August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

    UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

    ‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

    “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

    The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

    UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

    Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

    Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

    Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

    (Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

    One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

    Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

    Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

    In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

    The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

    In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

    Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

    McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

    Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

    Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

    :) :) :) :) :)

  2. #2 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “Scientists are struggling to explain why global warming seems to have slowed down in the last decade in a leaked draft of the UN’s next big report on climate change.

    The intergovernmental study claims scientists are 95 per cent sure that humans are to blame for climate change, but presently they have not come up with a unified reason for why global surface temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 15 years.

    According to the unpublished draft document, scientists believe volcanic ash, less heat from the sun and more heat being absorbed by oceans could explain the mystery.

    Set for release in October 2014, the AR5 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includes a number of explanations for the slow-down in global warming.

    The Met Office told Fox News that while global temperatures rose quickly during the 1970s, the trend appears to have become flat during the last 15 years, with some parties claiming global warming has stopped all together.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-warming-slowed-Scientists-admit-dont-know-why.html#ixzz2ceXpJaal

    :) :) :) :) :)

  3. #3 Karen
    August 22, 2013
  4. #4 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    Looks like Karen is intent on proving BBD’s predictions correct…

    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

  5. #5 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    SNOWFALL closed a number of roads on the Australian West Coast today.

    http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1717153/snowfall-causes-road-closures/?cs=86

    :) :) :) :) :)

  6. #6 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-age-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

  7. #7 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘Lurkers also note: Lake Korttajarvi is not in England, or indeed the UK.’

    Thanx BBD I had to rush out on another job and …. my bad. You would make a good editor.

  8. #8 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “You would make a good editor.”

    Yeah………for the ipcc………lol

  9. #9 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Craig none of your offerings are anywhere near an answer to my question. And time series of couple of years with no errors bars are hardly convincing of anything.

    Karen – I have to say most of the experts on your list are appalling. Some are OK – but McLean – pullease…. have some decency.

  10. #10 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘Did anybody post a link to this?’

    Sir, sir…. I did and remember saying it was plausible.

  11. #11 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Luke, the same could be said for the other side of the coin, the dumbtoids will luv you for comment tho :)

  12. #12 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘…somebody who feels the need to invent qualifications is likely not a reliable conveyor of fact.’

    You mean like Boris and Wombat?

  13. #13 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Has anyone seen the flaccid old taxi driver around ?

    I fear that he may have eaten another semi decomposed crow again :)

  14. #14 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Luke what do you make of BJ’s link?

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

    They are disappearing the MWP with a consortium.

  15. #15 Craig Thomas
    August 22, 2013

    el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘…somebody who feels the need to invent qualifications is likely not a reliable conveyor of fact.’

    You mean like Boris and Wombat?

    No. I meant like Cox, Monckton, and McLean.

    Unreliable, the lot of them.

  16. #16 Craig Thomas
    August 22, 2013

    Karen
    August 22, 2013

    SNOWFALL closed a number of roads on the Australian West Coast today.

    http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1717153/snowfall-causes-road-closures/?cs=86

    Snow.
    In the middle of winter.
    At the point of Australia closest to Antarctica.

    Gee whiz, that’s almost completely unheard of.

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘Unreliable, the lot of them.’

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.

  18. #18 chameleon
    August 22, 2013

    That’s good Craig.
    Nothing unusual happening. It’s just weather blah blah blah. It does appear from the raw data of the last 15 to 17 years that you may have hit the nail on the head with that comment to Karen above.
    Its a pity for you lot that some of the CAGW media stars saw fit to use the opposite ‘not unusual’ weather events to try and argue their case.
    Your new friend Luke has asked some good questions and as he points out you have offered very little in the way of evidence based answers that contain updated data. Trotting out out-dated time series graphs using basic statistical methodology is something that you and Lotharrson sneered at further upthread in relation to Ove Humlum and Climate4You.

  19. #19 chameleon
    August 22, 2013

    Can I please ask that the moderators cease holding back my comments from some imaginary gaffe they falsely claimed I committed several months ago? I couldn’t have used a ‘sock’ because at the time I didn’t even know what a ‘sock’ was in the blogosphere. I have not broken any rules so this behaviour is now looking more like cowardice and spite. This does not create a good look folks.

