April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 Karen
    April 1, 2013

    Abdussamatov has certainly been closer with his predictions than the IPCC


  2. #2 lord_sidcup
    April 1, 2013

    The Thames river in London and Seine in Paris were frozen over every year.

    Wrong, the Thames frooze just 24 times in the period 1400-1814. If Abdussamatov can’t even get the past right, is there much hope of him being right about the future?

    Credulous Karen’s article also cites Jonathan Powell of Vantage Weather Services (formerly Positive Weather Solutions) – that will be this Jonathan Powell:


    Its (Positive Weather Solutions) website carried photos of young women with, er, prominent credentials, who were named as the company’s forecasters, and who appeared in news reports issuing its predictions. But a picture search revealed that these were remarkably busy people. One of them was also employed, under a variety of other names, as a mail order bride, a hot Russian date and a hot Ukrainian date. Another offered her services as an egg donor, a hot date, a sublet property broker in Sweden, a lawyer, an expert on snoring, eyebrow threading, safe sex, green cleaning products, spanking and air purification.

    I’d thank you for the comedy Karen, but your same clown act became a bore long, long ago.

  3. #3 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    Credulity is required to be a denier. Just look at their credulity to the idea that they are “skeptics”.

  4. #4 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    But Karen, what are you doing spouting nonsense here? You have numerous questions to answer on the March thread.

    Have you simply *run away* from those questions because you cannot – or will not – answer them?

  5. #5 Lionel A
    April 1, 2013
  6. #6 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 1, 2013

    Quick, my little Deltoids, you must act fast – NOW! You see, I warned you that you would be caught with your pants down and it has begun. Even the mighty intellectual Economist magazine has dumped you and your religion:

    “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.””

    The coming religion is the new, ooops, sorry, I mean *old* religion of global freezing is back, er, not on the boiler but in the fridge:

    “Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather [in Europe] simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet. 

Dr Abdussamatov believes Earth was on an “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop”. The last big freeze, known as the Little Ice Age, was between 1650 and 1850.”

    Right, hold hands and altogether now:
    Weee belieeeve in the big freeeeeeeze!

  7. #7 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    Yup, more idiot. Do you think that if you proclaim something a religion enough times it will become accepted as one?

  8. #8 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat”

    So every day has had the same temperature???

    This is what you think is valid?

  9. #9 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 1, 2013

    Wow, belief in religion defies rationality. That doesn’t make it wrong but it does make it differ fundamentally from science, er, *good* science, that is!

    So, have written that let us consider the following:
    Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not.

    Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?

  10. #10 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    # 6 David Duff

    But Abdussamatov is a known crank. Why should we (and why do you) place the slightest weight on his pronouncements?

  11. #11 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 1, 2013

    ‘Abdabs’ may well be a crank, er, but look about you in the Unified Church of AGW! Perhaps ‘eccentric’ is the politest word, don’cha think?

  12. #13 BBD
    April 1, 2013


    If you readily concede that Abdussamatov is a crank, why did you even mention his nonsense in the first place?

    What were you thinking of? I’m puzzled.

  13. #14 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    “Wow, belief in religion defies rationality”

    Indeed it does. As you demonstrate admirably.

    “Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not.”

    But they are soaring. 0.6C per decade trend 2011-2012.

    “Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?”

    It is strong.

    Your reasoning is weak.

  14. #15 BBD
    April 1, 2013


    Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?


  15. #16 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    “What were you thinking of? I’m puzzled.”

    Duffer doesn’t do thinking. He just gets told what to do.

  16. #17 Jeff Harvey
    April 1, 2013

    Again, note what intellectually illuminating sources our uneducated deniers glean their sources from: Karen and Duff: Daily Express; Olaus Petri: BH, WUWT, Nova etc.

    Not a primary literature source in sight. But since none of these right wing-nuts reads the primary literature, and instead surround themselves in right wing propaganda, this is hardly surprising.

    Duff still hasn’t worked out in his addled old brain what a time lag is for a large scale system. He still thinks that ‘x’ amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today must mean ‘y’ degrees of temperature increase tomorrow. In other words, he cannot reconcile the term ‘scale’. But then again, old Duffer thinks Obama is a communist, something which takes hilarity to a whole new scale.

