April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    April 5, 2013

    Every time a Denier piously intones that ‘they laughed at Galileo’ we can point out ‘and they laughed at Velikovsky’, still do, and, crucially, always will.

  2. #2 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    “According to the mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, this was the 2nd heaviest rainfall in the city since records for such began in 1906.” http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=141

    “We need to do the same with all the waterworks that are needed in the city, in greater Buenos Aires and in the province of Buenos Aires,” Macri said, maintaining he received “no calls from the President,” and effectively reducing the solution to the matter to the federal government’s authorization for works.

    Federal Planning Minister Julio De Vido slammed Macri by saying that the “municipalities in Greater Buenos Aires where works were carried out in a de-centralized manner, and that had similar rainfall to Buenos Aires City, did not have such problems.” http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/127832/ba-city-floods-leave-chaotic-aftermath

    “The city of Buenos Aires has around three million inhabitants. More than 10% of the population has been directly affected by the recent rains, the most damaging in the last 107 years, according to the authorities. In the early hours of Tuesday morning La Reina del Plata looked like Venice and will need several days to return to normal.”

    “But why does Bueno Aires flood? Since its founding, the city has been growing and expanding towards the Buenos Aires conurbation. As this growth converges with streams that flow into the Río de la Plata, it channels them, the channel gets filled up and it’s a lottery as to what happens next. Urban income is a temptation that is difficult to resist. For a while these channels were bearing the rain well, but as construction continued the natural absorbent surface diminished and the volume of water that began to flow through increased. You have to add to this the disappearance of green space and its substitution with cement, as well as the gentle slopes of the streams that were channelled. Finally, you have the landfills that are located on the coast of the Río de la Plata for the purpose of gaining real-estate land, which increase the length of the pipes before they can arrive at their natural drains.” http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/04/04/argentina-floods-in-buenos-aires-leave-35-dead/

    and this has quite a bit of info on the changed hydrology of the area 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%2Fserdebuenosayres.blogspot.com.ar%2F2013%2F01%2Flas-inundaciones-en-buenos-aires.html&act=url

    Lionel……….. get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

    A simple search provided the fact that Buenos Aires had heavier rain in 1906 and the flood the other day was compounded by the dismal performance of the drainage system.

    Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

    sheeez…………….your a nuffie

  3. #3 bill
    April 5, 2013

    And you’re an illiterate.

  4. #4 Sou
    April 5, 2013

    If you think Karen is weird, so is Anthony’s darling, Willis E.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/denier-weirdness-its-not-co2-its.html

  5. #5 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2013

    Dear chek, I don’t deny AGW. I’m denying that science is settled regarding climate sensivity.

    Dear BBD, the list is a good example of what CAGW (and the ice age alarm in the 70s) is about: tabloid science embraced by a hord of non climate scientists lacking a critical mind set.

    When science becomes abducted by ideology and political forces and removed from its proper mileu – “the lab” – it can take the form of a cult… ;-)

  6. #6 Nick
    April 5, 2013

    Pay attention ,Ollie, and you’ll see people here have little time for ‘tabloid science’,dislike straw catastrophism projected by reflexive liars,and agree CS is not precisely known. The world is ‘the lab’ –has been for a long time. Try not to damage the equipment.

    Maybe you can set Kaz straight about the thermosphere?

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2013

    Nick, try to tell that to Jeff “Elders-of-fossil-fuel-obstruct-climate-science-even though-tere-is-no-data-supporting-it” Harvey and his minions. In any weather or odd event they see the signs of climate dispruption etc. Portentology in other words.

  8. #8 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Olap, are you saying that climate doesn’t change, then? Are you denying climate as you deniers strawman it: insisting that there is no climate?

  9. #9 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2013

    I say climate change Wow. I also say that I, unlike you, can differ between weather and climate.

  10. #10 Renose
    UK
    April 5, 2013

    BBD#93

    “I’ve taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote”

    Yes and very nice it looks now indeed.
    Hate to bother you some more but could you do the same for the bit in the Met Office article which refers to
    “Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters”

    And here is a recent quote from Paul Hudson (Met Office)
    concerning the latest cold winter which might be of interest.

    “If so, March 2013 would turn out to be the equal coldest since way back in 1892.

    With December 2010 ending up the coldest since 1890, it’s yet more anecdotal evidence that something significant seems to be happening to our climate, driven by a jet stream that continues to be forced regularly further south than normal, across all seasons.

    As ever the reasons for this are not clear.

    But those who study how solar activity affects the positioning of the jet stream will, perhaps, feel increasingly vindicated. ”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/How-cold-will-March-end-up-Plus-an-Easter-outlook

  11. #11 Rednose
    UK
    April 5, 2013

    BBD#96

    “How Rednoise The Clown sees himself.
    How we see Rednoise The Clown.”