  20. #20 Craig Thomas
    August 22, 2013

    I will admit el gordo is correct: the likes of Monckton, McLean and Cox are reliably wrong.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    August 22, 2013

    Karen
    August 22, 2013

    SNOWFALL closed a number of roads on the Australian [sic] West Coast today.

    http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1717153/snowfall-causes-road-closures/?cs=86

    Craig.

    Yes, KarenMackSunspot’s actually being a teeny little bit mendacious by saying “Australian” rather than “Tasmanian”.

    Waratah is in Tasmania, not mainland Australia as his post seems to imply, and July-August is the time of year that Tasmania usually experiences is heaviest snows. The thing is that this year’s snow fall has been paltry indeed compared with the regular dumpings of decades ago. Mt Wellington’s current dusting of icing-sugar is a sad shadow of the August blankets that it used to have in the past.

    We should thank KarenMackSunspot for drawing to everyone’s attention the fact that the signature of global warming is very clear in Tasmania’s climate.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    I started reading Karne’s list of alleged ‘ scientists’ who question SAGW and the first was a guy called Kenneth P. Green. This Kenneth P. Green is one and the same fellow in the employ of right wing corporate funded Fraser Institute in Canada.

    All Karen did here was (as usual) shoot her-him-itself in the foot. As I said yesterday, there’s hardly a notable denier out there who does not have some affiliation with a corporate think tank or lobbying group. Truth is, there are very, very few deniers with any kind of scientific pedigree at all. That’s why Karen and Fatso have repeatedly pasted up nonsense here from a bunch of clowns. They are forced to try and legitimize the views of those outside academia or on the academic fringe who tend to do very little (if any) science but who spend a lot of time writing on blogs. McClean, Humlum, Monckton, Green, and others who they regularly cite here all have appallingly bad or non-existant publishing records in the peer-reviewed journals.

    To repeat what i said yesterday, the broad scientific consensus over AGW and its potential harm to the natural and material economies is clearly illustrated by the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth verifies it. Every single one. No exceptions. And these prestigious bodies have based their views on the peer-reviewed literature in leading journals, not on the views of cranks and pseudo-intellectuals on the fringe. That leaves nobodies like Karen and Fatty scraping up the dregs of garbage from a slew of right wing think tanks and from cranks and trying tom package this spew as being sound science.

    Get a life Fatty. You too Karen. Or sign up t attend an international conference or workshop on climate and/or environmental science and learn something, instead of sitting behind your computer monitors and tapping out endless streams of gibberish.

  23. #23 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “the broad scientific consensus over AGW”

    Hi JeFfErY, there is one small little problemmmm sweety :)

    The climate is not doing what your team of experts have predicted, the proof is in the temperature gauge honey :)

  24. #24 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    poor old barnturd is constantly alarminising about his personally seeing agw up close and surrounding his hovel, here are the BOM’s history of the hick city that lies just a stones throw NE from the sty that he resides.
    Anyone can clearly see that by going all the way back to 1882 nothing has changed, maybe he should change his name to returd.

    Mean minimum temperature (°C) http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=094029&p_prim_element_index=8&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=

    and………

    Mean maximum temperature (°C) http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=094029&p_prim_element_index=0&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    August 22, 2013

    Funnily enough, BoM’s analysis of their own data is completely different from Karen’s:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=extremes-time-series&tQgraph=HN20&tQave_yr=0

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=time-series

    So, let’s ask ourselves – who is more likely to be correct?
    – a scientific organisation staffed with well-qualified individuals?
    – an anonymous, random crank on the internet?

    Sorry, Karen, you lose.

  26. #26 cohenite
    August 22, 2013

    Where’s the abominable snowball Earth man? Santa Claus has answered my email and sent back amazing facts.

  27. #27 chek
    August 22, 2013

    the proof is in the temperature gauge

    Spam – the notorious liar exposed above – thinks there’s only one temperature guage. lol.

  28. #28 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Vince the second link on temperature anomaly is interesting, accepted at face value, you can see the decline has already begun.