  17. #18 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    David Duff

    Look at the bigger picture.

    GAT at the top; forcings at the bottom, coherently scaled with each other. Solar (yellow) at bottom and GHGs (smooth green line) bracket net forcings (red). The abrupt negative excursions are the result of negative forcing peaks from volcanic aerosols.

    Look at the temperature response to net forcing change over the last century.

  18. #19 Ian Forrester
    April 1, 2013

    I don’t know what duffer the puffer is puffing but it seems to be destroying more and more neurons and probably getting more and more illegal.

    Here are data showing the rate of global temperature increase for the time periods starting with 1997, 1998 and 1999: 0.09, 0.08 and 0.12 degrees C per decade respectively. The average rate of temperature increase for the past 30 years is 0.17 degrees C per decade. It can also be seen from the linked graphic that present day global temperatures are above the long term (30 year) trend.


    Only a neuronally challenged puffer of illegal substances can be so wrong with what they post.

  19. #20 Olaus Petri
    April 1, 2013

    Jeff, the author of the primary litterature says the same to Revkin. 🙂


  20. #21 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    Olaus, if you have an argument, the best way to make it is by assembling words in rows called ‘sentences’. These should build into logically ordered subunits called ‘paragraphs’ which in turn combine to form the totality of your point.

    Of course cartoons and links to data visualisations are welcome, but only when connected to a pre-existing argument that we can all understand.

  21. #22 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    These sentences and paragraphs should also actually contain the meaning intended for the audience to understand.

    Not just empty pasting that has no meaning to you nor anyone else.

  22. #23 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    What’s even funnier is that the link at # 20 doesn’t even work…

  23. #24 Lionel A
    April 1, 2013

    Not just empty pasting that has no meaning to you nor anyone else.

    But that is OP’s MO is it not.

    Here is the real picture: in Figure 1M, are we below 1900 temps yet OP, tell us when we are ’till then bog off.

    Also note animated GIF in right panel there which displays books that would assist your understanding. These would be a good starter for Keyes too, well on the science. The other part of his missing education is the hsitory, and reality, of the denial machine aka the septics.

    As for Duff, forever barking down the up elevator.

  24. #25 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 1, 2013

    To set the record straight, I have no opinion on whether ‘Abdabs’ is a crank or not because until today I had never heard of him. However, what I do think is that so-called scientists whose predictions have gone wildly off target but who still cling grimly to the wreckage of their forecasts are, shall we say, more religious than scientific.

    And my quotes above came from The Economist not The Daily Express, and the former was quoting, er, Dr. James Hansen – now where have I heard that name before . . .? Anyway, for the benefit of Wow, allow me to repeat Hansen’s words: ““the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.””

    That would be ‘flat’ as in, er, flat!

    Come along, little Deltoids, make the circle and altogether:
    ‘Weee belieeeve in the big freeeeeeeze!’

  25. #26 Lionel A
    April 1, 2013

    The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing

    Which is not a precise quote of what Hansen wrote here, and is also incomplete as you see.

    Note the emphasis in the last clause. Duff, you explain what that means. Whatever 5-years is too short a time to be significant and you are pissing down the up-escalator. Ignorance or mendacity?

    The Economist is another organ of partial truths and downright lies. Economists are not scientists.

  26. #27 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade”

    No error bars, duffer?. Your “calculation” had no error bars? Proof you’re not a scientist.

  27. #28 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    “That would be ‘flat’ as in, er, flat!”

    Which would be moving as in “not flat”.

  28. #29 Wow
    April 1, 2013

    Truly clueless, duffer.

  29. #30 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    David Duff

    Trenberth thinks the rate at which energy is diffused *into* the ocean is a bit higher than Hansen does. Hansen suggests that aerosols may have had a larger cooling effect than previously thought. This is the essence of the scientific debate over the recent warming hiatus.

    Most (>90%) of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system as a result of AGW is in the ocean. (Levitus 2012). Some of that energy is only *temporarily* sequestered and will contribute to future atmospheric warming as circulation returns it to the surface.

