June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Sure Betula. You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It’s just denial though.

    You can continue to pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.

    You can continue to pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all… That’s denial as well.

    If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won’t cause significant further warming…

    But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.

  2. #2 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    Betty doesn’t think the climate can change.

    After all, it’s all weather that has been seen before, therefore it can’t be due to changing climate!

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    June 5, 2013

    Betula, the portentologists of Deltoid know what they talk about, scientology educated as they are. Nostradamus would have envied their skills. ;-)

    Little Napoleon can prance around and watch any future disruption there is. In fact, the signs are there for any scare portentologist to interpret. BBD seems to be one of the best… ;-)

  4. #4 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @Bernard

    You are correct I did say,

    “As far as I am I aware, Trenberth’s work does not deal with the benefits of CO2 fertilisation of plants (aka CO2 as plant food), the subject of the paper in this case…”

    and the “Co2 as plant food” you didn’t take issue with at the time (your #39and #43 posts), it’s a new gripe, now you’ve realised that your previous analysis/criticism was found to be “waaay off the mark” as highlighted above. But I still have to wrong somehow right? ;)

    Anyway, we’ll live with it. There is no scientific definition of “food” and when I use it, I intend it to mean the same as would be found in a dictionary.

    “inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution”

    For example C02, If you have a problem with that Bernard, take it up with merriam-webster.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/food
    ;)

  5. #5 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    No, it’s not a new gripe, but truth or accuracy have never been a consideration, have they, gitter.

  6. #6 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    The stupid denier meme you are still trying to pretend you weren’t pushing is that CO2 fertilisation makes future emissions a net benefit to ecology and humanity alike.

    Needless to say, Donohue et al. makes no such claim and should not be used even to imply such a claim might have merit.

    You were handed your arse on a plate, first by me, then by Bernard J, and yet here you are, still blethering away, embarrassing yourself and irritating others.

  7. #7 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD

    I thought we agreed you weren’t qualified enough to express a view BBD? (that was your contention at least) And, nobody mentioned a “net benefit” either. Bizarrely you’re right about something, Donohue et al make no such claim, the only one who’s brought it up (to then disagree with it) is you!

    Which must be very humiliating for you.
    ;)

  8. #8 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    This is for Teh Olaus. Cutting-edge science…

    Weather extremes provoked by trapping of giant waves in the atmosphere

    02/25/2013 – The world has suffered from severe regional weather extremes in recent years, such as the heat wave in the United States in 2011 or the one in Russia 2010 coinciding with the unprecedented Pakistan flood. Behind these devastating individual events there is a common physical cause, propose scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The study will be published this week in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and suggests that man-made climate change repeatedly disturbs the patterns of atmospheric flow around the globe’s Northern hemisphere through a subtle resonance mechanism.

    Go on! Read the rest, Olaus.

    Learn something.

  9. #9 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Still lying, GSW…

    Or perhaps you’d like to explain why you spent so much time blethering about Donohue et al.? Because unless it was in service of that tedious, endlessly-debunked stupid denier meme mentioned above (and in the previous discussion featuring prime content from Jeff Harvey) then I’m at a loss to know why you were bothering.

    Here’s my take: your commentary here is further proof that you are a liar.

  10. #10 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    I thought we agreed you weren’t qualified enough to express a view BBD?

    If you bothered to read Bernard J’s earlier comment, what I did risk saying was in fact correct – and he *is* qualified to express a view.

    And he has actually read the paper – unlike you.

  11. #11 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD

    “and he *is* qualified to express a view.”

    Unable to grasp what’s been claimed though, decided to argue and express a view on a point nobody made (whether it was global or not). How humiliating. Anyway, applaud you for taking the risk and calling everyone a liar, what a star.
    ;)

  12. #12 chek
    June 5, 2013

    Anyway, applaud you for taking the risk and calling everyone a liar, what a star.

    Not everyone Griselda, just you. Although your denier confederates are generally no different.

  13. #13 Betula
    June 5, 2013

    Lionael A @100…

    “Betula you need to consult William Ruddiman starting with this book, as you may find “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” a bit heavy going.”

    Ruddiman Hypothesises that humans started changing the climate 8,000 years ago with farming. Does this mean that it’s not the fault of the Americans?

    Could someone please have Mr. Ruddiman contact Lynn Landes ASAP…she needs to be informed immediately.
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-07.htm

  14. #14 Betula
    June 5, 2013

    Wow…

    “Betty doesn’t think the climate can change”

    Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime.

