September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #91, did you read back and get your ej-um-ication, Kaz? Doesn’t look like it. How did Christy cook those graphs you posted? Will you ever know? Can you ever know?

  2. #2 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘but all the blog owners will be.’

    I’m sure they are quite prepared to take the heat and humiliation if temperatures pick up sharply, but expressing an opinion is not an indictable offence.

  3. #3 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #83, Watts headline: “National Academy of Sciences: models still ‘decades away’ from being useful”

    Thanks,Kaz. Then Watts, fully aware of the dependable stupidity of his gang, is confident enough to reproduce what the NAS actually said. Nowhere in the report is it stated that models are not currently useful That’s not what they said. That’s what failed weather guy allowed as his own sub-editor .

    And you are involved in school committees, Kaz? Excuse yourself, now…

  4. #4 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:

    It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.

    What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.

    Their list of four main recommendations is:
    “1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
    2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
    3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
    4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”

    It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.

    Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
    “Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”

    Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.

  5. #5 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:

    It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.

    What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.

    Their list of four main recommendations is:
    “1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
    2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
    3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
    4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”

    It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.

    Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
    “Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”

    Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.

  6. #6 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    Twice is twice too many for dead-loss Kaz, I know.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    I’m sure they are quite prepared to take the heat and humiliation if temperatures pick up sharply, …

    ROFLMAO!

    Your delusion knows no bounds. Not gonna happen, as all of the attempts to drop their past Epic Fails down the memory hole illustrate.

  8. #8 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘Your delusion knows no bounds.’

    Counterintuitive.

    A parliamentary inquiry into the hiatus would be fun, especially watching Flannery, Garnaut and Chubb fall on their swords.

  9. #9 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    Why do you think a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist would be called to give testimony on recent variability? ‘Falling on their swords’? More like you stepping on a rake.

  10. #10 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    “A parliamentary inquiry into the hiatus would be fun”

    perhaps but that simply assumes it goes all your way – if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics. CSIRO and BoM’s best are never let off the leash. Time for management to back off, stop being polite and let them rip. (as well as saying fuck and cunt a lot)

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    Hey, look, an short article for Luke. Section 1 reiterates something we said to Luke that he pooh-poohed, IIRC, Section 3 reiterates a point that just flew over Karen’s head, and there’s even a point about the frequently cited pure Popperian view being inapplicable to most real world science.

    So will Luke take his “issues” list to that thread? Inquiring minds want to know.

    (And the response to the first comment points back to paleo that Luke desperately wants to dismiss…)

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    …if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics.

    Seems entirely plausible. There was that reference to Hansard testimony a couple of pages back, and that went badly for the skeptic even without cross-examination.

  13. #13 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    “In addition, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling explains that U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate. Progress toward this goal can be made through a combination of increasing model resolution, advances in observations, improved model physics, and more complete representations of the Earth system.”

    Maybe climate modeling should be lumped in with the Arts.

  14. #14 Karen
    September 14, 2013
  15. #15 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #4 ‘maybe climate modelling should be lumped in with the Arts’….you’re distracting yourself, just concentrate on your remedial reading course for the time being.

  16. #16 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Where is a climate model, of some sort, that has matched observations and will work into the future?

  17. #17 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘…if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics. ‘

    If the hiatus remains in place the sceptics will have a strong case.

    ‘CSIRO and BoM’s best are never let off the leash.’

    Unless you can furnish me with a couple of names, I’ll assume you are just making shit up. ;-)

  18. #18 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #7 Kaz,what is the point in telling you? Really!

  19. #19 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Climate modeling is actually……………..

    Visual art

    Performing art

    Conceptual art

    Theatre

    & singing a tune

    The climate Modeling Arts :)

  20. #20 Stu 2
    September 14, 2013

    Yes Luke.
    Although I am definitely not a fan of your style of commenting I do agree that Lotharsson et al could consider answering your value proposition. Jeff Harvey and Nick did offer what I consider is the most likely explanation.
    Browbeating is certainly not providing much value and the cheap shots and abuse are only mildly entertaining.
    I don’t think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.
    I would suggest an inquiry into the PR departments that have been responsible for some of the poor and overstated representation of climate science and for making celebrities out of unqualified people would possibly be more fruitful.

