July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Marco
    July 7, 2013

    Dave, if the presentation looked like this one:
    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/123722687/Skepticism-and-the-Climate-Change-Debate-Nick-Ware
    it is not *that* bad. A bit incoherent at places and likely wrong at others, but I have seen far worse.

    I see freddykaitroll has moved over here to peddle his false claim that Phil Jones hides which T stations are being used. I already showed him where he can find that information, but for some reason (well, we know which reason it is), freddykaitroll must see the matrix he demands, or someone is hiding the data. This is the type of idiots we are dealing with…

  2. #2 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Dave M – to get that dirty taste out of your mouth following the crank lecture, I’d recommend checking out the AGU Chapman lectures online here.

    That link goes to Richard Alley’s talk posted by Lionel @ #85, and there are several others in the sidebar including 20 minutes from Michael Mann on the hockey stick war.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    From this point on I think I will leave ‘The Red Queen’ in a Punch suite, aka freddy, stamping his feet in the corner and yelling seeing as he still cannot grasp that there are other manifestations of heat than that measured by thermometers.

    What an ill-bred he is.

  4. #4 Karen
    July 7, 2013

    Dave McRae
    ” I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen’s 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a “skeptics” lecture – it must’ve been a test – yet it was all about air temps,”

    Oh deary me David! Did they mention this part about Hanson’s

    “And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

    … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot.” …

    Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that man had to say after that deceptive tactic he used in 1988.

    The alarmist brigade are such a slimy gaggle.

  5. #5 Karen
    July 7, 2013

    July 7, 2013 Bill said

    “Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring… whoopeeee… nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again… everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!… medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron…”

    Is this your HOT MICROPHONE moment Bill? :)

  6. #6 Dave McRae
    July 7, 2013

    Thanks Marco – that’s much better – it probably was me being too precious. His presentation yesterday skipped Tyndall, and went from Keeling, and his son, (nepotism whistle?) to Hansen and the alarmed gentleman to his right.

    A similar talk, addressing the same issues, was given by Noami Oreskes 2006 – it so rocks http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459 and no mention of alarmed gentlemen in photographs

  7. #7 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    #82-84

    Myles Allen is not the most trustworthy source

    Dissing your own supporters now.

  8. #8 Karen
    July 7, 2013
  9. #10 Karen
    July 7, 2013

    Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

    ht. flaccid Bill :)

  10. #11 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    Dissing your own supporters now.

    You never did show evidence of grasping the concept of context did you Rednoise.

  11. #12 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    And here we have an example of a previous known unknown:

    Antarctic flood produces ‘ice crater’.

    One way in which Antarctica can lose ice mass.

    Have the ostrich brigade ever explored the phase (equilibrium) diagram of water and appreciated how many types of ice there are? I very much doubt it.

  12. #13 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    Interesting paper published recently.
    Oh look what it says in the opening lines:

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

    Now what was that “meaning of hiatus” quoted earlier.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/new-paper-finds-in-retrospect-we.html

    The exert from the Nature Climate Change accompanying editorial neer the bottom of the post seems to sum it up quite well.

  13. #14 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Have the ostrich brigade ever explored the phase (equilibrium) diagram of water and appreciated how many types of ice there are? I very much doubt it.

    Doubt it? I’d guarantee it Lionel.

    Don’t forget we experience the full range of idiocy and dishonesty here.

    Take SpamKan here who isn’t even aware that from one week to the next we’re entering an ice age, then it is warming but it’s slowing, or she’s having a hiatus. It’s like expecting clarity from an epileptic goldfish with Alzheimer’s disease.

  14. #15 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Note to the trolls.

    I (and I’m sure others too) don’t click on links to trash denier blogs. If – and it’s a mighty big if – you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at.

    Thank you.

  15. #16 Marco
    July 7, 2013

    Karen, please provide evidence that ‘Hanson’ (we know him better as James E. Hansen) said:
    “What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot.”

    Since I know you cannot provide such evidence, because I know Hansen did not say that, I expect you to profusely apologise to Jim Hansen for telling porkies.

    You better also apologise to *us* for getting your information from Steve Goddard’s homepage. It’s insulting enough you come here and express all the nonsense you do, it’s even worse you just repeat Steve Goddard’s idiotic ramblings.

