August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013

    #98 No apology necessary, there’s too much crap being said to respond to every post… but that’s why they do it don’t they?

  2. #2 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    As some of you may remember, Tim L and I never saw eye to eye, but nevertheless many thanks to him for keeping this blog alive and hopefully (looking at the turnover) he’ll make some pocket money from it.

  3. #4 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    From that link… AGW has no effect on ENSO.

    ‘Conversely, climate models do show that climate change is projected to increase the number of positive IOD events in the future (Cai et al., 2009) predominantly through a weakened Walker circulation (the atmospheric circulation across the tropical Pacific Ocean) and an enhanced temperature contrast between the land and Indian Ocean. This is despite the models exhibiting a great diversity in their ability to simulate the intensity of the IOD (Saji et al., 2006), which arises from how they simulate dynamical and thermodynamical air-sea feedbacks in the tropical Indian Ocean (Liu et al., 2011).

    ‘This finding has relevance to south-eastern Australia as positive IOD events are associated with drier conditions across the region, particularly in winter and spring. For this reason, most models tend to show long-term rainfall decline in spring in response to global warming.’

  4. #5 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    As global warming has stopped the cool IOD is back…. we are saved.

  5. #6 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    As global warming has stopped

    Oh knock it off, douchecanoe. You try this on every page, get refuted, wait until the turnover and do it again like nothing ever happened. You’ve been called out on this dozens of times now. Do you think lying your ass off over and over helps your case and cause?

  6. #7 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013

    that’s some chain of reasoning that you’ve built there e g and you know what they say about the strength of a chain… clearly you can’t see your weakest link.

    How do you deal with not accepting that models show climate change happening, yet claim that “AGW has no effect on ENSO” by linking to a quote about the models?

  7. #8 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    It’s transient, Gordy.

    When the IPC goes positive again and augments the forced warming, the net effects cancel out.

    No impact on the centennial trend!

    It’s not rocket science!

  8. #9 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    IPO

    !!

  9. #10 BBD
    August 28, 2013
  10. #11 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Repetition 5 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Is anybody apart BBD – who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems – of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??

  11. #12 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    And Gordy, Stu #5 is fair comment. You have been shown, repeatedly, that nothing you argue for stands up to even blog scrutiny.

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Yet still you reject the evidence and the explanations. It’s not a coherent stance. It makes you look ridiculous, and I have been happy to mock you for it but enough is enough.

    You know as well as I do that you haven’t made an inch of headway here, so why the repetitious bollocks?

    We both know this is a rhetorical question.

    :-)

  12. #13 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Although http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf

    It is rocket science and perhaps there is internal variability at centennial scale. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Perhaps the IPO doesn’t even exist. Might just be red noise.

  13. #14 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    #10 Freddy

    barbecue sausage fuck!

    :-)

  14. #15 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    @The Lukes

    Get back to me when somebody explains how internal variability is causing OHC 0 – 2000m to increase in all major basins!

    And why CO2 forcing doesn’t exist!

  15. #16 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Anyway cocksucker – answer the fucking questions ! You can’t you cunt.

    Basically it’s a fucking roadwreck – nobody in policy land believes you fucktards anymore. You can’t rationalise your way out of a paper bag.

  16. #17 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    BBD – it isn’t – its statistical dogshit – maybe it’s another 20 years before any warming says your beloved Trenberth – fuck me (and I know you’d like too).

  17. #18 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    And don’t verbal me cunt – CO2 forcing exists – the whole 1C and you’ve now had all you’re gonna get.

  18. #19 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Hi Luke!

    How was the flight back to the States?

  19. #20 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    And don’t verbal me cunt – CO2 forcing exists – the whole 1C and you’ve now had all you’re gonna get.

    This is interesting. You appear to be arguing that:

    - The climate system is in instantaneous equilibrium with delta F (there is no lagged, transient response, aka TCR).

    - The laws of physics have changed so that future increases in GHG forcing will have no effect on T.

    :-)

  20. #21 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    These marginalia aside, why is OHC increasing simultaneously in all major basins?

