April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    April 15, 2013

    Sou, I’m sure Lewie and Cookie can make something recursive out of it:



  2. #2 bill
    April 15, 2013

    Sou – that’s a rather convenient lapse of memory, don’t you think?

  3. #3 John Mashey
    April 15, 2013

    Flat-earthers with GPS ~
    people who reject conservation of energy and quantum mechanics, using their computers and the Internet.

    I.e., it might make sense to reject Greenhouse Effect warming if you were chiseling it in stone. That would at least be consistent with state of knowledge a while back.

  4. #4 Nick
    April 15, 2013

    # 1, so is Watts lying in forgetting he mentioned it at the time,or is it his increasing dementia? Inquiring minds want to know….

  5. #5 Olaus Petri
    April 15, 2013

    I don’t know Nick, why don’t you ask him about it? Regardless King Lewie should have some solid unbiased material to work with, right? 馃槈

  6. #6 Karen
    April 15, 2013

    Here is a bit of info for the demented little cack barnturd.
    These two links will supply her with the understanding that the Tasmanian Climate is following it’s natural cycle, there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about the piddly bit of warming since the Little Ic Age and and her fear of the CO2 BOOoooogy MAAaaaan is completely unfounded.

    Southern Annular Mode (SAM)

    Warm-season temperatures since 1600 BC reconstructed
    from Tasmanian tree rings and their relationship
    to large-scale sea surface temperature anomalies


    PS. barnturd, your groveling apology is not accepted, go away, bind yourself to a Huon pine with your gay bow-tie hold your breath and count to one million. lol

  7. #7 Rednose
    April 15, 2013

    #1 Olaus

    I expect Mann is furious

  8. #8 Wow
    April 15, 2013

    Oh, Olap, you keep just missing duffer and spots using weather instead of climate.

    You could have told them they were wrong!

  9. #9 cRR Kampen
    April 15, 2013

    This Karen is actually turning me on. Must be a young, slender bl贸贸贸贸贸nd, lol.

  10. #10 zoot
    April 15, 2013

    I see Karen is reverting to type (used to work on Wall St, don’t ya know).

  11. #11 bill
    April 15, 2013

    And let’s please not forget the definitive statement of SpamKan’s sciencey skillz on the previous page – manages to outdo being unable to distinguish one year from another by not fathoming the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

    Highly consistent with working on Wall Street in both cases. Thanks for 2008, dork!

  12. #12 bill
    April 15, 2013

    Oh, and Brownnose, read the previous page. I know it’s hard this whole thinking thing and everything, but do at least try to keep up…

  13. #13 Karen
    April 15, 2013

    Bill, so your a BIG supporter of Monsanto, their ethics parallels that of climate science, doncha tink

  14. #14 Nick
    April 15, 2013

    #10…on Wall Street? That explains the innumeracy.
    Nice links,Kaz.. Now in your own words,explain why a beefed up SAM and warming north of 40S is going to make Tasmania all comfy.

  15. #15 lord_sidcup
    April 15, 2013

    ..your a BIG supporter..

    You’re semi-literate.

  16. #16 bill
    April 15, 2013

    What about my big supporter of Monsanto, skuzzball?

    English hard brain think is. Oh, Lord S has pointed it our already – it won’t make any difference, mind…

  17. #17 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    @ Olaus Petri – multiply-repeated:

    You seem to belong to the same school of compartmentalised 鈥渢hinking鈥 attended by our Kaz.

    You apparently believe that increasing GAT (SST, LST, tropospheric T) will not have any effects on evaporation/precipitation etc.

    Please explain why not.

  18. #18 BBD
    April 15, 2013


    You have not answered my earlier questions.

    Let鈥檚 return to the fundamentally interesting question of what a warm 鈥淢WP鈥 really means for fake sceptics.

    What it means is trouble. Since there is no evidence for any *major* change in forcings, a warm 鈥淢WP鈥 means that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. Highly.