  16. #17 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    chek#13

    The “trash denier blog” you refer to does provide a link to the paywalled original source material where you can read the opening lines which go:

    Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period</blockquote.

    If you wern't such a Group 1 Alarmist Dingbat you might have been able to follow the links.

  17. #18 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Redarse @ #15

    ..and if you weren’t such an ignorant fuckwit you’d know that “near-surface temperature ” does not describe the climate system, being but one single metric, you hiatus-believing cretin.

  18. #19 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    Then there is Meehl et al 2011

    There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period).

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/abs/nclimate1229.html

    Then there is Kaufman et al 2011

    Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming ….

    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.short

    Only a Group 1 Alarmist Dingbat denies this hiatus.

  19. #20 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    For Cheks benefit, as he seems incapable of following links and would probably have difficulty making his own Mr Sprout Head, the take home quote from the Nature Climate Change Editorial is:

    This offers a plausible explanation for the onset of the warming slowdown, although further work is needed to understand relationships between upper ocean and surface temperatures, and the processes by which heat was buried below the surface. However, the lack of warming beyond 2004 is still not understood7. According to observations8, energy continues to be accumulated through the top of the atmosphere, but has not been taken up by the upper ocean. This leaves the deep ocean as the most likely destination, but this cannot be confirmed because the observational network is too sparse. There is therefore an urgent need for observations of the deep ocean, as well as continued monitoring of energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.

  20. #21 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    The “trash denier blog” you refer to does provide a link to the paywalled original source material where you can read the opening lines which go:

    So, why is it that you repeatedly fail to link to original sources yourself. Those sane thinkers around here would no more visit such trash denier blogs than jump in font of a bus.

    Just as a pointer to how the meme your are echoing is being broadcast a simple search reveals that it is being pushed by the likes of ClimateDespot, JunketScience, and of course WeUseWishfulThinking.

    That in short, tells us all we need to know and that is that information is being taken OUT OF CONTEXT and used for propaganda purposes rather than portraying the truth. As check points out in his #16.

    How much are Charles and David paying you to repeat this shite? If nothing then you are a fool twice over.

    Once again, go do some frigging homework.

  21. #22 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Commander Cheky and his Lost Planet Airheads….”The enemy is in the village, get the Marine Corpsman!”

    Brigadier General WMO…”The enemy is hurt?”

    Commander Cheky…”No, I might get hurt, we need the Marine Corpsman now!”

    Bigadier General WMO….”There’s no such thing as a Marine Corpsman, and how do you know the enemy is in the village?”

    Commander Cheky….”They look like the enemy!”… “Send us a backup of Airheads!”

    General WMO….“Distinguishing between natural villager variability and enemy-induced clothing change will require reconnaissance datasets that are more complete”

    Commander Cheky….”They look like the enemy, BOMB the Village!”

    General WMO….”Headquarters believes that it is not yet possible to attribute individual village activity to the enemy”

    Commander Cheky…”Denier! Bomb the village!”

    General WMO….Major General Stott, at our U.K. Headquarters agrees……” It is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to the enemy”. We need to wait for more information from Recon, “people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties”.

    Commander Cheky…”Fuck it! I’m BOMBING the village!”

    General WMO…”Are you denying headquarters Cheky?Cheky are you there? Come in Cheky! Check. Check. Cheky?”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehB1jSqMlKQ

  22. #23 Rednose
    uk
    July 7, 2013

    #19
    Because the sources are pay walled and you can’t read much of them.

    And you link to a site touting Group 1 alarmist propaganda crap

  23. #24 chek
    July 7, 2013

    ..and so it continues with the ignorati.

    Redarse travels back in time to a Nature editorial from June 2011, proving he either didn’t read or didn’t understand BBD’s linksa to Levitus et al or likely both, and doesn’t understand that surface temperatures are not the only heat entering the system. Which leaves with no explanation for the record ice melts of 2007 and 2012, or the catalogue of warmest years in the past decade he’s already been referred to.

    But then we now expect stupidity and refusal to inform themselves from deniers. Which brings us to Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula who still hasn’t grasped the point of conditional sentences and offers his redneck clown show by way of riposte.

    What a shower of thickos..

