January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    Look – no “pause” or “hiatus” – just a slight slowing in the rate of surface warming, aka natural variability, which nobody every said would stop. Nor did anyone ever say warming would be monotonic. This whole discourse has been warped by contrarians into a “challenge” to estimates of S and even of the fundamentals of radiative physics. Both “challenges” are scientifically absurd. Please try and remember that you cannot meaningfully quantify ECS from a short time-series, eg a couple of decades.

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    January 31, 2014

    At that we’re talking about just a few percent of total AGW heat accumulation, the part that heats up the (lower) atmosphere.
    Another little fraction went into melting land- and sea ice.
    Rest into the oceans which will release some during next Niño.
    There is no ‘hiatus’. There is, actually, acceleration in total heat gain of the climate system.

  3. #3 Wow
    January 31, 2014

    ianam, #89, being right in something doesn’t mean you are going to be right in everything. Being sane and reasoned in one subject of interest does not make it certain that you are sane and reasoned in all subjects of interest.

    The reverse is true, too.

    We’re just “blessed” with such moronic samples as Betty and Woof Woof here, who evince no glimmer of rationality in any of their claims on any subject whatsoever raised on this site, that it seems that if you’re (in)sane on one point, you must be similarly (in)sane on all others.

    As a short cut to weed out comments that are worth spending time and effort on, the assumption of ” constant momentum of intellect” works quite well.

  4. #4 FrankD
    January 31, 2014

    “constant momentum of intellect”

    Uncertainty tell us that since we can measure Betbet’s and Woofwoof’s “intellectual”positions quite easily, it should be impossible to measure any such momentum. The available data certainly supports that.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 31, 2014

    Remember, you can total the uncertainty of Batty and Woof Woof’s statements (as in they are 100% certain that NOBODY knows whether humans are causing AGW) and the uncertainty of their positions in that equation.

    Therefore you can still determine the momentum because of the massive “uncertainty source” of their ignorance.

  6. #6 cRR Kampen
    January 31, 2014

    So how come we may mix up ‘intention’, ‘intentionality’ and ‘intensionality’ though this used to be the sin up for capital punishment in (western!) philosophy?
    It is all unified into the concept of autopoiesis:

    “… an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are “structurally coupled” with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling. This continuous dynamic is considered as a rudimentary form of knowledge or cognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.”
    [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis ]
    Knowing, doing, intention to get to know or to do are the same things. Enjoy.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 31, 2014

    Since there is no such capital punishment for that, what the hell answer would you expect other than “Elephant proboscis”?

  8. #8 cRR Kampen
    January 31, 2014

    #7, Questions? No questions. Alright, continue.
    So what can we attack using the concept of autopoiesis, and/or the work done on cognition science by e.g. Dennett? We can blast things like ‘soul’, ‘the manifestation of God(‘s) spirit in us’ et cetera.
    If the phrase ‘life after death’ does not suffice in itself as a ‘proof’ there is of course no life after death (cf the word ‘supernatural being’ as the contruct meaning ‘that being doesn’t exist’) autopoiesis conceptuology may help you on this one, too.

    But let us teach on a level that is slightly more adjusted to your knowledge of the matter. Leaf a bit through: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm e.g. 16, 17, 36 for some primers. #28 is a nice try at using full induction (cf. the metaphor of NP-C) to do away with all deities. O and go fight that true atheist then.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 31, 2014

    Well, last Thursday, for a start, was a particular day.

    Therefore you have your answer.

  10. #10 Betula
    January 31, 2014

    Strange. I couldn’t find the word “hiatus” in my link on the previous page, yet it shows up over a dozen times in the latest IPCC report…
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/

    It’s almost as if there were a form of denial being used to maintain the Deltoid autopoietic system…

  11. #11 chek
    January 31, 2014

    Strange. I couldn’t find the word “hiatus” in my link on the previous page,

    Likely because you have very little comprehension of what you’re reading.

    yet it shows up over a dozen times in the latest IPCC report…

    Draft report Betty – AR5 as such has not been released yet. And I’m not wasting my time looking for a context for a fictional statistical canard invented by deniers.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/

    Get back to us when you can quote an actual paper from published Curry, not the imbecile blog Curry.

  12. #13 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    Betty, you need to keep up. AR5 is obsolete.

  13. #14 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    Betty

    Please explain which part or parts of my #1 you didn’t understand:

    Look – no “pause” or “hiatus” – just a slight slowing in the rate of surface warming, aka natural variability, which nobody every said would stop. Nor did anyone ever say warming would be monotonic. This whole discourse has been warped by contrarians into a “challenge” to estimates of S and even of the fundamentals of radiative physics. Both “challenges” are scientifically absurd. Please try and remember that you cannot meaningfully quantify ECS from a short time-series, eg a couple of decades.

