April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 MikeH
    April 3, 2013

    That K&C shite was debunked years ago. This must be classic wrongness night.

  2. #2 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    The report states that the number of record hot days in Australia has doubled since the 1960s, with the summer of 2012/2013 including the hottest summer, hottest month and hottest day on record. In a previous heatwave in southeastern Australia in 2009, Melbourne experienced three consecutive days at or above 43°C in late January, the report notes, leading to 980 heat-related deaths, three times the average mortality. Hot records are now being broken three times more often than cold records, the report found.

    from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/02/climate-change-carbon-emissions-australia

    I guess this proves we’re heading in to an ice age, huh?

  3. #3 BBD
    April 3, 2013

    Lotharsson

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

    Certainly there is no evidence that Karen has any interest in understanding *why* the rubbish she parrots is wrong – eg the Marcott stuff. I got no sense that she wanted to *know* about Holocene climate behaviour. So yes, perhaps she’s just a shrieker.

  4. #4 bill
    April 4, 2013

    Ah, The Usual Suspects – plus ça change! -

    On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state’s future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.

  5. #5 bill
    April 4, 2013

    Wow, what you need to understand is that what happens is that because Australia exports all it’s carbon overseas in the form of crunchy, nutritious brown coal all the associated CO2 ends up hovering above the other continents in their Thermosphere – so called because it’s what keep things hot, or cold – and once there it bounces off all the incoming solar radiation, despite being an insignificant trace gas, just as Professor Karen has so painstakingly explained.

    So everyone else gets the refreshing and therapeutic ice age, and we get the tourists! Win win!

  6. #6 MikeH
    April 4, 2013
  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2013

    The latest (?) news on recursive fury:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/03/tom-curtis-writes/

    Honors to Tom Curtis.

  8. #8 MikeH
    April 4, 2013

    McIntyre accuses Tamino of plagiarism.
    Tamino responds with more incisive analysis of Marcott et al.

    McIntyre responds by hosting a soap opera for the intellectually challenged. Olap laps it up.

    (What is your favourite Scandanavian soap Olaus?)

  9. #9 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2013

    MikeH, you mispelled Tom Curtis. ;-)

  10. #10 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    Still clueless about what your links say, Olap?

  11. #11 Karen
    April 4, 2013

    Hmmm………a bit of a correction to the “gray angry literature” for the numpties.

    Last summer was not actually angrier than other summers

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057

  12. #12 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    So you deniers have no explanation of how AGW can be false in the face of Australia breaking all temperature records.

    I guess you’re not FOR a theory, only AGAINST one. That’s not skepticism, children, that’s being a childish arsehole.

  13. #13 Karen
    April 4, 2013

    Oh, lookie here

    CO2 didn’t cause Greenland to melt. :)

    http://www.news.wisc.edu/21638

    hehehe, not long ago a block of ice fell off Gweenland and dear little Fwanker thought that CO2 had melted through 500ft of ice to cause that, how sweet :)

    He thought only cows did that, lol

  14. #14 Karen
    April 4, 2013

    woW, why did the world temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 ?

  15. #15 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    You are a cretin Karen.

    The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor..

  16. #16 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Wow#10
    Still clueless

    What we expect from you. No more. No less

    I see the Lewy paper has been removed.

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/update-lewandowsky-et-al-paper-on-conspiracist-ideation-provisionally-removed-due-to-complaints/#more-13439
    Is this a conspiracy?

    I expect Frontiers are hoping it will be quietly forgotten about.

    And Cook cannot find a link to the infamous questionaire on his own blogsite, though he swears its there somewhere. Seems Tom Curtis cannot either.
    Perhaps it was there and someone hacked in and removed it.
    I wonder who was funding the hacker.

    Talking about new soaps: ABC are starting work on
    “The UEA Papers”, an everyday story of simple folk.
    Work for you there Wow.

  17. #17 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Should have gone to specsavers
    Should be
    The UWA Papers:-)

  18. #18 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    April 4, 2013

    Bloody Hell. Duff disappears, Redarse returns, Olaus oozes and Karen craps on. Whack a troll time.

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2013

    Strong comeback there wombat! Recursive fury? ;-)

  20. #20 bill
    April 4, 2013

    Gee, if the Lewandowsky paper’s really retracted I guess that will restore the Arctic sea-ice and obliterate Marcott’s 11 000 year record. And suck all that heat right out of the oceans…

    I guess when your arses are right out of your trousers you’ve got to construe your dismal little ‘victories’ where the pretext arises.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2013

    Tamino responds with more incisive analysis of Marcott et al.

