March 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    March 28, 2013

    Seeing a reference to Dave Burton (comments from whom I have seen before) at Tamino’s ‘The Tick‘ I followed up Burton’s link and came across this hilarious (WARNING; before visiting and reading do not have any food or drink in your mouth) page of irony showing a lack of self awareness.

    Note you trolls that

    (“JoNova”) is always always insightful.

    , according to Burton.

  2. #2 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    BigBlockheaD#84

    The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report. I am sure NASA would be pleased to correct any mistakes you have found with their report.

    My small comment added to these quotes requested you “Stop being a Blockhead.”
    If any further proof were required for this assertion that
    “You are a Blockead, then you just provided it.

  3. #3 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    # 2 Clown

    The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report. I am sure NASA would be pleased to correct any mistakes you have found with their report.

    Once again, you are lying about what I wrote. I have already told you not to do this. Because you lied again I am now going to repost the comment you are lying about. As anyone – including you – can see, I went directly to the NRC report itself, *not* the NASA news piece. I used the primary source. I have now demonstrated that you have neither read the NASA news piece nor the primary source and that you are a serial liar.

    Here, again, is the comment you lied about above:

    # 54 Clown

    Feeble! You didn’t RTFR, did you?

    And because you came back with more drivel, I’m going to make you eat it.

    From the Preface to the NRC report:

    The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism, it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

    [...]

    Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

    So, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation *if real at all* do not significantly change GAT or global OHC. This is from the primary source of your own link!

    Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

    Read your own references, Clown.

  4. #4 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    Lying is reprehensible, Clown. Being stupid, ill-informed, *lazy* and dishonest is quite a hand to bring to the table.

    I think you need to be more careful what you say to me, and about what I write. Or you are going to suffer ;-)

  5. #5 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    BigBlockheaD

    You were shown to be using the wrong numbers on the ‘green taxes issue’

    Missed this one.
    Perhaps we should revert to being more polite.

    Who posted the governments figures for what families would be paying for green energy taxes?
    In case you missed it, here it is again.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299652/286-green-tax-energy-bills-But-ministers-insist-efficient-appliances-SAVE-money.html

    Pretty damm close to the trade journal figures some greenwit posted earlier.
    Yeah in fairyland.

  6. #6 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report.”

    The drivel was your additions to it.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “Who posted the governments figures for what families would be paying for green energy taxes?”

    Daily mail.

  8. #8 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    Comment #54
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    From the NASA link discussing the NRC report The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate:

    Yes I read the complete article, but did not quote specific bits.
    So you minequote it with your narrow minded viewpoint.

    It also said:

    There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate

    Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

    In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

    Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

    I stand by that post.
    The article could have been the basis for an interesting discussion but you chose to select particular comments to reinforce your very narrow point of view.

    Your behaviour, bad temper and threats since then provide even furthur evidence , if any more were required ,of the correctness of my small input into post 54.

  9. #9 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    #7
    Daily Mail

    I stand corrected.
    Who posted a link to the Dail Mail post showing the government figures for green taxes.
    That better?

  10. #10 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “Who posted a link to the Dail Mail ”

    You did.

    “showing the government figures for green taxes.”

    That would require taking the Daily Mail’s word for it and your assertion over it. Two assumptions. Both with shaky pasts.

  11. #11 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    # 8 Clown

    I stand by that post.

    Then you are a fuckwit as well as a liar!

    The article could have been the basis for an interesting discussion but you chose to select particular comments to reinforce your very narrow point of view.

    Some facts:

    - The NRC report does not say what you think it does

    - You don’t know what is says and you are too lazy to check

    - I caught you out, and not for the first time ;-)

    - You are a liar!

    Let me remind you what the NRC report really does say:

    The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

    [...]

    Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

  12. #12 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    Your behaviour, bad temper and threats since then provide even furthur evidence , if any more were required ,of the correctness of my small input into post 54.

    The usual butt-hurt whining.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    You were shown to be using the wrong numbers on the ‘green taxes issue’

    No, I wasn’t! The GWPF and the Daily Fail were shown to be using the wrong numbers.

  14. #14 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    Daily Mail whines: Average bill is now £1,267 with £112 of that amount going on green taxes

    That is 8.8%

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/27/centrica-16m-gas-price-rise

    Centrica bosses split £16m pay pot as customers face 6% gas price rise

    Centrica chief executive Sam Laidlaw earned a salary of £950,000 in 2012, but bonuses pushed his pay to almost £5m

    That’s 2/3rds that 8% in gas price hikes.

