July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

    CO2 is not the main driver of our earthly climate.

    Red herring. Which rather supports the observation that you don’t know what you’re on about. Did you learn pie-in-your-own-face clown-trolling from Karen/Mack/Sunspot?

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

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

    Now you’ve descended into incoherence, so it’s more evidence you really don’t know what you’re on about.

    I’d say “there’s a thought in there somewhere, do try to get it out” but I’m not at all convinced you’re actually thinking.

  3. #3 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    Correct me if I’m wrong … you are saying CO2 makes temperatures rise, but not fall?

    In your own words, a sentence or two, without links.

  4. #4 FrankD
    July 27, 2013

    el Gordo @ Page 13, #10: “CO2 does not cause warming.”
    el Gordo @ Page 15, #90: “..but we do know CO2 dropped significantly and cooled things down quite a bit.”

    So according to Fatboy, more CO2 does not cause warming, but a drop in CO2 “cools things down quite a bit.”

    Self-contradictory, much?

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

    Self-contradictory, much?

    Right after trying to claim that I was self-contradictory.

    Remember, folks, with these clowns it’s always projection.

  6. #6 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    ‘Self-contradictory, much?’

    Alright, not wishing to puts words into your mouth, an increase in CO2 causes global warming but global cooling is caused by natural variability.

    Is this statement correct?

  7. #7 adelady
    July 27, 2013

    Is this statement correct?

    Not by a long shot. The best examples are the volcano years. If you look at the years following the Pinatubo eruption, to cite the most recent relevant large eruption, the temperature dropped precipitously, by 0.5C. But it only took another couple of years for the global temperature to get back to the previous level. If you omit the Pinatubo years entirely, you wouldn’t know that there’d been any drop – there’s no change in the trend line.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

    …an increase in CO2 causes global warming but global cooling is caused by natural variability.

    Is this statement correct?

    No.

    A) An increase in (atmospheric) CO2 causes warming, all other things being equal and on a global average, but not the same amount of warming everywhere at once.

    B) A decrease in (atmospheric) CO2 causes cooling, all other things being equal and on a global average, but not the same amount of cooling everywhere at once. (This is necessary to explain the paleoclimatic observations. Over very very long time periods after CO2 spikes, natural processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere which slowly slowly cools the planet down, all other things being equal.)

    The “all other things being equal” part is very important. All forms of natural variability violate this condition, as do all sorts of other things humans are doing (many of them pointed out above).

    And that means the changes due to CO2 can be temporarily overwhelmed by other forces. And that has important consequences, such as:

    1) If you’re only considering surface (or atmospheric) temperatures as your measure of “global cooling or warming” then you have to look at the measurements over a long enough time period before you can be confident of seeing the effects of the CO2 forcing changes dominating the sum of all the other effects. Alternatively you have to use more sophisticated methods to attribute observed temperature changes to different forces. (But in order to do that, you either have to do real scientific work or you have to rely on scientific work that you are rejecting…)

    2) You can’t look at a shorter time period and validly conclude “CO2 went up/down and temperatures went down/up, therefore it has no effect”. That would be as silly as looking at the speedometer records of a car and concluding “the accelerator has no effect” because you saw a period where the accelerator was depressed further as the car reached the bottom of a steep hill, but the car went slower than it had been going on the flat. You have to account for the other acting forces as well.

    3) If you’re only considering atmospheric temperatures as your measure of global warming/cooling, then you can’t expect a climate forced by increasing amounts of CO2 to have every year warmer than the previous one. Due to all the other forces, you expect periods – perhaps quite long periods in human terms – where there’s not much obvious warming because the sum of the other forces are temporarily pushing against the warming force of CO2.

    And quite apart from all of this, changes in CO2 are known to cause radiation imbalances based on fairly simple physics, simple experiments and top of atmosphere satellite readings, so arguments against the climate impacts of CO2 based only on surface temperatures are insufficient because they are refuted by other evidence showing that CO2 definitely affects the earth’s radiation balance. Even during periods where the surface temperature changes aren’t very obvious, the energy imbalance remains.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    July 27, 2013

    Karen, as usual, is intellectually dishonest. Read the entire paper she cut and pasted the abstract from. Nowhere does it dispute AGW. And there’s even this in the discussion:

    “Overall, our results indicate that the extreme magnitude of the March 2012 temperature anomalies can be largely explained by natural variability, with an additional contribution from a long-term warming trend of approximately 1o C that is likely due mostly to human influences”.

    Repeat: “that is most likely due to human influences…”

    Like other deniers, Karen is a master cherry-picker, who also doesn’t understand most of the science she cites.

  10. #10 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    ‘Over very very long time periods after CO2 spikes, natural processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere which slowly slowly cools the planet down, all other things being equal.)’

    Hmmmm….

