August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    Stu I make a practice of reading between the lines.

  2. #2 chek
    August 29, 2013

    I do believe the Luke Collective did claim to be a ‘practising scientist’. Though obviously not yet perfected and without a practice.

  3. #3 Stu
    August 29, 2013

    If there are any lurkers left in this cesspool, please read (and please follow the links, and verify for yourself):

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/recent-slowdown-in-atmospheric-warming-thanks-to-la-nina/

  4. #4 el gordo
    August 29, 2013

    ‘There is a noticeable correlation ( |r| = 0.38) between PDO and ENSO. So it seems conceivable that the state of the inter-decadal PDO constrains the envelope of the inter-annual ENSO variability (Mantua et al., 1997).

    ‘Different periodicities with different underlying processes could be involved. Minobe (1997) has shown that the PDO fluctuations in the 20th century concentrate most of their energy on two different ranges of periodicities from 15 to 25 years and from 50 to 70 years. The first range includes the 22-year cycle of solar activity.

    ‘So I hypothesize that this cycle is associated with ENSO events such that emerging patterns, covering decades, reflect the rhythm of the 22-year solar cycle.’

    Landscheidt

  5. #5 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Stu I make a practice of reading between the lines.

    Knock it the fuck off, you lying sack of shit. You adore a proven liar, repeat proven lies and ignore every single piece of evidence pointed out to you. You’re pathetic.

  6. #6 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Gordo, no matter how hard you dance, correlation is not causation. And why the flying fuck are you quoting a scientist that has been dead for a decade? What the hell is wrong with you?

  7. #7 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘a lot of coin flips have simply come up La Niña lately.’

    That’s wrong for a start, a cool PDO produces more La Nina.

  8. #8 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    And let me repeat this AGAIN, clownshoe. You’ve now trotted out 60-year solar cycles, 100-year Pacific equatorial heat cycles, and others I cannot even remember and cannot be bothered to even look up.

    Go and grab any temperature graph that extends back more than two of the alleged cycles. Start with Akasofu’s 60 year solar cycle claptrap first, it’s the funniest one. Extend the alleged trend back a few hundred years.

    IIRC, you’ll arrive at Snowball Earth around 500CE.

    It’s bullshit, Gordo. Willful, bought-and-paid for bullshit. Your “ooh, I am a skeptic, wait and see, split down the middle” claptrap is high-five-mission-accomplished for the fossil fuel industry, Gordo. All they need to do is distract you for a few more decades while they milk us for another $2,000,000,000,000. After that, they don’t care. And after that, I’m sure you’ll be right there, saying “nobody could have foreseen” and “well, nothing we can do about it now”. Meanwhile, let’s pretend there AREN’T thousands of households that can literally set their well water on fire. Let’s pretend there is NO dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

    You’re a useful tool. You’re too stupid to be paid to do this.

  9. #9 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    That’s wrong for a start, a cool PDO produces more La Nina.

    Oh do tell, Gordo. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

  10. #10 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    PREEMPTIVE DENIALIST “but there’s more money in confirming AGW than there is in denialism” –

    2013 NSF Budget request: $7.3B. Let’s for now assume they get all of that (snirk) and that all of that goes to climate change research (guffaw).

    Projected fossil fuel reserves that will cause great harm to the environment (as in even more than current extraction methods, causing more emissions, less efficient) (shale, oblique, frack); at least $4T.

    That’s, what, 550 times as much? Assuming the NSF does no other research, ever? Tell you what, let’s spread out that $4T over 50 years, and let’s assume the NSF spends 10% on climate research (they don’t now, not even close, but hey, let’s party!).

    Hmm. $80B vs. $0.7B a year. I have to say, that’s nowhere near that 550 factor. No wonder all of the best climate scientists are flocking to Heartland! It HAS to be all about the money, right?

    [snirk]

    Comparing climate research to Exxon PROFITS (the gross is too gross) is left as an exercise for the reader. (Bonus points if you figure the percentages Exxon spends on actual climate research and climate “research”).

  11. #11 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    And since our denier friends like to pick short periods, let’s look at, oh, the past decade and see if we can find that hiatus. Shouldn’t be hard, right?

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/

  12. #12 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘How did you arrive at this conclusion?’