    No known ocean circulation re-distributing energy *within* the climate system could do that!

    Oh noes!

  21. #22 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013

    #18 Don’t you mean “How was the flight from Reality?”

  22. #23 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Nope – it you’ve had your 50 years of TCR and now it’s all over red rover. Anyway answer the published in the motha-fucka literature paper. You can’t

  23. #24 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Yes the upper ocean isn’t warming but the bottom is. Get straight fucked.

  24. #25 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Basically it’s a fucking roadwreck – nobody in policy land believes you fucktards anymore.

    Depends on what you mean by “nobody in policy land”. Does this include the President of the United States Of America?

    :-)

  25. #26 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Yep including him especially

  26. #27 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Yes the upper ocean isn’t warming but the bottom is. Get straight fucked.

    This is the problem, Luke!

    Abysmal topic knowledge!

    OHC 0-700m and OHC 0-2000m

    Now see links at #9!

    :-)

  27. #28 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Nope – it you’ve had your 50 years of TCR and now it’s all over red rover.

    See #19!

    You are either a fuckwit or a troll!

    :-)

  28. #29 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    #21 Turboblocke

    It’s interesting that both The Lukes and Freddy cycle through barely contained insanity to foaming madness!

    Also that both these nutters resort to sock-puppetry (albeit an unusual variant with The Lukes) to “deal” with their worst excesses.

    Someone above mentioned watching car crashes.

    :-)

  29. #30 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 28, 2013

    Luke @ 15 – I happen to be in policy and you’re right, I don’t “believe” in AGW and CC.

    I do, however, accept the science, which is telling anyone with half a brain that the earth is continuing to warm with the ongoing, increasing, human-driven liberation of GHGs and that this is having (and will increasingly have) significant and negative effects on the way we live.

    In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours. Increasingly, however, this is changing as reality starts to bite.

    So enjoy your time in the limelight, in your bitter, twisted and anti-human fashion. It will be short-lived. I just hope for the sake of the rest of us that the delay caused by the vested interests and their useful idiots (hi, el gordo) isn’t so great as to mean the impacts of AGW and CC will be unmanageable.

  30. #31 chek
    August 28, 2013

    Blimey – the Luke Collective gets a bit shirty when his unsupported assertions aren’t believed. And the more unbelievable they are the shittier he gets.

  31. #32 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Luke, sweetheart, how does that paper contradict AGW? Have you even read it?

  32. #33 Craig Thomas
    August 28, 2013

    BBD
    August 28, 2013

    These marginalia aside, why is OHC increasing simultaneously in all major basins?

    No known ocean circulation re-distributing energy *within* the climate system could do that!

    Oh noes!

    I know! I know! I know!

    It’s the lag.

  33. #34 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    Luke
    August 28, 2013

    And don’t verbal me cunt – CO2 forcing exists – the whole 1C and you’ve now had all you’re gonna get.

    Your opinion appears to fly in the face of pretty much all the published literature in this area.

    Do you care to share the source for your belief?

  34. #35 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    As global warming has stopped the cool IOD is back…. we are saved.

    WTF are you on about?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml

  35. #36 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.

  36. #37 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    “In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours.”

    St Cyr – more verballing – well the powers that be ask about the issues I posted 14 days ago and don’t get good answers. So they no longer believe my hymn book line. Appeals to authority are now over – you have to say “The reason is …..”

  37. #38 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    Luke, like you, a lot of them get good answers — they just don’t like them. Unlike you, they don’t start calling everybody cunt.

  38. #39 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    But political reps do – it’s catchy !

  39. #40 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    They slavishly believe their falsified models.

    How many times!!!!

    I don’t believe anything – modelled or otherwise.

    Just as I lack the qualifications, skills or experience to deal with my car maintenance or my house’s wiring or my family’s various medical issues – and therefore rely on the expertise of those who do, so I accept the expertise of those with other expertise. Knowing how to do CPR or change a tyre is all very well for dealing with immediate problems, but you still need the back-up of a hospital or a garage to deal with the causes of the problems – whether it’s a week of intensive care or a simple wheel realignment, experts are best.