  21. #22 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘I don’t think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.’

    Its not to apportion blame to any individual, although lack of due diligence is of concern, the primary aim is to have an open conversation on climate change after AR5.

    In local nooze…

    ‘If Cathy McGowan wins the seat, it will be one of the major upsets of this federal election. Already the pundits are claiming that the reason for her success is captured in her campaign slogan of “Putting Indi first”.

    ‘Most of the federal electorates within the Murray Darling are held by MPs from either the Liberal or National Parties. Over recent years, however, major water policies instigated by federal Coalition governments that directly impact these electorates have been to their long-term detriment. ‘

    Jennifer Marohasy

  22. #23 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #11.., I agree re BOM/CSIRO workers.

    What is upsetting you in the PR department can actually be sheeted home to the media ,in particular News Ltd’s very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work, push the voices of unqualified commentary from coal-industry-aided shills and dupes, and its malicious personal campaign against Tim Flannery executed by Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair. Make no mistake,News Ltd’s mission is to wreck reasonable discourse.

    So an inquiry would be best directed at analysing News Ltds behavior,and into legislating that the IPA reveal their funding.

  23. #24 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2013

    “BJ we have enough fossil fuels to last us a century and by then we should be into more sophisticated forms of energy.”

    The comment of a moron. Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won’t last that long. At least natural systems won’t permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder.

    Gordo, you really are a twit. I read some of your comments and can only shake my head at the level of simplistic drivel you constantly spew out. I’ve stayed away from here for a few days but read the shit you, Luke, and Karen promulgate from time to time. The three of you truly believe that the clots you cite and quote are skeptics rather than deniers and shills. Stu 2 has worn his colors on his sleeves too in this regard. But the statement I copy-pasted above from you is so utterly FATuous (pun intended) that I had to respond. You were once banned from deltoid for being an ignoramus and, thanks to the fact that Tim doesn’t invest much time here anymore, you’ve found a way back through the filter.

    How unfortunate.

  24. #25 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Is there a climate model, of some sort, that has matched observations and will work into the future?

    If not, why waste money on them ?

  25. #26 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene.

    And I wan’t banned from here, Tim built me a Dickensian prison because I was constantly off topic. He called it the El Gordo Thread, but naturally I absented myself before it fell into the archives.

  26. #27 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    # 16, ignoring link at #12? Comparison of CMIP5 ensemble with observations therein

  27. #28 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #17,the next ‘wonderful achievement’ will be surviving the growth model as supercharged by the fossil-fuel bloc,and replacing it with something ecologically realistic.. The election of their puppet Abbott derails that for the moment.

  28. #29 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘News Ltd’s very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work’

    News and opinion are different things, Blair and Bolt offer opinion. Limited News has been fair and balanced on climate change, unlike Fairfax who have been a disgrace.

    The Climate Commission in its present makeup should be mocked.

  29. #30 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Fossil fuel bloc is in your head, there is no organised conspiracy and ‘ecologically realistic’ would be east coast black coal, CO2 is a good fertiliser.

  30. #31 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    I think it rather amusing that we are now frequently hearing statements such as this, “In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume.”

    The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…… :)

  31. #32 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…

    Good grief!

    Are you a bare-faced liar or a complete ignoramus? I’m afraid I can’t see many other plausible options.

    It’s impressive how little you actually know about fields that you confidently dismiss – and how easy it would be to avoid your most egregious errors.

  32. #33 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #20,21 Hilarious that you should try that on at this blog: on your right is a bunch of categories that profoundly contradict your hand-waving. All referenced. Bolt and Blair do not offer opinion: they schedule weekly or bi-weekly attacks using the same dishonest techniques; it’s effectively an automated dosing system. When you mock the CC,you’re parrotting News’ talking/stalking points…you cannot think for yourself,it is clear.