    The graph came from this article. Please read it carefully before responding because understanding what is being said is vital to a productive exchange.

  14. #15 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    Garth Paltridge did his best work many decades ago, then developed one of those almost-crankery self-regulating climate hypotheses that nobody else took seriously. He got pissed off, went emeritus, and the rest, like GP, is history. You are listening to marginalised, fringe contrarian noise again instead of mainstream science. How many times, Betty…?

  15. #16 cRR Kampen
    January 31, 2014

    #15, what a shame. He’s not the only emeritus to have done such scientific self destruction. But this phenomenom is emotionally tractable to some degree. When actual profs commit this kind of thing, it really is too sad to bear. E.g. Curry.

  16. #17 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    cRR Kampen

    It is a shame, but GP is being tricksy, which sharply reduces any sympathy I might otherwise feel for him.

    Consider this, carefully:

    Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of water vapour, which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide—on average over most of the models—by a factor of about three. In other words, two-thirds of the forecast rise in temperature derives from this particular model characteristic. Despite what the models are telling us—and perhaps because it is models that are telling us—no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say that he is 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If he is not sure that clouds amplify global warming, he cannot be sure that most of the global warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide.

    See what he did there? He seems to acknowledge that WV is the key amplifying GHG feedback to an increase in the non-condensing GHGs, but then switches emphasis to clouds *alone* – but it is water vapour feedback not cloud formation that is the key amplifier. So his final sentence is a false assertion based on a strawman argument.

    It is very easy to debunk the argument at face value. If net cloud feedbacks are negative, we would would see little variability in climate behaviour because warming would be damped by increased low marine cloud formation and cooling would be reduced by increased stratospheric cloud etc.

    This isn’t what happens. Early Cenozoic hyperthermals or more recently, deglaciation under orbital forcing are clear evidence from paleoclimate behaviour that this is not what happens. Paltridge should and probably does know better.

  17. #18 cRR Kampen
    January 31, 2014

    BBD – I read carefully so I got wounded by that last sentence, thank you.
    Why tf are we discussing that dung at all? – forget it, I know it has to be done.

    I was at the NIPCC symposium beginning of October last year in The Hague. Saw Singer and Carter from up close. The cult leaders.
    Carter said with these but only more words effectively this: ‘Imagine you take all telephone numbers of the country of Holland and average them, you’d get a number. But what does it mean? It means nothing, obviously!’.
    So, he simply talked the very concept of ‘average’ out of everybody’s mind. Now imagine this guy delivering this brainwash with all the time this *smirk* on his face, you know, like some of those tv priests..
    It IS a scam. Nothing else.
    It’s just bloody hard, hard in all kinds of ways, to pry the naive believers loose.

  18. #19 Betula
    January 31, 2014

    chek…”Draft report Betty – AR5 as such has not been released yet”

    BBD…”Betty, you need to keep up. AR5 is obsolete”

    Meanwhile, BBD’s links to a Leon Clifford article that “suggests”…..”the so called global warming pause is actually a period of slower warming and not a pause at all”

    Yet Leon Clifford, just last week wrote…”Make no mistake about it, the pause is real and it has moved out of the climate sceptic community and into the mainstream of climate science.”
    http://leonclifford.com/2014/01/22/global-warming-pause-goes-mainstream-but-no-one-can-explain-it/

    So here we have an obsolete AR5 report that has yet to be released and a climate science writer who appears to be arguing with himself…

    Very impressive.

  19. #20 chek
    January 31, 2014

    Once you get the hang of the concept of ‘context’ Betty you’ll be worth arguing with. So:
    my comment – I wasn’t aware AR5 is officially released.
    BBD’s comment – AR5 will have had a cut off point for compilation purposes. Further research has occurred since then.
    Clifford’s comment – if read carefully – acknowledges a statistical flat due to a particularly strong El Nino in ’98.
    Whatever else you attach to that is a figment of denier blogs.

    The thing is Betty, CO2 is responsible for the current situation of more energy entering the Earth system than is leaving it. Once you comprehend that and what ‘Earth system means in terms of its components – land, ocean, atmosphere cryosphere etc. – you’d be less confused, assuming good faith.

    But then I don’t, not from you Betty.

  20. #21 BBD
    January 31, 2014

    Leon Clifford is an irrelevance, Betty. Cowtan & Way is relevant. And you are blanking it.