    Well worth a read, that.

  22. #22 Sou
    April 4, 2013
  23. #23 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2013

    Karen’s article at #13 provides evidence that warming is higher (especially in the Arctic) than the models currently expect – because “We know that these thin, low-level clouds occur frequently”. I don’t think she understood the implications of the evidence she was referencing…

    …again.

  24. #24 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “dismal little ‘victories’”

    What victory, though?

  25. #25 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “CO2 didn’t cause Greenland to melt.”

    Yes, warm temperatures causes ice to melt, spots. CO2 increases increases temperatures which is melting Greenland ice.

    And is that link “Of course, there is more than one cause for such widespread change. We focused our study on certain kinds of low-level clouds.”

    So if they only looked at low level clouds’ effects, then of course they could see that the effect it had had an effect.

    However, it doesn’t show that the effect alone was sufficient.

    Poor little deniers. Always grasping at straws.

  26. #26 Nick
    April 4, 2013

    If Lewandowsky’s compassionate plea on behalf of rejectionists for diminished responsibility through paranoid ideation is withdrawn,The Children of Watts can still rely on their stupidity, dishonesty and ineducability as defenses. Oh,wait…

  27. #27 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    One for Keyes to ponder over after his rant on the Rabett about death threats against climate scientists, or as Delingpole has it ‘alarmists’:

    The Australian publishes James Delingpole’s call for climate “alarmists” to face court with power to issue death sentence.

    ‘Shome mishtake shurley’ as Connery, Sean, might say except I think he is in the denial camp.

    Given Keyes’ recent displays of unhinged vitriol in the Brangelina thread it seems that Keyes and Delingpole have much in common including a lack of the self awareness which would warn them about their unalloyed sense of self brilliance in all things relating to human knowledge and discourse, aka arrogance.

  28. #28 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    Spots, why did the world temperature rise from 1940 to 2010 ?

    Retard trolls are retarded.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2013

    I suspect the level to which Marcott et. al. has got certain parties worked up is indicative of how powerfully it undermines their narrative.

    (There’s probably yet another paper in that for Lewandowsky et. al. …)

  30. #30 FrankD
    April 4, 2013

    Yes, I remember saying CO2 melted through 500 feet of ice, except… wait a minute… I’ve never said anything that stupid.

    Karen is so desperate “she” has to argue against horseshit “she” “herself” made up, because responses to anything posters have said would only consist of “Oops, you’re right. My bad.”

    What a desperate loser “she” is. And desperately uninteresting, to boot.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2013

    Our former commenter chameleon really should read that Redfearn article about Delingpole, seeing she (IIRC) is fond of repeating the fabricated claim about what Viner said.

    Then again, evidence strongly suggests it wouldn’t sink in.

  32. #32 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 4, 2013

    Sorry, sorry, sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your prayer meeting but has anyone here seen a bit of screwed up paper signed by someone called Lewandowsky? Only it’s gone missing, you see. If anyone finds it can they please return it to: “Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences”. There is a small reward in the form of some arctic clothing with which to combat all this global warming.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2013

    Karen is so desperate “she” has to argue against horseshit “she” “herself” made up, because responses to anything posters have said would only consist of “Oops, you’re right. My bad.”

    So…perhaps Karen is Delingpole? Or does she merely operates from the same school of rhetoric? ;-)

  34. #34 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “Sorry, sorry, sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your prayer meeting”

    We’re sorry that you don’t understand science.

  35. #35 Turboblocke
    April 4, 2013

    Duff: do you think that there’s some sinister reason behind the link being removed?

  36. #36 freemike
    usa
    April 4, 2013

    I have a denier in my corner of the internet that will not relent with the question of ” how much has the planet has warmed since 2000.”
    Sorry for the repost.

    I’m a novice but familiar with a lot of the literature. I was going to post a response from ‘skeptical science’ on global warming since 1998. It’s a good primer on the Earth’s energy budget but any other answers would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

  37. #37 Turboblocke
    April 4, 2013

    freemike: use woodfortrees.org http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend

    Especially get them to read and understand the notes
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

  38. #38 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    the planet includes the oceans, freemike.

    Therefore look for the heating in the oceans.

    Also show them the SkS “Going down the up escalator” as to why the contention “since 2000″ is a load of horseshit.

