January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 7, 2014

    Stu Pid: “Of course it isn’t either/or. ”
    Stu Pid earlier: “When discussing climate and weather, despite your framing, there is no a or b single right answer”

    So you’re clinically insane?

  2. #2 Stu 2
    January 7, 2014

    That’s an interesting statistic Bill.
    So does that mean that only 30% of all those people who regularly use blockquotes when they comment at sites like WUWT or Jonova or Judith Curry or numerous others are the only deniers around (based on you estimation that 70% of deniers simply cannot do this)?
    Or maybe have 90% of the 30% (or maybe the 70%?) of all those commenters revealed themselves as deniers?
    And it’s simply fascinating why, suddenly, the use of blockquotes or the non use of blockquotes (of all things) would actually reveal anything important about anyone much at all.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    January 7, 2014

    And it’s simply fascinating why, suddenly, the use of blockquotes or the non use of blockquotes (of all things) would actually reveal anything important about anyone much at all.

    Oh, it’s not “suddenly” fascinating.

    It’s long been recognised by the upper quartile that the lower quartile is over-represented in both the Denialati and in the Illiterati. It’s just that the significance of the relationship is lost on the likes of you.

    And a clue, for free. Learn to separate your paragraphs and you’ll appear to have jumped a whole quartile in an instant – it’s not just you inability to quote that renders your guff unintelligible.

    Better still, learn some science and you appear to have grown a brain overnight…

  4. #4 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    The evasions continue, so I repost the evaded for a new page.

    2Stupid get on with it.

    I am not disputing the actual statistic itself at all BBD, nor am I arguing that the climate is in a statistical stasis or, if you like, not changing.

    I’m going to take that as a “yes” to the question:

    This is not weather it is climate change with both annual and seasonal expressions. Do you accept this as a matter of fact? Yes or no.

    What known change in forcings has occurred sufficient to explain the increase in OHC and GAT?

    Here’s a clue. Please note that the vertical axis indicates the radiative forcing change associated with the change in the atmospheric fraction of each gas. You were quibbling stupidly about efficacy of forcing, so you have either not looked at these graphs or did not understand them. This is a further helpful clue for you. I have mentioned your characteristic cluelessness before.

    Now, you have two problems. First, you have to explain why the GHG forcing is inefficacious, which is going to give you headaches when you look at Cenozoic hyperthermals and Quaternary glacial cycles and orbital forcing.

    Second, you have to provide an *alternative* physical mechanism explaining the increase in OHC and GAT and – here’e the fun part – reconcile it with a climate system apparently unaffected by increased RF from GHGs.

    I don’t think you’ve understood the last bit, so perhaps you should just read it again until understanding blossoms, if it ever does.

  5. #5 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    Let’s start off as others suggest, with a basic question that you have evaded, lied about and denied already:

    - is CO2 a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state? Yes or no?

    - is CH4 a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state? Yes or no?

    No more horse-shit evasions about binary answers. These are yes/no questions. So answer them please. Then we will move on, in baby steps, towards the inevitable conclusion.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 7, 2014

    That’s interesting, Stu Pid.

    You asked a question “Since when…” and it was answered and you never acknowledged it.

    You asked a question “What does it mean…” and it was answered and you never acknowledged it.

    You seem to ask questions and then never notice the answer.

    Why do you ask questions you’re not in the least bit interested in being answered?

  7. #7 Betula
    January 7, 2014

    Back to my question…..we all agree that in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals they need to be financed. But what mechanism do we tax, and what authoritative body that speaks as a consensus can we point to in order to justify taxing that mechanism?

    If we are looking to have a legitimate authority to point to, usually it helps if that authority has some sort of award or prize we can point to in order to prove their legitimacy….like a Nobel Peace Prize:

    “As Max Weber famously said, power with legitimacy equals authority and the Nobel peace prize may be seen as symbolic of that kind of authority, what in constructivist terms is called “moral authority.” The Nobel peace prize thus becomes a sort of a moral entrepreneur and authority that in many ways then decides for example, not only who is in violation of human rights but also what human rights are!”

    http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/power-and-politics-nobel

    But what could a Peace Prize possibly have to do with the MDG’S?

    Let’s take a quick look going back to 2004:

    1. The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2004 was awarded to Wangari Maathai. Any guesses what she is up to?
    http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/advocates/members/wangari-maathai.shtml

    2. The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 was awarded to The International Atomic Energy Agency. Any guesses what they are involved with?

    http://www.iaea.org/technicalcooperation/Partnerships/Relation-UN/MDGs/

    3. The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus. Any guesses?

    http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/advocates/members/muhammad-yunus.shtml

    Here’s Ole Danbolt Mjø The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in his 2006 presentation speech:

    “The United Nations’ number one Millennium Development Goal is to halve global poverty by 2015. Achieving that goal will require global mobilization. Will you join in, will your country join in, and will national leaders join in to meet this challenge? There is a long way to go, but we must travel it together. The aim must be peace with justice in the world. And justice means a life in dignity. The Norwegian Nobel Committee underlines that “lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty”. Peace with justice must be built from below, by means to which Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank have contributed”

    http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/professor-yunus/nobel-peace-prize

    4. Martti Ahtisaari won the prize in 2008. What has Martti been up to?

    http://www.kabissa.org/tags/martti-ahtisaari

    As you can see, this award has been good for Millennium Development advocacy, still, they need to be financed by the wealthy nations that created the problems in the first place… which brings us back to the question:

    What mechanism can we use to redistribute the wealth and finance these goals? And what authoritative body that speaks as a consensus can we give this award to in order to create the moral authority needed to legitimize and justify the use of that mechanism?

