October 2013 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    October 29, 2013

    Intriguing site, BJ. And, yeah, interesting times! Are they prepared to blow a hole in the budget to rectify the damage (not) done to the economy by the GBNT?

    After campaigning in Tea Party mode – deficits bad, bad, bad – then announcing they were allowing them to blow out by another $200 billion… well, that really would be the icing on the cake, wouldn’t it? These wallies may yet trigger a recession! Happy days!

    John Quiggin’s doing this one currently, I’ll add.

  2. #2 bill
    October 29, 2013

    GetUp! fears that Shorten’s about to climb down on the tax. Don’t let him.

    Here’s the link.

    (That would just about be the end of Labor, I might add. What’s the point of having two Liberal parties, after all?)

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    October 29, 2013

    Shorten’s an intelligent man. I’d be surprised if he’d seriously countenance capitualting on this matter. Abbott would never let Australians forget if Labor caved in to the denialist conservatism, and the intelligent section of the community that understands the science would never forgive Labor for doing so.

    It’s salient to remember that Rudd was ousted in 2010 because his popularity nose-dived after he back-tracked on the CPRS following similar Coalition pressure. Abbott’s using a tried-and-true gambit, and it would be pure folly to hit the lure a second time.

    Besides eviscerating the Labor Party it would also catapult Australian political life back 100 years, and likely toward something resembling [dzzzt – Godwin…]

  4. #4 Lionel A
    October 29, 2013

    I am looking at the feasibility of putting wind + solar (maybe combined PV & HW) up on the roof. Unfortunately don’t have a south facing house, faces NE-SW so solar on both sides of the pitch.

    I find this model of wind turbine interesting, besides aesthetically pleasing.

    I would like to consider a perhaps smaller build of such units for the domestic market. I have considered the possibility of installing three poles around this semi. One at the end in line with the roof apex, one at the front and one at the rear. The poles could be cross braced by three horizontal members tie each pole to the two others. This for stability and structural integrity against strong blows with a minimum of load on the house structure.

    WRT more conventional wind turbines

    and having been involved in aviation I understand the airscrew shadow effect which can affect multiple wind turbines with rows packed to tight. However some aircraft of my acquaintance had contra-props others co-axial propellers. No they are not the same, the former is a single engine arrangement driving two contra-rotating propellers through a gearbox whereas the latter is a twin engined arrangement each driving their own prop via co-axial shafts.

    Contra props were fitted on RR Griffon engined aircraft such as the Shackleton and later marks of Spitfire and Mustang. The RN Fairey Gannet was fitted with an Armstrong Siddeley (Umtum-Tiddeley to the boys in blue) Double Mamba twin turboprop. The Bristol Brabazon, which I used to see flying over when a very small boy, had eight Centaurus sleeve valved radials in twinned arrangements driving four sets of co-axial propellers.

    Now, I do know that such arrangements suffered from noise issues, ignored in the military field. Maybe modern techniques could ameliorate such problems.

    With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material to match the greater sensitivity of avian vision at those wavelengths. I see the Quiet Revolution qv5 as more of a problem because of its smaller rotating cross section, something like the cutters of a cylinder lawn-mower. Having cleared the remains of birds from aircraft windscreens, radomes, intakes and undercarriages I don’t fancy frequent repeats of that, how ever small the real chances are.

    David JC MacKay’s ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’ has given me some impetus here.

    Much investigative work to be done, particularly as I am of an age where I am unlikely to get any financial benefit from it, but if done properly the kids could benefit and the household electrical system needs a revamp anyway, that area is going to be the really expensive bit, I think. Planning permission in this anti-wind county may also be a project stopper.

  5. #5 BBD
    October 29, 2013

    Lionel, be very wary of microturbines. See MacKay, page 66 note 62 section 2 on microturbines.

    Cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, new boiler and energy A-rated domestic appliances might be the way forward.

  6. #6 BBD
    October 29, 2013

    Sorry, that should be note 63.

  7. #7 BBD
    October 29, 2013

    Here are a couple of the links from MacKay:

    Carbon Trust report (2008) on microturbines:

    http://www.carbontrust.com/media/77248/ctc738_small-scale_wind_energy.pdf

    That Eco-Bollocks award:

    http://www.housebuildersupdate.co.uk/2006/12/eco-bollocks-award-windsave-ws1000.html

  8. #8 Lionel A
    October 29, 2013

    BBD

    Thanks for your concerns. At this stage I am conducting what we used to call on a trials installation unit, aviation, I worked on for some time, a feasibility study.

    The items in your #5 have been done, double glazing too.

    As for MacKay page 66 note 63, yes I have read that, I am studying the book here now.

    Thanks for your links.

    I am also studying Nuttall’s ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ – again and am looking up more recent information on the state of play WRT ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor), as a better option than the governments, IMHO questionable, moves to install a Franco-German EPR with Chinese financial backing.

    Now if our financial house was in order, and bankers had been forced to surrender their bonuses (Fred Goodwin et. al. – RIH), and offshore accounts were policed we would have more than enough to cover it and ease pressure on societies most vulnerable by a more active programme of improving old housing stock WRT energy efficiency. Those sociopathic sods have much to answer four as well as the biggest carbon footprints.

  9. #9 Wow
    October 29, 2013

    “See MacKay, page 66 note 62 section 2 on microturbines.”

    MacKay is unreliable when he talks about renewables.

    E.g. using an outdated version of wind turbine. Insisting that the entire footprint of the wind farm is used for that single purpose. Assuming the wrong value for energy use per person per day. Assuming 10% land use is the maximum we can use for windfarms (see single-use problem above), then when this still doesn’t quite preclude wind power, reduces it by 75% “because”.

    He pushes nuclear by refusing any alternative.