    You can also, if you have the equipment, show them what happens when you heat iced water and note the temperature. See the temperature not go up as you continue to warm the ice water.

    Being a denier, they’re too effing stupid (either through effort or natural ability) to acknowledge what’s going on here.

  39. #39 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    bit of screwed up paper signed by someone called Lewandowsky

    But didn’t a big mate of his called Cook also sign it?
    Would you call this a Cookie Cock-up?

  40. #40 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    freemike

    It is *very important* that your correspondent is made aware that “the planet” ≠ surface air temperature.

    Energy accumulating in “the planet” aka “the climate system” is mostly OHC. Make sure your correspondent understands that OHC ≠ SST. It’s amazing how muddled these ‘sceptics’ usually are over the basics.

    Contrarians like to concentrate on the least-informative of the short-term trends, which of course is surface air temperature (aka global average temperature or GAT). Lots of good links in the CB article.

    You may find this piece by Tamino useful too. It begins with discussion of the C20th and moves on to recent warming trends and misrepresentations of same by hacks and contrarians.

    Remember, don’t let the conversation be all about surface air temperatures. That’s the wrong focus, which is why contrarians focus there. Just like your correspondent. Don’t let the other side direct the conversation.

  41. #41 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Clown

    Lewandowsky is irrelevant to radiative physics. The problem arises from radiative physics. Therefore Lewandowsky is irrelevant to the problem.

    See?

    ;-)

  42. #42 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    # 38 Wow – we crossed – sorry for repeat info.

  43. #43 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    You can also, if you have the equipment, show them what happens when you heat iced water

    Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487

  44. #44 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.

    The more explanation is provided to someone, the more stupid they become. Care to explain that paradox. Clown?

  45. #45 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Also show them the SkS “Going down the up escalator”

    SKS site seems to be unavailable at the moment.
    Is that for maintenance so that he can do some more
    “undated post-publication revisions of articles” perhaps.
    Or perhaps the mystery hacker who might have removed “The Questionaire” has been at work again.
    :-)

  46. #46 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Care to explain that paradox.

    There is an explanation of this paradox in the link I provided.
    Whether this explanation is considered adequate is questionable.

    Is Lordy another one who cannot read.
    He should join BBD in the remedial reading group.

  47. #47 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.”

    And just proven you don’t understand a damn thing, duffer.

    Then again, you don’t want to understand anything, do you.

  48. #48 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “Is Lordy another one who cannot read.”

    No, just you and your fellow deniers, duffer.

  49. #49 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    There is an explanation of this paradox in the link I provided.

    I know, hence my statement “the more explanation is provided to someone, the more stupid they become”. If you had said “this link is explains, but I think the explaination is questionable” I would have said “why is it questionable”

    Whether this explanation is considered adequate is questionable.

    Why is it questionable?

  50. #50 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Clown

    He should join BBD in the remedial reading group.

    You are not allowed to make remarks like this unless you can substantiate them.

    Please demonstrate by appropriate quotation, evidence that my reading comprehension is poor.

    And be quick about it.

  51. #51 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    RedNoise The Clown

    Lewandowsky is irrelevant to radiative physics. The problem arises from radiative physics. Therefore Lewandowsky is irrelevant to the problem.

    Get it yet, fuckwit?

  52. #52 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    RedNoise The Clown

    While we wait for you to demonstrate that my reading comprehension is at fault, let me drop a fact into the bottomless well of your ignorance.

    Arctic sea ice loss is more than three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.

    I just *bet* you didn’t know that.

    Until now, I assumed that even a fuckwit should be able to grasp that if Antarctic sea ice growth is driven by subsurface melt from the margins of the AIS then it is a further indicator of warming.

    One lives and learns.

  53. #53 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    And the reason for the removal?

    Twats like duffer complaining and trying to silence critics.

    This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    Rednose #43

    Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.

    Are you deliberately obtuse, did you take a correspondence course in stupid or were you borne that way.

    Did you really not understand the mechanism being described in the main body of text. Perhaps you didn’t read that far down.

    I saw an item on BBC News last week about a youngster who made a fortune selling his new i-phone app’ which saves time for the information stressed with busy lives by condensing headlines and presenting a list of such to keep them ‘informed’ (?????) on the latest developments.

    Oh! Goody! Now we will have Dumb and Dumber.

  55. #55 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 4, 2013

    Do you mean, Wow, that all I have to do is complain and that will silence you lot? Heavens to Betsy, I never thought it was that easy! Not, mind you, that I wish to persecute your religion but quite honestly all that praying and prating and chanting is exceedingly tiresome.

