taking over from duffer in supplying content-free posts and asking grown ups to help you understand it because you don’t know what it says, but it MUST have a pony in it somewhere.

    Is that really job satisfaction?

  98. #98 Wow
    March 27, 2013

    “And now the horrific low temps in the NH ”

    And your calculation of the NH temperature is..?

  99. #99 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2013

    Wow, I asked grown ups, yet you answered. That is indeed a true mystery :-).

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    March 27, 2013

    But what else could you call somebody who has that freak Monckton as a house guest?

    And who makes up her own private definition of “statistical significance” because the real one doesn’t support her claims.

    And … aw heck, there are way too many to enumerate them all.