    This is anathema to the 鈥渋t鈥檚-not-CO2鈥 brigade, who are stuck in one of two camps:

    – deny the physics (eg Sky Dragons)

    – accept the physics but handwave an improbably low climate sensitivity

    The trouble with improbably low climate sensitivities is that paleoclimate behaviour stops making any kind of sense. Nothing works, from the overall cooling trend characterising the Cenozoic to orbitally-triggered deglaciations to the 鈥淢WP鈥 and LIA.

    For all that to *work* you need at least a moderately sensitive climate system. And if we have one, then the radiative forcing from an ever-increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 means warming. Exactly as predicted.

    – Do you think about this when you argue for a warm 鈥淢WP鈥?

    – If so, how do you resolve the apparent contradictions?

    – Do you deny the existence or efficacy of GHG forcing?

    – If not, how *do* you square the circle?

  19. #19 FrankD
    April 15, 2013

    Nick, thanks for taking the running while I was out making more popcorn. You have it exactly. The first column of next page (p.4) of that paper makes for fascinating reading: a farmer making 拢2000 from his 800 acre farm, butter selling for 224s per cwt, and … oh, whats that? Temperatures in the district ranged from 60 to 78 degrees. Maybe Karen can use those to show it was hotter in 1923: it only got to 38 in the “Angry Summer”, and it was 78, back in 1923 – that’s 40 degrees colder in 90 years! Take that, global warming!

    Of course an Australian newspaper was reporting in Fahrenheit – Nicks conversions are self-evidently correct, referring to 2.8 C (“5 degrees above freezing”) and 15.6 C (“28 degrees”). Northern Star’s readers in 1923 wouldn’t know a celsius from a kilojoule! Only a complete fucking moron would think it was celsius!

    And who thought it was celsius?

    Actually, though “she” totally qualifies in other respects, the answer is “not Karen”. “She” didn’t think at all. She just reposted from her mate Rog “Tallbloke”, who has nothing better to do now that he’s too scared to trawl CG3 emails for misquotes, in case the Norfolk Constabulary decide he can assist them with their enquiries again.

    Too funny….

  20. #20 FrankD
    April 15, 2013

    I’m tempted to see if Karen will double down on her ridiculousness, but I won’t be around much over the next week, so let me save a bit of bother.

    The Northern Star article was a straight lift from the November 1922 Monthly Weather Review article on Hoel’s expedition. A reprint can be found here: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/1922%20SvalbardWarming%20MONTHLY%20WEATHER%20REVIEW%20.pdf

    Oh, looky looky: “He pointed out that waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3掳 Celsius; this year recorded temperature up to 15掳”

    As to the famous 81掳29 N, last year you could have sailed in open water to above 86掳 N.

    If only Karen’s idiocy could be tapped for useful work, we would truly have limitless power 馃檪

  21. #21 Nick
    April 15, 2013

    #20 Aha, nice find Frank. And its currently 6 to 8C off the southern coasts of Svalbard…in April. That would have knocked Prof. Hoel’s socks off.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    April 15, 2013

    Another nail in the coffin of Karen’s profound ignorance…. and for humanity….
    Published in Nature Geoscience


  23. #23 Bernard J.
    April 16, 2013


    You’ve never forgiven me for repeatedly pointing out your multiple sock-puppets, have you? Add to that your misogyny and Tourettes, and now it seems that homophobia is another of your character flaws.

    Rent-free in your head, Spotty, rent-free…

    KMS, here’s a challenge for you. Explain the actual forcing(s) that is (are) causing the warming seen around the world. Explain the forcing(s) that is (are) causing the ocean acidification and sea level rise seen around the world.

    No ambiguous, tangential, misinterpreting linkies to your mates’ red herrings and downright dissemblings – just explain with appropriate parsimony why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and what is causing the observed climate change. Using your own words, and presenting your own understanding of the science.

    If you can.

  24. #24 Wow
    April 16, 2013

    Not so much “rent free” as “vacant lot”.

  25. #25 Wow
    April 16, 2013
  26. #26 Lotharsson
    April 16, 2013

    Not so much 鈥渞ent free鈥 as 鈥渧acant lot鈥.