    ‘The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) exerts a long-term influence over the ENSO cycle, bringing 20-30 year periods of strong and frequent El Niño events, or periods of weak El Niño and stronger La Niña conditions.

    ‘The IPO does this by changing the background conditions in the Pacific Ocean, the canvas upon which ENSO events play out. During the positive IPO (for example, late 1970s to late 1990s), frequent El Niño events are common. In the negative IPO (as in the late 1940s to mid 1970s), La Niña events are more common, and generally mild and less windy conditions prevail over New Zealand.’

    NIWA

  13. #13 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Very good! Now what does that tell you about what is going to happen in a decade or so?

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    Whatever can be going on!

    Berandeneke’s writing became a lot more coherent after I suggested it might be good for Freddy to take his meds – just sayin’ ;-)

  15. #15 FrankD
    August 30, 2013

    Whatever can be going on!

    He mellowed out when Unreal Tournament finally loaded

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    Projected fossil fuel reserves that will cause great harm to the environment (as in even more than current extraction methods, causing more emissions, less efficient) (shale, oblique, frack); at least $4T.

    Or the other perspective – value of currently claimed conventional reserves that will have to stay unburnt to give us some sort of chance of avoiding 2C+ rise: somewhere around $20 Trillion.

    Luke and el gordo and cohenite never got around to explaining why the CEOs facing that kind of potential writedown haven’t tossed a few million bucks in loose change at some “honest broker” research types to produce unimpeachable research showing that the mainstream position – which people like el gordo and cohenite assert they know is bollocks – is actually bollocks and there will be no problem burning all $20 Trillion worth. (And they haven’t explained why the shareholders haven’t turfed them out in protest for (a) knowing it is bollocks but (b) negligently failing to mitigate the risk that the bollocks will be taken seriously.)

    It’s the dog that didn’t bark, and I’ve never seen an answer that wasn’t a conspiracy theory.

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Very good! Now what does that tell you about what is going to happen in a decade or so?’

    There might be one or two modest El Nino events over the next couple of decades. So you won’t get your bounce in temperatures that you are hanging out for.

  18. #18 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    Alas IPO not predictable – a hindsight thing.

    Forecast for next decade – on the land – make money in 3 years, break even on 4years, big lose on 3 years

  19. #19 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Really, Gordo? We’re talking about a paper that found an oscillation. A cycle, if you will.

    Are you now saying that cycle has stopped?

  20. #20 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Alas IPO not predictable – a hindsight thing.’

    Agree.

  21. #21 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Are you now saying that cycle has stopped?’

    All the cycles around the planet are operating normally.

  22. #22 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    So is your contention that the tropical Pacific will never warm up to, say, late 1990s levels? What do you base this on?

  23. #23 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    While we are at it, lets talk about the AMO.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg

    If this NH winter turns out to be another shocker … there will be political consequences.

  24. #24 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘So is your contention that the tropical Pacific will never warm up to, say, late 1990s levels?’

    The 1998 El Nino was out of the box, so I don’t expect to see that again for at least two decades.

    The modest El Nino we get won’t make a significant difference to temperatures.

    I’m looking back to the mid 1940s thru 1976 in an attempt to forecast climate change.

  25. #25 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ENSO has been operating throughout the Holocene, presumably.

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png

  26. #26 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

    If ENSO patterns are driven by Pacific ocean temperatures, what makes you confident that these temperatures will never rise?

    - Talking about political consequences: red herring.
    - Talking about past El Nino events: red herring. We’re talking about the DRIVER here.
    - Talking about the Holocene: red herring. We’re talking about the temperatures that have been rising faster than ever before.

    Answer.

  27. #27 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Answer’

    Lets go with what we know.

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

  28. #28 adelady
    August 30, 2013

    The 1998 El Nino was out of the box, so I don’t expect to see that again for at least two decades.

    Forget 1998 for a moment. Have a look at the 1995 el Nino year on this graph.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
    What you notice is that the only La Nina years cooler than that since then were 1996 & 2000. All the more recent La Nina years were warmer than that el Nino year.

    And 1998 isn’t an orphan or an isolated outlier. The anomaly for 2010 was much the same, as was 2005 which wasn’t an el Nino year anyway, (though it probably didn’t miss the classification by very much).