  11. #11 ianam
    July 27, 2013

    There are certainly way better ways to invest time in a constructive manner than to ‘debate’ some of the denier numbskulls who write into Deltoid.

    Yes, people like the grossly ignorant Rednose who has no idea how heat gets into oceans yet stupidly and arrogantly will “debate” climate science.

    I will check out the link you supplied.

    Thank you. It would be great if you became involved … perhaps you could even convince others here to do so.

  12. #12 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    For Craig’s sake, its been flat for more than a decade.

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013

    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013

    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013

    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years.”

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

    As I pointed out above, if you’re only going to look at atmospheric temperatures you need to look at long enough time periods if you want to discern the influence of an ongoing forcing – whether it be CO2 or something else.

    A decade certainly isn’t long enough – unless you can remove enough of the other influences from the observations to let more of the signal emerge, perhaps like this analysis. Does the resulting graph look “flat” to you? (I guess it might – wasn’t it you that posted the 100+ year temperature record and claimed it “looked flat”, to much laughter from other readers?)

    This also demonstrates that von Storch’s logic is fallacious – or at very least leaves out important caveats that would undermine his conclusion. Bonus points for pointing out his cherry-pick. (Hint: what was special about the weather 15 years ago?)

    von Storch gets a small amount of credit for apparently using trends rather than endpoint values, but that doesn’t rescue his fallacy (see link above). He’s a smart bloke – he really should be able to comprehend that analysis, and I’d bet good money he knows that (a) modeling short term variability (over several years) is a lot harder than modeling climate over appropriate timescales (~20+ years) and (b) models aren’t great at modeling short term variability yet, but (c) that doesn’t invalidate their usefulness over climate timescales.

  14. #14 FrankD
    July 27, 2013

    Loth, just to pick up one point: “(b) models aren’t great at modeling short term variability”.

    More correctly, I think that should read “model ensembles aren’t that great at modeling short term variability”.

    Individual model runs often show variability equal to or exceeding that actually observed in nature, but the results of models are normally published in terms of the average of several runs (can be thousands, depending on the model). Obviously, the average output is going to have lower variability that the output of each run. Average anything is not very good at capturing sample variation.

    Fatcat and friends choose to pretend they don’t know this. Or they really are that dumb. I’ve lost interest in working out which it is.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    July 27, 2013

    chek @ #84 page 15

    Although I know the south coast of Cornwall far better (St Austell/Fowey area)…

    You may recognise this scene then Panorama from above Cardinham looking towards the St Austell workings. Taken about ten years ago using a 6 Megapixel DSLR and comprised of about seven shots spliced together.

    Cardinham has some resonance for me having been put out there with the other New Entries to ‘tiff training courses in the early weeks of 1963 (I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the winter of 62-63).

    There was a proving ground of old structures used as an assault course – climbing and jumping off walls with a pack full of bricks and crawling through flooded tunnels – that sort of thing. The Pièce de résistance was a ‘Death Slide’ created by placing a pylon on top of a china clay spoil heap and rigging a cable from that across the deep flooded pit to an opposite bank.

    We didn’t use fancy contraptions of a wheeled carriage with a suspended strop but our waist webbing belts looped over, halves of brass buckle connected and away we went clinging on for dear life.

    In reterospect, that, and the ten tours route moor walk we did during that period were probably designed to find out early those unlikely to stay the course.

    Whilst at training camp, near Torpoint, early morning rising at 06:15 or 06:30 (depending on another routine) we were run down to the coast from camp, rigged cutters or whalers and the engaged in rowing exercises. On returning boats to shore and securing same we then ran back to camp, about 5 circuits of the gym followed by shower and change then into breakfast.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    July 27, 2013

    Oh. Dear. More misunderstanding, or is it more non-understanding.

    Is this statement correct?

    No.

    Cooling can be caused by these factors, not necessarily an exhaustive list,

    Draw down of CO2 either due to post orogenic erosion (Urey) or changes in land usage resulting in increased forest area, particularly at lower altitudes. Ruddiman has made a case for such agrarian age draw down following epidemics of plague.

    Changes in solar output, currently the sun’s output is low vis a vis a few decades back.

    Changes in orbital factors, tilt, precession and obliquity. Currently all these cycles are near their minimum for warming effect. Check out James Croll for a less obvious intro’ to this topic. Therefore the sun is NOT causing the increase in heat of Earth’s systems.

    Volcanism and large scale fires can put particulate matter into the atmosphere. Indeed these mechanisms have been recognised as having a suppression effect on rising temperatures, but not halted same. One unfortunate aspect of large scale boreal and tundra fires is that large quantities of dark matter is descending on Greenland etc, causing the surface to warm more rapidly with an acceleration in melt, above that already being caused by rising temperatures and reducing altitude of the surface layers.

