August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    August 18, 2013

    I was convinced, after reading their [Luke and Karen] comments, that we needn’t worry about the OHC.

    That’d be the “Karen” who doesn’t know the difference between heat and temperature (but then neither do you, eh Gordy?) and the Luke who ran out of substantiated argument by his second post.

    You’re a moron who mistakes cheap attitude and posturing (lol) for something of value, Gordon. Tsk, and at your age, too.

  2. #2 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Thanks, FrankD

    :-)

  3. #3 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    ‘cheap attitude and posturing (lol) for something of value’

    The irony burns.

  4. #4 chek
    August 18, 2013

    That’s not the irony burning Gordon, That’s the embarrassment of your self recognition

  5. #5 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    This NH winter is where the action is going to be, at the moment the upper Arctic temperatures are plummeting well below normal.

    It appears to be negative feedback.

  6. #6 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Early snow in Alaska, caused by a CAO.

    RAIN…HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT. AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH …..

    NOAA

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test…

    Argument by naked – and blatantly incorrect – assertions. (“The most basic test?” Seriously?)

    You really haven’t got a clue how to go about logical evidence-based argumentation, have you?

    As Hitchens says, your unsubstantiated crap can be dismissed without evidence – but has been treated far more kindly than that thus far.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    Why bother visiting [Nova] idiot goat-fucks – well Jo and Davey aren’t that dumb…

    Except that “dumb” is the wrong metric.

    IIRC “Davey” makes pretty serious errors on occasion, and then clings to them in the face of the rebuttal. But Jo is still worse.

    I have interacted directly with her at a number of sites where she made claims that (a) were fundamentally mistaken, and/or (b) did not require anything more than basic high school English comprehension to refute, due to the structure of the claim.

    In all cases she refused to admit her error, even when the error was plainly refuted by high school level English. And many of her regular commenters last time I looked, some of whom I used to discuss things with at various sites, have been even worse. This explains why I don’t bother with engaging her or her site any more. There’s simply no point arguing evidence and logic with people who repudiate both when they get in the way of their position. (Especially when Ms. Nova seems to make certain inconvenient comments disappear a la Mr. Watts.)

    And come to think of it, Jo and her commenter’s behaviour is much like your own performance here thus far. All of which may go some way to explaining why you spend so much time big-noting your own argument like a wannabe gangsta rapper, and so little taking care to comprehensibly make it and demonstrate that it is the best conclusion from the weight of all the evidence like a wannabe scientist.

    But hey, at least you impress the most gullible readers here like Karen and el gordo. That’s got to be good for your self esteem or something, right?

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    World temperatures have stabilised…

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    “Stabilised” implies that if nothing else changes, temperatures won’t change either. We have very strong evidence to the contrary despite strong attempts to deny or obfuscate it.

  10. #10 FrankD
    August 18, 2013

    Whats the BFD about Joanne Codling anyway? I don’t see any reason to care what she says any more than any of the hundreds of other blogs (denier and accepter) run by non-scientists.

    FFS, her “science background” consists of working for Questacon making liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets. She makes Willard Anthony look qualified…

    She is, in fact, the very epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, possessing the slightest of qualifications and consequently rating her abilities far beyond actuality.

  11. #11 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    “Stabilised” implies that if nothing else changes, temperatures won’t change either.’

    Climate stability is not a natural state, so I’m saying that global cooling will become evident in a couple of years.

    Whereas the warmist tipping point has come and gone.

  12. #12 el gordo
    August 18, 2013
  13. #13 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    …so I’m saying that global cooling will become evident in a couple of years.

    So you’re now saying that temperatures haven’t stabilised.

    Who wins when el gordo debates el gordo?

  14. #14 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Stabilised in the sense that temps are not going up or down, but obviously it cannot last forever.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    And Luke, el gordo repudiating evidence that gets in the way of his position, as he has repeatedly done and does again at #11 and #12 – is a perfect example of why it’s a waste of time to “engage” at Nova’s website with people who fail to actually engage with the full set of evidence.

    Imagine el gordo multiplied by 20 in a forum where the owners and moderators have the same cavalier disregard for inconvenient evidence and logic…

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    August 18, 2013

    Many of the newer posters here probably won’t recognise Luke from a number of years back. Five or six years ago he was a regular poster at Marohasy’s swamp in particular, and often confronted the more egregious deniers.