  24. #25 chek
    July 7, 2013

    And you link to a site touting Group 1 alarmist propaganda crap

    Skeptical Science, like Real Climate, is a site run by publishing scientists regerencing punlished science.
    There is precisely zero equivalence with your clownshoe sites Redarse. But your clownshoe denier sites successfully urge dimwits like you to regard them as the ‘enemy’. And because you’re so stupid, you comply.

    What a thicko.

  25. #26 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Skeptical Science, like Real Climate, is a site run by publishing scientists referencing published science.”

    Correcting my all-thumbs typing while eating an unco-operative overfull salad sandwich there.

  26. #27 Rednose
    uk
    July 7, 2013

    Enjoy

  27. #28 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    Now Wooden Top (@ #20) is behaving like a Jap on a remote island who doesn’t know the war is over, or all but over as far as The Science not being controversial, see:

    here and here and here.

  28. #29 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    Redarse travels back in time to a Nature editorial from June 2011

    Yes it seems main stream science has accepted the hiatus in the temperature record for years but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.

  29. #30 Bernard J.
    July 7, 2013

    Betula.

    Please answer my question about your remark concerning Peter Stott.

    I am keen to confirm your interpretation of Stott’s position on climate change.

  30. #31 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Yes it seems main stream science has accepted the hiatus in the temperature record for years but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.

    No – that’s an outdated editorial, not a study and as such doesn’t account for the events to which you’ve been referred many times now including the record Arctic melt of summer 2012. Where did that gigantic blast of heat to melt hundreds of gigatonnes of ice come from during your beloved ‘hiatus’. Answer – there is no hiatus.and energy entering the Earth’s system still exceeds energy radiated out.

    In the real world you don’t simply ignore what doesn’t fit your preconceptions. The 2012 Levitus et al paper does provide the explanation.

  31. #32 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.

    Dingbats, Rednoise?

    Here you are plonker here is reality as cited by Bill at #75, page 3. Take note of the explanations from working climate scientists.

    Also take note of those risking life and limb to collect data, e.g. at sea. That you could nay say the results from this hard, uncomfortable and dangerous work indicates what a disgrace you are. You are indeed beneath contempt. This applies to all the other trolls here.

  32. #33 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    CMDR Cheky and his Lost Planet Airheads at #13…

    “If – and it’s a mighty big if – you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at.”

    Did you hear that Deadeye? The CMDR is talking to you!

    Hopefully, you won’t have to be told again, like I told you at #86…..
    “unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant.”

  33. #34 chek
    July 7, 2013

    I linked to the actual WMO report

    We know Betty. It also became clear you couldn’t understand it without butchering all the inconvenient bits out of it thus simplifying it in terms your double-digit IQ could comprehend.

    That’s what’s been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren’t accepted.

  34. #35 turboblocke
    July 7, 2013

    Karen @ number 2 (no pun intended)
    You quote What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot

    And imply that it’s Hansen. But it wasn’t was it? So permit me to correct the rest of your post…

    Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that Karen had to say after that deceptive tactic (s)he used in 2.

    The denier brigade are such a slimy gaggle.

  35. #36 Bernard J.
    July 7, 2013

    Betula.

    You appear to have not noticed my post above reminding you of my earlier question regarding your comment about Peter Stott.

    Please clarify what you think Stott’s position is on the matter of climate change and extreme events.

  36. #37 Bernard J.
    July 7, 2013

    Congratulations Andy Murray.

    A well-deserved win.

  37. #38 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Berntard….

    “Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role”.

    “He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming.”

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hansen-study-extreme-weather-tied-to-climate-change-14760/

  38. #39 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    After denying the WMO and bombing the villages, CMDR Cheky of The Lost Planet Airheads plead his case to the WMO at his court martial……
    “That’s what’s been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren’t accepted.”

    Not wanting to let go of that thought process, the Cmdr (in typical unexplained fashion), then broke out in song…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8GwjFEnhqc

  39. #40 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) – two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.

    Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.

    You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!

    :-)

    The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references – thanks!

  40. #41 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Far too much skipping since last night.

    Rednoise – response please:

    Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.

    All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.

    Remember climate basic # 1:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system

    Make a note for future reference.

    * * *

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

    Thanks.

  41. #42 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    All denialist clowns, buffoons and freddy – come on!

    According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.

    The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:

    - 4.5C GAT

    - 6W/m^2 forcing

    So what’s back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?

