September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from.

    Everybody else can see it, but they seem almost selectively blind to it.

    Noble cause corruption. Saving the world. Just fuck off and grow up.

  2. #2 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    OK BBD fucker – where’s your non-palaeo serious text book list. Obviously isn’t one. Don’t bother – you’re tedious.

  3. #3 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Noble cause corruption

    Looking forward to your specious meme making it into a paper one day, some day, never The Lukes. Given your track record of wishful thinking supplanting real analysis, I’m betting on never

  4. #4 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB).

    ‘The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune).

    ‘This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).

    Geoff Sharp

  5. #5 chek
    September 14, 2013

    OK BBD fucker – where’s your non-palaeo serious text book list. Obviously isn’t one. Don’t bother – you’re tedious.

    Translation: “I know fuck-all history, and you’re being unfair. But I’m sure I’m right. Donor’s Trust surely didn’t spend all that money for nothing”.

    Yes they did The Lukes, and counted on fuckwits like you to carry it forward for them./

  6. #6 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    From Luke’s “library” :-)

    The climate of a particular region depends on phenomena acting at scales ranging from global to local. Predicting future regional climates requires capturing the influence of processes across this full range of scales. While global climate models can robustly capture the large-scale effects, they are not able to resolve the regional- to local-scale effects that can significantly influence a location’s climate. In order to account for these smaller-scale processes, future global climates are ‘downscaled’ using various techniques to produce more realistic regional climates. This chapter describes a number of techniques that have been used to downscale global climate simulations to the regional-scale. It explores the uncertainties in the future regional climate predictions associated with the various techniques, and examines ways to quantify the ‘most likely’ future regional climate and the related uncertainty, so that informed investigations can be made into the impact on natural and anthropogenic systems of future climate change.

    Did you still think you can bluff me, Luke? You never learn!

    I can read you like a book Luke!

    :-)

  7. #7 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    It’s always instructive to watch the deniers deny paleoclimate.

    Paleoclimate behaviour sets a lower bound for fast-feedbacks sensitivity of about 2C (2xCO2 or equivalent forcing change). Even going with the lower bound S_ff / 2xCO2 = ~2C still leaves us with a serious problem requiring a globalised policy response. So no joy for deniers.

    Paleoclimate behaviour is a better fit with a value for S_ff of at least ~2.5C and probably nearer ~3C.

    So it must be denied.

    Oh yes.

  8. #8 Stu 2
    September 14, 2013

    Nick@#83 previous page.
    That is a somewhat simplistic and naïve view of the way that PR works in government institutions and departments such as the Climate Commission
    Tim Flannery as Climate Commissioner has, very unfortunately, often been guilty of dramatising and overstating his brief for the sake of PR along with other members of the Climate Commission.
    This is but one example straight from the Climate Commission PR dept to the ABC:
    http://www.abc.net.au/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
    In light of recent political events I think it is also rather interesting to note that much was done to focus this report on Western Sydney, where we know the ALP was rapidly losing support.
    However I do agree with you that what many here would call ‘the other side’ is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd.

  9. #9 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Detailed solar Angular Momentum

    I’m tempted to just comment ‘ Oh fuck off you deluded old linkless cunt’, but in the interests of fairness let’s see the data not the latest oil company disinfo release via Williwatts (which let it be noted was not forthcoming in the case of similarly met requests for the alleged Minoan and Roman Hollywood-inspired ‘warming periods’).

    But to sum up for you Gordon, you and your fellow solar crank obsessionalists: “The warming that occurred during the latter half of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar influences”.

  10. #10 BBD
    September 14, 2013
  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2013

    “However I do agree with you that what many here would call ‘the other side’ is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd.”

    The other side, as Stu2 colloquially calls it, is made up primarily by a bunch of shills and liars who would never accept evidence for AGW if it stared them in the face. Many in this well-funded lobby still deny the realities of CFCs and their effects on ozone, acid rain, extinction rates the other environmental threats. Their job is simply to sow doubt on these problems in order to maintain the status quo.

    Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn’t appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2013

    “There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from”

    Luke is such a gormless jerk. This statement alone is proof positive of his political affiliations. These clots cannot help but wear their agendas on their sleeves. The old watermelon canard dredged up endlessly when their scientific arguments are proven to be bankrupt.