    Like Chek and Vince, I eventually stopped continually miring myself in Teh Stupidity of the more extreme denialist sites, but Luke seemed to be (bravely?) persisting. I wondered once or twice why he did so, and on several ocassions I thought that he seemed to be slipping, including once on a Deltoid thread:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/28/andrew-bolt-column-flooded-wit/comment-page-1/

    It seems now that Luke is exhibiting Stockholm syndrome. If one goes over to the swamp and looks at Luke Walker’s listed postings on the side-bar, it’s a pretty good indication of what happens when one lives for too long in the thrall of the Other Side. A bit like the conversion of innocents to foaming fanatics that occurred at that notorious prison in the Middle East…

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    You really are a clown BJ.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    …including once on a Deltoid thread:…

    Assuming it’s the same guy, then unfortunately he seems to have become worse in the meantime – and he was poor on that thread, being especially fond of binary thinking/excluding the middle, strawmen, ignoring valid rebuttals and the odd falsehood claimed as fact – as well as an outright quote mine.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    August 18, 2013

    You really are a clown BJ.

    Is that all you have Fatso?

    I’m underwhelmed.

  20. #20 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Luke has worked long and hard for the warmist cause and his quest at contrarian blogs has been time well spent.

    And I’ll being passing his name on to Denialati HQ as a candidate for debriefing the masses… after the tipping point.

  21. #21 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    What do you make of this?

    ‘While it remains difficult to explain how atmospheric heat generated by increasing atmospheric CO2 could migrate into deep oceans without corresponding increase in the heat content of upper 700 m, it is not impossible: warmer water can sink under colder (at temperatures above 4°C) if it is more saline and therefore denser.

    ‘If this happened locally, the actual migration could be missed (e.g. more saline and therefore denser water is sinking around Greenland – though there the case is that colder (but relatively less dense) water sinks under warmer (but relatively denser), all under 4°C.

    ‘But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.

    ‘So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2. According to my sources, deep oceans (below 2000 m) contain about 90% of biospheres’ CO2, so any putative warming of this region should release the amount of CO2 that is at least comparable to human emissions.

    ‘Assuming IPCC’s position that the past increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2 is predominantly due to human emissions, additional release from deep oceans should be clearly visible on the curve of changes in atmospheric concentration – yet it does not seem to be.’

    Mišo Alkalaj

  22. #22 Lionel A
    August 18, 2013

    What do you make of this?

    In a word, bullshit. In two words ‘waffling bullshit’.

    Considering Alkalaj’s promotion and quote here:
    Posts Tagged ‘Miso Alkalaj’
    Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud

    Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.

    Now look who is pushing this story none other than the O’ Sullivan who has compromised himself as seen here.

    Now look there at the company he is in, non other than the other qualification inflater Tim Ball, birds of a feather and all that.

    So why, instead of discovering more on how the Idsos are compromised by, at the best, conflicts of interest are you presenting more waffling shit from others of similar ilk?

    And, why is it you do not link to the original from which you drew that waffling piffle?

    Now where has Boris gone? Boris vanished just before Luke appeared, just saying, the styles are very different but…?

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    August 18, 2013

    You hit the nail on the head, Lionel. El Fatso’s ‘expert’ is another pseudo-scientific crank spewing out more nonsense – such as arguing that atmospheric increases in C02 are due to plants and not the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

    This argument is so utterly shallow that only the right wing blogs and usual suspects will pick up ion it. TallBloke is one of them – as expected.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    August 18, 2013

    gordolocks, from where did you get that quote?

    Entering various strings short enough for google to run properly fails to turn up anything other that your post above. What have you changed, messed with?

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2. According to my sources, deep oceans (below 2000 m) contain about 90% of biospheres’ CO2, so any putative warming of this region should release the amount of CO2 that is at least comparable to human emissions.

