August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Oh and Nova only provided one of my points. But you’re all too fucking stupid to know that.

  2. #2 chek
    August 22, 2013

    Sad Luke lost it.
    All assertion and projection and no evidence – except that he’s shilling for Nova’s site, and Nova shills for Heartland, so it looks like that’s what Luke the Stupid does too. If only he knew.

  3. #3 Luke
    August 22, 2013

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

    At this point – put your Mum on Lotharsson.

  4. #4 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    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.
    Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all.
    One word response: Germany.

    Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45

  5. #5 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    chek – so you can’t answer my questions can you (if we can remember what thye were now after all this nonsense) – creating a diversion and a weak one is the best you can do.

    If she was shilling for Heartland I think she needs to up her rate and move into better digs. She’s simply a disaffected maverick and hubby obviously disillusioned by the Greenhouse Office stint. Having been endured some of their processes – I think for good reason.

    BTW I’ve only been banned at Novas about 3 times. My street creds are impeccable.

  6. #6 chek
    August 22, 2013

    Courtesy of Brer Eli

    Aside from The Rabetts selections, I chose this:
    “We face many daunting challenges as a society, and they won’t all be solved with more science and math education. But what has been lost is an understanding that science’s open-ended, evidence-based processes — rather than just its results — are essential to meeting those challenges.

    There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern. And meeting Frank’s challenges of the future isn’t going to come from confused, bandwagon cranks who don’t even know whose or what agenda is enabling their crank ideas

  7. #8 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    What a fucking twat you are, Luke.

  8. #9 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    And you didn’t answer the question.

  9. #10 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – I’m asking the questions not you – get back in line punk. You’ve had your turn.

  10. #11 chek
    August 22, 2013

    My street creds are impeccable.

    Your ‘creds’ are dependent on what you say, currently here, not your putative antics on some other crank blog.
    Which you then reference in support of your ‘arguments’.
    Can you see what’s wrong with that picture?

  11. #12 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    What you are is a third-rate Mosher impersonator. We – or at least I – have heard your schtick before, but done much better. SM at least knows what he’s talking about even though, like you, he is a crypto-denier.

    Psst! The science is broken! Psst!

    You are shilling for the energy industry but are simply too much of a plonker to see what you are doing. With hideous irony, you think you are being really clever. At least SM actually is clever.

  12. #13 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    #10

    You never answered my questions, so away and fuck yourself!

    ;-)

  13. #14 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Anyway, since you are being a knob-head, I will answer the question for you:

    There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.

    And you are parroting it. From this we can deduce that:

    – You are clueless

    – You are a denialist crank

    Squawk! Pieces of eight!

  14. #15 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Of course if there is no controversy and all you “experts” on here are so sure – you’ll note that Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems and John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville seem to be having a debate here
    http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/ as to why we can’t find the sucker !

    And if you’re confident after that – well adjust your tin foil hat. The science is settled – pigs bum it is.

    BTW – that’s what a science discussion looks like boy and girls. But I’m sure serious people would rather read here than over there. HAHAHAHAHAHA

  15. #16 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Sucked in BBD. You’ve been played like the rube you are. What a fucking flake.

  16. #17 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot [this is a lie]. Ya gotta know it’s hurting [this is a lie]. 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 [this is a lie]. Frankly you have never looked into it [this is a lie].

    (Emphasis added).

    Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.

    The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.

  17. #18 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.”

    I’m laughing so much I can hardly stand. Come in spinner.

  18. #19 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    John Christy. The man who, with Roy Spencer, fucked up the 2LT product so badly that UAH MSU atmospheric temperature reconstruction had to be completely withdrawn. For years it had been used to claim that there was no tropospheric warming. All that ended rather messily in 2005. Mears, oddly enough was co-author of the paper that brought UAH crashing down to Earth.

  19. #20 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Why are you laughing, Luke?

    There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.

    You look like a total prat now. A denialist crank prat.

  20. #21 chek
    August 22, 2013

    In one of those curious instances of serendipity that happen occasionally, while I was typing this @ #6: “There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern.”
    Luke was referring us in #7 to his go-to authority on renewables, blogger TonyOz, who tags his … erm … pieces thus:
    Tagged: Base Load power, Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Alarmism, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Conniving-Lying-Sneaky Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Infrastructure Problems, Leftists (In the USA aka as Liberals-Progressives), Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda,

    With those tags, actually reading the piece is pretty much superfluous.