    4.5 / 6 = ?

  42. #43 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Our friendly neighbourhood child denier mentor, Betty Bloop is now projecting so powerfully he’s gone into a feedback loop.
    Cover your ears, the implosion is imminent.

  43. #44 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Betty @ #36

    Stop repeating the same old crap which was dealt with on the previous page at # 78:

    And which you now oblige me to repeat, yet again, in full:

    * * *

    Why can’t you understand the words, Betty?

    There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating – with considerable supporting evidence – that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.

    It’s about the degree of fractional attribution.

    You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:

    While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

    Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.

    * * *

  44. #45 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    I don’t know what to say any more chek. Betty’s childish refusal to read the fucking words in the WMO report and indeed, elsewhere, amounts to solid evidence either for mental illness or a degree of blatant dishonesty I have rarely encountered.

  45. #46 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Bernard @#35
    A hard slog and no fluke.
    Tbh, I’m no tennis (or sports) fan myself, but I wish my mum who was could have lived to see it. It’d have made her day, so I’m pleased for him on her behalf..

  46. #47 chek
    July 7, 2013

    BBD, I know what you mean. I put it down to us witnessing the small print and even smaller minds of those interesting times the Chinese curse bestows.

  47. #48 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Bertard @ 35 and Cmdr Cheky @44…

    The totality of CO2 emitted by such events….a tragedy.

  48. #49 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that “winning” an “argument” about “hiatus” actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next – referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).

    Let’s read the abstract in full:

    Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

    This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?

    Idiot.

    * * *

    And Rednoise, your preferred source, the Hockey Schtick blogger, is a liar. First, he blatantly misrepresents Guemas et al., then repeats a debunked denialist lie (twice):

    Close examination of the paper, however, reveals that the model used by the authors only predicted a slowdown for up to 5 years, not the complete lack of warming for the past 16+ years.

    The lie debunked (for the nth time):

    UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 – present; monthly means; common 1981 – 2010 baseline

    LOOK at the data.

    Why are you paying any attention to this liar, Rednoise? Are you a gullible prat?

  49. #50 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Eh – wrong graph at # 47. Should have been this one:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

  50. #51 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deaedeye Dickie..

    “Betty’s childish refusal to read the fucking words”

    Not only did I read them, I posted them.

  51. #52 chek
    July 7, 2013

    For fuck’s sake Betty, you may imagine that you’re some sort of intellectual sniper, far up the Eiffel Tower armed with a .50 cal., but what you’ve actually got is a potato gun with a 30ft range. The greatest danger you’ll ever present is jaw dislocation from yawning.

  52. #53 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    # 49

    Not like this you didn’t:

    While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

  53. #54 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    chek

    30 foot range? Let’s not get carried away.

  54. #55 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    What’s this “Deadeye Dickie” all about? I don’t mind you playing around with my screen name, but I don’t understand this one at all.

  55. #56 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie @ 51 states:

    “Not like this you didn’t:”

    “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures”

    Meanwhile, at # 49 of page 3 I posted this….

    “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures”

    What’s the matter with you deadeye? High speed potato between the eyes?

  56. #57 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Not only did I read them, I posted them.

    We know Betty. Then you spent futile hours of your life attempting to rewrite them to comply with your extremely limited comprehension.

  57. #58 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    “What’s this “Deadeye Dickie” all about?”

    This question is proof you don’t read posts, you’re on automatic response…it’s all making sense now.

  58. #59 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Asking Betty to explain one of his proud *ahem* comic creations whether half-baked, unbaked or otherwise flat fails, would be like asking him to explain his point in being here. No, not his miserable existence itself, but at Deltoid.

  59. #60 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Only in response to my # 38 pointing out what a dishonest quote-miner you are.

    I can’t believe you just tried that on! You child, you.

  60. #61 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    # 58 was a reply to Betty’s absurd #54:

    Meanwhile, at # 49 of page 3 I posted this…</blockquote.

  61. #62 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    @ #56

    Fine, don’t explain the puerile joke.

  62. #63 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    “Then you spent futile hours of your life attempting to rewrite them to comply with your extremely limited comprehension”

    Yet, somehow, I understand what the words “not yet possible” mean…

  63. #64 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    But not “While”.