    At the present, despite claims that CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas, GHGs are in charge of the climate, had it not been this way then it is most likely that we would have slipped into another ice age for by most metrics one is overdue. Further more it is most unlikely, that with BAU and the build up of heat in the oceans that another ice age will come upon us any time soon.

    This is not all from models (which BTW are based upon physics and the equations that underpin it) but from physics, observation and measurement.

  17. #17 Olaus Petri
    July 27, 2013

    The humble Dr. Humle has a DK-problem with Dana and Cook, and I don’t like it at all.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/26/john-and-dana-in-trouble-at-school-again-josh-232.html#comments

  18. #18 bill
    July 27, 2013

    Well, that was up to Josh’s usual hilarious standard.

    As was the drivel below it. Next.

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    July 27, 2013

    More correctly, I think that should read “model ensembles aren’t that great at modeling short term variability”.

    Yep, I didn’t state that very well. I wasn’t talking about reproducing the amount of variability we observe, but rather reproducing the actual short term (e.g. handful of years) trajectory that the climate system takes . I was trying to point out that if you expect a model to reliably reproduce the behaviour over short time scales then your expectations are (currently) unrealistic, and if you claim the models don’t provide some insight into longer term patterns – climate – on that basis then you’re indulging in a fallacy.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    July 27, 2013

    Just from Ecology Letters:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23800223

    A very worrying story indeed.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    July 27, 2013
  22. #22 BBD
    July 27, 2013

    @ #17 Olaus

    Will you please read the words instead of repeating yourself?

    On the previous page, in response to your comment re Mike Hulme (sp x 2 now – the dangers of cut’n’paste moronic spamming):

    @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.

    Now bugger off.

  23. #24 BBD
    July 27, 2013

    Sodding HTML.

    * * *

    @ el gordo, incessantly, above since last week.

    Try to understand the basics:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system.

    You are ignoring the increase in ocean heat content in the 0 – 2000m layer, which continues apace.

    The very real forcing from very real anthropogenic CO2 continues to cause an energetic imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and energy continues to accumulate in the climate system exactly as expected.

    Short-term variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface temperature increase.

    This is what we’ve seen since ~2001. AGW is not “falsified”. The laws of physics continue to operate as they have always done and always will. Sensitivity to 2xCO2 is still most likely to fall in the range ~2.5C – 3C.

    Please RTFLs.

    Thank you.

  24. #25 Lionel A
    July 27, 2013

    Oops! That should have been Ten Tors in my #15. Doh!

  25. #26 Bernard J.
    July 27, 2013

    Jeff, that Quintero and Wiens paper is both shocking and unsurprising. The difference between real and required rates of evolution is stark:

    We find that the rate of change observed among species is typically ~10 000–100 000 times slower than the expected rate of change from 2000 to 2100.

    I actually discussed this exact subject with some colleagues about 5 or 6 years ago, and I suggested precisely these orders of magnitude. Some agreed, and some thought that I was being too pesimistic. I wish now that I’d put money on it.

    If the methodology is demonstrated to be robust (and I see no immediate indication of discordance with other lines of evidence) then ecoclimatologically we’re still in the pre-ignition phase of a wildfire-magnitude conflagration of extinction.

  26. #27 BBD
    July 27, 2013

    And so Betty-John et al. can pretend that because the effects of CC are *only just beginning* to be felt, everything’s going to be okay.

    Which is, of course, physics denial.

  27. #28 Jeff Harvey
    July 27, 2013

    Yes, Bernard, its something that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have been pondering with respect to the combined effects of AGW and other anthropogenic stresses on complex adaptive systems. What I have been saying here over and over and over again is that the current rates of change, when placed against natural rates, is many more times rapid in terms of scale. Certainly species can and do adapt to changes of a certain magnitude, but the scenario unfolding in front of our eyes now is largely unprecedented in many millions of years at the very least. Species with longer generation times are lower fecundities are certainly much less able to adaptively respond to changes of the current magnitude. There will just not be enough random mutations and natural selection to respond to AGW and a suite of other human-induced changes across the biosphere. Its an unfolding catastrophe, but one that should be clearly able to predict. I have posted a number of studies in the literature reporting the negative effects of regional and local warming on species and species-interactions. The real problem here is that the deniers are not interested in science that they clearly do not understand. They are stuck in reverse with their limited understanding of nature and the environment.

    The new study is published in Ecology Letters, a journal just barely below the likes of Science and Nature. I have reviewed a number of papers for this journal (not this one, though) and its findings are indeed profoundly troubling. We are already well into the 6th great extinction event. and it will accelerate. The ultimate effects of this huge loss of species and genetically distinct populations on the stability and resilience of natural systems is hard to gauge, although it will not be positive for humanity, since as well well know by now our species critically depends on a range of conditions (‘ecosystem services’) that emerge from natural systems over variable spatial and temporal scales. These services permit humans to exist and persist (Levin, 1999) and yet we seem intent on hammering away at nature with the current slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere.