    Even if I were a working scientist, I couldn’t do everything. Oceanography, fluid dynamics, atmospheric physics, glaciology, geology, marine biology, meteorology – none of the “climate scientists” are expert in all of the dozens of relevant fields. They rely on each other to contribute relevant expertise – and they a.c.c.e.p.t. the analysis and conclusions of those experts unless and until better science comes along. And then they work with those accepted results until/unless more and better information is forthcoming.

    I’m beginning to suspect that some people feel left out of things because they’re not designing and manufacturing medications rather than being like the rest of us and having to read those leaflets that are enclosed in packs of things we didn’t even know we needed until someone else told us we did. We are not helpless in the face of expertise, we simply have to acknowledge that we don’t have all the expertise we need to do everything for ourselves. We cannot possibly know everything ourselves, nor check nor prove – or even understand – every little detail of every single item of information that comes our way. We do our best for as much of it as we can manage – and we accept the rest. All the while knowing that we will have to change our understanding when experts tell us something newer, different, better measured, better analysed by those who know, really know, what they’re doing.

    It’s silly to accuse others of dishonesty or blind faith just because none of us, not one single person, is capable of knowing all that we need to know to contradict the conclusions of experts.

  40. #41 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    And your carbon tax is like VAT, it would hit the poor more than the well off.

    Nope. It’s the other way around. The offset provided by the government exceeds the costs imposed by the carbon tax for the poor. It’s only the rich for whom the costs exceed the offset.

    Is EVERYTHING you say incorrect, or just most of it?

  41. #42 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    DuKE Luke says:

    …CO2 forcing exists – the whole 1C and you’ve now had all you’re gonna get.

    Scratch a JAQer and you generally find denial or delusion (tempered with outright conspiracy theory as we previously observed).

    Even Lindzen can’t make the 1C part of that claim stick, and he isn’t stupid enough to even try on “you’ve now had all you’re gonna get”.

  42. #43 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours. Increasingly, however, this is changing as reality starts to bite.’

    By coincidence the Shadow Ag Minister stayed at my place the other night and enjoyed himself so much he’s returning tomorrow.

    Obviously I can’t say much, being in house, but rest assured the next Agricultural and Food Security Minister is aware of the Denialati’s point of view.

  43. #44 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    Luke
    August 29, 2013

    They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.

    Your alternative being to slavishly believe any nonsense you read on a crank blog such as uni-dropout ex-weatherman Anthony Watts’ WUWT, or children’s questacon presenter Joanne Codling’s Jo Nova blogs?

    And you wonder why you are the object of derision around here, Luke?

  44. #45 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    Obviously I can’t say much, being in house, but rest assured the next Agricultural and Food Security Minister is aware of the Denialati’s point of view.

    I do hope he takes notice of how people who know how to make a profit out of wine are shifting their growing regions as well as their picking times because they see climate change effects already.

    Brown Brothers Wineries CEO Ross Brown said he was sufficiently alarmed by climate change to have started relocating production of cooler varieties to Tasmania’s Tamar Ridge winery.

    “Basically we are in the coolest part of Victoria (for wine) and that won’t be cool enough to produce some of our main wines – for sparkling and pinot noir,” Mr Brown said.

    “As the vineyards warm up a few degrees some of the varieties we are currently growing won’t be viable in those vineyards in 10 to 15 years time.”

    Mr Brown said warming also presented a major challenge for wines that are suited to warm climates – like shiraz and cabernet – which would lose quality.

    http://www.climatechangeandwine.com/noticia-detalle.php?id=418

    Or will he set up a relocation process/funding for people who’ll be moving northwards when this anticipated “cooling” sets in.

  45. #46 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.’

    They have been severely brainwashed, mainly because of their lack of scepticism.

    Its one of the main problems we will encounter in debriefing the masses, but fortunately in Australia there is a lot more scepticism about.