  15. #15 Betula
    June 5, 2013

    BBD, do you deny that you can accurately predict the future?

  16. #16 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Just read the words, betula. Your blither isn’t interesting at all.

  17. #17 Betula
    June 5, 2013

    BBD..

    “Just read the words, betula. Your blither isn’t interesting at all.”

    These words?:

    “the suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”.

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/weather-extremes-provoked-by-trapping-of-giant-waves-in-the-atmosphere

    I “suggest” you really are embarrassingly thick.

  18. #18 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    I suggest you are desperately clutching at straws.

    Especially as you have tried to skip over every point in my first comment. Here it is again:

    You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It’s just denial though.

    You can continue to pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.

    You can continue to pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all… That’s denial as well.

    If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won’t cause significant further warming…

    But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    June 5, 2013

    That is a very selective quote in your #17 Betua. So what is the underlying cause of these waves according to that article? You may have to read it slower as you seem to have missed the main thrust.

  20. #20 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    I think “denied” or “blocked out” the main thrust might be more accurate Lionel…

  21. #21 rhwombat
    June 5, 2013

    Interesting reading in the mustelid’s cyberamber: the (obviously self written) bio of Hunt includes Oregon origins and service in US Army Corps of Engineers…Betula, is that you?

  22. #22 chek
    June 6, 2013

    Ruddiman Hypothesises (sic) that humans started changing the climate 8,000 years ago with farming. Does this mean that it’s not the fault of the Americans?

    Your limited skill in understanding (a verb denoting the ability to comprehend, as opposed to inventing, making up and indulging in flights of fancy) even your own language hasn’t really progressed since you were about 10 years old, has it Betty.

  23. #23 John Mashey
    June 6, 2013

    Every once in a while, a “bluebird” flies out of the blue unasked and turns out to be useful.
    FOIA Facts 5 – Finds Friends Of GWPF is the tale of an email from the Chair of the UK GWPF’s Academic Advisory Committee, whose members include folks named Carter and Plimer, email that went to Ed Wegman, who sent it to USA Today’s Dan Vergano in response to a FOIA that treally wasn’t asking for this.

    The list of addressees is interesting all by themselves.
    Remember: global warming is a hoax perpetrated by an international cabal of climate scientist watermelons (red on inside, green on outside), plotting to take over the world for UN Agenda 21 and send the black helicopters to abolish Texas’ golf courses … or something like that.

    rhwombat: I just caught up with question on Wegman+Said:

    1) They founded and ran WIREs:CS, but after many complaints, silently disappeared from the masthead and were later replaced by 2 very credible statisticians.
    Said is no longer at GMU.

    2) The Said, Wegman, Sharabati, Rigsby paper was retracted May 2011, basically forced by Elsevier over Wegman;’s pleas to be allowed to add a few citations, supported by his old friend and E–i-C Stanley Azen, who’d bypassed peer review and just quickly looked at it an accepted it. Azen recently stepped down as E-i-C.

    3) GMU ran an absurd academic misconduct process, then told falsehoods revealed by FOIAs, as covered in the new FOIA Facts series.
    Still, although GMU declined to investigate most of the complaints, by Feb 2012, nearly 2 years after first complaint, they agreed there was misconduct, and imposed :”fierce” penalties on Wegman:
    a) Reprimand placed in his file.
    b) Retract the paper (already retracted ~9 months earlier)
    c) Apologize to the journal, i.e. his long-time associate Azen.

    4) Of course, by Fall 2012, GMU named Wegman to a 3-year term on the GMU College of Science Promotion and Tenure Committee.

    5) Of course, the new material in FOIA Facts has much stronger implications, if you read carefully.

  24. #24 Graham
    June 6, 2013

    Cat got your tongue, Tim? Is the “Open Threads” copout the best you can do? Sobbing into the pillow now that climate junk science is shafted? What next? The science of fairies at the bottom of the garden? What an infantile scam this massive climate boondoggle has been. Its shameless peddlers, including you, will be a laughing stock for generations.

  25. #25 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Lionel A..

    “So what is the underlying cause of these waves according to that article? You may have to read it slower as you seem to have missed the main thrust.”

    the 32 year period is too short for definite conclusions.

    Much better.

  26. #26 chek
    June 6, 2013

    The science of fairies at the bottom of the garden?

    Wrong place. You want Williwatts blog, where only this week he was having his gaggle of self-basting nutters believe that the Arctic ice sheet was less than 650 years old.
    Watt the fuck is up with that?