    At a minimum (and quite apart from what Lionel says):

    a) The evidence indicates that the oceans above 2000m are warming. He’s talking about the oceans below 2000m, and I don’t know if there’s reasonable evidence of warming there. I don’t recall seeing any.

    b) For his “90%” figure, I do not know whether he is conflating CO2 dissolved in deep ocean water with CO2 stored in other forms under deep ocean waters but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was. If he is, then his claims about the amount of CO2 that “should be” released are most likely suspect.

    c) the conclusion (“…so…”) in the quote does not follow from the rest of the quote. (No evidence, no calculations or modeling, certainly no confidence intervals, no peer reviewed publication.) Maybe he’s done all that elsewhere, and maybe it wasn’t promptly torn to shreds after publication in a suitable journal – but it’s certainly not found in your cut and paste.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    August 18, 2013

    The argument presented in the link in #22 relies on a head buried very deeply where the sun don’t shine. (But then most of us knew that already – the Dragon Slayers group is so cuckoo that most “skeptics” have tried to distance themselves from it.) It attacks one line of evidence out of half a dozen and acts as if the rest don’t exist and therefore don’t directly undermine its claim.

  27. #27 cohenite
    August 18, 2013

    I wondered where you’d gone luke. And EG. Very amusing.

  28. #28 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Hi cohenite, welcome.

  29. #29 chek
    August 18, 2013

    Aha, the Re-educators of the Masses are massing.
    Has their ever been so much misplaced fucking hubris since Ozymandias first popped down to his local Statues ‘ Я’ Us?

  30. #30 chek
    August 18, 2013

    That should of course be ‘there’, not ‘their’, .

  31. #31 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    *Love* the way our ex-sports writer refuses to answer direct questions that would require him to admit that his preferred source turns out to be fossil-fuel industry funded liars creating and disseminating misinformation on the Internet. Doggedly refuses. Refuses even to acknowledge that the question is being asked.

    The stench of dishonesty is choking, Gordy. You need to wash your little, lying soul with bleach.

  32. #32 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    ‘While it remains difficult to explain how atmospheric heat generated by increasing atmospheric CO2 could migrate into deep oceans without corresponding increase in the heat content of upper 700 m, it is not impossible: warmer water can sink under colder (at temperatures above 4°C) if it is more saline and therefore denser.

    Bollocks right from the off. This lying clown does not understand that wind-driven vertical transport is the mechanism. Ekman pumping down the Taylor Columns at the centres of sub-tropical gyres.

    Another stupid, ignorant clown.

  33. #33 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Climate stability is not a natural state, so I’m saying that global cooling will become evident in a couple of years.

    Mechanism? Globally, GHG forcing is increasing and will continue to do so. Explain your proposed mechanism for planetary cooling when a globalised forcing is steadily increasing.

    Saying stuff (especially idiotic, unphysical stuff) is not sufficient, Gordy. This is not the same as being a third-rate hack scribbling about football matches.

  34. #34 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Bernard J #16.

    Dear God, what happened to the man’s mind?

    Motorcycle accident? Drugs?

  35. #35 Lionel A
    August 18, 2013

    This lying clown does not understand that wind-driven vertical transport is the mechanism. Ekman pumping down the Taylor Columns at the centres of sub-tropical gyres.

    Indeed. And if he had bothered to read the suggested literature he would know this. Here is another suggestion gordolocks, this time a primer in Oceanography (quite a number of oceanographers have contributed to climate science David Archer for one) Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison. Of course reading does not equate to understanding with some.

  36. #36 Lionel A
    August 18, 2013

    And now for something a little different, for those interested in flying machines.

    Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter – AHS Sikorsky Prize Flight .

    Some very interesting looking engineering tricks in there, I am going to have to keep studying this. The drive is amazing, is that why the assistants are watching anxiously, waiting for a break which would cause loss of control and a crash?

    There is another aspect, hint repeated four times, that intrigues me much. What am I looking at and why?

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    August 18, 2013

    Speaking of amazing engineering, I can’t help but plug Theo Jansen’s Strandbeests:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html

  38. #38 chek
    August 18, 2013

    The distributed drive mechanism under the pedals maybe?
    Rigging that to synchronise the contra-rotating rotor pairs looks like a nightmare.

  39. #39 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Bernard J.

    Astonishing! And I had no idea. Wonderful.

    Need to watch the helicopter vid next quiete minute.

  40. #40 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Nope, too stupid to pass the Lionel Test!

  41. #41 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    I’m more interested in the latest, here’s Hansen et al on sensitivity and reference to the Eemian.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4846

  42. #42 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    A major greenhouse gas (water vapour) is in decline and I’m curious as to where it went?

    http://climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif

    A cooler world should be dryer …. just sayin’

  43. #43 Turboblocke
    August 18, 2013

    But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.

    ‘So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2.

    I’m not an expert, but surely that only holds true if the water is saturated with CO2 at a certain temperature and pressure.