  8. #8 Stu
    January 7, 2014

    And it’s simply fascinating why, suddenly, the use of blockquotes or the non use of blockquotes (of all things) would actually reveal anything important about anyone much at all.

    Asked and answered in the December thread.

    It reveals you are lazy, incompetent and/or trolling — most likely all three.

    Why do deniers try to pull this sophomoric I-didn’t-read-that or I-didn’t-like-the-answer but I-am-oh-so-fascinated-still claptrap? Sooner or later they all start doing it. I still can’t figure the reasoning… assuming people are as dumb as they are? Hoping nobody remembers? Unaware people can spend twenty seconds and prove them wrong?

    Boggles.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    January 7, 2014

    More fodder to make the 2stupids even more 2stupid has arrived as Matt Riddley scores another point that should accelerate the downfall of the GWPF, that is if the Charity Commission has any decency.

    This has just become a very big if in the light of judging by recent performance and changes at the top.

    In the next few weeks, a replacement for its lame-duck chief executive, Sam Younger, is to be interviewed (Younger leaves in August). Its Tory-appointed chair, William Shawcross, has to prove he is no mere hatchet man but can stand up to ministers over its depleted budget. Battered staff must convince auditors, and the public, that the tax privileges that come with charity registration are only awarded to deserving organisations.

    Little wonder the GWPF don’t give a fig.

  10. #10 Stu 2
    January 7, 2014

    BBD @ # 4
    Because you have inserted emotive, descriptive language in these questions and you claim you are attempting to:

    ‘move onto the inevitable conclusion’

    they are not answerable with a simple yes or no.

    Let’s try it this way:
    1) CO2 is (among other things) a greenhouse gas that plays a role in the atmosphere and the climate
    2) Methane is (among other things) a greenhouse gas that plays a role in the atmosphere and the climate.

    Both these compounds are essential for life on earth and research indicates the concentration of these compounds in our atmosphere has varied in levels throughout the history of the planet.

  11. #11 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    Because you have inserted emotive, descriptive language in these questions and you claim you are attempting to:

    ‘move onto the inevitable conclusion’

    they are not answerable with a simple yes or no.

    You are an evasive liar and this statement is patently false.

    Get on with it:

    What known change in forcings has occurred sufficient to explain the increase in OHC and GAT?

    Here’s a clue. Please note that the vertical axis indicates the radiative forcing change associated with the change in the atmospheric fraction of each gas. You were quibbling evasively about efficacy of forcing, so you have either not looked at these graphs or did not understand them.

    Now would be the time to get to grips with this.

  12. #12 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    BTW you have now conceded the following points:

    - CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state.

    And:

    - CH4 is a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state.

    Your ridiculous evasive charade notwithstanding.

  13. #13 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    #6 Real Stu

    Can you believe this idiot liar? Like Betty, right off the scale.

  14. #14 Stu 2
    January 7, 2014

    Now some questions for you BBD as we seem to have agreed that CO2 and CH4 are GHGs.
    1)What is the *major* GHG in the earth’s atmosphere?
    2)What is the current ppm of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere and what is the accepted or scientifically agreed *ideal* ppm range for our atmosphere?

  15. #15 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    Water vapour, percentage determined by the ppmv of non-condensing GHGs CO2 and CH4 (which oxidises to CO2 anyway).

    No fucking crap about “ideals”, idiot. These gasses represent forcings and if you increase them, the forcing increases – look at the graphs will you, FFS.

    We are adapted to a Holocene climate. Jack up CO2 from ~280ppm (pre-industrial Holocene) to >400ppm and you get a re-run of the Eemian, if not the mid-Pliocene. Your problem is that you don’t understand the topic and you are in denial. The question here is will you ever wake up and admit these things and start to think.

  16. #16 BBD
    January 7, 2014

    Look at the graphs.

    Look at the forcing value on the vertical axis. Think.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2014

    Dr. Spencer seems a bit unhappy about his Creationism being discussed by journalists, and goes into bat against practically the entire field of biological science in a bravura display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    In addition he asserts that he doesn’t agree with every element of the Cornwall Alliance’s position statement, which would be far more interesting if he didn’t go on to essentially argue that he doesn’t think (like the Cornwall Alliance) that our GHG emissions are OK because God won’t let us really screw things up, he thinks they’re OK because nature won’t.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    BBD, Stu2 has lost, big time. When he writes “Both these compounds are essential for life on earth and research indicates the concentration of these compounds in our atmosphere has varied in levels throughout the history of the planet” of course he is evading the question and, more importantly, the point. That is that *rapid atmospheric shifts – increases or decreases – of these gases will lead to rapid changes in biotic properties across the biosphere that will affect the the assembly and functioning of ecosystems. In turn these will affect the resilience, resistance and hence stability of ecosystems making them potentially more prone to collapse”.

