May 2013 Open thread

Past time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    May 19, 2013

    Suggest all you like duffer, your opinion is pointless: it’s not informed by any rationality.

  2. #2 Rednose
    UK
    May 19, 2013

    #98

    oh look at all the sunshine in the States, the corn loves it

    Yes a record corn crop predicted. :-)

    http://www.missourifarmertoday.com/news/crop/usda-still-expects-record-corn/article_0bd29172-be5d-11e2-acb9-0019bb2963f4.html

  3. #3 Rednose
    Uk
    May 19, 2013

    #97

    Those of us not engaged in a hopeless argument with the laws of physics know that CO2 forcing is going to take us down roads that lead in this general direction.
    This is dangerous

    Still waiting
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend

    And latest estimates of climate sensitivity

    Headline best estimates of 2.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3°C for the – arguably more policy-relevant – transient climate response (TCR)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/19/new-energy-budget-derived-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity-a.html

  4. #4 chek
    May 19, 2013

    Is “marketing” a science?

    It’s exactly what you collective numpties respond to. Ignore the science, follow the ideological/lifestyle marketing foisted on you by ex-TV weathermen and conspiracy novelists instead. As long as you ignore the science for whatever spurious reasons you receive, the marketers are very happy.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    May 19, 2013

    Rudolf on ‘dangerous’.

    You should investigate what is happening to seabirds around the UK, their numbers are plummeting e.g. Orkney’s Seabirds could be the Canary in the Climate Change coalmine.

    When ecosystems becomes un-stitched then that is dangerous and this with ‘only’ a one degree Celsius rise in average North Sea temperature.

  6. #6 Nick
    May 19, 2013

    #3,Still waiting for Redface to stop cherry-picking numbers,and read caveats in papers. Actually reading whole papers would be good,too.

    “Most likely ECS is 2C in 1.2-3.9C-5/95% confidence interval, based on energy budget of most recent decade…using a short period…for which details of forcing and energy storage inventories are still relatively unsettled; both could make significant changes to the energy budget.”

    Does that materially change where we end up under BAU, Redface?

  7. #7 BBD
    May 19, 2013

    # 3 Rednoise

    Eh, you are still confusing atmospheric temperature with the climate system as a whole. We’ve been through this and the answer is still “OHC” and the reference is still Levitus et al. (2012).

    We’d all love a low climate sensitivity, obviously, but… deriving a sensitivity estimate from the instrumental record is tricky. The forced response is only just beginning to emerge from the noise, the instrumental data are not definitive and sampling periods are short.

    Paleoclimate behaviour captures the bigger picture where responses are played out in full. Paleoclimate behaviour is strong evidence that the minimum value for ECS/2xCO2 is ~2C. The least we might get away with.

    Intercomparison of paleoclimate-derived estimates of climate sensitivity by Rohling et al. (2012) suggests a range of 2.2C – 4.8C for ECS/2xCO2. Hansen et al. (2013) in press develops the analysis of Cenozoic climate change further and finds an ECS of ~3C over the last 65Ma.

    Hargreaves et al. (2012) derives an estimate of ~2.5C from the LGM/Holocene transition.

    So let’s say we have a range of ECS/2xCO2 from ~2C – ~3C. We’re in the process of breezing past 400ppmv and plausible emissions projections take that to 800ppmv by the end of the century. Roughly where might that get us?

    Assuming pre-industrial CO2ppmv = 280

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 2C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 2ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 3C

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 2.5C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 2.5ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 3.8C

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 3.0C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 3ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.5C

    Bear in mind that these are global average temperatures. That Dai study you ignored provides insight into potential regional effects.

    Of course there’s no risk. None at all :-)

  8. #8 bill
    May 19, 2013

    So, you’re no even pretending not to be a humble regurgitator of squishy morsels from chum-central?

    I’ll say it again, coward, go over to SkS and run your own eye over, say, 100 papers, and then ask yourself why ‘your’* entire case is ‘based’ on the same half-dozen multiply-debunked and/or outdated and/or highly-speculative – or just plain wrong – efforts.

    You won’t because you’re genuinely afraid to.

    *Not actually yours, of course, you’re a spin bulimic – you merely binge and purge.

  9. #9 bill
    May 20, 2013

    And / or willful misinterpretations of consensus papers, of course.

    As BBD points out, you guys seem to be locked into this bizarre notion that by pushing ECS down you’re somehow negotiating the limit of overall warming! As if you could negotiate the laws of physics, or set pi at 3.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Take in what BBD is saying. Given the political trajectory of The Stupid we’re probably going to end up at 1000ppm.

    What kind of blatant imbecile think the onus is on us to prove that this would be dangerous?

    You guys are reckless zealots of the first water; the Leninists of the Free Market™ .

  10. #10 Craig Thomas
    May 20, 2013

    Andrew Bolt falls flat on his lying face. Again.