  29. #29 Craig Thomas
    August 30, 2013

    el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    There might be one or two modest El Nino events over the next couple of decades. So you won’t get your bounce in temperatures that you are hanging out for.

    JUst think about what you are saying – El Ninos in the 20th century got progressively hotter, Since then, the La Ninas we have been having have been hotter than 20th Century El Ninos.

    SO – where is the cycle? Everyone else is seeing a trend.

  30. #30 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    Good graph adelady and good question Craig, hopefully I’ll have an answer before BB wakes up or I’m dead meat.

  31. #31 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Oh for fuck’s sake guys, you’re giving it away.

    Fine.

    So for the past few years, ENSO trends: down. Sunspots: down. 100 year cycles: down. 60 year cycles: down.

    At the same time, temperatures are up. OHC is up. Arctic ice: down. Antarctic ice: down. Number of storms: up.

    So even with all cycles known being down at the moment, temperatures are going up, sea level is rising, summer ice levels are almost non-existent (oh hai, did you hear the one about Chinese container ships being able to take the Northern route now?), the climate is changing, the food chain is affected and extreme weather events are becoming more common.

    Tipping point? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Gordo.

  32. #32 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    If Gordo stops lying (for example, claiming “the warming has stopped” as soon as the page flips), I think I will have an aneurysm out of sheer joy.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    I see Luke declined to step up to the “AGW isn’t falsifiable” free hit. Nor did he bother to swing at the “the AGW conclusion is dependent on climate models”.

    Hands up if you’re surprised?

  34. #34 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    @Lotharsson, I think we’re due for another visit from Luke #1 again soon (I think that’s the one who cannot go two sentences without saying “cunt”). Overbearing Jonas-like douchebaggery has failed, so my money is on a nice run of nothing but cuntity-cunt-cunt-cunt.

    (For lurkers, if this doesn’t make sense or sounds crude, go back a few pages)

  35. #35 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    Nah – didn’t work. But you guys really aren’t very nice to newcomers, like to assume lots of things about visitors which goes to the heart of your objectivity.

    The pause is a serious issue, as is the absence of the trop hotspot, as i growth in Antarctic sea ice extent. Simply denying it and providing a wall of deference to authority isn”t a good enough answer (IMHO opinion of course). And incremental numbers of papers and debates by serious IPCC involved people (cited today on the pause) simply show how isolated and uninvolved you are.

    You could provide some quality referenced debate here. But it’s just a bullies club that needs breaking up.

  36. #36 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Oh hai Luke! Let’s count lies, shall we?

    But you guys really aren’t very nice to newcomers,

    Yes we are, unless they lie. Like you. This is the most pathetic type of tone trolling ever. This is equivalent to “so I walked into this bar, and I took a massive dump on the floor, and then all of a sudden they were mean to me”.

    In short, you suck. And fail.

    like to assume lots of things about visitors which goes to the heart of your objectivity.

    Assume? Like you being a liar? Or a denialist? Or ignorant?

    Sweetheart, those aren’t assumptions, they are facts. Are you now being grumpy about being pegged as an ignorant douche with delusions of grandeur? Or was it that we caught on to quickly?

    The pause is a serious issue

    Pause? What pause? You mean the deceleration of the rise in global temperature (do note how that is worded, cupcaple)? The one that has been exhaustively investigated and explained?

    as is the absence of the trop hotspo

    SERIOUSLY? Just go away. That’s pathetic.

    as i growth in Antarctic sea ice extent

    Yes, totally. Nobody noticed this but you. This has not been researched at all. Also, extent is the same as volume. This is totally not something you read on a denialist blog. No references at all were given refuting this.

    Obvious and stupid red herring, clown. Extent is the ONLY thing you can point at (if you fudge the numbers, and only look at winter months, and tilt the graph a bit). If you don’t know by now how stupid it is to bring it up, you’re dense as a post, or lying.

    Or both.

    And incremental numbers of papers and debates by serious IPCC involved people (cited today on the pause)

    Stop lying, jackass. You’re not fooling anyone. The past few pages bristle with links refuting this. Saying this makes you, again, dense as a post or a liar.

    Or both.

    You suck at this, Luke. Really, really badly.