    Nobody is suggesting that basic physics is wrong, nor that the RTEs are wrong. The standard position on AGW is the same:


    a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity

  30. #31 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    i assume that De Bog Smog will do a full report on the disgusting plagiarizer Tamino. 🙂

    McIntyre charges Grant Foster aka “Tamino” with plagiarism in a Dot Earth discussion


  31. #32 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    i assume that De Bog Smog will do a full report on the disgusting plagiarizer Tamino . 🙂

    McIntyre charges Grant Foster aka “Tamino” with plagiarism in a Dot Earth discussion


  32. #33 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    hehehe, many of you spat the dummy about McIntyre, then sent links to Tamino’s work that was really McIntyre’s, lol

  33. #34 zoot
    April 2, 2013

    Gee, Rednose has gone quiet.

  34. #35 bill
    April 2, 2013

    Yeah, yeah, yeah – Nigel’s the Towering Genius; the rest are just riding on his coat-tails. Is there a Denier groupthink imbecility-du-jour you’ve ever refused to swallow, Karen?

  35. #36 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    April 2, 2013

    Zoot: …Duff/Karen move in response to the fingers of their denier overlords up their clacker(s) at present, leaving Redarse lying pathetically empty and flaccid – like a used condom. Odious Olaus is still a non-finger stool voice, but for the Scandinavian Troll Collective, so that’s not an improvement. Tabanids all.

  36. #37 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    Grant Foster aka “Tamino

    “Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that,”

    The nuffie accidentally says it himself, lol

  37. #38 bill
    April 2, 2013

    Karen, dear, remember how you couldn’t explain what The Nige was puffing about in the first place – none of you could, not at all, despite being repeatedly asked to, for days on end?

    And so now a bona-fide statistician has taken up the issues of the proxy dropouts that help to clarify the uptick-at-the-end-bit that Marcott and co. always said wasn’t robust – and, bless him, explained himself in full detail in comprehensible English sentences .

    And here you are back at your level; with your playground taunts that the leader of your gang said it first and was right all along, so there, whatever it was he said, and anyway Foster is a plauguear, plaigear, plaeu… copycat! Nyah nyah!

    Then how come none of you could ever explain the issue in the first place, petal?

    And also, little putz, when it comes to the uptick it makes no bloody difference because we have the actual temperature record for the 20th Century and beyond to confirm it!

    You know, like BEST, a project initiated on your own side which you were all going to accept – except that it turned out they did it properly rather than using the accepted sub-rosa preconception techniques of blogscience?

    Get it?

    Of course you don’t!

    Not a single one of you mouth-breathers ever does. All the flighty chaff has been winnowed – all those weaklings who let mere facts stand in the way of a higher truth – it’s only the purest grain of imbeciles and hucksters left…

  38. #39 Olaus Petri
    April 2, 2013

    So what’s left (not right) about Marcott’s revolutionary results, you know the ones that da Mann found spectacular? 🙂

    And poor wombat tries to land a punch. 🙂

  39. #40 bill
    April 2, 2013


  40. #41 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    What’s left? About 150,000 years of temperature records, lap dog.

    You really don’t know how to read a graph do you.

  41. #42 Sou
    April 2, 2013

    Speaking of tossers, does anyone else want to have a shot at debunking this diatribe from disinformation dealer and science denier McKitrick? (Do you like the alliteration there?)


  42. #43 Sou
    April 2, 2013

    Karen #37 left this bit out:

    The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.


    The insults and ugly insinuations came from disinformation merchants and paranoid conspiracy theorist McIntyre . If McI said earth was round and a day later I wrote on my blog “the earth is round and this is how we know that” and proceeded to explain, McI would say I plagiarised his ‘idea’.

    However, I’m not averse to tossing out well-deserved insults. Here’s one – though Karen will probably take it as a compliment: Karen is not just dumb she lies by omission.

  43. #44 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    There is nothing to debunk there Sou, with a bit of luck that article will go mainstream to demonstrate how low climate science has sunk.

    I call Marcott etal “lipstick on a pig”

    BBD offered up this http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/holocene_temperature_variations_marcott.png the only people it convinced was the alarmist brigade, Jeff Harvey was sucked in as usual, he went into one of his filibuster rants after seeing it, you should also note that he can’t actually read a temperature chart, it was the lipstick that deceived him. lol


    Yep…..LIPSTICK ON A PIG………lol lol lol

  44. #45 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    So why do you keep linking to things that have nothing to debunk in and making snide comments, spots?