    No bunch of journalist skews more violently left than the ABC:

    Although he doesn’t explain what “Left” means in this context, I assume he has some simplistic notion in mind whereby anybody who votes ALP is “Left”, while those who vote for the Libs are “Right”.
    Yes, I know, you *would* have to be a retard to actually believe this.
    Anyway, the survey Bolt uses to support his idiocy reveals the following:
    ALP support among ALL journos:
    43%
    ALP support among ABC journos
    34%
    ALP support among News Limited journos:
    47%

    Ha ha ha – it’s not an accident that “bolt” rhymes with “dolt”.

    Surely we could have a series of blog posts along the lines of The Australian’s war on science, called, “Andrew Bolt proves he is a moron, #948″?

  11. #11 Nick
    May 20, 2013

    #10,Bolt proves he is a liar and a moron at most opportunities.

  12. #12 bill
    May 20, 2013

    Andrew Bolt’s War on Reason?

    In Bolt World I suspect Malcolm Turnbull would be Left, bordering on Violent…

    I’d be interested to see the stats for ALP support among all journos at The Oz, because I suspect Uncle Rupert would be appalled to think that NL stat might apply to the flagship.

    I trust we all recall Abbotts recent little ‘yes, yes I will’ speech to the IPA? These guys want to do what they reckon Howard should have done – he’s a bit of a George Bush Snr. figure in the party now – and gut the ABC, as well as the CSIRO, BoM etc.. Bolt is just paving the way.

    Whatever you might think of Gillard and co., if the Mad Monk gets both houses the country might as well be run outright by Gina Rinehart… It’s going to be horrible.

  13. #13 Rednose
    UK
    May 20, 2013

    BBD#7

    Other plausible emissions scenarios take CO2 concentrations to 600ppm by 2100.
    USA emissions have already declined due in part to the transition from coal to gas. Europe and Asia could well follow this pattern.

    Using the latest estimates of ECS of 2, and likely less than 2

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/20/ecs-with-otto.html

    Using your method of calculation

    An ECS of 2 at 600ppm would then give a delta T of 2.2 degrees C

    An ECS of 1.2 at 600ppm would give a delta T of 1.3 degrees C

    A cool head might be in order before shouting Panic Panic and wasting billions on useless wind turbines

  14. #14 bill
    May 20, 2013

    Must be some new definition of ‘plausible’. A lot like ‘made up’.

    And ah, that would be the ‘useless wind turbines’ that generate electricity then? 21% of the electricity production of my home state, for instance?(And set to expand!) The wind farms that are turning around the fortunes of rural communities?

    Those windfarms?

    Bwakk bwawwk bwawwk bwawwk bwawwk – that’s a chicken noise – bouck bouck bouck; go on little troll; get outside your chumming comfort zone and go and read some papers! Some real science, not predigested pap hoiked into your ever-ready crop by the Google Galileos. You know you don’t want to!

    And why is that? Why are you too bloody scared to confront the reality of the situation? Don’t just ignore me, pet, ask yourself why you really won’t do it.

    Nope, can’t do that, either. Can you?

    You won’t, because you are not interested in facts, or research, or evidence, you just want to be spoon-fed reassuring pap that you can sick up and annoy all the nasty clever people that threaten you and your precious little rich-man’s world…

    Forelock tugger!

  15. #15 BBD
    May 20, 2013

    # 13

    Other plausible emissions scenarios take CO2 concentrations to 600ppm by 2100.

    I don’t believe this – too low. References please. And not from liar blogs.

    And the increase in CO2 just stops dead at 2100? As if by magic?

    When we dispense with the lies, we are left with a bare minimum of ~3C and a high likelihood of much more.

    This will be dangerous, so why are you trying to pretend otherwise with every fibre of your being?

    What is wrong with you?

  16. #16 BBD
    May 20, 2013

    An ECS of 1.2 at 600ppm would give a delta T of 1.3 degrees C

    An ECS of 1.2C would have us still locked in the depths of a glacial. Don’t you understand, muppet? These ridiculously low estimates are *incompatible* with known climate behaviour.

    It is how we know they are WRONG.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    May 20, 2013

    A cool head might be in order before shouting Panic Panic and wasting billions on useless wind turbines

    Well it should be admitted that they would work more efficiently if attached to your backside.

  18. #18 Betula
    May 20, 2013

    Jeff Hardley,

    I read this article and I couldn’t help but think of you ….

    http://news.yahoo.com/extreme-global-warming-seen-further-away-previously-thought-090821067.html

    I know how disappointed you must be, but at least the climate change you witnessed “first hand” in Algonquin now has time to adapt to your imagination.

  19. #19 Wow
    May 20, 2013

    Betty, why do you think everyone needs to know when you think about Jeff?

  20. #20 Betula
    May 20, 2013

    Wow,

    Well, I hardly feel a post addressed to Jeff Hardley infers Jeff is everyone, however, I can understand how Jeff’s need to share his imagination with everyone would have you think that way.

    It’s ok Wow, it would appear you have plenty of time to adapt:

    http://news.yahoo.com/extreme-global-warming-seen-further-away-previously-thought-090821067.html

  21. #21 cRR Kampen
    May 20, 2013

    Betula, did you read that?