  37. #37 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Obvious blockquote fails are obvious. Time to call it a night.

  38. #38 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Sheesh. *too, *cupcake, et cetera. Nite.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    But you guys really aren’t very nice to newcomers, like to assume lots of things about visitors which goes to the heart of your objectivity.

    Luke, that’s a nice dodge for you, but (a) you’ve demonstrated that your own objectivity is deeply flawed so I won’t take your claim on trust, and (b) from what I see most of the assumptions made about you were based on what you wrote which is a reasonable way to make inferences.

    And you’ve done your damnedest since then to validate those early observations.

    Oh, and you’re a flaming hypocrite if you’re going to try on some tone trolling.

  40. #40 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘But it’s just a bullies club that needs breaking up.’

    I tend to agree, for Tim’s sake.

  41. #41 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Pause? What pause? You mean the deceleration …’

    That’s a great line Stu.

  42. #42 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    Look at em swing. Unable to contain themselves. So angry.

    (and lack of any answers well noted AGAIN)

  43. #43 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    And fancy calling you a ‘tone troll’.

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    …as is the absence of the trop hotspot…

    Sigh. This is why people call you out and say things that you claim are “not nice”, resorting to tone trolling because you lack any reasoned defence of your position.

    Specifically, the data do not demonstrate the absence of a trop hotspot. You’re promoting the binary thinking fallacy again, despite having been corrected on it numerous times.

    You’re not obviously missing your meds like some of our regulars, and on the evidence you’re not yet clearly constitutionally incapable of understanding basic scientific information like some of the others, so it’s fair to conclude that you’re most probably being mendacious. Either that, or you DO have a large blind spot where you avoid applying your alleged scientific skills which leads to denial. Feel free to distinguish yourself from our usual cast of deniers and liars any time you care to…

    So, presuming (rather generously) that you are actually willing and able to correct your fallacious frames, perhaps you could correct them and then go beyond the cartoon like claim of “serious issues” and explain in more detail what you see “the issues” to be and what implications you think they have? There are 19 different ways that something can be “a serious issue” and the implications vary widely in scope and severity.

    If you do that honestly you might find that many people here are objecting to the dog-whistling (and out loud) implications of these “issues” that you appear to be trying to assert, or that they have misread the implications you intended to assert. (Or you might avoid doing that because it would validate those observations that you are more interested in advancing dodgy implications than actual understanding. Given your deployment of various classic pre-debunked denialist memes and your apparent congenital inability to point out any of the numerous false claims made by el gordo or cohenite, my money’s on the latter. Feel free to prove me wrong.)

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    Unable to contain themselves. So angry.

    ROFL! Mind-reading now?!

    You really are doing your damnedest to validate the stereotype, aren’t you?

  46. #46 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    “A tone troll is an internet troll that will effectively disrupt an internet discussion, because they feel that some of the participants are being too harsh, condescending, or use foul language. They often complain loudly and target specific subjects, even though they may actually agree with their subjects’s point of view”

    Well golly there’s something in that for everyone isn’t there. Have a look in the mirror guys.

    Troll = anyone against the blog meme.

  47. #47 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    ” the data do not demonstrate the absence of a trop hotspot. ”

    yes they just don’t show it ! game playing 101

  48. #48 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    ” classic pre-debunked denialist memes”

    well sorry they haven’t been debunked – just because John Cook says so doesn’t count.

    And today you have IPCC authors in published literature.

    You’re increasingly out of touch.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    A tone troll as I’m using it (and others use it) is someone that uses complaints about the tone used by critics as a distraction from the criticisms themselves.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    yes they just don’t show it !

    So, in your best scientific manner, please be more precise because those two claims have very different implications.

    Or didn’t you know that? Or did you know that, but hope that some of your readers didn’t?

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    …well sorry they haven’t been debunked…

    Have we reached the point where you’re asserting on your own authority now?

    And today you have IPCC authors in published literature.

    Hmmm, “IPCC authors” looks an awful lot like an appeal to authority, right? What implications do you think the paper has, and can you defend them given the rest of the evidence that might bear on the issue? (And you might also care to demonstrate some of that characteristic scientific precision by giving readers a hint as to which paper you mean.)