  44. #44 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    #41 EG

    I’ve been linking that paper for your and others for quite some time now. Perhaps now you have found it on your own, you should read it. Even the abstract tells you this:

    Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous and implies a sensitivity in the upper part of the above range, i.e., 3-4{\deg}C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing.

    * * *

    Now you are off on the single-data-set fallacy with WV trends.

    You can’t do this. If you can be bothered to find out why, here’s an excellent primer:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/02/water-vapor-trends/

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/

    * * *

    Now, back to #31 and #33.

  45. #45 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    #43

    I’m more puzzled by the physical mechanism. How does CO2 get from the deep ocean below 2000m to the surface? Because this argument seems to require a wide-scale, near-instantaneous transport of waters from the deep ocean to the surface so that the CO2 can be released.

    Could this hypothesis be horse’s willy?

  46. #46 Stu
    August 18, 2013

    AND AGAIN, Gordo, simple question: what was the world population in the Eemian?

    FFS.

  47. #47 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Its nice to compare and contrast the influences before humanity because its unambiguous.

    ‘Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous…’

  48. #48 Stu
    August 18, 2013

    It is unambiguously irrelevant with what to do about climate change right now.

    Or are you saying you are perfectly fine with 4-6 billion people dying off due to climate change, as long as you can maintain your precious ideology?

  49. #49 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    There’s nothing sufficiently “ambiguous” about paleoclimate-derived estimates for S_ff to give deniers the slightest grounds for comfort. Read the study.

    * * *

    What about #31 and #33?

    Are we going to pretend that these open issues don’t exist just like we always do Gordy?

    That would be further evidence that you are in denial.

  50. #50 el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    Stu you are being highly alarmist with your global warming theories.

  51. #51 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    Gordy

    The argument that H13 advances is that the Cenozoic sensitivity estimates *support* the previous analysis in Hansen & Sato (2012).

    You blanked this earlier even though I summarised the basis for the estimate for you at the time. Here, again, is that summary:

    Since I know you have a horror of reading the primary literature (shared by most deniers) here’s the TLDR on H&S12:

    LGM and Holocene are considered two distinct, quasi-equilibrium climate states.

    Global average temperature difference is estimated to be ~5C.

    Radiative forcing difference between LGM and Holocene estimated as ~6.5W/m^2.

    So S to a ~1W/m^2 change in forcing = ~0.75C.

    S to a ~4W/m^2 change in forcing (from 2xCO2 and a dash of CH4) = 3C.

    Bingo!

    Hint – when S is calculated properly from fully-resolved paleoclimate change, you always end up around 3C. This applies right across the Cenozoic (65Ma – present), so best learn to live with it!

    * * *

    Shall we save ourselves the trouble of pretending that you are ever going to use the bleach?

  52. #52 cohenite
    August 18, 2013

    “Ekman pumping”.

    That requires an increase in wind variability and an increase in the ocean skin temperature. Neither are happening.

  53. #53 BBD
    August 18, 2013

    It requires an increase in zonal wind speed and has nothing to do with skin temperature.

  54. #55 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    You are confusing two different things.

    1/ The rate at which the ocean cools is inhibited by the reduction of the thermal gradient across the skin layer. Yes.

    2/ The mechanisms by which the retained energy is mixed downwards.

  55. #56 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    cohenite

    I sense confusion but much as I would enjoy exploring this I am going to bed because it’s 1:25am here in the UK and tomorrow it’s my son’s sixth birthday and I need to be capable of dealing with all that this entails.

    TBC by all means, but signing off for now.

  56. #57 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Gordy

    What about #31 and #33?

  57. #58 cohenite
    August 19, 2013

    The issue is interesting. Trenberth’s paper got the ball rolling:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

    Spencer does an interesting analysis:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/

  58. #59 Craig Thomas
    August 19, 2013

    Roy Spencer, the creationist, “does an interesting analysis”?

    BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA – did a gust of wind just blow your sceptical hat off?

  59. #60 rhwombat
    King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    August 19, 2013

    Ah. Cohenite – Anthony Cox of Newcastle, NSW & well paid acolyte of Big Coal. Well, the slugs are coming out to play aren’t they. How did your sponsoring of Monckton last little outing go? Oh that’s right: publicly pwnd by students (again) in your home town – his Lordship was most upset (how unusual). Still, have to keep drip feeding fertiliser to the plants. I see you know Luke & Fatso – now there’s a surprise.