    Showing off those superpowers again BBD.
    Is that the royal we or does it include the rest of the cult?
    Does every cult member have these superpowers or just a chosen few?

  12. #12 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “I say climate change Wow”

    You didn’t answer the question, Olap.

    Are you saying that there’s no such thing as climate?

  13. #13 Rednose
    UK
    April 5, 2013

    BBD#93
    “I’ve taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote”
    And very nice it looks as well.
    Sorry to bother you more, but could you also capitalise the bit from the Met Office Bulletin that refers to
    “Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters”

    Another, more recent comment by Paul Hudson on the unusally cold weather, may also be of interest.

    “If so, March 2013 would turn out to be the equal coldest since way back in 1892.

    With December 2010 ending up the coldest since 1890, it’s yet more anecdotal evidence that something significant seems to be happening to our climate, driven by a jet stream that continues to be forced regularly further south than normal, across all seasons.

    As ever the reasons for this are not clear.

    But those who study how solar activity affects the positioning of the jet stream will, perhaps, feel increasingly vindicated. ”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/How-cold-will-March-end-up-Plus-an-Easter-outlook

  14. #14 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Another, more recent comment by Paul Hudson on the unusally cold weather, may also be of interest.

    “If…”

    i cut off the quote there because I don’t think you know what “if” means, duffer.

  15. #15 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2013

    Sorry Wow, I forgot that earwax is a major part of your body weight. So hear we go again: Yes there is such a thing as climate.

  16. #16 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “Yes there is such a thing as climate.”

    So how do you know what the climate is, Olap?

    PS unless you’re claiming earwax in your keyboard, the problem was you decided to answer a question other than the one that was asked.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    Karen,

    Lionel……….. get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

    Think before posting, the take home point was this:

    …a month’s worth of rain fell in just two hours

    you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info’ at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist unlike your heroes Watts, Codling and Montford.

    Of course any flooding is exacerbated by real estate development but that is not the cause, it is an effect.

    I think you should investigate a book I mentioned here @ #82, it could explain why you show stunted cognitive development.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    BBD

    Lionel

    I genuinely doubt HSS will become *extinct*

    I was looking at the bigger picture and over time with not only climate change induced fragmenting of species population (temperature and sea level excursions and also food source changes) but also changed reproduction and developmental factors leading to eventual species diversion with the ancestor species, us aka HSS, becoming extinct, with those divergent descendant species being something other than strictly HSS.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    Barff!

    Karen,

    Lionel……….. get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

    Think before posting, the take home point was this:

    …a month’s worth of rain fell in just two hours

    you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info’ at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist unlike your heroes Watts, Codling and Montford.

    Of course any flooding is exacerbated by real estate development but that is not the cause, it is an effect.

    I think you should investigate a book I mentioned here @ #82, it could explain why you show stunted cognitive development.

  20. #20 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Come on, Olap. If you know what the difference between weather and climate is, you must know how you tell what the climate is.

    If you know what climate is, you must know how you determine what it is.

    Or were you telling fibs with both those statements?

  21. #21 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    It is interesting that Lionel can’t understand this ?

    “According to the mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, this was the 2nd heaviest rainfall in the city since records for such began in 1906.”

    I’ll explain Lionel, IT HAS RAINED HEAVIER BEFORE IN BUENOS AIRES.

    Did you here that Lionel ?

    Do you think that the EARLIER “HEAVIER” RAIN was caused by CO2 that got trapped in Dr Who’s phone box ?

    Please explain your methodology used in your blustering hyperbolising bullshit in post #72

    Even after you were supplied with information above that tells you that this flood was not unprecedented you try to evade the truth with this.

    “Think before posting, the take home point was this:
    …a month’s worth of rain fell in just two hours you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info’ at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist”

    Your blinded by the faith Lyen Nel.

  22. #22 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    hahaha……….I was just reading the “heat makes ice” article over at nature.com and was having a bit of a chuckle about the stupidity of it, lol, then I came to the comments !

    http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709#comments

  23. #23 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    And this is just Soooooo appropriate.

    “Carbonazis” :)

  24. #24 bill
    April 5, 2013

    Karen gloating about stupidity in a comments thread. That’s another Irony Meter blown, then.

    Also, I’m not altogether sure you’re keeping your personas properly demarcated of late…

  25. #25 bill
    April 5, 2013

    And fuck off, incidentally.

  26. #26 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    Herr Billyboy, is the old prostate op playing up ?

  27. #27 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “It is interesting that Lionel can’t understand this ? ”

    It is completely expected that you would assert that, spots.