    And what are you saying about my thoughts about whatever paper it is, and on what basis? Do you have any quotes showing me saying anything about whichever paper you’re referring to?

    And, like your other assertions about “this is a serious issue”, exactly what kind of issue do you think it is?

    You speak far too often in glittering generalities, even after you’ve been asked for specifics.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2013

    BTW, this is precious:

    …just because John Cook says so doesn’t count.

    Luke throws up a strawman in the hope that no-one will notice various of his claims that have been debunked via reference to evidence (and in other cases challenges for evidence have been unfulfilled by Luke), which are not examples of asserting justification by “John Cook said so”.

  53. #53 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘SO – where is the cycle? Everyone else is seeing a trend.’

    Remember the Escalator, they are small cycles, while the IPO cycles are 30 years.

    There was a warming trend at the end of last century, but temperatures are now flatlining because we are 15 years into a cool IPO.

    You may dispute this reality at your leisure.

  54. #54 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    Adelady, your graph shows a typical El Nino under a cool IPO, they are modest.

    ‘The 2009–10 El Niño commenced in May 2009, reaching its peak in late December 2009 before breaking down in the first quarter of 2010. The Pacific Ocean returned to neutral by late April 2010, but continued to cool rapidly during autumn.’

    BoM

  55. #55 adelady
    August 30, 2013

    graph shows a typical El Nino under a cool IPO, they are modest.

    Modest? The temperature anomaly was much the same for 2005 and 2010 as for 1998.

    The 1998 El Nino was out of the box,

    So “out of the box” became “modest” in less than 10 years?

    so I don’t expect to see that again for at least two decades.

    But we’ve already seen similar annual temperature anomalies. Twice. No need to wait 20 years.

  56. #56 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    Adelady

    Temperatures have been high, we are on a plateau, so it stands to reason ENSO is a major forcing. The 2009 El Nino hadn’t crossed my mind because of its insignificance.

    Climate change is a slow game, but its great that we can see it all happening in real time.

    Fabulous weather in Australia at the moment, a balmy winter in the south-east and now record breaking early spring warmth. This regional warming has everyone talking and its being put down to global warming.

  57. #57 el gordo
    August 30, 2013
  58. #58 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Well look at that!

    Luke “nobody answers my questions” (even though we do, Luke!) has yet again failed to answer a question!!!

    What an absolute monster hypocrite this boy is!!

    In fact I don’t think Luke even *acknowledged* this *repeated* question even though he’s had 48 hours at least since it was first asked:

    * * *

    What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?

    You never said.

    I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system and simultaneously warm the entire global ocean.

    So I’m once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain the observed change. This being an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!

    :-)

    This dilemma gets much worse if we’ve “had the 1C and that’s it”.

    A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!

    Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!

    ;-)

    * * *

    Crickets!!!

    I think our Luke is a windbag! A blowhard! A poseur!

    And of course, a liar! Remember “working scientist”?

    Dear God, these people.

  59. #59 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Gordy

    The 2009 El Nino hadn’t crossed my mind because of its insignificance.

    The 2009/2010 EN was a major event, you tool! ENSO shows up best in the tropospheric reconstructions, so here is UAH TLT. See for yourself. Look at those anomalies go! Only the 1998 EN tops it.

    * * *

    Solar Max … Are we there yet?

    Why do I *always* have to tell you everything at least a dozen times?

    I gave you a link for solar data weeks ago. Why not use it to answer your own question?

    You are so utterly, hopelessly lost it’s actually funny.

  60. #60 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    Good morning BB.

    The waters are pretty warm around Oz, from Perth to Sydney.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/

  61. #61 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Look at those anomalies go! Only the 1998 EN tops it.’

    Yeah, but on the ground in Australia it was insignificant.

  62. #62 adelady
    August 30, 2013

    Yeah, but on the ground in Australia it was insignificant.

    Wut? Droughts and floods only matter if they happen right here on Australian soil, I presume. http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/besieged-city-of-khabarovsk-faces-another-ten-days-before-reaching-the-peak-of-flooding-nightmare/?nf=News

  63. #63 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    The Siberian floods have nothing to do with ENSO.

  64. #64 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    ‘Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events (i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525.

