November 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    November 5, 2013

    If Abbott and Hunt really do want to make a putative WA re-election a referendum on the carbon price, then in addition to being honest about the carbon price they should be upfront about the fact that people far better placed to assess the matter than is the Coalition are forecasting severe economic consequences if we do not act to mitigate global warming:

    http://treealerts.org/topic/extreme-weather/2013/10/one-third-of-global-economic-output-at-risk-from-climate-change-say-analysts/

  2. #2 Lionel A
    November 5, 2013

    Bernard, an associated story noticed in the right hand column at the ‘That Tree’ page has a stark message for some of Abbott’s backers those into coal, Rinehart included.

    This at a time that Rinehart is under pressure as Gina Rinehart’s Family Drama Could Threaten Her Empire. Never easy being ‘filthy rich’ I suppose.

  3. #3 Stu
    November 5, 2013

    Did anyone catch the article on wired uk/ars about food production? One clown in the comments there said

    Longer growing season, higher CO2, and warmer temperatures are great for most food crop growing. Especially in the huge land masses north of the 49th… Hooray for Canada. If this is global warming, I’ll take 2!

    And now I have another head-shaped dent in my desk.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    November 5, 2013

    Stu, it sounds like that numpty could do with a dose of reality!

  5. #5 Turboblocke
    November 5, 2013

    Chicken feed went up in price by about 5% this week . It’s now about 20% more expensive than 3 years ago: 11€50 for 25 kg whereas 3 years ago it was 9€47.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    November 6, 2013
  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    November 6, 2013

    While you guys worry about Big Poultry and what not there are good news coming in from RSS, or? ;-)

    http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/11/05/rss-oktobertemperatur-visar-pa-17-ar-utan-global-uppvarmning/

    And you should thank me for posting here once in a while. It functions as artificial resperation for this dying anorectic blog of doom and gloom. ;-)

  8. #8 Lionel A
    November 6, 2013

    Meanwhile aside from OPs ignorant quips another dose of reality but definitely not for the squeamish.

    Climate change is good for us, isn’t it?

    As for Jon Howard and the GWPF that latter organisation should be strangled starting with axing its charity status as an education organ. The GWPF is more a cancerous dangerous organ that should be surgically removed and put in formaldehyde for future generations to either mock or vent over, and soon because it is infecting the body politic.

  9. #9 BBD
    November 6, 2013

    One satellite data TLT reconstruction which happens to be an outlier cherry-picked by deniers means nothing to me, Olaus. Why should it?

    Who in their right minds would place any weight on the outlier of an unreliable synthetic series stitched together from multiple instruments, none of which actually measure temperature at TLT directly in the first place?

    You lot really are quite profoundly insane, you know.

    Here’s some context for you.

    You need it.

  10. #10 chek
    November 6, 2013

    Olap and the deniers still fixated on TLT measurements as the be-all and end-all, I see. The rest of the climate system would be too complex for the simple level of understanding that can be grasped by those for whom denial is an option.

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    November 6, 2013

    Climate changes all the time, but not as fast as your unscientific and portentology occupied minds fantasies about.

    Can’t be fun running away from the speeding rise of GMT. Its worse than you thought! Can we ce catch up fellas? :-)

  12. #12 Lionel A
    November 6, 2013

    It appears that this prat Olaus is more brain damaged than I thought if he/she/it thinks that the scenarios unfolding are something to joke about.

    Do not the events of the last decade alone, which can include 2003 if you count the fence posts, provide you with a sense that things are happening faster than many scientists predicted back in the eighties and nineties, James Hansen being an exception, and that the trends are moving into the upper regions of predicted ecological mayhem earlier than expected by some.

    And here is another metric for how fast the climate system is moving
    Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
    . When the climate system shifts phase, with major changes in fluid flows, oceanic and atmospheric, then we will be in little doubt as to the shit we are in. The recent wobbling of the jet stream being one indicator of system stress. Arctic Warming is Altering Weather Patterns, Study Shows.

    Now are you going to continue behaving like a jerk or become sensible?

  13. #13 chek
    November 6, 2013

    Climate changes all the time

    That must surely be the most meaningless, context-free and open-ended slogan, ever. In other words, perfectly designed to gull lamebrains like Olap et al.

  14. #14 BBD
    November 6, 2013

    Climate changes all the time, but not as fast as your unscientific and portentology occupied minds fantasies about.

    It changes in response to changes in net forcings. Crank one up and you get rapid change. To deny that is to deny the laws of physics as applied to the climate system, which is – as I pointed out above – insane.

    QED, Olaus.

  15. #15 BBD
    November 6, 2013

    Incidentally, calling the standard scientific position among the entire multidisciplinary field of Earth System sciences “unscientific” is also completely insane.

    QED again, Olaus.

  16. #16 Russell
    November 6, 2013

    Run of the mill climate contrarians like Lord Monckton and Roy Spencer have been seriously upstaged by some new scientific talent from Tonga

  17. #17 bill
    November 6, 2013

    climate changes all the time

    “To sum up, Your Honour, there is ample evidence that forest fires have occurred across the span of the millenia – indeed, from the very time that there were any forests available to burn – well before the advent of our own species, and certainly long ahead of the arrival on the scene of my client and his cigarette puny little lighter, a beloved keepsake gifted him by his old mother. In short, this charge of ‘arson’ is a scientific absurdity, and amounts to little more than persecution!”

    (If Monckton was a lawyer.)

    The irony is that this isn’t even much in the way of a parody – this is really how deniers think, in the loosest sense of the word…

  18. #18 Craig Thomas
    November 7, 2013

    Jo Nova has pulled out all the stops in a bid to make us laugh this week:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/consensus-on-human-knee-ligaments-was-wrong-new-ligament-found/#comment-1336948

    “How much don’t we know? This week doctors announce that yes, really, there is a whole ligament in the human knee that we didn’t know about, a..,…… you might have been told there was a consensus on knee anatomy, and because thousands of doctors have done knee surgery and knee replacements are now de rigeur, you might have thought the science was settled.”