    All of you keep arguing that there is no elephant in the room – it’s just an large, elephant-shaped pile of imaginary elephant dung that has the look, sound, smell, feel and taste (!) of elephant, put there to confuse the other occupants of the room (elephant-hunters all) by evil socialist scientists, and anyway if you ignore it, it will go away, and it’s getting smaller if you look the other way, and even if it’s not getting smaller, it’s not getting bigger as fast as we said it would, which means that it isn’t really there, and we are evil anti-capitalist communist, socialist, greenish-red dirty scientific hippies if we say it is, and, anyway, Daddy’s friend Rupert says shut up, and….

  60. #61 Craig Thomas
    August 19, 2013

    El Gordo provides a link from “climate4you.com” which pruports to show decreasing humidity over time.

    Naturally, being sceptical, I asked myself whether that secondary source was reliable. The graph seems curiously devoid of any information as to the provenance of its data.

    So I thought I would try to find a primary source, and here is a link that addresses the same thing as “climate4you.com”, but unlike “climate4you”, it actually also provides references to reputable published work.

    http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-humidity

    Amazingly (or perhaps not, given El Gordo’s track record), the random blog quoted by El Gordo is apparently trying to tell us something that is 180 degrees from what the facts are telling us.

    Change Over Time

    While from year to year specific humidity fluctuates greatly over time, scientists have measured a significant increase in specific humidity over the Earth’s surface, which is consistent with the long-term warming trend in our planet’s average surface temperature. Since 1973, it’s been getting more moist by roughly 0.1 grams of water vapor per kilogram of air per decade.

    graph of land and ocean humidity anomalies

    Annual specific humidity since 1971 compared to the 1979-2003 average (dashed line) over land (brown line) and ocean (green line). Earth has become more humid in recent decades. Based on direct humidity observations made since the early 1970s. Graph adapted from Figure 2.10 in the 2012 BAMS State of the Climate report.

    References

    Willett, K. M., D. I. Berry, and A. Simmons: 2013: [Hydrological cycle] Surface humidity [in “State of the Climate in 2012”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94 (8), S11–S12.

    Willett, K. M., et al. (2013). HadISDH: an updateable land surface specific humidity product for climate monitoring. Climate of the Past, 9(2), 657–677. doi:10.5194/cp-9-657-2013

    Simmons, A. J., K. M. Willett, P. D. Jones, P. W. Thorne, and D. P. Dee, 2010: Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational datasets. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012442.

    The thing is – despite knowing that it is safe to assume that any assertion of purported fact provided by El Gordo is incorrect, it probably takes him about 10 seconds to cut and paste his latest lie, while it takes me several minutes to find data that proves his lie as such.

    This is what the denial lobby is all about: it takes them no time at all to lie, while the truth needs to be treated with far more care. And this is why reputation is so important: if an assertion is made by somebody like El Gordo who has a reputation for always telling lies, then we can save time checking his “facts” by simply assuming each new “fact” is just another lie.

  61. #62 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    That is good news Craig, nothing to worry about then.

    More importantly, south east Oz is experiencing a ‘big weather event’.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/satellite/

  62. #63 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    ‘I see you know Luke & Fatso – now there’s a surprise.’

    Judging by your colourful language, devoid of science, you must be part of the political wing of the warmista?

    Your lot is about to get rolled by a man who will scrap the fkn tax, dismantle the Klimatariat and stop subsidising renewables, so perhaps you should consider your future.

  63. #64 Craig Thomas
    August 19, 2013

    In fact, El Gordo would do well to ignore “climate4you.com”, which appears to be nothing but a crank blog full of dodgy graphs.

    He should instead concentrate on reading and understanding the basics, which he doesn’t appear to have done yet. With the basics under his belt, he could start writing comments that demonstrate a little understanding of the topic.

  64. #65 Craig Thomas
    August 19, 2013

    In fact, upon re-perusing El Gordo’s link about water column vapour, I notice some obvious discontinuities in the data – this indicates these graphs are almost certainly the product of measurements taken at a single location.

    Using a single location’s data as representative of a global phenomenon is particularly dishonest.

    Why are deniers so reliably caught out in this way?

  65. #66 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    From cohenite’s link…

    ‘To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith for even me to muster.’

    Roy Spencer is a luke warmer and doesn’t think the heat in the deep oceans will come back to haunt us. What do you think Craig?