    So there is no mining lobby,Gordy….? There are no lobbyists in Canberra and the world’s seats of government that often exchange headquarters on changes of regime….’see you in three years or so’? These folks make no attempt to shape policy,steer outcomes,pressure governments? It’s not a conspiracy,it’s a system for the cashed-up to further their interests. You clearly think that your interests are faithfully considered in this best-of possible-worlds by this process? This is why science is unavoidably at war with government: it cannot guarantee the cosy outcomes that business seeks, and it reminds government of real costs all the time.

  33. #34 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #22…never cracked an attribution study or an IPCC report in her life,our Kaz. At least she followed the link.

  34. #35 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the
    solar variation effects on planet earth………..lol

  35. #36 mike
    September 14, 2013

    Obsessive rants
    You Deltoids spout
    All motor-mouth
    Day in, day out

    A feckless grind
    Of geek-ball fluff
    And group-think gales
    Of huff-n’-puff

    As if a rage
    Of hive flim-flam
    Might save what’s left
    Of your bust scam

    But sorry guys
    Your agit-prop
    Is glaringly
    A big-time flop

    Regardless how
    It might be spun
    The cruel truth’s out–
    The good-guys won!

    Now as one of
    Those champ good-guys
    A good-sport word
    Here to the wise:

    As disappear
    Your eco-troughs
    Why not give up
    On all rip-offs?

    And say “Hell!” with
    The lefty crowd
    And get a life
    That’ll do you proud!

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth…

    Er, Karen, you may not realise this, having presumably never looked at one, but published scientific papers have publication dates, so anyone and everyone can go and see that you’re spouting obvious bullshit.

    But then you’re really not here for the hunting, are you?

  37. #38 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    New paper finds glaciers may be advancing in size in Asia

    “The area of the investigated glaciers, including the 18 surge-type glaciers identified, showed no significant changes during all studied periods. However, the analysis provides a hint that the overall glacier area slightly decreased until about 1989 (area 1973: 1613.6 ± 43.6 km2; area 1989: 1602.0 ± 33.6 km2) followed by an increase (area 2002: 1609.7 ± 51.5; area 2011: 1615.8 ± 35.5 km2). Although the overall change in area is insignificant, advances in glacier tongues since the end of the 1980s are clearly visible. Detailed estimations of length changes for individual glaciers since the 1970s and for Central Rimo Glacier since the 1930s confirm the irregular retreat and advance.”

    http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1385/2013/tc-7-1385-2013.html

    I foresee the climate matrix unraveling….. lol

  38. #39 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #26, please read an SPM in a an IPCC report

    #27
    rhyming delusion,
    a cheerful dupe
    projects the illusions
    of Uncle Rupe

  39. #40 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    #28 err Lotharsson

    Every study ever published about the solar cycle/sunspot activity that has been posted on this forum has been decried as deniar bullshit.

    So now you believe………….. LOL

  40. #41 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    The world is watching and laughing at all the alarmist knobs scurrying around looking for more bullshit to shovel onto their burning prediction pyre ……… hehe

  41. #42 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    # 29, advances in part of the Karakoram are due to increased precipitation [due to CC]….in the rest of the glaciated world nearly all monitored glaciers are shrinking. Nearly all ‘unmonitored’ glaciers [those only monitored by remote sensing] are retreating. Sorry,Kaz.

  42. #43 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…’

    Its extraordinary.

    ‘I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth………..lol’

    It was a mere underestimation, a trifling oversight, but coupled with the CO2 sensitivity issue its a huge story.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    Every study ever published about the solar cycle/sunspot activity that has been posted on this forum has been decried as deniar bullshit.

    Yes. It’s not hard for most of us to understand.

