August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    Climate educator
    August 5, 2013

    Abstract

    The strong climate-forcing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations advocated by the IPCC, is at odds with climate developments during geological, historical and recent times. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations continuously increased during industrial times, temperatures did not increase continuously to the present level but stagnated or even declined slightly during 1880 to 1900, 1945 to1977 and again since 1998. Total solar irradiation rose from a low in 1890 to a first peak in 1950 that was followed by a sharp decline ending in 1977, giving way to a period of rapidly increasing radiation peaking in 2002 when solar activity started to decrease, possibly declining to a new Little-Ice-Age type low. The Greenhouse Effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, claimed and widely propagated by IPCC, is particularly vexing as it is widely over-estimated without adequate scientific justification. Large observed climate variations documented for geological and historical times, as well as the lack of insight into the behaviour of complex systems, seriously question the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) concept propagated by the IPCC. The climate variability during industrial times was essentially governed by changes in solar activity with increasing atmospheric CO2 content playing a subordinate role. The climate controlling effect attributed by the IPCC to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is rejected since supporting models are not compatible with observations. Lastly, the authors consider from a historical and philosophical science point of view why current mainstream climate change research and IPCC assessments may have been on an erring way for several decades.

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/961682462j36717l/

  2. #2 Karen
    August 5, 2013

    New paper finds Greenland temperatures were ~8C warmer than the present during the last interglacial

    “Various Greenland ice cores show lower rates of depletion for the Eemian, suggesting that the Greenland Ice Sheet had a significantly warmer climate during the Eemian than today (Johnsen et al., 1997). For example, Eemian δ18O values at NorthGRIP and NEEM are about 3–4‰ higher than present. Using the temperature-δ18O relation observed for the present interglacial, this represents an Eemian warming of 8 ± 4 K (NEEM community members, 2013)”

    http://www.clim-past.net/9/1589/2013/cp-9-1589-2013.html

  3. #3 Karen
    August 5, 2013

    New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212033095

  4. #4 Karen
    August 5, 2013

    New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is ‘close to zero’

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k7v3v4173346317x/

  5. #6 Karen
    August 5, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

  6. #7 chek
    August 5, 2013

    Two different things, SpamKan.
    But you’re too dumb to ever know why.

  7. #8 chek
    August 5, 2013

    My. isn’t the SpamKanner busy.
    With the usual crap.

  8. #9 chek
    August 5, 2013

    the Greenland Ice Sheet had a significantly warmer climate during the Eemian

    SpamKan you don’t even know what the Eemian is, or what relevance it would have to the present.

    But it succeeds in making you look a full hundred points dumber than was already thought. Why are deniers so brain-achingly stupid and easily led? Anybody??

  9. #10 chek
    August 5, 2013

    SpamKan, turning up regional variations does not invalidate the global data, no matter how many smiley faces you RSI yourself with.

    Finding a crank to back up the lies of Murray Salby will not affect his loss of reputation, which is forever now.

    Cross posting the crap you submerge yourself in does not affect the worldview of anybody sensible here.

    Fuck off back to your stinking anthill SpamKan.

  10. #11 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘SpamKan you don’t even know what the Eemian is, or what relevance it would have to the present.’

    Actually the Eemian was warmer, as were the other interglacials prior to that, the big difference with the Holocene is that its not a peak and more a plateau.

    The reason this has come about can be seen at the Younger Dryas boundary, when a heavenly body broke up over the northern hemisphere.

    The upshot was that temperatures plummeted then bounced back to a couple of degrees higher than now. It had a dampening effect and temperatures have remained in a narrow band ever since.

    It wiped our the Clovis people, while indigenous Australians survived.

  11. #12 chek
    August 6, 2013

    There really are no depths of stupidity and ignorance that prevent you plumbing ever deeper, are there Gordon.

  12. #13 Stu
    August 6, 2013

    Oh yes, the Eemian! Please remind me, what was the world’s population back then?

  13. #14 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ARE YOU WELSH?