    Actual real science is for smarter people than deniers generally are, you see.

  27. #27 Olaus Petri
    June 6, 2013

    Chek, reality is that you and your likes are a laughing stock, nowadays viewed upon as wacky crystall balling secterists.

    :-)

  28. #28 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    # 23 John Mashey

    I’m in the UK, and appreciate that not everybody here will share my interest in the GWPF. Others may not appreciate how efficiently that particular fake educational charity and anti-science lobby group cloaks itself in secrecy. So they won’t share my delight in reading your research ;-)

    Thanks again!

    Non-UK residents can get the flavour from this excerpt:

    Email to Ed Wegman highlighted close relationships between UK’s main climate anti-science charity, Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), its counterparts in the US and Canada, and some key Congressional staffers. Many email addresses were quite familiar, with a few surprises, including involvement of AIER, a previously unnoticed thinktank.

    In the English-speaking machinery of climate anti-science, GWPF is the main UK gear, seen to be well-meshed with AEI, CATO, CEI, CFACT, GMI, Heartland Institute(HI), ICSC, IER, Mercatus (GMU), PERC, SEPP plus staffers for Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), among others.

    Paging lord_sidcup.

  29. #29 chek
    June 6, 2013

    You’re obviously not paying attention to how threadbare your position is Olap, particularly when your representatives like Williwatts are so far off in la-la land they ain’t never coming back.

  30. #30 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    # 25

    Still desperately clutching at straws while skipping…

  31. #31 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    The Eemian was only 650 years ago. Who knew?

    :-) :-) :-)

  32. #32 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “Betty doesn’t think the climate can change”

    Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years,

    Yet you do not accept that there is any evidence that climate changes.

  33. #33 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Sobbing into the pillow now that climate junk science is shafted

    Do you mean “being raped anally by the violent opponents of science” or do you mean “disproved by the evidence”?

    Because if it’s the latter, please show this is the case.

  34. #34 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “the 32 year period is too short for definite conclusions.”

    No, betty, 32 is greater than 30.

    Basic infant school maths failure from our denier idiots.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    June 6, 2013

    Chek, reality is that you and your likes are a laughing stock, nowadays viewed upon as wacky crystall balling secterists.

    That’s right Olaus, ignore the fact that your hero Willard Watts is a purveyor of scientific crap, and the fact will magically go away as easily as did the inconvenient post that documented it.

    I notice also that you’re still purveying a long-discredited piece of crap:

    GSW, like Dr. Phil says:

    “No upward trend…has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,”

    Have you forgotten why this “15/16/17 years of no warming” meme is bogus, or did you never understand it in the first place, or do you actually know but want to pretend that the reality is otherwise?

    More interestingly, do you stand by this notion and can you support it with a statistical demonstration of why it is (according to your pseudoscience) correct?

  36. #36 lord_sidcup
    June 6, 2013

    Paging lord_sidcup

    John #23

    Nice article John, but no mention of the University of Buckingham?

  37. #37 Chris O'Neill
    June 6, 2013

    Have you forgotten why this “15/16/17 years of no warming” meme is bogus

    By the way, there was no statistically significant warming for the 18 years from 1979 to 1997: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    I guess that means global warming stopped in 1997.

  38. #38 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    No, it means it stopped in 1979!

    Indeed, warming stops after EVERY record temperature!

    This is why the deniers find so many times when “warming has stopped”.

  39. #39 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Scientific study posted by BBD @ 8 pg 1 and reiterated @ 16 pg 2 concludes..

    The 32 years is “too short for definite conclusions”

    Wow, in his usual state of confusion states….”No, betty, 32 is greater than 30″.

    So, you disagree with the scientists conclusion on this subject (posted by BBD). Why the denial?

    BBD, please explain the conclusion of the article you linked to Wow….the denier.

  40. #40 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Betty, 30 years is greater than 20. 32 years is greater than 30.

    Do you actually know how the numbering system works in the West?

  41. #41 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Wow, in his usual state of confusion states….”No, betty, 32 is greater than 30″.

    So, you disagree with the scientists conclusion on this subject

    So you’re claiming that the scientists here are saying that 32 is NOT greater than 30???

    Because I must have missed where they said that.

  42. #42 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Wow @ 32…

    “Yet you do not accept that there is any evidence that climate changes”

    In realize you have a comprehension problem, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can accurately predict the future, so it is understandable that you would believe I don’t think climate changes, based on my statement that climate has been changing for billions of years.