    * * *

    Please answer the question at # 14.

  21. #22 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2014

    Betula, methinks you spend way too much time searching under every rock to find some obscure blogger who claims that the warming stopped in 1998. One thing you don’t do, is tread the primary literature. OK, OK, its beyond your meager understanding of science, but can’t you at least give it a try? Or are we endlessly stuck with you linking every comment from bloggers or old academics on the fringe or whose views fall outside the mainstream?

    It seems that the hiatus-freaks clearly do not understand the concept of transitions between stochastic and deterministic processes. And since most of them can’t tell a dung beetle from a moose they clearly cannot explain the range and altitudinal shifts of plants and animals that has continued unabated to the present day. The empirical literature is full of these studies. You and the blogging brigade just don’t tend to read or understand them.

  22. #23 Olaus Petri
    January 31, 2014

    Jeff #98, Yes, I read Deltoid. ;-)

  23. #24 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2014

    Thanks for the link BBD. This is exactly what I am talking about. Scientists doing the actual research versus a small army of people who don’t. Instead, Betula is stuck on the blogging circuit.

    Its pathetic, really.

  24. #25 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2014

    Olaus: for every Deltoid you read you read 100 WUWTs. BHs. CAs et al.

    And like Betty, you don’t read the primary literature. Why? Simple. Because you don’t understand it. I’ve asked you countless times to tell us all here what you day job is. And the reply is always the same: silence. Same for your Scandinavian troll collective of which you are a part. What does Jonas do for a living? He’s been asked even more times than you. And he’s refused to tell us all as well.

    The reason is obvious: because both of you have no qualifications anything remotely scientific. If you did, we’d all hear about it alright. It also explains why you constantly snipe away at my professional background: because it puts yours into the shade. You see, we scientists ARE the biggest enemies, because we are the ones of the front lines. And because most of us have moved well beyond the ‘is it warming or not’? question, or ‘what is the primary forcing’?, that leaves the inevitable following questions: ‘what are the potential consequences of the warming’? and ‘how should we deal with it’?

    You and your acolytes are desperate to keep the debate mired in uncertainty. That’s why every effort is being made to inflate the ranks and qualifications of those with any scientific background into the denial camp, as well as to try and belittle the far greater number of scientists who, like me, have moved on.

  25. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 1, 2014

    Shorter Jeff:
    Olaus is an uneducated nobody whose malformed opinions and bitter personal attacks are worse than worthless.

  26. #27 FrankD
    February 1, 2014

    Shorter Betty: “Journalist confused about climate, opines anyway”.

    News at 11.

  27. #28 Doug
    February 2, 2014

    Excellent discussion that is accessible to someone without a background in science and minimal acquaintance with statistics on the issue of the trend of near surface temperatures over the past fifteen years at Real Climate and Open Mind. It is definitely warming up.

  28. #29 BBD
    February 2, 2014

    So we see the “pause” or “hiatus” revealed as another all-too-successful language hijack by the deniers. So much so that even actual climatologists are sloppily and inaccurately adopting this framing.

    Sure, a “slowing in the rate of surface warming” is a bit of a mouthful but it is technically correct whereas wittering on about pauses and hiati just allows deniers to push their nonsense memes about low S or “AGW stopped in 1998″ etc. Bollocks, all.

    Variability in ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface/tropospheric warming. All there ever was to it. And the current slight slowdown won’t last forever.

  29. #30 chek
    February 2, 2014

    It is fascinating to see how every lunkhead denier pushes these memes. Until the next one is devised for them.

  30. #31 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    “So we see the “pause” or “hiatus” revealed as another all-too-successful language hijack by the deniers. So much so that even actual climatologists are sloppily and inaccurately adopting this framing”

    So the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate. Ok, I’ll agree.

  31. #32 chek
    February 3, 2014

    So the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate. Ok, I’ll agree

    And that’s why you’re condemned to always be a moron Betty. All contained in that one sentence and the cognitive processes that formed it..

  32. #33 Wow
    February 3, 2014

    “So the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate”

    No, your take on the IPCC report, as dictated to you by the denier echo chamber is sloppy and inaccurate.

  33. #34 Wow
    February 3, 2014

    Odd how none of the names pushing “hiatus” was pushing a meme for “surge” earlier when the trend for 15 years was nearly 0.3C per decade…

  34. #35 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    So the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate. Ok, I’ll agree.

    You need to fucking well read it, you lazy and intellectually dishonest denier:

    AR5 WG1 SPM:

    In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    And:

    The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
    heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
    the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

    Read the words, Betty.

