August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    August 23, 2013

    SpamKan @ #97.
    You’ve never heard of the Pi delusion that your fellow cranks tried once before, have you?

    You can’t legislate the real world away, no matter how many cranks agree that it should be done. It’s textbook insanity, which is why you applaud it.

  2. #3 Rednose
    UK
    August 23, 2013

    What you have instead are crank delusions by know nothings exactly like you who’ve been fed corporately funded chum nuggets

    Thus speaks the eco-warrior/loon Comrade Shrek, the might have been armchair hero of Balcombe and similar past battles with the establishment.

  3. #4 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Got that Guardian ref yet Redarse?
    Thought not.

  4. #5 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    Rednose back on the previous page you said So we going to swop information or insults Perhaps you should have been more polite as contrary to what you believe the following remark from you was an insult: My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.

    As for the link, here it is again: http://www.ren.pt/media/comunicados/detalhe/renewable_energy_sources_accounted_for_68__of_the_electricity_consumed_in_the_1st_half_of_the_year/

  5. #6 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    @czek:

    #99
    chek

    August 23, 2013
    And it will go down as the biggest scam in modern history.

    No it won’t because that’s purely the perception you’ve been groomed to accept.

    To operate a scam you need idiots who know no better, and that doesn’t apply to the thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know – like any rational person – that it would be impossible to fake all the aspects of the science. So you’re left with conjuring up a vast conspiracy participated in by governments and universities worldwide. Being an idiot, you likely thinks that’s entirely viable, but rational people do not.

    True:
    “And it [AGW] will go down as the biggest scam in modern history.”

    Wrong:
    No it won’t because that’s purely the perception you’ve been groomed to accept.

    To operate a scam you need idiots who know no better, and that doesn’t apply to the thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know – like any rational person – that it would be impossible to fake all the aspects of the science. So you’re left with conjuring up a vast conspiracy participated in by governments and universities worldwide. Being an idiot, you likely thinks that’s entirely viable, but rational people do not.

    What you have instead are crank delusions by know nothings exactly like you who’ve been fed corporately funded chum nuggets. Your own vanity does the rest.

    u learn wat tru or wron, stupid czeck

  6. #7 Rednose
    UK
    August 23, 2013

    TB
    Well thanks for that though the request was 2 pages back.
    That gives info for Portugal, which you already posted, but what about the other 49 countries.
    Discounting those with a substantial Hydro output, you might find the remainder could double their yearly output with a shipment of hand crank generators and a few batteries.

  7. #8 chek
    August 23, 2013

    At least Redarse makes it all-too obvious he’s shilling for the fossil fuel lobby.

  8. #9 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    Comrade Shrek
    I posted the Guardian link two pages back.
    Here it is again

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

    Do try to keep up.

  9. #10 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    TB#5

    probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent

    Ok that was a bit harsh. just trying to enter into the blog spirit.

  10. #11 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    At least Redarse makes it all-too obvious he’s shilling for the fossil fuel lobby

    I admit it. it was the double Tesco points for August that were on offer that clinched it.

  11. #12 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #7 I posted that link yesterday. Clearly you missed it the first time.

    As for the other 45, there is no link to them all. You have to look up the data for each one individually on the CO2 scorecard site:
    The first one is Albania, http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4323 the last is Zambia.http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4323 Enjoy! BTW a caveat: the data is mostly from 2008/9 so there may be more by now.

  12. #13 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #9 Do try to keep up. That’s a bit rich as your Guardian link refers to overall energy whereas I was talking about electricity, so not the same metric. And I posted the link to the Portuguese Grid operator yesterday and you didn’t get it.

  13. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    August 23, 2013

    That’s because, unlike Cohenite, Jeff is an educated professional in the sciences.

    The existence of debate between Sherwood, Mears and Christy about the difficulty in finding the sucker. You have not immersed yourself my friend. Ah yes the internet – it’s just so subversive.

    You still have no idea what the hotspot is, and you are still relying on crank blogs for an interpretation of science you don’t understand.

    And, as if to underline my point, El Gordo trots out Craig Idso – coincidentally another one who did a degree involving some Geography and tried to puff his CV up with fake references to climate science on the back of it – the same Craig Idso who is paid-for PR merchant whose job it is to assist the fossil fuel industry in its lobbying to stave off any regulation that might de-externalise the cost of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
    A paid-for political lobbyist, El Gordo, not a scientist, is who you go for for your opinions. That’s where you’re coming from. Your credibility is nil. Again.

  14. #15 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    czek, agw is spit, u crank follo

  15. #16 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    czek, u greenpiss active

  16. #17 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Redarse:

    Do try to keep up.

    Oh the irony. You’ve been spanked already for trying to pass off figures prepared in 2009 . We can see here that UK renewable generation for example increased from the 3% in 2009 Redarse would have us believe is current to 12%+ in the last quarter of 2012 against a target of 15% by 2020.

  17. #18 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    # 99 and #2 Your links show most of Australia having between 250mm and 1000mm of precipitation extra: that’s from a quarter of a tonne to a tonne per square metre. That’s a lot of water.