    Ultimately this is the crux of it…. and how these rapid changes in biotic processes and properties will ripple through food chains and affect ecosystem services that sustain human civilization.

    Stu2 can’t debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag. That’s why blog discussions are often a waste of time. Ina face-to-face debate he could not selectively dismiss inconvenient arguments, but on the internet he can write whatever he likes and dismiss the rest. All of the deniers do it. What strikes me is how utterly useless they are when it comes to science. They don’t understand the concept of scale, they don’t know a thing about complex adaptive systems and the interplay between biotic and abiotic processes, and yet they are willing to expose their brazen stupidity on blogs. This is clearly because they actually think that they are informed.

  19. #19 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    Lotharsson

    Thanks for the link – I rarely read Spencer’s blog and would have missed this. A couple of thoughts in passing:

    Except that I view CO2 as one of those cases where nature, on a whole, benefits from more of our “pollution”. The scientific evidence is increasingly supporting this position.

    This is not a big stretch considering that CO2 is necessary for life to exist on Earth, and yet only 4 molecules out of every 10,000 in the atmosphere are CO2.

    Er, what “evidence” would that be, Roy? Perhaps RS should actually talk to ecosystem scientists instead of arguing from assertion and ignorance.

    Why do I support it [the Cornwall Alliance]? The central reason is I believe that current green energy policies are killing poor people.

    Anything that reduces prosperity kills the poor.

    Another argument from assertion that comes so close to a lie as to be indistinguishable from falsehood.

    While I’m tolerably convinced that RS is in fact sincere, there is no doubt that he is profoundly misguided.

    * * *

    Jeff Harvey

    You might have a few things to say to RS about his little sortie into fields not his own…

    And agreed about Stu2. Or maybe not. I see no evidence in our entire, painful and prolonged history of “discussions” here that Stu2 ever had an “it” to lose. He is utterly out of his depth but so sunk in denial and a bizarre, false sense that he has a clue that he continues to “argue” no matter how savagely and how often his errors are demonstrated. In that sense I fully agree that he is apparently a hopeless case.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “they are not answerable with a simple yes or no.”

    Yes they are.

    What other answer to

    is CO2 a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state?

    is CH4 a greenhouse gas capable of significantly effecting Earth’s climate state?

    Is there other than yes or no?

    Are they CAPABLE?

    Either they are or they aren’t.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “Both these compounds are essential for life on earth”

    So is cyanide.

    Apoptosis. Read it.

    So please let me know Stu Pid where I can send the cyanide for you to eat.

  22. #22 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “1)What is the *major* GHG in the earth’s atmosphere?”

    Yes.

    “2)What is the current ppm of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere and what is the accepted or scientifically agreed *ideal* ppm range for our atmosphere?”

    No.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    BBD, I read Roy’s little rant and all i can say is that it reeks of hypocrisy and simplicity. He writes nonsense like this, “Except that I view CO2 as one of those cases where nature, on a whole, benefits from more of our “pollution”. The scientific evidence is increasingly supporting this position”.

    What evidence? The evidence from natural systems doesn’t support this at all, and even that from controlled lab experiments which exclude a wide array of mitigating factors often only shows quantitative changes in plant biomass accompanied by changes in quality as a result of changing C:N:P ratios. And what about soil acidification, and other non-linear effects?

    The problem with Spencer in my opinion is that his views are clearly ideologically driven. He writes about radical environmentalism but doesn’t appear to express much concern about radical corporatism or “inverted totalitarianism”as described by Sheldon Wolin (and reiterated by Chris Hedges in the interview I pasted up here a few days ago). The US has undergone a slow motion coup-det-tat into a fully fledged corporate state, and Spencer expresses outrage over ‘radical environmentalism’, as if this group has any influence over public policy.

    Spencer in my opinion is one of those scientists who gets a lot of media attention because he is one of few supposedly qualified people whose views fall outside the academic mainstream. Yet when he writes utter bilge as in his rant, it makes me shake my head in wonder. Its essentially comic book level stuff, absolutely devoid of political or economic reality. Much of it is cringe inducing. What else can I say.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “What evidence?”

    The evidence of his claim that it is so, Jeff.

    Nothing else is needed for deniers. Just the claim, as long as it is a claim that says we should do nothing about AGW.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    Wow, you are correct. Deniers say something; no scientific evidence needs to be procured. We are supposed to accept it and move on. No questions asked.

