September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.


  1. #1 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    50th Daily Record of Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 19th

    Gosh !!! WITHOUT AUGUST WINDS ??????

  2. #2 bill
    September 20, 2013 is an oxymoron

    whereas spamkan and boris are carbondioxymorons

  3. #3 adelady
    September 20, 2013

    And in news about the other kind of Antarctic ice (the kind that’s supposed not to melt out each year) ….

    Press Release

    In a paper published in the journal Science on Sept. 13, the team describes how at one of their study sites, halfway down the ice shelf, the melt rate was as high as 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) per day.

    Anyone with access should have a look at the full paper.

  4. #4 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    #3 adelady

    It will be interesting to see the 30 yr data.

  5. #5 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    I don’t know whether or not you alarmist guyz realize this, if your CO2 story is even remotely true, and there is still no more warming for a little while, then all that you have done is shot yourselves in the foot with the forecasts of non appearing doom.

    In the mean time all your little carbon schemes are to be wound back or demolished, so what is the back up plan ?

    More bullshit won’t work !

  6. #6 bill
    September 20, 2013

    It will be interesting to see the 30 yr data.

    Now now, don’t pretend to be a thinking person who reads!

  7. #7 chek
    September 20, 2013

    SpamKan, you immerse yourself in rubbish and end up spouting nonsense exactly like #5.

    Nothing has changed except the amount of rubbish you’ve spammed and come to believe.

  8. #8 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    #7 chekie, your in denial honey 🙂

  9. #9 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #5 “More bullshit won’t work” …we have been telling you that for just a while now, sweets.

  10. #10 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #98. Frankly ,the IPCC may well find it difficult to keep getting the time and effort of researchers given the generational political impasse. I would sympathise if the panel stood up and said “At it for nearly thirty years, had enough, it’s up to you politicians to lead, as it always has been”.

    #100, they said ‘planet good for life in general’, not humans…. if you care to read [reading is not optional]

  11. #11 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    Nickie, have you seen this?
    Ohhh, it should also be of interest to BBD

    Citizen Audit – Detailed Findings

    United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization releases a report every six years. Often referred to as the “climate bible,” it is relied on by governments around the world.

    The 2007 report is divided into three smaller reports – written by Working Group 1, 2 and 3 – and contains 44 chapters in total. The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly claimed that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed literature to support its findings. This is not the case.

    number not peer-reviewed 5,587

    The public would be shocked, if only they knew……

  12. #12 bill
    September 20, 2013

    I suppose we should at least congratulate you on your firm commitment to recycling garbage.

  13. #13 rhwombat
    September 20, 2013

    Hurrah. Tim’s back, and lil’mike isn’t. Anyone want to posit how many post Spam will persist with if we just ignore it?

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2013

    “Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say”

    Two responses: One, humans won’t last remotely that long. The planet and biodiversity will persist whatever we do to it. The problem is that our species won’t. Given our utter dependence on nature and the services that emerge from it, once these systems break down – and they already are – we will be the most prominent victim.

    Second, the fact that you glean ANYTHING fro Fox News should tell everyone what a moron you are. But then again, most of us knew that a long time ago.

  15. #15 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #11. the IPCC have always made clear that WGs 2 and 3 could use grey lit. WG1 makes no findings or projections based on grey lit. Some of the WG1 references are very elderly [e.g Agassiz from 1837] and are used to establish an historical timeline. Other refences are to textbooks which themselves cite refereed papers. The quibbling from ‘noconsensus’ is piffle. And to argue in banner headline that there is ‘no consensus on AGW’ is childish: if there wasn’t [and the IPCC presents it], dopey little auditors would not be humiliating themselves everywhere.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2013

    David Suzuki is the sole interviewee on next week’s Q and A on the Australian ABC:

    Should be an interesting episode, and I’d love to be in the audience. When I was a kid Suzuki was one of the “Three Davids” who were my heroes, although the third one went rogue about 10 years ago.