    Your Intertoobz are in the post.

  27. #27 bill
    April 16, 2013

    Gosh, don’t tell me the ignoramuses are actually capable of feeling sufficient shame to have slunk off, tails between legs?

    SpamKan, in particular, is an examplar of Denial – and, consequently, the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is appalling that these braying idiots simply won’t shut up.

  28. #28 Sou
    April 16, 2013

    There’s a good site at NSIDC that shows known Arctic sea ice boundaries going way back, derived from ship logs etc.


    For example, this page shows known ice boundaries in jpg files for the month of August for various years (not all years) going back to 1751. Obviously the entire boundary wasn’t mapped before satellites.


  29. #29 Sou
    April 16, 2013

    WUWT is getting sillier by the day. This article is complete rubbish – it doesn’t even fool all the deniers (though it does fool too many of them).


  30. #30 bill
    April 16, 2013

    Regarding the latest on the Antarctic – best editorial ever from the Southland Times!

    OPINION: The monstrous conspiracy of global warming, perpetrated by a scandalously huge majority of the scientific world, persists.

    The latest outrageous deception is the attempt to ascribe some sort of significance to the “fact” that Antarctic Peninsula is melting in summers at a level not seen for 1000 years. This requires us to take on blind faith the assumption that this so-called continent exists outside the minds of alarmists.

    To point to Antarctica’s presence on maps is a fatuous nonsense. When was the last time a scientist came out and acknowledged that Antarctica didn’t feature in the early maps used by some of the world’s most intrepid and admired explorers? Has anyone even asked who first added it, and for what reasons? Certainly not the uncritical mainstream news media. What proof do we have, beyond anecdotal reports from those who claim to have been there – a perfect way for any ne’er-do-well who needs to cover his tracks to disappear from scrutiny for long stretches at a time?

    (Best line ‘If history has taught us anything – and the jury is still out on that…’)

    What they’re (that’s ‘they are’ in standard English abbreviation, SpamKan) doing is satirising you, Duffer, Spam + Oily, Prince Pseud, Brownnose, and every other one of you clowns. The scary thing is they’re barely even exaggerating…

  31. #31 BBD
    April 16, 2013

    Is “Prince Pseud” our very own Master Of Science鈩 and serial fuckwit, Bradley Keyes?

  32. #32 bill
    April 16, 2013

    Only the unkind would say so. No-one here, certainly.

  33. #33 chek
    April 16, 2013

    Absolutely Bill. I’m sure we can all agree we hold our visiting fuckwitted idiots in the highest regard possible.

  34. #34 chek
    April 16, 2013

    The two countries took special note of the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change and its worsening impacts, including the sharp rise in global average temperatures over the past century, the alarming acidification of our oceans, the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, and the striking incidence of extreme weather events occurring all over the world. Both sides recognize that, given the latest scientific understanding of accelerating climate change and the urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, forceful, nationally appropriate action by the United States and China 鈥 including large-scale cooperative action 鈥 is more critical than ever. Such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.

    Joint U.S.-China Statement on Climate Change, Dept of State, Washington DC 13 April 2013

    Game over for deniers.

  35. #35 bill
    April 16, 2013

    I can only hope the Chinese manage to drag Obama into some real commitments!

    And haven’t the idiots gone quiet?

  36. #36 Nick
    April 17, 2013

    #35, some days even the thick heads and hides aren’t thick enough.

  37. #37 bill
    April 17, 2013

    Here’s a question: why is a ‘Member of the House of Lords’, and a ‘former advisor’ to M Thatcher, no less, currently trudging around rural NZ lecturing to farmers? Shouldn’t they have sent a plane to get such a VIP back to the funeral, or something? 馃槈

  38. #38 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    April 17, 2013

    bill @#35&#37: The silence of the sheep vs. Healey’s comment about Howe, applied to the Potty Peer.

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    April 17, 2013
  40. #40 Nick
    April 17, 2013

    #40…zombie one reappears!

    Golly Olly,that’s a bit slow even for you. That article is just warmed over ‘pause porn’ from the last few weeks.