    You said “climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth”. No pretence is necessary. They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They’ve published many papers about it. With dates and all.

    And what they did NOT find is evidence supporting the claim that the sun is responsible for any large part of the warming trend we’ve seen over the last few decades. The “studies” deniers post that claim that have so far have not stood up to scrutiny, or in colloquial terms have proven to be bullshit.

  44. #45 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #32 the world is watching incredulously the profound attempts of the Karens to avoid informing themselves.
    #31 such as David Archibald’s divination and dowsing? Or Svensmarks personal issues? …still laughing!

  45. #46 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    “They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They’ve published many papers about it. With dates and all.”

    Yes……..they might even bring those guys in from the cold and give them some funding now.

    I fact their papers are likely being meticulously perused now as we speak and who knows, the new papers might even get accepted into journals……….lol

  46. #47 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #37 another example of the state of some branch of science being defined by Kaz’s ignorance of it…Kaz,it’s your brain is what’s out in the cold,and despite lavish funding here,it keeps shrinking.

  47. #48 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    Yes……..they might even bring those guys in from the cold and give them some funding now.

    You mean, unlike the funding for all the OTHER research into how the sun affects the climate? And unlike the existing funding that already supports “those guys”?

    I fact their papers are likely being meticulously perused now as we speak …

    Er, no. The existing papers so favoured of denialists have been previously perused and dismissed because they are unpersuasive and inconsistent with the evidence. The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT imply that those kinds of denialist papers are correct. (If anything, it supports the mainstream position that rejects those papers.)

    You are impressively and consistently clueless.

  48. #49 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.

    ‘This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.’

    Matt Ridley / WSJ

  49. #50 el gordo
    September 14, 2013
  50. #51 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    “Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”

    “The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

  51. #52 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    “The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT imply ”

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430

  52. #53 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    #39 Lotharsson “The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT” have anything to do with what you dribbling on about here numbnuts.

    “You are impressively and consistently clueless.” :)

  53. #54 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    BTW how’s Archibald’s forecasts going – aren’t we supposed to be under an ice sheet by now?

  54. #55 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Luke, your slipping!

  55. #56 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    “Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won’t last that long. At least natural systems won’t permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder.”

    or not

  56. #57 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    Karen – are you seeing anyone at the moment? I find your gravatar most enchanting.

  57. #58 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    Karen – alas most of the sceptics are a lamentable bunch. Is true.

  58. #59 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    Karen/Gordo, down to half a brain each, pool resources and find Matt Ridley, salting a few brazen guesses in amongst the factuals. Typical Ridley: get across the issues, insinuate some greater privileged insight, and spin…

    “Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”

    First sentence is assertion,no evidence. Second is spin , choosing the emissions scenario that we are NOT following as yet, and inserting his distinctly unqualified opinion where it should not be..so she’ll be right-maybe- until 2080s and who gives a fuck.This is the guy who crashed a bank because over over-optimism and lack of diligence: just the man to walk us through the future.

  59. #60 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    #48 Luke,

    ” I find your gravatar most enchanting.”

    lol……… tuck yer dick back in, I’ve seen where it’s been

  60. #61 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘BTW how’s Archibald’s forecasts going – aren’t we supposed to be under an ice sheet by now?’
    ————-
    ‘Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2°C colder over the coming decade than it was over the last decade.’

    David Archibald 2007

  61. #62 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Nigel Farage offers Barroso some cooling news

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aylLhPHI1TI

    hahaha……….lol………..hahaha

  62. #63 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    BBD and your page 8 #32, Gomitz is out of my price range but the Cronin may be worth a look. Is your Cronin the 2009 edition?

    Whatever here is a list of books I have (luke PA) here, a few general reader books have been left off.