    It’s Ok, I’m here for you. Just imagine I’m giving you a little pat on the head and a pinch on the cheek….It’s the best I can do under these circumstances.

  43. #43 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “So you’re claiming that the scientists here are saying that 32 is NOT greater than 30???”

    Your the one throwing around claims, I’m simply posting a scientific conclusion…stated by scientists…in their conclusion.

    “The 32 years is “too short for definite conclusions”

    By the way, thanks BBD for that link, it really opened my eyes to Wow’s selective denying.

  44. #44 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    BBD, please explain the conclusion of the article you linked to Wow….the denier.

    You are the one with comprehension problems, Betula.

    The caveat is that with ~30y of data the conclusions cannot be definite. As usual, you do the denier thing and insist that unless every shred of uncertainty is eliminated and absolute certainty demonstrated then all must be discarded.

    Just how infantile you are being is readily illustrated by your refusal to place the extreme weather/climate change linkage in context with other factors.

    Yet again you have skipped over my earlier comment where exactly such context is established, thus confirming both your denial and your dishonesty.

    Here, yet again, is that context:

    You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It’s just denial though.

    You can pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.

    You can pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all… That’s denial as well.

    If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won’t cause significant further warming…

    But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.

  45. #45 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Your the one throwing around claims,

    So you’re claiming you’ve claimed nothing?

    I can count 8 out of the 44 posts that show you’ve spent a hell of a lot of time to make no statements in.

    Seems counting isn’t your only missing skill…

  46. #46 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    As usual, you do the denier thing and insist that unless every shred of uncertainty is eliminated and absolute certainty demonstrated then all must be discarded.

    Oh, no, when it comes to claiming that the CO2 theory has been disproven, Betty is quite fine with completely unproven claims.

  47. #47 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    It’s interesting how in his desperation to deny the link between increasingly extreme weather and AGW Betula has blanked the really important part of the PiK statment:

    Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and human-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.

    An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend. Do you understand that, Betula? At all?

  48. #48 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    See, for example, the “cooling for 15 years” is enough for Betty and her fellow idiots to claim proof of what the climate is doing and how that is fine when 32 years isn’t enough to prove climate change.

    Betty doesn’t think the climate CAN change.

    Any evidence toward a changing climate is not accepted as proof of climate change.

    And if there’s no evidence that can show a change in climate, then Betty is insisting that the climate can’t change.

    After all, if the climate COULD change, then the change in the weather is PRECISELY how you’d see that. Except that evidence is denied as any proof of a changing climate.

    So, like I said, Betty doesn’t believe the climate can change.

    Except in a nebulous “it did so in the past” way. Betty never asks “If I were looking at the past weather information, how would I tell that the climate is different from today? After all, we’ve seen weather like that recently…”

  49. #49 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “Yet you do not accept that there is any evidence that climate changes”

    In realize you have a comprehension problem

    Betty, I know you have a denial problem, but you refuse to accept that the climate can change. Any change in climate MUST be evidenced in changing weather. Except all evidence of changing weather is denied as evidence of climate change.

    How else do you think you can detect whether the climate has changed if you don’t look at the weather?

    Therefore you deny the climate CAN change.

  50. #50 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend. Do you understand that, Betula? At all?”

    Betty doesn’t know what a trend is. That point has been obvious for years.

  51. #51 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Wow,

    That fact you can conclude I believe the climate doesn’t change based on this statement…
    “Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime”….proves that you have a comprehension problem.

    Are you saying you don’t want to keep the climate from changing? Or are you agreeing with me?

    Look, no one wants the climate to change, and if arguing with me about what you don’t comprehend is going to keep it from changing, then I’m all for it.

  52. #52 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “How else do you think you can detect whether the climate has changed if you don’t look at the weather?”

    Wow, the scientific conclusion denier, doesn’t appear to know the difference between climate and weather.

  53. #53 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend”

    And the undeniable scientific conclusion of the “suggested” physical process that increases the “probability” is….

    “additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

  54. #54 chek
    June 6, 2013

    Ah – I think Betty’s suffering under the delusion that there’s only ever been the one single 32 year period.

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    June 6, 2013

    Notice how Betula quotes at #53:

    Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions

    He seems to be reiterating this point over and over.

    I wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…

  56. #56 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    That fact you can conclude I believe the climate doesn’t change based on this statement

    The fact that you think that made up assertion was a fact is entirely your problem, Betty.