  22. #22 Betula
    May 20, 2013

    cRR. Kampen.

    No cRR, I didn’t read it. It’s about pizza recipes…isn’t it? And like other pizza recipes, it’s filled with words and phrases, like “uncertainty”, “if current emission trends continue” and “assuming”.
    The disappointing news is, it would appear that we can assume with a lack of certainty, that if this most-likely predicted, somewhat probable, other than worst case scenario trend continues, then the “first hand” account of climate change witnessed by Jeff in Algonquin will at least have 20 percent more time to adapt to the sudden changes in Jeff’s imagination. Just saying…

  23. #23 Wow
    May 20, 2013

    “Well, I hardly feel a post addressed to Jeff Hardley infers Jeff is everyone”

    Yup, more shit made up by you on the spot, Betty. You’re the only one who said that jeff is everyone.

    I just said that I wonder why you feel that everyone needs to know that you’re thinking about jeff.

    However, your complete lack of understanding of even the simplest sentence structure is entirely believable from you, Betty.

  24. #24 Wow
    May 20, 2013

    And in Betty’s second attempt, she thinks she’s a wit, but is only half right.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    May 20, 2013

    …but is only half right.

    Is half-wit then.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    May 20, 2013

    Betula strikes again with his half-witted attempts to extrapolate the effects of AGW on complex adaptive systems… and tis based on his understanding of ecology which would make even a kindergarten student blush with embarrassment for Betty…

    So please inform us Mr. tree pruner, how do you add up 1 and 1 and get 7? Where in the article does it say a lower estimate of climate warming – which is still well within the estimates of the IPCC no less – will not harm biodiversity and negatively affect ecosystem functioning? The authors are at pains to say that the situation is still indeed serious and little succor for humanity.

    Essentially, you have not got the vaguest clue of critical temperature thresholds for biodiversity at regional and global levels, you clearly respond with a blank stare to the concept of ‘tipping points’ and scratch your head at the mention of non-linear effects. Even at the lower threshold, this change far exceeds what many systems have experienced in millions of years in terms of scale. Now there’s a pesky little word that your simple brain also doesn’t seem to grasp, does it Betty?

    Again, you can’t debate yourself out of a soaking wet paper bag, as it was when you preposterously tried to argue that greenhouses with their artificially high C02 concentrations represented good proxies for open systems across the biosphere. You clearly are not able to factor in a suite of other anthropogenic changes across the biosphere which make it much more difficult for biodiversity to adaptively respond to climate change: humans have fragmented vast swathes of habitat across the planet, and against this tapestry we are forcing climate, and challenging already reduced genetic diversity to keep up.

    You are a first rate clown, Betty. Keep it up, though. Its so easy to quash your infantile arguments and any laypeople reading the thread will instantly or instinctively know where the real expertise comes from.

  27. #27 Olaus Petri
    May 20, 2013

    I’ll bet Jeffie Hardley watching this climate change first hand too (Napoleon style of course):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/nenana-ice-classic-continues-to-close-on-new-record-meanwhile-lunar-effects-have-been-noted/#more-86607

    And it’s all about scale… ;-)

  28. #28 Betula
    May 20, 2013

    Wow,
    “Yup, more shit made up by you on the spot, Betty. You’re the only one who said that jeff is everyone.”
    “I just said that I wonder why you feel that everyone needs to know that you’re thinking about jeff”.

    So I address something for Jeff and you assume it’s meant for “everyone”….that’s your problem, not mine. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s only 1 person making up shit here and it’s a hefty pile that “everyone” can smell.

  29. #29 Sean
    May 20, 2013

    Meanwhile, April 2013 was the 13th warmest globally, and this is the eighth warmest year on record to date. “No record cold regions over land or water were observed for the January–April period.” Go figure!
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/04/

  30. #30 Rednose
    UK
    May 20, 2013

    References please. And not from liar blogs

    IPCC good enough?
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html

    The A1B, A17, B1 and B2 scenarios come out at about 600ppm

    These ridiculously low estimates are *incompatible* with known climate behaviour.

    It is how we know they are WRONG.

    Its surprising all these famous scientists put their name to such a ridiculously low estimate

    Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen

    Perhaps they know something you dont.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    May 20, 2013

    So Rudolf what is it that Otto et. al. 2013 are basing their judgment on and how is this not likely to provide a complete picture of what our understanding of ECS is based on?

    Even in Fiona Harvey’s very flawed Guardian piece, she writes this:

    but the world is still likely to be in for a temperature rise of double that regarded as safe.

    sadly she did lead into that with this nonsense:

    Some of the most extreme predictions of global warming are unlikely to materialise, new scientific research has suggested…

    The factor of time in the equations aside, i if YOU had a good understanding of ALL the issues that will result from the warming that is in the pipeline but yet to present itself because equilibrium climate has not arrived for CO2 levels achieved over the last few decades.

    Upwards temperature change lags behind the positive forcing whereas negative forcings act more quickly.