    “I was just reading the “heat makes ice” article over at nature.com”

    And that was entirely expected too. Admit it, spots, you don’t understand anything you read.

  28. #28 Nick
    April 5, 2013

    Karen does not know what the thermosphere is. Karen does not understand mechanisms that can produce Antarctic sea ice. Karen does not know whether the record fall in Buenos Aires fell in just two hours,or six,thirteen or twenty,so cannot usefully compare it with this months downpour. Cheerful but dim.

  29. #29 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    # 5 Olaus

    Dear chek, I don’t deny AGW. I’m denying that science is settled regarding climate sensivity.

    What do you think is the most likely value for ECS to 2xCO2? Please provide supporting references to *published* studies.

    Remember that Hansen quote I put up for you? Let’s talk about paleoclimate.

  30. #30 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Spots version of “reality”: “heat makes ice”
    Reality: Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice

    Make a snowman.

    Leave it out and watch it melt.

    The melting snowman both shrinks in size AND expands over the lawn.

    Maybe spots has not seen snow for so long he’s forgotten what it is like, just like David Viner said would happen.

  31. #31 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    # 12 Rednoise The Clown

    No. It cannot be true. Nobody can be this stupid. Nobody. This has to be a ghastly joke, serialised over many pages of comments. Right?

    Nobody capable of operating a computer could read this and quote it back to me and still confuse REGIONAL with GLOBAL.

    Do you really not understand that cold spells across some REGIONS of the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE do not have much effect on GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?

    Do you really not understand that Paul Hudson is discussing UK weather – a tiny REGION of the NH? Really?

    How can you not have understood this:

    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.

    Eh? Did I use too many long words? Is that it? Is your *reading comprehension* utterly borked? Is that it?

    What the fuck is wrong with your brain? If you aren’t lying or taking the piss, you are quite possibly one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. Bravo, Clown!

  32. #32 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Very puzzled. According to Romero et al. (1968), head-shots are the correct method.

    Romero and co-workers substantially developed their original ideas in later years (Romero et al. 1978; Romero et al. 1985; Romero et al. 2005) but the core findings remain unchanged: head-shots should do the trick.

    Can’t understand what’s happening here.

    ;-)

  33. #33 Karen
    April 5, 2013

    Meanwhile BBD your climate eunuch friends seem to think a bit of a localized downpour was caused by gwowbull warming :)

  34. #34 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Spots, duffer is the one thinking that weather is climate.

  35. #35 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    And it seems like Olap has run away again after being given a question he can neither answer nor deflect.

  36. #36 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Meanwhile, spots, it seems like your fellow deniers have no clue what they’re talking about. It’s probably because they haven’t been told what to think yet on the subject.

  37. #37 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Karen

    You are, as ever, confused. It’s early days, yet, but global precipitation is increasing. See Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset.

    From the abstract:

    In this study, we present the collation and analysis of the gridded land-based dataset of indices of temperature and precipitation extremes: HadEX2. [...] Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes consistent with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature over the whole 110 years of record but with stronger trends in more recent decades. Seasonal results showed significant warming in all seasons but more so in the colder months. Precipitation indices also showed widespread and significant trends, but the changes were much more spatially heterogeneous compared with temperature changes. However, results indicated more areas with significant increasing trends in extreme precipitation amounts, intensity, and frequency than areas with decreasing trends.

    This is the anthropogenic signal in precipitation extremes slowly beginning to emerge from the weather noise.

  38. #38 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Remember, BBD, the deniers don’t know what weather or climate is, they just know that they’re different.

    Somehow.

    But they’re definitely different! Anthony told them so!

  39. #39 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Wow

    Isn’t ‘climate’ the one with wiggly lines? Or maybe that was ‘weather’? Or is it both but one is the purple line? Or something?

    Eh, this sciencey stuff is hard work.

  40. #40 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Whatever it is, they know it when they see it, unless they don’t, in which case it isn’t, unless sometime later it is.

    Or isn’t.

  41. #41 Rednose
    UK
    April 5, 2013

    Well it was nice of you to make the various statements from the Met Office bulletin stand out, but you have not done it for the bits about.
    “Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters”
    I doubt you will find any there as this work claims to be based on the laws of Physics.

    The Met Office Bulletin started with the sub heading,
    “Research from the Met Office has shed new light on a link between decadal solar variability and winter climate in the UK, northern Europe and parts of America.”

    Which is obviously not global.

    And Paul Hudson was talking about UK weather on the BBC website.
    So the issue was bleeding obvious, the solar effect on the Jet Stream.