  26. #26 Betula
    January 8, 2014

    Sloth…

    “Dr. Spencer seems a bit unhappy about his Creationism being discussed by journalists”

    Strange, you seem to have ignored the content of the original article…

    “that the “alarmists” call on governments to adopt policies reducing the amounts of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. As a result of such policies—and a fortuitous increase in natural gas production—U.S. greenhouse emissions are at a 20-year low and falling. But global emissions are rising, thanks to massive increases in energy use in the developing world, particularly in China and India. If the “alarmists” are right, then, a way must be found to compel the major developing countries to reduce carbon emissions”

    And how will we reduce carbon emissions in the developing nations that we are morally obligated to develope? And where will the financing come from to do this?

    “But Lindzen rejects the dire projections. For one thing, he says that the Summary for Policymakers is an inherently problematic document. The IPCC report itself, weighing in at thousands of pages, is “not terrible. It’s not unbiased, but the bias [is] more or less to limit your criticism of models,” he says. The Summary for Policymakers, on the other hand—the only part of the report that the media and the politicians pay any attention to—“rips out doubts to a large extent. .  .  . [Furthermore], government representatives have the final say on the summary.” Thus, while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.”

    Why would government representatives boil down the uncertainties to reduce doubt? Hmmm?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=3

  27. #27 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    #22; #23

    Per Spencer, who argues from assertion. Somehow I missed the fact that he also uses one of the oldest, and most debunked denier myths of all: the “CO2 is a trace gas” myth. I need to modify my own remarks – while I believe Spencer’s religious faith is sincere, it is hard to believe that an atmospheric scientist of his experience can seriously present the “trace gas” fallacy.

    Perhaps I should have said that the problem here is that Spencer’s belief system goes much further than embracing Christianity (see Jeff’s #21).

  28. #28 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    Betty, stop paying attention to Lindzen and Spencer. Neither has any remaining credibility.

  29. #29 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    Why would government representatives boil down the uncertainties to reduce doubt? Hmmm?

    You are arguing without any proof whatsoever. Just as discussed above – you argue from assertion which is a logical fallacy beloved of deniers.

    Since you argue from assertion and commit a formal logical fallacy, you have actually said nothing at all except that you are frighteningly biased and unbalanced in your views and can consequently be ignored with impunity.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    I checked up on Spencer’s publication list since 1990: there are 29. And these have only 1100 citations.

    In other words, extremely mediocre. And yet Spencer is touted as a household name in denier circles. What this shows is how thin on the ground denier ranks are in terms of qualified scientists. Even Lindzen’s publication and citation rate are not that extraordinary. And he’s considered to be the ‘dean’of scientists in the area.

  31. #31 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “Why would government representatives boil down the uncertainties to reduce doubt?”

    We didn’t KNOW Hitler wanted to rule Europe. There were uncertainties in working out what he wanted.

    Why would deniers want to do nothing in the face of evidence that change is necessary?

  32. #32 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “For one thing, he says that the Summary for Policymakers is an inherently problematic document.”

    He also says that the bible is the most scientifically accurate report of prehistory.

  33. #33 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    The problem with Lindzen is that his relatively few publications supporting his only real scientifically relevant climate change argument – that of low climate sensitivity – have been comprehensively rebutted. He has no scientific case yet he keeps on pretending that his position has scientific merit. It doesn’t. But that matter of fact doesn’t stop “sceptics” waving Lindzen at us at every turn. If they only realised how weak this was I suspect they’d drop him pretty quickly. But they are “sceptics” not sceptics, so they do not bother to check the facts.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    Its funny that the same people have been constantly touted as experts when downplaying AGW since the early 1990s: Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy, Carter, Ball, Baliunas, Soon, Idso’s, Balling, Singer, etc. I recall that a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute in about 1997 warned that the fossil fuel lobby risked “losing credibility with the public” in the warming debate if they continued to rely on the same tired, old faces to argue their case. So the memo recommended that a new generation of climate scientists needed to be ‘recruited’ to argue the case against AGW.

    So where are we now 17 years later? The “sceptics” are still dependent on the same people: Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Michaels, Singer et al.

    That should say something: that the denial industry has great trouble finding those ‘new names’. So they are forced to stick with the dinosaurs.

  35. #35 Lionel A
    January 8, 2014

    And furthermore, the culpable behaviour of such as Lindzen [1] is giving cover for this sort of vandalism:

    08/012014 Government misleads on well abandonment – a vital issue and another government failure.

    Time for a UK version of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, perhaps.

    [1]as with his talk in a side room of Whitehall the intent of which was to mess with the brains of lay politicians and lookers on, TVMOB had a hand in this too doubtless working with, or for, the GWPF.

  36. #36 Betula
    January 8, 2014

    “You are arguing without any proof whatsoever”

    Really? Then explain to me how it looks like the IPCC AR5 makes a weaker case for AGW than the AR4, yet the AR5 SPM increased it’s level of confidence regarding AGW?

    “Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:”

    ◾Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
    ◾Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
    ◾Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
    ◾Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
    ◾Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

    http://judithcurry.com/about/

  37. #37 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “ou are arguing without any proof whatsoever”

    Really?

    Yes, really.

  38. #38 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “explain to me how it looks like the IPCC AR5 makes a weaker case for AGW than the AR4, yet the AR5 SPM increased it’s level of confidence regarding AGW?”