  66. #67 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    ‘….this indicates these graphs are almost certainly the product of measurements taken at a single location.’

    Maybe, it would be a good catch if you are right.

  67. #68 Marco
    August 19, 2013

    Craig, climate4you is Ole Humlum’s blog. Humlum is known for being serially wrong, and despite claiming to be a scientist, showing a distinct inability to remove his personal biases from his analysis. His most hilarious attempt to be “scientific” was fitting a fifth-order polynomial to the temperature data, and concluding, well, nothing out of that fitting. An example:
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif

    Note that you can get a similar fit with a 4th order polynomial better fit with 6th and 7th orders, but I am afraid that in such cases the “downtick” at the end isn’t quite as pronounced…

  68. #69 Lotharsson
    August 19, 2013

    …the random blog quoted by El Gordo is apparently trying to tell us something that is 180 degrees from what the facts are telling us.

    Yes, this is the same random blog that Chameleon cited very early on in her career here. She took the critique of the quality of some of the material very badly, in particular the obvious attempts to bias the interpretations drawn by the reader whilst fluffing the reader to lead them to conclude they were (a) making unbiased interpretations and (b) competent to do so – and retreated to the usual set of fallacies and incoherencies to try and pretend otherwise.

  69. #70 Lotharsson
    August 19, 2013

    His most hilarious attempt to be “scientific” was fitting a fifth-order polynomial to the temperature data, and concluding, well, nothing out of that fitting.

    IIRC Spencer, Curtin and Humlum have all done this to at least one data set. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were others…

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    August 19, 2013

    el gordo
    August 18, 2013

    ‘have a think about it…?’

    They said at this stage its not possible to tell what’s going on… so they can’t make a prediction.

    I know we shouldn’t expect too much from a sports writer, but that is completely abysmal.

    “We don’t know so we can’t predict” is their statement.
    The implication is rather different.
    I see I’m going to have to spell it out for you, El Gordo:
    Being unable to predict with any kind of certainly how the Antarctic ice mass loss is going to proceed, the results of that ice mass loss are excluded from our predictions.
    Do you actually understand that implication, El Gordo?
    A component of the effects of global warming having a bearing on future sea level rise and been excluded from the current predictions, the IPCC predictions will necessarily understate the extent and the risks of future sea level rise.

    But thanks, El Gordo, for bringing to our attention that admission by the IPCC that the reality is worse than they state.

    And – oh how amusing – that once again, it turns out that your source contradicts your quite ignorant and thoughtless belief.

  71. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    August 19, 2013

    Roy Spencer is a luke warmer and doesn’t think the heat in the deep oceans will come back to haunt us. What do you think Craig?

    Roy Spencer is a creationist.

    Anybody relying on what he thinks would have to be completely stupid.

  72. #73 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    As I said last night – birthday party today. But I would just like to thank rhwombat for the insight at #60 and mention that Gordy et al are lying scum.

    How interesting that it all fits together. Thank you too, Gordy, for reminding us at #63 that for you, this is just about politics.

    Not physics.

    You dangerous, stupid, lying clown. If only you could understand what you are lying about.

  73. #74 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    And please – no more Spencer “analyses”.

  74. #75 Marco
    August 19, 2013

    For those who want to have some fun, I found a paper that references one of Humlum’s here:
    http://www.lifescienceglobal.com/images/Journal_articles/JBASV8N1A10-Rivera.pdf
    which claims it ain’t CO2, it’s all the obliquity!

    Now, it all looks like science (although that axial tilt claim lacks any reference), but it isn’t until the acknowledgements when the fun starts for real. Apparently, the tilting of the earth’s axis upon the 2004 earthquake and tsunami……..was a revelation!

  75. #76 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    No time to read, but clearly yarbles. Peak NH summer insolation was ~10ka; lagged response peak Holocene NH warmth ~6ka (precession main component). T and summer insolation falling ever since. The usual pig’s breakfast. Humlum no credibility anyway, just like Dr Roy PhD. Q: Why reference these people? A: Got nothing else. Desperate.

  76. #77 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Roy Spencer is a luke warmer and doesn’t think the heat in the deep oceans will come back to haunt us. What do you think Craig?

    Dr Roy PhD believes God won’t allow AGW to exist, so is effectively a religious crank as others have pointed out above and elsewhere many times.