    It’s just wasting everyone’s time.

  45. #46 Nick
    April 2, 2013

    Having read McIntyre’s look at Marcott, then Foster’s, I’ve got to say McI is looking rather foolish. Then again I do seem to remember he does not understand what plagiarism is,as revealed in his attack on Ray Bradley.

  46. #47 bill
    April 2, 2013

    Karen, have you received any kind of head injury to explain your astonishingly tangential, um, ‘comprehension’?

    Seriously. It’s like those astonishing people that litter YouTube; the X-Factor, Lithuania’s Got Talent contestants who squeal like rutting pharyngitic polecats and really, really imagine they can sing – you can see it in their precious, bewildered faces as they are gleefully torn to shreds by B-grade celebs who can at least either hold a tune or recognise one (this ritual humiliation being the Coliseum for the globalised era!)

    But in your case you really appear to imagine you can think!

  47. #48 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    As an example, spots, at #1 you claim:

    Abdussamatov has certainly been closer with his predictions than the IPCC

    Yet nowhere in your link is any past prediction by Abdussamatov shown to have come true, it’s all about his prediction of something he says is STILL IN THE FUTURE.

  48. #49 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    I think this is why Hansen has quit his job.

    Werner Brozek checks the latest data for warming trends:

    On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)

    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)

    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)

    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    But when Brozek checks for statistically significant warming, the warming pause extends by every measure to more than 15 years:

    For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years…

    For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

    For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

    For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years…

    For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years…

    Once warmists said 15 years of no statistically significant warming invalidated their models.


  49. #50 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    “Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of equator; 105 – 160°E) show that the total number of cyclones has decreased in recent decades.”


  50. #51 Jeff Harvey
    April 2, 2013

    Two points:

    One, karen’s sources are a far right wing blogger who probably denies that humans have done any harm to the environment at all and believes in unfettered, unregulated free markets;

    Two, the time scales involved are, in the context of natural changes for such a huge system, profoundly small. The trouble with idiots lay deniers like our befuddled Karen here (and Duff, and Olaus, and Rednose et al) is that they think ten years is a long time. They think that 20 years is incredibly long. And for these scientifically illiterate numbskulls, 30 years must be an eternity. They just cannot comprehend the scales we are talking about here; processes that normally take centuries or even thousands of years to be borne out occurring in 50 or less. So if there is not a significant increase in GLOBAL temperatures (forget the regional data where there are many, many examples of significant rises) over a quarter of a human life span then all is well with the world.

    I have debunked this shit so many times that i am sick and tired of doing it. We are talking about (at the global scale) a largely deterministic system where significant effects can only be measured over several decades. At local scales (say, covering a small section of the biosphere) we’d need even a decade or even considerably longer to measure such changes. Scientists know this; that’s why such a small number spew out the kind of nonsense that is routine on blogs run by politically motivated scientific wannabes. Scientists are trained to appreciate the importance of scales and hierarchies. That’s why most of us here are beating our heads against the walls with the small band of deniers. None of them – and I mean NONE – has any relevant training in or understanding of processes involving time lags or scale. The utterly vile spew that comes from karen is testament to this. She does not understand it, so predictably, like the other deniers who write in here, she ignores it. Its pure Dunning-Kruger theater. I would be derided were I to predict changes in the properties of entire biomes to abiotic factors in the space of a century. And there are hundreds of biomes across the surface of the planet. Only at the level of small-scale ecological communities can we find decade-scale effects that might be construed as significant. As we increase the spatial scale the temporal scales become lagged. Its even been suggested that changes in the properties and extent of North American ecosystems that were generated by humans as long ago as three hundred years are only now rippling through to affect the dynamics of many species and trophic interactions now.

    But to those intent on pushing a pre-determined worldview, things like lags and scale don’t matter. These dimwits are not trained to think in this way, but in the context of a human life-time. If temperatures globally were to increase 2-4 C even over the next 200-400 years this would exert profoundly serious effects on natural ecosystems. Such changes at the global scale normally take tens of thousands of years, given the scale of the system. If such variation was commonplace, then life would not have evolved to produce the riotous biodiversity that it has. Climate stability has been a key factor for the extent of adaptive radiation which has occurred. Stability means hundreds of human generations; not a small fraction of one or two.