    And this tory government is wanting to give French-government-owned EdF twice the rate of onshore wind power GUARANTEED. And pronounce it for reducing co2. Likely adding £100 to the average bill.

    But apparently you don’t care about those.

    Moreover, an example of “Green taxes killing us!!!” Daily Fail gives is helping to pay for loft insulation.

    Does any fail reader know what insulating your house does?

    Duffer, it reduces heating bills. So reducing the bills.

    So -$66 for paying for loft insulation etc. Saving +£133 from being insulated, etc.

    Another line item hidden in your assertion is payments to the elderly to keep warm in cold weather. Since you’re against this, this means you want them to die. But you also claim that it’s a tragedy that people are in fuel poverty can cannot keep warm. Something here isn’t adding up. And it’s not just the Daily Fail…

  15. #15 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    To discourage Clown from wittering further about the distortions in the Daily Fail, here is a pretty picture that summarises the numbers.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    March 28, 2013

    Warning to all who don’t like being told about polar bears and ice here are some quality pictures.

    Fox News swallowers beware.

  17. #17 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    No, I wasn’t! The GWPF and the Daily Fail were shown to be using the wrong numbers

    Well Carbon Brief are using the same figures. and so do various other sources.
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/decc-price-impacts-document-mark-2

    Plus £286 to pay for green taxes by 2020.
    The reduction in bills might work out if you shell out loads in new eqipment.
    Most comment is critical.
    The Telegraph cite the Labour shadow-DECC team, who accuse the government of an ” underhand” attempt to mask the impact of their policies.

  18. #18 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “Well Carbon Brief are using the same figures.”

    This isn’t proving the numbers right.

    Maybe the Daily Fail got their wrong numbers there, didn’t bother checking and printed. You read the Daily Fail, got their wrong numbers and didn’t bother checking and posted them here.

    “Plus £286 to pay for green taxes by 2020.”

    So you’re saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

  19. #19 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    BlockHeaD

    Liar Liar pants on fire

    Are you saying the The Nasa news bulletin I linked to did not contain the following

    There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate

    Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

    In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

    If I could highlight in bright green I would.

    If you cant read then its obvious you are another failure in the education system. I really would consider taking your old school to court as they have obviously failed in their duty to teach you to read. You really have a good case.
    They cannot make the excuse you were too dumb to follow your finger pointing out the words

  20. #20 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “BlockHeaD

    Liar Liar pants on fire”

    Since your posting is all
    “Put person’s name”
    “put a quote of theirs”
    “write your own tripe”

    Please tell us where bbd said liar liar pants on fire.

  21. #21 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    o you’re saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

    Seems to be the thrust of government policy.
    Cameron was going to lead a green goverment. Maybe its their way of reducing the population to a more “sustainable” level.

  22. #22 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.”

    Oh dear, the weather is far more complex than that.

    You need to include ALL the forces on surface weather, not just “it was the sun wot did it” like your childish prattle does.

    Come back when you’ve included all the factors that make the weather.

  23. #23 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    “In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.”

    Oh so you read it as well.
    How could you? Its not there.

    not just “it was the sun wot did it” like your childish prattle does.

    where did I say this?
    i thought you were the main instigator of childish prattle on this blog

  24. #24 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    Yup, you’re a nutcase.

    Enjoy your insanity, duffer.

  25. #25 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    duffer, may you freeze to death because you think insulating your house is an unconscionable imposition on you.

  26. #26 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “Wo you’re saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

    Seems to be the thrust of government policy.”

    Really? So when they say they want to collect money to pay old people to keep warm, you think this is a policy to make them freeze?

    Fuck you’re a nut.

  27. #27 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    Oh dear, Clown.

    In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

    ‘Pushing storm tracks off course’ alters regional climate.

    So, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation *if real at all* do not significantly change GAT or global OHC.

    Which is why, when we turn to the NRC report itself, we find the following statements:

    The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

    [...]

    Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

    Read the words, especially those in bold type.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    March 28, 2013

    If I could highlight in bright green I would.

    Well it would help if you could learn to blockquote (hint use that within at start of quoted string and adding a / prefix within same at end of string.

    I wonder if you can satisfactorily parse that above information.