    How you interpret things to say what you’d like is a problem of your own making, we cannot explain the inscrutable exhortations of your ideological fantasies.

  39. #39 Wow
    January 8, 2014

    “◾Lack of warming since 1998″

    No lack exists. There’s plenty.

    “◾Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2″

    And evidence of increased sensitivity of the environment to climate changes.

    “◾Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012″

    So what.

    “◾Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent”

    Spreading butter does not increase the amount of butter on your toast when it melts the butter.

    “◾Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming ”

    Weather is not climate.

  40. #40 Betula
    January 8, 2014

    Sorry, wrong link above

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

    “Spreading butter does not increase the amount of butter on your toast when it melts the butter”

    Unless, like you, you spread it on thick…

  41. #41 Betula
    January 8, 2014

    “Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming”

    Wow…..”Weather is not climate”

    So extreme weather events shouldn’t be attributed to AGW? Wow, I’m surprised you feel that way, but thanks for your honesty.

  42. #42 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    Oh fuck off with the tired denier myths and misrepresentations Betty:

    - Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections

    Excludes OHC increase, ignores transient variability in ocean heat uptake, relies on statistically insignificant cherry-pick of surface T and a misrepresentation of the skill and design purpose of climate models. This claim is misleading and without merit.

    - Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2

    You fucking what? Reference this bollocks please. For the exact opposite evidence, see Hansen et al. (2013); Caballero & Huber (2013); Trenberth & Fasullo (2013); Sherwood et al. (2014).

    - Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012

    What a stupid and blatant cherry-pick. Look at the whole century.

    - Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent

    Anthropogenic – increased zonal windspeeds > increased upwelling > increased basal melt from ice shelves > increased glacial flow rate > increased ice mass loss > increased surface freshening > increased sea ice. Do some fucking reading, chump.

    - Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

    Misrepresentation. There remains low confidence in attributing extreme storminess to AGW. Extreme summer heatwaves are clearly statistically related to increasing surface temperatures.

    Betty, that Curry post has been absolutely shredded, and with it any last remnants of JC’s credibility. It is misrepresentation from start to finish. Same problem as with Spencer and Lindzen. Use reliable sources, not fringe contrarians.

  43. #43 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    This is funny:

    Really? Then explain to me how it looks like the IPCC AR5 makes a weaker case for AGW than the AR4, yet the AR5 SPM increased it’s level of confidence regarding AGW?

    Easy, Betty, easy:

    - The summary of scientific evidence in AR5 provides a virtually unshakable case for AGW which is reflected in the SPM.

    - Curry’s post is complete and utter bollocks that grotesquely misrepresents AR5!

    Try the razor of Occam, Betty.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    January 8, 2014

    Try the razor of Occam, Betty.

    Yep, and preferably try riding it. Curry has and has split with the bigger half falling into flat out ideological denierland.

    Have you studied the AR5? BTW did you note the ‘Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute’ caveat.

    Curry and other in denierland have broken the covenant forcing the hand of others. That is not the way a respectable tenured scientist should behave. If Rita Skeeter had not beaten her to it Curry would be writing for ‘The Daily Prophet’.

    Besides each one of your/her points is total tosh, formed on baseless assertions and easily debunked. And have been time and time but I don’t expect anybody like you showing signs of having had a lobotomy would remember all that.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 8, 2014

    I see Betty still refuses to consult the primary literature and depends on blogs.

  46. #46 BBD
    January 8, 2014

    What use has Betty for the primary literature? It does not tell Betty what Betty wishes to hear, so off to the denier blogs it is.

  47. #47 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    Wow…..”Weather is not climate”

    So extreme weather events shouldn’t be attributed to AGW?

    Why do you claim that, Betty? I never did. Neither does AR5.

  48. #48 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    Excludes OHC increase, ignores transient variability in ocean heat uptake, relies on statistically insignificant cherry-pick of surface T and a misrepresentation of the skill and design purpose of climate models. This claim is misleading and without merit.

    Is also entirely wrong.

    There has been plenty of warming going on in the years since 1998.

  49. #49 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    Given you only had riposte for “Weather is not Climate”, Betty, you accept that

    * There has been plenty warming since 1998
    * Climate is more sensitive to changes in global temperatures
    * Ice extent increases are solely from spreading less ice out further over the sea
    * The sea level rise thing was completely meaningless

  50. #50 Betula
    January 9, 2014

    “see Hansen et al. (2013)”

    Ah yes Barney, climate sensitivity and Hansen. And who is Hansen working for these days?

  51. #51 Lionel A
    January 9, 2014

    ◾Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
    Betula at #34

    ◾Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2

    ◾Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

    Of mislead one, here is another strike for those zombies:

    Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive to CO2, new research shows.

    Oh and look what has happened to the Medieval Climate Optimum.

    The study finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years. The authors find a detectable greenhouse gas influence on the climate before the 20th century, and consistent with the IPCC and Imbers, they conclude that humans are the dominant cause of recent global warming.

    There, clear enough for you?

  52. #52 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    #48

    And who is Hansen working for these days?

    University of Colombia, IIRC. Are you conspiracy theorising again, you nutter?