    But then when the increased ocean heat content, are you familiar with the concepts of heat capacity and latent heat, is taken into full account then we know we will be in trouble.

    Did you miss my point about North Sea temperatures and the stressed ecological system playing out with plummeting number amongst sea bird colonies around our coasts? Check it out.

  32. #32 Rednose
    Uk
    May 20, 2013

    Bill#14
    What quaint pictures. Reminds me of the Waltons

    Meanwhile back in Brum:

    Families to pay £600 a year towards green energy by 2020, says think-tank study

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10062633/Families-to-pay-600-a-year-towards-green-energy-by-2020-says-think-tank-study.html

    Meanwhile in Germany, you get headlines such as

    German Green Energy Push Bites Hand That Feeds Economy

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/german-green-energy-push-bites-mittelstand-hand-that-feeds-gdp.html

  33. #33 Rednose
    Uk
    May 20, 2013

    Bill#14
    What quaint pictures. Reminds me of the Waltons

    Meanwhile back in UK more are facing fuel poverty.

    Families to pay £600 a year towards green energy by 2020, says think-tank study

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10062633/Families-to-pay-600-a-year-towards-green-energy-by-2020-says-think-tank-study.html

    While the locals are revolting.
    http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=demo4

    Look carefully and you might see me in the background.

    Meanwhile in Germany, you get headlines such as

    German Green Energy Push Bites Hand That Feeds Economy

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/german-green-energy-push-bites-mittelstand-hand-that-feeds-gdp.html

  34. #34 rhwombat
    May 20, 2013

    Troll patrol borborigmi: loudest in our night (apart from the noxious native Spotty McKrap).

  35. #35 bill
    May 20, 2013

    Gee, a report by a bunch of UKIP-style cranks, as reported by The Telegraph. You’re a bigger sucker than I thought.

    But, of course, in the absence of a scientific literature, you have to invent get your ‘facts’ where you can.

    Been over to study any scientific papers yet? Relax, this is a rhetorical question, but I’d hate to miss the opportunity to point out that you are only prepared to gorge at the regular swill trough.

    Rudolf is exactly the kind of boorish oaf that barges into a scientific debate but simply refuses to read the science…

  36. #36 Craig Thomas
    May 21, 2013

    Mr Abbott says, if elected, he would scrap the carbon tax yet retain all the tax cuts and compensation allowances linked to it. There is simply no logic in this, and none was offered.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/abbott-focuses-on-profit-not-people-20130517-2js2r.html

    Seriously – does anybody who is interested in competent management imagine that Abbott has any idea what he is doing? They guy is a deluded ego-driven maniac.

  37. #37 bill
    May 21, 2013

    Yep – much as I disliked Howard, I never thought he was an idiot.

    Also, Batty.

  38. #38 bill
    May 21, 2013

    Also, Craig, I suspect this kind of economic imbecility is ultimately motivated by wishing to drown the Gubmint in the bathtub. If it all goes pear-shaped – and it’s hard to see how it won’t – that’ll provide a fine excuse to cut, cut, cut.

  39. #39 Craig Thomas
    May 21, 2013

    That’s the silver lining: it *will* go pear-shaped, and it will do so with Murdoch’s pet maniac at the helm.

    Perhaps the next sensible government we get will therefore end up with both the mandate and the motivation to introduce some sort of press laws that limit the press’ ability to emit lies and propaganda on behalf of a politico-corporate lobby.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    May 21, 2013

    Unfortunately, Abbott is auditioning to be Australia’s George W, and the LNP to be Australian’s GOP.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    May 21, 2013

    Olaus is a sad copycat. No sooner does our tree pruner come up with a monicker then Putrid copies it. Just like he slavishly copied everything from his hero, Jonas N.

    Now he’s pasted up some more garbage from one of the biggest anti-environmental/denier sires online, where he gets his major supply of disinformation. Seems like poor old Ollie, like Betty, doesn’t ever read the primary literature. Nowhere in the sludge Olly pastes is there anything about ice thickness (highly relevant here, much more so than extent) or reference to last years precipitous drop in both extent and thickness of ice in the Arctic.

    But then again, none of the deniers ever refers to the primary literature here, except for highly selective misquoting.

    If the best the deniers can do intellectually is the dross that writes into Deltoid, no wonder the scientific community doesn’t take them seriously.

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    May 21, 2013

    Just for Rednose: interviewed on BBC, here is his response to a question raised by the interviewer to one of the lead authors on the NG paper:

    BBC: “Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?”

    Otto: “None. No comfort whatsoever.”

    Essentially, Rednose is doing exactly what the deniers do best: putting words into the mouths of the scientists who do the research and publish the results in the peer-reviewed literature. Otto is one of the scientists Rednose cites above in his attempt to use the Nature Geoscience study to downplay the consequences of AGW. What Otto, and likely his colleagues, are saying, is that AGW is real and a serious threat to nature and humanity. The deniers airbrush this out. And their attempt to put words into the scientists mouths is both dishonest and pathetic.

  43. #43 Craig Thomas
    May 21, 2013

    …dishonest and pathetic…

    You can say that again.