    No, my assertion is based on EVERY WORD YOU’VE SAID.

    You refuse to acknowledge that any change in the normal weather that we have seen is in any way indication of a changed climate.

    That. however, is the only way to ascertain that climate has changed: the weather you expect has changed.

    So you deny that climate can change.

    AT NO POINT IN HISTORY would you have been able to point to some weather and conclude that this is proof that the climate is changing.

    And if it can’t be changing at any point, it can’t change at all.

    You deny climate change can happen.

  57. #57 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Wow, the scientific conclusion denier

    No, that’d be you, Betty. Unless you can show me where the science has concluded that 32 is not bigger than 30…

    You haven’t so far, all you’ve done is meaningless and empty assertions.

    Whereas my every assertion has reams of your own converse as its evidence.

  58. #58 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    doesn’t appear to know the difference between climate and weather.

    Odd, you never seemed to have a problem with that confusion when operated on by Spots, Olap, Duffski, Joan or yourself, all of whom have managed to confuse weather with climate.

    Meanwhile evidence of your assertion against me remains 100% unverified accusation.

  59. #59 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    chek, betty is under the delusion that science has concluded 32 is not greater than 30!

    Its problems are far FAR more extensive than merely eXtreme YECing.

  60. #60 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “You refuse to acknowledge that any change in the normal weather that we have seen is in any way indication of a changed climate.”

    Normal weather? Normal to who? Over what scale? In who’s lifetime?

    You assume weather is normal and change is abnormal. More importantly, you assume to know the results of change, the results of abnormality.
    That would be like me stating I know the future results of your abnormality….I don’t.

  61. #61 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “I wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…

    No.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    June 6, 2013

    Right Betula, you sly little quote mining cherry picker, from the top:

    The study will be published this week in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and suggests that man-made climate change repeatedly disturbs the patterns of atmospheric flow around the globe’s Northern hemisphere...

    “What we found is that during several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks. So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays. In fact, we observe a strong amplification of the usually weak, slowly moving component of these waves,” says Petoukhov. Time is critical here: two or three days of 30 degrees Celsius are no problem, but twenty or more days lead to extreme heat stress. Since many ecosystems and cities are not adapted to this, prolonged hot periods can result in a high death toll, forest fires, and dramatic harvest losses.

    Anomalous surface temperatures are disturbing the air flows

    Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not mean uniform global warming – in the Arctic, the relative increase of temperatures, amplified by the loss of snow and ice, is higher than on average.

    Now we see the true picture to which this,

    but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.”

    is almost a side note.

    Now a section without your very selective snipping hacking:

    Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.

    Looks a bit different in full context does it not for it is a statement about their postulated mechanism and not APGW itself which is beyond dispute, well, within the legitimate respected scientific community that is.

    Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and man-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response.

    That last above provides another marker for how distorted your appraisal was, and is. Furthermore, most climate scientists who know about climate and what effects change are not at all surprised by what has been happening around the world because they understood that responses can be highly non linear. What has surprised some is the timescale over which the changes are happening and from a relatively low, compared to whats coming, level of warming.

    Here is a text that you should study in detail (to add to W Ruddiman indicated above), and yes it may hurt what brain you have, after all real science is tough:

    Principles of Planetary Climate

    You may find a copy of Richard Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ a good grounding for the basic (Ha) stuff.

    Here is another list of books that you need to dip into.

    Still I expect you will maintain your sly approach to this and slalom past it by pretending that you have not be roundly challenged.

  63. #63 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “You refuse to acknowledge that any change in the normal weather that we have seen is in any way indication of a changed climate.”

    Normal weather? Normal to who? Over what scale? In who’s lifetime?

    Precisely: you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed.

  64. #64 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “I wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…

    No.

    Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?

    Because you’ve certainly NEVER upbraided Olap or Duffer on their insistence that they can conclude climate change or lack thereof in less than 30 years, nor even in less than 15 (pre 2010).

    Therefore you are HAPPY to accept “there has been no warming for 15 years” therefore tacitly DO think it’s possible.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    June 6, 2013

    And another thing Betty, you seemed irritated that American’s were being blamed for the current rates of climate change well yes admittedly we Brits didn’t help by accelerating an Industrial Revolution but it has been calculated that the US has produced over its history, more GHG forcing than all the other industrial countries of Europe put together.