    This clown is really a hoot. Hilarious.

  13. #13 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    BBD – bluff? Nope I just think you’re a fuckwit. What else did you get down the uni library last night – let’s see!! If you were any good you’d have coughed up yesterday – you’re fooling nobody.

  14. #14 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    “Oh fuck off you deluded old linkless cunt’” – that’s the spirit Chekky !

  15. #15 chek
    September 14, 2013

    The Lukes and their like can turn observations around verbally as at #1, but of course that isn’t the same thing by a long chalk of actually turning the meaning around.

    But it serves the purposes of half-wit morons like The Lukes in fooling even more witless morons like SpamKan and Gordon as an approximation of cleverness.
    While achieving nothing to anyone with more than 0.51 of a brain..

  16. #16 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    Jeff – well having denied my previous cites I’m not sure how to please

    But Jeff’s whiney bitch eco-end-of-the-fucking-world rantings are good entertainment value. They fulfill all the meme criteria to belong to the greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter class.

    Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging.

    BTW don’t verbal me about my political affiliations. You don’t know.

  17. #17 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    #15 Chekky – you’re improving old son – I’ve been abused by experts and you have potential. But honestly have ever thought that the lads do wank a bit? Surely you must think they are a bunch of fucktards, dour and humourless. You never get a funny joke here – it’s always “saving the fucking world”. Maybe they need to stop being virgins and get laid?

  18. #18 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    Luke, you fool nobody.

    Blether on. Who cares?

  19. #19 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    How the text book list BBD – what did you get from the uni library. Pretty think that AHS book eh? Do you know who AHS is?

  20. #20 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Lionel, I agree with you re the fracking, the unknown chemicals that are being pumped into the subsurface aquifers and water tables is disgusting!!!!

    BUT, do you think that fracking would be an accepted practice now if it were not for all of the fuss the greenies and alarmists have made over a harmless trace gas (co2).

    “Gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, is part of the answer to climate change, as a bridge in our transition to a green future, especially in our move away from coal,” said Davey, at a speech at the Royal Society in London.”

    It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry, and now you all are sooking about it.

    The next step, many more Fukushima scenarios on the horizon ?

    Have you seen the mess that Fukushima is making?

    The MSM is silent about this ongoing disaster and the greenies don’t seem to give fuck either, your silence on this is telling.
    So what do you think is the biggest threat to the future of Gaia and its inhabitants at this point in time, co2, fracking or Fukushima?

  21. #21 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.

  22. #22 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    “It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry,”

    Well not in Aussie — greens are in an alliance with the farmers (unlikely I know) in the “Shut the Gate” campaign.

    http://www.lockthegate.org.au/groups

    Some real greenies – not your Deltoid bludger uni type greenies. We’re talking front line committed not pussies.

  23. #23 bill
    September 14, 2013

    In the absence of all moderation this place has degenerated into an absolute zoo, plagued not only by the usual garrulous morons and sockpuppets, but utter yokel degenerates such as Luke.

    Sane people, there is a considerable chance your level of happiness will increase if you avoid these eternal circular debates with those incapable of acting in good faith. While I appreciate that contending with the ceaseless disinformation spewing of online visigoths is frustrating, there’s also very little chance that your not debating them will be any kind of loss to the world.

    Anybody who’s stupid enough to credit the likes of Luke with any sort of authority is lost to rationality anyway. Ignore him, it’s what he fears the most…

  24. #24 Stu
    September 14, 2013

    Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.

    Wait, what? That’s not even coherent, Gordo.

  25. #25 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Oh lookie, Billie is back :)

    I hope your lobotomy went well ?

  26. #26 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.

    Abso-fucking-lutely meaningless arse dribble posing as profundity. What can be termed ‘a Gordonism’. in fact.

    The incorrect application of ‘organised’ is potentially interesting, though obviously not in the case of Gordon, who’s out of his depth even in his own specialist subject and can simply be put down to heroically sustained fuckwittedness in the face of adversity.

    Does planetary gravity affect the Sun?
    Yes, that’s undisputed.
    Does the sun warm the Earth?
    Yes, that’s undisputed.
    Is Gordon a moron for helpfully pointing that out?
    Yes, that’s undisputed too.