  46. #47 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    The French winemakers are apparently also buying up land in England.

  47. #48 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    mainly because of their lack of scepticism.

    Methinks you misunderstand scepticism. It isn’t, and never has been, cynical distrust of everything you hear or see.

    It’s the willingness to accept that what your own eyes or ears or thoughts tell you is not necessarily what is true. More importantly, it’s the willingness – or lacking that, the reluctant acceptance – to see that your understanding is wrong or inadequate in some way.

    Our eyes and other senses can fool us. Our thoughts can get stuck in a rut – and might have been wrong all along. Scepticism is about choosing better alternatives. It’s not about finding something more comforting or attractive or pleasing to believe in. Even if it’s not as strong as blind faith, belief is anathema to scepticism.

  48. #49 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    I’d be horrified if someone so lacking in coherent case making and so unable to filter out unsupported or even bogus claims as Luke is provides allegedly evidence-based advice to policy makers – let alone someone as deeply and determinedly misguided as el gordo.

    But we already know the Liberal Party are prone to seeking that kind of advice, so I’ve been horrified about that for some time, tempered only by their inability to implement policy over the last few years.

  49. #50 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    The French winemakers are apparently also buying up land in England.

    It was only the other day I saw something on a news service about English sparkling wines being better than many of those produced on continental Europe. Because their climate is now more suitable for those grapes that need slightly cooler growing conditions.

    The French appellation system might start falling apart if those regions with the fiercely protected names can no longer grow (so much of) the grapes needed for those products. Or at least of the same high quality.

  50. #51 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    …or maybe sparkling “Sussex”/”Hampshire” will become the new must-have party wine to drink instead of Champagne?

    They already have that problem in France: a previous employer once gave me a triple-pack of French sparkling wine which was head and shoulders better than any of the official “Champagne” wines.

  51. #52 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    All Deltoid greenpiss ideologists:

    Even 1C CO2 sensitivity has not been measured in reality and is therefore pure speculation. You greenpissers have no clue how science works. Fuck off from this blog you greenpiss ideology idiots.

  52. #53 Berendaneke
    August 29, 2013

    Repetition 6 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Is anybody apart BBD – who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems – of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??

  53. #54 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    There may really be some climate beginner laymen reading here.

    So rather than scare the horses with a reference to Science of Doom or other extremely technical stuff, here’s a short video with a clear explanation of climate sensitivity and how it’s calculated. It’s only 6 minutes or so.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk

    If you’ve forgotten all your high school algebra and how equations work, it’s still not that hard. Just save it and look at it again in a couple of days to see if those long unused circuits get reactivated.

  54. #55 Bernard J.
    August 29, 2013

    Thanks Adelady. I’m going to shamelessly pinch that link for a numpty with whom I’m playing cat and mouse at Eli’s…

  55. #56 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    Adelady the models have failed, do you have an opinion on this? The AGW faith is based upon them and their inability to show reality is of great concern to the sceptical mind.

  56. #58 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.

    ‘And what about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)? What happens to global surface temperatures when the AMO also peaks and no longer contributes to the warming?

    ‘The climate science community skirts the common-sense questions, so no one takes them seriously.’

    Bob Tisdale

  57. #59 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    Adelady the models have failed, …

    Sheesh. Luke couldn’t defend that claim, and didn’t even defend the observation that it’s a false frame and a fallacy rolled into one – and you’re even more prone to being misled than he is, so I don’t like your chances.

    The AGW faith …

    Sigh. It’s always projection, as has been demonstrated time and time again on this thread by you drawing a conclusion that is ruled out by evidence, sometimes even drawing it from the evidence that rules the conclusion out. If that’s not “faith” I don’t know what is.

    …is based upon them…

    Liar or fool.

    It has been pointed out time and again that the case for concern does not rely on models.

  58. #60 adelady
    August 29, 2013

    Adelady the models have failed, do you have an opinion on this? The AGW faith is based upon them and their inability to show reality is of great concern to the sceptical mind.

    Do you read what I write? I have faith in nothing.