    I hope that Tony Abbott is watching, and I wish that more scientists had the sort of exposure that Suzuki draws.

  17. #18 pentaxZ
    September 20, 2013


    “How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.

    Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.”

    Tehnically? Haha, fucking lyer. When reality don’t fit just move the goal posts. Both you and jeffieboy know there isn’t a single one spieces being extinct since the industrial revolution that can be blamed on AGW. Now, when exactly when did it start? Why do you warmiztas constanly need to lye and move goal posts, shithole? .

  18. #19 pentaxZ
    September 20, 2013

    “Now the odd thing here is that Tim Lambert has come down hard on sock puppetry before,”

    Crying out for daddy now, bbd? Poor little thing, can’t handle the debate without help from an adult, can you?

  19. #20 pentaxZ
    September 20, 2013

    jeffie, “– and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this.” Executed by the same type of warmiztas as you, I reckon. It doesn’t matter how you turn around, your ass is always at your back side. Name one, one species gone extinct due to AGW. One!

  20. #21 Lotharsson
    September 20, 2013

    When reality don’t fit just move the goal posts.

    All together now: it’s always…

  21. #22 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #18,20 I am so infinitely relieved we cannot definitively isolate one species extinction from AGW thus far, and we can relax in the knowledge that nearly every extinction seen has been due to mere habitat destruction and clueless over-exploitation. Thanks!

  22. #23 BBD
    September 20, 2013


    Now, when exactly when did it [AGW] start? Why do you warmiztas constanly need to lye and move goal posts, shithole?

    Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full. You quoted my response in full. And you then accused me of lying and moving the goalposts. I did neither, scum.

    Read the words:

    Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.

    The reason lying scum like you need to be moderated of this and any blog is neatly illustrated right here. You are the absolute essence of bad faith.

  23. #24 Marco
    September 20, 2013

    Nick, included in that list of “not peer reviewed” are ALL the IPCC reports themselves. Thaaaaat’s right, according to the citizen’s audit, not a single IPCC report is peer reviewed.

    Also, as I scientist I can tell you that many book chapters are peer reviewed, too (also automatically counted as “not peer reviewed”), and many government and even NGO reports go through the same process.

    The citizen audit was flawed from the beginning by re-defining “peer review”.

  24. #25 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    Deniers constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.

    This is as stupid as it is dishonest.

    What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.

    What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.

    Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.

    The only way out of this is denial, starting with denying the laws of physics and working on up. That’s what you have to do to your integrity in order to spare yourself the facts.

  25. #26 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #24. Marco, I knew ‘noconcensus’ pseudo-audit was useless…now you tell me it’s worse than useless!!! Alarmist! 😉

  26. #27 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined,

    5,587 are not peer-reviewed

  27. #28 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    An example

    peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: 12

  28. #29 Nick
    September 20, 2013

    #27 You must be heavily sedated: you’ve already posted that nonsense. See #24, pumpkin.

  29. #30 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    #29 IPCC’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

  30. #31 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    Working Group 3, Chapter 5

    total number of references: 260

    peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: ONLY 64 out of 260, golly 🙂

  31. #32 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    Working Group 3, Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report

    audited by John Moore, 17 March 2010

    total number of references: 379

    peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: 103
    uncertain/second-opinion-required references, highlighted in blue: 30
    percentage of chapter references from peer-reviewed literature: 27.17 percent

  32. #33 bill
    September 20, 2013

    Bernard J – 3Ds; Suzuki, Attenborough, and Bellamy?

    A lot of us remember the latter fondly for his efforts during the Franklin campaign, (while Harry Butler, on the other hand…)

    It’s a pity indeed that he and the plot appear to have parted company!

  33. #34 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    Tell me about WG1, fuckwit. You know, the physical science basis.