    Apparently Richard Tol was the victim of a ‘quote-mining disaster’ ; after being quoted saying his ‘confidence in the data’ had fallen,he then said that the uncertainty made him ‘more concerned about climate change’ but Reuters chose to leave that bit out!

    ‘They’ might be ‘on to it’, OP,but they’re ‘up to it’ again.

  41. #41 bill
    April 17, 2013

    Oh, look, an idiot’s back. As daft as ever.

    Speaking of which

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    April 17, 2013

    Bill, above.

    To any reasonably sensible person Lawrence Solomon would appear to be either:

    1) incompetent at even basic analysis, or
    2) ignorant of basic of even basic analysis, or
    3) a mendacious dissembler intent on torturing the truth until it begs for mercy.

    Or a combination of any or all of the above.

    If only he could attempt suit for libel. I’d relish the opportunity for my statement to be examined in court…

  43. #43 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    O’Louse being boring (again) on the hiatus.

    You should keep up. Hansen long ago pointed out that absent climatologically significant solar variability the forced response will mainly be modulated by aerosols and the rate at which energy diffuses into the oceans. In other words, what we see in terms of surface air temperature change will be determined on a “sliding scale” between the relative strengths of those two influences.

    A short term increase in the rate at which energy diffuses into the upper ocean layer is apparently the main driver of the recent warming hiatus. Gueamas et al. (2013).

    Strong warming trend soon to resume. The energy is *here*, *now* because of the way the laws of physics operate in the radiating atmosphere. It hasn’t just vanished. Energy cannot do that. See “laws of physics”, above.

    You people. Really.

  44. #44 chek
    April 17, 2013

    And just to be clear following on from BBD, the so-called ‘hiatus’ in surface temperatures hasn’t meant a decrease in the energy imbalance or its effects.

    The Arctic is melting at a rate not seen for thousands of years, nor do we know for sure if it will continue at the rates seen since 2007, while the ‘hiatus’ heat cuts through it like a buzz-saw.

    Neither do we know if the series of extreme global weather events (or disasters if you prefer) is peaking or just getting started.

    Meanwhile, deniers point to poorly supported news articles by economists instead of any of the actual climate related sciences and congratulate themselves on the type of ‘cleverness’ that is indistinguishable from stupidity.

  45. #45 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    BBD barking up the wrong tree yet again.

    A paper by Miyahara discussing possible solar related parameters and climate.

    鈥渉owever, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs鈥

  46. #46 chek
    April 17, 2013

    The ‘anything but CO2’ cranks never give up.

  47. #47 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    New paper by Steinhilber and Beer 鈥淧rediction of solar activity for the next 500 years.

    Reviewed here with pretty pictures

    The activity they are interested in is solar magnetic activity.
    Notice the rising portion of the graph for solar magnetic activity for the last 100 odd years to about 2000.
    Oh look. It looks very similar to that in the Georgieva et al paper referenced earlier.
    Remember the fantastic correlation between solar geomagnetic activity and temperature.
    However this one is showing a massive dip in solar magnetic activity from about 2000 onwards.

  48. #48 Rednose
    April 17, 2013
  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2013

    Chek hits it right on the head. ITS NOT THE SUN. ITS NOT THE SUN. ITS NOT THE SUN.

    And note how Rednose’s last two links – the science of which is way over his simple head – do not dispute AGW in any way. Why he cites these studies is anyone’s guess (mine is to convince people here that he is up on the science).

  50. #50 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    #49 The Real Jeff Hardy

    It is well over my simple little head JH, but at least I try not to bury my head in the sand to try and escape the solar geomagnetic activity.

  51. #51 Lionel A
    April 17, 2013

    OP @ #39

    In that Reuters article the reporter concerned is being inconsistent for only last week they wrote an article with the title, 鈥淥ceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study鈥.

    See here for the explanations which answer your idiotic attempt at a wind-up: Reuters Ignores Its Own Accurate Reporting On Rapid Warming Of Oceans.

    But please carry on being a buffoon as it helps us present the facts to those lurkers who don’t post.