    I’m inclined to the same view as James Hansen about what you do and don’t accept as evidence relating to climate change. I can’t find the piece where he says directly (as I remember it) physics first, paleoclimate second, models a distant third.

    In this item from BBC radio, he restates this point less explicitly. I know he’s not a wonderful speaker/ presenter, but I find his rather flat delivery reinforces rather than detracts from his argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geS6mtY0XsQ

  59. #61 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    El Gordo – funny that one can get them to swing at so many wide balls. And when they do – it’s an appeal to authority answer.

  60. #62 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    So if the models haven’t failed refute von Storch’s paper.

    You’ll do so with the OHC ruse or appeals to authority.

    So we have an incrementally adaptive story.

    So original thinking wasn’t correct. How much else is there? Is it knowable?

    I listed about 10 or so issues a fortnight ago – the oblique answers one would derive is palaeo says climate sensitivity is correct and OHC explains right now. So “don’t you worry about all that”.

    hmmmmmm – could be – or maybe not? An incrementally adaptive story doesn’t look good. My lords that rule over me aren’t convinced.

  61. #63 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    Should we appeal to Anthony Watts, instead?

  62. #64 Craig Thomas
    August 29, 2013

    What happens to global surface temperatures when the AMO also peaks and no longer contributes to the warming?

    He still doesn’t get it.

    So long as you continue to confuse natural variation and human forcing, your ridiculous questions will remain inspiration for amusement and mockery.

  63. #65 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    … it’s an appeal to authority answer.

    Funny, you never seem to demonstrate this to be true. You don’t even cite which answers you are talking about. As with most of what you write, at best it’s argument by unsupported or poorly supported assertion.

    I’m beginning to wonder if you’re one of those contrarians one encounters every now and then who know how to name some terms describing errors in an argument, but don’t actually know what they mean and cannot demonstrate that they apply. Readers generally pick this up after a few exchanges.

    And it’s fascinating that you stroke el gordo’s ego and encourage his agnotology (and do much the same with cohenite). They’re not even “wide balls” – so many free hits on offer and you decline all of them. It’s almost like you’re not here for the hunting…

    You’ll do so with the OHC ruse or appeals to authority.

    Several of the previous responses did neither of those things, but you simply pretend they never happened. I guess it’s easier to avoid the actual debate and go Underpants Gnome Style instead:

    1. Make claim, typically unsubstantiated.
    2. Ignore all evidence to the contrary.
    3. …
    4. Profit! Declare victory!

    You either suffer from some cognitive issues similar to the impression el gordo gives, or you are mendacious, or both. My money’s on both.

  64. #66 FrankD
    August 29, 2013

    Sorry I’m a bit late on, but El Gordo’s lame attempt at defending Karen’s bullshit simply shows that Flannery did not say what Karen claims. What he did say, in 2005, was:

    When you look right across the continent, what has happened is that the winter rainfall zone that has been the heart and soul of the bread basket of Australia is declining.

    So when we look at the evidence (cycle with the earlier/later buttons), what do we see in the main grain-growing areas?

    2005 – Average
    2006 – Very Dry
    2007 – Dry
    2008 – Average in SW, Dry in SE.
    2009 – Dry
    2010 – Very Dry in SW, Very Wet in SE
    2011 – Average
    2012 – Very Dry
    2013 (so far) – Extremely Dry.

    So, for the nearly 9 years since that comment was made we’ve seen 6 years of dry to extremely dry conditions, 2 years were average and one was dry in some parts but mainly very wet. The data shows that Flannerys projection was right.

    Tim 1, Karen and Gordo 0. News at 11:00.

  65. #67 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    My lords that rule over me aren’t convinced.

    If they’re asking you, they’re obviously asking the wrong person. You indulge in far too many conclusions that rely on fallacies, think in eminently unscientific terms, engage in rank conspiratorial ideation and appear to have a poor understanding of the breadth of the evidence preferring instead to focus on little pieces here and there – and worse still, seem to have a very selective and unidirectional ability to detect poorly substantiated claims.