  34. #35 chek
    September 20, 2013

    The glaring thing about PantieZ and his ilk is that he and they know nothing of the subject except what they like to read on denier blogs.

    So we have a situation where the output of toxic interpreters of interpretations is re-interpreted by mindless fuckwits who place themselves two removes from actual scientific opinion and rage at being treated as the idiots they’ve become through their own actions.

    The concept of learning anything that doesn’t immediately reinforce what they already think is anathema, so they will never read primary literature, never read an interview with any writers of primary literature and continue to submerge themselves in garbage ‘truths’.

    There really is very little scope for constructive dialogue with such a mindless mind set.

  35. #36 bill
    September 20, 2013

    Moron, we already knew all that, as mentioned above. By Christ you are THICK.

  36. #37 chek
    September 20, 2013

    They’ve got SpamKan really shuffling those ‘stories’ along now and there’s still a week to go.
    Clickety clickety click.

  37. #38 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    #37 chekie

    hoo iz they ?

  38. #39 chek
    September 20, 2013

    Why, whoever has you making 33 posts since yesterday SpamKan.

  39. #40 pentaxZ
    September 20, 2013

    bbd, “Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full.”

    No, you didn’t! You were moving goal posts (as usual)!

    I asked tou a simple enough question: “Now, when exactly when did it start?” But since you have a comprehension disorder (and I managed to make a typo) I’ll refraze it: now, when exactly did the industrial revolution start? No need for an essay, which decade is quite enough.

    “But for practical purposes…” Very practical indeed. A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species.

  40. #41 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    18 chekie 🙂

    oh I am a little chatterbox 🙂

  41. #42 chek
    September 20, 2013

    Innumerate as well as illiterate SpamKan
    #1 Page 17 to date = now 34 posts.

  42. #43 Karen
    September 20, 2013

    Now let me see?

    34 posts at $15/post = ?

    ummm……what duz that = chekie ?

  43. #44 chek
    September 20, 2013

    Why don’t you try reading something about the subject PantieZ? Perhaps then you could frame a sensible question.

    There’s more available on the internet than denier blogs.

  44. #45 chek
    September 20, 2013

    It all adds up to your usual vacuous drivel, SpamKan.

  45. #46 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    Karen #4

    The thirty year data will come in over your head, well at the least you could have wet feet.

    You don’t get the difference between long term trends and short term messages from the climate system do you. Go ask the people in Boulder Colorado.

    Curiously, or not so curiously to thinking people, some of the same industry shills in political appointments above their level of expertise in Colorado shrieking for relief are the same that denied it to those affected by Sandy.

    Loaded dice, loaded dice, becoming more loaded over time but quickly affecting outcomes. Can you get your head around a simple message like that?

    I think it strange that those familiar with the odds of gambling don’t ‘get’ this picture.

  46. #47 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    Well whadayouknow!

    Shortly after writing the above at #46 I visited Rabett’s place and found this: Storms crashing on peoples’ heads can fill some information deficits on climate.

    There is a word for that sort of coincidence, what is it Karen?

  47. #48 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    …now, when exactly did the industrial revolution start?

    Such a question comes from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in your case both.

    One answer would be when the bronze age began.

    Another when the iron age began.

    Another with the advent of canals – which could take us back to Roman times never mind 18th century England.

    Getting the problem now. There is no short answer without caveats just as in the processes of climate science. And that is what media pundits and ideologue politicos rely on and such as Monckton with their Gish Gallops.

    So ‘bust camera’ – do your own homework, goodness knows you need to.

  48. #49 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    Tell me about WG1, fuckwit. You know, the physical science basis.


    Just as with Penty I could call out that that link from Karenite as coming from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in Karenite’s case both.

    When will they ever realise that with every such post they sink lower. Probably never for they are even ignorant of self.

  49. #50 BBD
    September 20, 2013


    No, you didn’t! You were moving goal posts (as usual)!