    Also, its easy to spot the ‘Great Climate Shift’ of 1976 and now, half a cycle on, we can expect cooling in the coming decade.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    Karen, The temperature gauge is doing exactly as has been predicted – and, more importantly, nature has been responding. If you bothered to get your head out of your rear orifice, you’d find a huge body of literature reporting changes in species distributions, voltinism, phenology, etc. in response to climate change, All of your fake posturing cannot trump this evidence which is indisputable.

    Moreover, there’s the little problem of scale. We’ve been over this many times before, but it clearly hasn’t sunk into your uneducated little noggin.

  30. #30 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “voltinism”

    hmmmm………I suspect that you have only recently leart that word JeFfErY

  31. #31 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    oooopsie daisy ………..”n”

  32. #32 cohenite
    August 22, 2013

    “The temperature gauge is doing exactly as has been predicted ”

    Not to mention the height gauge:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/the-looming-peril-of-global-talling

  33. #33 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Following on from previous discussion, the sea level anomaly at the time of the Oz wet. This from BoM.

    ‘Australian temperatures from late 2010 to mid-2012 were kept relatively cool by two major La Niña events and record high rainfall which gave rise to widespread flooding affecting much of the country.

    ‘The cooler conditions were a direct result of the high rainfall during these two years. Widespread, excess rain over the continent effectively acts like a large evaporative cooler, suppressing daytime temperatures in particular, while additional cloud cover also cools daytime temperatures, especially in summer.

    ‘The national mean temperature from September 2010 to August 2012 was 0.27 °C below the 1961–1990 average, while the rainfall was the highest on record with 1365 mm falling on Australia; against a 2-year average of just 930 mm.’

  34. #34 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    JeFfErY…………..

    You have steadfastly refused to demonstrate that the biotic responses to cc that are being noticed recently are out of the norm.
    To me these apparent responses are insignificant, and without the opportunity to compare these to observations of the biota to prior planetary warmings what is the point?
    The world has warmed before JeFfErY

  35. #35 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “while the rainfall was the highest on record with 1365 mm falling on Australia; against a 2-year average of just 930 mm.”

    hmmmm…………….I doubt that the “rainfall was the highest on record”,

    OIne thing for sure is that none of the floods broke records.

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    When I look at Karen’s linked graph it doesn’t show any comparisons – just one year of data. So firstly, Karen has posted links that don’t support her arguments.

    When I (say) select the 1980-2010 30 year average it shows me a comparison in a table at the bottom with the full data set average. That comparison shows that 30 year period was distinctly warmer than the average over the full data set. So secondly, Karen has linked to a site that refutes her own argument.

    Clown trolling indeed.

  37. #37 chek
    August 22, 2013

    I suspect SpamKan is as bumbling and inept in everything else as in the long lasting clownshow here.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    Karen can’t seem to decide whether to go for “it’s not warming” or “Sure it’s warming, but …”. That internal debate could rage for years. It sure would be nice if she refrained from arguing with herself here until she figures out which position to plump for.

  39. #39 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    #34 Lotharsson………….nithe twy Lothy

  40. #40 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘…none of the floods broke records.’

    IThe rainfall was widespread.

  41. #41 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Noice satire from Wedd.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    Sheesh gordolocks! Don’t you bother reading anything that is inconvenient for your narrative indicated by this from your #50 page 23.

    Before which I had pointed you to this at my #10 page 23 and this sometime earlier at #40 page 21 .

    What’s up gordolocks having trouble keeping up thereby simply repeat the same ol’ garbage time and time again. If it were not for the way lurkers here can be informed by the citing of accurate sources aimed at you also then you would be a waste of space and not worth bothering with.

    Same goes for the other deadbeats here, you know who you are and so do we. Keep up the digging folks, it seems that it is already too late for you to climb out – pride, face or whatever. Hubris has been the downfall of empires and the one you are trying to prop up is falling into disrepair bit by bit.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    In England. Not *globally*.

    The trick Isdo’s site plays is to present a large array of local reconstructions all of which happened at different times.

    Indeed BBD, and it isn’t as if gordolocks has not been pointed at correctives about the Idso’s. Thus gordolocks is either a complete idiot or a completely corrupt lying idiot.