  27. #27 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Oh Luke, sweetheart…

    watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters […] whiney bitch […] greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter […] leftie eco-scoundrels.

    Racism, misogyny, education envy, job envy, pathetic Red scare claptrap, and let’s not forget about the quite Freudian bedwetting and “get laid” tripe.

    Luke, I’m truly sorry you resent the world because you are single, on government assistance, uneducated, wearing Depends and living in your mother’s basement. Do you have to be this boring and dense though?

  28. #28 chek
    September 15, 2013

    I get that Bill and hear you loud and clear. @#23

    But the machine pumping out the shit can’t be allowed to fill every available space unchallenged.

  29. #29 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Try Q1 and loaded ! http://www.q1.com.au Thanks heavens for Clive Palmer and coal and oil shale shares. Plus my waste disposal business.

  30. #30 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    ” plagued not only by the usual garrulous morons and sockpuppets, but utter yokel degenerates such as Luke.”

    It’s true I am a yokel degenerate – my shrink tells me that all the time. She’s hot too – which is why i attend.

  31. #31 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “Well not in Aussie — greens are in an alliance with the farmers (unlikely I know) in the “Shut the Gate” campaign.”

    Luke, the fracking was approved and set in motion by a government being hounded to reduce co2.

    Who did the hounding ?

  32. #32 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    That and Santos and Arrow wanting to make a shit-load. I got my shares.

  33. #33 chek
    September 15, 2013

    Plus my waste disposal business job.

    Let’s not get ludicrously above ourselves eh, The :Lukes?

  34. #34 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    do you think that fracking would be an accepted practice now if it were not for all of the fuss the greenies and alarmists have made over a harmless trace gas (co2).

    Did you pat yourself on the back for slipping that in there, cupcake? The answer is no, because your question is loaded. If you take that pathetic and obvious red herring out, the answer is “of course”. It has nothing to do with environmental activism, it has to do with money.

    It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry, and now you all are sooking about it.

    Obvious and stupid lie. Why do you think you can get away with this shit, moron? Do you really think people are as stupid as you are?

    The next step, many more Fukushima scenarios on the horizon ?

    Until we actually start properly regulating and maintaining aging reactors, quite likely.

    Have you seen the mess that Fukushima is making?

    Yes. The owning company influenced the government (well, is the government in Japan, depending on your definitions) to allow them to get away with absolutely disgusting practices, and the country is well and fucked because of it.

    The MSM is silent about this ongoing disaster

    Yes they are, sweetheart. Why do you think that is? Go on, guess.

    and the greenies don’t seem to give fuck either, your silence on this is telling.

    Our silence on the topic that YOU brought up? JUST NOW? Seriously? And you wonder why people don’t like you?

    So what do you think is the biggest threat to the future of Gaia and its inhabitants at this point in time, co2, fracking or Fukushima?

    Knock the Gaia shit off, troll.

    They both suck. They both kill people. They both destroy the environment. Plus for Fukushima: it’s fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor. Plus for fracking: kills much slower and by the time people figure out how much damage is being done at any one site, it’s dirt-cheap to just move on. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to live near the Keystone XL either.

    So hey! We’ve established that non-renewable energy sources all suck! You’re all for solar, wind and hydro then, KarenMackSunspot? Right? You’re fighting for tougher fuel standards, carbon taxes and lowering electricity usage, right?

    Right?

    Or are you just a fucking hypocrite?

  35. #35 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    It’s true I am a yokel degenerate – my shrink tells me that all the time. She’s hot too – which is why i attend.

    And you wonder why every woman reaches for her rape whistle when you walk into the room, you troglodyte?

  36. #36 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    By the way, called MRA pretty early on Luke… guess I was merely being too kind.

  37. #37 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    “organised by large gas giants”..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?…anythings possible

    #20 “greenies and CO2 alarmists help establish the fracking industry”… except that its been around for sixty years at scale , developed in response to declining yields from oil fields. Fracking is the last option for defunct prospects like Karen.