    And now here is another kicker Americans Throw Out 40 Percent Of Their Food, Which Is Terrible For The Climate. Yes we in Europe have been responsible, with varying degrees of responsibility between nation states, for that awful CAP. No not the Hollander inspiring contraceptive but the Common Agricultural Policy which has skewed taxes as much as it has wasteful food production. Production which has also had a terrible impact on the environment through stress on ecosystems.

    Food chuck out is also a huge problem on this side of the Atlantic, propelled in part by those awful immoral ‘buy one get one free’ or ‘three for the price of two’ marketing gimmicks and also the move to ‘junk food’ aka value added, for the producer, crap.

    So much rotten in the state of the Earth, a ‘where to begun’ panic can almost overwhelm us because governments refuse to tackle these issues which are a product of a failed free-market, so called, economy. How many economists can dance on the head of a pin? Answer only one if Richard Tol gets there first as his head is bigger than that of any pin, including a drawing pin at that.

  66. #66 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Wow…

    “Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?”

    Only if you change the wording in the question…. but then it’s a different question, which you managed to formulate and answer at the same time.

    Busy little brain you have there.

  67. #67 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    “That last above provides another marker for how distorted your appraisal was, and is”

    The appraisal is not mine, it is the scientists conclusion. Why do their words not bother you when they write them, only when I post them?

    “Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

    Perhaps you should contact the scientists and ask that they edit these words out of the paper. I hope you aren’t losing sleep over this….

  68. #68 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    Wow…
    ” you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed.”

    I’m going to let your brain accept it’s own conclusion so it doesn’t do any further damage to itself.

  69. #69 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?”

    Only if you change the wording in the question

    Yup, if it hadn’t required changing the words, I wouldn’t have had to ask the question, Betty.

    Not too bright, are you?

    Perhaps you should contact the scientists

    Perhaps you should show me where these scientists have disagreed with the idea that 32 is greater than 30, Betty.

    Perhaps that’s needed first.

  70. #70 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    ” you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed.”

    I’m going to let your brain accept…

    In what reality was your reply there connected IN ANY WAY with the statement you were replying to?

    You refuse EVERY SINGLE WAY that climate can display the fact of its change.

    You’re like those creotards who say “Well, yes, we DO believe in evolution, but only WITHIN species” and refuse point-blank to realise that that’s not in any way, shape, or form, impossible.

    You refuse the facts of a changing climate by going “That’s not a change in climate” because you know that you can’t claim the climate has NEVER changed, but you’re in deep deep DEEP denial about the fact that if you were alive at the time of these changes in climate, you’d be there denying that the climate WAS changing, “it’s all weather we’ve had before!!!”.

    You cannot accept that your stance is absolutely adamantly that climate change cannot happen.

  71. #71 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    “That last above provides another marker for how distorted your appraisal was, and is”

    The appraisal is not mine, it is the scientists conclusion.

    No, that was your appraisal.

    Yours, Betty.

    Not theirs. It’s easy to tell the difference because their conclusion was a LOT longer than yours.

    But reality MUST be denied otherwise you’d have to admit to being wrong. And that is unpossible.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    June 6, 2013

    Perhaps you should contact the scientists and ask that they edit these words out of the paper.

    Nice slalom around the truth here oh slippery one, maybe you should stop taking words out of context, or is your comprehension really this bad.

    Keep digging your hole, you may join up with Brad K before long.

  73. #73 Betula
    June 6, 2013

    I finally figured out the Deltoid Syndrome!!

    When you see this:
    “Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

    You conclude this:
    “32 is greater than 30″

    And when you see this:
    “Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime.”

    You repeat this:
    “Betty doesn’t think the climate can change”

    And when you read this:
    ” wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…

    You think this:
    “Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?”

    Anyone see a trend here? I’m assuming you have all had a Deltoid type mindset for at least 32 years…”a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet too short for a definite conclusion.”

  74. #74 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    Still clutching at straws and skipping Betula.

    Deny, deny, deny… but the truth won’t go away no matter how many hours you spend denying it on the internet.

  75. #75 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    When you see this:
    “Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

    You conclude this:
    “32 is greater than 30″

    Difference is, Betty, we already know what the denier mentality is and you’ve just demonstrated it in spades.

    That’s an entirely private universe you’re talking about there. Over in reality world, where everyone else spends their time, the world looks like this:

    “the 32 year period is too short for definite conclusions.”

    No, betty, 32 is greater than 30.

  76. #76 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    Meanwhile, these words you’ve never ever apparently seen:

    Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and man-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response.

    But as we’ve already discussed, you’re living in an entirely self-created world and only visit this one because the tea-service is unreliable in happy-happy-dopey-land.