  64. #65 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Or:

    they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

    Reading comprehension issues seem to be commonplace amongst the contrarian fringe.

  65. #66 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    What you don’t understand, Betty – because you don’t want to – is that this is about quantifying fractional attribution.

    The scientific position is, yes, certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC, but quantifying the fractional attribution to CC is extremely difficult at present.

    Read the words – again.

  66. #67 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    “Only in response to my # 38 pointing out what a dishonest quote-miner you are”

    You really are sharp o’l deadeye, except you missed my picking apart the quote at # 55 on pg 2 (in response to Hardley) a full page before your #38…
    Only one of the reasons you are known as “Deadeye”…

    # 55 pg 2….

    Regarding extreme weather events…why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?

    1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

    Denying climate scientists that is.

    2. “they increasingly conclude
    that many recent events would have occurred
    in a different way”

    The same denying climate scientists…

    A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?

    B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?

    C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?

    3. “or would not have occurred
    at all – in the absence of climate change”…..yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

    4. “Distinguishing between natural climate
    variability and human-induced climate
    change will also require datasets that are
    more complete and long-term. A decade
    is the minimum possible timeframe for
    detecting temperature changes”

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and
    climate events requires an even longer
    timeframe because, by definition, these
    events do not occur frequently”

    In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend…. and unlike you, they admit it.

  67. #68 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye…

    What part of “not yet possible” do you not understand?

    Is it the “likelihood’ part? Likelihood – “a probability or chance of something”

    Or is it the “probably” part? Probably – “supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof”

    “presumption but not proof”….which brings us back to “not yet possible”.

    We’re not talking complicated stuff here Dickie.

  68. #69 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    I can’t understand it for you Betty.

  69. #70 chek
    July 7, 2013

    We’re not talking complicated stuff here

    No, we’re not, though it’s blatantly too complex for you Betty.
    What you, in your bovine witted way are trying to do is strip the statement down to:
    “climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    But what it actually says is (yet again)
    : “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change.

    There is a massive difference, and you’re incapable of spinning the WMO version to your chopped and altered preferred version.

  70. #71 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Although I have tried my best to *explain* it to you. See #62, #63 and #64.

    We are now going round in circles. Repeating your parsomatic doesn’t make it valid.

  71. #72 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    This is a tad surreal, chek.

  72. #73 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC”

    You do realize they never state the events are more common because of climate change don’t you? In fact, the words “are” and “common” aren’t even in the quote.

    They say there is a “likelihood” and they say “probably”….but they “believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    They continue their conclusion by explaining why it is “not yet possible”….

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”

    What do you believe the timeframe should be Dickie? Is 23 days too short?

  73. #74 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    “This is a tad surreal, chek”

    Your crutch?

  74. #75 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    No – that’s an outdated editorial

    The NCC editorial is Dated July 2013, maybe you ought to read it again. I know things move fast in climate science but not that fast. Chek and BBD have not got their sprout heads around the hiatus yet.

    This offers a plausible explanation for the onset of the warming slowdown, although further work is needed to understand relationships between upper ocean and surface temperatures, and the processes by which heat was buried below the surface. However, the lack of warming beyond 2004 is still not understood7. According to observations8, energy continues to be accumulated through the top of the atmosphere, but has not been taken up by the upper ocean. This leaves the deep ocean as the most likely destination, but this cannot be confirmed because the observational network is too sparse. There is therefore an urgent need for observations of the deep ocean, as well as continued monitoring of energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.

    #47

    Oh look, a hiatus in all these temperature records.
    Going up, now comming down

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.4/plot/uah/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.4/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/offset:-0.29/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/offset:-0.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend

    Acknowledged by most as needing some explaining, but not by BBD and Chek, both Group 1 Alarmist Dingbats.

  75. #76 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    You do realize they never state the events are more common because of climate change don’t you? In fact, the words “are” and “common” aren’t even in the quote.

    Let’s see:

    they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

  76. #77 chek
    July 7, 2013

    But they have occurred so it’s not a question of awaiting them.
    That WMO report is dated 2010, and there is ongoing effort to understand the exact mechanisms creating the events, not the events themselves generally which are already predicted by AGW theory.

    Grant Foster did a study of heatwaves in a warming system which is worth a read here.