  38. #38 Stu 2
    September 15, 2013

    Jeff Harvey @#11
    —————————————————————————
    Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn’t appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.
    —————————————————————————–
    May I ask how you have drawn that conclusion from my post @#8 ?
    I was merely pointing out in a reply to Nick’s earlier comment that the ALP and the PR departments in places such as the Climate Commission via our Climate Commissioners have not done themselves any favours by putting out media releases such as the one I posted above.
    That was because Nick seemed unaware that Government and departmental PR and reporting is guilty of overstating and overdramatising too and that it appears our Government spokespersons have quite probably been ill advised by their PR people.
    As far as I know, that has no bearing on the quota of intelligence re AGW. I don’t think the PR effort I posted above demonstrates intelligence no matter which side it comes from.

  39. #39 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Wait, you’re equating overzealous press releases with the fossil fuel industry spending tens of millions of dollars every year spreading willful misinformation?

    Dude, you should work at Fox News.

  40. #40 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #38,that link was dead,Stu2.

  41. #41 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘Wait, what? That’s not even coherent, Gordo.’

    Yeah, must have been thinking aloud, its ok I’m back on my meds now.

    Following up on Archibald’s prediction of a 2.2 drop at New Hampshire, now seems to be wildly optimistic.

    He has a lot of credibility riding on his Dalton revival and a sharp decline in temperatures.

  42. #42 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Gordo, stop posting drunk. You’re so incoherent that it’s not even clear whether you’re merely being stupid or lying again.

  43. #43 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #38, found the piece,Stu2. Now, note the headline is the ABC’s work. None of the interviewees use the phrase “will hammer NSW” or the word “hammer”….Flannery and Hughes just talk numbers: more days above 35C,etc. This is mundane stuff,it’s what the projections indicate. Flannery states the obvious about prolonged heat affecting the young and elderly. Is that alarmist? Any heatwave prompts that warning from BOM and health departments.

    I think you are making it up. There is no hyperbole,no loaded language from Profs Hughes and Flannery.

    Some gratuitous ‘false balance’ padder is thrown in in the second half of the piece, with Stuart Franks saying we don’t know how ENSO will roll over the coming decades, as if that affects the probabilities significantly.

    At the end of the piece soon-to-be minister Greg Hunt repeats News Ltd’s lie re: ” the dams were predicted to be empty by now ” You should know the background to that by now.

  44. #44 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #41,it’s accurate to say that Archibald never had any credibility. He’s a self-published amateur, whose methods are trivially dismissed.

  45. #45 chek
    September 15, 2013

    He has a lot of credibility wishful thinking riding … </blockquote

    Say what you mean Gordon.

  46. #46 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    #34 Stu
    “Plus for Fukushima: it’s fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/RADIATION%20conccol_Xe-133_20110420T060000.png

    lol.. ‘An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre is bringing Japanese radiation to the West Coast of North America:’ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-hit-hard-by-fukushima-radiation.html

    You greenies are negligent to let them get away with Fukushima

  47. #47 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    #34 Stu
    “Plus for Fukushima: it’s fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor.”

    fukushima radiation map noaa https://www.google.com.au/search?q=fukushima+radiation+map&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_AI1UtqRH4a6iQeq1IBQ&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=474&dpr=1.25#q=fukushima+radiation+map+noaa&tbm=isch

    You guys are only green when it suits you, how many of you are financially leeching off the green revolution ?

  48. #48 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    If a catastrophic Dalton fails to turn up in a couple of years then Archibald will wonder how he could of got it so wrong.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    So Luke has time for projective sprays, but no time to head over to that RealClimate post with his list of “issues”.

    Hmmmm…he seems to be not interesting in hunting either here or there. Hands up if that surprised you?

    Thought so.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    You greenies are negligent to let them get away with Fukushima

    Oh, my, that may just about set a new standard in irrationality, which is pretty impressive as we’ve had a number of very strong candidates here.

  51. #51 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    hi el :)

    New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce warming during the Holocene Climate Optimum

    “A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that climate models are unable to reproduce the warming in East Asia during the Holocene Climate Optimum. According to the authors, “Much effort has been devoted to reconstructing the mid-Holocene climate over East Asia using a variety of proxy data, suggesting that China experienced warmer and wetter than present climate conditions as a whole during that time,” however climate model “results are contrary to the warming reconstructed from multiple proxy data for the mid-Holocene.” The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that climate models are unable to reproduce the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods, all of which were warmer than the present. Climate models are unable to reproduce the known climate of the past, much less the future. ”
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-climate-models-are.html

  52. #52 chek
    September 15, 2013

    will wonder how he could of got it so wrong.