    Thanks heaven that the climate change debate is occurring for the most part amongst people trained to understand so many important processes. In universities and research institutions. At conferences and workshops. What I see on WUWT, Nova, BH, CA and other denier blogs is a high-school level understanding of complexity and of scale. Again, this is hardly surprising, since none of the people on these sites have any pedigree in related fields. The tragedy is that they reach an veritable army of idiots anxious to embrace their myopic view of the world.

  51. #52 Jeff Harvey
    April 2, 2013

    My final point is this before I head off to a conference to present a lecture (ever hear of a thing called a ‘conference’ Karen? Know what a university is?) –

    To Karen: You are full of it. By ‘it’ I mean ignorance. Profoundly deep, disturbing stupidity. You arguments – if one can call them that – have been so comprehensively debunked that one can only conclude that you enjoy getting hammered. You have clearly proven time and time and time again that you do not understand the terms ‘complexity’ and ‘ scale’. Until you do, then your posts will continue to be a brazen embarrassment. Go back to school and learn some basic science before wading in here with your piffle again.

  52. #53 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    Spots: “I think”

    You didn’t even manage two words before you got it all wrong.

    On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

    Do they all preclude 0.17C per decade warming (though for satellite data it ought to be about 0.15C per decade since satellites include upper air to a small fraction of their value)?

    Do they?

  53. #54 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    # 44 Karen

    You have dodged every single question I asked you and ignored every corrective explanation of your various misconceptions about M13. Yet here you are, prattling on as if you had won an argument.

    I’m speculating that this is a mixture of mental illness and quite profound dishonesty.

    See (among many others) March Open Thread:

    # 67

    # 68

    # 70

    You aren’t even remotely up to this, are you Karen?

    I’ve got a feeling you are going to suffer like Clown did.

  54. #55 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    Olaus Petri # 39

    See # 54. And the rest of the corrective explanations you have ignored.

    You are not up to this either. You are also likely to suffer as a consequence. You have already, a little, haven’t you?


  55. #56 JohnL
    April 2, 2013

    I see Brad has been talking to himself over at Eli’S after tyhe issued this challenge to the bunnies:

    “So Eli the ever patient Bunny is gonna make everyone a deal. If no one replies to Brad for 24 hours, Eli will wipe the last load of Brad’s comments out and throw them down the Rabett hole. Good for all posts. You can toy with him there.

    Remember you have to leave it alone. OTOH if Brad sock-puppets to stop this Eli will wipe ALL of Brad’s comments out”


  56. #57 FrankD
    April 2, 2013


    The Thames river in London and Seine in Paris were frozen over every year.

    Wrong, the Thames frooze just 24 times in the period 1400-1814.

    As far as I can tell, the Seine froze over completely, or nearly so, 38 times between 1281 and 1941. I found better records for Rouen (where complete freezes are more common) than for Paris, so I’ve combine the totals for both cities. Generally these years line up with the years for the Thames, but continue beyond 1814 when the Thames new hydrology prevented further freezing at the City. However there is a poor correlation for the 16th century, suggesting I might have missed a few in that period.

    But even adding some wiggle room for a few missing 16th century ones, “every year” is a pretty loose way to describe an event that has had an average return value of 1-in-16 years. Even at the very bottom of the LIA, this event occurred no more often than once every 5 years or so.

    Amusingly, a couple of earlier freeze overs occurred during the Medieval Warm period. I guess anyone claiming that the Thames and the Seine freezing over equals a mini-ice age must be some sort of MWP-denier!

  57. #58 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    @ 37

    Something else you have been lied to about!

    You should always check the ‘facts’ you get from WTFUWT…

    Tamino’s reply to the egregious Mosher (who had been showing his *true colours* again):

    I have repeatedly stated the truth — that the only “acknowledgements” were of his [McIntyre’s] mistaken ideas and his insulting tone. For you to claim that these were owed to him for reasons of “scholarship” is either mind-boggling stupidity (which I doubt) or nothing more than a pathetic excuse to denigrate me in a dazzling display of your ethical shortcomings.

    Perhaps you and others are so keen to discredit my insights because it is now obvious that McIntyre was so clueless about the Marcott paper. Cite that.

    What WTFUWT has done here is manufactured a fake controversy by dishonest means.