  14. #15 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    No humans during the Eemian Stu, but we do know from the ice core that it was a rough ride at the end ….. before the final tipping point.

  15. #16 Lotharsson
    August 6, 2013

    Oh my, the abstract Karen cut and pasted at #1 is a stew of Logic and Evidence Fail! Perhap that explains why Karen was so pleased with herself for posting ti?

    And perhaps that’s why the authors couldn’t find anywhere more reputable to publish it than E&E? It’s so good of Karen to illustrate that the contrarians can’t seem to make a robust case…

  16. #17 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    Here’s more on the Eemian, it was warmer.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

  17. #18 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    And most importantly for the Denialati, Eemian’s end.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/the-end-of-an-interglacial/

  18. #19 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    There is a consensus that this winter in the UK will be bitter, with Increased blocking and low NAO.

  19. #20 bill
    August 6, 2013

    I thought consensuses count for nothing in science?

  20. #21 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    BBD#96

    OHC. Under-sampled you might argue. I would agree.

    Whats this BBD agreeing with a “lying little shit of a clown”.
    I am choked. I am not sure how to respond:-)

  21. #22 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    shrek#97

    And why do you have such trouble comprehending statements by

    the Met Office

    the fact that you’re a dumb moron who goes out evangelising like a fucking Jehovah’s Witness whatever your crank

    SKS site tells you

  22. #23 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘I thought consensuses count for nothing in science?’

    Only the 97% consensus is unbelievable.

  23. #24 bill
    August 6, 2013

    Autoparodyagogo.

    x2

  24. #25 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Oh no. Teh Clueless meets the Eemian.

    A few facts for the clowns:

    - Yes, peak Eemian global average temperaturewas about ~1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene.

    - This was a consequence of slightly different orbital dynamics driving even warmer NH summers during the deglacial and early – mid postglacial phase.

    - NEEM group findings suggest that the GIS may have contributed up to ~2m to peak Eemian sea level highstand.

    - Peak Eemian MSL was about 5m – 6m above Holocene MSL.

    - So the NEEM group findings confirm something very important:

    When GAT increases ~1C – 2C above the Holocene average, melt from the GIS contributes about ~2m to MSL.

    But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.

    Thanks to Karen for drawing attention to this potentially catastrophic consequence of even quite modest temperature rise.

    :-)

  25. #26 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    The reason this has come about can be seen at the Younger Dryas boundary, when a heavenly body broke up over the northern hemisphere.

    The upshot was that temperatures plummeted then bounced back to a couple of degrees higher than now. It had a dampening effect and temperatures have remained in a narrow band ever since.

    Utter crap. Even if the impact hypothesis for the YD is correct – and it almost certainly isn’t (proglacial lake Agassiz draining into the NA is a much more plausible mechanism, latest platinum spike in the ice cores notwithstanding) – the YD had no effect whatsoever on Holocene average temperature.

    This was modulated by precessional forcing, which predominantly warmed the NH during the early – mid Holocene with a generalised cooling becoming evident ~5ka as precessional forcing waned.

    You know absolutely fuck-all about paleoclimate in general and this topic in particular, so shut up. You are once again embarrassing yourself with a vociferous display of ignorance.

  26. #27 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.’

    Sure but that’s dependent on CO2 causing global warming, so we need to discuss the pause.

    Trying to separate the noise from the signal to find the truth.

    http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4

  27. #28 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    More from the Met Office re OHC

    Although this analysis suggests that exchanges of energy between the upper and deep
    ocean, calculated here as a residual (see black dashed line in Figure 10), may be of a similar
    magnitude to upper ocean heat uptake and net radiative forcing, we cannot show definitively
    that this has been the dominant factor in the recent pause in global surface warming. The
    fact is that uncertainties in estimating upper ocean heat content from the current monitoring
    network, along with uncertainties in observing the net radiation budget already discussed,
    mean that the residual calculation of deep ocean heat flux has to be treated with limited
    confidence.
    In addition, direct measurements of the exchange of heat between the upper and deep
    ocean do not exist because the present ocean observing network does not sample the ocean
    below 2000m adequately. Even if it did, the potential changes in temperature could be very
    small, remembering that the energy imbalances involved are less than 1Wm-2
    (Figure 10)
    and therefore potentially not detectable as temperature changes.