    Gordon was never a journalist, which requires at the very least a basic proficiency in English, even for sports (especially so in sport, some might say).
    That was just another lie.

    Confusing a verb with a phonetically similar preposition demonstrates gross unfamiliarity with the written word.

  53. #53 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    guffaw

  54. #54 chek
    September 15, 2013

    demonstrating that climate models are unable to reproduce the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods, all of which were warmer than the present.

    Marcott et al’s observational research didn’t find most of those fictional periods so why should the models?
    Where’s your data for them?

  55. #55 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Hi Karen.

    So the models can’t read backward, this doesn’t look good.

  56. #56 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    You greenies are negligent to let them get away with Fukushima

    “You greenies”? You’re a fucking child. I’ve already said that I have never been and am not a member of any environmental association. I don’t necessarily agree with most of their proposed policies. I’ve already stated that I have never voted for any political party that identifies as “Green”, nor do I plan on doing so. You know this. So again, not just a lie but a supremely stupid attempt at othering.

    Anyway.

    It might shock you to learn this, troll, but I am neither a member of the UN, the Japanese government or a major media outlet. If you have any thoughts on how I can stop TEPCO from “getting away with it”, I’m all ears.

    Of course, you’re not even remotely interested in any of that. You really thought you had something there, didn’t you? Well, you did cupcake — it’s right up there with “AL GORE LIVES IN A BIG HOUSE LOLOLOL”.

    You guys are only green when it suits you

    …and that’s enough of this red herring. Me and every contributor to the IPCC AR5 could get together in my back yard. We could club some baby seals. We could drop some plutonium down our well. We could burn a million car tires. We could do all of these things and climate change would still be real, you fucking idiot.

    how many of you are financially leeching off the green revolution ?

    Personally? Me? Not at all. I work on modelling software for the energy industry, and let me tell you first-hand: they’re interested in smart meters, a better grid, more renewables (with batteries and/or pumped storage), and how to do less maintenance (in no particular order).

    You know why? They know damned well what the energy industry will look like in 30 years. So fuck you and the uninformed horse you rode in on, clown.

    Hmm. I guess I just outed my daytime job. Have at it, guys.

  57. #57 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Wait, did Karen just talk about, you know, the past and stuff?

    I await Luke slapping “her” down with bated breath. Luke, please explain to “Karen” why all of that stuff is completely irrelevant.

    *grabs popcorn*

  58. #58 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Gordon was never a journalist, which requires at the very least a basic proficiency in English, even for sports

    If he actually was one, can you imagine the collective sighs from the editors when one of his high school football reports came in?

  59. #59 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Stu – which is why you motor on over to Novas (ignore the sundry fuckers) and engage with TonyFromOz about some serious energy chat. Good call on a job unlike BBD festering in some uni dorm.

    Loth I was too shy to go to RC and didn’t want to contaminate a quality site.

  60. #60 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    “organised by large gas giants”..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?…anythings possible’

    That’s quite funny, certainly funnier than anything Stu attempts.

    Acting in good faith …

    ‘Making explicit concessions also shows good faith. Often in the course of arguments we encounter valid counterarguments. Rather than be antagonistic or adversarial, concede what is valid to such counterarguments.

    ‘This shows not only good faith, and civility, but that you are oriented toward achieving consensus, and in fact it makes your argument stronger if you can respond effectively to every such counterargument. Naturally there will be cases in which you find a counterargument to be superior to your own, and such counterarguments may in fact change your own thinking.

    ‘Rather than simply walk away, give concession to your opponent(s) by stating clearly that they have won the argument through logic, reason, and clarity of concept.’
    Wiki

  61. #61 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #51. Actually, Kaz, your new paper does not support the ambitious claims [ paraphrasable as ‘ model/data disagreements means we knows nothin’ ‘] of the eagerly ignorant Hockeyschtickers.
    It’s about a new suite of models being tested against paleo observations in China. There is a mismatch…wow. We can all go home now.

