July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    What pause?
    It’s obviously increasing:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

    David Whitehouse works for the GWPF, a non-science denialist lobby-group.

    Why not get your information from reliable sources instead?

    If you wonder about Whitehouse’s reliability, ask yourself why he would say,

    “It does seem that the sea ice is returning to ‘average’ after the record lows of 2007 and 2008.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent.png

    The record low of 2007 was beaten by a new record low in 2012.

    Whitehouse was wrong. And he was predictably wrong: he bases his assertions on belief and ideology rather than on research and analysis.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    As there has been a pause in global warming we should lean on the ‘precautionary principle’ in case of global cooling.

    You’re in flat out denial – but we all knew that, yourself included.

    There’s no pause in global warming. The top of atmosphere heat imbalance continues.

    When you remove various short term natural influences as Foster and Rahmstorff showed, EVEN the surface warming trend hasn’t noticeably changed.

    The paper I just linked to showed that even a Maunder Minimum would result in ONLY about 0.3C of temporary cooling – compare that with 0.8C of warming we have experienced since pre-industrial times. You want to invoke the precautionary principle in case we have a hypothetical event that (if it happened all at once right now) would take us back to 0.5C above pre-industrial times, but not apply it to long term behaviour that will take us to 2C and likely well beyond?

    Your positions are based on abject foolishness and a complete unwillingness to take into account all the data and to apply the very principles you claim to be espousing. They amount to nothing more than wishful thinking with a dash of slapdash rationalisation thrown in.

    Go back to your jail thread instead of spamming this thread with stupidity.

  3. #3 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    The price of coffee is set to increase because of that CAO in Brazil.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/arabica-coffee-gains-before-brazil-cold-weather-cocoa-advances.html

  4. #4 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    ‘Go back to your jail thread instead of spamming this thread with stupidity.’

    Much amusement.

    ‘a Maunder Minimum would result in ONLY about 0.3C of temporary cooling’

    If it happened at the same time as a cool PDO and the hypothetical warmth stayed in the deep ocean, I reckon it could fall by a degree over a decade.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    July 25, 2013

    “One thing is patently clear, you are not a scientist and have to resort to one of your bibles for direction from the faith”

    Hey! Like Betty, now Gordo’s looking in the mirror and espousing his true, inner self. Note how none of the deniers has any scientific pedigree, yet their views contrast with those of the vast majority of statured experts. Must be some sort of pathology.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    …I reckon it could fall by a degree over a decade.

    You can reckon what you like – and you frequently do, sans evidence or logic – but the precautionary principle still doesn’t recommend what you claim it does.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    July 25, 2013

    “C’mon, you didn’t ask ‘em. They also have mortgages to pay and cannot risk having doubts about the veracity of AGW”.

    This absurd response alone disqualifies – or indeed should – Gordo from being taken seriously in any way, shape, or form. Its the last refuge of this sordid bunch of liars. I do know plenty of climate scientists, and indeed have spoken with a fair number of them. Their jobs in now ay depend on their maintaining certain view. What fatso is doing here is smearing an entire profession to come up with some wretched justification for the fact that the vast majority are on one side of the debate.

    Moreover, if a scientists jumped ship and went to any number of far right think tanks, lobbying groups and the like, the bucks waiting for them there are significantly greater than their current take home pay. The problem for slimy dudes like gordo is that there is no other way to explain the strong scientific consensus amongst climate scientists. All that is left is a baseless smear.

  8. #8 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    Jeff, it’s the usual projection: they are dishonest and assume everybody else is like them.

  9. #9 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    I reckon it could fall by a degree over a decade.

    What you reckon is demonstratedly of no value whatsoever.

  10. #10 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Can we agree there is no polar amplification in Antarctica?

  11. #11 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    Are we talking about the Antarctica that is showing a strong trend of mass loss,
    http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-242.jpg
    or some other Antarctica from an alternate reality wherein El Gordo has a clue?

    In other news, seeing as El Gordo is keen to talk about the weather – Melburnians seem to be enjoying their warmest July in 150 years:
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/melbourne-catches-up-with-sydney–weatherwise-20130725-2qm4r.html

  12. #12 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Ah… that would be the wayward jet stream in blocking mode.

    ———–

    ‘I take issue with the claim the models are “fundamentally wrong“. They actually appear to be correct – for the case where there is no CO2 forcing.

    ‘It seems strange to me that both the alarmists and the skeptics forget that the climate models were run to show two diverging scenarios. And the one scenario that has been born out in the measurements is the one where there is no CO2 forcing.

    ‘Seems we have validated the models – just not the way the IPCC and alarmists wanted.’

    The Strata-Sphere

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    … it’s the usual projection: they are dishonest and assume everybody else is like them.