    Read the fucking reference and say something sane for a change.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    “And who is Hansen working for these days?”

    Yeah, someone who has a job, MUST be unreliable!

    LOL!

  54. #54 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    Hansen et al. (2013) Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric CO2.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    January 9, 2014

    Betula

    Hansen, pah!

    Who are Michaels, Lindzen, Christy and Spencer working for these days:

    Pat Michaels admits: ’40 percent’ of funding comes from big oil.?

    Why don’t you go do something useful like tracking and eradicating those beetles. Do not happenings in the biosphere shout loud enough for you that what is happening with climate ain’t good for even the medium let alone long term.

    If your house catches fire do you wait around arguing with people about how much might be destroyed rather than doing something to limit the damage? Remember at some point properties will become uninsurable.

    Meanwhile take a look at this:

    Polar Vortex in U.S. May be Example of Global Warming and note the links to:

    Relateds
    While Most of U.S. Froze, Parts of Alaska Set Record Highs
    2013 on Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850
    In Australia, 2013 Was a Scorcher for the Record Books
    Study Adds to Arctic Warming, Extreme Weather Debate
    Arctic Outbreak: When the North Pole Came to Ohio
    Coldest Air in Decades Clearing Customs, Entering U.S.

    Against all this Curry’s blatherings are witless.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    January 9, 2014

    Wild weather, some before and after.

    That promenade shelter at Aberystwyth, left of centre in lower left picture (I’ll bet that makes Betty’s head spin), has been wrecked along with much else.

  57. #57 Betula
    January 9, 2014

    - “There has been plenty warming since 1998″

    We’re just unsure where…though we have some theories

    - “Climate is more sensitive to changes in global temperatures”

    But we can’t give a best estimate of ECS….because observations are lower than climate model projections. Plus, dropping the lower threshold means a slight increase in uncertainty…which of course would make in more sensitive.

    - Ice extent increases are solely from spreading less ice out further over the sea

    Wow’s Hypothesis – The butter extent set a new melting maximum record in September, which caused margarinal research ships to become stuck on toast.

    - “The sea level rise thing was completely meaningless”

    The AR5 states…

    “It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century.”

    and..

    “It is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s”

    But, as Curry stated:

    “It is seen that the rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. This IPCC’s analysis does not support an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the latter 20th century, and hence the data does not support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.”

  58. #58 Olaus Petri
    January 9, 2014
  59. #59 Betula
    January 9, 2014

    “University of Colombia, IIRC. Are you conspiracy theorising again, you nutter?”

    Strange that you can’t even get your hero’s employer right….he’s an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

    1. Let’s look at the Earth institutes mission:

    “By blending scientific research, education and practical solutions, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, is working to help guide the world onto a path toward sustainability”

    “Earth Institute experts work hand-in-hand with academia, corporations, government agencies, nonprofits and individuals. They advise national governments and the United Nations on issues related to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals”

    “The Earth Institute uses the following working definition of Sustainable Development:
    Sustainable development signifies the ability of the world to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor”

    2. Let’s look at the Earth Institutes Director:

    Professor Jeffery Sachs:

    ” He is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He is co-founder and Chief Strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, and is director of the Millennium Villages Project. Sachs is also one of the Secretary-General’s MDG Advocates, and a Commissioner of the ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Development. He has authored three New York Times bestsellers in the past seven years: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)”

    3. Lets take a look at a few members of the Advisory Board:

    - Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri was born in Nainital, India, on 20 August 1940

    - George Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary on August 12, 1930.

    And no Barney, I’m not conspiracy theorizing, I’m simply stating that Hansen’s being a professor for an organization who’s mission is to achieve the Millennium Development Goals through redistribution of wealth and that just so happens to have the head of the IPCC and George Soros on it’s advisory board is just a coincidence, that’s all.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    Woof Woof Woof, Olap!

  61. #61 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    “There has been plenty warming since 1998″

    We’re just unsure where

    Nope, we see it in the record temperatures of 2010, 2005 and 2012. You know, the temperature record of the atmosphere.

    DO try to keep up, you silly little girl.

    But we can’t give a best estimate of ECS

    Indeed, you deniers are completely unable to give one.

    However, the IPCC has little problem doing so because they have the science to back up their claims.

    Wow’s Hypothesis

    Nope, part of the definition of solids and liquids, dear.

    I know you missed out on ALL schooling, but very few of us have had such a shockingly lacking education as you.

    But, as Curry stated:

    In error…

  62. #62 Betula
    January 9, 2014
  63. #63 Wow
    January 9, 2014

    “Strange that you can’t even get your hero”

    Strange that you should try to make that claim: “Hero”.

    Obviously, projection.

    You adore Curry, therefore you love Judith.

  64. #64 Betula
    January 9, 2014

    “However, the IPCC has little problem doing so because they have the science to back up their claims”

    Yet, with all that science, for some reason they didn’t do so…

  65. #65 Lionel A
    January 9, 2014

    Betula.

    Here is an idea. Why don’t you study the AR5 draft for yourself and find out what it says in toto, rather than believe Curry’s spin?