    Yes, “Medical science advances therefore we can remain in denial about basic physics.”

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2013

    Joanne Codling is a disgrace to anyone who worked to get a science degree. She’s indulging in the logical fallacy of false equivalence by conflating these two completely difference contexts.

    Further the Claes et al paper is not coming up with anything original. Helito et al were there a few months ago, and Vincent et al published on the subject in 2011.

    Of course, the fact that the structure was first discussed by Segond in 1879 seems to have escaped a lot of people…

  20. #20 bill
    November 7, 2013

    And I rather think that if we developed a IPKC (Intergovernmental Panel on Knee Construction) with qualified experts reviewing the current state of the literature we’d get to the heart of the matter rather swiftly…

    Given both this obvious point, and the constant need to contend with the hyper-scrutiny of active – indeed, pathological – and financially vested enemies, there’s hasn’t been much in the sciences that has ever been more robust. In this regard the comparison to the smoking / cancer link is entirely justified.

    ‘Settled’ is the word I’m looking for.

  21. #21 chek
    November 7, 2013

    climate changes all the time

    What gets me about that drivel denier slogan is that no critical thinking (Why does it change? What changes it? etc.) is applied to it. The phrase itself is the end of the line to Olap et al.

  22. #22 BBD
    November 7, 2013

    Exactly. I did touch on the non-magical basis of physical climatology at #14. That old cause-and-effect thing so familiar from every other physical interaction in the known universe.

    So far no response from Olaus.

  23. #23 chek
    November 7, 2013

    Yes, I acknowledge and appreciate yours and Bill’s contributions, BBD.
    I just wanted to rub it in a bit more.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    November 7, 2013

    back in October I mentioned that Lindzen had fallen even lower by resorting to posting at WUWT and that he had joined Curry and Michaels in the SAD (silly and deluded) group.

    Well what do you know and H/T Sou again, Michaels has joined Lindzen at WUWT along with Chip Knappenberger.

  25. #25 BBD
    November 7, 2013

    Hi chek

    So did I ;-)

  26. #26 BBD
    November 7, 2013

    Perhaps Olaus or any contrarian looking in would be able to provide hypotheses for the physical mechanisms behind specific paleoclimate phenomena which do not involve efficacious forcing by GHGs. There’s an embarrassment of choice, but for starters, how about:

    – the termination of Snowball Earth states (eg Marinoan glaciation ~635Ma)

    – the Permian-Triassic boundary event (250Ma)

    – other major ocean anoxic events (eg OAE 2, Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, 93Ma)

    – the PETM (55Ma)

    Remember, the hypotheses must be consistent with each other.

  27. #27 bill
    November 8, 2013

    Oily’ll never manage it; how about I answer for him?

    1: I had a rabbit called ‘Snowball’. He was great. We et him! (And yes, we Marinoaded him first. How did you know?)

    2: That’s the bit in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex breaks through the electric fence, right? God I love Michael Crichton…

    3: Anoxia is really terrible and all those actresses who are setting a bad example should just eat.

    4: See 1

  28. #28 chek
    November 8, 2013

    Heh – though I’m not sure Olap and friends could aspire to be that vapid, Bill.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    November 8, 2013

    From Pricing carbon: the politics of climate policy in Australia:

    The politics of climate change in Australia, its carbon pricing politics in particular, is subject to complex and interrelated influences, with political and economic interests largely shaping the policy agenda over the last two decades. The objection of the carbon based industrial lobby to carbon pricing has long been a significant obstacle to the adoption of a carbon tax or an ETS, as has the influence of neoliberal and conservative politics. Normative shifts have been achieved at times, however, providing fleeting windows of opportunity to act, under the Hawke and Rudd governments in particular. However, neither government was able to withstand industry pressure or to provide the leadership required to achieve change. Ironically the most successful government in terms of achieving carbon pricing was the Gillard Labor minority government, which needed to act decisively in order to honor its written agreement with its Green political supporters. The MPCCC process established as agreed between Labor and the Greens, brought in the independents, who were then involved in shaping and agreeing to the carbon pricing mechanism and its passage through parliament. The fragile politics of minority government, with its distinctive uncertainty and bargaining opportunities, has therefore led directly to carbon pricing in Australia by providing for institutional processes that were secure against industry lobbying. However, these processes cannot guarantee that the government withstands industry lobbying during the implementation of carbon pricing nor that it ultimately achieves effective emissions abatement.

    (WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:603–613. doi: 10.1002/wcc.239)

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    November 8, 2013

    And just in case we weren’t already sitting up and paying attention:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1937.html

    Bernard J.

  31. #31 BBD
    November 8, 2013

    # 27 bill

    Very good, and marks awarded for internal consistency.

    But where are the contrarians? Usually so voluble, so certain, so “knowledgeable”?

    Where can they be?

    :-)

  32. #32 BBD
    November 8, 2013

    # 30 Bernard J

    Same as Arctic waters. Temp and pH knock out the bottom of the food chain and whoopsie daisy. The end.

    And the band played on.

  33. #33 BBD
    November 8, 2013

    BTW, is RHWombat out there?

    Worryingly silent since the rather disturbing comment-altering incident. Was this resolved?

  34. #34 chameleon
    November 8, 2013

    I assume that only who the moderator/s is/are will read this. But anyway:OMG! November only happened at Deltoid on the 5th & because whoever you are succumbs to the whingers who want everyone banned or coralled into their own thread or in perpetual moderation, you have actually slowly but surely exposed your site to a slow and miserable demise. Who ever you are, you are quite clearly not interested in anything but your own blinkered view of the world.
    I actually feel sorry for you.
    The world has moved on.