  21. #22 Berendaneke
    August 22, 2013

    @Turnoblock, no understood

    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.
    Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all. One word response: Germany. Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45

    by the fuck: Germany kaput coz of renewsbles

    you, blok, also idiot.

  22. #23 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.”

    You lying little turd BBD. You’re so good at verballing you could get a job on many of our state police forces.

    Licence bedwetting warmists not guns.

    It’s the “The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science”

    http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=12839

  23. #24 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Sherwood is there you tool. Show us your buttocks BBD – know when you’re done mate. You’ve been ratfucked.

  24. #25 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    From Luke’s link at #15:

    [Steve Sherwood:]I agree with pretty much everything Carl says, and he’s gone into more detail than I did on the latest results. We agree that the data we have are basically not stable enough over time to distinguish whether a “hot spot” exists or not, or is as prominent as we would expect. We also agree that warming over the past couple of decades is running lower than nearly all CMIP5 models predict it should be, which is perhaps a more worthy “debate” topic and one that I think will get a lot of attention when the IPCC report comes out. The reasons for this are likely due to cooling influences that have not been applied to the models, such as the unprecedented recent solar minimum, the continuing rise in atmospheric aerosol concentrations and the decline in stratospheric water vapour. To some extent it may also be a chance fluctuation that will go the other way in a few years. Finally, it may signal a somewhat low climate sensitivity–but a sensitivity low enough to make global warming cease to be a problem is basically ruled out by other evidence, particularly palaeoclimate evidence.

  25. #26 Berendaneke
    August 22, 2013

    @czek: why you crank

    There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern. And meeting Frank’s challenges of the future isn’t going to come from confused, bandwagon cranks who don’t even know whose or what agenda is enabling their crank ideas

    why u are crank. czek?

  26. #27 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    No Luke.

    You have been ratfucked. Again.

    You are a denialist crank. I didn’t “verbal” you. I quoted you. And for calling me a liar and implying that I misquoted you, I am going to do it again:

    Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot [this is a lie]. Ya gotta know it’s hurting [this is a lie]. 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 [this is a lie]. Frankly you have never looked into it [this is a lie].

    (Emphasis added).

    Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.

    The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.

  27. #28 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Let’s see it again for BBD

    http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/

    Sherwood, Mears, Christy

    a debate – July 2013

    BBD mate – you’re gone. You’re done. Lie down or be fucked up some more.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Oh I enjoyed that.

  28. #29 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD can’t minimally defend the AGW position. He’s failed in his duty of care to this blog. Now off with thee BBD. Get off the blog. You’ve misled your merry men here for too long. You are banished to the bit bucket.

  29. #30 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I’ve read Kellow. I wonder if you have.

    Top of Page 146:

    “BGH in milk, and thus [...]”

    Carry on for a few words, please, Luke.

  30. #31 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Luke

    Is your browser working correctly. Mears doesn’t support your crank shite from Nova. Read the words.

    And you can’t unwrite this, so you are a denialist crank:

    Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot [this is a lie]. Ya gotta know it’s hurting [this is a lie]. 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 [this is a lie]. Frankly you have never looked into it [this is a lie].

    (Emphasis added).

  31. #32 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    Climate dialogue? Yup, another denier site run by the usual (in this case Dutch) suspects. Living in Holland, I am all too aware of these people and their methods.

    Luke, methinks you need to seek some form of medical help for your Stockholm Syndrome affliction as described by Bernard. Like other crank deniers on this weblog, you also suffer from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome big time.

  32. #33 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Christy has zero credibility (see #19 and all his other public lies and misrepresentations over the years). Mears and Sherwood don’t agree with Christy.

    WTF you linked to that article evades me. Another case of not having read or understood the reference.

    And now you are blustering desperately because it has whipped round and bitten you on the arse.

  33. #34 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.

  34. #35 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    The unmistakable sound of Teh Stupid braying to itself.

  35. #36 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    But you’ve assured me there is no debate. Why is there a debate. Why is Sherwood and Mears debating Christy. Why are the discussing that the obs doesn’t match the models and what is wrong with the theory. WHY WHY WHY !

    You’re done BBD – lie down and stay down you utter fraud. You’re a witless fraud and you know it. I spit on your whole thesis – your whole intellectual approach is non-science – morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    It’s post-modernist virtual science for those who think “they’re saving the world”.