  28. #29 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    ‘Does the resulting graph look “flat” to you? (I guess it might – wasn’t it you that posted the 100+ year temperature record and claimed it “looked flat”, to much laughter from other readers?)’

    No, you must be confusing me with someone else. I’ve maintained that it was warm last century and our star was probably responsible.

  29. #30 el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    ‘You are ignoring the increase in ocean heat content in the 0 – 2000m layer, which continues apace.’

    I have little confidence in the theory that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans and one day it will return to cause havoc.

    SST indicate that its flat.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadSST2%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

  30. #31 BBD
    July 27, 2013

    el gordo

    I have little confidence in the theory that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans and one day it will return to cause havoc.

    You have nothing but an unsupported *opinion*. This is of course scientifically weightless. Get over yourself and look at the data and think.

    SST indicate that its flat.

    Basic error. SST ≠ OHC.

    Being stridently wrong and ill-informed isn’t the same as being sceptical.

  31. #32 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    No, you must be confusing me with someone else. I’ve maintained that it was warm last century and our star was probably responsible.

    No. Latter C20th warming cannot be attributed to solar variability.

    See for yourself.

  32. #33 bill
    July 28, 2013

    ‘It’s the Sun’ is frickin’ boring. No, it ain’t. Next.

    Incidentally, Web of Trust goes into full alert over that Amazonaws/Moyhu link. I assume that’s all from people unable to distinguish a host cloud from some of the content dumped on it!

  33. #34 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    Yes. False alarm. Nick Stokes/Moyhu is a safe site. NS is a well-known blogger.

  34. #35 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    A recent paper by Lassen and Thejll shows a connection between solar activity and sea ice in the Arctic.

    ‘…a persistent series of solar influenced millennial-scale variations, which include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, reflect a baseline of the centennial-scale cycles.

    ‘The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries.

    ‘The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.’

  35. #36 chek
    July 28, 2013

    It’d be interesting to know the provenence of how a 2005 report which conveniently has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about the current collapse of Arctic sea ice suddenly becomes the darling of the abjectly fuckwitted and terminally stupid like El Fatfuckhead here.

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    July 28, 2013

    It’d be interesting to know the provenence of how a 2005 report which conveniently has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about the current collapse of Arctic sea ice suddenly becomes the darling of the abjectly fuckwitted and terminally stupid like El Fatfuckhead here.

    Because it’s been recently touted in the denialosphere by all the usual suspects. Also note that it’s puffed up as “a paper” when as far as I can see it’s not published in any peer reviewed journal, and the GWPF even erroneously touts it as “recent” (unlike many of the others), suggesting that might be where el gordo got it from. (Scientific standards? Accurate dates? Who needs them when we need to find something that says what we want said?)

    For giggles, look it up in Google Scholar to see how many citations it has. One of them is a textbook where it’s cited for the reconstruction of historical ice conditions off Iceland. The other is a study of a specific polynya.

    Based on previous behaviour, el gordo doesn’t actually understand the paper nor how well it supports the extracts he quotes, let alone how much of an impact it’s had on the climate science – he just cuts and pastes it because it comes from his trusted sources and panders to his preconceptions. (These sources are presumably the same ones who lied to him about the lake at the North Pole – but they’re still trusted because they’re saying what he wants to hear, right?)

    Some brief discussion in comments here and at #54 and #55, for those so inclined. Warning for el gordo: contains some nuance and logic which might mean re-evaluating the claims made in that quote, and calls the paper out for apparently attempting to manufacture doubt.

    Or we could simply temporarily accept the paper’s overhyped claims at face value for the sake of argument, and note that the quote favoured of el gordo appears to imply that much of the recent Arctic ice decline is not due to natural causes, so is down to anthropogenic influences…which isn’t that far from mainstream scientific understanding. Welcome, el gordo!

  37. #38 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    ANDREW BOLT: ‘About climate change – well, let’s go into it. What I want to know is-’

    KEVIN RUDD: ‘I accept the science. It’s happening. Therefore we’re going to do something about it.’

    guffaw … the PM is brain dead, just like the clowns around here.

  38. #39 Lotharsson
    July 28, 2013

    …the PM is brain dead, just like the clowns around here.

    …says the guy who told us there was no pond at the North Pole this year.

    Teh Irony.

  39. #40 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    ‘…says the guy who told us there was no pond at the North Pole this year.’

    I admitted my error and thanked my associates here for setting me straight.

  40. #41 bill
    July 28, 2013

    The judgement of idiots

    Imagine having a PM who accepts what the BoM and CSIRO are telling him, rather than what the bloviating, mouthbreathing, scarred-knuckle talkback rabble want him to believe!

    Yeah, just imagine that!