    But, you know how it is with agnotologist chest-beaters, if there is no material support in the paper for claims like the MWP or RWP were warmer than present, it doesn’t matter. Pride in ignorance and disinformation takes precedence.

  62. #62 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “Personally? Me? Not at all. I work on modelling software”
    Stu how about pumping out a climate model for us ?

    “So fuck you and the uninformed horse you rode in on, clown.”

    lol….. well leave me out Stu, I don’t have a horse but you are welcome to my goat………..

  63. #63 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘I don’t have a horse but you are welcome to my goat……’

    That’s classic.

  64. #64 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Sure, Luke. Can you get over your education envy in the meantime?

  65. #65 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Anyway El Gordo – enough dicking around – back on topic – http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/hans-von-storch-and-eduardo-zorita-on.html

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/the-intriguing-stagnation.html

    Interesting to watch Gavin defend the ground at RC – how times have changed – he’s almost under siege. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/

  66. #66 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Stu – I’m not envious – good on ya and kudos – I’m just fucking with you and becoming what BBD and Jeff want me to be. Helps their world view and confirmation bias.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    … he’s almost under siege.

    …says the guy who’s too shy chicken to take his “issues” over there.

    This “under siege” thing must have happened in the last hour or so after I finished reading the comments. Hang on, let me check.

    Hmmmm, not seeing it. Maybe the term means something different to Luke, as several other terms apparently do?

  68. #68 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘ A third possibility is that the set of external forcings prescribed in the CMIP5 simulations lack a component of relevance. In particular, the CMIP ensembles assume a constant solar irradiance, due to the difficulties in predicting solar activity. However, solar irradiance displays a negative trend in the last 15 years, which could be part of the explanation of this mismatch.’

    Hear Hear

  69. #69 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s. Lots of pause curiosity at RC – you may think he’s winning and maybe he his (just) but lots of Gavin bites – he’s annoyed (again). It’s telling. And a sign of the times. The dreaded unwashed voters are NOT convinced. Your problem guys.

  70. #70 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #65…so,did ya read Zorita’s piece? The ‘stagnation’ is just a reference to a global-scale all-season temperature number. Z refers to the papers that BBD has often introduced here that note the recent inter-seasonal divergence hidden behind that bland metric. It’s a ‘pause’ only in the sense that GAT is SEEN to be pretty static when it’s graphed. Summers,autumns and springs keep getting hotter,offset by winter cooling [which is not enough to hinder glacier loss,which is ongoing and serious].

    In the practical sense of experiencing [and adapting to] climate change, nastier winters and hotter summers in northern North America, Europe and parts of Asia are not helpful. Anyone who argues that the ‘pause’ buys time of some kind is not paying attention.

  71. #71 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    From Luke’s second link…

    ‘It looks to us rather like the effect of the North Atlantic Oscillation on surface temperatures with some additional global contribution. The NAO has shown up in its negative phase in the recent Northern Hemisphere winters, favouring a more meridional circulation and causing polar air intrusions in Eurasia.’

  72. #72 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    El Gordo – my mate reckons it’s the aerosols or OHC after rapping with Trenberth and Meehl at the August 2013 Clivar Extremes Workshop. If so you should be worried. If not you’ll be laughing. We’ll find out won’t we.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s.

    False Equivalence fallacy.

    Been there, done that in the past.

    But even more importantly, there’s little evidence of expertise at Nova’s so it doesn’t meet my aims. Whereas there’s clear evidence of expertise at RC which meets your self-proclaimed goals.

    We can only conclude that your self-proclaimed goals were lies, but we all knew that, right?

  74. #74 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Good grief – almost a discussion like I tried a few weeks ago. I’d better go.

  75. #75 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Yes Loth – I’m just a scum bag. You’re right as always.

  76. #76 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Your aims being to hand around a leper colony and play bumper cars with lay folks ?

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    …he’s annoyed (again)…

    …which doesn’t make him “under siege” any more than Karen or el gordo’s annoying bullshit makes science “under siege” here, and no more than a commenter or two over there equals the population of “dreaded unwashed voters”.

    You really ought to try and think some time. Preferably before you type.