    Tell them to ask someone who actually knows what they’re talking about with respect to their questions.

  66. #68 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    Well they’re clearly asking the wrong person. But I have let them down and offered your answers up. FAIL ! Answer the questions was the response. You guys simply don’t get it.

    And Lotharsson – really just more philosophy from you. #66 – just generalist waffle really. Nobody has provided any serious answers to me.

    But hey here’s hope for you all.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

    FrankD – Flannery’s comments were WRONG – Australian capital cities did not run out of water (albeit going close) – it rained! and the MDB flooded. What he said was explicit and clear. He was foolish to do so. I know what motivated him to so do. He experienced his once in a lifetime mega-drought and started projecting. IF he was more preceptive he would have targeted in to smaller regional changes which perhaps are style AGW-ish and underlying – SAM and STRi.

  67. #69 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘So we have an incrementally adaptive story.’

    AGW is seemingly non-falsifiable.

  68. #70 Jeff Harvey
    August 29, 2013

    The abstract of the Nature paper concludes:

    Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

    I’m sure the authors of this paper won’t like the denial community using it as another way of downplaying AGW.

    And Luke is certainly one who loves to appeal to authority – at least by cherry picking when it suits his narrative. Deniers have used Lindzen for years as an example of ‘authority’ – now Judith Curry is there heroine of the hour.

    He’s a complete hypocrite. Moreover, I’d trust statured authorities any day over self-taught hacks like Nova and bumblers like Bob Tisdale. On Deltoid alone I have encountered a number of self-educated intellectual wannabes who think they know everything there is to know about climate related effects on biodiversity. But when I challenge them with established theories and hypotheses in the field – from Hubbell’s Neutral Models of Biodiversity to MaCarthur/Wilson’s theory of Island Biogeography, to functional responses, k-factor analyses, stable limit cycles, Nicholson-Bailey models, Neutral models etc, they get all uppity and accuse me of being arrogant. Instead, I am merely showing that they don’t know diddly squat about fields of research I have studied for more than 20 years and in which I did my BSc and PhD degrees. Armchair experts for the most part don’t exist – except in their own minds.

  69. #71 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘IF he was more preceptive he would have targeted in to smaller regional changes which perhaps are style AGW-ish and underlying – SAM and STRi.’

    That would have been a safer bet, but he’s a fkn dill and should be sacked as Climate Commissioner.

  70. #72 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    But I have let them down and offered your answers up.

    You double down on your poor thinking: if they’re asking me or most other people here they are asking the wrong person.

    (Not that I believe you on that point anyway.)

    …really just more philosophy from you.

    Lame deflection, Luke. Deeply deeply lame.

    My comments reiterate previous observations to the same effect that were substantiated at the time, and were not rebutted. And your claim that “nobody has provided any answers to me” is obviously and patently false, as anyone who reads up-thread can see.

    There are some questions – mostly poorly framed and often semi-coherently posed at best, IIRC – that I don’t think were answered. But once more you’re not seeking the answers in anywhere near the best forum which suggests you have very poor scientific judgement – or are being mendacious.

    As I said, my money’s on both – there’s enough evidence on this thread now to make that a rather plausible inference.

  71. #73 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    AGW is seemingly non-falsifiable.

    That’s a massive free hit on offer, Luke. Over to you!

    And don’t worry if el gordo rejects your rebuttal and reiterates the same claim in a few days. He is impervious to new information.

  72. #74 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘Moreover, I’d trust statured authorities any day over self-taught hacks like Nova and bumblers like Bob Tisdale.’

    Appeal to authority and shoot all messengers, might work for the short term but is unsustainable in the long run.

  73. #75 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘He is impervious to new information.’

    I respect Luke’s opinion and if he points out an error in my thinking …. I’ll accept his viewpoint.

  74. #76 chek
    August 29, 2013

    I respect Luke’s opinion

    As I’ve asked before, on what basis? Because you like the cut of his trousers? In the buffoonery stakes, he’s only half a head behind you.