    Comparing it to the oceans: say half the area of Australia had between 250 and 1000mm extra. So 625 mm over about 3.5 million km2. Surface area of oceans is about 350 million km2. That gives the equivalent of about 2mm per year over the 3 year period that you selected. It’s probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.

  18. #19 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Borked link from #17:
    We can see here

  19. #20 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    Comrade Shrek
    Your link does not work, much like your argument.

  20. #21 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    Rednose: if you’re polite to some posters, but rude to others, it makes you appear odd.

  21. #22 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    TB
    Is this your list of over 60%

    Albania (100% hydro in 2008).

    Angola (96.45% hydro in 2008)

    Austria (73.86% renewable in 2009, 12.5% of that non hydro)

    Belize (90.91% hydro in 2008) Update: REEGLE says only about 80%.

    Bhutan (99.86% hydro in 2008)

    Brazil (88.88% renewable with 4.93 non hydro in 2009)

    Burundi (100% hydro in 2008)

    Cameroon (77.31% hydro in 2008)

    Canada (61.95% renewable, with 1.86% non hydro in 2009)

    Central African Republic (81.25% renewable in 2008)

    Columbia (85.67% hydro in 2008)

    Congo (82.22% renewable in 2008)

    Costa Rica (93.11% renewable in 2008)

    DPR Korea (61.86% hydro in 2008)

    DR Congo (99.46% hydro in 2008)

    Ecuador (64.12% renewable in 2008, with 2.21% non hydro)

    El Salvador (62.24% renewable in 2008, with 26.92 non hydro)

    Ethiopia (88.17% renewable in 2008, with 0.27% non hydro)

    Fiji (68.04% renewable in 2008)

    Georgia (85.52% hydro in 2008)

    Ghana (75.03% hydro in 2008)

    Guatemala (61.31% renewable, with 17.5 non hydro in 2008)

    Iceland (100% renewable, with 26.27% geothermal in 2009).

    Kenya (62.59% renewable, with 21.06% non hydro in 2008)

    Kyrgyzstan (90.85% hydro in 2008)

    Lao PDR (92.46% hydro in 2008)

    Latvia (62.23% renewable with 1.96% non hydro in 2008)

    Lesotho (100% hydro in 2008)

    Madagascar (66.67% hydro in 2008)

    Malawi (86.31% hydro in 2008)

    Mozambique (99.87% hydro in 2008)

    Myanmar (62.05% hydro in 2008)

    Namibia (70.91% hydro in 2008)

    Nepal (99.67% hydro in 2008)

    New Zealand (72.52% renewable, including 15.42% non hydro in 2009)

    Norway (97.11% renewable, including 0.93% non hydro in 2009)

    Paraguay (100.00% hydro in 2008), exporting 90% of generated electricity (54.91 TWh in 2008)

    Peru (60.53% renewable, including 1.47% non hydro in 2008)

    Sweden (60.42% renewable, including 10.58% non hydro in 2009)

    Tajikistan (98.25% hydro in 2008)

    Tanzania (61.45% hydro in 2008)

    Uganda (74.77% hydro in 2008)

    Uruguay (61.98% renewable, with 9.33 non hydro in 2008)

    Venezuela (69.57% hydro in 2008)

    Zambia (99.69% hydro in 2008)

    They all have a large hydroelectric capacity, which is an established technology requiring a favourable geography.
    What happens when the geography is unfavourable?

  22. #23 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    TB#21

    it makes you appear odd.

    I never claimed otherwise.

  23. #24 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff – I didn’t claim nor unclaim any expertise. And gee mate if that’s your quals get off the this climate blog – unless you have 50 good papers in GRL and J Clim I don’t want to know about your rat dirt. And you have the temerity to bring up Dunning-Kruger. The DK effect applies to you my friend. If the climate models are wrong all your “imputed” effects are simply horseshit.

    Jeff it’s the same old same old tiresome appeal to authority. So Jeff your logic is we simply be subservient to the authority. If so stop blogging – why argue? What is there to talk about.

    And don’t worry who funded what – is it wrong is the question? Do you think the establishment funding is totally virtuous with a choir of angels singing.

    Jeff I have given you good number of issues in peer reviewed publications – so Dr Genius answer the fucking questions. You can’t.

    Stop obfuscating and help me out. This tiresome appeal to authority is piss weak and a cop out.

    It seems the Doltoids answer to all questions is simply to scream “crank”. Unimpressive and means no real knowledge at all. I have to smile that the rebuttals offered are material that has been panned by some serious sceptic shelling. Shredded.

    Listen to chek shit on “thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know” what bullshit – the ones in any serious knowledge domain in WG1 are a handful. Thousands is simply fucking bullshit.

  24. #25 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    “The IPCC is not a for-profit organization” – this is hilarious. Mate do you know what horse-trading and bullshit goes on in Kyoto negotiation sessions. This is how Howard came up with the cop-out Australia clause. Who pays the not-for-profit bills?

    Jeff – get off the blog – you’re not qualified on climate.

  25. #26 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    Anyway, I’m now convinced that the MWP was warmer than the Modern Climate Optimum.