    But not you Betty. It’s back to studying English as a second language, Chapter 9, understanding conditional sentences for you. Or perhaps More Dishonest Denial for Dishonest Deniers is more up your street.

  77. #78 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Tell you what Deadeye…you are going to believe what you want, no matter what the words say. What it boils down to is speculation that can’t be proved.

    Now, answer the question, regarding a timeframe… The WMO states… “Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”

    How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?

  78. #79 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    marco fuckwit, why are such an dishonest liar who tries to hide what phil jones was forced to admir in a public hearing, that he had deleted original raw temperature data from the eighties. this is one of the reasons why phil jones hides which temperature stations he had used to calculate his ridiculously flawed “land surface temperature”

    i have never heard if such a poor climate scoundrel like you who excuses every bad behavior of his peers regardless how inferior it is. FUCKWIT MORON

  79. #80 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Rednoise

    I’m still waiting for your response to this repeated question.

    By the way, you do understand why I call you Rednoise, I hope?

  80. #81 chek
    July 7, 2013

    How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?

    See the link to Foster’s study, then try and comprehend that the past is a resource. So, not the sit around and do nothing for thity years while business as usual proceeds that you’re eagerly interpreting it as.

  81. #82 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    What it boils down to is speculation that can’t be proved.

    I’ve asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

  82. #83 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    chek asshole: you excreted this “AGW theory”

    how often is it necessary to teach you stupid what a theory and what a hypothesis is,

    now listen again, chek arselick:

    AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory

    the AGW hypothesis is: “anthropogenic CO2 leads to an increase of the air temperature, as measured by thermometers 2 meters above the ground”. THAT’S IT, NOTHING ELSE

    your primitive hypothesis text cannot be mixed up with a theory, only plain idiots like you do this, real scientists not

  83. #84 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye at #80..

    Does this response mean you won’t answer my question at # 76?

  84. #85 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?

    For reasonably robust fractional attribution – a couple of decades or perhaps a climatology of 30 years. But this is essentially beside the point. Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn’t invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.

    Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.

  85. #86 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Betty, please don’t be so childishly evasive.

  86. #87 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Whatever, Freddy.

  87. #88 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.

    Read the fracking NCC editorial I have posted at least twice.

  88. #89 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    bbd asshole: you need some education: earth’s climate is principally affected by two factors, which you fuckin moron don’t like:

    1. THE SUN
    2. N2 and O2 which form 99% of the atmosphere
    3. WATER (clouds, water vapour, oceans)

    everything else including your shitty co2 is IRRELEVANT, did you hear: IRRELEVANT

    FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!

  89. #90 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    By the way, you do understand why I call you Rednoise, I hope?

    I cannot understand why someone who might have been quite bright at one time can now be such a sprout head.

  90. #91 Rednose
    UK
    July 7, 2013

    Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition

  91. #92 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “For reasonably robust fractional attribution – a couple of decades or perhaps a climatology of 30 years”

    So you’re saying you need more time to be sure. Agreed.

  92. #93 chek
    July 7, 2013

    Time goes in two directions Betty.

  93. #94 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Rednoise

    Read the fracking NCC editorial I have posted at least twice.

    Read my comments and the links they contain. BTW you haven’t mentioned your own hilarious self-sabotage with references earlier…

    :-)

    As for your #88, is that a yes, or a no?

  94. #95 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    And where’s the answer to the question?

    Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.

    All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.

    Remember climate basic # 1:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system

    Make a note for future reference.

    * * *

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

    Thanks.

  95. #96 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    So you’re saying you need more time to be sure.

    No Betty. That’s not what I said. Read the words again:

    Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn’t invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.

    Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.

  96. #97 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    @ # 87

    As ever, fred-fred, sayin’ it don’t make it so. Even with caps and fucks.

  97. #98 Lionel A
    July 7, 2013

    Woodentop, take this pointed out by check:

    But what it actually says is (yet again)
    : “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change.

    and then go watch the bell curve explanation bit at about 18:00 here: Extreme Weather. It ain’t that hard really for anyone with a modicum of science & maths under their belt.

    The harder AGW and CC get to refute the shriller becomes the bozo brigade.

  98. #99 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Or just look at the pretty picture.

  99. #100 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Betty, you haven’t responded to #80 yet.

    I’ve asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.