    But then again you dare not consult anyone actually qualified, for obvious reasons.

  75. #77 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘But then again you dare not consult anyone actually qualified, for obvious reasons.’

    Appeal to authority has no appeal for me, much better to find an honest broker who is only interested in finding the truth.

  76. #78 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Appeal to authority has no appeal for me, much better to find an honest broker who is only interested in finding the truth.

    Which is why so many quacks make a good living.
    You (and I) are not educated enough to know ‘the truth’, which is why we would normally trust someone who is conversant with the relevant facts consistent with the current body of knowledge.

    Except when like you, you’d prefer NOT to know, again for obvious reasons .

  77. #79 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    I trust Judith Curry ….

    ‘….the same natural internal variability (primarily PDO) that is responsible for the pause is a major and likely dominant cause (at least at the 50% level) of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century.’

  78. #80 chek
    August 29, 2013

    I trust Judith Curry

    Of course you do. She’s not qualified to pronounce on the things she does, which is why she blogs them rather than publishes them.

    And she’s also a paranoid conspiracy nutter, which makes her doubly attractive for you.

  79. #81 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    chek have you anything to say about this new paper?

  80. #82 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    Here’s the authors explaining what they mean.

    https://theconversation.com/warming-slowed-by-cooling-pacific-ocean-17534

  81. #83 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    In that Conversation piece you can see them appealing for more funding.

  82. #84 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Which new paper would that be?

    If it’s the Nature one, then it’s the classic down-the-up-escalator fallacy that deniers flock to like flies around shit the period is too short to separate noise (natural variability) from signal (AGW).

    The authors explicitly state this conclusion. If it ain’t that one, you need to clarify your point.

  83. #85 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    “But once more you’re not seeking the answers in anywhere near the best forum which suggests you have very poor scientific judgement – or are being mendacious.”

    True probably – but why are yo’all here? And I was told you guys were the shit ! (that’s “the” shit not shit). So I thought I’d come on over and say “hi”.

    Why are yo’ll so upset about the Nature paper. It’s amazing how quickly the discussion turns to a Nova, Curry, Tisdale hate-fest. Why not discuss it yourselves. Oh I forgot – you’re unable…..

    So Curry is a conspiracy-nutter now. WOW ! I thought she was down the middle myself. More Kool Aid guzzling.

    Hey Jeff I also left you a large response umpty ump pages back – when you last posted. Jeff – again all very well done on the ecology but drive all that with a dodgy GCM output and all you have is crap.

  84. #86 Luke
    August 29, 2013

    “And your claim that “nobody has provided any answers to me” is obviously and patently false, as anyone who reads up-thread can see.”

    We’ve had – appeal to authority; OHC no questions asked; and palaeo explains all so STFU

    hmmmmm

  85. #87 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    I respect Luke’s opinion and if he points out an error in my thinking…

    Which is perilously close to appeal to authority, because you won’t respect the fact that others here have pointed out errors in your thinking, even though the errors remain errors no matter who points them out.

    …much better to find an honest broker who is only interested in finding the truth.

    So, not Luke then on the evidence found in this thread.

    And given that you are incompetent to decide these kinds of matters, how do you reliably find an “honest broker”? You can’t use the positions they take to decide, because you don’t have the skills to determine whether they are accurate or not. You can’t personally assess whether they are “only interested in finding the truth” because you don’t have the skills to determine whether they are engaged in deception as to what the truth is, or not. And “only interested in finding the truth” is an insufficient criterion unless coupled with “…and have the competence to do so”. But again, you don’t have the competence to determine whether they have the competence.

    Hmmmm….methinks you haven’t thought this through, which is no great surprise.

  86. #88 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    …but why are yo’all here?

    Perhaps you should have tried to find out before barrelling in?

    We’ve had – appeal to authority; OHC no questions asked; and palaeo explains all so STFU…

    Still denying the answers you were actually provided?

    Is it possible that you have vastly overestimated your own competence, and didn’t even comprehend that certain answers were in fact answers? Or is this super lame defence the best you can do given the inconvenient facts?