    Why the fuck am I having to do this for you? Why? As yourself that. What does it tell you about yourself? About your complete lack of intellectual honesty? What?

    Fuck but you annoy me sometimes, Betty.

  35. #36 cRR Kampen
    February 3, 2014

    #35 I must pay more attention. You take Bets that seriously, BBD?

    I’ll bet Bets’ll not even answer but think ‘why-ah thanks for running around again mate like ur supposed to do’.

    I may be wrong but I think climate revisionism is being utterly underestimated STILL. Or overestimated from both intellectual and moral perspective.
    Dialogue and debate are over.

  36. #37 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    BBD – “So we see the “pause” or “hiatus” revealed as another all-too-successful language hijack by the deniers. So much so that even actual climatologists are sloppily and inaccurately adopting this framing.”

    IPCC and the “hiatus”…

    “Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it”

    “In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). “

    “The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012

    So, according to you, the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate. Ok, I agree…

  37. #38 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    “Dialogue and debate are over”

    I would ask you to define dialogue and debate, but I can’t…. it’s over.

  38. #39 cRR Kampen
    February 3, 2014

    #38, yes. And you, too, just need a Sandy, or a strongest tornado ever or a biggest, or a strongest typhoon landfall ever, or a Boulder flooding, or a Californian drought to lose the brick on your nose. You just lucked out so far, like Holland unfortunately, but hypocrisy is a luxury like no other.

  39. #40 cRR Kampen
    February 3, 2014

    #37, how about the final report?
    I bashed that hacked draft for being far too conservative so in separate ways we could agree. Even for the few % of the climate system we are actually talking about. Miss the heat? Nah. You miss the ice ;)

  40. #41 cRR Kampen
    February 3, 2014

    #37, or go see Singer in person…

  41. #42 GSW
    February 3, 2014

    Hi all,

    A bit off topic, should probably be filed in the “belief in the ignorance of experts” category, or “power of could” section. From the University of Leicester

    “Expert: rats could grow bigger than sheep ”
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/expert-rats-could-grow-bigger-than-sheep.1391434780

    Unfortunately, hiding under the stairs may not protect you from the Giant Rats which “could” be on their way.

    Even if there is only a 2% chance of it happening, maybe Giant Rat insurance is worth considering.
    ;)

  42. #43 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    So, according to you, the IPCC draft report is sloppy and inaccurate. Ok, I agree…

    There was no hiatus, so that choice of word is technically incorrect. But as I explained to you – and as the other quotes I provided demonstrate unequivocally, AR5 describes the slowdown in the rate of surface warming that has occurred as a consequence of natural variability.

    Your usual fucking intellectual dishonesty is once again, the only substantive problem here.

    * * *

    When are you going to answer my direct questions to you at #14?

    Why have you not answered my question to you at #35? I repeat:

    Why the fuck am I having to read the SPM for you? Why? Ask yourself that. What does it tell you about yourself? About your complete lack of intellectual honesty? What?

    Answer me that.

  43. #44 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Read your own quote mining properly, Betty:

    In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012

    How was that non-hiatus defined Betty?

    Read the words.

  44. #45 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Just to be absolutely clear – there has been no “pause” or “hiatus” surface temperature warming. A slight slowing of the rate. The rest is poor word choice (AR5) and denier misrepresentation so total and so vociferous as to have distorted the framing of the entire discourse. See AR5. To the fucking shame of the editors responsible.

  45. #46 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    You’re starting to go all Barney again BBD…

    I read the article you linked at #14. It’s misleading. If you were truly going to ask about temperature trends since 1998, you wouldn’t start with temperatures from 1979….

  46. #47 chek
    February 3, 2014

    … and then again, you’d only ask about temperature trends since 1998 in order to be misleading.

    Haven’t you dimwits realised by now that the escalator graph cuts you off at the knees when you try to pull these short term stunts?

  47. #48 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    I read the article you linked at #14. It’s misleading.

    No, that’s a lie. There is *nothing* remotely “misleading” about that article. Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest crap. Denial. Lies. Why the fuck do you think I react to you the way I do? Can’t you see that your behaviour is vile?

  48. #49 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Cowtan &Way, Betty, Cowtan & Way.

    The laugh’s on the fucking deniers after all: there *are* problems with the surface temperature reconstructions… they are biased cool.

  49. #50 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Actually, this is so fucking stupid, and so fucking dishonest I’m not going to let it go:

    If you were truly going to ask about temperature trends since 1998, you wouldn’t start with temperatures from 1979…

    Are you truly so moronic that you don’t grasp the point of the analysis? How do you establish a trend without data going back previous to 1997? You *need* to go back or you would have nothing on which to base the projected trend. Thus rendering it impossible to explore the claim that warming paused, ceased or entered a hiatus post-1998.