    General Reader

    Climate Change: Picturing the science – Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe

    Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – Michael Mann and Lee Kump

    Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert

    The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson

    Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach – William James Burroughs

    Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Third Edition) – John Houghton

    More technical

    Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer

    The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer

    The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Richard Alley

    Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate – William F. Ruddiman

    Earth’s Climate: Past and Future – William F. Ruddiman

    Quite technical

    Atmosphere, Weather and Climate (1982 edition and much thumbed) – Roger G Barry and Richard J Chorley

    Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert

    The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (Eds.)

    Policy/Politics

    Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate – Stephen H. Schneider

    Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future – Jeff Goodell

    Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis – And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster – Ross Gelbspan

    Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan

    The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth – Eric Pooley

    The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription – Ross Gelbspan

    Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do – Joseph Romm

    Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

    Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – James Hansen

    Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions – Joe Romm

    Another’s can be found here

    Also I can recommend:

    Cassell’s Atlas of Evolution: The Earth, its Landscape, and Life Forms

    and texts on geology and palaeontology, Physical, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Peter Atkins in particular on that latter. Also a good look at Richard Feynman in particular his three volume Lectures on Physics, recently republished as ‘The New Millennium Edition’ in a slip case.

  63. #64 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    I forgot

    The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change – Wally Broecker

    which reminded me to mention books by Richard Corfield. I attended a talk given by him, based around his ‘The Silent Landscape’ in the dockyard a couple of years back, signed my copies.

  64. #65 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Lionel, those books may keep you warm one winters day :)

  65. #66 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…

    Clang, clang, clang, wow-wow-wow-wow (the sound of alarms), strawman, strawman unless of course you can find a quote from currently respected scientists in the field (that rules out a few see below) who have actually said that or anything like it.

    Now what about Christy’s (and Spencer’s) distortions over atmospheric temperatures? It seems that you have ducked that one, again!

  66. #67 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Lionel, those books may keep you warm one winters day
    Well here is one you should study:

    The Warming Papers and from page 215 which will help you answer my questions WRT satellite and radiosonde temperature measurements put to you on the previous page.

    Ruddiman ‘Earth’s Climate: Past & Future page 320 will also help as will Archer ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ page 132. You could do with studying this latter book in its entirety.

  67. #68 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models…

    Er, no. That doesn’t explain “the pause”. Think about it. “The pause” would still be “the pause” regardless of the sensitivity that is derived from the models. “The pause” is observations, not models. Matt Ridley is feeding his gullible readers another line of bullshit – his speciality.

  68. #69 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #56 if we could just make those troubling books and ideas just disappear…sigh.

    ‘The Long Thaw’ is an excellent read, Archer’s low key conversational style might even work for Kaz…she could suggest it at the committee as something for the school library….

  69. #70 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    “signed my copies.”

    that was sweet Lionel, :)

  70. #71 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    ‘Falling on their swords’? More like you stepping on a rake.

    Well Nick, I suppose we could describe Monckton as something of a rake, except he isn’t making much progress.

  71. #72 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    “The pause” is observations, not models.’

    The models overestimated sensitivity, massiver fail.

  72. #73 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    The models overestimated sensitivity, massiver fail.

    You have something correct at last, that is your opening clause above is a massive fail.

    Please explain why. It has to do with a concept that you had difficulty with previously, negatives and positives and all that.

  73. #74 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Mostly, the scientists overestimated the models

  74. #75 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    that was sweet Lionel,

    Never mind that oh tricksey one. Now sort out Christy and Spencer’s cookery. If you are up to it yet that is. Plenty of pointers have been put up.

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    The models overestimated sensitivity…

    Nope, evidence suggests that they’re in the right ballpark. If they were significantly oversensitive a whole load of other comparisons would be a lot worse.

    The most plausible explanation is that the models don’t emulate some of what’s currently going on in the climate system. We know they are way off on Arctic sea ice and aren’t great on deep ocean heat either, and since the ocean gets the vast majority of the excess energy due to the radiation imbalance it only takes a small change in ocean absorption rates to have a fairly significant impact on atmospheric heat content.