    You could do worse that running a search within AR5 draft on ‘sea level rise’. Doing this you will also find clues as to where much of the Earth’s heat in-balance has gone.

  66. #66 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    So, Betty, as I suspected, you are indulging in your stupid fucking conspiracy theory INSTEAD of reading the reference and commenting on it like a rational actor.

    Thanks for confirming that you are not a rational actor.

  67. #67 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    Oh, and BTW Betty, that Hansen paper was written and submitted before JH resigned from NASA GISS.

  68. #68 Betula
    January 9, 2014

    “Oh, and BTW Betty, that Hansen paper was written and submitted before JH resigned from NASA GISS”

    Poor Barney. Do you know where the GISS is located?

    That’s right Barney, just another coincidence.

    And do you know what GISS is a unit of?

    Please say it isn’t so…

    “The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, at Columbia University in New York City, is a laboratory of the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute”

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/01/giss.html

    Next.

  69. #69 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    So NASA is part of the conspiracy is it Betty? CU too? Everybody who submitted papers to the PALAEOSENS Project? Everybody who submitted papers to that Royal Society Phil Trans A Discussion Meeting Issue?

    You nutter.

  70. #70 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    There’s nothing you wouldn’t do to avoid actually reading the studies and using your brain honestly is there Betty?

  71. #71 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    “The Earth Institute uses the following working definition of Sustainable Development:
    Sustainable development signifies the ability of the world to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor”

    Fucking Commies!

  72. #72 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    Yet, with all that science, for some reason they didn’t do so…

    Because there is no formal way of reconciling modelled studies, paleoclimate studies and the so-called “observational” estimates of S. If you had a scintilla of a fucking clue, Betty, you would know why AR5 contains no singular “best estimate” for S. They were sticking to the best scientific practice. But everybody else knows that it’s still ~3C/2xCO2 or maybe higher because of positive cloud feedback as the troposphere warms.

    Try reading some of the literature instead of devoting your time to stupid, insane conspiracy theories and it’s amazing what you could learn.

  73. #73 Stu
    January 9, 2014

    DID HE ACTUALLY JUST BRING UP GEORGE SOROS?

  74. #74 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    Yup. Glad someone noticed. But in a way, it’s superfluous. Betty has outed himself a dozen times over already as the Totally Tinfoil Man.

    Perhaps it will be lizards next. Who knows or cares?

    Notice what Betty will not do: he will not address the actual science. Everything Betty does – and there’s quite a bit of everything – is denial and avoidance. Everything.

  75. #75 BBD
    January 9, 2014

    I suppose someone should also point out to Betty that while CU EI describes GISS as “a unit of EI” this is a bit cheeky. GISS is part of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre. It is affiliated by tradition with CU, but CU has no administrative control over it whatsoever. GISS belongs to NASA.

    Perhaps Betty will be interested to research GISS founder Robert Jastrow. Perhaps Betty’s little edifice of conspiracy theories will totter when he discovers what GISS founder Robert Jastrow had to say about AGW…

    ;-)

  76. #76 adelady
    January 10, 2014

    I know Betty has mentioned Soros, but please.

    If we’re going full bore into conspiracy tinfoil territory, could everyone, please,spare a thought for all of us green-commie-femo-masons. We seem to have been left out of all this shapeshifting illuminati UN alien lizard stuff recently and we’re getting a bit lonely and disconsolate over in our neglected and ignored corner of the stereotype club.

  77. #77 BBD
    January 10, 2014

    You are the final secret. Or rather, you were, until you blew it wide open. Do you realise that you have set back the advance towards World Socialism by decades sister-comrade? What were you thinking of? This is individualism and it must be rooted out. Off to the re-education camps with you.

  78. #78 adelady
    January 10, 2014

    Oh dear, individualism. How can that be?

    I thought I was part of the feminist hivemind. I think it’d be best to keep this to myself.

  79. #79 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    “Poor Barney. Do you know where the GISS is located?”

    Planet earth, betty.

  80. #80 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    “Yet, with all that science, for some reason they didn’t do so…”

    They did.

    Go look.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    January 10, 2014

    Meanwhile Betula, your so called ‘democracy’ will take another hit as globalisation takes another lurch to the right:

    Congress is about to sign away it’s Constitutional right to oversee a huge trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or TPP for short) — and members of Congress won’t even get a chance to read the agreement first! .

    You worry about conspiracies of ‘socialists’ whilst turning a blind eye to this kind of conspiracy to gain even more power over the increasingly helpless human population of the world.

    Why are these socio-paths so secretive? Because they know it won’t play well if the truth is known. Heck we see this in our country (UK) where the already disadvantaged are going to be squeezed further by a chancellor who has broken all humanitarian bounds in pursuit of wealth and power. Why the secrecy around the ‘gagging bill’ [1] which is not unconnected to the push for environmentally and agriculturally dangerous fracking and its allied techniques for unconventional (expensive) fossil fuel extraction [2].

    Both crimes against humanity.

    Note the police are now acting somewhat like the STASI of East Germany.