    Fuckwit. Sorry, that won’t do – make that ‘pointless fuckwit’.

    Do you ever get sick of yourself? Everyone else does…

  41. #42 bill
    July 28, 2013

    Seriously, I am so sick of you morons.

    Here’s a short IQ test for you -

    It is / is not part of the job description of the Australian Prime Minister to take into account what the CSIRO and BoM are telling him or her, and to act accordingly.

    What you have to do, muppet, is to strike out whichever word / phrase does not apply in the italicised section (that’s this bit.)

    It’s because the continent is veritable choked by blowhard pontifical cornucopian pseudo-conservative jackasses that we’re in significant danger of gaining a PM who’s too fucking thick to pass the above test, too. One of your own, in other words. Much joy may we all have of him…

  42. #43 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    The thing is, Abbott maybe just as thick. In which case I’ll be voting informal…

    A pox on both yer ‘ouses

  43. #44 rhwombat
    July 28, 2013

    Oh go back to your gruntback radio, Fatty.

  44. #45 Lotharsson
    July 28, 2013

    The thing is, Abbott maybe just as thick.

    Abbott is thick – or is pretending to be. Rudd isn’t thick in the first place (despite the pronouncements to that effect by various people ill-equipped to make that judgement, but nevertheless firmly convinced of their capacity to do so).

    This observation about Abott vs Rudd applies not only to climate science, but to a whole bunch of other areas – such as economics, which Abbott studied at tertiary level – where Abbott has said a lot of truly stupid things, hoping to (and generally succeeding at) misleading the gullible, the uninformed and the less intellectually equipped amongst us.

    (And FWIW neither Rudd nor Abbott is “my house”.)

  45. #46 Turboblocke
    July 28, 2013

    el gordo: easy for you to prove that it’s the sun wot dunnit… show a similar rise in surface temperatures on all the bodies in the Solar System. Oh but wait… there’s hasn’t been, so sorry you lose, thanks for playing.

  46. #48 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    el gordo

    Stop quoting irrelevant studies in an attempt to dodge the facts.

    I repeat: Latter C20th warming cannot be attributed to solar variability.

    I demonstrate this from the data. Now stop wittering and concede the point.

  47. #49 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    el gordo #47

    That link debunks the solar claim. Perhaps you should actually read it now.

  48. #50 Craig Thomas
    July 28, 2013

    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.

    When CO2 is suddenly increased from 280ppm to 400ppm, then *yes*, CO2 is right now the main driver for climate change.

    el gordo
    July 27, 2013

    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.

    The impact of that bright orb can be measured.
    It has been measured.
    And guess what? It hasn’t changed in any way that explains the current phase of global warming – global warming that is perfectly well explained by the sudden increase in CO2, by the way.

  49. #51 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    ‘That link debunks the solar claim. Perhaps you should actually read it now.’

    That’s why I put it up, its the warmist bible….praise the dog.

  50. #52 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    ‘When CO2 is suddenly increased from 280ppm to 400ppm, then *yes*, CO2 is right now the main driver for climate change.’

    The theory may have got some traction 16 years ago, but with temperatures flat and the high priests of the Klimatariat admitting they have a problem, perhaps you should consider your future.

  51. #53 el gordo
    July 28, 2013

    ‘And guess what?’

    Ha ha, that’s funny, you sound just like our supreme leader, who happens to be brain dead. Coincidence? I think not.

    You were on a good thing last century, with temperatures rising in tandem with increasing CO2, but now its a completely different ball game.

    Obviously if politicians continue to talk out of their arses you remain on safe ground, but in a couple of years the Chinese and Russian scientists say there will be a sharp cooling and AGW will be doomed.

    I can wait for that.

  52. #54 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    el gordo

    That’s why I put it up, its the warmist bible….praise the dog.

    Data denial.

    The theory may have got some traction 16 years ago, but with temperatures flat and the high priests of the Klimatariat admitting they have a problem

    Repeated msrepresentation. Read the words.

    Climate basics #1:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system.

    You cannot argue this topic until you understand the basics. Repeating debunked crap is not debate. Arguing from ignorance and by assertion are logical fallacies. At present, you aren’t saying anything at all.

  53. #55 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    but in a couple of years the Chinese and Russian scientists say there will be a sharp cooling and AGW will be doomed.

    Ideologues pontificating outside their fields aside, which Russian and Chinese climate scientists are making these claims?

  54. #56 chek
    July 28, 2013

    To the regulars here: is there any advantage to hoovering up the most cretinous morons available that I may not be aware of? Are the Kochs planning to use them as cannon fodder or landmine clearance or what?

  55. #57 chek
    July 28, 2013

    Lionel @ #15

    Is that from a hill or a cab to somewhere? As I recall the road is wooded and I can’t place the perspective. Looks bloody gorgeous though – I’d stand you a pint or three of Cornish for that view alone.