  35. #35 chek
    November 8, 2013

    Another year, another superstorm.
    .A massive typhoon packing winds approaching 200 mph and called one of the most powerful storms ever recorded blasted into the Philippines on Friday, killing at least four people.
    Thank goodness AGW isn’t implicated.

    Speaking of alternative realities, good ol’ Stevie Goddard came up with what surely must be the most creative spin yet on Ken Cooch’s defeat over at The Guardian

    You couldn’t, as they say, make it up.

  36. #36 Lionel A
    November 8, 2013

    ROFL

    Goddard has as good idea about politics as he has of climate science. That statement by Goddard is a keeper.

    84% of Virginia by land area voted for Cuccinelli, but the election was determined by people on the government payola scheme, which includes the global warming scam.

    One fruitcake defending another.

    Certainly a marker for Stephan Lewandowsky’s Conspiracy Ideation.

    As for that superstorm – it didn’t hit the US so it doesn’t count – for the deniers not Jeff Master’s naturally

  37. #37 BBD
    November 8, 2013

    More knell of death for the GCR-cloud effect from Sloan & Wolfendale (full paper but it’s a small 420kb pdf).

    Abstract

    Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the
    standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be
    less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

    It’s been obvious for a while now that the GCR-cloud hypothesis is dead. But of course, the contrarians will never let it go…

  38. #38 Lionel A
    November 8, 2013

    And something I have mentioned in passing previously is that as ocean fish stocks decline, water warm and become more acidic, coral reefs are anchored, blown up and generally wrecked there is one class of organism that is thriving. I recall observing that we had better develop a taste for Jellyfish.

    Fat chance this will become a big story in the news, ‘we’ will remain distracted by shenanigans in parliament at home and abroad – e.g. in Canada. Is that why such offensive buffoons are kept in office?

    Let’s face it, here in UK, with education, health, defence, energy and just about everything else ‘the slick’ and ‘the smirk’ have endorsed it is goon show time.

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    November 8, 2013

    Deltoid flourish…;-)

    Ok, I’ll give you guys a little help. Have you seen the latest Lews from McIntyre? Very entertaining. Lew’s data is even worse than Jeff’s regarding the evil, big-oil funded, right wing conspiracy against climate sciene:

    “However, drawing conclusions from a subpopulation of zero does take small population statistics to a new and shall-we-say unprecedented level.”

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/07/more-false-claims-from-lewandowsky/#more-18571

    Climate scientologists unite! :-)

  40. #40 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    Energy industry funding of organised denial is a matter of fact, Olaus.

    Are you denying matters of fact? Careful with that.

    Can you support your counterfactual?

    Remember, argument from assertion is a logical fallacy.

  41. #41 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    Before we go any further, I would also value your response to #26.

  42. #42 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    Olaus

    Just for fun, can we debate like adults about an interesting topic in climate science: Snowball Earth.

    These extreme climate events may have happened several times, but the best evidence is for the last one, the “Marinoan glaciation” which started about 650 million years ago (Ma) and ended about 635Ma.

    The whole planet – oceans and all – froze over. From space you would have seen a white planet.

    This white ball reflects most of the sun’s energy back out into space, so it stays frozen and icy cold.

    But after millions of years, something melted the ice and the Earth went back to its usual state with liquid oceans and exposed (not covered by ice) continents.

    The very slight increase in solar output resulting from stellar evolution during the Marinoan (and previous) Snowball Earth phases was insufficient to melt the ice, so why are we not still stuck in a Snowball Earth?

    The highly reflective planetary surface (‘high albedo’) should have kept the climate locked in a frozen state.

    What got the climate system out of this albedo-locked icehouse?

    What do you think?

  43. #43 chameleon
    November 9, 2013

    Natural phenomenon like volcano & earthquake & storm & etcetera????
    Plus the creeping persistent encroachment of areas that weren’t frozen aided and abetted by increased solar activity?
    Not likely it was human induced.
    Do I get a gold star?

  44. #44 Mack
    November 9, 2013

    Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally “albedo-locked” Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your “albedo- locked” up state. The proponents of the “greenhouse” theory say that volcanoes and bugs produced CO2 and this “greenhouse gas” was responsible for unlocking the earth from its icy grip. At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball. That is what your “greenhouse” theory actually says to you BBD.
    Think about that very carefully. See if we can have an intelligent discussion here before abusing the fuck out of each other.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    November 9, 2013

    BBD, the strategy that dimwits like Olaus use is to downplay what should be obvious by now (e.g. that the fossil fuel lobby invests many millions of dollars in climate change denial). It is one of profound ignorance: if they don’t read about it, meaning have the information shoved in front of their faces, then it isn’t happening.

    There are numerous sources showing how corporate PR works, beginning with Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays to the present. Books by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber, Sharon Beder, Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg and many others provide details of corporate PR and how it works. But since Olaus is a right wingnut who supports unregulated corporate capitalism, he doesn’t want to know how this works so he ignores and ridicules it.

    I give lectures on the subject and find that time wasters like Olaus are not worth the effort. What is ironic is that he pastes a page from Climate Fraudit ablog run by a denier affiliated with the George Marshall Institute, one of the more notorious corporate funded climate change denial think tanks. Essentially, Olaus is making my point for us here.

  46. #46 Olaus Petri
    November 9, 2013

    Ok, some more Deltoid defibrillation:

    http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf

    The 97% meme of Cook seems a bit rough in the edges…;-)

  47. #47 chek
    November 9, 2013

    Ok, some more Deltoid defibrillation:http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf The 97% meme of Cook seems a bit rough in the edges…

    Uh, no.
    You’re not going to be allowed to become another Karenmackspot link spammer while you have unfinished business above.
    Why so ashamed of shining daylight your crank ideas anyway?