  78. #78 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    In 40 comments, a couple of commenters at RC are determined to miss the point re models,usually because they ignore the caveats and are unaware of the many facets in inputs and outputs. No, handling their comments patiently does not scan as ‘Gavin Schmidt under siege’…quite_the_opposite.

  79. #79 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘If not you’ll be laughing. We’ll find out won’t we.’

    Indeed, I just took a glimpse at the NAO Index and it appears normal for this time of year. At this stage the aerosol and OHC call is a little late, so I remain a sun worshipper until further evidence shows up.

    Good links by the way.

  80. #80 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Coincidence? I think not.

    ‘One intriguing aspect of the stagnation is that it has not been equally distribution across all 12 months of the annual cycle. It has mainly occurred during the months of December, January and February, with the trends in June, July and August over the last 15 years being more similar to the corresponding trends in the period 1980 to 1997.

    ‘This means that temperature trends have decelerated much more during the boreal winter months. Actually the trend over the last 15 years in these months is remarkably negative …’

  81. #81 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Stu
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm · Reply
    Sorry, I might be a little confused here — at what point did science become decided by popular vote?

  82. #82 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Isn’t this post normal science?

  83. #83 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    @Gordo:

    Acting in good faith

    Oh fuck off, Gordo. You lie. Over and over and over. You talking about good faith is like… I don’t know. Like the Koch brothers talking about democracy.

    @Luke:

    Yes Loth – I’m just a scum bag.

    Yes you are. Racist, misogynist, MRA. We’ve established all of that already. You are a scumfuck, Luke. That discussion is over. Was there a point you were trying to make here?

    Luke. When are you going to castigate “Karen” for talking about paleoclimate?

  84. #84 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Isn’t this post normal science?

    How would you know?

  85. #85 Stu
    September 15, 2013

    Who wants to do the over-under on this making it out of moderation over at Nova’s dungeon of idiocy?

    Stu
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 15, 2013 at 2:32 pm · Reply
    It is not a matter of not believing we can use a tax to change the climate.

    Still, that’s what you’re arguing against. I’m sure you’ll clarify though.

    We know we can’t change the climate or temp just by using simple kindy maths.

    That’s not even a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent argument.

    Hasn’t anyone looked at the non OECD’s co2 emissions lately? Geeeezzzzz.

    Nirvana fallacy.

    So we reduce our 1.2% of the planet’s emissions by 5% by 2020 and reduce the temp by how much?

    [Citation needed]

    Nirvana fallacy.

    Give me strength and yet the idiot Labor and Green parties still believe in taxing co2.

    Incoherent. Again. Is this what passes for cogent argumentation around here?

  86. #86 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Hot off the BoM press…its been unusually warm down under.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs46.pdf

  87. #87 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Regional Warming Human Induced

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

  88. #88 Stu 2
    September 15, 2013

    Nick @#43,
    How does the fact that the ABC coined the headline make any difference to the point of my reply to your earlier comment?
    Also, don’t you think that the comments about cranky drivers in traffic jams is just a tad hyperbolic and certainly not based on any scientific evidence?
    What do you think I made up? I was not the one who wrote that media release and staged the interview at Sydney Harbour. That was most definitely the PR people working for the Climate Commission.
    And Stu @#39. I guess overzealous is sort of synonymous with overstate and overdramatise but it appears that both you and Nick are attempting to argue either only one side or only News Ltd is guilty of overzealous reporting or even more worrying that it’s OK if the ABC and Tim Flannery do it because everyone else does it anyway?

  89. #89 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #88 ,Well, you suggested that the CC was responsible for that sort of PR. They did not ‘write that media release’ . You described your link as a “PR piece”. The link was to an ABC article about the release of the Climate Commissions ‘Critical Decade’ report. The CC are not responsible for the headline or content of the article, they were the subject of it; they had no control of the ABC’s application of hyperbole in the headline which was the sole piece of hyperbole in the article…and,no, pointing out that drivers get cranky in heat does not need further peer-review,nor is it damaging hyperbole.

    I ,and many others,do argue that News Ltd is responsible for a campaign of misinformation…again I direct you to the columns at right such as ‘The Australian’s War On Science’. These are rather thorough analyses. Fairfax are not particularly competent, but they have not produced the bullshit that News does.