    So (roughly speaking) if we applied your simplistic logic to those data points they would suggest models have significantly underestimated climate sensitivity – and since far greater amounts of energy are involved in melting ice and deep ocean heat energy than are involved in “the pause”, the “underestimated sensitivity” case would win out.

    But of course you will avoid applying your logic to those data points because it reveals a Massive Fail, as you put it.

  76. #77 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Mostly, the scientists overestimated the models

    Deeper and deeper into the slurry you fall as evidenced by your continued inane spluttering.

  77. #78 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    Ridley prefers his own view to that of Fyfe et al 2013, after going to the trouble of citing them…what would they know? I suppose Ridders is there to soothe the investers, they don’t want any stranded assets.

  78. #79 Stu 2
    September 14, 2013

    Nick @#14.
    I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don’t believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
    However, that was not what I meant @#11.
    I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
    Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.

  79. #80 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Physical, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Peter Atkins in particular on that latter.

    Oops! I switched the order of the chemistry fields and missed the now incorrect reference of Atkins which should of course be to Physical Chemistry. The equilibrium diagram (phase) of water is a must study. Why would that be Karen and gordolocks?

  80. #81 Stu 2
    September 14, 2013

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. !!!
    Sorry! I mistyped my email address again!
    I apologise if appears twice.

    Nick @#14.
    I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don’t believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
    However, that was not what I meant @#11.
    I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
    Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.

  81. #82 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    So, Karen and gordolocks, Ridley (GWPF don’t forget) has joined Watts in the new ‘Olympic’ sport of ‘shark jumping’.

    Now there is a surprise. Cue Morano, Milloy, Laframboius, Morohassel, Nova, Limbaugh, the Faux gang, the ‘Interpreter of Interpretations’ and Bolt, no not Usain Bolt.

  82. #83 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #71 Flannery as Climate Commission chief spokesperson always made it clear that he was conveying expert advice,not originating it…and the other eminent members of the commission are quite ignored [because News Ltd bloggers had their target in Tim; didn't want to dilute the attack,and wanted to identify everything about the CC with Tim...classic framing tactics] As I told Gordy,at your right is the resource for a decade of News Ltds dirty tricks department]. Flannery had made statements in a different capacity [around the time of writing 'The Weathermakers'] and offered musings long BEFORE he was appointed to the Climate Commission,which News were happy put on high-rotation to create a false association with his new role.

    Garnaut was the go-to on economic response,as an economist. He did a prodigious amount of work…er,not a ‘celebrity expert’

    Chubb,Chief Scientist, is not a celebrity CC expert,either….look up the CS’s brief some day.

  83. #84 FrankD
    September 14, 2013

    ‘Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2°C colder over the coming decade than it was over the last decade.’

    David Archibald 2007

    And hows that forecast working out, Gordo?

    No, let me save you the trouble, since it involved mathematical skills beyond those of our resident trolls, what with averages ‘n’ shit…

    Over the 2/3rds of Archibalds coming decade we have had so far (2007 – Aug 2013) Hanover, New Hampshire has been 0.2 degrees warmer than the preceding decade. For Archibald’s prediction to come in, it will need to average 6.2 degrees colder than average for the next 3.3 years.

    Data here.

    To quote Clay Boone on Eli “Kid” Shaleen: “He did it! He missed the barn!”

  84. #85 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Sod it.

    Dome nuts for Karen, but will she use them and answer the outstanding questions swilling around that Christy/Spencer cookery?

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2013

    “CO2 is a good fertiliser”

    Epic fail. Try again, fatso.

  86. #87 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2013

    “Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene”

    Comment of a moron, Part 2. Fatso, you seem to think that the material economy is independent of the natural economy. Methinks you probably share a common philosophy with right wing economist Peter Huber, who once claimed that humans can survive and thrive in a “planet covering crypt of concrete and computers”.

    Your comment reflects your complete and utter ignorance of systems ecology and of the link between human welfare and ecosystem services. Point is fatso, your views would be better suited to a comic book. Luke’s too, for that matter. He is similarly burdened with delusions of grandeur that camouflage profound ignorance.