  48. #48 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    Thank you chek. I had gone to bed.

    Olaus, I asked you a serious question in a civil manner. Please do me the courtesy of responding in a similarly considered and civil fashion.

    Thank you.

  49. #49 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    We need to make a start as the Snowball Earth state is only the first of four examples of paleoclimate behaviour we need to discuss wrt. CO2-forced warming.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    November 9, 2013

    Without wishing to distract from BBD’s serious question to OP [1], let there be no mistake about the forces that will counter push back against insane schemes such as drilling in the Arctic and fracking.

    There was a US snake oil salesman given a chance to breath propaganda on BBC TV the other evening. Another sickening piece.

    I see a time when the SAS are used against UK citizens, but more subtly, they will infiltrate the protesters to ensure violence ensues as an excuse for a crack-down with all its vile consequences, as per the 1980’s miner’s strike playbook where the miner’s and Scargill were demonised. The real demons being in Whitehall who were rescued politically by the sacrifice of regular UK forces down south.

    [1] Which requires answering else maybe we could continue to strike through his vapid posts.

  51. #51 Wow
    November 9, 2013

    Already happened at the G20 summit a few years ago, where footage of plainclothes officers in the crowd starting a fight was seized because it “put these plainclothes officers’ lives at risk”.

    It’s happened several times.

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    November 9, 2013

    Further to my post at the top of this thread, The Tree put this out a few days back:

    http://treealerts.org/topic/climate-science/2013/11/political-pressure-grows-as-new-ipcc-leak-projects-escalating-food-crisis/

    It’s caught on around the traps, with rather less restrained but no less important emphasis on what it really means:

    http://greenresistance.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/leaked-ipcc-draft-violence-hunger-health-risks-floods-and-more-to-come-from-climate-change/

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023981331

    Australia really must be an international laughing stock, with the rabidly regressive policies that the neo-fascist Liberal-National Coalition has introduced since gaining office in September. Especially so given the fact that the Australian environment minister Greg Hunt, who wrote an Honour’s thesis on the benefits of controlling pollution by taxing polluters, has taken the astonishingly bizarre step of not attending the UN discussions in Warsaw on addressing climate change because he wants to stay in the country and progress the LNP policy of removing any and all price on human-emitted carbon dioxide.

    Just before the election I said this:

    I’m curious – if Abbott is determined to ignore the advice of the best economists and the best scientists on the matter of climate change, and it materialises in a decade or two that his policies are responsible for discernible delay and consequent damage to Australian and other national economies and to global ecosystems, is he not liable under law for not exercising due diligence and duty of care in his capacity as the leader of the Liberal Party and likely of the country?

    In other words, if Abbott’s decision to ignore science leads to exacerbated damage to my childrens’ and grandchildrens’ world, can they seek redress from him or from his estate and/or the Liberal Party?

    After all, he can’t say that he wasn’t told, especially with the contents of AR5 already known. If he willfully ignores the best professional advice, he and the Coalition are surely culpable under law for the consequences of their actions.

    With reports such as Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability being leaked in the same week as Super Typhoon Haiyan kicking seven colours of snot out of the Philippines and soon Laos and Viet Nam, and the WG1 release of AR5 in September following on from so much other expert work and being accompanied by the October fires in NSW and Fitzroy Crossing breaking the Australian record for the hottest October mean, one wonders how the Coalition government can engage in its ecocidal and potentially genocidal policies without being absolutely and entirely culpable and legally liable for so acting.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    November 9, 2013

    Mack @ #44

    Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally “albedo-locked”

    I doubt very much that BBD has assumed that at all for I know only to well that he appreciates the other factors involved in producing a snowball Earth (we both have read similar sources), you have thus created a strawman argument. I suggest that you go research the current state of paleoclimatology knowledge and you then come back and tell us what you have discovered. You should have some clues as to where to look for all this by now hovering around these threads like you do.

    Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, …

    ROFL That bit of rampant lunacy is enough to warm the cockles of ones heart but your arguments lack muscle.

    At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball….

    Yes, that is about the size of it, once again other factors are involved in climate change across geological time with the magnitude and relative timing of events being crucial to climate development.

    There are some well know mechanisms for all of this so if you are still ignorant on these then that is either through your dogged determination not to see what has been put under your nose or that you are too stupid to sweep away the veils of your own ignorance. Of course you may know what these mechanisms are all along but, like McIntyre had ‘the data’ all along, are being mendacious.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    November 9, 2013

    Indeed Wow, another variant of the ‘false flag’. I suspect that the miss-routing of the Duke & Duchess of Cornwall was planned to cause a disturbance. I suspect that some in ‘The Establishment’ consider Charles as being too socially fair minded and thus subversive of the Status quo.

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    November 9, 2013

    Olaus spends too much of his time searching under any denier rocks to find more disinformation.

    The Science and Education article is a case in point. It is written by the usual suspects and published in a journal with an impact factor of 0.707. This is almost as benthic as it gets. Its no small wonder this trash ended up in such a journal.

    But one can expect it to be promoted with mega-phone loudness by denier weblogs as if it is in Nature, Science or PNAS. You see, since 99.9% of the crap published by deniers comes via books published by right wing think tanks or ends up in bottom-feeding journals, this is all they have left. A future study should evaluate the impact factor of the journals as well as the citations garnered by scientific papers on both sides of the AGW debate. What this will inevitably show is a huge discrepancy in both: pro-AGW studies are very well cited and end up in the top journals, whereas the opposite is true for anti-AGW studies.

  56. #56 BBD
    November 9, 2013

    # 43 chameleon

    You get a credit for mentioning volcanism but to earn a gold star you must explain why it is relevant.