    He still shills for the nukes.

  10. #10 Wow
    October 29, 2013

    “With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material”

    The myth of air strikes were severalfold factors combining that no longer exist:

    1) small rotors spin faster , meaning the disk is effectively solid for a slow flying bird.
    2) Frames rather than a tower meant excellent perches for birds.
    3) Site was on a migatory path despite problems being known about already.

    There are versions of small turbines that are really impeller designs which are pretty safe to use. They’re complicated and expensive, though.

    TBH you’d be better off if you can’t get a big enough rotor or live in a migration route getting solar thermal and heating water and using that for most of your heating needs (with heat reclaimation to pull some power from the hot water: see Stirling engine) and use PV or water mills to produce what you need for other needs.

    The space you’d use for the turbine would work better with a solar panel for the same output and less hassle, but more expense. You can always build up and do the largest replacement project last, when it’ll be cheaper and better.

  11. #11 bill
    October 29, 2013

    BJ @ #3 – yes, it would be a whole-party suicide-note that would make Rudd’s own walking away from the ‘moral challenge of our generation’ look like a minor pre-entrée. Which it would effectively have been.

    That’s no reason not to remind the bastards that that’s what would happen, though. Fairfax was reporting this yesterday.

  12. #12 bill
    October 30, 2013

    This is little short of brilliant!

  13. #13 Lionel A
    October 30, 2013

    BBD.

    I know that you are aware of the latest Paul Hudson/BBC nonsense having commented at Stoat’s, just like others here to know that the Beeb is still schizophrenic over climate change issues. Maybe something to do with pressure from ‘They Who Cannot Be Named’ over the forthcoming BBC license renewal. After all we cannot have the BBC pouring cold water on the Chancellors fracking plans now can we.

    The bankers have fracked us

    The energy companies are fracking us.

    Big business and their champions in government have fracked us with their tax-dodging offshore accounting practices.

    The MPs wan’t to frack us by awarding themselves over the odds pay increases whilst the rest are squeezed tighter and tighter by policies from an out of control, arrogantly dismissive and generally incompetent cabinet.

    I wonder how much this little fiasco cost the taxpayer.

    One can see the example of blind arrogance that typifies this administration in this quote, my emphasis which can be applied to the race to frack:

    O’Sullivan said: “We always said they were acting unlawfully and undemocratically in using an emergency process to bypass meaningful consultation and destroy an excellent hospital.”

    I have been prodding various limbs of the BBC over the fracking issue and what do I get – silence.

  14. #14 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    October 30, 2013

    So let me get this right. The IPCC used:
    a) Californian bristlecone chronologies, and,
    b) upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments, and
    c) European instrument temperature data.
    in order to determine past temperatures in the SOUTHERN hemisphere!

    That work for you, my little Deltoids?

  15. #15 Wow
    October 30, 2013

    “a) Californian bristlecone chronologies, and…”

    …lots of other trees.

    Oh, didn’t you know that other data was used? You thought only “bad data” was used because “good data” would have shown that there had been no warming?

    Guess what?

    “Good data” shows AGW warming too, retard.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    October 30, 2013

    I suspect that more than a few of the deluded denialists here haven’t seen this:

    In this highly entertaining and accessible presentation at the University of the West of England, George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network summarises some of our current understanding of the psychology of climate change- why it is so hard to accept and how can we help people to accept it?

    In Part One he discusses how climate change is perfectly configured to confound our ‘risk thermostat’ and why how our response to climate is like our response to human rights abuses.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOsl5-AUTv4

    I doubt that they could watch it and actually see the scales that cover their eyes, but for the scientifically literate one thing is starkly clear – no denialist argument holds even a guttered candle to the strength of the professional science.

    Warning – by part 3 it becomes somewhat depressing…

  17. #17 Lionel A
    October 30, 2013

    A’hem douche-bag at #14!

    Why don’t you try to find something new other than that example of the type of garbage Hudson likes to spew?

    Note my pointer to the Stoat above on a more recent excursion into denier methodology by Hudson and note that you seem to be picking from around 2009:

    Donald at Real Climate: A warming pause?.

    Like Svensmark and his GCR’s, Lindzen and low climate sensitivity, Hudson seems to have a one card hand. Not worth much unless you are playing ‘Indian Poker’, which is about the cognitive limit of those taken in by this kind of simplistic garbage.

    Warming pause and a coming ice age – give me flipping strength will this zombie never die!

  18. #18 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    October 30, 2013

    What a relief to find that nothing much changes on Planet Deltoid as first Wow and then Lionel miss the point by a mile.

    Try reading this slowly, ‘mes enfants’, it’s not whether it’s ‘good data’ or ‘bad data’ but that it is totally irrelevant data because it was taken from the NORTHERN hemisphere and thus distorts any research purporting to reach conclusions concerning the SOUTHERN hemisphere.

    Now, what is it about the words ‘NORTH’ and ‘SOUTH’ that you don’t understand?

  19. #19 Lionel A
    October 30, 2013

    Duffer,

    If you could explain from which part of any of the IPCC reports these strawmen were constructed then maybe we could have a more constructive dialogue.

    What you #14 appears to be is the regurgitation from some denier blog, or perhaps the Daily Smell – ‘…a rose by any other name…’ etc,.

    Some of this smells of McIntyre and McKitrick as discussed here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=hockey%20stick

    Whatever this is all another exercise in Fish Slapping.

  20. #20 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    October 30, 2013

    “This remarkable turn of events occurred because IPCC Figure 5.7 relied on SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008, citing three SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008: Ma08eivl, Ma08eivf and Ma08cpsl.”

    Ah, yes, that dreadful 4-letter word – ‘Mann’!

    And one thing they left out (“Shurely shome mishtake – Ed”) was “Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period”.