    Where in my posts since linking to this Met Office bulletin have I mentioned the global effect of solar radiation.
    You claim to know what people are thinking.
    Use your superpowers
    Put up or shut up
    or do you wish to continue with this strawman argument you have constructed to avoid discussing the solar effect on the jet stream. Incidently the capitalised bits help show you as an utter plonker.

    You are barking up the wrong tree. Either that or just barking.
    Having this explained to you by “one of the stupidest men you have met.”
    Well what does that make you?

  42. #42 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Nope, you’re going to have to try again duffer because that made no sense whatsoever.

    “but you have not done it for the bits about.”

    Is that period meant to be a colon to indicate that the next line is what you demand needs explaining?

    “I doubt you will find any there as this work claims to be based on the laws of Physics.”

    This apparently is saying that if it is based on physics, it can’t be explaining anything.

    And it doesn’t get any better.

    Before hitting submit, don’t.

  43. #43 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “Where in my posts since linking to this Met Office bulletin have I mentioned the global effect of solar radiation.”

    So are you saying that the sun doesn’t shine on the earth?

  44. #44 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “The Met Office Bulletin started with the sub heading,”

    So you’re telling us that research is being done? Do you also want to appraise us of the toiletry practices of ursine populations?

  45. #45 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    BBD

    See Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset.

    Which I had in mind when answering Karen’s continued selective tom-foolery (a bit like Keyes who’s mantle has now well and truly slipped revealing the instability beneath – cue another rant in THAT thread – Keyes is way beyond Black Knight treatment), so thanks for the citation.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    Trail of fossil fuel funds in repeal of North Carolina Renewable Energy Standard show some of the usual suspects such as the Kochs and Grover Norquest. It is these socio-paths who should face judgement. Also check out ALEC at SourceWatch.

    This a message for Kraken, RabidNoise, Duffski, OilPool, etc.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    Where some of that extra atmospheric water has come from April 5 News: A Millennium And A Half Of Ice Melted In 25 Years. Beginning to get it Karen?

  48. #48 Lionel A
    April 5, 2013

    Karen from another study :

    The pattern of trends for the extremes was generally the same as that for total annual rainfall, with a change to wetter conditions in Ecuador and northern Peru and the region of southern Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and northern and central Argentina. A decrease was observed in southern Peru and southern Chile, with the latter showing significant decreases in many indices.

    and that was only up to 2000.

  49. #49 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Rednoise The Clown

    When we first met, you were clowning on about the solar-climate connection, implying that TSI, not GHGs, was the major driver of climate. I pointed out that this was not the case, and that OHC and GAT *diverged* from TSI since the 1980s. Remember that? I even provided pretty pictures, prepared with my own fair hands, at no extra charge. Remember?

    Then you tried to re-interpret the solar-climate connection as described in the NRC Report press release, demonstrating worryingly poor reading comprehension.

    Again, I set you straight, in considerable detail, eventually resorting to extensive quotation from the actual report itself. During this exchange, it became very obvious that you had not read read the *press release* properly, let alone the actual report. It was embarrassing.

    Now, at the end-game, shoved off the board by the facts, you are reduced to the usual butt-hurt whining and frankly pathetic attempts at re-writing your own commenting history.

    I have repeatedly warned you that you will suffer if you push it, and now look at you. A miserable spectacle. Why do it?

    It always ends the same way. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed the pattern yet.

    But then, you are awesomely stupid, which accounts for much but can *never* excuse your incessant dishonesty. Do you think you can fool me? Really? On the evidence so far?

    Not even you can be *that* stupid.

  50. #50 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    # 45 Lionel

    What beggars belief is that anyone could imagine that the hydrological cycle would just pootle along, doing it’s own thing, as SSTs, LSTs and tropospheric T all rise. It’s a kind of madness, as the old lyric has it. Oh no, it was ‘magic’. Sorry.

    As for BK, yes, he’s a sick puppy. In fact he’s genuinely disturbing. God only knows what he’s like in real life. I can imagine him being cordially despised by colleagues.

  51. #51 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Oh dear:

    “doing its own thing”

    Sorry folks.

  52. #52 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Rednoise

    Of course I have already linked this for you, but here it all is, once again: Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010).

    Some regional NH winter effects do not offeset global GHG forcing, which will continue to increase during the C21st.

    Pretty picture worth a thousand misunderstood words.

    Press release for you to be confused about.

  53. #53 Rednose
    UK
    April 5, 2013

    BBD#49

    “Then you tried to re-interpret the solar-climate connection as described in the NRC Report press release, demonstrating worryingly poor reading comprehension.”

    No interpretation from me. All in your mind.
    You know what people think after all.

    You have still not provided any evidence to back up your claims I misinterpreted the NASA or Met Office Bulletins.