    Which says more about you than it does the MWP, given that you’ve been presented with evidence several times and have chosen to ignore it.

    But we all knew that already, right?

  26. #27 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Redarse, the link at #19 does work, and shows your game up very clearly.

  27. #28 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Anyway, I’m now convinced that the MWP was warmer than the Modern Climate Optimum.

    Yup, that’s what cranks do.
    Convince themselves, despite the evidence.

  28. #29 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Perhaps we can try to see if the guys can apply themselves to a local problem – mechanisms behind the Millennium droughts in the MDB andd SEQ. What are the factors at play – i.e. ENSO, STRi, and SAM? All or some or neither? If AGW – how? Why the difference in opinion. Why do the droughts persist. After 2011 has this changed?

    Let’s see how the boys go on a practical issue.

  29. #30 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff it’s the same old same old tiresome appeal to authority.

    Er, no. You don’t even understand that much. It’s an appeal to the strong consensus of the qualified experts, which in turn is based on the evidence. When there’s a strong consensus, that’s the smart money bet to make if your personal skills are insufficient to publish a peer reviewed paper in the field bucking the consensus.

    (BTW, Karen tried for an appeal to authority a couple of pages back, but you didn’t complain about that one. Curious…)

    …you’re not qualified on climate.

    Say Luke, who as far as we can see is not qualified on climate either, but unlike Jeff is bucking the consensus of the actually qualified experts, and in at least some aspects of that act he is demonstrably mistaken.

    It seems the Doltoids answer to all questions is simply to scream “crank”.

    Well, given that you’re exhibiting classic crank behavioural traits (including serially pretending that substantive responses pointing out serious issues with your claims weren’t made, and serially asserting against clear evidence that your argument was superior) , and since you’re spouting classic crank memes, then it’s not surprising that you think that.

    Because if you look, sound and act like a crank, you probably are one – and if not (a) it’s understandable that people might think you are, and (b) you might want to consider changing so that you don’t look/sound/act that way.

    My prediction: you will continue to prefer whining about what other people think of you to changing how you present to the world.

  30. #31 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Lotharsson so you still can’t answer my questions. DUck, weave dodge.

    Your strong consensus of qualified experts is a handful.

    Why be here. WE BELIEVE IN THE CONSENSUS – it”s holy writ. Unplug brain.

  31. #32 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    And now crank memes are peer reviewed papers. So Loathsome – how long have you been making up complete lies

  32. #33 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    If the climate models are wrong all your “imputed” effects are simply horseshit.

    Logic Fail.

    You’ve been called out a number of times for inappropriate binary thinking (“wrong or right”, “falsified or not”) with respect to models, yet you persist. You need to fix that first. Then you need to show that a valid analysis of the scope and level of usefulness of the models flows through to your conclusion.

    Based on your past inability to even acknowledge errors, I’m betting you’ll do none of this.

  33. #34 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    Tirbolook:

    Comparing it to the oceans: say half the area of Australia had between 250 and 1000mm extra. So 625 mm over about 3.5 million km2. Surface area of oceans is about 350 million km2. That gives the equivalent of about 2mm per year over the 3 year period that you selected. It’s probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.

    u pour shite nonsens, block

  34. #35 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    @Loathsome: wrong claim

    It’s an appeal to the strong consensus of the qualified experts, which in turn is based on the evidence. When there’s a strong consensus, that’s the smart money bet to make if your personal skills are insufficient to publish a peer reviewed paper in the field bucking the consensus.

    nobody xplain u consensus = science shite

  35. #36 adelady
    August 23, 2013

    What happens when the geography is unfavourable?

    Or, as in South Australia, you have no water anyway …. You go for other technologies. In 15 years we’ve managed to install 25+% wind power. And pretty soon, we’ll be at over 30% from wind. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/11/renewable-energy/sa-verge-30-renewables

  36. #37 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    adlady troll, what happenz with your green shite “power” when no wind and no sun???

  37. #38 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    adlady troll

    wirite answer: then no green shite power = blackout

  38. #39 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    adlady troll

    u not understand: no wind, no sun, no renewabl, no green shite power

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahaha
    huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

  39. #40 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    Lotharsson so you still can’t answer my questions. DUck, weave dodge.

    Sigh. It’s always projection.

    You have failed to modify any of your claims that were shown to be anywhere from unsubstantiated to pure horseshit. “DUck, weave dodge” indeed.

    And you continue to pretend that answers I have provided don’t exist. Duck, weave dodge.

    And you continue to engage in childish taunting attempts. Duck, weave dodge.

    I choose how much time to invest in dealing with people who are acting like cranks (including ducking, weaving and dodging). Your inference that no answer to a specific taunt is inability to answer is fallacious, and suggests that you either aren’t very good at this “logic” thing, or are arguing in bad faith.

    Your call on that point…

  40. #41 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    Your strong consensus of qualified experts is a handful.

    Another false crank meme, which (worse still) misses the key point: that the qualified expert consensus was rooted in the evidence.

    WE BELIEVE IN THE CONSENSUS – it”s holy writ. Unplug brain.