    The argument does not require the deep heat to come back to haunt us – just for the rate of ocean heat uptake to fall very slightly to the pre-2000 level and strong tropospheric warming will resume.

    If the deep ocean heat never returns to the surface, how does this “lag” of yours work Gordy?

    Are you so dense/dishonest that you cannot see the total contradiction here?

    Are you?

    * * *

    #31

    #33

    Open issues.

  77. #78 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Dr Roy PhD:

    To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith for even me to muster.

    * * *

    Spencer is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance’s An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.

    He also sits on the Cornwall Alliance’s Board of Advisors.

    The Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming that Spencer endorses contains the following statements (emphasis added):

    WHAT WE BELIEVE

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    [...]

    WHAT WE DENY

    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as ‘admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory’. This is Spencer’s belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?

    How do we know Spencer is a signatory? Follow the link and scroll down to ‘scientists and medical doctors’. Spencer’s is the first name listed.

    There are other names of interest in the list of signatories. Two in particular stood out. They were Joseph D’Aleo and Ross McKitrick.

  78. #79 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Note use of the word “deny”.

    ;-)

  79. #80 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Spencer isn’t a scientist any more, Gordy.

  80. #81 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    Everyone knows Spencer is a creationist (dog botherers are pathetic), but his comment that it ‘requires too much faith for even me to muster’…. was meant as humorous self deprecation.

  81. #82 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    ‘Humlum is known for being serially wrong,’

    Here’s another example …. no hockey stick.

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

  82. #83 Chris W
    August 19, 2013

    Your lag el Gordo. How does your freakin’ LAG work??

    Stop your one-man circle jerk and answer BBD’s question. Us lurkers want to know.

  83. #84 el gordo
    August 19, 2013

    I explained my lag a number of times but nobody understood the mechanism, so I gave up.

    While we are on the subject, notice how the increase in humidity mimics SST.

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-23.png

    And I concede Craig appears to be right about increased humidity.

  84. #85 Chris W
    August 19, 2013

    Sorry Gordo I must have missed it. I can’t be arsed going back over 1800+ comments to find some nugget though – can you provide the page and comment number/s and I’ll go take a look?

  85. #86 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    You did NOT provide a physical mechanism you lying sack of shit. You have NEVER done so.

    Your dishonesty is an insult to other commenters.

    You have dug your own grave by wittering about the lag AND claiming that heat once in the oceans never re-emerges.

    Deal with your own shit.

  86. #87 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    And #31 and #33.

  87. #88 chek
    August 19, 2013

    no hockey stick

    Christ on a bike Gordon.
    You might like to educate yourself on what the ‘hockey stick’ refers to.
    Then you might understand why.
    Or you may well not, with your underwhelming knowledge of the subject.

  88. #89 Jeff Harvey
    August 19, 2013

    El Gordo will believe any pseudo-non-scientific garbage as long as it fits in with his pre-determined views on climate science. Humlum, C02 Science, Nova, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, WUWT, Junk Science, you name it, so long as it isn’t in a peer-reviewed journal.

    You’d think that science was being conducted through blogs alone. Most research institutes and universities don’t give these cranks the time of day. And these blogs also of course don’t perform scientific research – they merely selectively cite and distort published research. They overtly wear their hearts on their sleeves, and their clear bias is evidence that they are promoting hidden agendas that have little to do with the reality of AGW.

    That this isn’t obvious to fatso and his acolytes says a lot about them, too.

  89. #90 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    And I concede Craig appears to be right about increased humidity.

    Consistent with a warming atmosphere and also a potent GHG providing most of the amplifying (aka positive) feedback required for an S/2xCO2 of about 3C.

    See how it all starts to fit together Gordy?

    Why only the other day you discovered that GHGs acted as positive feedbacks to orbital forcing and played an important part in the mechanism of glacial terminations.

    Who knows where all this new knowledge might someday lead you?

  90. #91 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Hello Jeff.

    I hope the epic bike ride went off okay?

  91. #92 Lotharsson
    August 19, 2013

    …but nobody understood the mechanism…

    …for very good reason.

    You claimed there was a lag, but were vague on the detail other than heat going into the oceans when the sun is hot and coming out again when it’s not. But when it was pointed out that this cannot be accurate because it is inconsistent with the OHC evidence you simply pretended there was no problem with your “mechanism” – and continue to do so.

    This is dishonest or incompetent – or both.