  44. #44 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    So BoM is no good?

  45. #45 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    I think it is about time that Timmy does something about the agw trollz and cranks festering this blog.

  46. #46 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “So BoM is no good?”

    snow good at all el,

    Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?

  47. #47 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    The climate is not doing what your team of experts have predicted, the proof is in the temperature gauge honey

    Which, Kraken, is completely undermined by all that melting ice globally. Tell me oh clever-cloggs how much heat does it take to change one gram of ice into water vis a vis raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Kelvin?

    Now think about what that means, and there is even more to this process than indicated by the above for the ice has to get to melting point first. Oh and whilst on it, what is another name for that point?

  48. #48 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    #38 el gordo

    Hey el, :)
    Do you know where BOM hide’s the historical yearly rainfall data, charts, graphs ect ?

    anyone ?

  49. #49 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    cox the fox WRT Wedd,

    Oh my, and AGW is caused by an increase in pirates!

  50. #50 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “hich, Kraken, is completely undermined by all that melting ice globally. ”

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Looks average to me sweetie :)

  51. #51 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    ‘Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?’

    I took a look and you appear to be correct. Its a disgrace.

  52. #52 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    “voltinism”

    hmmmm………I suspect that you have only recently leart that word JeFfErY

    Which silly quip indicates to me that you would be better off spending time education yourself about the numerous processes that go to make the natural world as we know it and less time regurgitating massive amounts of vacuous verbiage from tendentious blogs and denier/delayer owned or policed media organs. It isn’t as if over time you have not been made aware of remedial sources.

  53. #53 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    It might be here, Karen.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/

  54. #54 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Pulled this out to illustrate the rain was widespread and could have reduced sea level.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=percent&period=36month&area=nat

  55. #55 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    el, I would like to see a BOM historical yearly total rainfall chart, not something we need to know obviously.

    This chart indicates that Victoria has not had rainfall records broken recently,

    http://www.melbournewater.com.au/images/water_storages/Annual_Inflow_Chart_Hi-Res.gif

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    August 22, 2013

    KarenMackSunspot says:

    Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?

    Sometimes one wonders why these fools even try to pretend that they have a clue.

    These were easily found in about 15 seconds. They’re all worth reading to the end…

    http://www.southperisher.org.au/weather/chart/all/

    http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/mt-buller/historical-snowfall.html

    http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/thredbo-alpine-resort/historical-snowfall.html

    http://members.pcug.org.au/~terryg/Snowdepth.pdf

    http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow.html

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    August 22, 2013

    KarenMackSunspot says:

    Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?

    Sometimes one wonders why these fools even try to pretend that they have a clue.

    These were easily found in about 15 seconds. They’re all worth reading to the end…

    http://www.southperisher.org.au/weather/chart/all/

    http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/mt-buller/historical-snowfall.html

    [conitnued next post]

  58. #59 el gordo
    August 22, 2013

    Yes, but they are not BoM.

  59. #60 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “Yes, but they are not BoM.”

    Comprehension fail is a standard for barnturd.

  60. #61 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    It will be spring soon, barnturd will be screaming his puny lungs out that his apple tree has blossomed 33 seconds early………….lol

  61. #62 FrankD
    August 22, 2013

    Do you know where BOM hides the historical yearly rainfall data, charts, graphs ect ?

    anyone ?

    “Hidden” in plain sight. It took me two minutes to find what I think* Karen is asking for.
    Conclusion: Karen is too stupid to use the internet.

    * I say “think” because her burblings have become almost impenetrable, But I found historical maps covering Australia for each year back to 1900, and of course daily/monthly/annual data for individual stations is absurdly easy to find.

    Karen can’t manage to do something that is absurdly easy. News at 11:00….

  62. #63 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Well c’mon Frank, spit out a link yer nuffie

  63. #64 FrankD
    August 22, 2013

    A link to what, fucktard? Your question is so vague I would need to provide dozens of links to cover all possibilities.

    What exactly do you want? National, regional, single station? Daily, monthly, Annual?

    Ask a proper question and I’ll give you a proper answer.

    Oh, and feel free to ask nicely, fuckface. Who is doing who a favour?