    This.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    And the one scenario that has been born out in the measurements is the one where there is no CO2 forcing.

    Bollocks.

    When you remove CO2 forcing, the models diverge badly from observations over climate-scale time periods, even when you just consider surface temperature trends. When you put CO2 forcing in they are fairly close to what is observed.

    Yes, there are metrics on which the models aren’t as good, and if you compare them to observations over time periods that are too short they aren’t going to be a close match. None of that should (nor does) surprise anyone competent in the field, but it is useful to gull the gullible.

    And worse still, if you pretend that CO2 forcing doesn’t exist you can no longer explain a whole load of other data including the paleo data so the observations CANNOT validate the models sans CO2 forcing. It’s a stupid claim because it is wrong without even referencing models.

    In other words, someone is lying here – either to you, or it is you, and someone else is stupid or gullible…

    (At least you’re consistent though. I think just about every claim, implied or explicit, that you’ve made is wrong.)

  15. #15 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    Clueless El Gordo again – his model seems to assume the enhanced greenhouse effect causes a linear increase in temperatures and the total elimination of variability.

    You’ll notice temperatures did not increase for about 35 years from 1942 – and yet, CO2 retained its known physical characteristics and continued to drive global warming in the long term.

    Here is a nice summary of all the stuff El Gordo doesn’t seem to know:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

    Tell us, El Gordo, is NASA in on some kind of conspiracy? Or could it be that your crank-bloggers are lying to you?

  16. #16 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Scary stuff, Craig.

    That’s why the precautionary principle was put in place, but if temperatures should fall suddenly then there is only one conclusion.

    Paleo evidence suggests CO2 follows temperatures and not the other way around. Carbon Dioxide is a beneficial trace gas, innocent of the charges laid against it.

    It was just a coincidence that temperatures rose at the end of last century, in tandem with human activity, the null hypothesis is that an active sun caused the warming.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    July 25, 2013

    OMG…

    “Paleo evidence suggests CO2 follows temperatures and not the other way around”

    Pure and utter nonsense. Its been debunked a billion times already, and yet our chubby contributor brings it up again.

    Know-noithings like gordo qualify for the D-K prize. They somehow think that being non-scientists sitting at their computers they discover scientific ‘truths’ that have somehow escaped the vast majority of the scientific community.

    Gordo was banned once; hopefully Tim comes to his senses and boots him out again – this time for good.

  18. #18 chek
    July 25, 2013

    It reads like Fatso took in a Viscunt Popeye lecture seven or eight years ago, stocked up on a shedful of lies and distortions and hasn’t wanted to learn anything since. At least, that’s the charitable version.

  19. #19 adelady
    July 25, 2013

    Pause in temperature increases granted (let’s ignore the absence of a significant el Nino year during this time). And ignore all the analyses showing that La Nina and neutral years are showing steady increases anyway.

    Check out John Nielsen-Gammon’s list of 13 datasets.
    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/06/what-i-didnt-say-to-fred-singer/

    Then let’s go with him discarding the surface temperature records from any consideration. I’d be interested in anyone coming up with some number other than one in a trillion for the likelihood of all these datasets being biased or wrong – to the same extent – in the same direction.

  20. #20 el gordo
    July 25, 2013
  21. #21 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    ‘The subject was not the past 15 years of flat temperatures, which would make for an interesting scientific debate. ‘

    Oh wait… Craig said it hasn’t been flat.

  22. #22 chek
    July 25, 2013

    Craig said it hasn’t been flat

    Correction, Craig’s (and others) data show that temperatures haven’t been flat. That’s a major difference you’re likely too stupid to comprehend.

    In the same way as you likely don’t comprehend your posted graph.

  23. #23 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    The Dome graph suggests the Medieval warming first began in Antarctica.

    Climate variability the spanner in the works, sea level rise uncertain.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1874.html

  24. #24 Lionel A
    July 25, 2013

    OK Gordian Knot, in your opinion what makes a Law Dome graph intriguing? Come on don’t be shy, Some things to think about.. And I have more up my sleeve.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    … but if temperatures should fall suddenly then there is only one conclusion.

    And if your car slows suddenly there is only one conclusion, right?

    Teh Stupid is very strong indeed in this one.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    July 25, 2013

    Climate variability the spanner in the works, sea level rise uncertain.

    Given the continued Earth energy imbalance and the fact that the oceans ate continuing to warm then the physics suggests that you are clutching at straws. The way this is echoing through the deniersphere/delayersphere is another example of ‘let’s not do anything right now because we don’t have enough data’, which as always is the BS line.

    From your link at #23 I point you at New study indicates need for continuous satellite monitoring of ice sheets to better predict sea-level rise. Once again you need to explain the Medieval warming connection.