    This is simply a lie. Since you are irritating me today, I am going to call you on it. Demonstrate – by quotation – exactly how and when I “moved the goalposts”.

    I guarantee you cannot do this. So once again, you will be shown up to be a liar acting in absolute bad faith when confronted with unanswerable *facts*.

    * * *

    You can start arbitrarily at 1850 if you like (that’s what I meant by the Industrial Revolution “really getting under way”). Or you can start at the beginning of the C20th – also explicitly stated above, *twice*.

    Now read this instead of ignoring it yet again.

    * * *

    It’s not me who’s moving the goalposts and being evasive, it is *you*.

    All together now: it’s always projection.

  50. #51 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    oh I am a little chatterbox

    Then chatter to me about WG1. You have not responded to my direct question at #34.

    “Chatterbox” is not the correct description. You are a prolific and exceptionally dishonest troll.

  51. #52 bill
    September 20, 2013

    Tell your paymasters, SpamKan, that all you’re achieving is significantly increasing the likelihood that one day you’ll all be placed in stocks.

  52. #53 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    …one day you’ll all be placed in stocks.

    And damned lucky if she/he/it escapes being ‘shared’ around. Not that I advocate hanging, drawing and quartering but when mob rule hits anything goes, ask Maximilien de Robespierre. Oh! Karenski you can’t, he was ‘mobbed’ and …..!

    If you think these times are interesting, and I do, then just wait!

  53. #54 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    Betty’s ghost will whinge and whine! Remember all the fuss last time!

  54. #55 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2013

    “A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species”

    What a twit Pantie is. This isn’t my meme – its the official IUCN policy for classifying the status of species and populations. Some species in the tropics have not been seen since the 1970s and are still classified as ‘extant’. Moreover, its far easier to say a species exists than it doesn’t. And, given how poorly we know the true number of species on Earth (estimates vary from 5 million to 80 million), there’s little doubt that many tropical invertebrates have been extirpated that were never formally classified.

    Essentially, like all anti-environmentalists, Pantie plays on the “We don’t know how many species there are, then there is no problem” strategy. I am used to these illiterates doing this. Its hardly new.

  55. #56 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    Australia a democracy, don’t make me laugh, well cry as a matter of fact for the UK his heading in the same direction.

    This on a Paul Ramsay article found via Nick at Watching The Deniers (see John Byatt’s reply on Abbot’s hit list), which I in turn found via Byatt’s link in a reply on that Flannery sacking article at Sou’s HotWhopper: The Half-Million-Dollar Cure.

    Look at the link to the right at that page for ‘Is This The Most Dangerous Woman In Australia?‘ and Abbots plans for the CEC – affiliated to US LaRouche organisation.

    Dirty deeds being played out.

  56. #57 Boris
    September 20, 2013

    Hurrah, Tim is back and will soon ban the most degusting fuckwit if this site: twerp BBD 👿

  57. #58 Boris
    September 20, 2013

    BBD, before you will be banned here, can you describe in own words which scientific evidence you can reference (peer-reviewed original publications) that show a warming effect of anthropogenic CO2????

    I am sure you cannot, fuckwit

  58. #59 chek
    September 20, 2013

    Lionel @ #56
    A’la’rouchie (pardon my fucking French) in preference to a Green candidate?
    I’m not sure what it would be, but there’s some mental aberration there either in Abbott or the gallery he’s playing to..

  59. #60 Lionel A
    September 20, 2013

    Boorish #58

    Santer et. al. 1996 and Santer et. al. 2013

    for starters.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2013

    Boris/Freddy/Bernadaneke you will soon be booted out of here soon as well. I don’t know how many sock puppets you have but you’re gonna need em’, you sad, pathetic person.

  61. #62 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2013

    Since I am saying soon a lot (and not that clown Willie Soon), the sooner the better for Boris and his puppets.

    And FYI, BBD is going to be here a long time. His posts add tremendous insight into AGW and he has had to take a lot of crap from the scientifically illiterate deniers here.