    I wonder why?

  21. #21 Olaus Petri
    October 30, 2013

    Way to go Duff! :-) According to McIntyre the SH is actaully the NH, or is it the other way around? :-)

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/28/the-ipcc-southern-hemisphere-reconstructions/#more-18498

  22. #22 Ian Forrester
    October 30, 2013

    Duffer the Puffer is wrong as usual, not right as he claims:

    So let me get this right. The IPCC used:

    McIntyre and all the other deniers quoting this nonsense made the usual lazy mistake, they didn’t read the actual paper where the data were taken from.

    Here is a link to Mann’s 2008 paper:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html

    If you check out Table S1 you will find that different proxies were used for NH and SH and the total was used for Global.

    Trust deniers to make such an elementary mistake but it is always good to see how incompetent they actually are. I can never tell whether they are just lazy or are too stupid to actually read and correctly interpret the actual papers, probably both. Or they may actually know what they are doing and are being completely dishonest.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    October 30, 2013

    Ah! So.

    Duff, why are you never specific about your sources of information?

    We always trace it to some denier blog bog.

    Did you by chance happen to look at the actual Draft Report itself?

    If you did you would have seen this:

    Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute

    Still, the hooligans (M&M – ‘Get in the Bowl’) in the argument never were ones for playing by the rules and you smug gits are just as culpable.

    More later, I have other issues to deal with.

  24. #24 chek
    October 30, 2013

    Did you by chance happen to look at the actual Draft Report itself?

    Not in a million years! Duffhead lets his blog pseudo-science sewer conspiranoid sources to do his thinking for him.

    And even though he’s always, but always shown how they’re incorrect, incompetent or just plain lying. he desperately wants to believe they’re not. Even at the expense of his credibility taking such a pounding he has to lie low for six months or so until he thinks his last shit soufflé has been forgotten.

    Of course being the arrogant little jumped-up, supercilious twat he is, he will always comes back with what he has been led to believe (but never checked for himself) is another zinger. And we can be just as 100% sure it will always be more garbage.

    The Duffer will never understand that there’s a difference between science and denial blog pseudo-science.

  25. #25 BBD
    October 30, 2013

    And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see below) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where’s the beef?

    * * *

    Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – be that from internal variability or an external
    forcing.

    * * *

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

  26. #26 BBD
    October 30, 2013

    I hope that’s clear. There is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. The MCA does not appear to have been a global and synchronous event. Global average temperatures did not match GAT today. Please try to be objective about this.

  27. #27 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    October 30, 2013

    Oh, riiiight, you mean Finnish lake sediments and Californian bristlecones to say nothing of European instrument measures of temperature occur in the SOUTHERN hemisphere – which is what the IPCC were writing about in their “SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE RECONSTRUCTIONS”, and that’s ‘SOUTHERN’ as in, er, SOUTHERN not global, and as illustrated in their graph “IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b)” on which it has the word “Southern Hemisphere” printed in large letters.

    Let me try and put it another way; what is it about the title “SOUTHERN Hemisphere Reconstructions” that you do not understand and which, like the IPCC, you appear to confuse with ‘NORTHERN Hemisphere Reconstruction’?

    And again I ask why, given their (and your) confusion over the geographical location of, er, Californian bristlecones, Finnish lakes and European temperatures, did they not remain ‘confused’ by SOUTHERN, Antarctic ice cores?

    Jest askin’!

  28. #28 chek
    October 30, 2013

    Btw, BBD – no storm damage here this week. I seem to be quite lucky as the big storm of ’87 just clipped the area of Cambridgeshire we lived in at the time, with just one tree on the March road blown over.

    I had no idea of that one’s impact until the following April when going to a wedding in Sussex, the devastation travelling through the south east looked like an arboricidal giant with a roller had flattened every wood and copse available. I couldn’t help thinking of the sheer amount of high quality wood of so many types that could never be harvested before it decayed.

  29. #29 BBD
    October 30, 2013

    #27

    Read the fucking words, imbecile.

  30. #30 BBD
    October 30, 2013

    #28 chek

    Very glad to hear it. Sorry – Mrs BBD and little just back from visit to the in-laws. Got to go!

  31. #31 chek
    October 30, 2013

    Oh, riiiight, you mean ..(snip)

    Don’t try thinking it through Duffer, you’re not up to it.
    There are NH proxies and SH proxies. Both combine to produce global reconstructions. Try reading the links next time, they’re not there for decoration.
    God knows what you’re on about, but here’s a very brief selection of SH papers in Chapter 5. Go tell your fake “auditors” to chew on them and stop lying to you. It really makes you look stupid and too incompetent to read for yourself, and all on top of the handicap of just being your usual, natural clueless, credulous, mouth-agape fuckwit.