    And you people do like posting links to unsupported and unreferenced graphs (your #20) – that is a big clue that this is also a BS line. Besides, McIntyre has been called out on what Steve Metzler calls a ‘spitball’, now do follow the comments down from Steves post taking in Chris Colose’s response at 195.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    July 25, 2013

    Did the fat spaniard just paste a link to serial FOI-pest and mining-stock spruiker McIntyre’s crank-blog?
    and then followed that up with some assertions about the mythical “Mediaeval warm period” based on some regional data?

    Wottaclown.

  28. #28 boris
    July 25, 2013

    el gordo

    you should read the Shakun 2012 paper and not deny physics.

  29. #29 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Channeling Bishop Hill

    ‘The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% “nonsensus” paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

    The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

    ‘This is an interesting development since nobody is going to finger Hulme as any kind of a sceptic.’

  30. #30 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    Hardley

    “yet their views contrast with those of the vast majority of statured experts.”

    Actually Hardley, my view is that the effect of predicted future temperature on the interactions of natural systems is extremely complex and in many ways unpredictable. I’m sure you “statured” types would agree…

    You study noise Hardley, and you try to “unmask” the noise to predict the responses and consequences of processes that for the most part, react “in very unpredictable ways”, yet in your predetermined mindset, can only be negative in totality.

    So as far as views go, we agree on things being unpredictable, and we agree that knowing how the “reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems” plays out, as a result of a predicted increase in temperature….”is anybody’s guess”.

    What we disagree on is this….even though you admittedly don’t know what the consequences will be, you assume that the “unpredictable” effects of predicted temperature increases on complex systems (that need to be “unmasked”) can only lead to negative consequences, and that you feel a need to embellish about those guessed consequences and even pretend to experience them “first hand” over an inconsequential timescale in order to satisfy your ideological mindset.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

    The irony! This comment posted by someone posting meme after meme that was debunked years ago. The implications for the thesis of that comment are left as an exercise for the reader (along with the implications of appealing to an authority who lambasts the state of public debate…)

    Also if I correctly recall, the Cook et al paper didn’t divide scientists into believers vs non-believers so much as it divided papers into the range of levels of support for the position that humans are causing global warming, ranging from supporting through no opinion through to rejecting. So it appears that either Hulme or Bishop Hill has a fundamental misconception about this paper (or has at best expressed a fact about Anderegg et. al. in a way that is almost certain to be misinterpreted as being about Cook et. al.)

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    You study noise Hardley, and you try to “unmask” the noise to predict the responses and consequences of processes that for the most part, react “in very unpredictable ways”, yet in your predetermined mindset, can only be negative in totality.

    It’s impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of understanding of the field as evidenced time and time again at Deltoid.

    Do you perhaps possess mindreading skills that you haven’t revealed to the world yet? James Randi is still offering $1M, I believe.

  33. #33 lord_sidcup
    July 25, 2013

    This is an interesting development

    Only if you live on the deny-o-sphere.

  34. #34 chek
    July 25, 2013

    Only if you live on the deny-o-sphere

    … and have not the faintest idea what it means (h/t Lionel @#26) but it looks kinda sciencey (which is a step up from clueless to ridiculous) for El Fatso.

  35. #35 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    Sloth..

    “It’s impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of understanding of the field as evidenced time and time again at Deltoid”

    It’s impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of examples, time and time again.

    Please proceed.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    July 25, 2013

    So Betula’s argument boils down to this: AGW is going to have unpredictable effects on ecosystems across the biosphere. There may be winners and losers. Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere.

    That’s about it. Its an experiment – so what? If it goes terribly wrong, so what? What is the worst that can happen? OK, OK, it may well drive much of human civilization down the toilet, but heck, that’s for future generations to deal with. Until then, let’s just keep on what we are doing.

    This is the thrust of what Betula is saying. Humans are carrying out an unpredictable experiment on the atmosphere and on systems that sustain us. Since we don’t know what the outcome of the experiment is with any kind of certainty, let’s just keep on doing it.

    As I said, why the guy writes in here is anybody’s guess. Certain.y not to enhance the level of the debate, that s for sure.

  37. #37 Turboblocke
    July 25, 2013

    El Gordo: do you serve any other function than to copy and paste stuff, without providing any further added value?

  38. #38 chek
    July 25, 2013

    That’s it exactly.
    Betty’s whole schtick is along the lines of: yes the car is travelling at 90 mph, and is going to crash into that concrete wall but hey, you safety engineers only seem to see the negative results. Mangled cars can have benefits too, just look at any scrapyard.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    July 25, 2013

    Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

    That’s just it, it hasn’t and will not as long as the likes of Shukman and the BBC continue pumping out willfully deceptive pieces with egregious headlines such as this: Why has global warming stalled?.