  52. #52 Lionel A
    April 17, 2013

    It is well over my simple little head JH, but at least I try not to bury my head in the sand to try and escape the solar geomagnetic activity.

    You have your head so deep in the sand that you cannot even get his name right, what a twerp you are.

  53. #53 BBD
    April 17, 2013


    See # 46; # 49.

    The link at # 45 says nothing relevant to modern warming. You don’t understand your own links.

    Your spamming from the HockeySHIT @ # 47 likewise. I’ve linked the relevant science for you three times now (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010). Read it, stoopid. Repetition is tedious.

    # 48 Nobody pays much attention to TM or NL because they have indulged in partial analyses yielding uninformative results. Advise you join the club.

  54. #54 chek
    April 17, 2013

    However this one is showing a massive dip in solar magnetic activity from about 2000 onwards.

    Oh, what a shame that 10 of the warmest years on record have been within the past 12 years.
    There goes yet another crank theory on it’s dust chewing trajectory.

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2013

    The only reason that solar activity is concidered, Rednose, is that it plays into the hands of the ‘business-as-usual’, ‘do nothing and maximize short-term profits’ brigade. The IPCC fully considered the influence of solar activity on the recent warming – and primarily rejected it.

    End of story. Or it should have been, except for those who twist, distort, and mangle science to promote a pre-determined worldview, that is. They clutch at every straw they can to expunge the human fingerprint.

    And the IPCC further concludes that the only major forcing that can account for most the rapid warming of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is increased atmsopheric C02 concentrations. No other forcing makes any sense on its own.

    Humans have altered and are altering much of the planet’s surface, profoudly affecting cycles of water and nutrients, as well as the fucntioning of ecosystems. This is beyond dispute. Yet a relatively small number of people try and argue that humans cannot affect global climate? Come on. Get real. We live in the Anthropocene. Human impacts are global and far reaching across the biosphere. The deniers are denying not only AGW but science. And they aren’t doing it out of any deep rooted committment to the truth, as elusive as that often is, but to bolster political and economic agendas.

    The corollary of linking AGW deniers with creationists and those who promote intelligent design is appropriate. Evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma wrote a book way back in 1982 entitled , “Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution”. In the preface he wrote that he found it hard to explain why, at that point in history, he felt compelled to write a book defending evolution, which by then he felt should have attained the status of scientific fact. Yet here we are, in 2013, and creationism is still on the agenda – perhaps more than it was in 1982!

    I can say the same thing about climate science with respect to climate change. Its hard for many scientists to have to defend what should be obvious by now: that humans have the capacity to force climate over large scales of space and time. But, like the creation lobby, there are those who manipulate science to promote an alternate agenda. Watch this space: in 20 years, even as evidence for AGW grows by many factors, the GW deniers will still be out there trying to sow their gospel of doubt. Just as creationists will still proliferate.

  56. #56 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    I see that # 48 is spamming from Bishop Hill.

    Add that to spamming from HockeySHIT at # 47.

  57. #57 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    #48, really? Next step: carbon dioxide doesn’t seem to exist at all.

  58. #58 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    This rash of sensitivity underestimates is interesting. I suspect it is partly desperation and partly the late-dawning realisation among the more intelligent purveyors of doubt that such analyses are possible in the first place.

    Paleoclimate-derived sensitivity estimates tend to centre around ~3C unless they are problematic. The problematic ones usually focus on LGM/Holocene climate change and *underestimate* LGM cooling relative to the Holocene, which leads to an underestimate of S.

    The important thing about the most rigorous paleoclimate estimates is that they are essentially complete. The forcing change and response and all feedbacks have all played out. Everything is “in there”, as it were.

    The problem with estimates derived from modern observations is three-fold:

    – the observations themselves are uncertain

    – forcings and forcing change over the *relatively short* period of observation are uncertain

    – the forcing is ongoing, the response is incomplete and feedbacks may not yet be fully engaged

    This makes is all-too-easy to play games. It makes it possible to produce *defensible* under-estimates of S.