  77. #77 Wow
    June 6, 2013

    And when you see this:
    “Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime.”

    You repeat this:
    “Betty doesn’t think the climate can change”

    Yup, more fabricated universe from Betty’s diseased and non-functional brain.

    Because in that world, Betty never said this:

    Normal weather? Normal to who? Over what scale? In who’s lifetime?

    And I never pointed out that it was doing just as I claimed:

    Precisely: you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed.

    In Betty’s World (trademark pending), climate only ever changes in the ABSTRACT, never EVER to be seen in any actual phenomenon. NEVER ever can it happen because of human production of CO2 and it MUST NEVER be allowed to see the climate change by looking at the climate and seeing it’s changed.

    Because in Betty’s World, that makes it sad.

  78. #78 BBD
    June 6, 2013

    The truth looks like this, Betula:

    The top line is OHC 0 – 700m. Increasing, increasing, increasing…

    The yellow line wibbling along at the bottom is TSI – the sun – not really varying much compared to GHG forcing, which is the dark blue line rising strongly after 1960.

    The red line is the total net forcing, with major eruptions showing up as sharply negative excursions.

    Here’s a more detailed view of OHC down to 2000m, scaled with land, ice and atmospheric heat content so even innumerate trolls can see that >90% of the energy accumulating in the climate system is going into the oceans.

    That’s why short-term variability of atmospheric temperature is essentially an irrelevance.

    And there it is. The big picture. GHG forcing is slowly emerging as the dominant driver of climate.

    Okay. Sanity intermission over. Let’s get those eyes a-swivelling and back to deny, deny, deny…

  79. #79 chek
    June 6, 2013

    In realize you have a comprehension problem, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can accurately predict the future, so it is understandable that you would believe I don’t think climate changes, based on my statement that climate has been changing for billions of years.

    Brushing aside all your pitiable attempts at snark and would-be superiority which are unnecessarily confusing things, it seems you’re stuck in a weird quantum loop Betty, as Wow has identified where you agree climate changes (although you have zero knowledge of why) yet it can’t be observed changing state by anyone (and certainly not by Jeff Harvey, a – God forbid – paid scientist). So you’ve self-invented the concept ‘Schrödinger’s climate’ to cover all your eventualities. It’s an insanity.

    You’re actually in a schizoid schism that only you can resolve, and which you likely want to do as evidenced by your hanging round here instead of pissing your remaining sanity away at Morano’s or Williwatts.

  80. #80 Craig Thomas
    June 6, 2013

    Check out the dross our Senators have to wade through:
    https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=9e9f1074-0c9a-4c1e-badf-c732d6f26e98

    I am what might be classified as a ‘Citizen Scientist’ never having engaged as a
    professional scientist in any climate or related field as such; the majority of my career having been in
    business management – culminating in CEO status of a mid-cap business within the forest products
    field in Australia; but involving also extensive international exposure. I am now retired, aged 77.
    However my initial academic background was in chemistry & chemical engineering (Swinburne) and
    later Economics (Univ. Melbourne),
    blablabla
    During progression towards full retirement over the past 15 years I have devoted considerable of my
    available free time to deep study of these areas and most particularly of the alleged AGW matter; I
    have studied intensively literally several hundred learned (and a few not so learned) papers on the
    issue – papers from all sides and on all aspects of the issue – as well as dozens of opinion essays by
    science related writers; as a refresher I recently undertook a short course at Swinburne on Solar
    System aspects of astrophysics; I engage regularly in a climate change internet based exchange and
    discussion forum which has some of the world’s most renowned scientists as participants.

    And then several pages of nonsense followed by this:

    The Oregon Petition signed by over 32000 scientists including over 9000 PhD holders was organised
    as a means of demonstrating that there are many many scientists around the world who do not
    accept the AGW hypothesis as valid or proven.

    Thanks, Lawrence A Wilson, I’m sure your unpublishable, anti-science opinions are just what the Senate needs to see in order to discard all the proper expert opinions they have listened to.

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    June 6, 2013

    Darn you Chek, I was winding up Betula to lead him to the discovery of Schrödinger’s climat, but I find that you’ve pre-empted me whilst I was asleep!

    Missed by that much!

  82. #82 Craig Thomas
    June 6, 2013

    So that’s what keeps blogs like Anthony Watts’ crank blog, WUWT, and Joanne Codling’s crank blog, Jo Nova alive: a bunch of 77-year olds who have nothing better to do than to spend all day posting gibberish about a subject they either don’t understand or have chosen to misunderstand.