    “A recent global temperature compilation (Shakun et al., 2012), Southern Ocean temperature records (Lamy et al., 2007; Barker et al., 2009; De Deckker et al., 2012),
    evidence from SH terrestrial records (Kaplan et al., 2010; Putnam et al., 2010) and transient climate model experiments (Menviel et al., 2011)
    provide multiple lines of evidence for the inter-hemispheric character of millennial-scale variability during
    the last glacial termination and for DO events (high confidence).
    Newly available marine records (Martrat et al., 2007; Grützner and Higgins, 2010; Margari et al., 2010;
    Kleiven et al., 2011),
    Antarctic WMGHG records (Loulergue et al., 2008; Schilt et al., 2010) and statistical
    analyses of Antarctic ice core data (Siddall et al., 2010; Lambert et al., 2012)
    “New high-resolution, climate reconstructions for the last millennium are based on tree-ring records from the
    subtropical and central Andes, northern and southern Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego, New Zealand and
    Tasmania (Cook et al., 2006; Boninsegna et al., 2009; Villalba et al., 2009), ice cores, lake and marine
    sediments and documentary evidence from southern South America (Prieto and García Herrera, 2009;
    Vimeux et al., 2009; von Gunten et al., 2009; Tierney et al., 2010; Neukom et al., 2011), terrestrial and
    shallow marine geological records from eastern Antarctica (Verleyen et al., 2011), ice cores from Antarctica
    (Goosse et al., 2012c; Abram et al., 2013; Steig et al., 2013), boreholes from western Antarctica (Orsi et al.,
    2012) and coral records from the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Linsley et al., 2008; Zinke et al., 2009; Lough,
    2011; DeLong et al., 2012). There is medium confidence that southern South America (Neukom et al., 2011)
    austral summer temperatures during 950–1350 were warmer than the 20th century. A 1000-year temperature
    reconstruction for land and ocean representing Australasia indicates a warm period during 1160–1370 though
    this reconstruction is based on only three records before 1430 (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). In Australasia,
    1971–2000 temperatures were very likely higher than any other 30-year period over the last 580 years.”

  32. #32 Ian Forrester
    October 30, 2013

    Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn’t read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:

    1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
    1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
    1800-1855 Global proxies 1158

    In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165

    Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can’t understand the big words and real numbers?

  33. #33 Ian Forrester
    October 30, 2013

    Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn’t read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:

    1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
    1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
    1800-1855 Global proxies 1158

    In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165

    Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can’t understand the big words and real numbers?

  34. #34 Ian Forrester
    October 30, 2013

    Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn’t read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:

    1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
    1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
    1800-1855 Global proxies 1158

    In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165

    Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can’t understand the big words and real numbers?

  35. #35 Ian Forrester
    October 30, 2013

    Ooops sorry about the extra posts. Maybe Duffer will read at least one of them.

  36. #36 Craig Thomas
    October 31, 2013

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/30/one-third-of-australias-media-coverage-rejects-climate-science-study-finds

    [blockquote]A study of 602 articles in 10 newspapers by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found that 32% dismissed or questioned whether human activity was causing the climate to change.[/blockquote]

    [blockquote]newspapers based a small fraction of their coverage on peer-reviewed science, instead relying heavily on comment pieces penned by writers without a scientific background.[/blockquote]

    [blockquote]There were 97% of comment pieces in the Herald Sun which either questioned or rejected the view of the vast majority of climate scientists – which has ironically also been measured at 97%.[/blockquote]

    [blockquote]Bolt, who regularly rails against the established science of climate change in print and on his Channel Ten TV show, dedicated 49% of his words in the surveyed period to climate science,.[/blockquote]

    [blockquote]Just 1% of News Corporation articles referred to peer-reviewed science[/blockquote]

  37. #37 Craig Thomas
    October 31, 2013

    No, Duffer will not read them. He is not seeking information, and will not accept anything that contradicts his irrational and ignorant beliefs.

  38. #38 chek
    October 31, 2013

    Craig, this blog requires ” rather than ‘[‘ and ‘].’

    Not that I can talk with the number of flubs I make….

    But you do wish that adhering to a common standard would be achievable. Or surely a measly bloody preview or editing function at the least.

  39. #39 chek
    October 31, 2013

    And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus – .

    God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.

  40. #40 chek
    October 31, 2013

    And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus – .

    God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.

  41. #41 chek
    October 31, 2013

    And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus – .

    God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.

  42. #42 chek
    October 31, 2013

    And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus – , and the forward arrow above stop+shift, thus – >

    God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare. And a repetitive one at that.

  43. #43 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    October 31, 2013

    Gentlemen, I use the term loosely, of course, may I suggest that:
    1: You look at the diagram very carefully entitled:
    “IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b). Reconstructed … Southern Hemisphere… annual temperatures during the last 2000 years.”

    2: Double check the actual words inside the diagram put there specially for really, really bright scientific minds like yours just in case, you know, that in your total amazing brilliance you might get confused between ‘North’ and ‘South’ – ” (b) Southern Hemisphere”.

    If you check further you will discover that this diagram and the reports that went with it used three papers from Prof. Mann which, unsurprisingly in his case, included NORTHERN hemisphere data to work out a historical SOUTHERN temperature reconstruction.

    And no-one has told me why they ignored isotope readings from the SOUTH. Could it be that the pesky little things kept telling the ‘wrong’ story?

    The only thing that surprised me about this tale was the fact that I was totally un-surprised. It’s exactly the sort of shoddy, underhand, now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t ‘agit-prop’ beloved of your strange sect.

    I’m off for a couple of days so please do try to work out the difference between north and south!

  44. #44 bill
    October 31, 2013

    Duffer, you’ve already been debunked. See above. So all you’ve just done is soiled yourself. In public. Again.

  45. #45 Wow
    October 31, 2013

    A perfect “SQUIRRELS!!!” from duffer.

  46. #46 chek
    October 31, 2013

    Duffhead hasn’t got a clue of the context he’s rote-repeating, Fig 5.7 relating to the section 5.7 “Evidence and Processes of Abrupt Climate Change”.
    “This assessment of abrupt climate change on timescales of 10–100 years focuses on Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events and iceberg/meltwater discharges during Heinrich events, especially the advances since AR4 in reconstructing and understanding their global impactsb and in extending the record of millennial-scale variability to ~800 ka.

    Thus Duffdick presents as clear an example as possible on the shortcomings of “citizen science” riling up their dim-witted followers, or the monkeys having their cages rattled as it’s more commonly known. So it seems his main objection is he’s too ignorant to know what the IPCC are even talking about, never mind understand it.