    We are going to be stuck with this problem for a good while yet.

  59. #59 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    And talk about a small world – I’ve just realised that Nic Lewis (# 48) lives on the same road in Bath (UK) as my sister-in-law!

  60. #60 Karen
    April 17, 2013

    For those of you that can’t read there are some pretty pictures down at the bottom


    And here we have a look at the science and a bit perspective.


    The continued lack of warming along with the ever increasing CO2 is going to be an historical laughing point, lol, science with never be the same.

    I can see all of you guys at the climate cult meetings, hehe, all down on your knees praying for “HOT”. 馃檪

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2013

    “The continued lack of warming along with the ever increasing CO2 is going to be an historical laughing point”

    Only in the eyes of the scientific illiterates like you, Karen/Sunspot/Mack et al handpuppets. We have tirelessly exposed your profound ignorance with respect to temporal and spatial scales as well as cause-and-effect time lags and it just cannot sink into your skull. Like Duff, you seem to think that C02 put into the atmosphere today = a temperature rise tomorrow. This is so utterly inane and yet you and your brothers and sisters in rank stupidity continually do it, even after being corrected a million times.

    Why don’t you just bugger off with your ignorance?

  62. #62 BBD
    April 17, 2013


    Instead of spamming the thread, read it.

    You are a bore.

  63. #63 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    鈥淭he continued lack of warming”

    What is the error bars of your estimation of a 0.0C per decade warming?

  64. #64 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    #60 should stick a thermometer in a pan of ice, set that on fire and so prove that whatever amount of heat you put into it water will never achieve values over freezing point.

    Karen, you’re second link is dismissed. Maybe you go to the plumber for a dental job, normal people will go to a dentist. Any clue why?

    You’re first link is your assessment again of the 1960’s being the warmest decade globally and the 1770’s the second warmest. In fact, you are stating that the 18th century was about as warm as the 20th (see fig 4, it’s clear, isn’t it).

    Finally, the Netherlands used to be smothered in snow and ice winter and summer during the 1970’s to 90’s. At least for this the science is settled. You see, my father was an artist and he painted a lot of snowscapes in those years, nails it.

  65. #65 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    And Karen, pleaz do the l贸贸贸l- and stooOoopidthings again, they tickle me soooo down below 馃檪

  66. #66 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    And Karen, Abdussamatov is a crank.

  67. #67 chek
    April 17, 2013

    And Karen, Abdussamatov is a crank.

    That’s OK, so’s Karen. Any crank theory going and Karen’s right there.

  68. #68 BBD
    April 17, 2013


    It’s always interesting to see where you get your dodgy spam from. The Abdussamatov link comes courtesy of something calling itself the Canadian Center of Science and Education which just happens to turn up on this reference list of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers.

    Weird, eh?


  69. #69 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    #68 – and the adress, if any, just a post box number. Fraud publishers.

  70. #70 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    Just got locked out of Bullshit Hill for pointing out that NL is extremely sensitive to the last six years of data.

    And I mean *locked out*. IP barred!


  71. #71 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    “The only reason that solar activity is concidered, Rednose, is that it plays into the hands of the 鈥榖usiness-as-usual鈥, 鈥榙o nothing and maximize short-term profits鈥 brigade.”

    And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the “Tax and Spend” brigade, seeking any excuse to raise taxes and exert control. But its a political argument not a scientific one.

    The IPCC4 rejection of solar activity was published in 2007.
    The leaked draft in 2012 of IPCC5 had mixed views:
    Chapter 7 aknowledged a significant solar influence while Chapter 8 downplayed it. Take your pick.

    The work on solar activity I linked to above is more recent.

    Safeguard the environment, but concreting over moors and bogs to install wind farms and access roads, “to save the world” is hardly beneficial for habitats and benefits no one except the developpers and landowners who mine the subsidies.
    Has the Green movement got the right targets and the right policies???

  72. #72 Rednose
    April 17, 2013


    Must be your endearing personality.

  73. #73 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    #70, must be one of those advocates of free speech, again. You can see what would happen if that sort really came to power. Dachau 2.0 and I godwin u not. Facts? They are taboo.