  56. #56 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    RedNoise The Clown

    If you cannot back up your lies about me, you must retract them. Please do so immediately.

    In future, do not lie about me in the first place or you will have to eat your lies as you are doing now.

  57. #57 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    David Duff

    We don’t need Lewandowski. He has nothing to say about radiative physics or emissions policy and we already know that ‘sceptics’ are frequently paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe in all sorts of other nonsense.

  58. #58 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    And the reason for the removal?

    Someone has alleged defamation and so it is no surprise the paper has been removed whilst the legal position is checked. Whether it comes back remains to be seen. If it does come back the authors will be very grateful for all the publicity Duff et al have given the paper.

  59. #59 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “all I have to do is complain and that will silence you lot?”

    Well, you’ve just shown you want to silence alternative opinions, duffer.

    I wonder if any of the other deniers will pick up on this and be as loud decrying you for this as they were for the statement by Mann about how some paper should never have been printed.

    They won’t, though, because the problem wasn’t about the actions, but a pretence to lambaste those telling them the truths they don’t want to hear.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    Rednose #45

    SKS site seems to be unavailable at the moment.

    Well it is up now and well and truly up-yours seeing as I sent you to that about a week ago. What’s up, can’t6 you read simple sentences from here.

    And while you are over there check out the tricksy folk behind the Klotzback (your being a clot who is back you should feel at home) effect Part 1 and Part 2.

    Knowing that you don’t know how to follow links in articles here is one you should see, linked to from Part 1 as it happens Muddying the peer-reviewed literature in which you will find this, my emphasis:

    The data analysis in this paper mainly concerned the trends over land, thus a key assumption for this study appears to rest solely on a personal communication from an economics professor purporting to be the results from the GISS coupled climate model. (For people who don’t know, the GISS model is the one I [Gavin Schmidt] help develop).

    Now you know why I called them tricksey, just like you.

  61. #61 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    If it does come back the authors will be very grateful for all the publicity Duff et al have given the paper.

    I should append

    …. and for all the material Duff et al have provided for the next paper.

  62. #62 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Lordy#49
    Another one who cannot read to the bottom of a simple page.

    But there are other plausible explanations for Antarctic sea-ice expansion.

    Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing ice away from the coast, allowing exposed water in some areas to freeze and make yet more ice.
    So its questionable

  63. #63 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    @Clown UK

    Paul Holland also says (in your article):

    The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and melt water-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with the melt water effect being the smaller of the two,

    Thereby calling into question your reading comprehension skills. Except it isn’t your reading skills that are questionable, its your honesty.

  64. #64 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “Thereby calling into question your reading comprehension skills”

    Since we have always considered them nonexistent, I would posit that the fact duffer hasn’t read or understood what he links to AGAIN has not put anything into question on that point.

    The question remains why is he bothering?

    Deniers seem to live lives that are themselves a non-sequitur.

  65. #65 lord_sidcup
    April 4, 2013

    Also Clown boy, you haven’t explained the ‘clown paradox’ – the more explanation is provided, the more stupid he become.

  66. #66 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    BBD#56

    If you care to read back towards the end of the March thread, there was a too and fro, bad tempered on your part, whereby you seemed to be denying a comment, I quoted, appeared on a link that I gave. It went on for some time with you seemingly frothing at the mouth shouting liar, liar, before you apparently found the statement in question and were able to quote it back.
    Hence my statements concerning your reading ability.
    You also appeared to claim to be clairvoyant enabling you to know what I think, which I find amusing.

  67. #67 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    More lies from RedNose the Clown

    I said back it up with quotations or fuck off. Your reading comprehension seems poor.

  68. #68 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing ice away from the coast, allowing exposed water in some areas to freeze and make yet more ice.
    So its questionable

    What a fuckwit you are, Clown.

  69. #69 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    #60

    Well its timed out now.
    The server might be busy because of the traffic you sent there..

  70. #70 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    duffer #66, do you want to try that again in english this time?

  71. #71 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    I said back it up with quotations or fuck off.

    You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
    Feck off yourself

  72. #72 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    Meanwhile Buenos Aires is hit by floods.

    Global warming produces climate change,
    climate change produces shifts in hydrological cycle (e.g. rain, snow, hail).

  73. #73 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    RedNoise The Clown

    Quotes demonstrating that my reading comprehension is poor are going to be hard to find. Apologising or vanishing from this thread would be easier options.