    # 44 Sunspot/Mack

    Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally “albedo-locked”

    Changes in albedo *may* have been part of the unlocking process, but only a part. See Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010).We need to look at the whole picture, not just one corner of it.

    Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your “albedo- locked” up state.

    Um, no. You need much more than a hypothesised darkening around the equator to break the climate system out of the albedo-locked icehouse. See Abbot & Pierrhumbert (2010) for details.

    At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball. That is what your “greenhouse” theory actually says to you BBD.

    It’s not *my* greenhouse theory. It’s *the* greenhouse theory. If all GHGs in the atmosphere were removed, the surface temperature would fall by about 33K. You are simply stating the obvious for no obvious reason.

    So how do you get out of an albedo-locked icehouse without invoking a huge CO2 forcing? I have no idea. Nor does anyone else. CO2 forcing appears to be an absolute requirement.

    The mechanism by which we get very high CO2 concentrations is fairly uncontroversial: volcanism is unaffected by the Snowball state. It just carries on as usual. After millions of years in the Snowball state with the biological/geological carbon sinks shut down beneath the ice, CO2 from ongoing volcanism builds up to extremely high concentrations and eventually the radiative
    forcing is sufficient to overcome even the vast cooling from the high surface albedo.

    First example of CO2 as a potent climate forcing demonstrated by paleoclimate behaviour.

    * * *

    So far, nobody has provided a persuasive alternative explanation for the physical mechanism that terminates the Snowball Earth state. Unless they do, this will stand as evidence demonstrating CO2 is an effective and powerful climate forcing.

  57. #57 bill
    November 9, 2013

    Mack, you wally!

    Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your “albedo- locked” up state.

    “Twinkle twinkle faintish star”? Jeebus!

    We know what caused the end of Snowball Earth, pet, (5′ 0” if ‘location’ link dodgy – and, lookee; there’s Tim!) and it turns out you lose.

    Oily, answer the frickin’ questions, petal. Or should we just let my answers stand for you?

    What a pair of shining princes of your tribe you two are! Next.

    Oh, and Cammy. Still as dumb as a sack of coal. Won’t stick around without an offsider, though…

  58. #58 bill
    November 9, 2013

    Bah! – here’s that link again.

    WARNING: considerable danger of learning something. Hence none of the above will actually bother.

  59. #59 bill
    November 9, 2013

    Or, if they do, they’ll announce that ‘it’s volcanoes that cause all the CO2’!

    And this, dear reader, assuming you’re not as Stupid as they are, is why such muppets have to be removed from this debate. Allowing public policy to be guided by brainfarts has caused enough damage already. See federal government with no Science Minister, for a start…

  60. #60 chek
    November 9, 2013

    I can’t recommend this too highly, if the BBC will allow you to see it directly.
    It’s a presentation by statistician Professor Hans Rosling (shown on mainstream UK TV, apparently!) which while only touching on climate change, is well worth the hour of anybody’s time it takes. Engaging and very informative for those prone to giving headspace to outdated ideas about the world.

    If the BBC’s being awkward for you I’m sure ‘This World – Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population’ will be on Youtube very shortly.

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    November 10, 2013

    Chek, that appear to be an interesting program – I hope that Australia’s ABC buys it from the Beeb so that we can see it here.

    Not having seen it yet, perhaps you can answer a question for me. My concern is that Rosling may be focussing on the progress of the human population trajectory without carefully considering the physics of the planet’s resources. I’ve heard presentations similar to what I suspect is Rosling’s, and they fall short of an integration (boom, tish) of calculus and thermodynamics into the mix.

    It’s a bit like pulling the ripcord at 3100 metres into a 3 km fall.

  62. #62 MikeH
    November 10, 2013

    Please pass the following on to your friends.

    National Day of Climate Action, next Sunday 17th November.
    In every Australian capital city and 100s of regional towns.

    https://www.getup.org.au/get_togethers/climate-catchup

  63. #63 adelady
    November 10, 2013

    Can’t see the BBC thing but I guess the program would be an expanded version of this TED talk.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

    It’s very good on debunking misconceptions about population growth, but he merely says at the end that we have to plan for a 10 billion strong population. He doesn’t talk about what those plans might consist of. He also doesn’t talk about other options for population limitation, like say, increasing average age at first birth much higher much more quickly.

  64. #64 chameleon
    November 10, 2013

    BBD # 56
    Apologies if a similar comment appears as I have had to change devices. My trusty old samsung tablet is in its death throws.
    You did get a credit from me for asking a sensible question but I have now removed your credit for assuming that there is only one possible answer.
    Volcanic influence is most likely the addition of magna and Laava heat. Volcanic gases and ash and particulants spewed into the atmosphere would most likely, on balance, block the influence of solar activity.
    I note you summarily dismissed other likely variables in favour of a blinkered focus and obsession for C O 2 . So sorry, but no gold star from me :-)

  65. #65 rhwombat
    November 10, 2013

    BBD(@#33) – I’m OK, just out of touch. I’ve been up in Far North Queensland recreating – and doing some spirochete hunting in tick midguts. Nice to see the old place with only minor incursions of parasitic denialiti (Trollus horribilus var diminuendi) .

  66. #66 bill
    November 10, 2013

    Yeah, look, get out there next Sunday or Abbott, Bolt and Murdoch win! Seriously – bug your friends!

    Since, clearly, none of the muppets is up to the task of explaining to us why their magical thinking isn’t magical thinking, and in honour of their being the Creationists of the 21st Century, I’m going to post what I’m going to tout as the tweet of the year –

    what idiot called them creationists instead of primate change deniers

    congratulations @dandouglas, you win the internet!