    The whole thing is an interesting, easy to follow read
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

  28. #29 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    No humans during the Eemian Stu

    Horse-shit. Check your facts, you clown.

  29. #30 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    ‘But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.’

    Sure but that’s dependent on CO2 causing global warming, so we need to discuss the pause.

    Trying to separate the noise from the signal to find the truth.

    No. Just STFU and admit your errors. You can’t come out with bollocks like you do and then just charge on with more utter shite like this.

    Admit your fucking errors. Man up.

  30. #31 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Rednoise, you are quote-mining a paper you do not understand.

    You don’t need to invoke the deep ocean (below 2000m) to account for the majority of the reduction in the rate of surface warming. Nobody is arguing this.

    Read this again.

  31. #32 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Sure but that’s dependent on CO2 causing global warming, so we need to discuss the pause.

    We already have.

    It’s an irrelevance.

  32. #33 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    All this guff is coming from WTFUWT via cut and paste. Nobody is fooled (apart from the Climate Clowns, of course). We know where you get your spam from.

  33. #34 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    The mystery of the Younger Dryas

    ‘In an attempt to save the Croll-Milankovitch theory, Broecker and Dention (1990) published a paper postulating that large amounts of fresh water discharged into the north Atlantic about 12,800 years ago when retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet allowed drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz to spill eastward into the Atlantic Ocean.

    ‘They proposed that this large influx of fresh water might have stopped the formation of descending, higher-density water in the North Atlantic, thereby interrupting deep-water currents that distribute large amounts of heat globally and initiating a short-term return to glacial conditions.

    ‘If indeed that was the case, then the Younger Dryas would have been initiated in the North Atlantic and propagated from there to the Southern Hemisphere and the rest of the world. Since that would take time, it means that the YD should be 400-1000 years younger in the Southern Hemisphere and Pacific areas than in the Northern Hemisphere. However, numerous radiocarbon and cosmogenic dates of the Younger Dryas all over the world indicate the cooling was globally synchronous.

    ‘Thus, the North Atlantic deep current theory is not consistent with the chronology of the Younger Dryas.’

    Don Easterbrook

  34. #36 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Easterbrook is a notorious liar and has been ripped apart times beyond number by real paleoclimatologists. Your quote is worthless and reveals you to be a clueless dupe of liars.

    Instead of demonstrating integrity and admitting your errors, you have simply added to them.

  35. #37 bill
    August 6, 2013

    Don Easterbrook? You’re not serious?

    Do you have an inkling of how ridiculous you are, Bloato? I suspect you actually might…

    You’re smarter than SpamKan (read ‘you’re smarter than cheese’), but not much.

  36. #38 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    A correction to Easterbrook’s lies:

    Shakun & Carlson (2010)

    Empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of 71 records spanning 19e11 ka indicates that two modes explain 72% of deglacial climate variability. EOF1 (61% of variance) shows a globally near-uniform pattern, with its principal component (PC1) strongly correlated with changes in atmospheric CO2. EOF2 (11% of variance) exhibits a bipolar seesaw pattern between the hemispheres, with its principal component (PC2) resembling changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation strength. EOF analysis of 90 records from 15 to 11 ka indicates that northern and southern modes of climate variability characterize the Younger Dryas-Bølling/Allerød interval. These modes dominate at the higher latitudes of each hemisphere and exhibit a complex interaction in the tropics. The magnitude of the Younger Dryas climate anomaly (cooler/drier) increases with latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, with an opposite pattern (warmer/wetter) in the Southern Hemisphere reflecting a general bipolar seesaw climate response. Global mean temperature decreased by w0.6 C during the Younger Dryas. Therefore, our analysis supports the paradigm that while the Younger Dryas was a period of global climate change, it was not a major global cooling event but rather a manifestation of the bipolar seesaw driven by a reduction in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation strength.