  47. #47 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    Prat above:

    Read the fucking words and respond to them as written. Forget your idiotic, confected, non-issue grubbed up out of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

    Forget it. Concentrate on the underlying concepts. Try fucking thinking like an adult for five minutes.

    Let’s try again:

    And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see #25; #26) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where’s the beef?

    * * *

    Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – be that from internal variability or an external forcing.

    Please think about this carefully as it bears directly on the climatological effects of increased forcing from CO2.

    Think.

    Think.

    Try.

  48. #48 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    Respond only the points raised above. I don’t care about McIntyre’s silly lies and half-baked misrepresentations so do not raise them here again.

    If you want to talk about a “hot” MCA, then by all means do, but you will conceptualise it within a physically consistent framework that incorporates a high climate sensitivity.

    Or you can fuck off. I really don’t care anymore. Up to you: think and engage in rational discourse based on real-world physics or jabber like an enraged marmoset. Up to you.

    Do the former and I’ll talk with you. Do the latter and I will piss on you.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    October 31, 2013

    Ah! Duffer. True to form.

    I’m off for a couple of days so please do try to work out the difference between north and south!

    You come in here with your big flat dirty feet kicking up dust using malformed reasoning from those out to continue the delay on action, knowing, or using the excuse, that you are going to piss off when it gets to hot.

    To stupid add mendacious for you are clearly both.

    Now you should try to understand as to why a label such as Southern Hemisphere is quite valid within the context.

    Ah yes that concept ‘context’ again, always a problem for your type. You are being played by the likes of M&M and their agents with bog blogs.

    Why is it that you never open with a precise citation ahead of your drivel? Don’t you know how too or is it that you know your utterances will be exposed as the crap they are?

    Maybe you just think its smart to make us waste our time figuring out where you are coming from. Clearly that strategy failed yet again.

    What it did do was give us another opportunity to debunk you again so that lurkers see once again how ideologically bigoted you are. Of course if you are being paid to do this, and there is some hint of your being fed by others more knowledgeable than yourself here, then your patrons should ask for their money back because you are being counter productive.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    October 31, 2013

    to piss off when it gets too hot.

    Too stupid add mendacious for you are clearly both.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    October 31, 2013

    Our international readers have probably caught wind of the interesting legal restructuring of Queensland (and soon of other “Liberal” [cough, gag] states), but for those not aware Larvatus Prodeo has a handy update:

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2013/10/his-honour-v-herr-kommandant/

    One of the interesting things linked in the piece is the comments section of a Catallaxy piece:

    http://archive.is/5kNC9

    where a commenter who is apparently cohenite rants about Muslim bikies… Yes, you read that correctly – it seems that Australian is besieged by gangs of Muslim bikies.

    Now cohenite is (if rumour is to be believed) a lawyer so he should have some respect for the stinging critiques coming from senior legal practioners such as Tony Fitzgerald, although admittedly IIRC cohenite is a divorce lawyer so perhaps the broader legal issues are a bit slippery for him – but apparently he’s good with Newman’s jackbooting. And not only that, cohenite has been a bit of a proclaimer against the leftist nanny state that wants to impose a price on carbon and pursue other measures to reduce global carbon emissions – and yet here he is lending what appears to me to be at least tacit support to a rightist move that goes flying past ‘nanny state’ at the speed of light and straight to deep fascist territory, just without the pretty uniforms.

    Who’d ‘a’ thunk it?

    Oh, and what’s that word I’m looking for that describes the circumstance where one has a bias against particular races or religions…?

  52. #52 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    Rhymes with “spigot”?

    Most interesting Bernard. I remember cohenite well. A very silly man who knew nothing whatsoever about climate science yet felt that he knew enough to state that the experts were all wrong.

    But I had no idea he was also a fascist. Well, well, well.

    There’s a surprising amount of it about.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    October 31, 2013

    <blockquote)God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
    Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.

    I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    October 31, 2013

    Argh! Got me again!

    God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.

    Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.

    I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.

  55. #55 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    I am in error at #25 and #47: PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) is referenced – frequently – by AR5 WG1 Ch 5. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the central issues, both of which I have hammered on above.

    AR5 WG1 5.5.1:

    In conclusion, [SH] continental scale surface temperature reconstructions from 950 to 1250 show multidecadal intervals that were in some regions as warm as in the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late
    20th century (high confidence). These intervals were not as synchronous across seasons and regions as the warming since the mid-20th century (high confidence).

  56. #56 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    You show me a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present and I’ll show you a climate system with a high sensitivity to radiative perturbation. One that must endure significant, rapid and sustained warming if CO2 concentrations continue to increase without policy intervention.

    Perhaps fortunately for the deniers, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th.

    There is however plentiful evidence from paleoclimate behaviour that S/2xCO2 is about 3C.

    I have never understood the strange fascination with paleoclimate that grips so many deniers. There is absolutely nothing of any comfort for them there.

  57. #57 Turboblocke
    October 31, 2013

    I think I’ve found the thickest denier yet: I present Amirlach
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11719-why-climate-change-is-good-for-the-world.html

    It’s about the “rebranding” of AGW as CC. The punch line is the end of comment #30

  58. #58 BBD
    October 31, 2013

    Anyone who thinks that the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet can be used as a proxy for global temperature isn’t a sharp chisel, granted.

    But Teh Abysmal Stupid over IP*CC* made my eyeballs ache. Just WTF? really.

  59. #59 Lionel A
    October 31, 2013

    And that article was written by Matt Ridley who feels hopes that it will clean his image.

    Hum! Whitewash never stopped coal being black at heart.

    Note the other denial sites that is pointed to by ‘Climate Change Dispatch:

    Warning Signs
    Tom Nelson
    Real Science
    Australian Climate Madness
    IceCap
    Watts up with that?
    JoNova
    Climate Depot
    Planet Gore
    Dr. Tim Ball’s Blog
    MORE…

    MORE brings up a list which includes Bishop Hill.