  67. #67 bill
    November 10, 2013

    Unless, BJ, that’s going to be a BBC program that Murdoch now owns the rights to…

  68. #68 Lionel A
    November 10, 2013

    BBD @ #40

    And energy industry funding of denial is chump change for that industry as this demonstrates:

    Big Oil, Big Profits, Big Tax Breaks

    and this despite the get-out-of-jail inadequate fines such as this Exxon’s Fine For Massive Tar Sands Spill Is A Mere 1/3000th Of Its Third-Quarter Profits.

    Nothing will change unless we redress the balance between profits for the Greedy Lying Bastards and the losses by Earth’s supporting ecological systems and the rest of us.

  69. #69 BBD
    November 10, 2013

    # 64 rhwombat

    I’m OK, just out of touch. I’ve been up in Far North Queensland recreating – and doing some spirochete hunting in tick midguts.

    Good. Happy spirochete hunting. I try hard not to impose anthropocentric criteria on the natural world, but I’m afraid that I’ve never been able to muster up much enthusiasm for ticks. Their freight of charmless pathogens does not help.

    But that’s just how they are…

  70. #70 BBD
    November 10, 2013

    #67 Lionel

    The greedy lying bastards will ‘win’. They have all the money and will always be able to buy the public policy they want. By the time the electorate wakes up – if it ever does – it will be far too late.

  71. #71 BBD
    November 10, 2013

    #63 adelady

    It’s going to be hard to feed ~10 billion with CC progressively impacting agricultural productivity.

    Doubtless you have seen the leak of AR5 WG2 SPM, but for others, here’s some discussion of the contents.

    It’s not good news at all.

  72. #72 chek
    November 10, 2013

    Bernard and Adelady, the Rosling presentation is good at explaining how population growth isn’t and won’t be exponential, but will stabilise at 10-11 billion due to family sizes already decreasing in poorer countries, producing a global ‘pool’ of around 2 B children under 16 and better life expectancy after that. The global average of 5 children per woman in 1963 has fallen to 2.5 in 2013 and is still decreasing.

    Rosling’s presentation doesn’t, as you and Adelady point out, project resources to match that population, but it does explain how the poorest 2 B only require modest resources to escape crushing poverty and move from a notional $1 per day to 5 or more, which may not seem much to us, but is a huge difference to the individuals struggling at the bottom.

    Rosling concedes that it will be challenging coping with the projected population’s strain on resources, but I (and the live audience) found his analysis (much of the rural African and Asian subsistence farm economies are still employing 18th Century agricultural methods for instance) to be one of hope rather than despair.

  73. #73 chek
    November 10, 2013

    And … it’s now on Youtube.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    November 10, 2013

    Rosling’s talk was fascinating but I was waiting for the part where resource limitation was factored in.

    It really is all of us but that 1% and especially that 1% of the 1% need to listen up.

    I saw an illustration recently on our prime minister, Cameron an Eton graduate, estimated personal fortune of £3.2million (before inheritance). Annual income over £200,000. Claimed £82,450 expenses in 5 years on his second home.

    I wonder what Georgy-porgy, pudding and pie is worth?

    And we are all in it together. Yes both in brown stuff, him in the gravy and we in that smelly stuff!

    I am not jealous, I don’t need £3.2m, nothing close.

    For the record I have never had a flight in an airliner. But I guess during a couple of decades working with Air Arm heavy metal, and flying in some of it, would have added some to my carbon footprint. All those hours test running Phantom F4k Spey engines for a start, a few assorted Avons too.

  75. #75 bill
    November 10, 2013

    Still *crickets* from the chumps, one notes.

    You know, ‘skeptics’, some readers – and lurkers! – might well conclude that you have only the haziest notions of the physical and chemical basis of this whole debate – I still think ‘I et Snowball’ is about right ;-) – and that the old proverb about empty vessels making the most noise sums you all up to a ‘t’.

    For twonker.

    I repeat, we have allowed screeching, paranoiac blowhard Dunning-Krugerite muppets to poison a ‘debate’ where their opposition is as valid, as honest, and as well-informed as if some proverbial pack of barbary apes was to be allowed the run of MIT or CERN.

    Result: we have a government with No Science Minister, that informs itself via wikipedia, whose superannuated goofball senior-‘statesman’ proudly tells a bunch of industry shills it’s just fine to make-shit-up about climate and ignore the scientists as and when required because, basically, he’s as boneheaded as you lot are – HL Mencken comes to mind – and that is now cheerfully gutting the CSIRO because they’ve never liked the cut of its jib, and, given it’s devotion to,um, science, it’s unlikely to get with their program!

    And all cheered on by gazillionaire Plutocrat Murdoch, the twittering Big Brother of the Big Brother era, who sniffily opines en-route via helicopter to his Oyster Bay estate that this is all the end of ‘elitism’.

    All lapped up unquestioningly by you dogged dropkicks.

    What. A. Rabble.

  76. #76 Jeff Harvey
    November 10, 2013

    So much for ‘natural causes’ and ‘natural variation’ in the alleged recent slowdown of warming. Even here, the human fingerprint is indelible.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1999.html

    Once GHG concentrations reach and exceed a critical tipping point, temperatures will rise rapidly again. But watch the pseudo-intellectual deniers go into defense mode again.

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    November 11, 2013

    Tony Abbott generously offers his “thoughts and prayers” and $400k to the Philippines following the devastation wrought by Super Typhoon Haiyan, in which more than ten thousand people were killed even though there was much prior warning and significant preparation:

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/11/11/abbott-offers-more-help-philippines

    The Philippinos must be so thrilled at Abbott’s moral and financial largesse.

    Or not.