  62. #63 chek
    September 20, 2013


  63. #64 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    Thank you for your kind words.

    I suspect that #57 is mistaken, but we shall see!

  64. #65 Boris
    September 20, 2013

    Asshole BBD is a fucking idiot, basta! And he has no fucking insight in AGW as there is no AGW, fucking twerp

  65. #66 Boris
    September 20, 2013

    Ah Jeff Harvey, the fucking AGW prophet, hahahahaha:

    “You will soon be booted out”, hahahaha.



  66. #67 BBD
    September 20, 2013

    Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy, Boris!

    Lionel A #60 provides references!

    Play the game, Boris!


  67. #68 Boris
    September 20, 2013

    Jeff Harvey and other pathologically vain wannabe pseudo–important impertinents:


  68. #69 chek
    September 20, 2013

    Boris (or whatever) doesn’t do evidence.
    Boris does insane ranting.
    Boris thinks insane ranting will make him feel better than when he started.
    But it never does.

    Boris thinks next time will be different.
    But it never is.
    Hamsters running on their wheels feel sorry for Boris.
    Boris will never realise why they do.
    Boris can’t even conceive what a mere hamster can.

  69. #70 BBD
    September 20, 2013


    I looked in innocent surprise,
    My wonder showing in my eyes.
    “Then why, O Cumberbunce,” I cried,
    “Did you come walking at my side
    And ask me if you, please, might sing,
    When you could not warble anything?”

    “I did not ask permission, sir,
    I really did not, I aver.
    You, sir, misunderstood me, quite.
    I did not ask you if I might.
    Had you correctly understood,
    You’d know I asked you if I could
    So, as I cannot sing a song,
    Your answer, it is plain, was wrong.
    The fact I could not sing I knew,
    But wanted your opinion, too.”

    Paul West – The Cumberbunce

  70. #71 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    “The media could start by reporting the 15-year pause in global warming. Perhaps the public is mature enough to discuss the full range of possible explanations. Perhaps those associated with the axed climate commission, such as David Karoly and Will Steffen, should give it a go.” 🙂

    “Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.”

  71. #72 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    this is all over the headlines also……

    World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years


  72. #73 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    “Coming winter, according to predictions of several Russian meteorological services will bring abnormally low temperatures in Europe and might even be the coldest winter in the last 100 years, writes Thursday Noviye Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted Utro portal.

    Abnormal frosts
    According to the forecast, based on the calculation of climatic indices, there will be a process of transfer of arctic air masses in Europe, resulting in abnormal frosts. In addition, during this period will cause a decrease in solar activity.”


  73. #74 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #71 “The media could start by reporting the 15 year pause in warming…” That’s quite surreal Kaz, because all the ratbag media do IS report the so-called pause.

    Welcome to the reality inversion of News Corp. Australia’s dominant ‘news’ media group, telling itself that it needs to start reporting what it already relentlessly flogs in the global conversation!

  74. #75 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest ‘tomb’

    “he stump of an ancient tree is visible at the base of the Mendenhall Glacier in July of 2013. UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor said she and her team have found the trees to be between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old. ”

    lol……… so it is warmer now, eh.

    “IF” the ice keeps melting it will interesting to see what else pops out from the “recent” past 🙂

  75. #76 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #71, the OZ’s editorial of course inverts reality as well. Just one of many examples: Their characterisation of the IPCC process as ‘consensus seeking’ at the exclusion of claim and counter-claim, and ‘scientific theory and measurable result’ , is utterly false. Anyone who was even slightly familiar with the report format would know the breadth of discussion and the layout of arguments puts the lie to the newspapers’ construct.

    So we have an editorial written from the position of utter ignorance….and of course posted here obliviously by a know-nothing.