  87. #88 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene…

    el gordolocks, go find a copy of this book What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees, note the reviews, read it and then report back how sanguine you now are.

    Seriously, lummocks like you are clueless but do need to get a clue fast otherwise life on earth is going to see more drastic changes than in the last fifty years.

  88. #89 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    #63 Lionel A

    Cronin is the first (2009) edition – I’m not aware of any second edition to date. An excellent book, worth the money, highly recommended.

  89. #90 Stu
    September 14, 2013

    Fossil fuel bloc is in your head, there is no organised conspiracy

    Man, are you saying I am imagining the entire Heartland Institute?

  90. #91 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    And the Donors Trust?

  91. #92 Stu
    September 14, 2013

    By the way, Gordo…

    The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking

    Ah yes, lovely fracking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

    There’s more to “cost” than what’s on your energy bill.

  92. #93 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    I think a fossil fuel block is his head – el gordolocks.

    Donors Tust

    Yes

    and all these re4vealed here:

    Dealing in Doubt The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science

    and the earlier version described here:

    Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry and note amongst the tags at foot of article:

    Willie Soon
    Exxonsecrets
    Dr. S. Fred Singer
    ExxonMobil
    sallie baliunas
    Philip Cooney
    pat michaels
    global climate coalition
    climate denial industry
    david legates
    james inhofe (R-OK)
    API
    Cindy Baxter
    Information Council on the Environment (ICE)

    and then their is ALEC
    go look up at SourceWatch el goldilocks.

    and not forgetting the result of all the work hereJohn Mashey’s blog.

    Seriously el gordolocks, what planet have you been on, probably looking at Neptune from ‘seventh rock from the sun’.

    Was this jerk gordo really a journalist? Almost makes the ‘interpreter of interpretations’ look competent and honest.

  93. #94 Lionel A
    September 14, 2013

    Ah! Yes. Fracking!

    Charged With Illegally Dumping Polluted Fracking Fluid, Exxon Claims ‘No Lasting Environmental Impact’

    More Than Flaming Water: New Report Tracks Health Impacts of Fracking on Pennsylvania Residents’ Health

    Fracking Vs. The Drought: They Call It Texas Tea, But You Can’t Drink Oil

    Wonderful fracking. This clutz is as clueless as our incumbent government over here in the UK who are trying to shut down opposition by a draconian gagging bill and targeting THE green politician. That episode was shameful, it was obvious she was targeted by the police.

    I have served in the armed forces for this country but am now beginning to feel ashamed of that. It is rarely those at the sharp end who benefit from political chicanery.

    I want to see the debate opened up over here and learn who benefits amongst the parliamentarians and lobbyists, I have a good idea of some of the former already but the others will stay in the shadow with this misnamed gagging bill ‘The Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill

    The new Tory authoritarians are trying to gag debate. The fact that this bill was introduced sneaked in the day before parliament rose for the recess should have raised a big warning flag straight off.

  94. #95 Stu
    September 14, 2013
  95. #96 Stu
    September 14, 2013

    Man, I hadn’t been paying attention to Donors Trust for a while. Grown quite a bit, haven’t they? God forbid the Koch brothers have to pay taxes on destroying public education, labor unions and the environment.

  96. #98 chek
    September 14, 2013

    There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents deniers and shills 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.

  97. #99 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Karen – alas most of the sceptics are a lamentable bunch. Is true.

    And yet by his second bottle of whisky of the night, ol’ Gordon has his imaginary brownshirts out storming the ‘Klimatariat’ and enlightening ‘the masses’.

    Are you attempting to allude to some as yet unknown but different revolver-reaching culture of denialism that doesn’t rely on political pointmen, disinformation and washed-up, deluded old drunks like Gordon?

  98. #100 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    #98

    The condition is well-known, chek!

    It is called “denial”.

Current ye@r *