    And this is in the thick of Abbott and Hunt trying to remove a price on carbon emissions and simultaneously snubbing the international climate talks in Warsaw this week. Only a particularly pernicious sort of psychological pathology could operate to allow this party of neo-fascists to act as they do and be able to stare at a television camera without blushing*. I’ve said it multiple times before and most recently above but I’ll say it again – the Liberal/National parties are willfully negligent and criminally culpable for the damage that is emerging and will emerge even more as a consequence of their determination to ignore the best scientific and economic advice and to not act as strenuously and as responsibly as possible on mitigating the climate change that is being cause by human carbon dioxide emissions.

    I’m not a lawyer but I am sure that there would be many potential national and international civil and criminal crimes being committed – governance and corporate and humanitarian crimes. Is there a lawyer in the house?

    [*This might explain why Abbott is the invisible man in the media now that he is in the Lodge.]

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    November 11, 2013

    Just to follow up on my previous post, the initial Australian offer of financial assistance works out to less than four dollars for every Philippino killed, and once the toll is finalised that figure is bound to be even less.

    That’s an insult of the highest magnitude coming from a bloke who, whilst acting as the opposition leader, single-handedly racked up in dodgy travel expenses almost a quarter of the value of the Philippines aid figure:

    http://t.co/5xduA3IJEt

  79. #79 Craig Thomas
    November 11, 2013

    I’m not going to link to the crank-blog owned by well-known uni-dropout and ex-TV-weatherman, but I felt in need of a laugh on this rainy day, so I went over and read a contribution by screaming Lord Monckton wherein he offers the following:

    (Try reading this without breaking out into laughter).
    [blockquote]When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.

    I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.[/blockquote]

    He calls himself a “mathematician”.

    I awarded this 7.8 clownshoes on the KoKo scale, but I doubt the crankblog uni-dropout owner will publish my appreciation of Monckton’s efforts.

  80. #80 Bernard J.
    November 11, 2013

    You know how I pointed out at #76 that Tony Abbott spent almost a quarter of the figure for Australian aid to the Philippines after Super Typhoon Haiyan?

    It gets worse…

    https://twitter.com/JBPooket/status/399497435317161985/photo/1

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    November 11, 2013

    You know how I pointed out at #76 that Tony Abbott spent on dodgy travel expenses almost a quarter of the figure for Australian aid to the Philippines after Super Typhoon Haiyan?

    It gets worse…

    https://twitter.com/JBPooket/status/399497435317161985/photo/1

  82. #82 Bernard J.
    November 11, 2013

    Bugger. That ‘Submit’ button is damned quick.

  83. #83 Mack
    November 11, 2013

    Hello again BBD. OK, so far so good, we’re talking nicely to each other here in a civilised fashion.
    So you DO subscribe to the “greenhouse” theory which says that the atmosphere stops the oceans from becoming one frozen ball because you said so yourself. There it is in black and white…your comment #56…”If all GHGs in the atmosphere were removed, the surface temp would fall by about 33K” This of course would leave the oceans in a frozen state. Correct.
    Well, this might come as a little bit of a shock to you, but I think the sun keeps the oceans from freezing BBD. Much in the same way as if you stick a snowball in front of a heat lamp it will melt. Does this seem unreasonable? I think that it is the power from the sun that warms ,and keeps warm the planet BBD. …That’s not too far fetched is it?
    So if it is power from the sun, we might start thinking scientifically and put some numbers to this power. You may remember from physics..power over a surface is expressed in watts/sq.m. ..so you are going to have to get back to me with the numbers in watts/sq.m. that your “greenhouse” theory is telling you BBD Otherwise there’s a chance I may have some grave doubts that your “greenhouse effect” science is incorrect, ie bullshit .

  84. #84 bill
    November 11, 2013

    Mack, you’re just making it up as you go along.

    All the clever people have already studied this, and they concluded – well, I already gave you the easy link to the video that explains what happened for Oily’s Bunny Earth.

    And do you seriously imagine all this hadn’t already calculated all this in Wm2? Where have you been? What have you been smoking?

    Do at least try not to be (ganga-ed up?) Uncle Arthur, there’s a good fellow…

  85. #85 Mack
    November 11, 2013

    Bill says…”And do you seriously imagine all this hadn’t already CALCULATED all this in Wm2?” There’s your problem right there Billbaby. You say these w/sq.m were “calculated” . Not MEASURED but CALCULATED.
    Measurements are not usually wrong but calculations certainly can be. Bugger off and stick to taxi driving Billbaby

  86. #86 Wow
    November 11, 2013

    “Bill says…”And do you seriously imagine all this hadn’t already CALCULATED all this in Wm2?” There’s your problem right there Billbaby.”

    Yeah, bill, do you expect Spots to actually do work?!?!? After all, it’s possible he’s wrong and if he investigated his claims at best, he’s vindicated, at worst (and eminently most likely) shown wrong.

    THIS is why deniers don’t do investigation. If they’re going to be wrong, the “only fair thing” is for everyone else to do the work to show that. I mean, expecting these morons to both do the denying AND prove themselves wrong is just unconscionable!

    Plus you can obviously see that Spots here doesn’t know what calcuation means.

  87. #87 bill
    November 11, 2013

    Your persona management is as feeble as your research skills, ‘Mack’.

  88. #88 rhwombat
    November 11, 2013

    “Mack” @#83: I note the Billbaby, and the reference to driving a taxi, as well as the usual pathetic attempt to resuscitate an expired Denier meme with sneering reference to processes beyond the limited power of regurgitation available to you from the usual clown schools and propagandists. Do try and keep your pseudo – socks straight, KarenMackSunspotty. Civil conversation was eschewed by every one of your socks since well before the Swiss Sock Troll was finally exorcised for crimes against insanity. Bugger off yourself, you creepy little stalker.

  89. #89 BBD
    November 11, 2013

    # 81 Sunspot

    So you DO subscribe to the “greenhouse” theory which says that the atmosphere stops the oceans from becoming one frozen ball because you said so yourself.