    Having said that, on the far side of that China clay mountain it looks barren as the Moon.

  56. #58 BBD
    July 28, 2013

    chek #56

    is there any advantage to hoovering up the most cretinous morons available that I may not be aware of?

    Never give a sucker an even break ;-)

  57. #60 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Odd about all that Arctic melt acceleration during this solar minimum…

    * * *

    Ideologues pontificating outside their fields aside, which Russian and Chinese climate scientists are making these claims?

  58. #61 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    And what about #48?

    el gordo

    Stop quoting irrelevant studies in an attempt to dodge the facts.

    I repeat: Latter C20th warming cannot be attributed to solar variability.

    I demonstrate this from the data. Now stop wittering and concede the point.”

    You were wrong. Please concede the point.

  59. #62 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    Zhen-Shan, L. and Xian, S. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95: 115-121.

  60. #63 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    There is a lag BBD.

  61. #64 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2013

    Zhen-Shan and Xian are from the genus “quasi-cycle finders”. Given a data set with a bit of noise you can generally find a few of these, even if the data set is artificial and you know it wasn’t composed from “quasi-periodic” cycles because you constructed it yourself.

    They find four quasi-cyclic components (each with wildly varying amplitude on each “cycle”) plus a “trend” (not linear). (See their Fig. 1. in the PDF here). One of the components they “find” has a period of about 60 years in a data set that is 121 years long! Another is “6-8 years” long, another is “3-4 years” long, and the fourth is “18-22 years” long. One of the components in Fig. 1 even skips an entire quasi-cycle. Furthermore, they do NOT find a quasi-cycle corresponding to the solar cycle of approximately 11 years – hmmmmmmmmm, I thought climate scientists said the solar cycle does have an impact?

    If alarm bells weren’t going off in your head already, they should be. They predict that these quasi-cycles will continue despite (a) having no underlying explanatory mechanism and (b) there being no obvious way to extrapolate the curves describing the quasi-cycles they “found” given that they vary in amplitude and period so much (and optionally skip the odd “cycle” altogether).

    (And it’s arguably worse than that – they appear to be trying to find out which of the quasi-cycles are most affected by CO2, and they use CO2 concentrations rather than the CO2 forcing which is logarithmic in CO2 concentrations. They clearly don’t even know basic climate science.)

    This quick review points out attributes that suggest that the journal that published it has low standards and suggested it was most likely a crap paper – and amusingly, since it’s been so beloved of “cooling is coming!” skeptics, all of their graphs stop at the year 2002 so they weren’t willing to show any predictions or even attach a range of outcomes! Nevertheless, el gordo is willing to hang his hat on their words…

  62. #65 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2013

    And speaking of curve-fitting exercises, one would be tempted to wonder what happens if one projects Zhen-Shan and Xian’s quasi-cycles backwards (similar to what is done here in Fig. 1). But conveniently, one can’t do that because they’re quasi-periodic and their amplitude is all over the place…

    El gordo, Bernard J has been looking for a denialist to bet against for quite some time. Perhaps you should take him up on his offer? I seem to recall that he was offering quite generous odds. Heck, in your case I’m tempted to get in on the action myself, seeing you put your faith in quasi-cycles with no identified mechanism rather than (say) Foster and Rahmstorf who removed most of the temperature impacts from some known causes.

    Interestingly, this comment in a Deltoid post that briefly touches on this paper points out that Bob Carter wouldn’t take a bet on cooling with odds that were in his favour if – as according to Bob Carter – temperature evolves as a random walk. It’s actually quite difficult to find a climate contrarian who will put their money where their mouth is, even if the odds are tilted in their favour. But they’re quite prepared to put the entire globe where their mouth is…

  63. #66 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2013

    BTW, el gordo’s link to a Russian news article says there are 11, 90 and 200 year solar cycles. (No references to papers though – perhaps too much to ask for a very light “news” piece.) His link to the Chinese scientists’ paper didn’t find any 11 year cycles (and their data set was too short to find the others).

    Yet he apparently believes both of them…

  64. #67 Craig Thomas
    July 29, 2013

    He also believs this, I guess:

    The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%.

    It’s pretty good that these Russians have discovered the cause of the massive ice-age the Earth enters every 200 years, don’t you think?

  65. #68 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    Thanks for that critique Loth, I’m taking it onboard.

    Craig its less a ‘massive ice age’ and more a mini ice age which, all things being equal, should begin soon.

  66. #69 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘Bernard J has been looking for a denialist to bet against for quite some time.’

    A prominent member of the Denialati has a guest post at Watts, so we could bet on a rerun of the Dalton.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image31.png

  67. #70 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%.’

    The mechanism is not well understood, but they are aware that the sea ice around Iceland lingers in times when the solar cycle length is longer.