    Did you know that Australian scientists will not consent to interviews with News Ltd journalists now, because of serial misrepresentation,and failure to acknowledge complaints?

  90. #90 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Will Aunty report this amazing good news? Doubtful.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

    I’ll drop it off at the Bolters blog, where it may get traction.

  91. #91 Stu 2
    September 15, 2013

    Nick @#88. I did not mean to suggest that the CC was responsible for the PR. I apologise if that looked to be the case. I do believe that he was ill advised by the PR people and I found the focus on Western Sydney odd. I was criticising the actual PR/media releases which you will find that all the MSM including the ABC use.
    The video interview was most definitely staged. I don’t think the CCs thought of doing that themselves do you?

  92. #92 Stu 2
    September 15, 2013

    Sorry! @#89 not #88. 88 was my comment!

  93. #93 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    “Racist, misogynist, MRA” – wot’s an MRA – Motorcycle Riders’ Australia?

    Quality verballing though. That’s the spirit.

    The point I was trying to make was how about answering my original questions.

  94. #94 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #88…and because The Australian does not get to talk to local experts anymore, they continue to commission bullshit from agenda-driven non-scientist bloggers like Andrew Montford as a substitute for real content. Montford attacks Cook et al 2013 on climate publication consensus,by purporting to discredit the methodology…which is in fact explicit and unambiguous,and which produces a result entirely consistent with its details.

    Montford writes,in the process of trying to discredit the Cook methodology: “…there is widespread agreement, including among sceptics, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that humankind is therefore capable of warming the planet, so the main focus of debate is over how much warming may take place.”

    Amazingly, Montford attacks Cook’s methodology, by asserting without evidence what he ‘believes’ is a ‘widespread agreement’ amongst the far-flung and mottley collective called ‘skeptics’…Montford has plucked his rough ‘figure’ from his arse.

    Again Montford asserts without quantification or evidence that:
    “That consensus is therefore virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the present state of scientific opinion, beyond the trivial observation that almost everybody in the climate debate agrees carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities have warmed the planet to some extent.”

    This ‘almost everybody’ is presented again without substantiation, while a paper which by design successfully avoids such hand-waving ‘calculation’ is trivialised and misrepresented..

  95. #95 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    Montford waffle here

    Another of his WTFs: he suggests that Cook et al made its impact “only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used”… funny that, any fool even Montford can access all the methodology! That was part of the deal: transparency! The guy is a shameless liar.

    It’s difficult to believe News Ltd subs lack the will or ability to fact check this content, given Cook et al is free access … it’s only possible to conclude they set out to mislead.

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    “Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s”

    There’s a better reason. Its because she’s a hack with gumbified kindergarten level views on science that are contaminated by her right wing political views. Being ‘chicken’ has got nix to do with it.

  97. #97 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Cook et al

    lol…….. sure :)

  98. #98 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #98 Dumbfuck ,you are helpless against Montford’s dishonesty because you don’t know the Cook paper or its methodology…Montford relies on passive uninformed numpties like yourself who are motivated to reject stuff you don’t want to know. You spend all your time inadvertently reminding us that you don’t read the stuff you link to, so you make my case.

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    Stu2, Governments and their respective agencies get – or should get – their information on climate science from universities and research institutions, and most certainly NOT from blogs, corporate funded think tanks or astroturf lobbying groups. In the US, of course, the influence of private money on policy is immense, as illustrated by many examples.

    If you truly believe the denial lobby has put up good scientific reasoning for questioning the validity of AGW, then you are dumber than I think. Moreover, if you think that scientists working in universities and research labs are involved in some big PR effort as well, then I double that sentiment. Sure, there is a massive amount of propaganda as it relates to a range of environmental issues that have policy and profit -linked implications. But 99.99999% of that is Corporate PR. As I’ve said a zillion times, a number of corporations have a vested interest in denial. They don’t give a shit about the scientific truth, as elusive as that is anyway. Their simple, singular aim is to sow doubt. It always has been. That you don’t apparently realize this or seem to think that both sides are acting in equally good (or bad) faith says a lot about you. As I said above, you are naive in the extreme.

  100. #100 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    #98 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    “#98 Dumbfuck ,you are”

    talking to yourself……………………… :)

1 8 9 10 11 12 28

Current ye@r *