  64. #65 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Australian

    National

    Total

    Historical

    Yearly

    Rainfall

    Thank you dear Francis :)

  65. #66 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    I hope I didn’t confuse you DeeDee by putting the big words out of order :)

  66. #67 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Can’t you find anybody to help Frank ?

  67. #68 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    sheeezzzzzzzzzz …….don’t ask barnturd…lol

  68. #69 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Luke

    Not only was your list a Gish Gallop, it was a GG of denialist misrepresentations and confusions. For example, can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe “contrarian” spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric “hot spot” is missing?

    Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova?

    Be sure to answer me on this point.

    Everything you *think* is a problem for the standard position simply isn’t – except in the clueless, confused, deluded world of denialism.

    Far from being “on my side” you have taken to megaphoning this denialist misinformation around the internet while claiming it represents fundamental problems with science you do not understand.

    Remember, I know you are essentially clueless because of our little chat a few days ago. So I know you are simply posturing while parroting rubbish gleaned from crank blogs.

    This is stupid, contemptible and dangerous. Far from being some brave seeker after truth you are a dupe now effectively shilling for the energy industry. FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.

  69. #70 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Gordy

    What about the Idsos and the fossil fuel-funded misinformation?

    Answer the question please.

  70. #71 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    cohenite

    Desperately emailing your chums for some help with the homework, eh? Well, you need all the help you can get.

    Why don’t you post whatever your handlers have provided you with and we’ll look it over?

    I’m going out now, so there’s no rush. You might even want to read the material and attempt to understand it before posting it up here.

  71. #72 FrankD
    August 22, 2013

    Gosh, I didn’t respond instantly, so Karen thinks I need help.

    Actually, watching “Vikings” is much more interesting that watching Karen wave her pathetic ignorance about.

    But since she asked, graphs start here. I’m sure even Karen can manage to work out how to increment them forward.

  72. #73 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    Frank………….snot there

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    August 22, 2013

    Comprehension fail is a standard for barnturd.

    Not really: the records are there. And there’s a reason why BoM doesn’t collect them.

    Do you know what it is?

  74. #75 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    no

  75. #76 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    drum roll for barnturd,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,…………………

  76. #77 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    That’s just great barnturd !!!!

    You have forgotten already

  77. #78 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – no matey – you had peer reviews publications from me and LOTS of them. Nobody has responded. And quite a lot NOT gleaned from denier sites.

    I now know that you’re clueless and can’t step up. Your ram-raid technique and bluster has left me utterly unimpressed.

    Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot. Ya gotta know it’s hurting. Nobody is going to publish a study showing the hotspot is missing – it’s core mantra – moreover Sherwood’s paper desperately try to run the uncertainty ruse to prove it exists. John Cook turned himself inside out on the hotspot. Frankly you have never looked into it.

    Energy industry – what shit – most of our prominent Aussie deniers are doing what they do coz they hate your guts or are just ornery mavericks. They think you’re a trillion dollar wasting watermelon greenie commie pinko. It’s ideological – you have to get beyond that.

    You ought be able to demolish my list in a workman like fashion. You can’t except to slag it off – this just shows how much of a devotee you are.

    You guys have no objectivity left here. And fancy barking about the end of the world when lots of the AGW ecological studies are the result of running a dodgy bunch of GCM runs with PLUS or MINUS effects (!?!?!) on equally dodgy species extinction models. End of world bullshit.

    It is your abject failure to indulge a mature debate that is stupid, contemptible and dangerous. If AGW is a hazard we need a massive improvement in science standards or the deniers will have a field day – if they have not already done so. Your devotion to authority is nauseating. Try thinking.

    I’m not shilling for the energy industry. In fact anything written on here counts a big fat ZERO in the serious policy mix. Nobody fucking cares a hoot what you guys think. It’s just a debating club. You’re not saving the world. It’s an enclave. A ghetto for those who who have signed on ideologically and switched their brains off.

  78. #79 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    Nobody is going to publish a study showing the hotspot is missing – it’s core mantra…

    Conspiratorial ideation?

    Check.

    Failure to understand how science works?

    Check.