  37. #39 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    When is this clown going to grow some balls and admit his string of horrible mistakes? Just the recent guff about paleoclimate will do.

    Let’s see some fucking integrity and good faith for once, eh?

    Come on.

  38. #40 Karen
    August 6, 2013

    NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres,
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

    BBD is a pertinacious onanist, lol

    Greenland will never melt, nor will the Antarctic ice sheet, tiz pure alarmist wank

  39. #41 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Isn’t it funny that suddenly nobody wants to talk about the Eemian and all that sea level rise you get when it’s just 1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene?

    I think we should talk about that more. It’s interesting.

  40. #42 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    BBD is right, karen, and you are an idiot.

    Please explain why what I say is wrong:

    Here it is again:

    - Yes, peak Eemian global average temperature was about ~1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene.

    - This was a consequence of slightly different orbital dynamics driving even warmer NH summers during the deglacial and early – mid postglacial phase.

    - NEEM group findings suggest that the GIS may have contributed up to ~2m to peak Eemian sea level highstand.

    - Peak Eemian MSL was about 5m – 6m above Holocene MSL.

    - So the NEEM group findings confirm something very important:

    When GAT increases ~1C – 2C above the Holocene average, melt from the GIS contributes about ~2m to MSL.

    But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.

    Thanks to Karen for drawing attention to this potentially catastrophic consequence of even quite modest temperature rise.

    Don’t call me a wanker karen. Explain why I am wrong.

  41. #43 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Greenland will never melt, nor will the Antarctic ice sheet, tiz pure alarmist wank

    So where did all that extra sea come from during the Eemian, karen?

    Did it just materialise out of thin air and then vanish again?

    You have a very serious problem with conservation of mass here.

  42. #44 Karen
    August 6, 2013

    “Don’t call me a wanker karen.”

    wanker

  43. #45 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    BBD#31

    I did link to the whole report so anybody could read it all.
    The OHC to 800m (figure 10 in recent link) seems at odds with the graphs you linked to.

    However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides
    with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake

    Not shown on yours

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

  44. #46 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    You can’t back your horse-shit up, can you, karen? Because it is indefensible. And I am right.

    So thanks for reminding us that when global average temperature rises ~1C – 2C above the Holocene norm, sea level rises by over 5m.

    Why don’t you fucking clowns learn to leave paleoclimate alone? Every time you try to use paleoclimate as a sandbox for your stupid denial, you get shredded.

  45. #47 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Rednoise

    You haven’t understood (or read?) the report. And yet you quote-mine it.

    Fuck off with your nonsense, eh?

    From The
    recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?
    UK Met Office 2013:

    As expected from the PDO index (Figure 5, lower panel), an analysis of the recent trends in observed ocean surface temperatures (Figure 6; lower right panel) shows a strong cooling contribution from the Pacific Ocean, with a pattern that is very reminiscent of the negative phase of the PDO (Figure 5, upper panel). The equatorial cooling is a manifestation of the persistent La Niña conditions that have prevailed over much of the last decade. Overall these observations suggest that decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean may have played a substantial role in the recent pause in global surface temperature rise.

    And:

    In summary, observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the Earth system has continued to absorb heat energy over the past 15 years, and that this additional heat has been absorbed in the ocean.

  46. #48 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Stupid fucking trolls.

  47. #49 Karen
    August 6, 2013

    BBD the Eemian peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium you pertinacious onanist.

  48. #50 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    I see troll Gordo has run away rather than acknowledge his catalogue of stupid errors.

    From this:

    In the past my global cooling meme got plenty of laffs, until they realised I was serious.

    To this:

    No humans during the Eemian Stu

    Via this:

    The reason this has come about can be seen at the Younger Dryas boundary, when a heavenly body broke up over the northern hemisphere.