    And no Keyes (seeing as you read this thread like), I didn’t seriously think you were in the drag disguise of RedNose. That you should consider me daft for thinking that, and I didn’t as I was teasing, shows that you take yourself far to seriously. Now that would be a magnetic quality at parties, but one that would repel.

  29. #29 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    I’m going to repeat part of this yet again, because you don’t seem to understand what the words mean:

    [...] this mechanism [EUV/stratospheric effects] could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

    Time to acknowledge your repeated errors or STFU now.

  30. #30 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    For the record: I think there is a real danger that the rising cost of energy, overwhelmingly driven by the rising cost of gas needs further policy response in the UK.

    I think low-income groups are increasingly being forced into energy hardship and in some cases, energy poverty.

    I think this should be quantified and addressed by strengthening existing policy (targeted benefits) and through compelling energy companies to reduce charges to low-income households. In other words, to extract a little less profit from those least able to pay.

    Additional costs arising from decarbonisation policy should be *scaled* so that the least able to pay are not disproportionately affected.

  31. #31 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    ‘Pushing storm tracks off course’ alters regional climate

    TFFT
    You have managed to find them.
    Hooray.
    So stop denying their in the bulletin.
    I know what I read.
    I did not agree or disagree with any of the statements
    So dont put words into my mouth.
    I said they were interesting.
    To me they pose some questions that may or may not have been answered.
    Does the Sun have some influence on the tracking of the Jet Stream.
    Corbyn thinks it does and has made his call for this weekend. Least I think he thinks it does.
    At the moment the Met Office, dry and cold, looks the favourite, but there are low pressure systems lurking in the Atlantic that might sneek in.
    Wont prove anything but an interesting little short term experiment.

  32. #32 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    Clown

    If I could highlight in bright green I would.

    I’m sure you would. See Green Ink Brigade.

    :-)

  33. #33 Rednose
    UK
    March 28, 2013

    “Well it would help if you could learn to blockquote (hint use that within at start of quoted string and adding a / prefix within same at end of string”

    Well thanks for that. Since the bulletin was only a page long , with pretty pictures to keep his interest, it shouldn’t have been that difficult to find them. He could have tried tracing the text out with his fingers on the screen if he has difficulty reading.

    #30
    No problem there. But the price of gas is comming down in the USA which apparently is making coal cheaper and encouraging its use outside the US.

  34. #34 BBD
    March 28, 2013

    FFS, Clown, give it up.

    You have managed to find them.

    I already knew they were there. Unlike you, I had RTFR. Some time ago.

    So stop denying their in the bulletin.

    I didn’t. I pointed out – repeatedly – that you were confusing regional with global effects.

    So dont put words into my mouth.

    This is ironic, coming from you.

    I told you you would suffer unless you were more careful what you wrote.

  35. #35 Russell
    March 28, 2013

    Happy Easter to all in rabbit fence land !

    You may soon need to raise it several meters

  36. #36 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “I know what I read.”

    We read what you knew.

    “I did not agree or disagree with any of the statements”

    Then why waste time pushing the tripe you can’t understand enough to either agree or disagree with, then, duffer.

    “I said they were interesting.”

    How would you know, duffer? You didn’t understand what they said.

    “To me they pose some questions that may or may not have been answered.”

    So why not go away and try and answer them for yourself?

    Because you don’t understand them, duffer?

  37. #37 Wow
    March 28, 2013

    “But the price of gas is comming down in the USA ”

    Because they have government interference that insists they cannot use the gas for anything other than internal market use.

    Seems like you are demanding not only the death of the elderly if it will cost you anything, but the interference of government edict on energy markets.

  38. #38 zoot
    March 29, 2013

    N.B. this is a rhetorical question.
    Whatever happened to David Duff?

  39. #39 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    March 29, 2013

    Zoot: the rednosed beast ate him, though the noises coming from the belly of the beast suggest that Duff is indigestible and causing much distress. Presumably he’ll emerge from the redarse in time, indistinguishable from before, just like the Scandinavian Troll Collective.

  40. #41 Wow
    March 29, 2013

    So you just believe what Jo says, Oh lap dog?

    Not very smart for someone pretending to be “skeptical”.

  41. #42 Olaus Petri
    March 29, 2013

    Wow, I know you are in constant pain due to your gargantuan appetite for blue pills.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQ10ALrTJs

    :-)

    And yes, I’m also intersted i what Cook and Lew has to say.