  44. #44 bill
    May 21, 2013

    Here’s a bit of prebunking for a spattering of HI chum that’s bound to be hoiked our way in the near future, courtesy of John Abraham.

    Would a Denier even notice a book didn’t have references or an index, do you suppose?

    Bet it gets rave reviews from all Rudolph’s favourite sites anyway! Because they’re soooo skeptical

  45. #45 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    # 30 Rednoise

    And what emissions scenario most closely matches *actual* emissions? Answer this, please.

    Re Otto; you have to drop the scepticoid blinkers and think for a change. Here’s how:

    TCR/ECS estimates derived from the instrumental record are *all* low compared to estimates derived from paleoclimate behaviour. There are good reasons for this:

    - The data set are *short* and so sensitive to natural variability

    - The increase in CO2 forcing is non-linear and only begins to increase significantly from the 1970s

    - The data are not definitive, especially OHC

    That’s why nobody who understands this topic even moderately well believes that the estimates from the instrumental record are the last word and overturn paleoclimate-derived estimates.

    Instead, the view is that the two groups of estimates provide complementary approaches to constraining S.

    Using the full range of information available at present, the most likely value for ECS appears to be in the range ~2.5C – ~3C.

    In other words, without aggressive emissions policy (what was that scenario most closely matching actual emissions?) we will probably get up into the 800ppmv range over the next hundred-odd years, with potentially disruptive effects on global agricultural production.

    In summary – dangerous warming.

  46. #46 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “So I address something for Jeff ”

    On a public blog, you ignorant and evasive cocksucker.

    We can ALL read it.

  47. #47 Mack
    May 21, 2013

    Tim Lambert, …if you are moderating here, why don’t you get rid of this foulmouthed, abusive nutter WOW…or don’t you just not care anymore.?

  48. #48 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Rednoise…

    Assuming pre-industrial CO2ppmv = 280

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 2.5C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 2.5ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 3.8C

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 3.0C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 3ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.5C

    And these are global averages. Clowns probably don’t think of this, but the NH mid-latitudes are going to warm *more* than the average value. And that’s where most of the global food supply comes from.

    Now, about that IPCC emissions scenario. Is it A2 or A1F1? Looks more like A1F1 now, doesn’t it? So closer to 1000ppmv by 2100. You stupid, venal little man.

  49. #49 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Oh stop whining with faux outrage “Mack”. The real problem is lying trolls, meaning you lot.

    Fact the facts for a change.

  50. #50 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    bill#35

    The report from CIVITAS you refer to as from

    a bunch of UKIP-style cranks,

    was recently delivered to The All Party Parliamentary Group on Rebalancing the Economy at the House of Commons.
    It was delivered by Dr Constable, Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation and Jeremy Nicholson, who is on Ofgem’s Sustainable Development advisory group and Fellow of the Energy Institute.

    It probably has a little more GRAVITAS than the newspaper report you referred to by Jim-Bob Walton from Koolyanobbing

  51. #51 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    An interesting point someone else has made and I’ll re-cast it here.

    For those claiming that we’re going in to an ice age, they should be fighting like billy-o to keep fossil fuels in the ground until the ice age comes, when we’ll NEED that heating in our homes.

    Remember, if the warming trend has ended despite CO2 coming up, then CO2 can’t be burnt now to stave off that ice age they insist is coming.

    If they say we’re warming because we’re “coming out of an ice age”, the conclusion is STILL that the fossil fuels should remain in the ground, since the climate can change and if the warming is due to that event not CO2, then when we eventually go into an ice age, we’ll need that fuel again.

    Of course, if the denier is deciding to ride the “We need to burn it to stave off the ice age” they’re insisting that humans have CATASTROPHIC effects on the climate if they can change the world from one that is going to have a mile of ice over New York City to one where there isn’t.

  52. #52 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Rednoise

    Which emissions scenario most closely matches *actual* emissions?

    Answer please.

  53. #53 bill
    May 21, 2013

    Yeah yeah, sure.

    To quote from the Snowtown article – you know, that’s where you don’t just look at the pictures:

    “We laugh at people who say they’re ugly or make the chooks lay upside down – this has been great for us and great for the community,” Peter says.

    In fact, your uppity Pommy git routine is most impressive, and bound to go down a treat on a colonial blog: allow us to remind you of it when you next claim to be the soul of concern for the welfare of the little people.

    There’s an interesting tension with you lot where you claim you want to save the world’s poor from the terrible burden of windfarms – that have a truly magical capacity to inflict harm – but don’t want the self-same little bastards to get their thieving hands on your money via anything that smacks of redistribution!

    Anyway, enough of the sideshow; ignored any good science papers lately? We’re looking forward to your answers to BBD, of course, and I’m sure we’re all agog wondering which of Montford’s posts you’re going to regurgitate for that one

    You ridiculous-fellow-without-a-skerrick-of-credibility, you!…

  54. #54 bill
    May 21, 2013
  55. #55 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Come on, Clown.