    The upshot was that temperatures plummeted then bounced back to a couple of degrees higher than now. It had a dampening effect and temperatures have remained in a narrow band ever since.

    All utter and complete bollocks.

    The guy in the pub who’s wrong about everything but won’t shut up. Just keeps yapping away, on and on and on.

  49. #51 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    BBD the Eemian peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium you pertinacious onanist.

    You never were much good on distinguishing regional from global.

    The paper you didn’t understand is about the GREENLAND ICE SHEET you stupid fucking tool.

    I have repeatedly highlighted the phrase global average temperature in my responses to you above, but you are apparently just too stupid to understand what is being said.

    Try again!

  50. #52 Karen
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, the guy who’s wrong about everything but won’t shut up. Just keeps tugging away, on and on and on.

  51. #53 boris
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, are you in the position to understand why Prof. Lindzen, who knows infinitely more about climate than you, stated that he does not believe at all in palaeodata?

  52. #54 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Baby steps for SpamKan:

    “The Eemian” didn’t just happen on the Greenland Ice Sheet.

    Also google “polar amplification”…

    This is actually very funny karen. Have a smiley!

    :-)

  53. #55 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Yes Boris, I am.

    Lindzen is a denier (his own word) and paleodata drive a very large truck through his nonsense. So he denies the data. A sure sign that someone is wrong and attempting to make an indefensible argument.

  54. #56 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Come on karen = admit your horrible error in confusing the GIS with the entire planet…

  55. #57 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    You people are absolutely unbelievable.

    Howling, astonishing errors. Real four-bell doozies. Again and again and again and again.

    Every one pointed out. But not a flicker of acknowledgement that you are laughing-stock wrong about everything. Instead you sneer and posture and condescend.

    Unbelievable.

  56. #58 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘The magnitude of the Younger Dryas climate anomaly (cooler/drier) increases with latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, with an opposite pattern (warmer/wetter) in the Southern Hemisphere reflecting a general bipolar seesaw climate response. ‘

    It makes sense, I’ll follow it up.

  57. #59 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    When are you going to acknowledge your many errors Gordy?

    When?

  58. #60 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘I think we should talk about that more. It’s interesting.’

    Get a grip man, we are at the end of the Holocene and it appears that CO2 has little impact on temperatures.

    Have you heard of a slippery slope? They are projecting another cold winter in the UK and I’m thinking of having a bet.

  59. #61 boris
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, so you don’t contend that Prof. Lindzen knows inifintely more about climate than you?

  60. #62 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘When?’

    I picked the wrong north pole camera and have already taken my punishment, sir.

  61. #63 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Oh FFS Gordy. When are you going to admit your recent and astonishing errors?

    Come on. When?

  62. #64 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    boris – I answered your question. You can piss off now.

  63. #65 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Another stupid lie that has been totally debunked on this thread:

    it appears that CO2 has little impact on temperatures.

    Yet you repeat it. You repeat a stupid lie. You add to your catalogue of errors instead of acknowledging them.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  64. #66 Lionel A
    August 6, 2013

    boris

    Lindzen has a latterly poor record for valid research papers and likes to blind lay audiences with his version of the science. Indeed he had a session in the UK hosted by Monckton – that should inform you the quality of Lindzen’s opinion on climate sensitivity which is doubtless the angle you have in mind.

    Lindzen may know something about climate but fails to produce convincing research from that knowledge.

    In that respect here is a still respected scientist on that very issue: Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C? .

    Next sock please.

  65. #67 FrankD
    August 6, 2013

    @Karen #100 (previous page) “BBD, would you care to convert your pathetic charts from joules to temp C ?”

    Karen has to ask BBD to do her homework for her because her first bullshit figure was out by five orders of magnitude. LOL!

    I’ve already done the conversion (to inform Karen of the scale of her error). BBD can no doubt do the conversion. But I’m much more interested in seeing what number Karen comes up with. I’m torn between whether it is more likely to be “minus 2000 degrees” or “my cats breath smells like cat.”