    Epic Fail.

    No, we believe in the parts where the consensus is strong because (a) the consensus of qualified experts is strong, and most of us don’t have the skills to enter that debate on equal terms, yourself apparently included, and (b) we’ve had people coming here (and throughout the media and blogosphere) for quite a few years claiming the consensus is bullshit and Epic Failing.

    And it’s not like we want them to fail! We absofuckinglutely want them to be right that there’s no AGW problem to worry about and we can all go about business as usual! And if they are we will be first in line to nominate them for a couple of Nobel Prizes and a bunch of state honours!

    But they’re not right.

    Almost invariably when their case is examined (by applying the very brains that you allege are “unplugged”) it falls apart in ways that one doesn’t even need to be a competent scientist to see. They’re almost always not even close to being right.

    They primarily rely on several favourite kinds of fallacies, some of which you appear to be relying upon yourself. One of them involves imputing false import with respect to the strong consensus to some area that is either outside of the scope of the strong consensus entirely or that doesn’t have the import that they claim it does (see: “MODELS ARE FALSIFIED!1!!!11!”.) And they often make claims in conspiratorial terms such as the ones you used earlier (which helps insulate them from the possibility of falsification when they are presented with refuting evidence), or they simply ignore the implications of the evidence – as you appear to be doing on some points. You can see a number of examples on this thread – examples that you have conspicuously declined to critique.

    If the consensus was mistaken in some fundamental or basic fashion, you’d expect one attempt to be able to successfully substantiate that point, and then to be widely disseminated to all sorts of forums where climate science is of interest. All it takes is one critique of import that stands up to scrutiny. Heck, I’d expect even someone as poor at stringing together a coherent case in English as you to be able to do a reasonable job at relating it somewhere like this (once the critique has been formulated), but you haven’t. You seem to be relying the false import fallacy, although you do throw in a dash of Underpants Gnome Logic for good measure.

    But since they’ve all failed – but more importantly since it has withstood attack by determined people far cleverer and more informed than you, we operate on the basis that it’s the best understanding we have until and unless shown otherwise, and therefore that the fairly dire implications of that understanding are crucial.

    Your self-important fluffing around on this thread doesn’t go close to impacting that.

  41. #42 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    @loathsome:

    Sigh. It’s always projection.

    You have failed to modify any of your claims that were shown to be anywhere from unsubstantiated to pure horseshit. “DUck, weave dodge” indeed.

    And you continue to pretend that answers I have provided don’t exist. Duck, weave dodge.

    And you continue to engage in childish taunting attempts. Duck, weave dodge.

    I choose how much time to invest in dealing with people who are acting like cranks (including ducking, weaving and dodging). Your inference that no answer to a specific taunt is inability to answer is fallacious, and suggests that you either aren’t very good at this “logic” thing, or are arguing in bad faith.

    loathsome u manage to tell all wrong, try also more to improv

    Your call on that point…

  42. #43 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    #36

    In 15 years we’ve managed to install 25+% wind power. And pretty soon, we’ll be at over 30% from wind

    This seems to come at a price

    This type of incident only adds to the energy woes of many South Australian households, who are struggling with energy bills in the face of a 62% power price rise between June 2007 and June 2012, then a further 18% since July.

    http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3795

  43. #44 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    @loathsome: u areagai wron

    Your strong consensus of qualified experts is a handful. Another false crank meme, which (worse still) misses the key point: that the qualified expert consensus was rooted in the evidence. WE BELIEVE IN THE CONSENSUS – it”s holy writ. Unplug brain. Epic Fail. No, we believe in the parts where the consensus is strong because (a) the consensus of qualified experts is strong, and most of us don’t have the skills to enter that debate on equal terms, yourself apparently included, and (b) we’ve had people coming here (and throughout the media and blogosphere) for quite a few years claiming the consensus is bullshit and Epic Failing. And it’s not like we want them to fail! We absofuckinglutely want them to be right that there’s no AGW problem to worry about and we can all go about business as usual! And if they are we will be first in line to nominate them for a couple of Nobel Prizes and a bunch of state honours! But they’re not right. Almost invariably when their case is examined (by applying the very brains that you allege are “unplugged”) it falls apart in ways that one doesn’t even need to be a competent scientist to see. They’re almost always not even close to being right.They primarily rely on several favourite kinds of fallacies, some of which you appear to be relying upon yourself. One of them involves imputing false import with respect to the strong consensus to some area that is either outside of the scope of the strong consensus entirely or that doesn’t have the import that they claim it does (see: “MODELS ARE FALSIFIED!1!!!11!”.) And they often make claims in conspiratorial terms such as the ones you used earlier (which helps insulate them from the possibility of falsification when they are presented with refuting evidence), or they simply ignore the implications of the evidence – as you appear to be doing on some points. You can see a number of examples on this thread – examples that you have conspicuously declined to critique. If the consensus was mistaken in some fundamental or basic fashion, you’d expect one attempt to be able to successfully substantiate that point, and then to be widely disseminated to all sorts of forums where climate science is of interest. All it takes is one critique of import that stands up to scrutiny. Heck, I’d expect even someone as poor at stringing together a coherent case in English as you to be able to do a reasonable job at relating it somewhere like this (once the critique has been formulated), but you haven’t. You seem to be relying the false import fallacy, although you do throw in a dash of Underpants Gnome Logic for good measure. But since they’ve all failed – but more importantly since it has withstood attack by determined people far cleverer and more informed than you, we operate on the basis that it’s the best understanding we have until and unless shown otherwise, and therefore that the fairly dire implications of that understanding are crucial. Your self-important fluffing around on this thread doesn’t go close to impacting that.