    I keep warning you that there are people out there doing this and that – regrettably – they have fooled you with their misrepresentations.

    You should be angry with them. Really very angry indeed.

  58. #59 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    # 49

    Brozek’s cherry-picking lacks context. See the brief discussion of hiatus at # 30.

    When you have pondered the meaning of the term ‘hiatus’ and its likely causes in this context, consider the *temporal* context *also* missing from Brozek’s post. His depiction of trends since the massive temperature spike of the 1997/8 El Nino manages to hide the dramatic step-change in global average temperature that followed. Here is the all-important bigger picture.

    As always, we must mind the step or we might trip up and fall on our hiatus 😉

  59. #61 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    Well, at least you’re trying to keep your spirits up, what with all that bullshit you’re having to fall back on now as “argument” in your favour.

  60. #62 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    Besides, it’s ironic that you’re whining about the effects of a CHANGING CLIMATE caused by humans being “proof” that climate isn’t being changed…

  61. #63 Olaus Petri
    April 2, 2013

    GSW, the worse-than-we-though-global-warming is a real lobal phenomenon and worse than we thought too. 😉

    Thanks for sharing!

  62. #64 Olaus Petri
    April 2, 2013

    I’m sure some hysterical non called for CV-flapping by Jeff (and, naturally, a couple of his diatribes on the righ wing Elders of fossil fuel obstructing climate science) will put McIntyre’s latest post in perspective:



  63. #65 chek
    April 2, 2013

    Heh – Marcott et al’s paper really hit the nerve with you fakes septics. Just as with Lewandowsy before him, your bonehead pact leaders just can’t seem to land a punch. Although they tell the flock they have. Until yet another diatribe becomes necessary in a day or two. And again after that. Meanwhile ol’ Stevie doesn’t yet appear to understand any of the science, dumbass number cruncher that he is..

    And well done you Griselda #60 – trying to make an argument from ignorance seem valid somehow!
    I’m sure the other cretins will applaud. Oh look – Olap already did. Admittedly a touch reflexively like a seal with Parkinson’s, but take what you can get, eh Griselda?

  64. #66 GSW
    April 2, 2013


    Not a problem Olaus, just made me laugh that’s all. I think the author is this chap,


    He looks about 14, so in retrospect feel a little guilty about not being more supportive of his earnestness. A regular “Doogie Howser”



  65. #67 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    Still flailing about, boys?


  66. #68 chek
    April 2, 2013

    Yup- arguing from ignorance yet again, Wow.
    It’s their greatest only resource.

  67. #69 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    Yup, the denier pairings are much like beavis and butthead.

    “huh huh heh huh. he said cold weather. huh huh heh”
    “yeah, huh huh huh. cold. dude”

  68. #70 chek
    April 2, 2013

    And don’t forget, Beavis and Olap are their intelligentsia.

  69. #71 bill
    April 2, 2013

    More examples of their intelligentsia at work.

    A perfect melding of form and content.

    Also, for those who haven’t read it, Tamino/Foster has thoroughly dealt with the steaming glob of chum regurgitated above.

    As usual you have no case. Whatsoever. But, also typically, you’re too pole-axingly dense to know it. There never was a better stupid-magnet than this issue.

  70. #72 BBD
    April 2, 2013


    There never was a better stupid-magnet than this issue.

    It’s certainly a watershed. RPJ outed himself like never before.

  71. #73 JohnL
    April 2, 2013
  72. #74 Karen
    April 2, 2013

    Undeniable statement’s here……..

    “In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons an denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kind of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field.” Ross McKitrick http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

    The problems lie of course not the academic community as a whole but a vocal and aggressive subset, egged on by an uncritical media and a chorus of fellow travelers. Most of the community are solid scientists, who strive to do good work. But the public face of climate science is represented by the most vocal and politicized elements. RP Jr


    Yep, Roger was speaking about the nutters and cranks that infest blogs like dumbtiod

  73. #75 bill
    April 3, 2013

    Yes, those are undeniably ‘statements’, Koron, what of it? (Never mind the Grocer’s Apostrophe!)

    All you ever do here is hoik-up half-digested pap from the usual suspects. All you’re proving here is that all you can do is to hoik-up… (see above.)