    Can you be that thick? Or are you just being completely, shamelessly dishonest?

    Please clarify.

  50. #51 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2014

    “Unfortunately, hiding under the stairs may not protect you from the Giant Rats which “could” be on their way”

    Yes, in about 4-5 million years. And by that time humans will long have passed into extinction. In fact, the way we are trashing the planet right now, we won’t last a fraction of that.

    One might add that Baluchatheres were the largest mammals ever to inhabit the planet or that flightless birds like Diatryma and Phorhoracus evolved into giant predators some 2 meters tall. But these species lived some 50 million years ago, and took 5-10 million years at least following the extinction of dinosaurs to evolve to occupy the vacant niches the giant reptiles left behind.

    When it comes to warming and other anthropogenic assaults across the biosphere, we are talking about a century or less. Trust GSW to get his time frames all mangled up. But heck, like the other deniers, including his hero, Jonas, he hasn’t got anything close to a remote understanding of evolutionary ecology.

  51. #52 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    “How do you establish a trend without data going back previous to 1997?”

    It’s easy. Just like the IPCC, you look at the last 15 year period and call it a trend:

    ” the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years

    “In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012

    “most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012″

    Science is funny like that.

  52. #53 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Betty

    You either haven’t understood that article at all or you are simply lying your arse off.

    Now go back and read it again. See what was done. Understand why what you are saying is either insane or stupidly dishonest.

    Try harder. I am tired of your bullshit.

  53. #54 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    The analysis is a demonstration that warming has not stopped Betty. For that you need an established trend to project forward to test the hypothesis that warming has not stopped. There is NOTHING “misleading” about this.

    I cannot make this any plainer for you: you face a stark choice here – either you are revealed as a complete idiot hopelessly incapable of having this discussion, or your are revealed as a stupid and desperate liar. There are no other alternatives. You did this to yourself.

    Now which is it? Moron, or liar?

    Please clarify.

  54. #55 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Once again, I repeat: there was no pause or hiatus. AR5 should not have used the latter term, but it *did* define what has happened exactly as I have always done here:

    In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012

    Defined as the REDUCTION IN GMST TREND. Reduction in trend. Reduction in trend. Reduction in trend. Not a fucking pause or fucking hiatus or fucking stop. A REDUCTION in TREND.

    Read the words Betty. Read.

    You keep blanking this when I point it out to you. More intellectual dishonesty. More evidence that you are scum. I am tired of your bullshit.

  55. #56 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    Not to worry about giant rats people, there will be very large snakes around to help take care of the problem:

    “GLOBAL WARMING COULD LEAD TO SNAKES THE SIZE OF BUSES”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2551024/Rats-one-day-bigger-COWS-Super-size-rodents-evolve-larger-mammals-extinct-claims-scientist.html

  56. #57 Betula
    February 3, 2014

    “Defined as the REDUCTION IN GMST TREND. Reduction in trend. Reduction in trend. Reduction in trend. Not a fucking pause or fucking hiatus or fucking stop. A REDUCTION in TREND”

    You seem to have left out “during 1998–2012″:

    “defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012″, which, according to the IPCC, is a 15 year “hiatus”

    Why all the denial Barney?

  57. #58 chek
    February 3, 2014

    Kerrr-ist.
    At least the deniers aren’t ashamed of showing themselves to be both stupid and dishonest.
    Which is, it must be said, never in the history of the world past present or future, a winning combination.

  58. #59 GSW
    February 3, 2014

    @Betula #56

    Thanks Betula, very sobering article link indeed. I think what jeff has missed is that these are not ordinary rats, they are “super-adaptable”.

    “The terrifying scenario could become a reality as super-adaptable rats take advantage of larger mammals becoming extinct, an expert predicts.”

    Trust jeff to play down the risks of a giant “super adaptable” rat plague as predicted by a fellow scientist. The chilling scientific narrative continues,

    “So there will be future thin rats, future fat rats, slow and heavy rats, fast and ferocious rats, probably future aquatic rats – the list goes on”

    Yes, a veritable “climate model ensemble” of future rat types; we should all be very concerned by this bollocks no doubt.
    ;)

  59. #60 chek
    February 3, 2014

    Mind you I’m wondering now if deniers could be fast-tracked into giant feral rats and mega-snakes.
    Or perhaps their own behaviour has already done it for them.