    I guess you Gordian Knot were not paying attention enough to catch this one first time around.

  40. #40 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Kevin Rudd will be on the Bolter’s Sunday show and he is bound to ask where the heat has gone.

  41. #41 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    Hardley…

    “Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere..”

    Now, why don’t you show me where I stated this.

    As a Professor, do you think it’s a good idea to jump to conclusions, make assumptions, put words in peoples mouths, embellish and lie? What exactly is your job description again?

    Please proceed.

  42. #42 chek
    July 25, 2013

    “keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere..” Now, why don’t you show me where I stated this.

    It needn’t be stated explicitly bozo, it is the ultimate aim of denialism in a bite-sized candy-coated nutshell.

    Next you’ll be denying your a denier and making similar bozo demands, to which the answer will be ‘fuck off, this blog isn’t the all-about-Betty’s-weasel-words show’/

  43. #43 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    Shorter chek..

    You’re a denier for not denying and I can prove it by denying to give you an example of what it is you denied…so fuck off.

    Cmdr. Cheky, you’ve outdone yourself here at Deltoid. Keep it up and you may get promoted to Captain…

  44. #44 chek
    July 25, 2013

    Yes it’s absolutely and astoundingly amazing how everybody has the same wrong impression about you, isn’t it bozo.

  45. #45 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    “Yes it’s absolutely and astoundingly amazing how everybody has the same wrong impression about you, isn’t it bozo”

    The ideologues on Deltoid? No….you have the wrong impression about most things.
    What is absolutely astounding is the fact that you can’t give an example that backs up what you believe it is that I deny, if you could, you would have….so fuck off.

    Note…credit for that last part goes to Cmdr. cheky.

  46. #46 chek
    July 25, 2013

    ….you have the wrong impression about most things

    Which is ironic, given that you’re the one shown to be consistently wrong year after year with your trademark selectivity and misrepresentation. Which makes you both dishonest in making false claims and stupid for thinking they’d be accepted.

  47. #47 Betula
    July 25, 2013

    Cmdr.

    Like I said, you have the wrong impression about most things.

  48. #48 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    This time last year the North Pole was melting and a large pond developed. At the moment that isn’t happening.

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/9.jpg

  49. #49 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Last years ice cover stepped over the cliff at the end of July, beginning of August.

    Not many expect last year’s record be matched so soon, but then again with all that rigorously denied ocean heat slopping about, you never can tell.

  50. #50 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    The vagaries of variability.

  51. #51 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Only deniers seem to think AGW should exhibit a linear increase.

  52. #52 adelady
    July 26, 2013

    North Pole webcams. I notice that the picture in #47 looks to be from webcam 1. If you look at both of the North Pole webcams you’ll see that No 2 is a bit different. (These images are updated regularly so anyone reading this later may see something quite different.)
    https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/webcams

  53. #53 bill
    July 26, 2013

    Yeah – Camera 2 – talk your way out of that one, Smeghead.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    July 26, 2013

    It’s impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of examples, time and time again.

    Wow, failing at primary school level snark as well? Epic!

    (Hint: it only works if your version has a reasonable correspondence with reality. And denying reality denies yourself the means to determine whether it does or not, thus leaving you prone to making yourself look stupid…like you just did.)

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    July 26, 2013

    At the moment that isn’t happening.

    …in which el gordo reveals that his sources are lying to him, that he hasn’t a skeptical bone in his body, that he doesn’t have access to any credible climate science news sources, and that he is functioning here as little more than a gullible cut and paste bot.

    As I said before, at least he’s consistent…ly wrong.

  56. #56 Craig Thomas
    July 26, 2013

    The funny thing is that El Gordo, despite his trying to be funny,manages to *also* be unintentionally funny.

  57. #57 Craig Thomas
    July 26, 2013

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-lake/2586469/

    North Pole has become a lake, again
    Matt Cantor, Newser 11:46 a.m. EDT July 25, 2013
    north pole

    Thanks to rapidly-melting ice, Santa Claus now has his own swimming pool: The North Pole is currently a lake, Canada.com reports.

    The shallow lake — it’s about a foot deep, according to LiveScience — isn’t the result of sea water overtaking the ice; it consists entirely of the melted ice itself. And it’s a vicious cycle, writes William Wolfe-Wylie for Canada.com. That water picks up more radiation from the sun than solid ice would, so the area is getting even warmer.

    At the beginning of the month, a lot of the Arctic Ocean saw temperatures two to five degrees warmer than average; the lake began forming July 13. But it’s nothing new: The lake has been appearing each year, the Atlantic Wire notes.