  74. #74 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Oh dear RedNoise The Clown

    This was not wise at all:

    You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
    Feck off yourself

    Now, you can apologise, or you can fuck off. Or you can stay and I will mock your lies and your stupidity mercilessly because yet again you lied about what I said.

    You miserable, mendacious little toe-rag!

  75. #75 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    We don’t need no Lewandowski.

    Reminds me of the first line of some song I used to know.

  76. #76 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn’t be too difficult.”

    Duffer is buying from Joan’s playbook.

    YOU made the assertion, duffer, YOU back it up with evidence.

  77. #77 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    If you don’t need him, why did you and all your nutcase mates go apeshit over it?

  78. #78 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    RedNoise The Clown

    I said you can apologise *or* fuck off. By which I meant leave the thread; disappear; depart; fuck off.

    Reading comprehension problems again?

  79. #79 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    Rednose #75

    Reminds me of the first line of some song I used to know.

    Vaguely similar to a Stones number and I bet you don’t get any either.

  80. #80 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Wow

    YOU made the assertion, duffer, YOU back it up with evidence.

    He’s going to have a problem with that. It may hinge on issues arising from his reading comprehension, or as lord_sidcup suggests (correctly, IMO) at # 63, the real problem is that RedNoise is a lying toe-rag. Well, lord_sidcup didn’t put it quite like that, but I submit this as a demonstration of my reading comprehension working perfectly well.

  81. #81 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    # 79 I think the toe-rag has a Pink Floyd lyric in mind.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    And now for something completely different.

    Following a mention in ‘Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future‘ by Ehrlich & Ehrlich (Duff-RedNose find a copy and read it) I obtained a copy of this book:

    Our Stolen Future – Wiki, Our Stolen Future – Home which confirms many dots I have been joining over the years. The picture is NOT GOOD. We seem determined to drive ourselves (homo-sapiens-sapiens as we know it) extinct one way or another. The whole of humanities existence but a brief flicker in the geological history of the Earth. Look at the time 23:59:59, unless we can gain an hour back a salvage something.

  83. #83 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Lionel

    I genuinely doubt HSS will become *extinct*. I simply doubt that by mid-century and thereafter global agricultural output will be capable of feeding ~9bn people. If surface warming takes off as projected (under conservative TCR/ECS estimates) and the hydrological cycle speeds up at the same time, there will be very many deaths.

    Whether all this and ongoing SLR will push the infrastructure and essence of technology-dependent civilisation (think of the derivation of the word) to the limits is an open question.

  84. #84 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    BBD, we’re teaching innuit how to do cost accountancy, but we’re not teaching cost accountants how to survive in the frozen north.

    Second time around, we could go extinct.

    We aren’t built to survive, we’re frankly crap at defense or offense and any opportunity we have to continue is being killed off by turning those still living without civilisation into a new resource to exploit in the cities.

  85. #85 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Wow

    For me, the problem is that bold claims are hard to defend and there’s no point in giving the contrarians any argumentative leeway. # 83 is easier to defend than an assertion that AGW is an existential problem for the species.

    Also, everything depends on how much AGW we end up with. As we all know, this will be determined by emissions and TCR (especially TCR over the land surface), with the latter potentially modulated by carbon cycle feedbacks. These are believed more likely to become significant the higher T actually rises.

    Of course an existential thread cannot be ruled out, but perhaps it makes sense at this stage to point to the threat to civilisation as currently enjoyed by the fortunate. When I say to someone, “By the time our kids are our age, the world will be a differnt place and not in a good way” it gets their attention. If instead I were to say “Our grandchildren are certainly doomed and the species is likely headed for extinction” they will tend to regard me as over-wrought, or worse, a crank.

    Most people are more able to *believe* that life could get very expensive and very thin than they are in the extinction of the species. Getting them to believe that externalised costs aren’t externalised at all is the best first step in avoiding the worst outcomes. Surely we should focus on what works best? Isn’t this what Schneider really meant when he spoke of being honest and effective?

    Contrarians invariably twist that round the other way, but we do not have to play their games for them.

  86. #86 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “# 83 is easier to defend than an assertion that AGW is an existential problem for the species. ”

    It’s pretty damn easy to defend. I just did it.

    Agree or don’t, but it won’t change the fact of AGW.