  76. #77 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    Hey Nickie, I hope that I am helping you to confront your CO2 confirmation bias 🙂

  77. #78 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #75…oh dear, where’s your MWP, Kaz? Not showing up in western North America, that’s for sure.

  78. #79 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #77 Sweetie, you are confronting your own but are unable to see it!

  79. #80 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    Illusory correlation is your demon Nickie

  80. #81 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    A propose a new medical condition

    CO2 Apophenia


  81. #82 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2013


    I have asked this question so many times of the likes of you, who persist in repeating the long-debunked false meme about “no warming for x years”, but there’s never a response. Perhaps you can be the first to attempt the intellectual exercise of constructing an answer that is based in evidence.

    Consider the graph here:

    What does it tell you about the period of time required to statistically identify the global warming signal in the weather noise that superimposes on the Earth’s climate? For brownie points and a gold star, can you explain how the last 15 years of data compare to any period of data up to any arbitrary year prior to the present?

  82. #83 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    “That’s quite surreal Kaz”

    How long have you been having these surreal visions Nickie ?

  83. #84 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #81, Ooh, a big word from Kaz! Cast your mind back to the tree stump story,Kaz …what is the date range of the material so far tested? Hmm? You seemed to see something meaningful in those numbers didn’t you, Miss Apohenia? LOL

  84. #85 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    Nickie, did you just smell something, disgusting ?

  85. #86 adelady
    September 21, 2013

    For all those crowing about the “pause” in warming, there’s a question you should be considering. That 15 year period you’re so fond of includes several La Nina years and no significant el Ninos along with some pretty feeble sunspot numbers. The question you should be asking yourselves as well as climate scientists is …

    Why hasn’t it cooled by 0.02 or more?

    This item in The Conversation gives all the details and the following quote.

    Between about 1880 and 1890, temperatures cooled by about 0.4C.
    Between 1900 and 1910 temperatures cooled close to 0.3C.
    Between 1945 and 1950 temperatures cooled about 0.35C.
    Between 1962 and 1965 temperatures cooled about 0.3C.
    There are other examples, but these were decade-scale cooling of 0.3C to 0.4C.

    The most recent period of similar relevance starts with the extremely hot year, 1998. Since 1998, through to 2012, the temperatures cooled by 0.03C. However you choose to view the figure you simply have to conclude that natural variability, aerosols and solar variability have caused global cooling in the past of a scale that dwarfs anything that has occurred in the last 15 years.

    Read the whole item. Now ask yourself again.

    Why hasn’t it cooled in the last 15 years?

  86. #87 adelady
    September 21, 2013

    Oh lawks.

    Why hasn’t it cooled by 0.2 or more?

  87. #88 adelady
    September 21, 2013

    Oh lawks.

    Why hasn’t it cooled by 0.2 or more?

  88. #89 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #85, No I just read something moronic. It smelled of nothing at all. Not a whiff of comprehension.

  89. #90 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #82..very instructive link, Bernard,thank you….have a look, Kaz, it won’t bite you.

  90. #91 Stu 2
    September 21, 2013

    Nick @#31 &@#34 previous page,
    I am away visiting family at the moment and using a very slow computer. This comment will have to be brief.
    I have access to all the figures and i have no reason to bullshit.
    The issue of wastage is not relevant to the few intense days of the December 2012 flood. There is nothing wrong with my maths and my objection to the wasteful anomaly in the SHL licence regarding RAR payback into a full system is what the real exacerbation problem was. That anomaly still exists on one side of the system which means it will likely happen again the next time a drought breaks.
    The downstream storages were already full and spilling by October 2012 and that water was not providing any useful outcomes.
    Even SHL would have preferred to leave it in Eucumbene.
    Marohasy was not the problem and was not a major player in these events.
    My recollection is that she leveraged the media interest in the flooding to highlight the wastage that was occurring.
    Furthermore, I don’t think marohasy’s reporting on this was any more or less duplicitous than the way our ex CC used the media in that earlier link I posted.