  92. #93 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    Both.

  93. #94 Lionel A
    August 19, 2013

    If you don’t know about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) then here is a good place to start”, note the links at bottom of that page.

    Why is this important? That’s easy for it pays the organisations from which the numpty, or plain dishonest, brigade get their misinformation.

    H/T Climate Denial Crock of the Week and respondent Tatiana Makovkin. Notice the dead hand of omnologos playing the ‘conspiracy theory’ card.

  94. #95 Lionel A
    August 19, 2013

    Sorry for the late reply BBD [1] but I was studying those conical sort of basket weave but in reality strung like the spokes of a bicycle wheel which look to act as a combination of resting supports, drive shafts and shock-absorbers. I watched very closely at start and landing.

    There are gaps in the filming, which is from a number of filmed trials by the lack of continuity in clothing, and vital details are not easy to pick out.

    I am still looking. They must have tried very hard to keep static, dynamic and aerodynamic loads within tight parameters during construction of parts and assembly.

    The structure of the rotors reminds me of those microfilm model aircraft a school chum of mine used to make. Made his own microfilm by IIRC pouring acetone based dope onto model aircraft engine fuel with a wire surround at surface to catch a large enough area of film for the particular surface he was covering. These aircraft were necessarily flown indoors around a pole.

    Indeed chek, the drive mechanism is intriguing not being straightforward endless belt drives but spool collecting of a finite length of cord. One of the limits to endurance apart from fatigue of pilot and lateral drift. I recall seeing an earlier version where the pilot had hand cranks also, this crashed through lack of drift control which this later version overcomes by the pilot shifting his body CofG.

    [1] I am in the midst of sorting out my own private computer museum, started in 1985, and all the ‘puter books I have collected, I would love to find somebody who could use these books rather than tossing them in the skip.

  95. #96 Lionel A
    August 19, 2013

    BBD

    The stench of dishonesty is choking, Gordy. You need to wash your little, lying soul with bleach.

    Indeed it does and he admits he is one of the deniers, probably bought (see my ALEC post), with this:

    And I’ll being passing his name on to Denialati HQ as a candidate for debriefing the masses… after the tipping point.

    What tipping point would that be now gordolocks?

  96. #97 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    WRT the magic levitating bicycle video – aahh, I see now. Thanks for ending the mystery.

    * * *

    I have a suspicion (based on #60 and the familiarity with which Gordo greeted Cohenite) that Denialati HQ might perhaps be here.

    Perhaps a donation?

    http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/

  97. #98 Lionel A
    August 19, 2013

    BBD

    WRT a donation, I have approached by email but heard nothing, maybe its the holiday season.

    I once attended courses at Cherry Hinton, Acorn’s place.

    I have just found a PSU with the TANDY logo on it, probably for one of their modems. a pair of 28K8 Sportsters complete with PSUs and serial cables have just gone in the skip. Such a shame.

  98. #99 BBD
    August 19, 2013

    It *is* sad, and almost nothing remains of the “PC revolution”. I remember when all the IBM PCATs were junked (a London office C1989/90, I think) – I believe they are rare and valuable things now; collectibles. Even if this is not yet the case, it will be soon. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ring the museum. Emails sometimes disappear down the cracks.

  99. #100 Luke
    August 19, 2013

    Looks like my latest response to BBD got snipped. Good to see moderation is alive. was pretty abusive but he deserved it. Nah just kidding. But you guys love to dish it out.

    To Bernard J – nah it’s not Stockholm syndrome at all – I’m still arguing at Marohasy and doing drive-bys on Nova, Watts and some nicer discussions on Skeptical Science.

    What worries me is the quality of the debate. You have some smart guys here but on a inbred backwater. The tone is very dour – little humour, no tolerance, any serious exploration of issues like on most of the extreme partisan sites is nil. Exchange of views little.

    Nova at the moment has a post on an ice sheet collapse paper. A real live paper and sole torch bearer KR is trying to hold up the fight. Where are you guys?

    Cohenite dropped a scrorching tirade on sea level which you’d need a BBD bazooka to take down.

    The von Storch paper is a serious wakeup call. Fine if you want to deny yourselves out of it but there are enough stress cracks to indicate the science is far from settled. That does not mean that AGW is not a long term threat but we do have to redouble our efforts in the debate.

    Are you helping ? Or content in your safe little club beating up on intruders.