  42. #43 Wow
    March 29, 2013

    So, it’s not that you believe jo with anything, it’s that reality doesn’t impinge on your world in the least.

  43. #44 Sou
    March 29, 2013

    @Russell #35 – let’s hope they don’t come here.

    On another note, I see in the Guardian that the number of house sparrows and starlings in the UK are dropping to worrying levels. We have lots of them down here and starlings in particular are considered a real pest. Kind of sad, really – in themselves they are nice little birds, just living in the wrong place.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/28/rsbp-garden-birdwatch-survey

    Happy holidays everyone.

  44. #45 Karen
    March 29, 2013

    I see the CO2 cranks are blaming worms now, lol

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1692.html

    What drugs are you people on ?

  45. #46 FrankD
    March 29, 2013

    Karen might try considering the additional data that has come in since McKay et al was published in 2008 to understand why I say ice is at an historic (and pre-historic) low.

    But thats obviously too difficult, so perhaps the first two sentences of the introduction of the paper are sufficiently plain to penetrate:

    “There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the Arctic has been experiencing dramatic environmental changes (e.g., Serreze et al. 2000; Comiso and Parkinson 2004). Most notably, there has been a rapid decline in the extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently in winter as well (e.g., Parkinson et al. 1999; Comiso 2002; Serreze et al. 2003; Rigor and Wallace 2004; Meier et al. 2005; Comiso 2006; Comiso et al. 2008; Stroeve et al. 2008).”

    Compare with Karen’s BS: “While I’m at it here is a paper that demonstrates that there is nothing unusual about an ice free Arctic.”

    Sure, everyone would agree these two statements are the same.

    As long as they are fuckwits like Karen.

  46. #47 Karen
    March 29, 2013

    Fwanker while we are on the subject of local weather events…………….

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/26/Spring-snowstorm-in-US-breaks-records/UPI-18721364328816/?spt=hs&or=tn

  47. #48 Wow
    March 29, 2013

    Who is this “we”? It was only you and duffers various socks whinging about weather.

  48. #49 BBD
    March 29, 2013

    Karen

    I am having difficulty getting a response from you.

    Waving at Arctic sea ice extent during the Holocene Climatic Optimum isn’t too clever. The HCO was the mainly NH response to precessional forcing which peaked ~9ka and reached a minimum ~2ka.

    If Arctic sea ice approaches or exceeds HCO minima the obvious question is WTF is going on? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now, so why the melting?

    Marcott et al. is in very good agreement with existing Holocene reconstructions. Here it is superposed on the Wikipedia graphic you linked for comparison. Once again, WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high global (never mind NH) temperatures?

  49. #50 Karen
    March 29, 2013

    BBD you really need to keep up with it.

    “Many people have been wondering what sort of response would be coming now that Steve has conclusively shown that the Marcott et al “hockey stick” is nothing more than an artifact of what appears to be the worst case of cherry picking ever.

    His latest post reveals how to ‘Hide the Decline’, Marcott style:”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/real-climate-responds-to-mcintyres-marcott-stick-busting/

    “…there are some interesting developments in the “Marcott curve” which puts more of the circus in jeopardy. In addition to a new post on CA detailing changes in the core top record, there is this very significant comment on a prior thread which deserves some serious exploration:”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/19/uh-oh-there-be-grafting-in-marcott-et-al/

    “Guest post by John Kehr

    While it took me a while to get the time together to write an article about the Marcott paper, that does not mean I have not been looking at it and discussing it from nearly the day it was released. There has been volumes of discussion within The Right Climate Stuff group that I have been involved with. The ones that lean towards CO2 as something to be concerned about were initially rather excited about this paper, but that has taken a course correction as it has become clear how poor the science is in the Marcott paper.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marcott-9-show-no-warming-past-1950/

    Keep an eye on retraction watch for that paper.

    Like I said earlier BBD, Marcott’s temperature graph is propaganda, it’s alarmist papers such as that that are convincing the world that CO2 is not the apocalyptical demon the cultist climate sect would have us believe.

    The NO recent warming along with the ever increasing CO2 and the change in solar activity is seriously putting the alarmist theory of unstoppable tipping points into the silly science basket that will laughed at for centuries.

    hmmm………missing hot spot ?

    hmmm……..The Antarctic sea ice stayed above average right through summer, so much for the canary in the coal mine caper, lol.

    and um……NO the missing heat has not been found !!!