    The fact that you pathetically seem to imagine that you’ve proven something by doing so only makes the whole spectacle more degrading…

  74. #76 Karen
    April 3, 2013

    Hey Billyboy, it looks like Hansen has sold his soul to the nuclear cartel. lol

  75. #77 Nick
    April 3, 2013

    Karen,Pielke Jr will have to include himself in his subset of ‘most vocal and politicised elements’ if he’s to pull on his Honest Broker Super-suit. On a technical level,Roger’s specialty does not give him particular insight into climate science or awareness of ‘behavior’ in the field,and his recent engagements demonstrate that his parsing skills are lacking..

    Of McKittrick…he’s a joke. An absolute hypocrite; as an economist and fundamentalist Christian his is a world of ‘unseemly fudges’ …he has a little pulpit in a bonkers rightwing rag,from which he religiously fails to notice the muzzling and defunding of science in his own country.

  76. #78 bill
    April 3, 2013

    And again. Karen, do you ever have any ‘ideas’ that are not glib slogans chummed by denier blogs?

  77. #79 chek
    April 3, 2013

    Karen is addicted to the fleeting feeling of snark she gets when reading trash such as RP Jr.. Then her intelligence reminds her it’s opinion she’s snaffling up, not science. But she goes with the snark anyway, because that’s what stupid invariably does.

  78. #80 Lotharsson
    April 3, 2013

    Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not.

    Duff tries this crap on every month or two, and someone patiently or impatiently re-explains his error to him. He’s another “goldfish troll”(*), as most of them are.

    (*) Apologies to goldfish – who it has been can actually remember things, all popular myths to the contrary – and in that sense they’re smarter than Duff.

  79. #81 Karen
    April 3, 2013

    Hi guys, I have some nice news for you all 🙂

    “NASA’s Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

    The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.

    Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists’ computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.”

    more here….. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

  80. #82 bill
    April 3, 2013

    Again with the chum.

    What you have there is a piece of nonsense crafted to appeal to the denizens of the Epistemic Bubble created by the radical reactionary anti-science (or, more accurately, anti-reality) movement of the early 21st Century.

    In the world outside the bubble the IPCC is not in ‘full retreat’ after making any ‘concessions’, as the AR5 will duly confirm, Hansen is in no way embarrassed, and this garbled piece of crap proves nothing at all, particularly with regard to the ‘so-called greenhouse gas theory’, which is a law of both physics and chemistry.

    This is propaganda, pure and simple. It is designed by cynics fanatics for the sole purpose of manipulating moronic fanatics.

  81. #83 Karen
    April 3, 2013

    “For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. ”

    “Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

    “This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection,” says Mlynczak, “and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented.”


  82. #84 Nick
    April 3, 2013

    Poor dimmest Karen, run along and find out why the behavior of CO2 and NO in the the thermosphere does not ‘starkly contradict the core proposition’ of the GHE.

    I’ll have a cup of tea and a good laugh while you’re checking.

  83. #85 bill
    April 3, 2013

    If Karen had any idea what CO2, NO, and the thermosphere even were your assignment might be possible. As it is, don’t expect results. It’s a bit like the famous Chinese room – Karen just responds to inputs in the form of fresh chum, but has no notion of their content; her function is merely to regurgitate…

  84. #86 lord_sidcup
    April 3, 2013

    Principia Scientific International, what a hoot! The selected member biographies is a roll-call of cranks and disinformers. Have you signed up Karen?

  85. #87 Olaus Petri
    April 3, 2013

    GSW, did you know that chek and Wow have been honored with a play card? 🙂


  86. #88 lord_sidcup
    April 3, 2013

    Here’s a quote that needs to be recorded for posterity:

    The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.

    James Delingpole, The Australian, 3 April 2013

  87. #89 Nick
    April 3, 2013

    Delingpole goes the full Moncky…The Australian’s troll collective in outdoes Principia Agnotologia.

  88. #90 Karen
    April 3, 2013


    Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release
    of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads
    to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO
    (and other
    greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement
    is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The
    proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer
    in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure
    > 0:2
    atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred
    by convection
    (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water
    vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about
    8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection
    is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and
    all the theories of Earth’s
    atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider t
    his process of heat (energy)–
    mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001
    b; Khilyuk and Chilingar,
    2003, 2004).
    When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes lighter,
    and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of troposphere descends and
    replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This physical system (multiple cells of air
    convection) acts in the Earth’s troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling
    effect by air convection can surpass considerably the warming effect……etcetera….etcetera….etceteRA…… lol


    billyboy, when you were a taxi driver did you drive any of your IPCC heros ?