  66. #68 boris
    August 6, 2013

    Just to inform you about some real data:

    Arctic sea ice extent: 6,692,344 km2 (August 5, 2013)

    This indicates that there might be no record minimum this year. In fact, the August 5 value is the third highest of the last 10 years.

  67. #69 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Karen is just trying to get a low-sounding number so she can pretend that the staggering amount of energy that has accumulated in the global ocean over the last few decades is teensy-weensie.

    Just another stupid denier trick.

  68. #70 el gordo
    August 6, 2013

    ‘Come on. When?’

    Was it the stuff about undersea volcanoes melting east Greenland glaciers at a rapid rate?

    The scientists don’t know enough.

    Or perhaps it was the comments on the Younger Dryas?

    Debate on this issue will continue for many more years before its resolved.

    Can’t think of anything else that I should receive a hard stick on my back, delivered by a cranky old pisspot.

  69. #71 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    What a lying shit you are Gordy. What a fucking worm.

    At a glance –

    In the past my global cooling meme got plenty of laffs, until they realised I was serious.

    And:

    No humans during the Eemian Stu

    And:

    The reason this has come about can be seen at the Younger Dryas boundary, when a heavenly body broke up over the northern hemisphere.

    The upshot was that temperatures plummeted then bounced back to a couple of degrees higher than now. It had a dampening effect and temperatures have remained in a narrow band ever since.

    And:

    Get a grip man, we are at the end of the Holocene and it appears that CO2 has little impact on temperatures.

    And:

    Was it the stuff about undersea volcanoes melting east Greenland glaciers at a rapid rate?

    The scientists don’t know enough.

    All complete and utter bollocks.

    The guy in the pub who’s wrong about everything but won’t shut up. Just keeps yapping away, on and on and on. Won’t admit his mistakes no matter how many times they are pointed out and won’t apologise for being a serial tit. A lovely guy we all want to have at the table.

  70. #72 boris
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, no, you did not answer my second question (please allow me to remind you): “BBD, so you don’t contend that Prof. Lindzen knows inifintely more about climate than you?”

    Could you answer also this question? Thank you.

  71. #73 bill
    August 6, 2013

    Love it! Now we’ve got one who’s playing the Argument from Authority card with all of one scientist, where we can produce, what, dozens, hundreds? that disagree with him.

    So, how come you’ve decided he’s the one that’s right? Don’t bother to answer on anyone else’s account…

    And, wow, there’s a recovery in the Arctic Sea Ice! It’ll last forever! The decades long downward trend is reversing. I know we said this in 2008, but this time it’s troooooooee!

    Be it written in history that August 5th, 2013, marked the beginning of the New Glacial… WUWT Without End…

    Do you guys ever get any better?

  72. #74 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Can’t think of anything else that I should receive a hard stick on my back, delivered by a cranky old pisspot.

    I’m 48. You are projecting again.

  73. #75 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    BBD#47

    So its ok for you to quote-mine from the same report but not when I hghlight uncertainties with the data or problems with your graphs.

    Piss off.
    Come back when you have something substantive to say

  74. #76 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Boris, first read Bill’s comment on your very stupid use of argument from limited authority. Then focus on the essentials: Lindzen is demonstrably wrong. My relative level of topic understanding is not at issue here and never will be no matter how hard you try to make it. So take my earlier advice and piss off.

  75. #77 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Rednoise

    You have been show up to be an arsehole again. And a poor loser.

    From The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes? UK Met Office 2013:

    As expected from the PDO index (Figure 5, lower panel), an analysis of the recent trends in observed ocean surface temperatures (Figure 6; lower right panel) shows a strong cooling contribution from the Pacific Ocean, with a pattern that is very reminiscent of the negative phase of the PDO (Figure 5, upper panel). The equatorial cooling is a manifestation of the persistent La Niña conditions that have prevailed over much of the last decade. Overall these observations suggest that decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean may have played a substantial role in the recent pause in global surface temperature rise.