  36. #37 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    We can all imagine Luke desperately emailing his crank chums asking someone to help out with the Kellow quote…

    :-)

    Time’s up, Luke old chap!

    Caught you bluffing again, you little lying fucker!

  37. #38 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    No, you lying, bluffing, clueless arsehole.

    No.

    You have just been destroyed again. And you carry on as if nothing happened.

    No.

    I spit on your whole thesis

    You can do what you like, but you remain lying denialist scum and absolutely everybody can see that.

    You have nothing left to offer here. You are the one who needs to fold up your chair and leave.

  38. #39 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    Luke: You really misrepresented Real Climate didn’t you?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    PS “Mispresent” is British for “telling porkies”.

  39. #40 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    But you’ve assured me there is no debate. Why is there a debate. Why is Sherwood and Mears debating Christy. Why are the discussing that the obs doesn’t match the models and what is wrong with the theory. WHY WHY WHY !

    You haven’t actually read it, have you? Or you really didn’t understand what Mears and Sherwood were saying.

    Bluffing or stupid, possibly both.

  40. #41 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Jeff – well thank heavens for fortress Deltoid – thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site. Stay home and put your hands over your ears.

    My point Jeff is that IMHO you guys are simple now out of touch with the debate. We need good answers to my questions to hold the line with our new conservative masters in political control.

    Your flakey appeals to authority are no longer going to cut it.
    I’m your wakeup call.

    Someone get BBD a Serepax

  41. #42 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Has someone got back to you with that Kellow quote yet, bluffer?

    ;-)

    I told you I could see right through your posturing days ago. You should have listened. Now look at you.

  42. #43 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    #22 Renewables contribute to lower wholesale electricity prices in Germany.

    And Germany is not kaput through renewables: Germany is probably the least kaput of the EU member states.

  43. #44 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Your flakey appeals to authority are no longer going to cut it.
    I’m your wakeup call.

    No, you are an ignorant wanker.

  44. #45 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    “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”

    OMG, what utter gibberish. Pure insanity. I’d like to see some evidence for these ‘eye-watering amounts’ of money. None is ever provided. Its stated as if it is fact by deniers – with no evidence. None. Zilch. On the other hand, the huge number of right wing think tanks, public relations forms, astroturf groups and other third parties funded by the corporate lobby does indeed total many, many millions of dollars. And every year there are more and more of them. Corporate lobbyists play a massive role in determining public policy in the US alone. For example in the US in 1998, ALL advocacy groups covering a wide range of subjects – were able to muster up 4.3 million dollars lobbying the US Congress. Environmental groups were just one of hundreds of these, and their total was a fraction of it. The same year, energy companies alone invested 58.3 million dollars lobbying members of the US Congress, and Agro-Biotech companies 129.3 million dollars (Rampton and Stauber, 2001). And this excludes of course money spent on campaign donations, and other forms of lobbying, which are often far, far greater. Since that time, this amount has of course greatly increased. Corporate lobbyists rule Washington. They have a bottomless pit of money for their cause – deregulation.

    Truth is, Luke, you can’t debate your way out of a wet paper bag. You haven’t got any data to back you up – nothing but innuendo and smears.

  45. #46 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Watch this brazen, lying toe-rag just brazen out being exposed as conspiracist crank, liar and bluffer all in the space of a dozen comments.

    But on he goes! Mendacity-powered!

  46. #47 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD catching up – he can’t read it quick enough. Eyes frantically scanning the screen test for a toehold. Quickly checks the comments – uh oh – Chris Colose is there. Heat on the neck increases. Stomach tightens.

    So no debate screamed BBD but alas there does seem to be one among the big boys. Oh diddums.

    Better move the goal posts, lay smoke and tack to port, or sledge like crazy. Or all three !

  47. #48 Jeff Harvey
    August 22, 2013

    “thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site”

    Oh come on now, Luke. You must really be deluded to think this. Besides, universities and research institutes are most certainly NOT denier sites. You schmucks are stuck in your own little myopic world on the internet. Some advice: get out more. Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain’t the same as yours.

  48. #49 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?

    :-)

  49. #50 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Not the same debate *you* are proposing, though, is it?

    You are arguing that it’s all crap. This lot are debating the details, not the reality of AGW or the necessity for policy response.