    try agai and stic to truth, loathsome, dont lie, loathsome liar

  44. #45 Berendaneke
    August 23, 2013

    my inuit brother said: very cold now in greenland, no ice melting

    in greenland no agw, hahaha

    good brother, inuit brother, likes when greenland green again

  45. #46 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    #43

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/power-prices-to-be-highest-in-the-world/story-e6frea83-1226305741810

    Already on a par with Germany and just below Denmark, both leading the way regarding wind power we are told.

  46. #47 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Right Luke-the-crank, back to your lies.

    Your assertion was that because the tropospheric hot spot was *missing* there was a serious problem with “the science”.

    My question to you – which you never answered was:

    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.

    Your “response” was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.

    So no, I wasn’t “ratfucked” at all. You were.

    You were wrong in your initial assertion and I was correct: it is a denier meme only found on crank blogs.

    It follows inexorably that you are a crank.

    You are also a liar.

  47. #48 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    Re “The Hot spot”

    Po-chedley and Fu 2012

    The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem,

    Santer et al 2012

    On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere.

    And

    Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.

    McKitrick, McIntyre et al 2010

    Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two
    to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are
    statistically significant at the 99% level.

    Sorry to intervene. Please carry on.

  48. #49 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Rednoise

    You are not competent to discuss this topic.

    Before beginning, you need to read the original link.

    See eg Mears:

    Two conclusions can easily be reached from this plot. First, it takes about 25 years (or more) for the measured trend ratios to settle down to reasonably constant values. This is due to the effects of both measurement errors, and “weather noise”. I think that this is part of the cause of the controversy surrounding this topic – we began discussing such trend ratios before we had enough data for the ratios to be stable over time. Second, the values that are ultimately reached depend strongly depend on which upper air dataset is used. For some datasets (HadAT, UAH, IUK, RAOBCORE 1.5, ERA-Interim), the trend ratio is less than 1.0, indicating lack of a tropospheric hotspot. For other datasets (RICH, RAOBCORE 1.4, RSS, MERRA, and STAR), the ratio is greater than one, indicating tropospheric amplification and the presence of a hotspot. CMIP-3 Climate models predicted an amplification value of about 1.4 for the TTT temperature product used here (Santer et al., 2005). Some upper air datasets are in relatively close agreement with these expectations, such as the RSS and STAR satellite data, the older version of RAOBCORE (V1.4), and the MERRA reanalysis (which uses the STAR data as one of its inputs, so it is not completely independent of STAR). Often one or more of these datasets is used to argue that a tropical hotspot exists or does not exist. A more balanced analysis shows that it is difficult to prove or disprove the presence of the tropospheric hotspot given the current state of the data.

    Denialist claims that the hotspot is *missing* and that this *proves* AGW is wrong or some such yarbles are rubbish.

    As always, denialist claims are based on misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations.

  49. #50 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    And Rednoise, no more truncated quotes. You are being dishonest, as ususal:

    Po-Chedley & Fu (2012):

    The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.

    Consider in the light of Mears’ statement above.

  50. #51 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Rednoise also misrepresented Santer et al. (2012) by selective quotation. The “problems with forcings” were not, as he implies, over-estimation of GHG forcings:

    On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear, model biases in lower stratospheric temperature trends are likely to be reduced by more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.

  51. #52 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Shills are incapable of being honest. In their view, that’s for mugs.

  52. #53 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    You are not competent to discuss this topic.

    True BBD. In my ignorance and with only my Cook type wiz through of the Abstracts it appeared the models are overestimating the troposphere warming. The McKitrick et al quote was particularly of interest.

    Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two
    to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are
    statistically significant at the 99% level.

    Would this be the same models which also seem to be overestimating the surface temperature warming in their present hiatus?

  53. #54 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    but it is not clear

    Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear

    So come on admit it. They haven’t got a bloody clue.

  54. #55 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Gordy captures the irredeemable hopelessness of deniers perfectly with this:

    [Page 26 #95:]

    Please yourself Jeff, but its a damn good read. Anyway, I’m now convinced that the MWP was warmer than the Modern Climate Optimum.

    He’s convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven, documented energy-industry shill writing on a denier blog. Even though the proven shill bit has been demonstrated for him (although he has consistently refused to acknowledge this).

    Never mind the fact that the proven shill is contradicted by a mass of real science demonstrating the opposite of the shill’s claim.

    And you people claim you aren’t effectively shills yourselves…

    Well Gordy is. And this proves it.