  50. #51 Wow
    March 29, 2013

    spots, you say it best when you say nothing at all.

    You say it worst when you spend so many words saying fuck all.

  51. #52 Karen
    March 29, 2013
  52. #53 BBD
    March 29, 2013

    Karen

    Like I said earlier BBD, Marcott’s temperature graph is propaganda, it’s alarmist papers such as that that are convincing the world that CO2 is not the apocalyptical demon the cultist climate sect would have us believe.

    But Marcott is in good agreement with the graph *you* linked earlier. Note the 2004 label on the right side of the graph. Why is only Marcott ‘propaganda’? And why haven’t you contested the Wiki graph? It’s been up since 2005.

    Marcott provides the best context yet for the modern instrumental record, and that is why I keep asking you the same two questions:

    1/ If Arctic sea ice approaches or exceeds HCO minima the obvious question is WTF is going on? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now, so why the melting now?

    2/ Marcott et al. is in very good agreement with existing Holocene reconstructions. Here it is superposed on the Wikipedia graphic you linked for comparison. Once again, WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high temperatures?

    Here’s number three:

    3/ Why are you not answering these questions?

  53. #54 Karen
    March 30, 2013

    BBD, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Shaun Marcott drew that big red line on the graph with his lipstick.

    Why don’t you stop trying to pass this childish artwork off as science and accept the fact that he fooled you ?

  54. #55 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    BBD, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Shaun Marcott drew that big red line on the graph with his lipstick.

    Why?

    This, from M13 (first page, middle column; surprised you missed it):

    In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, we also implemented the RegEM
    algorithm (11) to statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which
    is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig. 1G).Without filling data gaps, our Standard 5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 °C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gap-filled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).

    So what’s “wrong” in M13?

    This is from the M13 abstact, so I am surprised that you missed it:

    Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

    And from the paper itself:

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the
    Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
    frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean
    for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

    What is “wrong” in M13? I really would like to know. :-)

    Because otherwise it poses interesting questions like these.

    No response from you so far, despite repeated prompting. This is odd.

  55. #56 Karen
    March 30, 2013

    BBD

    “WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again?”

    Here is the unadulterated graffff ! It is patently obvious that the HCO was warmer.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    “We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high temperatures?”

    It seems to me that you allow your head to be filled with garbage from the climate propaganda industry, maybe you need to broaden your horizons ?

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5641/1890.abstract

  56. #57 chek
    March 30, 2013

    Karen, why do you persist in trying to argue that which you patently do not understand? It’s not as if water-carriers are required to. We know that. Why don’t you?

  57. #58 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Karen

    Here is the unadulterated graffff ! It is patently obvious that the HCO was warmer.

    Marcott et al.

    Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.

    Marott is wrong how, again?

    You link Hu et al. (2003):

    Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments. They also provide evidence that centennial-scale shifts in the Holocene climate were similar between the subpolar regions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, possibly because of Sun-ocean-climate linkages.

    Regional effects. Reading the thread always helps.

    Once again:

    The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

    Or: as far as can be determined, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation do not significantly affect multidecadal trends in global average temperature or global ocean heat content.

  58. #60 Wow
    March 30, 2013

    Still saying nothing in 52.

    And adding a huge impenetrable link never increased the content to any use.

  59. #61 Karen
    March 30, 2013

    BBD, “Marott is wrong how, again?”

    “Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre we now know that the specular uptick at the end of Marcott’s temperature graph that lead to the alarming claims, is an artefact of an inappropriate statistical methodology, It seems the dates of sediments from cores used in the study were shifted in time up to 1000 years. This effectively shifted warming of the Medieval Warm Period into the modern period. Results that showed cooling were truncated from the period of the uptick. Anyone smell the cherries?”

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/marcott-another-gergis-moment.html

  60. #62 Lionel A
    March 30, 2013

    Here is the unadulterated graffff…

    That is real funny Karen, made me think immediately that a giraffe would be of more utility in tracing that uptick in Marcott et. al. than a Rabbet or even a wheelchair.

    One other thing that follows a similar curve is the desperation of the climate denial cheerleaders such as you over recent times with the slight dip being the reduced desperation at about Climategate time. That didn’t last long (as we knew it couldn’t for nature does what it does and doesn’t register such as McIntyre’s desperate tactics) and now we are seeing the expected rapid rise in desperation tactics from the usual suspects and your kind.