  74. #74 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2013

    #71, what should be abundantly clear is that solar activity HAS an influence on global temperature, but that this influence has gone down to a fifth or less of that of the change in CO2-concentration. Solar variation has become a negligable driver for climate change. Even a second Maunder minimum will mean no more than a ten, twenty years of halt in temp increase.
    Even given any effect of such a minimum at all… Maunder and Dalton do not coincide neatly with the deepest parts of the LIA. Vulcanism is problably paramount for that kind of small climate changes.

  75. #75 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    “Finally, the Netherlands used to be smothered in snow and ice winter and summer during the 1970鈥瞫 to 90鈥瞫. At least for this the science is settled. You see, my father was an artist and he painted a lot of snowscapes in those years, nails it”

    From this anecdotal evidence, overlayed with artistic expression, are we supposed to deduce that the “old cold weather” was caused by cold, but this “new modern cold weather” is caused by heat?

  76. #76 Lionel A
    April 17, 2013

    From this anecdotal evidence, overlayed with artistic expression, are we supposed to deduce that the 鈥渙ld cold weather鈥 was caused by cold, but this 鈥渘ew modern cold weather鈥 is caused by heat?

    OK Rudolf, one for you: Jennifer Francis – Understanding the Jetstream – m…, with more comment here. But will you understand?

    Not ’till hell freezes over is my guess.

  77. #77 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    “You have not been paying attention. Its the solar geomagnetic activity.”

    Tell us, duffer, do you know what “geo” means? Or what “helio” means?

  78. #78 Rednose
    April 17, 2013


    You have not been paying attention. Its the solar geomagnetic activity.
    As it rose in the last century so did the temperature.
    SGMA stopped rising around 2000, temperatures were stagnating.
    SGMA starting to fall and what happens?

    Only a correlation?

  79. #79 Rednose
    April 17, 2013


    Switching back to regional as opposed to global.

    Yes I enjoyed that edition of Play School
    Try the IOP


    “Not 鈥檛ill hell freezes over is my guess.”

    Might be sooner than you think. 馃檪

  80. #80 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    ” Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?”

    Betteridge’s Law applies.


    “Lower winter temperatures were common in Europe during the second half of the 17th century,”

    Yeah, can you get into the steam age at least, duffer?

    PS correlation is not causation.

  81. #82 Craig Thomas
    April 17, 2013

    Nice trend line, you lying idiot.
    Change it to 2000 (as per your idiot thesis) and we get:

    So no correlation with SGMA, then.

  82. #84 Rednose
    April 17, 2013

    CT #82

    Invoking JH’s cause and effect time lag would account for that.

  83. #85 chek
    April 17, 2013

    Invoking JH鈥檚 cause and effect time lag would account for that.

    As would covering one eye and squinting the other while doing a backward flip. So, a not at all the ‘ fantastic correlation’ you were claiming at #47 until you got caught out by pesky facts

    Desperate, desperate grasping at straws. It’s a tough, thankless life being a crank.

  84. #86 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    Yes but OHC! And I *have* mentioned this before, oh at least a couple of times…

    Rednoise fail!

    # 72 GFY!


  85. #87 BBD
    April 17, 2013

    I’m not a DK regular, so only just came across this, which was uncomfortable reading:

    The Antarctic half of the THC is faltering.

    And fuckwit deniers think that increasing Antarctic sea ice vindicates their insane blathering.

  86. #88 Turboblocke
    April 17, 2013

    # 71, Rednose said,”And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the 鈥淭ax and Spend鈥 brigade, seeking any excuse to raise taxes and exert control.”

    Why seek an excuse to raise taxes? It’s done in the Budget all the time without the need for a hoax.

  87. #89 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2013

    “And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the 鈥淭ax and Spend鈥

    Good grief, where to begin dismantling this ludicrous remark? Tax and spend? On what? Since when are scientists part of some vast movement to ‘tax and spend’? The link between the fossil fuel lobby and climate change denial makes sense in the light of short-term profit maximization. These industries see any action aimed at curbing the use of fossil fuels as a threat to the way they do business – hence why they pour so much money into think tanks, public relations firms and astroturf groups to downplay the threat.