    Of course I do. It is the standard scientific position. Are you saying that you deny the greenhouse effect?

    You do appreciate that the way this works is that solar energy heats the surface/oceans and the GHE inhibits cooling, so increasing average surface temperature by ~33K?

    I have a feeling this has gone over your head.

    Nor have you conceded that the termination of Snowball Earth states demonstrates that CO2 is a powerful climate forcing. Since you can’t provide an alternative physical mechanism that actually makes physical sense, you are obliged to concede this point.

    That’s how civil conversation works.

  90. #90 Wow
    November 11, 2013

    Spots head *is* right up his ass, so of course anything will go over his head.

  91. #91 Wow
    November 11, 2013

    It’s also very echoey in there.

  92. #92 adelady
    November 11, 2013

    I just got an idea for a film script – Sunny goes to Alpha Centauri.

    Or … where was the sun which so wonderfully keeps the oceans unfrozen during several tens of millions of years of snowball earth conditions? On hols, that’s where. Went to visit the twin cousins in the Milky Way recreation centre. .

  93. #93 Craig Thomas
    November 12, 2013

    Here you go for some after-lunch amusement.

    Bet you haven’t watched this for a while…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w833cAs9EN0

  94. #94 Mack
    November 12, 2013

    “Of course I do…..are you saying that you deny the greenhouse effect?”
    Of course I do. There is no “greenhouse effect” , no “greenhouse gases” and the Earth’s temp. is purely hydrological. Simple as that. This concept may be difficult for you to get your head around BBD, but do try to think beyond what you’ve been taught in the school classroom. It’s easy if you try.
    You’ve evaded my question to you with regard to the radiative balance (or imbalance) of your quack “greenhouse” theory because you’re either ignorant of the numbers or just too afraid to talk to me about them. It is ,after all, called the RADIATIVE “greenhouse” gas theory BBD, so there must be some numbers to support your junk theory. So where are they? If there is a mistake or some such in the watts/sq.m in your crap “greenhouse” theory wouldn’t you like to find out? No , methinks you would prefer to sit in this echo chamber with the rest of the remaining Doltoids.and keep youself nice and cosy and ignorant.
    So for your information, CO2 (ever so slightly) cools the lower atmosphere….it behaves no differently to any other gas in the atmosphere. The physical properties of gases say that gases do not add energy but disperse it. All gases dissipate heat. That’s how your hair-dryer works BBD.
    In addition to the cooling effect of CO2 in the lower atmosphere there is even greater cooling in the upper atmosphere…the THERMOSPHERE (look it up if you don’t know anything about it BBD) Here, newer observations from newer outer satellites (SABER study) reveal that we can actually see the cooling of nitric oxide and CO2 as they glow from the incoming solar radiation. It appears that the atmosphere is not so translucent to incoming solar radiation than your old crap outdated unreal “greenhouse” theory is trying to tell you BBD.

  95. #95 bill
    November 12, 2013

    Oh, sod off, you tedious, pathological, dimwitted dissembler.

  96. #96 BBD
    November 12, 2013

    #92 Sunspot

    What a load of crank bollocks.

    Here is a discussion of the theory and observations of atmospheric radiation. You desperately need to read it.

    It might surprise some here, but I hadn’t realised just how insane you actually are. It seems you really are a physics-denying nutter, and consequently not worth talking too since there can be no exchange of ideas with someone living in a fairground mirror universe where all is mutable and distorted. You are beyond the reach of reasoned, supported argument.

    * * *

    Since Sunspot/Mack/Karen is confined to the Sunspot thread, that is where it should now remain.

    Further comments will be struck through until Tim bans the “Mack” sock.

  97. #97 Mack
    November 12, 2013

    Mmmmm. didn’t last long did you BBD. Only 3 or 4 comments and full on ad. hom. Couldn’t hold it together, eh boy.

  98. #98 BBD
    November 12, 2013

    Sunspot

    The problem began when you refused to acknowledge that CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states.

    That is an example of intellectual dishonesty, aka bad faith.

    It merits censure, but I was polite – I asked you *again* to concede the point. You didn’t. Instead, you tried to push the conversation onto an unrelated topic. More intellectual dishonesty/bad faith.

    You then launched into an bizarre Gish Gallop of unmitigated crankery.

    At this point – and with real justification – I ceased being polite. After all, when you are being dishonest and pissing in my face, why should I be polite to you?

    Why? You don’t seem to understand that the fault here is yours and you cannot whine.

  99. #99 Mack
    November 12, 2013

    Btw, BBD your link is to SOD , a wacko lawyer , SOD deletes anything that gets a little too close for comfort.. I saw him even delete one of De Witt Payne’s comments because he was starting to question the watts/sq.m issue too closely. SOD has got it wrong on his website and of course he can’t delete his own posting.
    Aaahahahahahahaha my heart bleeds.

  100. #100 BBD
    November 12, 2013

    Sunspot/Mack/Karen

    A few final remarks:

    – The SoD article you have not read is a review. It is *full* of links to the literature it discusses. No errors have ever emerged in that body of work. Your focus on SoD rather than the science under examination is the most childish strawman imaginable.

    – If you claim there are errors in the standard scientific position wrt the calculation of surface/TOA forcings, the onus is on *you* to demonstrate them with specifics, either by your own calculations or from the published literature. We both know you cannot do this, so your empty posturing is (once again) revealed in all its unpleasant detail.

    – You have still failed to acknowledge that the termination of Snowball Earth states demonstrates the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing. Every single comment above is an exercise in bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, with forays into outright crankery thrown in for good measure.

    – Finally, you are banned from commenting except on the Sunspot thread, so I’m going to strike out any further responses you make because I don’t want to encourage to to continue in breach of the constraints Tim has placed on you.

    -

1 2 3 5

Current ye@r *