  61. #63 Wow
    March 30, 2013

    “Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre’

    Ah, yes, appeal to invalid authority.

  62. #64 Lionel A
    March 30, 2013

    Ah, yes, appeal to invalide authority.

    Fixed that for you.

  63. #65 Karen
    March 30, 2013

    Ah yes……………….shoot the messenger that pointed out the lipstick on the pig, :)

  64. #66 Wow
    March 30, 2013

    No, to be a messenger, you need an actual message.

    Not “Please explain what this means, I’m not going to read it” like you and duffer do all the bloody time.

  65. #67 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Karen

    Once again, you have been tricked by liars. If you are interested in the facts, you can review them here.

    Toward the end of the analysis, you will find a discussion of the real effects of proxy recalibration. It is instantly apparent that you have been seriously misled on this point:

    Published age vs Calib6.0.1 age (full series)

    Published age vs Calib6.0.1 age (post-1600)

    When people lie to me, it makes me angry, especially if I was successfully fooled. Why are you not angry with those who are deceiving you Karen?

    You should be.

  66. #68 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Now, I’m getting a little tired of the one-way flow of information in this exchange with you, Karen.

    I would like you, please, to answer my questions. In you next response.

  67. #69 Jeff Harvey
    March 30, 2013

    Karen had me on the floor with this nugget:

    “Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre…”

    Nothing more needs to be said, really. Whatever credibility she may have had (and that’s not much) is shot all to hell with this one remark.

  68. #70 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Karen

    Let’s try and unpick the confusion that others have been creating in you mind. Go back and start afresh, as it were:

    - The point of Marcott (M13) is that it provides a full Holocene temperature reconstruction.

    - The least important part of M13 is the final century (modern).

    - M13 uses proxies that provide absolute temperature information.

    - This means that any artefactual ‘uptick’ at the end of the reconstruction does not invalidate the rest of it in any way whatsoever.

    - The modern instrumental record can be used in preference to the last century of M13, instantly exposing the fake controversy over the robustness* of the uptick in M13 for the deliberate and meaningless distraction that it is. **

    - This means we can consider the modern instrumental record in the *context* of Holocene temperatures reconstructed in M13. Here is HadCRUT4 (blue) superposed onto the Marcott curve. Quite the uptick, no?

    - Finally, we arrive at this composite understanding, which is profoundly disturbing.

    *Remember, Marcott et al. states clearly that the size of the uptick is probably a methodological artefact and not robust:

    Without filling data gaps, our Standard 5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 °C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gap-filled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).

    ** Yes, those ‘tireless efforts’ of McIntyre and others.

  69. #71 chek
    March 30, 2013

    Those legendary ‘tireless efforts’ being namely to convince Karen et al that there is no anthropocene, no matter how contradictory it is to last week’s meme..

    That is, when the other sides of their faces aren’t telling us ‘warming is good’, ‘warming won’t be a problem’ or ‘warming is a natural cycle coming out of the LIA’.

    There’s no doubt about it, you have to be seriously fucked in the head to keep up with the almost daily doubleplusgood revisionism that characterises denial. Hence Karen, I suppose.

  70. #72 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    Nothing more needs to be said, really. Whatever credibility she may have had (and that’s not much) is shot all to hell with this one remark.

    Follow the link to where that remark originated. It’s worse than you think.

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/marcott-another-gergis-moment.html

    Whoever wrote this tripe is clueless. At least McIntyre understands the mechanisms by which he is creating the fake controversy over M13.

    It’s just depressing that people are *fooled* by these lies, over and over and over again.

  71. #73 Lionel A
    March 30, 2013

    Another thing the ‘Karens’ should appreciate is covered in Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks, which of course applies to Christopher Booker and Cardinal Puff.

    Currently the full report is available through the link Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks available at the above.

    The article at Rick Piltz’s Climate Science Watch (new one for you Karen)
    The connection between climate change denial books and right-wing think tanks implies that the full report is pay walled.

  72. #74 BBD
    March 30, 2013

    Thanks for the link to the full version of Dunlap & Jacques which I had been *too lazy* to find ;-)

    Of course, this study must be set aside. We all know that there is no such thing as organised denial. Nor are numerous conservative ‘think tanks’ and fundamentalist religious organisations funded via the anonymising Donors Trust front. So there’s no connection between denialist tracts and anonymous – but big – money.