    (Meanwhile, feel free to demonstrate you understand at least something by setting el gordo straight on the falsifiability of AGW. There’s a good chap.)

  87. #89 chek
    August 29, 2013

    So Curry is a conspiracy-nutter now. WOW !

    You mean you’re not aware of her self-pitying view that only IPCC approved and unfairly promoted pretty boy hotshots carry any weight? What rock (or bridge) have you been hiding under all this time?

  88. #90 Lionel A
    August 29, 2013

    They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.

    Doh! To use a bit of naval idiom you are nothing but a ‘crap artist’.

    Are you are aware how many different forms climate models take. If the answer is yes then elucidate.

    Are you are ware of the variety of data and fields of science used to create an evaluate models. If the answer is yes then elucidate.

    Are you aware of how climate models differ from the models used to forecast weather. If the answer is yes then elucidate.

    Now explain which models you consider deficient and why. Provide references to honest and competent works that back up your assertions.

    All you have done so far is hand wave and witter. Stop stalling and do something concrete.

    Remember that understanding of how humans are altering the climate does not rely upon models so try to break out of your tunnel vision.

    Otherwise you will continue to be treated as a ‘crap artist’.

  89. #91 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘You can’t personally assess whether they are “only interested in finding the truth” because you don’t have the skills to determine whether they are engaged in deception as to what the truth is, or not.’

    Right.

    Here’s the Guardian on the big new story.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-dampened-global-warming

  90. #92 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    …the same natural internal variability (primarily PDO) that is responsible for the pause is a major and likely dominant cause (at least at the 50% level) of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century…

    This isn’t saying what I suspect you think it is saying. Assuming it to be correct for the sake of argument – and I haven’t looked myself, but I’ve seen some skepticism about the methods Curry used to come up with the “50%” figure – if you subtract its effect out from the surface temperature signal, you’re still going to need to invoke AGW to explain the long term warming trend. And that underlying trend is continuing unabated.

    And I’m waiting for the penny to drop – this paper is reporting on a model. Do you agree with the results of some models now? How do you decide which ones?

    (Maybe Luke can tell us whether this one comes under his “falsified model” banner or not? After he describes how AGW can be falsified, of course.)

  91. #93 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    BTW, el gordo, you appear to simultaneously believe:

    a) The conclusion that warming is anthropogenic relies on climate models.
    b) Climate models have been falsified.
    c) The conclusion that warming is anthropogenic cannot be falsified.

    If so, how do you reconcile the contradiction?

  92. #94 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘Are you aware of how climate models differ from the models used to forecast weather. If the answer is yes then elucidate.’

    They are different but I’m not sure of the technicalities, Luke knows the answer to that.

  93. #95 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘If so, how do you reconcile the contradiction?’

    a) Yes
    b) Yes
    c) As long as they keep moving the goalposts it might take some time.

    Bob Tisdale again…..

    ‘If La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.’

  94. #96 chek
    August 29, 2013

    Gordon, two things: firstly as already explained, the authors of the Nature paper explicitly state “Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase”. Note that ‘very likely’ means ‘greater than 90% probability’.

    Secondly, they’re explicitly referring to surface temperatures when Levitus et al have already shown where the heat is going and you’ve been here long enough to have seen the months long troll assault on that paper.

    I strongly suspect you’re trying to make something that isn’t there of this, which is of course standard denier procedure.

  95. #97 Lotharsson
    August 29, 2013

    a) Yes
    b) Yes
    c) As long as they keep moving the goalposts it might take some time.

    OK, so you don’t reconcile the contradiction.

    (And still haven’t understood that your answer to (a) is simply wrong.)

  96. #98 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘I strongly suspect you’re trying to make something that isn’t there of this’

    I would be greatly surprised if it isn’t in AR5.

  97. #99 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    Loth you can stick the contradiction up your arse, if it makes you feel better.

    Do you think this hiatus will last another 20 years?

  98. #100 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    British Brainwashing Corporation’s slant….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904