    Which emissions scenario most closely matches *actual* emissions?

    Let’s have an answer out of you. Or is this going to be like every other occasion that I’ve caught you out in misrepresentations and lies?

    Over to you.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    bill,

    And their attempt to put words into the scientists mouths is both dishonest and pathetic.

    Yep. And sociopathic also.

    Furthermore that, ‘…newspaper report you referred to by Jim-Bob Walton from Koolyanobbing..’ was written by a credentialed climate scientist. Rudolf just cannot stand a light being played on the likes of Harrison Schmitt and Fred Singer who are both either lying or deluded, again – ol’ Fred has a very long record. Lucky for him Fred, as is Harrison, is in his twilight years so won’t be one of those heading for a guarded bunker, Blackwater style, when the dark brown smelly stuff hits the fan.

    Rudolf appears intellectually and morally bankrupt. As for John Constable, perhaps he should return to painting landscapes whilst they are still worth capturing. Note how windmills often cropped up in these old masters and nobody complained about them being eyesores.

    What is better a multitude of wind turbines or flooded agricultural land?

    Has Rudolf no conception of how different our weather patterns now are with more frequent and more extreme events. I wonder if Rudolf has walked the South Coast Path (England) recently. As for looking across the Atlantic – well get your head around that Rudolf. And all this with the fairly modest increase in global average temperatures (and note that at higher latitudes the anomalies are in double figures – that’s why the frigging ice has been melting you buffoon Rudolf) that have occurred as of now and with a further increase even if we stop pumping GHGs into the atmosphere and change other ‘unfortunate’ cultivation practices right now.

    Truly the Rudolfs of the world are witless.

  57. #57 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    BBD#47

    You persist in using ECR, when it requires 1000s of years to reach equilibrium, partly because of the inertia of the oceans. You could argue we are still feeling some of the payback from the last ice age because of ECR.

    Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR

    so TCR is arguably more policy-relevant
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    The most likely value for TCR from Otto et al is 1.3 degrees C

    so even at 800ppm with a TCR of 1.3
    the dt = 1.8 degrees C

    Resorting to namecalling and abuse suggests you are loosing the argument

  58. #58 Mack
    May 21, 2013

    …. “uppity Pommey git”…. That will go down a treat with old Lionel and Lord sidcup bill-boy. And lookee-here, WOW is behaving himself….for the moment….

  59. #59 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    Note how windmills often cropped up in these old masters and nobody complained about them being eyesores.

    They were a lot smaller and there were less of them besides being the best technology available at the time. Surprisingly this ancient technology was quickly forgotten about as soon as they had something a little better.
    Even more surprisingly in the present day, eco loons believe by covering the country with them they will change the weather and produce enough electricity for a modern economy even for those odd days/weeks when high pressure blocking systems cover most of Northern Europe, and the wind does not blow.

  60. #60 lord_sidcup
    May 21, 2013

    .. your uppity Pommy git routine..

    Nice one Bill.

  61. #61 Karen
    May 21, 2013

    Hi guy’s :)

    Eight intrepid explorers become first people to DRIVE from Russia to Canada across the North Pole

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327494/Crossing-worlds-terrifying-terrain–giant-red-bus-Eight-intrepid-explorers-people-DRIVE-Russia-Canada-North-Pole.html

    so much for thin ice….lol

  62. #62 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    Rudolf,

    Meanwhile back in UK more are facing fuel poverty.

    Families to pay £600 a year towards green energy by 2020, says think-tank study

    Don’t be absurd.

    Here is an indications of some of the real villains, that’s right villains: Energy firm cartels continue to ‘rip off’ consumers, take off your ideological blinkers Rudolf.

  63. #63 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    and bound to go down a treat on a colonial blog:

    Always try and introduce a little sunshine.
    Glad my efforts are appreciated :-)

  64. #64 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    Mack off target again,

    “uppity Pommey git”…. That will go down a treat with old Lionel…

    No worries for I am not an uppity git. But of course your language blindness fails you again. What a twerp you are.

  65. #65 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    but don’t want the self-same little bastards to get their thieving hands on your money via anything that smacks of redistribution!</blockquote

    Rather a Malthusian outlook constantly arguing about sharing the one pie. Why not make more pies. I am speaking metaphorically, as pies are not considered to be part of a modern healthy diet.
    Besides, how would they go on the barbie?

  66. #66 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Oh FFS.

    You persist in using ECR, when it requires 1000s of years to reach equilibrium

    To reach it, yes. But the majority warming occurs much more rapidly. TCR is just the short-term TRANSIENT response – it never STOPS at 1.3C – that’s just dT at the point of doubling. Your efforts to under-state the evolution of warming in response to forcing are becoming increasingly desperate.

    I’ve already explained to you why the 1.3C TCR (to 560ppmv) estimate is almost certainly biased low right along with the 2C estimate for ECS. Get it through your head that Otto et al. is just another lowball instrumental estimate. It isn’t the game-changer stupid fake sceptics imagine (because they don’t understand the science).