    And:

    In summary, observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the Earth system has continued to absorb heat energy over the past 15 years, and that this additional heat has been absorbed in the ocean.

  76. #78 boris
    August 6, 2013

    Bill, sorry, do you suffer from emotional problems with real data? Why?

  77. #79 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    or problems with your graphs.

    There are no problems with the graphs I used. You are lying.

  78. #80 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    # 78 Another moronic troll joins the braying horde. Wonderful.

  79. #81 Rednose
    UK
    August 6, 2013

    However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides
    with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake

    Not shown on your graph, the one you keep referring to.

    Explain please.

    Wanker

  80. #82 boris
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, i take your statement (“My relative level of topic understanding is not at issue here and never will be no matter how hard you try to make it”) as confirmation that you accept to dispose of far inferior knowledge in climatology compared to Prof. Lindzen.

    Your low level of knowledge *is* at stake here as you behave as if you would be some knowledge person in climatology, which you obviously are not.

  81. #83 bill
    August 6, 2013

    So tell us what we must learn from your ‘real data’ then? If the answer is, as it should be ‘nothing’, one wonders why you went to all the trouble of posting it.

    ‘AGW stopped last Wednesday’s comic value has declined over time. Try some new material.

    And doesn’t believe ‘at all’ in paleodata! Now, there’s a skeptic! ;-)

  82. #84 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Not shown on your graph, the one you keep referring to.

    You can’t read graphs.

    Fuckwit.

  83. #85 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    I know more than you, which is enough. I know that Lindzen serially failed to make a case for low S.

    Now piss off boris.

  84. #86 BBD
    August 6, 2013
  85. #87 BBD
    August 6, 2013
  86. #88 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):

    Dessler (2011)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml

    Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf

  87. #89 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    And poof! As if by magic, the trolls all disappear, simultaneously.

    Weird, no?

  88. #90 Rednose
    uk
    August 6, 2013

    And where is the decline post 2004 on your graphs.

    Wanker

  89. #91 boris
    August 6, 2013

    BBD, can you tell us in non-offensive words why your psyche is inclined to believe the AGW alarmists rather than the climate realists?

  90. #92 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    #90

    You what?!

    Can you really be this fucking stupid and blind?

    Look at the red line (0-700m) and you will see an inflection at 2004. It is plainly visible. Shut your silly lying mouth and use your eyes. I have had enough of your bollocks for one day.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

  91. #93 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    # 91

    Because I can tell the difference between science and a collection of shills and their deluded audience. See links above.

    Goodbye boris.

  92. #94 Lotharsson
    August 6, 2013

    …can you tell us in non-offensive words why your psyche is inclined to believe the AGW alarmists rather than the climate realists?

    No-one can, because your question presumes facts not in evidence. See if you can ask a question without an embedded fallacy. (Apparently it’s not too difficult – most high school students can manage it.)

  93. #95 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    And poof! The trolls are back. Simultaneously.

    Weird, no?

  94. #96 Rednose
    uk
    August 6, 2013

    An inflection is not the same as a definite decline which the met office observes and comments on.

    You must be a fuckwit for not realisng that

  95. #97 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Lotharsson

    Hard to believe that Rednoise the Clown is doing that thing of his with graphs again.

    A redundant demonstration of Teh Stupid.

  96. #98 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Oh you stupid, illiterate shit you. The decline is in the rate of ocean heat uptake not the absolute OHC.

    You stupid, stupid fuck, you. Just go away. Please. It’s painful.

  97. #99 Rednose
    uk
    August 6, 2013

    So no comment on the decline in OHC 0_800m post 2004 as documented by the met office

  98. #100 BBD
    August 6, 2013

    Just LOOK at fig 1 in the report you very obviously have not read. Look at the OHC curve. Look at the vertical bands. Compare the rate of ocean heat uptake in the dark grey band with that later, in the light grey band. That is what this text is referring to:

    However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake.

    You are not capable of discussing this topic at this level.