    Failure to understand the hotspot is core physics (let alone core climate science), so anyone who shows it is missing is arguably in with a shot at a Nobel Prize?

    Check.

    Failure to understand the hotspot is independent of AGW, therefore using its presence or absence to cast doubt on AGW is fallacious?

    Check.

    Failure to understand that, given the above, if the hotspot isn’t unambiguously present in the data then the data itself is highly suspect?

    Check.

    Repeating all of this despite having had the errors in it pointed out here just recently?

    Check.

    Better trolls, please.

  79. #80 FrankD
    August 22, 2013

    Karen:

    historical yearly rainfall data, charts, graphs

    My link is to what Karen asked for – historical yearly rainfall data. If Karen did not get what she wanted, perhaps this is because she asked the wrong question.

    Me:

    Ask a proper question and I’ll give you a proper answer.

    If Karen cannot clearly articulate what she wants, that is hardly my problem. Anyway, Ragnar Lothbrok is paused and more interesting that this, so I’m checking out, but I’ll be back tomorrow to see if Karen managed to formulate a coherent and complete requirement. If she can manage that, I’m sure the BOM website can provide the information she thinks she wants.

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    (And while we’re at it, add blatant lies that “Nobody has responded.” to that list.)

  81. #82 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    Luke continues to write pure unadulturated garbage:

    “They think you’re a trillion dollar wasting watermelon greenie commie pinko. It’s ideological”

    Sure is. The far end of the political right who hate science are bastardizing it to bolster policies aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Hence why huge amounts of corporate money are being invested in third parties – public relations companies, think tanks and the internet – all aimed at downplaying the science and sowing doubt. And there’s a huge amount of evidence to back that up. The ‘greenie communist’ bullshit is conjured up out of thin air – no evidence at all. But its all you sordid lot have left.

  82. #83 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    Karen opines, “To me these apparent responses are insignificant”

    To YOU?!?!?!? OMG, yes, we do need better trolls. Who the hell are you to say whether these changes are significant or not? Gosh, you bolster your D-K credentials with every post. This kind of insidious logic is typical of you clowns. Species and populations are indeed showing responses to recent warming events, and in some cases – indeed many – the effects on the demographics and local abundance of these organisms are very negative and indeed therefore worrying. There are many examples of range contractions or declines in numbers associated with warming. And Karen, a complete non-expert, claims that in their view its insignificant. Un-be-lievable.

    As for voltinism, I do research on it in insects with multiple generations per year in relation to the ecology and phenology of their food plants. I have a paper just accepted in Journal of Animal Ecology on it and I am writing an invited paper on this (in part) in terms of landscape-level ecology. So yes, you dope, I know exactly what the term means. You clearly don’t.

  83. #84 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    I supose you missed this JeFfErY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo

  84. #85 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    “So yes, you dope, I know exactly what the term means. You clearly don’t.”

    I looked it up JeFfErY, it’s nice to see that you have elevated yourself from seal sperm collector, well done.

  85. #86 Karen
    August 22, 2013

    oh deary me, I forgot was dealing with Jeff so I thought I had better put the qwote & link together for him.

    “The ‘greenie communist’ bullshit is conjured up out of thin air”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    August 22, 2013

    What’s interesting about Luke’s hotspot confusion is that it seems to be practically identical to Jo Nova’s confusion. From memory she has near identical beliefs about it, also after repeated correction.

    And Luke is also shilling for traffic on behalf of Ms. Nova. It’s almost like he’s a Nova by proxy…

  87. #88 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Luke #78

    BBD – no matey – you had peer reviews publications from me and LOTS of them. Nobody has responded. And quite a lot NOT gleaned from denier sites.

    Either irrelevant or demonstrably misunderstood by you.

    It is your abject failure to indulge a mature debate that is stupid, contemptible and dangerous. If AGW is a hazard we need a massive improvement in science standards or the deniers will have a field day – if they have not already done so. Your devotion to authority is nauseating. Try thinking.

    There you go again. “The science isn’t trustworthy!” Denier meme number one. And a lie. And you parrot it. You are a tool in both senses and too stupid and arrogant to recognise the fact.