  91. #92 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    adelady, from 1998 to 2008 the from + 0.68 down to – .24

    check the swing in surface temp

    CO2 Apophenia


  92. #93 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    #90 Nickie !!

    that STUNK !

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2013


    Why are you cherry-picking roy Spencer’s satellite data? It is not as accurate in describing surface temperature as are data that are actually recorded at the surface, and it is notorious for errors of measurement on top of that.

    Even so, here’s an exercise for you. Visit the Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator at:

    and choose either RSS or UAH and enter 1998 and 2008 as the start and end years respectively. Click ‘Calculate’. What happens?

    I’ll tell you what happens. Even with the most dodgy of the datasets, and even with the most cherry-picked points available, points that have no objective basis in any scientific approach, it is still not possible to statistically exclude an underlying warming trend!

    You’re full of crap KMS. You have nothing that resembles a scientific argument – just ideological assertion based on your irrational fear and hatred of the objective truth.

    And “STUNK”? Is that the only come-back you have? Can’t you mount an actual logically-contructed and testably-evidenced counter to my analysis? Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can’t even admit to what the graph indicates?

  94. #95 Karen
    September 21, 2013


    go away

  95. #96 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #91 You have to demonstrate that ‘waste’ is more than a selective ‘framing’ of the water transfer in November and December. You have to show a figure that you can back and in context of the flows generated in the catchment wide flood.
    . You have to show where that ‘wasted water’ compromised landholders and the environment. [Once the river breaks its banks in the flood plain at Wagga, 4GL/day of extra water raises the water level infinitessimally. NOW river profiles and flood data proves that]. You have to show how much more water could have been retained in SH storage without compromising SH’s power generation duties. The inquiry into the event, while maintaining the commercial confidentiality of SHs water figures, claimed that SH transferred a net 41GL to Eucumbene from Tumut Pondage during the flood event.

    I noted that it is fair to see the water year RAR as stored in Blowering and Hume up until they were spilling from environmental [flood] flow. And I’ll repeat that between Tantangara, Eucumbene and Jindabyne the SH system stored 700GL from the rapidly improved rainfall of the last quarter of 2010.

    Marohasy is a problem in that her role is to spread disinformation. I don’t claim she has much traction generally, but she sought to exploit people’s distress during the floods, when she could have actually shone some light,and calmed fears.

  96. #97 Karen
    September 21, 2013

    “Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can’t even admit to what the graph indicates?”

    0.00002 C

  97. #98 Luke
    September 21, 2013

    OK Bernard, BBD, Jeff, Nick, Stu et al – here it is –

    Tim won’t show but are you going to let this one go past – start off and I’ll join you.

    Meanwhile I’m engaged with Jen over at Marohasy on science corruption. My local bloghole as you know.

    Surely BBD could mount a charge on paleo evidence to start with. A big push by Jeff on precautionary principle and ecosystem services. Then follow though how crap sceptics are, how it is still, warming – the pause explains. Blow them away on the tropo hotty. Are you up for it boys? Or is your excuse you’re not going to give the debate oxygen? This isn’t a blog debate now – they have actually axed teh climate commission and CSIRO and BoM research is next.

    Are you going to have one decent shoot-out in your greenie lives? What did you do in the climate wars I have been told on recent days. Well this is your Kokoda track.

    At least Andy is holding the ground Go Andy !

    Flannery (who did fuck up a fair bit – never rain again etc – but still gives good mammal ) has been dissed. Are you going to let his memory go down without a memorial all out nuclear attack. !

  98. #99 adelady
    September 21, 2013

    check the swing in surface temp

    Seeing as there’s neither trend line nor baseline nor annual/ 5 year/ 11 year smoothing on that graphic, I see no swing, no straight lines, no curves, no nuttin’.

  99. #100 Nick
    September 21, 2013

    #97 Kaz has conceded that it’s not cooling.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.