    More than half of Arctic sea ice is newly formed and thin, LiveScience reports, making it easier for meltwater ponds to form and combine. An Arctic cyclone due this week will boost the melting process even more. Visit the North Pole Environmental Observatory for images.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    July 26, 2013

    The funny thing is that El Gordo, despite his trying to be funny,manages to *also* be unintentionally funny.

    Shhhhh – I’ve been hoping no-one would give the game away…

  59. #59 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    Thanx for those links, I stand corrected.

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    July 26, 2013

    Betula goes all innocent on us. He’s been defending his contrarian views by arguing all this time that the effects of increasing the atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate are unpredictable. He goes on to argue that the so-called effects of fertilization on larger scale communities and ecosystems are unpredictable. So, putting 2 and 2 together, its easy to come up with this conclusion that I posited yesterday:

    Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere..”

    The he comes back asking to know where he had said it. As Chek correctly responded, its implicitly implied. Why else would Betty write in here? He clearly downplays the effects of greenhouse gases on climate and has used corporate greenhouse advertising to suggest that C02 will be a boon to natural systems through increasing primary production. When it was pointed out to him that natural systems are inherently complex and exhibit non-linear dynamics, he then reverted to the ‘its unpredictable’ meme. So given this clowns past behavior, its obvious – or should be – that he believes that since we don’t know enough then we don’t need to take remedial action.

    So I say this and he unbelievably responds with his, “where did I say that?’ riposte.

    Clearly, Betty is either a loaf sort of a dozen, has a bad memory, or doesn’t know what his position is. Whatever, he’s a joke.

  61. #61 Karen
    July 26, 2013

    Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 201?’

    “Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

    Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

    Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

    Summer melting this “…

    and…..

    “Our projection of 201? for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

    “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 201? is already too conservative.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

    oh deary me… that was sooo scary !!!! !o!

  62. #62 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    “The 15-year stop in global warming is now outside the range of climate ‘noise’ and climate models. It is statistically significant. […] from a science point of view, it is sheer absurdity to want to maintain ‘a nice, comfortable, stable climate’ through a few turns of some sort of CO2 control-knob.”

    Klaus-Eckart

  63. #63 chek
    July 26, 2013

    SpamKan lol you have lol no idea lol whatsoever lol what it means lol in the lol bigger picture lol.

  64. #64 chek
    July 26, 2013

    How cute – El Fatso’s on first name terms with Klaus-Eckart.

    Klaus-EckartPuls that is, whose organisation is ‘advised by’ the creme de la cranks Lubos Motl, Nils Morner, Ian Plimer, Richard S. Courtney, Lord Christopher Monckton and – I kid you not – Marcel Leroux (deceased). One wonders how many casting votes Marcel’s contribution decided.

    Perhaps the luminaries iof crankdom he’s connected to also think (or rather, they’d like some of us to believe) surface air temperatures are the only metric for heat entering the climate system.

    Interesting too, the cognitive dissonance require by El Fatterachi to alert us to the North Pole melt lake forming whilst simultaneously pushing the no warming meme.

  65. #65 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    At least we can agree that Arctic sea ice disappeared completely during the summers of the early Holocene.

  66. #66 Karen
    July 26, 2013

    Abstract

    Paleo-sea-ice history in the Arctic Ocean was reconstructed using the sea-ice dwelling ostracode Acetabulastoma arcticum from late Quaternary sediments from the Mendeleyev, Lomonosov, and Gakkel Ridges, the Morris Jesup Rise and the Yermak Plateau. Results suggest intermittently high levels of perennial sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 (25–45 ka), minimal sea ice during the last deglacial (16–11 ka) and early Holocene thermal maximum (11–5 ka) and increasing sea ice during the mid-to-late Holocene (5–0 ka). Sediment core records from the Iceland and Rockall Plateaus show that perennial sea ice existed in these regions only during glacial intervals MIS 2, 4, and 6. These results show that sea ice exhibits complex temporal and spatial variability during different climatic regimes and that the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110001691

    hmmm…….”and that the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon.”

    lol

  67. #67 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    Antarctic ice cores tend to show a fairly high and stable CO2 concentration throughout the Holocene, but this maybe incorrect. There are other methods which indicate CO2 actually falls during cold times.

    ‘Records for the past millennium indicate significantly reduced CO2 levels from A.D. 1550 to 1800, which are temporally related to the historical Little Ice Age climate deterioration.’

    Wagner et al

    Now it may sound bizarre, but I simply can’t accept that a drop in CO2 caused the LIA.

  68. #68 chek
    July 26, 2013

    …….”and that the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon.”

    … but still considerably older than recorded history, which is the world human civilisation grew up in.