    Thanks Gordy.

  55. #56 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    Just when the denier ranks could not get any worse, Berendaneke shows up. This person is either an illiterate fool or a psychopath or both.

    Yessirreee, Berendaneke is a shining example of why anyone with an ounce of brain dismisses the vast majority of AGW deniers and others in the broad anti-environmental lobby. A bunch of lunatics.

  56. #57 Bernard J.
    August 23, 2013

    FreddyKaiSockPuppeteer.

    You’re so full of the stylistic* tells that distingish you that you’re fooling no-one.

    And not even someone with English as a second language would spell words incorrectly when they’re already spelled on the page in front of them – not unless they had a severe brain injury. Also, Scandinavians don’t speak like American natives in a B grade Hollywood western, especially when typing.

    You really are a sick little person.

    [*I use that term advisedly – ‘style’ is oxymoronic in the context of your usage of language.]

  57. #58 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Rednoise

    You do not understand any of this. The ozone and aerosol forcings may be under-estimated and the rate of ocean heat uptake over the last decade wouldn’t be “predicted” by the models since it appears to be natural, decadal variability. The models aren’t intended to provide a decade-by-decade prediction of the ups and downs. They are designed to help understand what will happen by the end of the century under various different CO2 forcing scenarios.

    Try to understand.

    It’s depressingly easy for an ignorant denier to caper around in the legitimate scientific uncertainty claiming that “the science is broken” but is just isn’t.

  58. #59 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff

    Reasonably sure that this goon is FreddyBorisKai etc. Tread as psychotic scum.

  59. #60 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    Then this shining nugget from another recent scientifically illiterate arrival: “Jeff – get off the blog – you’re not qualified on climate”.

    AND YOU ARE? You think you are but rhwombat asked you what your qualifications are and we are greeted with a resounding silence. Which means you have no qualifications in climate science. Or indeed in any scientific field. At least you haven’t published anything. True?

    Fool.

    I am a qualified scientist in my field of research (population ecology) and I am wise and experienced enough to defer to the views of the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science who agree that GW IS REAL AND HUMANS ARE THE PRIMARY CULPRIT.

    I have met enough climate scientists at other universities and at conferences to see that the vast majority agree with the above statement. And the very fact that every major scientific body on the planet recognizes AGW makes your claims all the more absurd. It becomes even more embarrassing when you keep referring to Nova’s crappy web site as if that is some kind of authoritative source.

  60. #61 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    “A more balanced analysis shows that it is difficult to prove or disprove the presence of the tropospheric hotspot given the current state of the data.”

    “A more balanced analysis shows that it is difficult to prove or disprove the presence of Santa Claus given the current state of the data.”

    YOU FUCKING GREAT IDIOT ! ARE YOU MENTAL.

    How much data do they want.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Now answer the other questions given you’ve failed your arse off here.

    Remember only a few hours ago you denied there is a debate and now you’re shooting your foot off.

    Jeff having a bazziillion papers and degrees is convinced by this sort of science. Good grief.

  61. #62 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Still a moron today, I see, Luke. Sleep didn’t help.

    Remember only a few hours ago you denied there is a debate and now you’re shooting your foot off.

    No. That is a misrepresentation. Try reading the words:

    *You* asserted that the THS was *missing*.

    I asked you this question, which you still have not answered:

    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.

    Your “response” was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.

    You were wrong in your initial assertion and I was correct: it is a denier meme only found on crank blogs.

    It follows inexorably that you are a crank.

    You are also a liar.

    So no, I wasn’t “ratfucked” at all. You were.

  62. #63 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Since you are demonstrably both a liar and a fuckwit, I will repeat a bit of that yet again:

    Your “response” was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.

    But *you* did make that claim.

  63. #64 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff – sorry you’re not qualified by your own admission. You’ve disqualified yourself – get off the blog.

    GW might be real – did I say it wasn’t – but maybe that’s all we know. The rest will be C grade LOSU in the parlance

    If you knew anything – Nova also recognises AGW.

    And wow you’ve met with scientists have you? What’s that like Jeff – like are they cool? Do they talk to you do they? They might say “Hey Jeff how’s it hanging and are you still hanging around that loser site?”

    Pathetic myopic comments Jeff – now off you go as you’re not an expert. Or remain and be a hypocrite.

  64. #65 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    One last point, Luke-dupe: you are a textbook example of D-K. It posits that people overestimate their knowledge in fields in which they are not trained. I do not over-estimate my knowledge of climate science – instead I defer to the expertise of esteemed researchers like Ben Santer, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and the vast majority of elading researchers who broadly agree that humans are forcing climate. Just as I would them to defer to my expertise in plant-insect ecology and population ecology. When one has real qualifications in a scientific field, they know when to accept the prevailing wisdom in other fields. I would never claim to know more about climate science than those with the real expertise. Similarly, I’ve faced off against deniers on this web site who somehow think that they can take me on when debating the biological and ecological effects of AGW. Again none of them have any training in ecology or environmental science, but they think that blogs are enough – a formal education years of research and publications etc. are not a pre-requisite for knowledge.