    None whatsoever. None at all. Absolutely none.

    ;-)

  73. #75 chek
    March 30, 2013

    “None whatsoever. None at all. Absolutely none”.

    Why, any passing denier will be pleased confirm that is categorically and absolutely true, and any hint otherwise can only possibly be activist C.T

  74. #76 Lotharsson
    March 30, 2013

    The first rule of organised denial: deny the existence of organised denial ;-)

  75. #77 Jeff Harvey
    March 31, 2013

    Lionel,

    Many thanks for this information. These studies will figure prominently in my lectures on science and he environment. I think its vital that the link between right wing think tanks, their corporate sponsors, and anti-environmental propaganda is highlighted. Many of the climate change deniers who write into blogs continually (and ineffectively) try and downplay the well funded industry of denial, but as Andrew Rowell showed in ‘Green Backlash’ it is a huge and well organized lobby, involving PR companies, think tanks, astroturf groups, the corporate media and corporations themselves. The strategy that deniers use to downplay this lobby is to use the ignorance card: because they don’t know anything about it (or wish not to), then it doesn’t exist. Yet one doesn’t have to look far to see that there are huge sums invested in denying climate change and other anthropogenic assaults across the biosphere.

  76. #78 Karen
    March 31, 2013

    hehe, I do find it extremely amusing how you all support each other by passing on psychotic propaganda, the mass hysteria has well and truly passed beyond the Orson Welles “War Of The Worlds” debacle, lol. hehehe, Why is it that every new skeptic that comes in here you think is someone else, haha, talk about paranoia, lol

    Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

    Below average temps, http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzonnewind.be%2F2013%2Fkoudste-29-maart-ooit.shtml&act=url

    People freezing to death because of green lunacy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

    Failed predictions abound.

    No warming for 20 years, 20 YEARS !!!

    Nearly every science paper these days must insert the words “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” or “Climate Change” or else they will be out of the funding loop, no matter how stoooopid the connection, the words must be there !

    Repeat and Repeat the lie.

    Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists ? Maybe some of you just consider yourselves to be the “Climate Cheka” ? That certainly looks like case with one of the cranks.

    Your already diminished creditability will follow the temperature, you may have to have to invent temperature gauge Viagra to keep it up :)

  77. #79 Karen
    March 31, 2013

    Oh dear !!!

    I sounded just like barnturd j in that last line.

    I don’t normally stammer

  78. #80 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    Lionel; Jeff H

    I have to say I was slightly disappointed that D&J have been unable to say more about Stacey International that that it is an “overtly conservative publisher”.

    It’s a bit more than that!. Take a look ;-)

    I think Montford’s Hockey Stick karaoke came first, followed rapidly by a tranche of other titles.

  79. #81 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    Karen! You’re back!

    # 67?

    #68?

    #70?

  80. #82 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    You may well be aware of it, but there is also this:

    Jacques, P. et al. (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349-385.

    Abstract:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010802055576

    Full pdf:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644010802055576

  81. #83 Sou
    March 31, 2013

    Marcott et al FAQ is out on RealClimate. Pretty much what they wrote in the report and supplementary material, with a little dig and WUWT and co :)

    Very easy read and informative.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al

  82. #84 Wow
    March 31, 2013

    Do you have anything, spots?

    Anything at all, or are you really only here to ask your betters to explain things to you?

    It works “just asking questions” if you control the entire medium, a’ la Glen Beck, but it doesn’t work otherwise.

  83. #85 Lionel A
    March 31, 2013

    Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ?

    Of course ‘we’ are, after all ‘we’ are located in a variety of time zones. But of course your limited powers of deduction have let you down again.

  84. #86 Wow
    March 31, 2013

    “Failed predictions abound.”

    They certainly do. Deniers have been wrong predicting the temperature that would have been here many times before.

    But you aren’t talking about those errors, are you?

  85. #87 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    Karen

    # 67?

    # 68?

    # 70?

  86. #88 Wow
    March 31, 2013

    “Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists ”

    So you agree that extensive posting is at least circumstantial proof and sufficient to require investigation of a cabal of paid-for trolls.

  87. #89 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists ? Maybe some of you just consider yourselves to be the “Climate Cheka” ? That certainly looks like case with one of the cranks.