    Now, Rednose (should be Redarse), where is the intractable link between many in the scientific community and ‘tax and spend’ policies? How does ‘taxing and spending’ directly benefit me???? The connection is non-existant. Illusory. But the deniers have to grasp at some invisible straw claiming the climate science community is also involved in some sort of political conspiracy.

    Its not about taxing you moron; its about regulating a human activity that has potentially serious repercussions for the planet’s climate control system and thus for the functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere. As I said earlier, we live in the Anthropocene: humans are a global force that is seriously affecting and altering the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle, co-opting more than 40 percent of net primary production, driving extinction rates some 100 to 1000 times higher than natural background rates, and, underpinning all of this, consuming natural capital as if there was no tomorrow. And yes, we have the capacity to alter regional (and down the road) global climate patterns. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single environmental scientist who would disagree with any of this.

    So are we all driven by the urge to ‘tax and spend’? My golly, what a myopic statement. You really are dumb.

  88. #90 chek
    April 17, 2013

    From the ‘tax and spend’ comment we can tell that Redarse is picking up memes from the US Tea Party, most likely via the GWPF’s Atlantic Bridge connections.

  89. #91 jerryg
    April 17, 2013

    A little off-topic, but I just came across this.


  90. #92 bill
    April 18, 2013

    ‘Tax and spend’? Thanks for reinforcing that your objections to reality are purely political.

  91. #93 Rednose
    April 18, 2013

    “And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the 鈥淭ax and Spend”

    “But its a political argument not a scientific one.”

    “its about regulating a human activity that has potentially serious repercussions for the planet鈥檚 climate control system”

    Meanwhile the climate ploughs on regardless.
    Are we looking at the right control knob?


  92. #94 Rednose
    April 18, 2013


    Have you given up trying to deny the MWP?

  93. #95 Rednose
    April 18, 2013

    Bill #92

    I was trying to avoid politics.
    It does you no good arguing about politics, or religion.

  94. #96 bill
    April 18, 2013

    Yeah, yeah, you just brought it up out of interest and then played the ‘no-one here, certainly’ card. That’s how all the best ‘good faith’ arguments play out.

    Hence your ‘avoiding politics’ claim is Bullshit. You’re just another dreary Daily Mail angry reactionary who’s terrified the future may no longer privilege the institutions and individuals you see as deserving… You lot are just basically otherwise-useless ballast that deliberately fouls the chances of our making any progress.

  95. #97 BBD
    April 18, 2013


    # 87


  96. #98 BBD
    April 18, 2013


    You lost the MWP argument just as you have lost every single other argument you have ever attempted to have with me. We can go back and get quotes if you lie about this.

    OHC contradicts your solar rubbish. You lost that argument a good while back.

    Now you are trolling.



  97. #99 Sou
    April 18, 2013
  98. #100 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2013

    “I was trying to avoid politics. It does you no good arguing about politics, or religion”

    Nonsense. It is highly relevant here because science is being abused by those intent on denying one major anthropogenic stress. And those doing so are well funded and well organized and are not concerned with mid- to loong term scenarios but about short-term profit maximization. That;s why the same sordid cast of characters often pop up denying a range of threats to human health or to the environment: acid rain, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity,wetland loss and eutrophication, invasive species, the use of tobacco and others. Many of these characters have links to industries with an axe to grind.

    So of course it is relevant, Rednose. As Chek said, many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing, including some of those who write in here. There views and those of the crackpots in the Tea Party are interchangeable. If there is one additional ‘inconvenient truth’, it is this.

    I have read comments on climate change denial blogs from people like you and Brad and others who cliam that people like Ross McKitrick are ‘indepenent analysts’, ignoring the fact that McKitrick is affiliated with one of the most right wing free-market advocating think tanks in North Amercia: The Fraser Institute. I don’t know how people like you can be so utterly naive and/or gullible, there you go.

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