    So no surprises about that!

  60. #60 Ian Forrester
    October 31, 2013

    Lionel, that is the second article in a series by Ridley, the first was called “Why dishonest bankers are good for the world”. He will shortly write a third one called “Why poisonous herbicides are good for the world, especially in Argentina”.

  61. #61 Wow
    November 1, 2013

    Lionel #58:

    Blame the idea that web design should be done by graphic desingers for the shit that is the web and formatting today (and the past 20 years).

    Print design is about a fixed and rigid medium where you can definitively lay out the art to draw attention to the bits that are needed when they are needed. Placement is paramount. And ENTIRELY under the control of the designer.

    Web pages are markup. HINTS about what things should go where but where the print is done on a device that may be 800×600, 640×480, WXGA, 11:9 portrait smartphone 16:9 widescreen. 14:9 TV. 8″ tablet, WXSVGA. etc.

    And where the user may choose fonts, where the fonts designed (being copyrighted) cannot be forced to display, where assistive technologies will change output colour for colour-impaired or even screenreaders.

    Or even decide not to show something AT ALL.

    Placement is not only not possible but antithetical to the web browser intent and design.

    But the company wants a bling site and the graphic designers traded on print where placement is perfect and under their control were used to print flyers, posters AND WEB PAGES.

    And brought all the wrong ideas about the content and presentation.

    So HTML had to incorporate the needs of these corporate backers who wanted their designers to be able to fiddle pixel perfect on their 1024×768 15″ monitors.

    Then find that not everyone in 1992 had a high res 15″.

    And it’s not getting better.

    It’s getting worse.

    /curmudgeon=permanently on

  62. #62 Bernard J.
    November 1, 2013

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881396.htm

    …but it’s not warming*…

    [*Irony alert]

  63. #63 Rednose
    UK
    November 1, 2013

    there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th.

    MMMM.
    Rosenthal et al for one
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

    Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

    And Orsi et al 2012
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051260/abstract

    This result is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing, and was not simply a seesaw-type redistribution of heat between the hemispheres as would be predicted by some ocean-circulation hypotheses.

  64. #64 Lionel A
    November 1, 2013

    On Orsi et. al this has been examined at Real Climate:

    Fresh hockey sticks from the Southern Hemisphere

    and which does not necessarily come to the conclusions that would support your ideology. Indeed, given the presence of Jeff Severinghaus who is one clever bunny and who worked closely with Wally Broecker I doubt that it would.

    Not having access to the full texts I cannot comment other than that I would be surprised if your quotes are intended as context free picks.

    In other words, more smoke and mirrors.

  65. #65 Turboblocke
    November 1, 2013

    #63 why when you’re talking about the MCA in the first paragraph do you give a link for the LIA?

  66. #66 Rednose
    UK
    November 1, 2013

    The abstract for Orsi et al says what it says which is quoted above. It presents evidence for a global LIA

    Rosenthal et al is being discussed widely including by Revkin who has an interview with two of the authors.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
    Revkin says that “Mann will not be pleased with this”. He has already tried to do a hatchet job on it.
    It presents evidence to show both the MWP and LIA were global events.

    RC is a blog site and could be considered a mouthpiece for Mann and the team.
    Try to expand your reading.Lol

    So quotes from the abstracts (or the journal editors summary) of published papers are now considered to be “smoke and mirrors.”
    Are you in denial Lenoil

  67. #67 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    #65

    Because the second backs up part of the first. ie global events.

  68. #68 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    The MCA was global but there was no global and synchronous warming event that elevated global average temperature to equivalent or higher than the present, as I have pointed out to you and your David Duff sock many, many times before.

    You simply do not understand the material that someone else has cherry-picked and misrepresented for you. And it is absolutely obvious that you don’t.

  69. #69 Wow
    November 1, 2013

    ” It presents evidence for a global LIA”

    In a paper you put up to rebut the claim:

    ” there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th. ”

    The only letter MCA and LIA have in common is the A.

    How the fuck did you manage to get the two confused?

  70. #70 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Try to expand your reading.Lol

    This is hilarious coming from you, a lazy troll who has never read a scientific paper in your life but gets *all* his bollocks from denier blogs run by liars, cranks and shills.

  71. #71 chek
    November 1, 2013

    Fascinating too that the efforts by Redarse to deny contemporary OHC in previous weeks are suddenly now wholly acceptable.

  72. #72 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    The MCA was global but there was no global and synchronous warming event that elevated global average temperature to equivalent or higher than the present,

    And originally

    You show me a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present

    We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.

    That includes practically all the Pacific, about one third the Earth’s surface area, spread over northern and southern hemispheres, being about 0.65C warmer during the MWP than present decades.
    So no evidence whatsoever.
    Only on Planet deltoid.

  73. #73 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    You haven’t shown me an MCA which was *globally* warmer than the present. Is your reading comprehension really so piss-poor that you do not see this?

    So no evidence whatsoever.

    Read the fucking thread you lazy troll.

    I don’t know why I bother with you anymore.

  74. #74 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Rosenthal:

    “We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” Rosenthal said. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know – to come to terms with climate change. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

    As I said upthread, there is nothing in paleoclimate behaviour that offers any comfort to deniers.

    * * *

    I have to agree with chek here – can this be the same troll that spent so much energy a few weeks back denying the validity of modern OHC measurements?

    There’s just sod-all intellectual consistency with you morons.

  75. #75 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    And Rednoise, can you not understand simple physics as explained repeatedly above?

    Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.

    You cannot have the one without the other.

    Try actually thinking for once.