  68. #71 Craig Thomas
    July 29, 2013

    “a re-run of the Dalton”

    El Gordo is such a whizz at all this that he doesn’t need to call it “the Dalton Minimum”.

    And he is valiantly kidding himself that variations in sunspot activity will somehow magic-away the energy imbalance caused by the CO2-enhanced greenhouse effect.

    Craig its less a ‘massive ice age’ and more a mini ice age which, all things being equal, should begin soon.

    Interesting that El Gordo rejects physics and observations, but chooses to believe in a model that projects into the future a pattern of natural variation for which there is no evidence in the past.
    If your buddy “Dalton” is a pattern, where is that pattern? Nobody else can see it.

    The mechanism is not well understood, but they are aware that the sea ice around Iceland lingers in times when the solar cycle length is longer.

    You will need to correct the above statement: the “mechanism” is entirely un-posited, owing to the fact that this weak correlation has not been translated through such positing into any suggested mechanism explaining any possible causation.

    Interesting that El Gordo rejects the plain and factual physics explaining the observed global warming caused by CO2 increase in the atmosphere, and yet he is perfectly willing to imagine a non-existent mechanism behind something he read on the crank-blog run by a uni-dropout ex-weatherman.

  69. #72 Craig Thomas
    July 29, 2013

    Oh, and why El Gordo is dwelling on an 8-year-old meteorological report that has never been followed-up by any kind of published research owing to its rapid supercision by events involving the mass-melting of most of the Arctic sea ice is still a mystery.

    I guess, like fundamentalists who see the face of Jesus in their piece of toast, El Gordo thinks he can see evidence of the fairy-tale he believes in, and he desperately clings to any faint wisps of pseudo-substance that he imagines support this pathetic and addle-brained belief.

  70. #73 Jeff Harvey
    July 29, 2013

    The impact factor of the journal Fatty cites (by the Chinese authors) is 1.327 – very low indeed for a journal in the field of climate science and atmospheric physics. Its hardly surprising, then, that their paper ends up there.

    Note how deniers promote any studies – no matter how shoddy – that bolster their world views, and denigrate other research that appears in the most rigid journals that doesn’t. They’ve been doing this for years.

  71. #74 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘chooses to believe in a model that projects into the future’

    The AGW models have proved to be faulty.

  72. #75 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘willing to imagine a non-existent mechanism’

    Yes…

  73. #76 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘the most rigid journals’ are all pro AGW and suffer from groupthink. That’s why we have post normal science on the blogosphere, peer review CC science has lost its integrity.

  74. #77 bill
    July 29, 2013

    ‘integrity’? from the likes of you? that’s another irony meter exploded, then…

  75. #78 Jeff Harvey
    July 29, 2013

    ‘”The most rigid journals’ are all pro AGW and suffer from groupthink. That’s why we have post normal science on the blogosphere, peer review CC science has lost its integrity”.

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I have never read such bullshit in my entire life. Virtually all of these journals do not have editorial or institutional bias because they depend on peer-review. The vast majority of tenured scientists agree that humans are the primary agent responsible for the clear recent rapid warming trend, based on the empirical data.

    Probelm is, fatty, that the clowns you side with are not scientists for the most part, but idealogues. The sources you glean for most of your information have not got a shred of scientific integrity (in fact, most of them are set up by non-scientists). Their science is hardly ‘normal’; its more of a kindergarten variety.

  76. #79 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    el gordo

    There is a lag BBD.

    So explain the physical mechanism to me.

    OHC is rising now. How does TSI from several decades ago heat the ocean now?

    How does your “lag” actually work?

  77. #80 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    The mechanism is not well understood, but they are aware that the sea ice around Iceland lingers in times when the solar cycle length is longer.

    - Highly speculative

    - Even if true (which I doubt, btw) you are confusing a regional NH high-latitude effect with global climate change

    Yet another basic failure of comprehension of the mechanisms of physical climatology.

  78. #81 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Craig its less a ‘massive ice age’ and more a mini ice age which, all things being equal, should begin soon.

    And what if we attempt to quantify the effects of a Dalton-type solar minimum on global climate? Has anyone done so?

    Why yes, they have. See Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010):

    The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

    You don’t understand the relative magnitude of the changes in forcing. TSI change – even entering a minimum – is much, much smaller than the increasing forcing from GHGs.

    Another failure to grasp the basics of physical climatology.

    You are hopeless, you know.

  79. #82 adelady
    July 29, 2013

    they are aware that the sea ice around Iceland lingers in times when the solar cycle length is longer.

    Clearly that’s not now. The ice isn’t even bothering with Svalbard at the moment. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

  80. #83 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘The vast majority of tenured scientists agree that humans are the primary agent responsible for the clear recent rapid warming trend, based on the empirical data.’