  60. #61 chek
    February 3, 2014

    we should all be very concerned

    There are plenty of things – including climate science and giant rats – that you needn’t be bothering your empty little head about. Griselda. It’s all way beyond your meagre understanding and ability to put into a context.

  61. #62 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Okay Betty, I’ll choose for you:

    You are stupid *and* intellectually dishonest.

    You really don’t understand that article at all do you? You should not be here, having these kinds of conversations you know. You do not have the basic skills or native intelligence for it.

  62. #63 BBD
    February 3, 2014

    Some facts:

    - The rate of surface warming has been *underestimated* since ~2000

    - There has been no pause or hiatus – warming did not stop in 1998

    - AR5 defines the term “hiatus” (which should not have been used) as a reduction in trend over the recent period.

    These are facts. The rest is misinformation and denial by liars and idiots.

  63. #64 chek
    February 4, 2014

    The rest is misinformation and denial by liars and idiots.

    Quite.
    And it’s always been a case of seeing which wagon they tie their horse to.

  64. #65 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2014

    “Trust jeff to play down the risks of a giant “super adaptable” rat plague as predicted by a fellow scientist. The chilling scientific narrative continues”

    I play it down, you pseudo-academic ninny, because selection on this scale would take millions of years. You won’t suddenly find mutant genotypes of Rattus rattus or Rattus norvegicus that are giants compared to their parents, and even larger individuals must overcome a suite of selective constraints to survive.

    I am doing what scientists do: disagreeing with someone whose work is splashed in a trashy right wing corporate paper. The headline is explicitly aimed at ht lowest common denominators. I guess you and Betula fill those criteria.

    Moreover, had Homo sapiens existed at the K-T boundary, I am sure there would have been equally lurid headlines about the evolution of giant man-eating flightless birds that would fill the vacant niches left by the theropods. As I said, they did evolve – about 5 to 10 million years later.

    You clowns aren’t really worth debating, since nether of you knows very much about evolutionary biology. But its quite embarrassing for me reading some of the tripe you paste up here for ‘discussion’.

    By the way, Betty there are snakes almost as long as buses: they are called mature Anacondas (in South America) and Reticulated Pythons (in SE Asia). And its now know that giant snakes did exist during the Cretaceous Period.

  65. #66 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2014

    As it turns out, the Leicester University scientist who wrote the piece said nothing about the time scales involved for such rapid evolutionary change. Trust the corporate media to hype it up as if we are talking about near future scenarios. This kind of crap sells newspapers. The article did mention the K-T boundary, but did not say how long it took mammals to achieve gigantism following the extinction of the dinosaurs. Again, we are talking about several million years at least.

    The problem with people like GSW and Betula is their inability to understand the concept of ‘deep time’ in terms of macro evolution. Most people cannot reconcile temporal scales anyway when it comes to massive evolutionary changes. For instance, if you asked people how long it took dinosaurs to become extinct following whatever abiotic calamity affected the biosphere (e.g. meteoroid impact, widespread volcanic activity) I am sure that many would say that it was an almost instantaneous event – say over a few months or years. But its now widely believed that dinosaurs persisted for quite some time – perhaps as long as 20,000 years – after the calamity that suddenly led to huge climatic shifts. That’s more than twice as long as human civilization has been around.

    These distorted articles, aimed at sensationalizing science, are aimed as far as I can see at the lowest common denominators. Its an example of taking a very interesting area of evolutionary biology and trashing it to shift copies of a crappy newspaper.

    Nothing more needs to be said, really. That Betty and GSW bring this crap up and interpret it the way they do says a lot about them, really.

  66. #67 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    If you were truly going to ask about temperature trends since 1998, you wouldn’t start with temperatures from 1979…

    Uh, if you want to include satellite temperatures, then you’d have to start from 1979, since there weren’t any satellites covering the globe measuring temperatures before then.

    Or do you expect numbers to be made up when you demand it?

  67. #68 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    Betty’s too lazy to have bothered to understand the first graph I put up (#1; #14). He doesn’t get that this is the Cowtan & Way kriging reanalysis of HadCRUT4 which was developed in conjunction with the satellite data. But I actually think it’s worse than that. Betty’s problems are even more fundamental; eg. see my #50, #53 and #54.

    As I said earlier, he is lazy, dishonest and not smart or well-informed enough to have this conversation.

  68. #69 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2014

    BBD, this is an excellent graph. It completely demolishes the deniers arguments. But what they are doing is not working from long term regression analyses but from a single data point: 1998. This of course is totally dishonest chicanery, but what do you expect from this bunch of deceivers? Honesty is not in their intellectual make-up.