    Quite apart from rather embarrassing failure to remember that there are different time-zones and the intertubes cross them all, there is another logical problem which Karen did not spot.

    Why would ‘paid propagandists’ be salaried to talk amongst themselves?

    If I were paymaster, I would be *docking some paychecks* around here ;-)

    It’s not clear if Karen’s ‘climate Cheka’ quip was aimed at me, but on the general point, responding to matter-of-fact discussion of science with insults is stupid and ridiculous.

  88. #90 FrankD
    March 31, 2013

    No warming for 20 years, 20 YEARS !!!

    Sure, no warming here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1993/plot/gistemp/from:1993/trend
    Oh, wait…

    Karen doesn’t believe this crap, but apparently has become so desperate for attention that she’ll fling any old shit at the bystanders just to maintain her narrative.

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Repeat and Repeat the lie.

    It seems that Graham Lloyd is now so desperate that verballing scientists is no longer sufficient. Instead, its okay for him to just make shit up. I think that’s known as “Lying for Jesus” in some circles.

    And like a good little footsoldier for her richer-and-betters, Karen will do so too. Repeat and repeat the lie – straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook. So I’m sure we’ll see plenty of this “20-year” bullshit, while the Karen’s of the world get busy repeating and repeating the lie.

  89. #91 Sou
    March 31, 2013

    I think Karen must be a Monckton fan with her twenty year delusion (and hard of hearing with all the shouting she does).

  90. #92 BBD
    March 31, 2013

    FrankD

    I see your GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 and raise you UAH and RSS and an extra decade!

    ;-)

    Twenty years no warming, my arse, as dear old Grandma used to say.

  91. #93 Lotharsson
    March 31, 2013

    The conspiratorial ideation in Karen’s last blurp is most interesting. (Is she aware she is engaging in it? Naaaaaah, don’t think so.)

  92. #94 Bernard J.
    April 1, 2013

    I note a reference to abcnewswatch .blogspot.com.au above, and was interested to see the the focus was not on ABC news, but rather on ABC climate-related news. Now, who is it that has such a partisan and scientifically-ignorant interest in “auditing” the ABC’s reporting of climate matters? Oh, I know that the front name is Marc Hendrickx, who in the past has demonstrated himself to be a rabidly partisan Denialatus, but who’s feeding him the stuff that he “edits”?

    And Karen/Mack/Sunspot. It’s most gratifying to see that I’m still living rent-free in your head even though I’ve been more frequently AFK for the last few months. You’re obviously damaged by my previous rebuttals of your nonsensical non-science… which leads me to wonder if there might not be an Honours or a Masters project in formally assessing the psychological phenomena underpinning the tactics used by deniers of human-caused climate change, when they are confronted by and respond to scientific explanations on the internet.

  93. #95 Billy Bob Hall
    April 1, 2013

    It’s true. Predictions rise, but global temperatures don’t.

  94. #96 Sou
    April 1, 2013

    The Auditor is still playing(?) dumb and WUWT is faithfully following suit. What a bunch of dullard conspiracy theorists they make. No wonder they try to discredit Lewandowsky (instead they confirm it over and over).

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html

  95. #97 Sou
    April 1, 2013

    Pielke behaves despicably (again). This time IMO he’s gone right over the edge. He demonstrates his flawed mental model, which prevents him from honestly appraising science.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dismissives-still-furious-with-marcott.html

  96. #98 MikeH
    April 1, 2013

    @95
    Oh joy – a drive-by from a climate denier ignoramus who plagues the ABC web sites.

    Here is BBH having his invincible ignorance highlighted by DA
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/02/16/3140465.htm

  97. #99 MikeH
    April 1, 2013

    #97

    Pielke’s pompous post is on “scientific integrity”. Which is why he makes the claim in the comments

    There are a few bad eggs, with the Real Climate mafia being among them, who are exploiting climate science for personal and political gain.

    Of course Roger being a person of impeccable integrity substantiates his claim with chapter and verse. /sarc

  98. #100 Karen
    April 1, 2013

    barnturd said: “And Karen/Mack/Sunspot. It’s most gratifying to see that I’m still living rent-free in your head even though I’ve been more frequently AFK for the last few months.”

    Sorry to disappoint you barnturd, I remember you because you are the funny little midget arm waving clown, :)