    You clearly lack any kind of relevant expertise in any relevant field and thus greatly overestimate what you do know. That’s hardly surprising, since the ranks of AGW deniers are filled with unqualified schmucks like you who think that by having a basic undergraduate education (or even not), reading a book or two and spending unhealthy hours in contrarian blogs enables them somehow pick up knowledge and wisdom that has miraculously escaped experts who have worked in the field for years and who have the papers and pedigree to be classed as authorities.

    So sorry pal, you, like Cohenite, Karen, et al. are classic example of D-K. Fatso too. What you all share is a common trait: bloated over-estimation of your knowledge of climate science. You huff and puff on blogs but in the real world – where it matters – you are invisible. If you had any guts you’d write up your allegedly brilliant knowledge and try and get it into a peer-reviewed journal. But we know what would happen if you tried. Your heroine Nova knows it too. Your paper would be bounced in a nanosecond. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Blog science does not make the grade.

  65. #66 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Santa Claus isn’t missing – he’s just not proved.

    The PINNACLE OF DOLTOID FUCKWITTERY.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  66. #67 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And Luke, only fuckwit deniers keep on making this braying sound. If I were you, I’d drop it from my style sheet.

  67. #68 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    So go ahead Luke, tell us all what your scientific qualifications are. I wanna know. You can remain anonymous. How many papers have you published in the peer-reviewed literature. How many times has your work been cited in the Web of Science. How many conferences have you spoken at, how many keynote or plenary lectures. In other words, what exactly is your formal expertise.

    Until you respond, my guess is zilch, zilch, zilch, zilch, and zilch.

  68. #69 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Luke

    Stop trying to wriggle out of this. You outed yourself as a crank by claiming that the THS was missing.

    Lying, blustering and trying to rush past the fact won’t work.

    Your are a crank, Luke.

    End of.

  69. #70 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff – you’re not qualified. FUCK OFF.

    Just fuck off – go on – you are simply not qualified.

    Instead of that interminable boring rant you could have tried to answer my numerous questions which leave the models FALSIFIED> You can’t. – Write some more shitty ecologists’ rhetoric.

    Plant insect ecology – gee that’s useful. Off you go unqualified Jeff.

  70. #71 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Come on Luke. No more bluster now. Just an answer:

    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.

  71. #72 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    And where’s that Kellow quote, you bluffing, posturing, dishonest crank?

  72. #73 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Where’s your reference demonstrating that the models are “falsified” Luke?

    Blustering assertions by blog cranks count for exactly fuck-all.

    You need to back this up. And you can’t – except by appealing to crank denialist blogs!

    Oh dear! You are in a bit of a bind, crank.

  73. #74 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    BBD – it’s not missing like Santa Claus – it’s just a bit hard to ….. SEE ….. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Look if you get down on your hands and knees with a torch you can almost see it – no it’s gone again. A mate saw it when he was on the piss.

    Now cunt answer the the scientific papers that prove the models FALSIFIED.

    You can’t – or write me a Jeff whiney bitch excuse list.

  74. #75 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    BBD – you got the list – scroll up cunt,.

  75. #76 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Ah, “cunt” now, is it?

    You haven’t answered the question, crank. Here it is again for you:

    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.

  76. #77 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Now cunt answer the the scientific papers that prove the models FALSIFIED.

    Bit of a glitch in your brain there, crank!

    I asked *you* to provide *me* with a reference demonstrating that the models were FALSIFIED (woo!). I asked *you* for this because as far as I am aware, none exists.

    How can I *answer* a reference that you *didn’t provide*?

    Hmm?

    Crank?

  77. #78 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Where’s that Kellow quote, you bluffing liar?

  78. #79 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    “Implied evidence of Santa Claus from tortured sounder and radiosonde data: (a) sleigh mechanics ” (2013) By BBD and Jeff (but I should say I’m not qualified).

    “Implied evidence of Santa Claus from inverted and blended sounder, pigs trotters and radiosonde data: (b) 7 dwarf principal components ” (2013) By BBD and Jeff

  79. #80 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Sorry, you bluffing, mendacious conspiracy theorist 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).

    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.

    And calling people c**ts!

  80. #81 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Not crank blogs – scientific papers.

    They blog tolls for thee boys !

  81. #82 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    But where are those *references* backing up your incessant claim that the models are FALSIFIED (!!) Luke?

    Where are they?

    Have they got lost along with my Kellow quote?

    Oh noes!

  82. #83 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    #81

    Where are these “scientific papers”, Luke?

    Where oh where can they be?

    And why oh why don’t you just link to them?

    Hmm?

    Crank?

  83. #84 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    “conspiracy theory” don’t verbal me cunt. I didn’t say that. Don’t peddle me your central theory. Answer my list of papers instead …

  84. #85 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    But you *did* say it Luke. That is a direct quotation.

    Answer my list of papers instead …

    What are you talking about Luke?! You have not provided a single paper supporting your crank claim that the models are FALSIFIED (ooh!) let alone a list.

    You appear to be completely insane, Luke!

  85. #86 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    BTW is that actually you in the picture now, Luke? I could believe in that one.