    Now, answer the fucking question you shifty little shit.

    can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe “contrarian” spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric “hot spot” is missing?

    Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova?

    Be sure to answer me on this point.

    Thought you’d dodge that one because it neatly illustrates the depth of your intellectual dishonesty.

    So, I repeat: FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.

  88. #89 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Lotharsson

    Yes – Luke has been completely fooled by JN. A pitiful spectacle.

  89. #90 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    It’s ideological – you have to get beyond that.

    I have. And what do we find? Vested corporate interest paying the fucking bills. You are all tools but too stupid and insane to recognise the fact. You are being used. God you people are so fucking naive.

  90. #91 chek
    August 22, 2013

    Lukle @ #78
    “I’m not too stupid to realise I’m shilling for the energy industry”.

    Fixed that for you, Luke. Much more accurate.

  91. #92 Berendaneke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD why you fucking stupid

    It’s ideological – you have to get beyond that. I have. And what do we find? Vested corporate interest paying the fucking bills. You are all tools but too stupid and insane to recognise the fact. You are being used. God you people are so fucking naive.

    not understand your text

  92. #93 Berendaneke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD, why weak?

    Now, answer the fucking question you shifty little shit. can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe “contrarian” spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric “hot spot” is missing? Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova? Be sure to answer me on this point. Thought you’d dodge that one because it neatly illustrates the depth of your intellectual dishonesty. So, I repeat: FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.

    not understand your text

  93. #94 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Fuck off, Boris-the-Freddy.

    If you can’t understand it, you are stupid.

  94. #95 turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?’

    Apparently the Met Office doesn’t either in the UK… at least a cursory glance failed to find it. But then again why would they? It’s just another form of precipitation.

  95. #96 turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    Trop-hot-spot: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

    I’m amazed that there are still people why deny that AGW is happening. Haven’t you got the message yet? That’s so passé, nowadays you’re supposed to be telling us that renewables don’t work.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    August 22, 2013

    Sudden nasty smell of wet socks around here.

  97. #98 Stu
    August 22, 2013

    Luke, sweetheart…

    you had peer reviews publications from me and LOTS of them.

    Obvious and stupid lie.

    Nobody has responded

    Obvious and stupid lie.

    And quite a lot NOT gleaned from denier sites.

    Obvious and stupid lie.

    You know we can go back and see what you originally said, don’t you cupcake? Who do you think you’re fooling? Does this pathetic amateur-hour claptrap actually work at Nova’s compost heap?

  98. #99 Stu
    August 22, 2013

    Obvious and stupid blockquote fail is obvious.

  99. #100 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – look at yourself – screaming. Rabies can be cured.

    The only reason you think those papers are irrelevant is because you are not very intelligent

    It’s apparent by now that you cannot answer these considerable flaws. You’ve been done like a dinner.

    Nobody here has a decent response. Only abuse.

    Turbo – Nova trashed and shat on Cook’s rebuttal. It’s piss weak and you my friend have not done your research. AGW may be happening but mate it not what the script says.

    Turbo – yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration. Gun the Thorium reactors. Unlike your fucking useless droning on – BraveNewClimate is on point with that years ago. The systems analysis on renewables has been done.

    Berendaneke – vested interest paying the bills – hahahahaha – AGW side on squadillion bucks (fucking massive eye watering amounts) versus evil energy industry/tobacco shills opposition – a few million. Really? Mavericks are doing it for free coz they hate your guts as pink commies in disguise and for pure sport.

    So Deltoids shilling for the UN – a little enclave of closet commies – living on the Deltoid atoll – well really it’s a leper colony isn’t it – cut off from the mainstream – where the inhabitants think they’re involved in changing policy or the world. You great big bunch of sookie wusses.

    You’re legends in your own imagination. Having Walter Mitty moments fighting the good fight. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Or best me and complete the sentence “The endless open threads on Deltoid are invaluable policy material because …………..”

    “In fact only the other day they changed the course of history because …………………………..”

    Sounds of crickets. Paint peeling on the verandah. Letterbox fallen over. The endless Deltoid open thread – the The Fawlty Towers of blogdom.

Current ye@r *