  50. #51 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    Luke: Look how your climate dialogue ends:

    1Bart Verheggen
    August 22, 2013 at 7:48 pm Log in to Reply
    Based on emails from both Steven Sherwood and John Christy, and based on Carl Mears’ blogpost, I can report that all three agree that

    1) Yes, amplified warming in the tropical troposphere is expected.

    And that

    2) No, the hot spot in the tropics is not specific to a greenhouse mechanism.

    Thanks for posting a “shoot yourself in the foot” link.

  51. #52 chek
    August 22, 2013

    Luke, for how many years were Christy and Spencer’s incompetence with their own product undetected until RSS set them straight?
    a)4
    b)8
    c)15
    d)Christy’s a lying sack of Texan-payroll Republican shit whose false results served a bigger purpose?

    Nice choice of authority figure. Possibly the best you’ve got.

  52. #53 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    [Chris Colose:]I was very happy to see an extensive discussion by Steve Sherwood and Carl Mears on the very large uncertainties in the observational datasets, which right now do not provide a robust direct comparison when evaluating whether the tropical troposphere has stayed close to a moist adiabat. Other “proxy” measurements such as those developed from the thermal wind equation (e.g., Allen and Sherwood, 2008) or those looking the structure of deep convection changes in the tropics (e.g., Johnson and Xie, 2010) are also a good supplement to the topic, because they are independent from the satellite or radiosonde temperature data, and do not suggest a fundamental data-theory-model mismatch. I was also happy to see a discussion by Steve Sherwood on various implications of a real data-model mismatch should it exist. In the next paragraph, I will outline some points where I disagree with Dr. Sherwood on this. Unfortunately, John Christy’s post read like a defense lawyer’s argument on why models stink and why everything is too complex, with only fairly limited substance on the actual issue of the tropical hotspot (and with only limited reference to a large body of literature on observational uncertainty).

  53. #54 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Still nobody got back to you to bail you out of that hole with the Kellow reference?

    Shame.

    :-)

  54. #55 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Why Luke is a denialist crank (in his own words):

    Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot [this is a lie]. Ya gotta know it’s hurting [this is a lie]. 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 [this is a lie]. Frankly you have never looked into it [this is a lie].

    (Emphasis added).

    Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberatly colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.

    The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.

  55. #56 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I think Luke needs his own thread.

  56. #57 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    #22 would you also like to address those 45 countries that get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables?

    BTW it’s 46 if you count Portugal which got over 70% earlier this year for a brief period.

  57. #58 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    many millions of dollars Jeff – oooooo really – millions and many. Wow

    The big attacks are coming from mavericks not think tanks. I’m not quoting Heartland and that dubious lot.

    The establishment funding is zillions – the sceptic budget is piddly. Big science has a vested interest in keeping big science rolling. One is captive of group process and heavy management oversight.

    Really who cares what funds what – the science stacks up or it doesn’t.

  58. #59 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Turbo – would like to cite that and the subsidies involved pls. What 70% for a brief period till the wind died? 37% hydro – with all that methane bubbling up. I guess we can wallpaper the place with dams. Always popular.

  59. #60 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Luke needs his own thread.

  60. #61 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    People who get their faces ripped off and just keep churning out the cess as though nothing has happened aren’t worth listening to.

  61. #62 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    chek – did I say I was a devotee of Spencer or Christy – more verballing by you

  62. #63 Rednose
    UK
    August 22, 2013

    #57TB

    You got a link for that source TB

  63. #64 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Now we will all pretend that the farcical business with the hot spot crapola just never happened.

    Luke is an unsinkable rubber duck. Like every other denialist crank infesting the internet.

  64. #65 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain’t the same as yours.”

    Well I do. And as a working scientist I can tell you the answers aren’t forthcoming and the group think is massive. The unhappiness festers in the ranks.

  65. #66 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I love this though.

    Every single time I really flatten a denier, their final “tactic” is to pretend it didn’t happen.

    The it’s hard to express the utter, buttock-clenching stupidity of this final desperate resort in a public forum.

  66. #67 chek
    August 22, 2013

    The big attacks are coming from mavericks not think tanks.

    Uh-huh. Mavericks who no doubt confected all the very same pseudo-science talking points with remarkably similar agenda independently. Which do you think is the more likely, Luke?
    That you’re a complete spoonfed moron, or everybody else is?