  86. #87 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    BBD scroll up. I’m not your librarian.

    While you’re doing that given nobody wanted to have a go at the MDB and SEQ drought sequences causes – funny thought old Prof Jeff would have given he’s an expert but oh well – let’s try another discussion starter

    Let’s discuss skill testing of seasonal forecasts. Surely a prime AGW adaptation mechanism? What’s your skill assessment and favourite statistical discrimination methods and why do you think they’re the best?

    And given old Jeff loves to hook bogus GCM (maybe even RCM) output to his shitty poikilotherm models perhaps he can impress us with a discussion on downscaling techniques. Surely a useful thing to do if you’re a rusted on believer?

  87. #88 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    BBD scroll up. I’m not your librarian.

    Scroll up to *what* Luke? There’s no list of published work demonstrating that the models are FALSIFIED (oh no missus!) on this thread. Or anywhere else I know of.

    But you have made this claim over and over again here. Now I want to you substantiate it with references. If you cannot do that – and all that remains are crank blogs – then you are a wee bit fucked.

    You will have to withdraw your crank claim and admit that yes, you are a crank!

    Oh noes again!

    PS – Where’s my Kellow quote, Luke?

  88. #89 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Now watch this lying bastard wriggle some more…

  89. #90 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Oh, this is wonderful! Instead of providing the extremely necessary reference he desperately needs *right now*, Luke has just… changed his pretty picture – again.

    This boy is barking mad.

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2013

    How much data do they want.

    Well, like any good scientist, enough data of sufficient quality to answer the question either way with a reasonable level of confidence. When scientists don’t have that, they generally say that the question isn’t answered either way.

    You, on the other hand, conspicuously claim that the question is answered in the negative with what you implied was high confidence, a claim that as far as I can see is not supported by the data, and that you have not substantiated, and that was disclaimed by your own link addressing the question. That would strongly suggest that you are not a scientist at all – or that if you are, you abrogate your scientific skills when posting here, or that you are losing touch with reality and need professional help.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Very Karen-like. She’s also a past master at posting links that refute her own claims. You should ponder whether “Karen-like” is the impression you want to give.

    I bet you won’t, seeing you’re far enough gone to be denying that you said things despite your own words being quoted verbatim.

  91. #92 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Well in the course of the afternoon (UK time) Luke de Kook, the visiting” scientist” has lost it and adopted the tactics of a cornered rabid dog.

  92. #93 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    He was always going to do that.

  93. #94 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Heh – Eli reports Nova over at WattTheFuck posting on The Murry Salby Affair, and trying to drum up passing trade for her own swamp too, no doubt.

    What is it with these two-bit grifters that they can’t get an honest job? And when they can – like Salby – they’re too negligent to do it

  94. #95 Lionel A
    August 23, 2013

    luke @#70

    Plant insect ecology – gee that’s useful. Off you go unqualified Jeff.

    Vitally important field of research as we continue to fragment natural habitats and drive species to extinction by a hundred and one activities(Tony Juniper is your friend – see up thread). But what would an ignoramus like you know about that? Zilch you braying ned who can only persist in wittering on about models despite\having the information thrust at you.

    And WRT to that latter point, way back at about page 15 I asked you which models were deficient and in what ways. Despite acres of ill mannered sewage quality rhetoric you have failed to answer, all these pages later.

    You come across as a deeply unpleasant person who has behavioural and social issues. Like freddy before you, you need to seek corrective help.

  95. #96 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    This is possibly a bit unflattering, but Luke brings back an image from my childhood.

    It was London Zoo and in the monkey house there was one excited little fellow who was picking up faeces and throwing it at the plate glass window that separated us from them. He seemed quite annoyed when people did not react to him.

    It seems to me that that is what Luke has been trying to emulate: throwing out his irrelevant challenges and getting more and more irate that we’re not impressed. At least we’re spared seeing him i> excited.

  96. #97 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Well TB, given denialism and its proponents are now more threadbare than a baboon’s butt, the comparison isn’t too far off.

  97. #98 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #46 according to your link, A Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy spokesman said ageing infrastructure and high demand during heatwaves were key factors causing the state’s higher prices.

    And in Germany renewables only account for 28% of price increase over the last few years has been due to increased FF prices Since 2000, consumer electricity prices have increased by almost 12 ct/kWh. While the costs of the EEG are indeed a contributing factor, they only account for about 3.39 ct/kWh (4.03 ct/kWh including VAT) or 28 percent (34 percent including VAT) of that increase. Price increases primarily reflect rising fuel costs for conventional power. The costs of electricity generation, transport, and distribution have risen by 5.43 ct/kWh (6.46 ct/kWh including VAT) over the same period, accounting for more than 45 percent (about 54 percent including VAT) of the entire price increase.

  98. #99 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    RN #46 Denmark decided to become self sufficient in energy about 40 years ago so introduced high energy taxes to cut down consumption and improve efficiency. Look it up on CO2 scorecard to see how well they’ve done.

  99. #100 mike
    August 23, 2013

    Hi guys!

Current ye@r *