    Thought not
    Besides swapping insults I mainly posted quotes from
    these bulletins. No interpretation at all.

    However, there was one thing that you may find interesting
    Following my posting of the link to the NASA Bulletin
    I posted this:

    March Thread dated 28th
    Page 8
    Comment #31

    “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.”

    Only an absolute Dipstick like you could infer from that there
    was confusion of global and regional influences.
    You have obviously not read my post as you were too busy
    posting insults, blather, posturing, false accusations and empty threats.

    You continued with this strawman argument up to #31 today
    despite attempts to put you straight.

    You have provided no evidence to back up your claims and accusations so
    If I am the fool, you are an even bigger one.
    Fuck Off

  54. #54 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Poor debater *and* a poor loser, Clown.

    Don’t give up the day job!

  55. #55 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “You have still not provided any evidence to back up your claims I misinterpreted the NASA or Met Office Bulletins.”

    Well, the “You have it completely wrong” is evidence you misinterpreted them, duffer.

    This may not be the measure of interpretation error with deniers, rather explaining your problems with understanding anything I suppose, but it is a genuine one.

  56. #56 Rednose
    UK
    April 6, 2013

    BBD slinks off stage right muttering darkley

  57. #57 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    Clown’s head injuries have confused his perspective!

  58. #58 Karen
    April 6, 2013

    OH YEAH…….. it looks like one of your arm waving CO2 propagandist writers is about to flip sides.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html

  59. #59 Nick
    April 6, 2013

    OH YEAH….. it’s Karen of the Thermosphere with another claim completely unsupported by her link. Bit of a pattern with you,dimwit. Read your f**king sources before commenting,idiot. Better still,go away.

    OH YEAH…… WHOOO,YEAH….. etc.

  60. #60 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 6, 2013

    Oh, no, not another rat leaving the sinking ship! I mean, I thought you could rely on Geoffrey Lean of ‘Her Majesty’s Daily Telegraph’ but even he’s acknowledging ‘the bleedin’ obvious':

    “The resulting increase [in global temps due to sensitivity to CO2] has long been put at between 1.5C and 4.5C (the threefold range itself gives some idea of how little is known): the best guess has been 3C, which would be likely to have devastating effects on the climate. But the latest findings – which stretch over several papers from different, well-established scientists – suggest that the rise may be towards the lower end of that big range, possibly less than the 2C danger level.”

    What an unmitigated swine he is, writing about “well-established scientists” when we all know, er, don’t we?, that they are charlatans in the pay of Big Oil.

    And to suggest, even out of the corner of his mouth, the possibility that temps might rise by LESS THAN the dangerous level of 2c, well, words fail me! I mean, if you can’t rely on big, soppy, Green tree-huggers like Geoffrey Lean then the end of the world is nigh – well, the AGW world, at any rate!

  61. #61 Wow
    April 6, 2013

    “Oh, no, not another rat leaving the sinking ship! ”

    You’re leaving?

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    April 6, 2013

    Duff’s quote doesn’t inspire confidence as it apparently conflates climate sensitivity with the global average temperature rise which is considered dangerous. The danger threshold isn’t defined in terms of sensitivity, it’s defined in terms of rise. If we double CO2 concentrations twice, and the sensitivity really is 2C, we’ll ultimately reach 4C of rise.

    And unless I’ve missed something the evidence on the side of “sensitivity might be less than 2C”, even with a few recent papers, is pretty heavily outweighed by the evidence that it’s 2C or more.

    Worse still, 2C is the old danger threshold – newer research is suggesting a lot of bad stuff happens at more like 1C which I think we’re already committed to breach – or are very close to it.

    And that’s before we get to the rank stupidity of implicitly touting the possibility that disaster might not strike as a reason not to worry at all. Most high school kids can point out the flaw in that “reasoning”.

  63. #63 Olaus Petri
    April 6, 2013

    Since the old chap Mr Lean has left (right!) the climate scare building I’m sure you deltoids need some comforting Arctic melting:

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62904258?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

    It can’t be fun being a climate scare monger these days?

    :-)

  64. #65 Olaus Petri
    April 6, 2013

    I know, the Josh missed the magic flute. But still…

  65. #66 chek
    April 6, 2013

    Tamino reckons you, McIntyre, Watts and assorted other clowns are full of shit
    “Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the “differencing method” himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.
    But that would require him actually to do some science”.

    But then, that’s already well known.

  66. #67 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    Gosh, a damning rejection of all things AGW by Geoff Lean in the Torygraph. Or is it? Let’s make sure that we aren’t seeing yet more evidence of reading comprehension problems.