  76. #76 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation

    Stop changing the subject.
    Rosenthal et al show evidence for a MWP over practically the whole pacific, one third earths surface area which must have had dramatic effects globally.
    Are you that pig headed that you cannot accept your original statement was hasty.

    The latest climate sensitivity estimates, based on the temperature record rather than proxies, have nearly all been on the low side (between 1 and 2 C)
    So your statement

    Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.

    You cannot have the one without the other.

    Does not seem to match the latest evidence and requires some explanation.

  77. #77 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    I have to agree with chek here – can this be the same troll that spent so much energy a few weeks back denying the validity of modern OHC measurements?

    Do you mean the ones with errors much larger than the increases being measured.
    Putting them into an historical perspective, say over the last few thousand years, they seem just a drop in the ocean.

  78. #78 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    Incidentally Judith Curry also discuses this paper with links to other discussions on it elsewhere
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/#more-13583

  79. #79 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    I’m not changing the subject – I raised this point upthread before your appeared. Read the fucking thread you lazy troll.

    Nor is this a change of subject. Again you reveal your essential stupidity. You cannot separate the issues. Read the fucking words. Try to think.

    Re a couple of recent estimates of S – simple: the so-called “observational” estimates are uninformative. They are too sensitive to assumptions made about changes in aerosol forcing and transient variability in ocean heat uptake. Only those who don’t understand the science handwave a couple of uninformative results and ignore the vast majority of the evidence which points to a value for S around 3C.

    * * *

    Your rubbish about OHC has been dealt with. I am not going over it again.

  80. #80 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    I think you should just read the press release:

    The intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10,000

    […]

    “Our work showed that intermediate waters in the Pacific had been cooling steadily from about 10,000 years ago” said Linsley. This places the recent warming of Pacific intermediate waters in temporal context. The trend has now reversed in a big way and the deep ocean is warming.”

    There’s another clue to the way this study is being misrepresented in the abstract, where we read:

    Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

    Remember – the study examines intermediate waters – the so-called “middle deeps” between 500m and 1000m. Now read that quote again.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    November 1, 2013

    Ya gotta hand to to old Rednose. Goes straight to a denier blog when his arguments are shredded. As BBD says this clown hasn’t read a single scientific paper in his life. Instead, he reads the shill blogs and gleans his wisdom from there.

    Incidentally, in addition to the latest bilge from Ridley comes more from Richard Tol and Bjorn Lomborg (both with bloated egos to match). Tol and Lomborg are crowing on about rhe net benefits of warming, without providing a shred of evidence other than to try and link correlation and causation. Then Lomborg goes on to state that conditions for biodiversity will actually improve over the next 30-40 years – based of course on the sandbox level science he is famous for. Sadly, this verbal diarrhea is being pasted in the mainstream corporate media as well as In New Scientist. Nothing in Lomborg’s little myopic worldview is there any place for the harsh reality of corporate expansion, resource wars and the concentration of wealth as well as the scramble for the world’s last fish stocks and other critical resources.

    But then again, Lomborg isn’t preaching to scientists who he knows will crush him, but the general public in developed countries who anxiously embrace optimism and the notion that we can continue along the current trajectory with few or no costs.

  82. #82 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    So you accept there is evidence for a global MWP and temperatures were higher than the present day.

    The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements and not proxies and are therefore likely to be more accurate and reliable. The proxie based values also use guestimates and assumptions, and no one was around to validate them. As to scientists such as Otto et al not understanding the science and handwaving uninformative results I cannot comment.

    Is it not interesting that OHC was very much higher in the past during the global MWP.

  83. #83 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    So you accept there is evidence for a global MWP and temperatures were higher than the present day.

    No, I do not. Nor have you presented any here.

    The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements and not proxies and are therefore likely to be more accurate and reliable.

    Can’t you fucking well read, you tit? Try again.

    Is it not interesting that OHC was very much higher in the past during the global MWP.

    Not global OHC, tit. Try again.

  84. #84 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Can anyone else be bothered with this lying clown? I am sick to death of this.

  85. #85 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    The intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10,000

    Yes read that. Have you also read the comment by the author during an interview

    BRAD: We have fossils that have been bioturbated … we have pretty high accumulation rates, but we don’t have annual resolution .. You could say that we probably have century-scale resolution at best… It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.”

    So using their methods, unlikely to have a resolution over 60 years to determine this. Expect some bright spark spliced on a copy of your crap OHC graphs onto the end of theirs to toe the party line. Didnt Marcot or somebody get into trouble for doing this?

    Still a way to go to match global MWP OHC values.

  86. #86 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Didnt Marcot or somebody get into trouble for doing this?

    Actually no. There was a vigorous disinformation campaign by McIntyre and Watts that attempted to create this framing, but it was all lies.

    Modern warming will continue because the forcing is continuous and steadily increasing. Laws of physics.

    Crapping on about brief, regional, asynchronous warming events in the past is actually an irrelevance. The only point of contact between the past and the future is climate sensitivity.

    As I have already pointed out, if you show me a global, synchronous hot MCA, I will show you a climate system that is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that must warm rapidly in response to increasing CO2 forcing.

    Your inability to joint up the dots is laughable.

  87. #87 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Still a way to go to match global MWP OHC values.

    But you don’t have that information. The Rosenthal study doesn’t even come close to providing global OHC estimates nor does it remotely claim to. So what you have twice now repeated here is simply a silly lie.

    Isn’t it, Rednoise?

    You are lying. Stop it.

  88. #88 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    With the ocean 0.65C warmer than present decades, even your feeble brain should be able to comprehend that OHC would be higher.

    And that alarming drivel about absorbing heat so many times faster over the last 60 years, when you cut the crap and look at the ARGO data, when reliable measurements are starting to be made, what do we see?
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-26.png

    A warming trend 0-700m of 0.032 degrees C/decade.