    To correctly assess the significance of any trends, it is necessary to use regression analyses. By cherry-picking any starting point, is possible to manipulate the degree of significance (P 0.05). If they want to play that game, why not start at 1999? Or 2000? I could just as easily argue that its been warming since then, using their twisted logic.

    What the hiatus crowd are doing is clutching at any straws to downplay AGW. It should be accepted that no empirical evidence will ever satisfy them. This charade is going to continue for many more years to come, whatever science throws at them. They lost the scientific argument years ago. But that little truth will not get in their way.

  69. #70 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2014

    Still more evidence for AGW:

    http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/167/2014/tc-8-167-2014.pdf

    I can’t wait to see how the deniers try and spin this one. Of course they will….

  70. #71 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    “That Betty and GSW bring this crap up and interpret it the way they do says a lot about them, really.”

    It’s was a fellow scientist that brought it into the limelight Hardley….and the only one unable to interpret anything here(in this case a mockery) is you…

  71. #72 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    BBD -

    “Some facts:- The rate of surface warming has been *underestimated* since ~2000″

    From your link at #13…

    “Cowtan and Way use satellite data and a data analysis known as Kriging Interpolation to estimate the temperature in the regions where there is little surface data”</blockquote"

    “Cowtan and Way made headlines at the end of 2013 with a paper that suggested global temperatures have been underestimated”

    “This approach of filling in the gaps in polar coverage must be better than ignoring the gaps, according to climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf”

    An estimate, a suggestion and an opinion do not make a fact…

    “Some facts – There has been no pause or hiatus – warming did not stop in 1998″

    Depend on your definition of hiatus. The IPCC felt that the “slowdown” was enough to warrant using the term “hiatus”. And anyone who questions the IPCC is a denier (now that’s a fact).

    ” Some facts – AR5 defines the term “hiatus” (which should not have been used) as a reduction in trend over the recent period.”

    So you’re saying the IPCC shouldn’t have used the term “hiatus” because their definition of “hiatus” proves there wasn’t a “hiatus”? Um, ok.

  72. #73 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    #72, “An estimate, a suggestion and an opinion do not make a fact…” then go read from the bible like you was told to.

  73. #74 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2014

    Batty man, the scientist was interviewed by a right wing tabloid rag (the Daily Fail). For you the Daily Fail is probably pretty heavy intellectual reading, but for anyone with half a brain its trash.

    Nowhere in the article was any mention made of a time frame. That’s the major oversight. I am sure had some early proto-sauropods been able to pen an article in the late Triassic, they might have written some sensationalist article warning that predatory theropods might soon evolve to be as big as dump trucks – as eventually happened. Um… after many millions of years. Therein lies the rub.

    The scientist in question in the Fail article was not asked or did not discuss time scales. I am qualified to do so. And if the ‘several millions of years’ caveat had been added, then my guess is that the editor would not have allowed the article to pass even the Fail’s miserably low standards of publication.

    Fact is Batty man, you aren’t qualified to discuss anything remotely scientific, as your feeble attempt to push the temperature hiatus also shows.

  74. #75 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    Nowhere in the article was any mention made of a time frame

    Do you mean Betty was LYING? Or that they were lied to but UNSKEPTICALLY swallowed the lies??

    That’s unpossible!!!

  75. #76 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    And anyone who questions the IPCC is a denier (now that’s a fact).

    Ah, well, here’s your problem: that’s a load of bullshit you’re spouting there, Betty.

    Anyone who denies the evidence merely because they don’t like the results is a denier.

    The IPCC have evidence and made it available.

    Deniers deny the evidence the IPCC provides.

    But it isn’t the questioning that makes them a denier, it’s the failing to listen to answers that does. And nothing to do with the IPCC either.

  76. #77 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    Hardley…

    Your link gives satellite imagery results for a 20 year period…20 years. What ever happened to long term trends?

    In addition, the numerical data they used before 1991 isn’t quantified….except at one point they refer to the measurement of 15 lakes…?

  77. #78 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    Do you mean Betty was LYING?

    About what? Giant snakes the size of buses eating rats the size of cows?

  78. #79 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    “An estimate, a suggestion and an opinion do not make a fact…” then go read from the bible like you was told to.”

    So we agree. An estimate, a suggestion and an opinion can indeed be construed as fact, depending on your beliefs…exactly.

  79. #80 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    Your link gives satellite imagery results for a 20 year period…20 years. What ever happened to long term trends?

    Still there.

    But if a satellite series is only 20 years old, how the hell can it give any more information than 20 years?

    And please explain why 20 years is well out of order, but 15, sorry 16, oops, no, 17, aargh, no 16. Ish years is just swell?