    Resorting to namecalling and abuse suggests you are loosing the argument

    No, it is a response to your serial evasiveness and dishonesty. For example, when the fuck are you going to answer my question, you slipperly little shithead?

    Which emissions scenario most closely matches observed emissions.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    Rudolf in typical Toc H [1] fashion:

    Always try and introduce a little sunshine.

    How is that possible when your head is still up seventh rock from the sun?

    Have you no shame considering this event:

    Violent tornado devastates Moore, Oklahoma.

    Yeah! We know about, ‘….Standard disclaimers apply, “No particular weather event …” etc’, however

    …The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10% effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 32% effect in terms of damage…

    see here: Tornado Drought Officially Over .

    [1] from an old saying ‘as dim as a Toc H lamp’.

  68. #68 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “You persist in using ECR, when it requires 1000s of years to reach equilibrium”

    You seem to think this is somehow devastating to the case for AGW’s danger to our society.

    Of course, I use “think” in the loosest possible sense.

    But why do you think that?

    If it takes “thousands of years” to reach equilibrium, then we’ve seen LESS THAN A TENTH of the warming in the pipeline so far, so you’re claiming that this current world is on a course EVEN IF WE STOP NOW for a 10+C warming.

    Last time the world was that warm, most of the USA was under water.

    Given all the people living there who haven’t a chance of evolving gills, how can you pretend that ISN’T a catastrophe?

  69. #69 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “Violent tornado devastates Moore, Oklahoma.”

    Which the global model had predicted 21 hours ahead. In almost (to within the error of the global model grid size) the precise location, size and effect.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    Rudolf, just in case you still miss it, watch some of this: Oklahoma tornado disaster.

  71. #71 bill
    May 21, 2013

    ‘Uppity Pommy git’ is a phrase, Mack, rather like ‘sexist Ocker boofhead’. I’m more than willing to acknowledge the existence of the latter – in fact, sadly, being a type modelled on a lamentable reality they’re difficult to ignore. Is this a slight on all Aussies? No, it’s an attack on sexist Ocker boofheads.

    Condescendingly mocking the colonials – instantly dismissing John-Boy Walton from Koolyanobbing (get the really clever knob joke there? hurr hurr) – makes you the former.

    Anyway, we’ve established the Snowtown farmers are unworthy scroungers rather than the valorous, struggling, salt-of-the-Earth types that claim that turbines make their stock spontaneously abort.

    So let’s move on. Answer BBD’s question, Rudolf.

  72. #72 Mack
    May 21, 2013

    Sorry old lino, back to ranting to Rudolf ?, but he dosen’t seem to answering you.

  73. #73 cRR Kampen
    May 21, 2013

    #22, yeah, 24 years instead of 20 years. Cum grano salis indeed.

  74. #74 cRR Kampen
    May 21, 2013

    Moore…

    The Law of Trenberth: “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

    Remembering the late winter in the north. Remembering the 14th of May, 41.1° C in Sioux City/Iowa, the absolute May record there and surpassed on only two June days as well.
    Something had to dissipate. Easy.

  75. #75 bill
    May 21, 2013

    SpamKan, your retreat into a world of make-believe is truly pathetic.

  76. #76 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    Yeah, we’re back to that “ranting old rudolf”.

    It’s good to notice that you’re able to see that.

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    May 21, 2013

    “Eight intrepid explorers become first people to DRIVE from Russia to Canada across the North Pole”

    In LIGHT vehicles. Normally vehicles used weight what tanks do.

    More spew from Karen. Still waiting for some primary literature.

  78. #78 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    Wow..
    “We can ALL read it.”
    You choose to read it you mindless dipshit.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    May 21, 2013

    Mack the hack,

    Sorry old lino, back to ranting to Rudolf ?, but he dosen’t seem to answering you.

    Probably because he has no valid pertinent answer. Like to this Watch 62 Years of Global Warming in 13 Seconds.

    Does warming look stalled to you?

    And another thing, is English your first language or your last? Just asking.

  80. #80 joni
    May 21, 2013

    Karen

    Why did they need vehicles that could float if the ice was so thick in winter?

  81. #81 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    Hardley @ 41…

    “Just for Rednose: interviewed on BBC, here is his response to a question raised by the interviewer to one of the lead authors on the NG paper:”

    How can something be “Just for Rednose” … “On a public blog, you ignorant and evasive cocksucker”?

    Sorry, I was temporarily channeling Wow @ 45.

  82. #82 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “You choose to read it”

    Yes, how DARE I choose to read a post to find out what it says!

    You cockgobbling arseface, YOU PUT IT THERE.

    When you take a shit in the street do you blame everyone else for looking at you???

  83. #83 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “How can something be “Just for Rednose”"

    Because Rednose should look at it. It was advice. Betty, your arse and head are so interchanged that both are full of shit.

    But has Harvey complained that anyone else read it?

    NO.

    Why?

    Because unlike you he knows how blogs work, unlike you you foetid burbling smegeater.

  84. #84 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    Joni @ 79…

    “Why did they need vehicles that could float if the ice was so thick in winter?”