  87. #87 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2013

    Wow, here are som more settled scientific facts on the noble art of Global warming predictions:

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/#comments

    ;-)

  88. #88 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Olaus Petri

    It’s funny how some people find the modelled under-estimate of Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters reassuring instead of disturbing.

    You should get out more.

  89. #89 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2013

    BBD, to a normal human being that means that the models are flawed. They can’t get it rigth in any direction. :-)

    Some list of good model work over at the NotrickZone? Isn’t settled science (portentology) something extra? Here’s the first 15 to feast on:

    1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, 8 Feb 2006

    ***

    2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, 10 Jan 2010.

    ****

    3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter“ … “Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning. … Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most … there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east. …In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 2 Sept 2008.

    ****

    4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.“
    Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 2 March 2007

    ****

    5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

    ****

    6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
    Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

    ****

    7. “The more than ‘unusually‘ warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
    Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

    ****

    8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
    Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

    9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
    Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

    ****

    10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
    Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

    ****

    11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
    Spiegel, 1 April 2000

    ****

    12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60 percent of the species could die off by 2080.”

    3Sat, 26 June 2003

    ****

    13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
    IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

    ****

    14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
    Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

    ****

    15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

    and

    ” The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
    Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

  90. #90 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    Another news bulletin. This time from the UK Met Office headed:
    “Solar variability helps explain cold winters.”

    BBD might find it interesting.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/solar-variability

    “In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes – a pattern which then ‘burrows’ its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe.”

  91. #91 Rednose
    UK
    April 4, 2013

    I have it on good authority that:

    “The problem arises from radiative physics”

  92. #92 chek
    April 4, 2013

    Olap’s excuse for a thought process – or rather that of the compiler of the list he’s been given – goes something like ‘models were wrong, therefore no AGW’.

    Olap and his fellow water-carriers don’t have the wit to think ahead and say well OK, where’s that heat going to go once the polar ice has melted?
    They don’t ‘do’ intelligence, just repeating.

  93. #93 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Rednoise The Clown

    “In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes – a pattern which then ‘burrows’ its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe.”

    You continue to confuse regional with global. Think of it this way: if I kick your arse, that is a regional effect. If I kick you all over, that is a global effect.

    I’m surprised you haven’t worked this out for yourself by now.

    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.

    I’ve taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote. I have done so because this quote, with bold emphasis added, has been provided for you repeatedly and you do not seem to understand what the words mean.

    I hope this helps.

  94. #94 Turboblocke
    April 4, 2013

    OP: I find it odd that none of your quotes seem to refer to the past or the present. Have you checked that the time period that they refer to? Clearly it’s too early to mock the ones that refer to 2030, 2050, 2080 or the end of the century, so I wonder why you include them. It doesn’t strengthen your case, in fact it looks like you didn’t think about what they actually mean.

  95. #95 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Olaus Petri

    I would like to quote James Hansen to you on the subject of climate models:

    [TH:] A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

    [Hansen:] I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that’s not the principal basis for our concern. It’s the Earth’s history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they’re not the primary source of our understanding.

    [TH:] Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

    [Hansen:] Oh, yeah, that’s intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that’s the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it’s supplementary. It’s not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth’s history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

    And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth’s history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it’s misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

    Any time you like, we can discuss paleoclimate.

  96. #97 Turboblocke
    April 4, 2013

    OP: the second entry in your list refers to predictions for 2025, 2055 and 2085. The third for 2021, the fourth for 2100 etc etc Does the notrickzone offer a money back guarantee, because it looks like they are tricking you into believing that they know the future?

  97. #98 chek
    April 4, 2013

    Steady on, Turboblocke – it’s not as if they can read or even understand the spam they post. That’s not their job, so expecting a reasoned conversation about the details is like hoping an old-fashioned bakelite phone could explain a garbled message.

    If they had the intelligence to answer the begged questions,. they wouldn’t be doing what they do so willingly.

  98. #99 Russell
    April 4, 2013

    Back in the denialosphere, Tallblokes taste in alternative theories now extends to re-arranging the solr system.

  99. #100 chek
    April 5, 2013

    Well, when it comes to an ‘anything but CO2′ theory or indeed any required whacky theory, then whacky horse-faced, brain-damaged cretin Rog Tallcrank is your go-to guy.

    I’ve no idea if the cretinisation came into effect before or after the m/c accident, but then again that’s irrelevant to his current ‘career’ in any case. Just as I have no idea what may or may not have caused Mercury to flee Venus’ orbit.

    But if Tallcrank is involved you can bet your arse a wind turbine was behind it all.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.