    Seriously SpamKan, it’s obvious these Cliff-note gobbets of history lessons you’re being fed are just as free of context and over your head as the climate science you can only lol at.
    “A relatively recent phenomenon” in your terms is fucking Facebook..

  69. #69 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Believe it or not El Fatso, the internet can supply you with a lot more than wanking material, and in the case of the LIA it will show many causes – cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, inherent variability and human activity (or inactivity) affecting global climate have been proposed.

    Interestingly, paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has indeed proposed that massive reforestation took place following the Mongol invasions and their accompanying world-class massacres (40 million by some estimates) in the 13th Century, and the de-population (150 million estimated) of Europe during the Black Death in the 14th Century. The resulting CO2 sequestration by the forests that encroached onto once arable land may well have been a contributory factor to the LIA around 150 years later.

  70. #70 Karen
    July 26, 2013

    #68 chek

    There is no need to prove that you are gullible and stupid.

    we already know :)

  71. #71 chek
    July 26, 2013

    The ‘we’ presumably being the other voices sharing the inside of your head.

  72. #72 lord_sidcup
    July 26, 2013

    “the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon.”

    Credulous Karen fooled by the words “‘relatively recently”. 5ka too sciency for him. lol at the wanker.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    July 26, 2013

    Gordian Knot, please explain why when I enter the following text string into Google with enclosing quotes I only get three hits, two to the well recognized contrarian (that is denier in simple terms) and the other to here,

    The 15-year stop in global warming is now outside the range of climate ‘noise’ and climate models. It is statistically significant.

    As for Klaus-Eckart Puls’s umbrella organisation the EIKE we find an entry here at Sourcewatch .

    Now lookee here:

    Advisory Board

    Fachbeirat of EIKE:

    Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt, Dipl.-Ing., FH Aachen, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Dieter Ameling, Dipl.-Ing., Technische
    Universität Clausthal
    Dr. Horst Borchert, Physiker, Universität Mainz, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Robert M. Carter, Paläontologe, James Cook
    University, Queensland, University of Adelaide, South
    Australia, Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of
    New Zealand

    Prof. Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Geologe, Kutztown
    University, Pennsylvania USA
    Prof. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, Geologe, Universität
    Paderborn, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Karl-Otto Greulich, Physiker, Fritz Lipmann
    Institut, Universität Jena
    Dr. Hans Jelbring, Klimatologe, Universität Stockholm
    Prof. Dr. Hans-Burkhard Horlacher, Dipl.-Ing., Universität
    Dresden, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Klaus Landfried, Politologe, Universität
    Kaiserslautern, ehem. Präsident der Hochschul-
    Rektoren-Konferenz, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Marcel Leroux, Klimatologe, Universität Lyon
    (verstorben)
    Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Physiker, Hochschule
    für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saalandes, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg, Meteorologe, Freie Universität
    Berlin, ehem. Direktor des meteorologischen
    Instituts der FU, i.R.
    Prof. Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Menzel, ehem. Rektor der FH
    Dortmund und Gründungsrektor der FH Westliches
    Ruhrgebiet
    Dr. Lubos Motl, Physiker, Universität Prag
    Prof. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, Ozeanograph, Universität
    Stockholm, ehem. Präsident der Neotektonik
    Kommission der INQUA (International Union for
    Quaternary Research), i.R.
    Lord Christopher Monckton Viscount of Brenchley,
    Journalist, Cambridge University (England)

    Prof. Dr. Gernot Patzelt, Hochgebirgsforschung,
    Universität Innsbruck, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Carl Otto Weiss, Physiker, ehem. Direktor der
    physikalisch technischen Bundesanstalt
    Braunschweig, i.R.
    Prof. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Klimatologe, Universität
    Krakau (Polen)

    Prof. Dr. Heinz Zöttl, Forstwissenschaft, Universität
    Freiburg, ehem. Direktor des Instituts für
    Bodenkunde, i.R.

    Oh Dear, not a science based group after all but another propaganda outfit promoting obfuscation and falsehoods, R Courtney also being know for such, we had examples recently.

    Now Gordian you are either posting in bad faith or an idiot. That does not rule out the possibility probability that you are both.

  74. #74 Olaus Petri
    July 26, 2013

    Fellas, the humble Dr. Humle one or two things to say about the Cooked 97 % figure.

    DK anyone? ;-)

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/25/hulme-slams-97-paper.html#comments

  75. #75 chek
    July 26, 2013

    It’s very confusing Olap. One moment they’re all crooks at UEA hiding the decline and manipulating the data, the next they’re trusted oracles of wisdom whose words are infallible. As long as you like what they’re saying.

    But being a moron, you won’t understand the mental impairment required for holding simultaneously contradictory views. You likely just think your hat’s on bit tight.