    I’ll bet that if you did they would have been overwhelmed by your bum licking adulation and idolatry. 🙂

  89. #91 Nick
    April 3, 2013

    Dimmest Karen…’thermosphere’ dear thing…what happens waaay up there? Hint: not what happens in the troposphere. Keep your spirits up,you’ll get it…well,one can only hope!

  90. #92 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    ” It’s a bit like the famous Chinese room – Karen just responds to inputs in the form of fresh chum,”

    More like an amoeba.

  91. #93 bill
    April 3, 2013

    Dear Karen,

    See if you can find the Thermosphere in this chart – hint, its the one with the little space shuttle and satellite in it.

    This is about as stupid as your gloating about the wrong year a few months back – you do know that, don’t you?

    Stupid question!

  92. #94 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    “This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896)”

    Wrong. He calculated the value and it was shown again and again and finally the last few myths against the hypothesis were disproved in 1956.

    “The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation.”

    Wrong again. Trenberth’s picture shows latent and sensible heat transfers as well as condensation transfers.

    “Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere… the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferredby convection”

    Wrong again. Less than 1/3. They don’t know about this dude called Al Bedo.

    But since there’s no convection in space, how does the energy leave the system if it’s supposed to be mostly convection driven?

    “According to our estimates”

    They’ve been quite wrong a lot already. You should treat their estimating capability skeptically.

    “this process of heat (energy)–mass redistribution in atmosphere ”

    But if it stays in the atmosphere, then it doesn’t leave the earth system and with new energy pouring in from the sun that means the earth will reach the fusion temperature of the materials it is made of within a few years tops.

    Are these dudes REALLY REALLY YOUNG earth creationists?

  93. #95 bill
    April 3, 2013

    This also reminds me of Curtin’s ‘No, actually Nitrogen and Oxygen are the real Greenhouse Gases’ effort of last year.

  94. #96 Lotharsson
    April 3, 2013

    Karen clearly doesn’t even understand what mainstream climate science understand – or she doesn’t care – which is why she’s happy to regurgitate claims that climate science doesn’t take into account effect X or phenomenon Y and that hypothesis Z has “never been verified”, when all of those claims about climate science are easily verified to be false. (And if that’s too hard for you, Karen, look up Khilyuk and Chilingar’s history of claims about climate science and see how … respected … they are by actual scientists – and why.)

    Sometimes I think being utterly and consistently wrong is just being employed as a tactic for getting attention, any type of attention…

  95. #97 bill
    April 3, 2013

    But does Karen have any ability to discern wrongness?

  96. #98 Lotharsson
    April 3, 2013

    BTW, that paper Karen cited argues that more CO2 means a cooler atmosphere! No, seriously, here’s the entire abstract:

    The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    I’m now wondering if this is why Jo Nova told me that CO2 causes cooling in the atmosphere a few years ago and clung to that claim despite being shown the holes in the argument…

    Then in the conclusion the authors undercut their own abstract.

    Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.

    For one thing that’s not a “small amount” of CO2. For another undercutting your abstract like this indicates that the paper should be treated with some skepticism. (For giggles, go look up the citations for this paper in Google Scholar. Try not to laugh. What does that tell you about how influential it was?)

    And there are more reasons for skepticism, such as this absolute classic

    Even more amusingly than Karen regurgitating arrant bullshit is that Karen is apparently saying that she trusts a simple model that is in stark disagreement with measurements over scientific conclusions that are in agreement with those measurements. That provides almost “iron sun” levels of ironicness 😉

  97. #99 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    “But does Karen have any ability to discern wrongness?”

    Oh easily. It’s actually knowing that it’s wrong is here blind spot. But finding it? Champion finder of wrongness.

    However, thinks it’s some sort of “gotcha” proving AGW false.

  98. #100 bill
    April 3, 2013

    Ah, yes, Karen is an almost infallible guide to Wrongness…

1 2 3 12

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.