    Last I heard 97% of scientists in the world believe in AGW.

  81. #84 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘you are confusing a regional NH high-latitude effect with global climate change’

    The LIA came on the heels of the MWP, when large icebergs began appearing in the north Atlantic around 1250 AD. In order for that to happen there would have needed to be a build up in mass balance during the earlier decades.

    Just sayin’

  82. #85 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘You are hopeless, you know.’

    Its hubris to imagine humanity can change global climate.

  83. #86 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘Ice in the ocean around Iceland has mostly arrived from afar.

    ‘It comes here from the Denmark strait, which connects the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean, between Iceland and Greenland. Sometimes the ice comes directly from north to the northeast corner of Iceland, but all the ice comes from the same source: the East-Greenland current which flows from the Arctic Ocean due south along the east coast of Greenland, passing northwest Iceland.

    ‘This great cold current transports a lot of ice southwards, both sea ice which is formed in sea water and ice bergs which break off from the glacier of Greenland.’

    Icelandic Met

  84. #87 bill
    July 29, 2013

    What a voluble moron you are!

  85. #88 el gordo
    July 29, 2013
  86. #89 bill
    July 29, 2013

    Empty vessels…

  87. #90 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2013

    Its hubris to imagine humanity can change global climate.

    No, it’s hubris to assert against evidence that humanity can not.

    Remember folks, it’s always projection.

  88. #91 Bernard J.
    July 29, 2013

    This lag thing is hilarious…

    How long does it take a hemisphere to cool on the annual seasonal tilt away from the sun?

    And these clowns think that the planet is warming merely from solar activity from decades ago.

    Imbeciles.

  89. #92 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    el gordo

    You are starting to fuck me off. First, although I demonstrated to you that TSI cannot be responsible for warming in the second half of the C20th you have still not admitted that you were wrong on this point, despite being asked twice.

    So admit your error, now, please.

    Second, you have simply skipped a very important follow-up question which you now oblige me to repeat:

    You claim – wrongly that there is a lag.

    So explain the physical mechanism to me.

    OHC is rising *now*. How does TSI from several decades ago heat the ocean *now*?

    How does your “lag” actually work?

    Answers please.

  90. #93 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    # 84

    You are confusing regional high latitude NH with global climate change and your comment does nothing to address – let alone dispel – this confusion.

  91. #94 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    el gordo

    Once again, you have produced a reference which undermines your own position (#88):

    Thus in order to explain a long-term cooling like the LIA, the volcanic eruptions must trigger certain feedback effects in order to extend their impact on the climate. Miller et al. ran transient climate model simulations and believe they have identified some of these possible feedbacks.

    First, the reduced incoming solar radiation due to the volcanic aerosols blocking sunlight allowed Arctic ice to expand. The Arctic ice expansion increases the overall reflectivity (albedo) of the Earth, causing it to cool further. The increase in Arctic sea ice in the north Atlantic Ocean also bring more cold and fresh water to the region, impacting the ocean circulation.

    If the LIA was triggered by positive ice-albedo feedback to negative aerosol forcing then what of today?

    Arctic ice and indeed the cryosphere as a whole is *shrinking rapidly* despite the decrease in solar output.

    How can a renewed NH cooling begin now, given these conditions? Please explain the physical mechanism with reference to Miller et al. – your own link.

    This I have to see.

    But first – #92.

  92. #95 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Bernard J #91

    And these clowns think that the planet is warming merely from solar activity from decades ago.

    Imbeciles.

    Data deniers. One only has to look.

  93. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    July 29, 2013

    He won’t explain his “lag” because there is no such thing – it’s a term bandied about by the crank ignoramuses and which has no meaning in the context in which they use it.

  94. #97 Stu
    July 29, 2013

    Its hubris to imagine humanity can change global climate.

    Ok, gordo, you are now on the same level as Rush Limbaugh. Time to pack it in, sweetheart.

  95. #98 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Its hubris to imagine humanity can change global climate.

    Physics denial.

    Are you a religious man, el gordo?

  96. #99 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    Hi Stu, it seems like years.

  97. #100 chek
    July 29, 2013

    Physics denial.

    These clowns don’t care because it means nothing to them. Having a robust science based understanding of the world is only of any importance for those with a rational disposition who understand the necessity of a consistent worldview.

    In the case of the clownshoe battalion, it’s merely any semi-plausible sounding old nonsense acting as a fig leaf for the red in tooth and claw corporate agenda they serve, whether as useful idiots or otherwise.

    Any old far-fetched possibility or ‘post-normal’ bollocks that doesn’t interfere with the fossil fuel industry is infinitely preferable, no matter how much of an obvious fantasy it may be, to any actual science that shows that BAU can no longer continue unregulated.

    Cook and Lewandowsky have embarked on an exploration of a madness beyond what they may have anticipated at the beginning.