    Since certain peeps didn’t understand what the words meant the first time around, here they are again. Once more, emphasis added for those with particularly poor reading comprehension (you know who you are!):

    The researchers themselves are quick to emphasise that their results should not diminish attempts to combat climate change. Their research could be wrong; after all, other equally distinguished scientists have concluded that climate sensitivity is much greater. Even if it is right, their new estimates for temperature rise still range widely, and the upper end still exceeds the danger mark.

    Furthermore, the actual effects of temperature rises in the real world can blow away such calculations. Sea ice in the Arctic, for example, has already shrunk to levels not expected to occur for decades – and has done so during the current slowdown in overall global temperature rises.

    Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.

    So while governments must urgently adopt measures to cut emissions of black carbon – mainly from diesel engines and inefficient Third World cooking stoves – they will also have to do much more to control carbon dioxide.

    The new research might just give the world a much-needed breathing space. But it would be foolhardy to breathe out for long.

    Hope that helps!

    ;-)

  67. #68 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    # 62 Lotharsson

    And unless I’ve missed something the evidence on the side of “sensitivity might be less than 2C”, even with a few recent papers, is pretty heavily outweighed by the evidence that it’s 2C or more.

    Oh yes. The run of dubious low estimates is getting to be a bit tiresome. Either they estimate TCR *not* ECS and the peeps get confused, or they estimate ECS from obs are are biased low by eg SST or they do it from paleo and are biased low by SSTs (Schmittner) or by equatorial SST proxy misinterpretation (MARGO; Hargreaves).

    Done right (eg Hansen & Sato 2012), you get ECS/2xCO2 = ~3C.

  68. #69 Olaus Petri
    April 6, 2013

    BBD, anyone trying to leave a cult is hero. :-)

    The lean but meaty “mays” and the “coulds” are welcome! ;-)

  69. #70 Lionel A
    April 6, 2013

    Karen
    April 6, 2013 #58

    OH YEAH…….. it looks like one of your arm waving CO2 propagandist writers is about to flip sides.

    So oh bright star, what is this New Research that Lean managed to avoid specifying whilst writing about same?

    But of course the slow down of ‘temperature increases’ is a moot point given the points raised here Global cooling – Is global warming still happening? Basic and Global cooling – Is global warming still happening? Intermediate.

    Way past time you found out what is really happening and why. Be warned, the Telegraph is not a reliable source after all it was once Delingpole’s hang out.

    Try posting your claptrap at Tamino’s. BTW OP Cardinal Puff is not a reliable source despite the last sentence in this Wki entry :

    Montford graduated from the University of St Andrews with a degree in chemistry.[2] then became a chartered accountant.[5] In 2004 he worked with the foundation of Anglosphere, which provides editing services to publishers and other business. His focus at the company is to develop their approach to the publication of scientific literature.[6]

    Now ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion‘ was not, and is not, science, it is a book full of pseudo-facts, crank – magnetism masquerading as science and the sort of propaganda that Himmler would have been proud of.

  70. #71 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    # 69

    You are a fuckwit, Olaus!

  71. #72 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    Reminds me – aren’t you supposed to be getting back to us with your preferred estimate for ECS/2xCO2 and published supporting references?

    Get on with it.

  72. #73 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    Lionel

    WRT the ‘below 2C’ meme, it is hard to be sure what GL was thinking of, but possible candidates include Aldrin et al. (2012) which estimates transient response; Padilla et al. (2011) which estimates transient response and Gillett et al. (2012) which… you guessed it.

    As I said above, the peeps get confused and suddenly ‘climate sensitivity’ is ‘below 2C’.

  73. #74 Nick
    April 6, 2013

    OH YEAH…. the dimwits have found Geoffrey Lean’s article and misrepresented and its author it in_exactly_the_same_way…..how about that for the thug hive mind ? Taking instructions from Montford ,to the last idiot.

    While there,another Montford delicacy [a serving of shit-for-brains in saliva of sycophant] over the non-similarity of Foster compared to McI. Montford having in his turn received the cue from McI’s self-humiliating claim of plagiarism. Montford is one of those articulate wastrels who really make you worry for his mental frailty.

    Join the Idiot Rejectionist Army, reading skills unnecessary.

    OH YEAH….WHOOPEDY-DOOP….etc.

  74. #75 bill
    April 6, 2013

    I’m afraid the Geoffrey Lean article shows the kind of political incompetence that has, unfortunately, characterised much of the well-meaning scientific community throughout this debate.

    The lead message here is ‘even if ECS is lower than many have feared, we’re still going to way overshoot the initial doubling from pre-industrial, so this isn’t going to buy us much time’. Publishing this kind of polyannaism in the Telegraph, of all venues, in the hope that being seen as, what, ‘reasonable'(?) might, what, swing people around(?) just represents rank incompetence.