  80. #81 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    “About what?”

    Can’t you read, Betty?

  81. #82 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    An estimate, a suggestion and an opinion can indeed be construed as fact, depending on your beliefs…exactly.

    Yes.

    Where YOU fall down, Betty, as do so many other deniers, is whether this applies to you or the science.

    Apparently you’ll accept it but never act on it and change your assertion of facts.

    So in what sense do you agree with the statement?

    Answer: in no sense.

  82. #83 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    Betty

    So you’re saying the IPCC shouldn’t have used the term “hiatus” because their definition of “hiatus” proves there wasn’t a “hiatus”? Um, ok.

    Actually, yes. As I said very clearly above. It was not the correct term. AR5 goes on to *define* what it means correctly, but somewhere an editor needs his arse kicking extremely hard.

    * * *

    I’m offering you scientific evidence (eg C&W) and yet again, without the slightest counter-evidence or a scintilla of professional expertise you are denying its validity, so once again, no points for you. Denial is not an argument. Learn this, Betty.

  83. #84 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    Your link gives satellite imagery results for a 20 year period…20 years. What ever happened to long term trends?

    Let’s see, shall we?

    Here’s UAH satellite data presented on a common 1980 – 2010 baseline with GISTEMP and HadCRUT and NOAA global.

    The recent slowdown in the rate of surface warming is clearly an irrelevance at centennial scale. So why all the hysterical fuss about non-existent hiati and pauses? Unless you are obfuscating the scientific evidence about the centennial-scale effects of CC by hyperfocus on short-term variability. Which is, of course, exactly what you and the rest of the denier chorus are desperately trying to do.

  84. #85 Lionel A
    February 4, 2014

    New smart Google Earth add on for CRUTEM 4 data.

    Stick that on your lying eyes Betula, the purveyor of stupid,
    the leading video in this article is talking to YOU.

  85. #86 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    BBD at #84…you do realize I was referring to Hardley’s link at #70, don’t you?

    “So why all the hysterical fuss about non-existent hiati and pauses?”
    ….and you do realize you are the one making all the fuss about the term hiatus being used by scientists, don’t you?

  86. #87 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    “I’m offering you scientific evidence (eg C&W)”

    You offered a suggestion and an estimate followed by an opinion…

  87. #88 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    It’s scientific evidence and you are denying its validity without any basis for doing so other than some kind of problem with your mind or your politics.

    Re your guff about #84 – there are the long term trends – why is it that all you can do is dodge and deny? There’s the evidence. More evidence. More than enough evidence.

  88. #89 Wow
    February 4, 2014

    Betty, you do realise that BBD’s post #84 was addressing YOUR claims, right?

  89. #90 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    Denial is not an argument, Betty. You have nothing so you are saying nothing. All I hear is noise.

  90. #91 BBD
    February 4, 2014

    #89 Yes, he knows – that’s why he’s trying to dodge the point. He does this every single time a point is raised which challenges his denial. That’s why I call him intellectually dishonest – because he is.

  91. #92 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    Betty, you do realise that BBD’s post #84 was addressing YOUR claims, right?

    Wrong.

    My comment was directed to Hardley based on his link about the “Response of ice cover on shallow lakes of the North Slope of Alaska” based on 20 years of satellite imagery and other numerical data not explained. If Hardley is constantly lecturing about long term timeframes, then why link to proof of something based on a short term timeframe. It’s called hypocrisy…

    BBD’S response had nothing to do with this….

  92. #93 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    #92, it’s called encirclement. CAGW is everywhere on any scale, see.
    Re the Alaska article, it is of course already outdated. Assess the heat of 2014 there, it is new regime.

  93. #94 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    BBD, Harvey, Wow, Lional A et cetera, it is not even necessary anymore to dick on about 15 years or 20 years or 30 years. Things are going on now that could not have happened without AGW, simple.
    Betty has a right not to see it.

  94. #95 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    Hypocrisy is now called encirclement? Was it General Custer’s tactical use of the hypocrisy defense that caused his men to be slaughtered?

  95. #96 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    #95, yes.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    February 4, 2014

    Was it General Custer’s tactical use of the hypocrisy defense that caused his men to be slaughtered?

    In a way, YES. If not hypocrisy then certainly hubris, but a bit of both.

    History not your strong suit then either, clearly.

  97. #98 Betula
    February 4, 2014

    #96 – Actually, you may have a point there..

  98. #99 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    #97, Bets came up with something there didn’t she.

  99. #100 cRR Kampen
    February 4, 2014

    #98, mirror.