    The fact is, these things are challenged by submitting better science in another paper, not by bitching and whining on blogs. Especially not toxic blogs frequented by as many cranks as the Notts. Uni. one. Mike should know better.

    For the regulars, there was an astute comment at Eli’s pointing out that the paper in question – one single paper – has so rattled the crank battalions it’s created a denial sub-industry rivalling that of MBH98

  76. #76 chek
    July 26, 2013

    I wonder if all Mike’s new denier friends who place such great store by his words now, would equally like to get hehind him when he speaks of decarbonising the economy, by 2030 if possible

  77. #77 Betula
    July 26, 2013

    Hardley @59…

    “He’s been defending his contrarian views by arguing all this time that the effects of increasing the atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate are unpredictable”

    “He goes on to argue that the so-called effects of fertilization on larger scale communities and ecosystems are unpredictable”

    Not an argument, an agreement…with you. Obviously we agree on this, it’s just that you seem to deny it while agreeing with it at the same time…

    JUNE THREAD

    Pg.11, # 81…”So increased atmospheric C02, in answer to Betula’s nonsense, is most certainly a BAD thing in the short term because it alters a range of ecophysiological properties in very unpredictable ways”

    It’s certainly bad short term…yet it’s unpredictable? How about long term?

    pg. 10, #45…”At the same time, local increases in termperature lead to reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems. How this will play out is anybody’s guess”

    So now it’s a guess?

    Pg. &, #51….”it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties, responses up the food chain, and effects on processes like competition, community assembly and plant-consumer interactions”

    Unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences? What are the other consequence options?

    Pg.3, #61…

    “Given that there are significant differences in soil properties of these biomes, as well as in plants and animals, a warming climate will certainly impact them. The problem is that there are very few scientists studying these effects, but that does not mean that there will not be responses and consequences”

    So, a warming climate will certainly impact them, it’s just that we don’t know exactly how much warming or how fast the warming will occur and we can’t know exactly what the impacts will be….except that it’s “most certainly a BAD thing”, we are sure of that.

  78. #78 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    chek @p10 #98

    Have a good time BBD, hope the weather for yours is as good as it was for me.

    Very pleased to report that good time was had ;-)

    Weather also excellent. I really do *love* North Cornwall when it’s hot.

  79. #79 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    Betty-John @ p11 #7

    Of course he’ll be vacationing locally to keep his carbon footprint down….

    Nothing to do with carbon footprints, but yes, I holiday locally. I like the British coast, especially the North of Cornwall.

    Betty-John @ p 11 #20

    BBD reminds me of Barney Fife….only angry. The bumbling Deputy of Deltoid

    I don’t bumble, Betty. I can show you up for the confused, dishonest physics denier that you are with nary a bumble in sight.

  80. #80 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    Karen p 11 #14

    It will be lovely to have a holiday from BBD, lol

    All good things come to an end, Karen.

  81. #81 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    St. Cyr @ p11 # 22

    Sorry for the slow response but I’ve been away. Many thanks. Most heartening.

  82. #82 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    @74 OP

    Two things.

    First, irrespective of quibbles over a per cent or two, there is a strong scientific consensus over AGW. No amount of argument over methodology changes this.

    Second, it is a distraction. It’s something to argue about endlessly that doesn’t make a whit of difference to the actual problem or the physics and paleoclimate behaviour that demonstrate that there *is* an actual problem.

    In summary, Mike Hulme isn’t saying that radiative physics is falsified and thus no CO2-forced warming.

  83. #84 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Welcome back, BBD.

    Although I know the south coast of Cornwall far better (St Austell/Fowey area) there really is nowhere better than the UK in simmer when the weathers as fine as it’s been for the whole of July. Even Scotland, according to reports.

    You just don’t get our long, long days in the more southerly sun meccas.

  84. #85 Jeff Harvey
    July 26, 2013

    BBD, glad that you are back…. you’ve missed the usual nonsense from the usual suspects….

    So Betty, I want to ask you this. Given you continually accuse me of making things up, see if you can have a stab at this easy Q…

    What do you think ought to be the immediate and longer term response of governments around the world to AGW and the burning of fossil fuels and potential effects on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, given what you think we know now.

    Let me see…. hmmmmm…. my guess is that you will say ‘business-as-usual until more data are in’. Am I correct? So please, put us all out of our misery now. I am waiting with baited breath. Or will you try and slip-slide your way out of this corner and be all non-commital again?

    What also do you think should be done about other “alleged” (that a safe enough word for you?) anthropogenic threats to the environment? Do you thin acid rain was ever a threat? Or ozone depletion? What about over-harvesting? Destruction of tropical forests? Invasive species? Eutrophication of wetlands? And what can you tell me about the effects of these on ecosystem services? Do you think that these alleged threats matter? Or do we continue with a slash-and-butn approach to the biosphere until all the data are ‘in’?