    Similarly, being somehow blithely unaware that you are debating people who only need to present the illusion of a debate to succeed – they don’t have to prove their case; after all, they don’t have one – represents rank incompetence. Just read the comments thread below the article (well, you don’t need to, actually…)

    It’s not as if it’s even hard to understand how messaging works: “Is AGW a threat? If so, will what I am about to do, along with the venue in which I’m choosing to do it, increase, or impair, the chance that anything of substance will be done about this threat?”

  75. #76 MikeH
    April 6, 2013

    An amusing NZ Herald account of an interview with Lord Bunkum.

    Hot Topic has the details of Lord Bunkum’s NZ tour which is not going well.

    I particularly liked this account of his Auckland Uni meeting from Rob Taylor.

    He would not take questions during his presentation, but said he would be happy to answer any at the end. He also threatened to evict anyone who made a noise. This seemed to be directed at a small group of “Flat Earthers” in Medieval attire who were cheering and applauding his more egregious statements.

    This resulted in a rather boring and oppressive atmosphere, as, with no audience feedback to energise him, Monckton droned on through an interminable succession of incomprehensible slides and juvenile jokes (e.g. referring to Will Steffen as “Stuffem”). Fellow denier David Evans featured in a number of slides, whilst others were crudely drawn and poorly labelled.

    Things livened up at question time, however; the first to get the nod was an angry scientist who gave him a bollocking for his crude and defamatory attacks on the profession. He was followed by a gentleman who asked Monckton about one particular slide. Monckton obliged by putting it up on the screen, whereupon the questioner pointed out that the supposed photograph was actually two photographs, poorly Photoshopped together!

    Applause and hilarity ensued, at which point Monckton refused to take any more questions and the meeting ended in chaos, with cries of “fraud” and “bullshit” from the student rabble at the back.

  76. #77 Wow
    April 6, 2013

    “Gosh, a damning rejection of all things AGW by Geoff Lean in the Torygraph. Or is it?”

    No.

    It basically boils down to “old papers say it could be as little as 1.5. newer papers claim it is less than 2.0!”

  77. #78 Nick
    April 6, 2013

    Bill, the seeds of it are in your comment: one cannot write for idiots, so why bother? Lean can only be considered incompetent judged by a standard of messaging that he really does not need to be engaging in: avoiding even the slightest nuance just in case a dimwit decides to misinterpret it.

    Is he is still blithely unaware of the cretinous rump that wilfully misrepresent? He may have decided to ignore
    them.

  78. #79 Sou
    April 7, 2013

    Willis E is a drip – and ignores the water cycle. He thinks scientists shouldn’t use computer models to make climate-related projections.

    I’ve put up a poll to find out which tool deniers go to for climate projections:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/willis-is-drip-again.html

  79. #80 bill
    April 7, 2013

    OK, maybe, but in The Telegraph?

    Again – read the comments thread; or see above. Be interesting to know if the title was his own or a sub-Ed’s. Almost certainly the latter, one suspects, given the sub-heading.

    But perhaps I have been asleep? I was aware of a recent genuine debate as to whether ECS might fall somewhat below 3C – even, perhaps, as low as 2.5, and a related decrease in likelihood of any of the very high ranges – thankfully, one can only say – but this sub-2C thing has me bemused. What have I missed?

    Because this is the only real debate in the game – the rest; all the recent ‘Thermospheric’ CO2 revisionism, the desperate nitpicking and willful misunderstanding of Marcott, and the comic inability to let go of UHI after all these years – and defeats! – is just noise. Deliberately obstructive noise…

  80. #81 bill
    April 7, 2013

    Speaking of the numbers, Bill McKibben’s ‘Do the Maths‘ tour is coming to Australia.

    (The local-dialect correction – that’s the ‘s’ addition – is a nice touch!)

  81. #82 Olaus Petri
    April 7, 2013

    Skippy – the climate scare bush kangeroo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQnrY5V-rY

    Starring:

    Skippy – Jeff Harvey

    Buddies – Wow, chek, Lothar, BBD, Bernie, and Stu.

  82. #83 Jeff Harvey
    April 7, 2013

    Olaus,

    I would rather be skippy than dopey, which just about describes you correctly. Or how about willfully ignorant? That might even be better.

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    April 7, 2013

    …. I wish to revise my last post. BBD’s comment # 71 describes Olaus perfectly.

    Moreover, one wonders why such a scientifically incompetent dweeb writes into Deltoid or indeed any blog where actual science is being discussed. This doesn’t phase Olaus, who only writes in here because he can hide behind his anonymous handle. He wouldn’t dare tell us who he is because this would bow his cover and make him a laughing stock.