    ‘These results suggest that ENSO may operate differently under natural (pre-industrial) and anthropogenic background states. As evidence of stresses on water supply, agriculture and natural ecosystems caused by climate change strengthens, studies into how ENSO will operate under global warming should be a global research priority.’

    Gergis et al

  65. #65 Luke
    August 30, 2013

    BBD you’re a bit of silly cunt aren’t you. You’re like a dog returning to its vomit. Can’t and won’t stop it.

    Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay.Rewind tape – replay. Accuse and rant – don’t argue or cite.

  66. #66 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Answer the question, you evasive and posturing twit!

  67. #67 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Accuse and rant – don’t argue or cite

    Another blatant lie from The Lukes!

    I referenced (cited) extensively with relevant quotations during the early part of our long conversation here.

    I stopped when it became apparent that:

    - You weren’t reading the references properly

    - You didn’t understand the bits you glanced at

    - You were acting in bad faith and wasting my time!

    You are a liar Luke! And you never answer questions Luke! You are a hypocrite too Luke! And you are stuffed, Luke!

    Physical mechanism for OHC increase in all major basins Luke?!

    :-)

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    August 30, 2013

    Fatso said:

    Temperatures have been high, we are on a plateau…

    Yeah, yeah, I know – no warming for [15/17/insert favourite number here] years.

    I’ll tell you what Fatso. For your same I’ll put 10 ounces of 24K gold down that says that the 1998 GISSTemp mean global (= land + sea) temperature will be exceeded at least once by the end of 2018.

    How about it? You say there’s no warming, that temperature is plateauing, that cooling is imminent – let’s test your conviction in your claims, starting with the beginning of your claim of plateau and looking ahead for the next five years.

    What could be a simpler demonstration of the trust we have in our stances?

  69. #69 Karen
    August 30, 2013

    hmmm…………..currently $13945

    So you want 5 cracks at it barnturd, weak as piss barnturd.

    Why don’t you bet that the temp will be higher in 2018 and give odd’s of 10:1 you sooky boy

  70. #70 Karen
    August 30, 2013

    I really don’t know why anybody would have anything to do with you barnturd, your a pervert that has a sick fascination for feces.

  71. #71 Karen
    August 30, 2013

    “U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.

    They’re requesting that more details on the so-called “hiatus” be included in a key document set to be debated at a UN conference next month that will summarize the latest scientific conclusions on climate change.

    Including more information on the hiatus will help officials counter arguments that the slowing pace of global warming in recent years is a sign that the long-term trend may be discounted……………….”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-data-sought-in-un-climate-report.html

  72. #72 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Have you figured out the difference between the Eemian and the GIS yet, you utterly charming and fluffy sock?

    Jah Love

    BBD

  73. #73 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    I really don’t know why anybody would have anything to do with you barnturd, your a pervert that has a sick fascination for feces.

    All together now… IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION.

  74. #74 chek
    August 30, 2013

    Projection was never more so than in SpamKan’s loopily un-self aware case, a stupendous, galaxy-grade stupid that gives morons and amoeba parasites someone to look down on.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    August 30, 2013

    So you want 5 cracks at it…

    Really?! This is how you interpret the five year period into the future?!

    This has to take the cake as one of the most statistically-ignorant comments I’ve ever read on the internet, and there have been some corkers.

    There is an exquisite irony though. I’m waiting to see which of the denialists can spot it…

  76. #76 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Don’t hold your breath, Bernard J!

    Anoxia can kill!

    :-)

  77. #77 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    The usual bullshit from the Doltoid greenpiss ideologists

    All together now… IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION.

    WRONG, as it must read “IT’S ALWAYS INJECTION”

    Only idiotic greenpissers mix up the difference between projetion and masturbation.

  78. #78 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    Greenpiss socketeer BBD Ho Chin Minh

    WRONG

    Have you figured out the difference between the Eemian and the GIS yet, you utterly charming and fluffy sock?

    Any difference between eemian and giss is totally irrelevant regarding speculative CO2 sensitivity. Try again you greenpiss ideologist

  79. #79 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    check greenpisser: default

    Projection was never more so than in SpamKan’s loopily un-self aware case, a stupendous, galaxy-grade stupid that gives morons and amoeba parasites someone to look down on.