    Balls is your court John Birch.

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    July 26, 2013

    By the way BBD, my vacation begins next week at Land’s End: I am in a group of three cycling from there to John O’ Groats…. I have a 27 speed Santos Touring Bike for the task, to be completed over 19 days.

    And just for Betty: in 2015 the same friend who crossed Algonquin Park with me will join me on a 3 glacier hike across Iceland (first time these three will have been crossed in a single journey). Its a hike of about 200 km…

    Expect old Betty to search the internet for anything about my trek where I mention global changes…

  86. #87 chek
    July 26, 2013

    And I should also add my thanks to St Cyr whose comment I didn’t see at the time. (Sometimes I notice the numbering has gone wrong and go back to see what’s been added, but then again sometimes I don’t bother).

    But don’t do yourself down St C. – some of us here are only interested amateurs, and it’s good to get the chance to sometimes add to the comments of the professionals and those far smarter than I here.

  87. #88 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    chek #83

    Used to do the other side when I was a kid, based on the Lizard, so I miss it. But, but… It’s all new on the north coast, which is fun and Mrs BBD nailed it with standard precision: on the north coast the sun sets into the sea.

    Good cliffs, too. I don’t know enough geology and cliffs always make me want to know more. The mind just boggles at rocks, really. The slate terrace at the cottage burning my feet all week… ~360 million year old. At least.

  88. #89 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    #85 Jeff

    !

    But remember, I was born in Macclesfield, so am automatically ‘arder than you.

    ;-)

  89. #90 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Macclesfield??
    Ya soft southern bastard :).

  90. #91 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    ‘the LIA it will show many causes ‘

    You are suggesting a combination of factors came together to force CO2 down during the LIA. Fair enough.

    OK what about the Younger Dryas? Surely it had nothing to do with a large fresh water lake or an asteroid breaking up?

    There appears to be no definitive answer, but we do know CO2 dropped significantly and cooled things down quite a bit.

  91. #92 chek
    July 26, 2013

    Smart wife!

    The last time I was there was for the total eclipse in August 1999, and the ring of primrose yellow sunrise forming a surrounding edge in every direction to a dark sky was unearthly. It confused the hell out of the bird population too.

  92. #93 el gordo
    July 26, 2013

    Apparently 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour and a couple of percent to farting cows, so before we turn off coal fired power stations we should consider eliminating our domestic animals and becoming vegans for the sake of the planet.

  93. #94 chek
    July 26, 2013

    … or you could consider reading some actual science before taking your orders from cranks. God forbid.

  94. #95 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    el gordo #92

    You don’t understand the basics.

    Start here.

  95. #96 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    The null hypothesis for global cooling?

  96. #97 chek
    July 27, 2013

    You really don’t know what you’re on about, do you Fatso.

  97. #98 Karen
    July 27, 2013

    The Making of An Extreme Event: Putting the Pieces Together

    Abstract

    We examine how physical factors spanning climate and weather contributed to record warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012, when daily temperature anomalies at many locations exceeded 20°C. Over this region, approximately 1° C warming in March temperatures has occurred since 1901. This long-term regional warming is an order-of-magnitude smaller than temperature anomalies observed during the event, indicating the most of the extreme warmth must be explained by other factors. Several lines of evidence strongly implicate natural variations as the primary cause for the extreme event. The 2012 temperature anomalies had a close analogue in an exceptionally warm U.S. March occurring over 100 years earlier, providing observational evidence that an extreme event similar to March 2012 could be produced through natural variability alone. Coupled model forecasts and simulations forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) show that forcing from anomalous SSTs increased the probability of extreme warm temperatures in March 2012 above that anticipated from the long-term warming trend. In addition, forcing associated with a strong Madden-Julian Oscillation further increased the probability for extreme U.S. warmth and provided important additional predictive information on the timing and spatial pattern of temperature anomalies. The results indicate that the superposition of a strong natural variation similar to March 1910 on long-term warming of the magnitude observed would be sufficient to account for the record warm March 2012 U.S. temperatures. We conclude that the extreme warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012 resulted primarily from natural climate and weather variability, a substantial fraction of which was predictable.

    Received: December 10, 2012; Revised: June 26, 2013

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00069.1?af=R&

    lol

  98. #99 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    ‘You really don’t know what you’re on about, do you Fatso.’

    CO2 is not the main driver of our earthly climate.

  99. #100 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    A trace gas which effects temperatures should be universally applied, otherwise it fails.

    My money is on that bright orb which passes over my place everyday, probably has a bigger impact than the warmists are prepared to admit.

Current ye@r *