  67. #68 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Well I do. And as a working scientist I can tell you the answers aren’t forthcoming and the group think is massive. The unhappiness festers in the ranks.

    First there came Boris the Freddy and Genius. Now this fucking clown is pretending to be a working scientist.

    Not to forget cohenite/Cox. Which didn’t work out too well for him either.

  68. #69 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    You stupid, stupid fucker, Luke. You have screwed yourself utterly now.

    Byee.

  69. #70 chek
    August 22, 2013

    “Well I do. And as a hardworking scientist lying wanker”

    Corrected that for you, Dr. Luke de Kook..

  70. #71 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – you were done mate. Now there were about another 6-7 other issues I was after help with.

    Would you like to be played for a rube with those as well.

    You guys are portraying me as a denier / shill/ crank. Well I’ll give you crank – we’re all cranks or we wouldn’t be here. WOULD WE?

    Where I have go to is that the debate is no longer straight forward. But being very interested in the massive impact that a Hadley cell shift would have on global drought I need to get this AGW stuff worked through much more rigorously.

    We can’t do that religiously defending aspects of the science that clearly aren’t working.

  71. #72 Rednose
    August 22, 2013

    As you can see with this link to the Guardian, Portugal managed to get to 24.4% renewable in 2010 with a target of 31% in 2020.

    The only European country hitting anywhere near 60% is Norway, which is blessed with an ideal geography for hydroelectric power.

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/19/renewable-energy-consumption-eu-targets

  72. #73 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Zhou et al. (2011) Recent trends of the tropical hydrological cycle inferred from Global Precipitation Climatology Project and International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data (supports J&F09 on widening Hadley cells – see below)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015197/abstract

    Johanson & Fu (2009) Hadley Cell Widening: Model Simulations versus Observations

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2620.1

  73. #74 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    chek – you’re calling me a liar coz you’ve been ratfucked. Totally and utterly ratfucked.

  74. #75 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    The subsidies are peanuts compared to fossil fuel subsidies. In any case they are irrelevant, because the net effect of renewables is lower wholesale prices of electricity. Check out the merit order effect…

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000797

  75. #76 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    August 22, 2013

    25#100: Actually, Luke, rabies cannot be cured – but it can take up to a decade to kill. Interesting analogy – lyssaviridae like rabies are introduced by bite from an infected animal, then travel (slowly) to the central nervous system via the nerves to cause almost certain death (2 recorded cases of survival without secondary vaccination). Bit like the denialist memes you keep excreting.

    BTW no one makes you post here. Your insecurity and desperate need to engage may be behind you changing your avatar every 3 posts – or it may just be because you are a useful idiot, keen to promote Jo Coddling-Moth’s pathetic propaganda mill. You, Fatso & cohenite are peas in a (rotten, festering) pod.

  76. #77 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I wasn’t “done” you posturing impostor. You are the one reciting denialist rubbish, not me. Got me that Kellow quote yet, you pillock?

    ;-)

  77. #78 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I really do think Luke needs his own thread.

  78. #79 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013
  79. #80 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – you say “bye” but your’re back. you’ll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that’s the spirit – don’t get mad – get even. Want a hand with Scopus – much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn’t it.

    I gave you a Hadley cite a bazzillion miles ago – you said it was a gish. Try to keep up. This will help

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0
    Now pay attention boy !

  80. #81 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    #72 Er what’s your point Rednose? I said “electricity”.

  81. #82 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    No, I said byee to you as in fuck off now, Luke. But granted, it was ambiguous.

  82. #83 chek
    August 22, 2013

    I need to get this AGW stuff worked through much more rigorously.

    Then give up your job in the dogfood tasting department, get qualified and get to work.

    Codling – sorry – cobbling together contradictory shite from crank blogs then testing your half-baked misconceptions and pretending to be a scientist at Scienceblogs™ is no way to go about it, or live a life.

  83. #84 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    I don’t do video links. Paper and authors please.

  84. #85 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    rhwombat – are you making love to a rock?

  85. #86 Turboblocke
    August 22, 2013

    #59 Luke, you said What 70% for a brief period till the wind died?

    Actually it was the first 6 months of the year, but thanks for the predictable knee jerk reaction.

  86. #87 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    chek – don ‘t be a lying turd – you’ve had plenty of cites.

    Luke 10
    Deltoids 0

    Boys you mommies are calling you ….. off you go now.