  83. #83 Craig Thomas
    June 6, 2013

    Here’s a good submission though. No, an excellent one:

    https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=545c4446-f6ef-4ab4-a436-d4bdae27241e

    Nice work!

  84. #84 chek
    June 6, 2013

    My apologies Bernard after all your (much appreciated) hard work building up to it, but I’m a bit thick on that level. Always wiser post rather than ante the event, but hey-ho, story of my life.

  85. #85 chek
    June 6, 2013

    Craig @ #83

    Whether business or politics like it or not, climate change and resource scarcity are
    going to be the key drivers of policy from now on.

    Thanks for the link Craig. Although not from a climate scientist, a pretty damn good essay by an intelligent person on a rational response. I’d be well pleased at being able to put together as coherent a case.

  86. #86 Craig Thomas
    June 6, 2013

    He pitches at just the right level: not simplistic, but not lost in detail. A very well-written piece of work. I’m sharing it far and wide.

  87. #87 Olaus Petri
    June 7, 2013
  88. #88 Chris O'Neill
    June 7, 2013

    Dr. Spencers

    I wonder what the explanation is for the apparent lack of a solar-warming-caused hotspot?

    Anyway, far more entertaining is Dr. Spencer’s Time for the Slayers to Put Up or Shut Up. An endless supply of crackpots.

  89. #89 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    Olaus

    Before we get all excited about Christy & Spencer’s latest hoopla, I think we need to verify something.

    We need to verify that the CMIP5 runs shown in that graph are indeed *mid* tropospheric temperatures. Not surface temperatures or even top-lower-tropospheric temperature (TLT), but the cooler *mid* troposphere.

    At present, this is not at all clear, at least to me.

  90. #90 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    I’ve just noticed that the CMIP5 runs presented by Christy are forced under RCP 8.5. Those of us who know what RCP 8.5 is will understand what is going on here.

  91. #91 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Chek

    “where you agree climate changes”… “yet it can’t be observed changing state by anyone (and certainly not by Jeff Harvey, a – God forbid – paid scientist)”

    So you believe Hardley did see climate change “first hand” on his Algonquin trip?.

  92. #92 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Oh Betty, Betty, Betty, desperately trying to avoid your extensive and immobile faults by asking irrelevant strawman questions.

    That pony won’t run, retard.

  93. #93 chek
    June 7, 2013

    Betty @ #91: when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly? Or must you believe (as you apparently are desperate to do in Jeff’s case) they are making it up?

    You’re the one in a in a bind Betty.

  94. #94 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Chek..
    “when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly”

    As far as plant zones, they have been changing since the beginning of time. Does this shock you that we see some changes over a 50 year period? Wouldn’t it be more shocking if they never changed over time?

    Jeff was in Algonquin for 20 days, so you’re comparing that to say 50 years? Apparently you don’t understand “scale”….Hardley, please explain this to Chek.

    Now, speaking of Hardley, let’s not try to avoid the question this time…

    Do you believe Hardley saw climate change “first hand” on his Algonquin trip?.

  95. #95 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    As far as plant zones, they have been changing since the beginning of time.

    Yet more irrelevant sidetracking.

    The question was:

    when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly?

  96. #96 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    As far as plant zones, they have been changing since the beginning of time.

    Were you there? You’ve been on this planet for, what? 12 years now?, and you’re comparing that to the age of the universe???

  97. #97 chek
    June 7, 2013

    they have been changing since the beginning of time

    You have to laugh at the sheer ignorance masquerading as insight.

  98. #98 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Ok.
    By avoiding the question, I guess we can say with “certainty”, that Wow believes Jeff actually witnessed climate change “first hand” on a 20 day hike, where the average temperature was -2 C during the day and -10 C at night …while his partner got frostbite.

    Next.

    We can also say with “certainty”, based on Wow’s comment at #96, that Wow believes plant zones have never changed in the past, therefore, climate change has never occurred before and is considered a recent phenomenon.

    Next.

    Next.

  99. #99 chek
    June 7, 2013

    Betty, please don’t ever attempt deductive reasoning again. You may have heard of it, but you haven’t a clue how it works and even less how to arrive at a sound conclusion.

  100. #100 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Chek…

    Yes, deductive reasoning…..comparing a 20 day hike in the woods to a slight change in plant zones over a 50 year period.

    Brilliant.