    Cause: no relevance regarding faked global waming. Try again and do better, you poor inhabitant of leper island of nihilism.

  80. #80 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    BBD, fuck off here

    Answer the question, you evasive and posturing twit!

    Unqualified comment by an awful underperformer from the leper island of nihilism.

    YOU fuck off here.

  81. #81 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    All together now:

    Barbecue sausage fuck!

    :-) :-) :-)

  82. #82 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Only idiotic greenpissers mix up the difference between projetion and masturbation.

    LOLWUT? Meds, Freddy. Take them.

  83. #83 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    **A plea to Tim Lambert**

    See this Berendaneke buffoon above? Previously Boris, Freddy and Kai?

    Please block this idiot. He isn’t even funny.

  84. #84 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    Stu from leper island of nihilism

    Only idiotic greenpissers mix up the difference between projetion and masturbation.

    LOLWUT? Meds, Freddy. Take them.

    So Stu from leper island, you think somebody who mocks your holy Loathsome from leper island must be on meds?

    How silly are you really?

  85. #85 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    @BBD, AGW greenpiss ideologist and disabled inhabitant of the leper island of nihilism. Your nasty request must be rejected

    **A plea to Tim Lambert**

    See this Berendaneke buffoon above? Previously Boris, Freddy and Kai?

    Please block this idiot. He isn’t even funny.

    On the contrary, Tim should ban you, as you repeatedly engaged in miserably foul language (“barbecue …”)

    Fuck off you idiot from here.

  86. #86 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    #85

    On the contrary, Tim should ban you, as you repeatedly engaged in miserably foul language (“barbecue …”)

    Your own words!

    Lies, hypocrisy and sock-puppetry!

    :-)

  87. #87 Berendaneke
    August 30, 2013

    BBD greenpisser and liar from leper island of nihilism

    Your own words!

    Lies, hypocrisy and sock-puppetry!

    Not my words, but YOUR words, you liar. Everybody knows that are a chronic liar.

    Get off from this blog

  88. #88 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Freddy

    I wish I understood how and why your command of English syntax and vocabulary is so fascinatingly variable!

    :-)

  89. #89 chek
    August 30, 2013

    “Everybody [inside my head] knows that [we] are a chronic liar”.

    Modified to be much closer to reality.

  90. #90 Rednose
    UK
    August 30, 2013

    Just to liven up the usual exchange of insults.
    Seems a load of yachts, jet skiers and even a cruise ship have become stuck attempting the NW passage on account of the Arctic freezing early. Probably misled by that webcam showing it all melted.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

    Meanwhile they seem to be having something of a snow event in South America. More global warming I expect.
    http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3729/20130829/snow-blanketing-south-america-kills-250-000-alpacas-5-people.htm

    Still we shall sleep safe in the UK this winter. All this Arctic ice will ensure we have a mild wet winter according to CAGW doctrine.
    Toodle pip.

  91. #91 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    So we bleep one out:

    On the contrary, Tim should ban you, as you repeatedly engaged in miserably foul language (“barbecue …”)

    And make the next sentence

    Fuck off you idiot from here

    My God you’re a moron, Freddy.

  92. #92 Stu
    August 30, 2013

    Thanks for the weather report, Rednose. Do you have an argument?

  93. #93 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    #91

    :-)

    There is a troubling lack of consistency at several levels!

  94. #94 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    @ Rednoise

    What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?

    I’m confident in stating when, not if, because of the laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour.

    ~3C per doubling of CO2.

    There’s just no way of getting around it except denial.

    :-)

  95. #95 chek
    August 30, 2013

    Thanks for the weather report, Rednose. Do you have an argument?

    Redarse is just a water carrier boy for the conspiracy idiot Montford, and he wouldn’t understand your question as his blather about ‘CAGW doctrine’ demonstrates clearly.

  96. #96 el gordo
    August 30, 2013
  97. #97 BBD
    August 30, 2013

    Yawn, Gordy. Yawn.

  98. #98 chek
    August 30, 2013

    Gordon, why not make your own graph covering the period say, midday to midnight and really blow AGW out of the water.
    Fucking moron.

  99. #99 el gordo
    August 30, 2013

    They appear to have over estimated global warming over the past 20 years.