  84. #85 Olaus Petri
    April 7, 2013

    C’mon Skippy, I love your unscientifc jumping around anventures in the climate scare bushland. :-)

  85. #86 Olaus Petri
    April 7, 2013

    Here’s a (im)portent to jump at Skippy! ;-)

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

  86. #87 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 7, 2013

    Now pay attention, you little Androids, ooops, sorry, I mean, you little Deltoids! I know you will find this hard to believe but another scientist has rubbished your religion. Of course, you will be tempted to say that he is barely qualified, a ‘know nothing’ probably in the pay of Big Oil but, alas, I don’t think that will hold up in the case of Freeman Dyson, usually acknowledged as one of the greatest physicists of the era. And he says:

    “Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment. “It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.””

    Heavens to Betsy, whodathunkit? He went on:

    ““I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.” A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

    “The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.” Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.””

    Fudge factor?! Oh no, tell me it ain’t so! Er, but don’t try telling me that Dyson is an ignoramus!

    Altogether now, little Deltoids, join hands and chant:

    “We belieeeeeeeeve!”

    Good show!

  87. #88 Anthony David
    April 7, 2013

    Freeman Dyson, when it cones to climate, is ignorant. He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works.

  88. #89 Sou
    April 7, 2013

    Put Freeman Dyson against Isaac Held, I know whose word I’d take when it comes to climate science.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/

  89. #90 Lotharsson
    April 7, 2013

    He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works.

    I’d say he’s demonstrated negative understanding. He proclaims things which are pretty much ruled out by the evidence, never mind his vast simplifications of complex things (like CO2 and climate’s effect on agriculture), or that quote being out of sync with the latest research on clouds.

    Which is all the more reason for Duff to feel he’s a kindred spirit – and why (IIRC) Duff is (ironically) the one putting his hands over his ears and chanting, because he’s repeating this specific bulldust after he’s tried it on a couple of months ago, just like he did with another trope a couple of days ago. (Or maybe it was one of the other cut-and-paste disciples…they all sound very similar after a while.)

  90. #91 MikeH
    April 7, 2013

    Freeman Dyson is 89 years old which is almost as old as Duffer. He has also stated that “[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much” – something else he has in common with the imbecile Duff.

  91. #92 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 7, 2013

    Mikey, Mikey, I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked – such rank ageism!

    And Anthony is priceless: “He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works.” That to the pre-eminent physicist of the age who:

    “[I]n the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

    That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

    But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.”

    What was that old saying? ‘Smelly brown stuff in, smelly brown stuff out’!

    Cone on, Deltoids, there’s still time to join the Global Freeze Network!

  92. #93 Wow
    April 7, 2013

    duffer, the plain matter of the facts is you’re in denial and flailing about looking for something not to make you right, but to make everyone else wrong.

  93. #94 Wow
    April 7, 2013

    “[I]n the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.”

    Yes, he demonstrated his ability.

  94. #95 Wow
    April 7, 2013

    Hey, you’re back, Olap. Stop avoiding the question or admit that you do not know the answer.

    If you know what the difference between weather and climate is, you must know how you tell what the climate is.

    If you know what climate is, you must know how you determine what it is.

    Or were you telling fibs with both those statements?

  95. #96 Wow
    April 7, 2013

    “That to the pre-eminent physicist of the age who:”

    ..is a denier like duffer.

    Funny how other pre-eminent physicists who assert that AGW is real and a problem are all in it for the money, whereas one who “happens” to agree with duffer is the only one who should be listened to…

  96. #97 Wow
    April 7, 2013

    What about the pre-eminent scientist of his age, Svante Arrhenius, who calculated 6C per doubling due to the greenhouse gas effect of doubling CO2 concentrations, duffer?

  97. #98 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    April 7, 2013

    Ah, yes, Wow, that would be the Svante Arrhenius who:

    “About 1900, Arrhenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1901. For the rest of his life, he would be a member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry. **He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends** (Jacobus van’t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev).[1] In 1901 Arrhenius was elected to the Swedish Academy of Sciences, against strong opposition. In 1903 he became the first Swede to be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry.”

    “**He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends**”!
    Oh, Wow, you are priceless but, er, I suspect your fellow Steroids, ooops, sorry, I mean Deltoids, find you rather embarrassing.

  98. #99 Olaus Petri
    April 7, 2013

    Duff, please don’t mention to the deltoids that dear Svante also was a member of the board of Sweden’s State Institute of Racial Biology.

  99. #100 chek
    April 7, 2013

    Poor old Duffer and Olap, still flailing about hoping their version of peer-pressure might do the trick. And still completely unable to understand that science and scientists are not the same thing.

    It must be depressing to be that stupid.