  87. #88 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    No. You are the one who has just been caught out bluffing your references. Kellow quote, fuckwit, Kellow quote.

    So:

    you’ll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that’s the spirit – don’t get mad – get even. Want a hand with Scopus – much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn’t it.

  88. #89 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Oh well the other 6 months won’t matter.

  89. #90 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Luke needs his own thread to posture emptily in.

  90. #91 Rednose
    UK
    August 22, 2013

    TB#81
    http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4128

    The total net generation for Portugal in 2009 was 46.53 million Mwh. Power supply from conventional thermal sources accounted for 61.90% of the total. In comparison, renewable sources including hydroelectricity contributed 38.53% of the total

    My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.

  91. #92 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Working scientist my arse.

  92. #93 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    Poor BBD – now listen numb nuts you’ve been shown to be a lying fraud on the hotpsot – lie down or I’ll have to bitchslap you some more.

  93. #94 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    Hadley cell expansion reference: paper and authors please.

  94. #95 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    #93

    You are living in a parallel reality Luke.

    But I bet you want to get this page of comments finished fast! Don’t worry Luke, I’ll remind you of your fuck-ups tomorrow!

    And the day after that!

  95. #96 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    [Chris Colose:]I was very happy to see an extensive discussion by Steve Sherwood and Carl Mears on the very large uncertainties in the observational datasets, which right now do not provide a robust direct comparison when evaluating whether the tropical troposphere has stayed close to a moist adiabat. Other “proxy” measurements such as those developed from the thermal wind equation (e.g., Allen and Sherwood, 2008) or those looking the structure of deep convection changes in the tropics (e.g., Johnson and Xie, 2010) are also a good supplement to the topic, because they are independent from the satellite or radiosonde temperature data, and do not suggest a fundamental data-theory-model mismatch. I was also happy to see a discussion by Steve Sherwood on various implications of a real data-model mismatch should it exist. In the next paragraph, I will outline some points where I disagree with Dr. Sherwood on this. Unfortunately, John Christy’s post read like a defense lawyer’s argument on why models stink and why everything is too complex, with only fairly limited substance on the actual issue of the tropical hotspot (and with only limited reference to a large body of literature on observational uncertainty).

  96. #97 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    [Steve Sherwood:]I agree with pretty much everything Carl says, and he’s gone into more detail than I did on the latest results. We agree that the data we have are basically not stable enough over time to distinguish whether a “hot spot” exists or not, or is as prominent as we would expect. We also agree that warming over the past couple of decades is running lower than nearly all CMIP5 models predict it should be, which is perhaps a more worthy “debate” topic and one that I think will get a lot of attention when the IPCC report comes out. The reasons for this are likely due to cooling influences that have not been applied to the models, such as the unprecedented recent solar minimum, the continuing rise in atmospheric aerosol concentrations and the decline in stratospheric water vapour. To some extent it may also be a chance fluctuation that will go the other way in a few years. Finally, it may signal a somewhat low climate sensitivity–but a sensitivity low enough to make global warming cease to be a problem is basically ruled out by other evidence, particularly palaeoclimate evidence.

  97. #98 BBD
    August 22, 2013

    The “hot spot is *missing* therefore AGW is falsified” is a crank meme.

    The “models are falsified therefore AGW is broken” is a crank meme.

    Etc.

    All you are doing is regurgitating debunked crankery and refusing to admit it when you get your arse handed to you. Over and over again. Which is absolutely diagnostic of the denialist crank.

  98. #99 Luke
    August 22, 2013

    BBD – I only need one – how you were done over totally on the trop hotty. I’m still laughing.

    Ref I cited earlier is your 2nd above. One of a number on the topic.

    I reckon I’m probably the best SOB you’ve had here is a while. I’m pretty good. I know it. I think you ought be grateful for livening your little incest pit up. So good luck with the denial. Keep the appeals to authority going and have a good sook when Abbott rapes and burns your research.

    Don’t go over to Jo’s you’ll be ratfucked. And give the poor lady at http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/ a hand

    But you are right on one thing – Cohenite is a wanker. And be nice to El Gordo – he hasn’t got long left.

  99. #100 chek
    August 22, 2013

    you’ve been shown to be a lying fraud on the hotpsot

    Which alternative reality did this happen in, Luke de Kook? The same one in which you’re a ‘working scientist’? Or our collective one here where you’re a crank/liar:?

Current ye@r *