  89. #89 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Sigh.

    Which bit of the ocean? Not by any manner of means all of it. Read the source again.

    Misrepresentation and lies, as per.

    Don’t quote loons like Tisdale at me, tit. Have you no sense at all?

    And now it’s time for you to admit that you cannot separate the issue of past climate variability from climate sensitivity as they are simply aspects of the same thing.

    Admit this, please.

  90. #90 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    And FFS let’s not go back to this imbecile trick of trying to express OCH in degrees Celsius. Go and find out about the specific heat of water, then get some numbers on the volume of the 0 – 2000m layer of the global ocean and plug them in.

    That’s how you get a handle on how much energy is required to warm the upper ocean even by a fraction of a degree Celsius. It is a truly vast amount.

    More stupid denier misrepresentations. Bored to tears with this.

  91. #91 Wow
    November 1, 2013

    “With the ocean 0.65C warmer than present decades,”

    How do you know, arse?

    Were you there?

    Were the ocean buoys developed by dinosaurs able to measure to 2km deep?

  92. #92 Wow
    November 1, 2013

    “The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements”

    These being…?

  93. #93 Wow
    November 1, 2013

    “Stop changing the subject.”

    LOL!

    From an assertion of a high global MCA, you post a paper about LIA!!!

  94. #94 Lionel A
    November 1, 2013

    Rednoise (aka another Duffer),

    So quotes from the abstracts (or the journal editors summary) of published papers are now considered to be “smoke and mirrors.”

    It is the way that you present this stuff, shorn of all context that is ‘smoke and mirrors’ you comprehension challenged fool.

    As for Real Climate being a blog site sure, but one that provides articles from currently active scientists (Who do you think eric is?) who continue to write peer reviewed papers. Now where do you get your info’? From the likes of Nova, Hockeschtick, Bishop Shill, Climate Desperate, etc., etc., OK, so that equates —–—— NOT!

    As for the Orsi abstract, did you not see this bit:

    The difference in the magnitude of the LIA between Greenland and West Antarctica suggests that the feedbacks amplifying the radiative forcing may not operate in the same way in both regions.

    Which seems to be a bet-hedger, but I would like to be able to see the full article for complete context.

    Whatever, did you bother to read that article at Real Climate?

    Did you bother to scan the comments, note there are very clued up people who input there and those who are not are corrected or if repeating shite get short shrift – as they should.

    Note to comment #3

    As for the LIA, *that* is where the specificity of location is relevant. Nothing can be said about “the Southern Hemisphere” in general during the LIA from these results alone.–eric

    and while you are there read Mike Roddy’s comment at #2.

    As for Revkin, well yes we know that he tends to flip-flop around with his utterings, and as for JC well nothing much of value coming from that direction for some time now.

    Is it not indicative of Judith ‘uncertainty’ Curry’s positioning in this debate, although she tries to pretend to be a fence sitter, that she was chosen along with Dick ‘low sensitivity’ Lindzen and Patrick ‘Greening Earth’ Michaels for the counter arguments for the House Science and Technology Committee “Rational Discussion of Climate Change,” in November 2010 where Michaels got a well deserved pasting from Ben Santer..

    The official Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is now being run by the lunatics with the Chair, Lunatic in Chief being Lamar Smith. Want to know some more about him — don’t tempt me!

    As for Rosenthal’s paper BBD has that well covered. Go read that PR.

    The suspect named above are only too quick to try to make a ‘sow’s ear out of a silk purse’, that is all they have got and they sucker you every time.

  95. #95 BBD
    November 1, 2013
  96. #96 Turboblocke
    November 1, 2013

    #66 Oh the irony

    RC is a blog site and could be considered a mouthpiece for Mann and the team.
    Try to expand your reading.Lol

    And what is his link earlier in that very post: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

  97. #97 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Orsi et al. (2012):

    The Northern Hemisphere experienced a widespread cooling from about 1400 to 1850 C.E., often referred to as the Little Ice Age (hereafter LIA). The LIA was the latest of a series of centennial scale oscillations in the climate [Wanner et al., 2011]. Understanding the cause of this type of event is key to our knowledge of the variability in the climate system, and to our ability to forecast future climate changes. The LIA cooling was associated with a time of lower solar irradiance and increased persistent volcanism [Mann et al., 2009]. This forcing must have been amplified by natural feedbacks, because the magnitude of the forcing by itself is too small to explain the observed response. It is still unclear whether the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes had a temperature response synchronous to that of the Northern Hemisphere: changes in the solar forcing would call for hemispheric synchroneity, but evidence from the southward movement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone in the Pacific Ocean [Sachs et al., 2009], and from changes in the ocean circulation [Keigwin and Boyle, 2000] argue for a delayed [Goosse et al., 2004] or inverse response [Broecker, 2000].

    A delayed or inverse response.

    As I mentioned to one of the trolls some way upthread, there is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. Obviously, this reduces the effect on global average temperature. The possibility that feedbacks operated differently in either hemisphere is plausible (more positive feedback from albedo change in the NH, with boreal forest reduced and snow/sea ice cover increased).

  98. #98 Lionel A
    November 1, 2013

    RedNoise:

    Tisdale Science. Taking a Tis at the tisdale. Old ships and all that.

    BBD Thanks.

    I don’t tend to dirty my feet at such, so I guess it is McIntyre pulling Rednoise’s chain.

  99. #99 BBD
    November 1, 2013

    Yes, Sou’s really got Bob’s number, hasn’t she? I do enjoy that blog.

  100. #100 Rednose
    November 1, 2013

    I suggest you listen to the interview with Revkin.
    You might learn something.

Current ye@r *