    There can only be 2 reasons Joni:
    1. Because the ice is so thin due to Global Warming, they were expecting to fall through and travel the rest of the way by paddling or rowing.

    2. Because “Winds and current move the thick ice causing huge ridges when blocks clash together and leaving wide stretches of open water when they move apart.”

    I choose #1.

  85. #85 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    Wow…

    “But has Harvey complained that anyone else read it?”

    I think you meant to ask…. has anyone complained that Harvey was thinking of Rednose when he posted it?

    You know, someone like you @19…

    “Betty, why do you think everyone needs to know when you think about Jeff?”

    You really are looking like a Jackass.

  86. #86 cRR Kampen
    May 21, 2013

    #82, looks like an identity relation to me.

  87. #87 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    “Why did they need vehicles that could float if the ice was so thick in winter?”

    There can only be 2 reasons Joni:
    1. Because the ice is so thin due to Global Warming

    Correct.

  88. #88 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    What a silly girl betty is…

  89. #89 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    Wow…

    “Because the ice is so thin due to Global Warming. Correct.”

    Yes, you will notice how many times in the article they mention how thin the ice is due to Global Warming…here are some of the quotes:

  90. #90 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    Wow…

    “Because the ice is so thin due to Global Warming. Correct.”

    Yes

    Yes.

  91. #91 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Rednoise README

    In this article just up on the Met Office research news page, Alexander Otto, lead author of Otto et al. (2013) writes:

    Our study implies a 5-95% confidence interval for the transient climate response of 0.9-2°C compared to the range of 1-2.5°C represented by the CMIP5 models. Acknowledging these uncertainties makes the differences look a bit less game-changing: results from the most recent decade appear to exclude the top 1/3rd of the CMIP5 range, but the TCR range estimated from the 1970-2009 period as a whole (0.7-2.5°C) does not, and we should always be careful not to over-interpret a single decade. The CMIP5 multi-model mean of 1.8°C is well within our confidence interval, and only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013).

    What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.

    And:

    This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.

    Doubtless such subtleties will sail over certain heads, but there it is, in black and white, for the record.Rednoise README

    In this article just up on the Met Office research news page, Alexander Otto, lead author of Otto et al. (2013) writes:

    Our study implies a 5-95% confidence interval for the transient climate response of 0.9-2°C compared to the range of 1-2.5°C represented by the CMIP5 models. Acknowledging these uncertainties makes the differences look a bit less game-changing: results from the most recent decade appear to exclude the top 1/3rd of the CMIP5 range, but the TCR range estimated from the 1970-2009 period as a whole (0.7-2.5°C) does not, and we should always be careful not to over-interpret a single decade. The CMIP5 multi-model mean of 1.8°C is well within our confidence interval, and only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013).

    What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.

    And:

    This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.

    Doubtless such subtleties will sail over certain heads, but there it is, in black and white, for the record.

  92. #92 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    Another bloody html sod-up.

    Rednoise README

    In this article just up on the Met Office research news page, Alexander Otto, lead author of Otto et al. (2013) writes:

    Our study implies a 5-95% confidence interval for the transient climate response of 0.9-2°C compared to the range of 1-2.5°C represented by the CMIP5 models. Acknowledging these uncertainties makes the differences look a bit less game-changing: results from the most recent decade appear to exclude the top 1/3rd of the CMIP5 range, but the TCR range estimated from the 1970-2009 period as a whole (0.7-2.5°C) does not, and we should always be careful not to over-interpret a single decade. The CMIP5 multi-model mean of 1.8°C is well within our confidence interval, and only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013).

    What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.

    And:

    This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.

    Doubtless such subtleties will sail over certain heads, but there it is, in black and white, for the record.

  93. #93 Betula
    May 21, 2013

    @ 89….Wow now believes a fictitious quote by me is the correct answer to a question posed by Joni regarding an article that contains no such information….

    Comedy gold.

  94. #94 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    # 92 say something interesting and substantial or sod off.

  95. #95 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    Wow now believes a fictitious quote by me

    Really? And we should know this because ALL your quotes are made up?

    So you’re admitting you fabricate everything you say? Fair enough, betty.

    What a silly little rabbit you are, dear.

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    May 21, 2013

    ““On a public blog, you ignorant and evasive cocksucker”?

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    FYI, tree-pruner, you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’. Otherwise you wouldn’t be doing the job you are now.

    Piss off.

  97. #97 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    We seem to be reaching a consensus ;-)

  98. #98 cRR Kampen
    May 21, 2013

    97.1%. What a strange place this is. Here the ad hominems actually look like civil conversation :)

  99. #99 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    BBD#91

    Thanks for that link. Its nice to hear it directly from source.
    Little to disagree with.
    It seems to give us a few years breathing space to consider best options. Cool heads and wise investment.
    So are we reaching a consensus? :-)

  100. #100 Rednose
    UK
    May 21, 2013

    I have had some trouble posting comments with HTML yesterday and today.
    It seems to lock up when you submit.