    Go find out what fracking is doing to the US, also transporting of that explosive tar sands filth.

    [1] Gagging bill latest: It’s a bleak midwinter for Britain’s democracy .

    [2] Government misleads on well abandonment – a vital issue and another government failure.

    and

    Are the police acting unlawfully by removing visible proof that they are making violent arrests for obstructing the highway when in fact it is a public footpath.

  82. #82 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    We the geeks have a message for betty and pals:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/we-the-geeks

  83. #83 FrankD
    January 10, 2014

    Australian Bureau of Meteorology have launched a new pilot forecast page for heatwaves plotted by area and intensity. A bit short-range for optimum utility, but interesting and useful, and rather overdue.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/heatwave/index.shtml

    From their FAQ page:

    Australia is a hot country so why do we need a heatwave service?

    Severe and extreme heatwaves have taken more lives than any other natural hazard in Australia’s 200 year history. For example, during the 2009 Victorian bushfires, 173 people perished as a direct result of the bushfires, however 374 people lost their lives to extreme heat in Victoria in the heatwave before the bushfires.

    (To say nothing of the probably greater number of vulnerable people who survive but who suffer immediate, dramatic and permanent impacts on their quality of life, such as heatstroke leading to permanent cognitive impairment).

  84. #84 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    Compare the action and expense of defending against shark attacks and the rate of deaths with the action done by the same Australian government on heatwaves.

    Abbott’s actions on climate would be like going to Bondi beach and throwing chum in the water during high season…

  85. #85 Betula
    January 10, 2014

    Yet, with all that science, for some reason they didn’t do so…

    Wow…..”They did.”

    Um No, they didn’t.

    Just ask Barney….”Because there is no formal way of reconciling modelled studies, paleoclimate studies and the so-called “observational” estimates of S. If you had a scintilla of a fucking clue”

    You two need to get on the same page. This is becoming awfully embarrassing for you.

  86. #86 Betula
    January 10, 2014

    “GISS is part of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre. It is affiliated by tradition with CU, but CU has no administrative control over it whatsoever. GISS belongs to NASA.”

    Let’s see, up until I had to educate you as to where Hansen works and the location of GISS, you were completely clueless. Now, you are the expert on the inner workings of the GISS, attempting to separate it as far as possible from the EI. How rich.

    And now you believe the opinions of the founder of the GISS, who hadn’t been associated with GISS for over 30 years before his death, represent the inner working of the GISS today….just as the opinions of John Coleman, the founder of The Weather channel, represent the inner workings of The Weather Channel today, and the opinions of Patrick Moore, the Founder of Greenpeace, represent the inner workings of Greenpeace today…

    Your a regular genius you are…

  87. #87 Betula
    January 10, 2014

    That would be “You’re”

  88. #88 Betula
    January 10, 2014

    “I know Betty has mentioned Soros, but please”

    Actually, it was the Columbia Universities Earth Institute web page that mentioned Soros….as an advisor. Must be for his climate expertise….I’m sure that’s what it is. Perhaps he’s advising Hansen.

  89. #89 Betula
    January 10, 2014

    “Why are these socio-paths so secretive? Because they know it won’t play well if the truth is known.”

    Congratulations Lionel, you are officially a conspiracy theorist…

  90. #90 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    “Um No, they didn’t.”

    Um No, they did.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    “Congratulations Lionel, you are officially a conspiracy theorist”

    Ah, asking a question of you, Betty, is a conspiracy, is it?

    How does that work?

    Or was that another conspiracy theory I just did?

  92. #92 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    “Actually, it was the Columbia Universities Earth Institute web page that mentioned Soros….as an advisor.”

    Nope, they didn’t come on here and mention Soros, Betty.

    YOU did.

  93. #94 Stu
    January 10, 2014

    Oh, for those who don’t know George Soros (all quotes from Wiki):

    Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal political causes. Between 1979 and 2011, Soros gave away over $8 billion to causes related to human rights, public health, and education. He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89) and provided one of Europe’s largest higher education endowments to Central European University in Budapest.

    Key word there being liberal, of course. He dares to be rich and liberal, and we just can’t have that. He MUST be stopped.

    How crazy do right-wingers get over George Soros?

    In 2005, Soros was a minority partner in a group that tried to buy the Washington Nationals, a Major League baseball team.

    That’s not the crazy bit. This is:

    Some Republican lawmakers suggested that they might move to revoke baseball’s antitrust exemption if Soros bought the team.

    Just in case anyone was confused and thought that people like Betty are in any way rational about this.

  94. #95 Stu
    January 10, 2014

    And besides, Betty, all your fake whining and outrage is just window-dressing. The real work of corporatization is getting done just fine, and the “liberal media” is dutifully failing to call attention to it.

    To wit: the TPA is probably going to pass without the average US citizen having clue one what it’s about and what it will do, or if they DID manage to catch a blurb, odds are they are 180 degrees wrong about it.

    So what is the problem, Betty? You’re getting your way.

  95. #96 BBD
    January 10, 2014

    Let’s see, up until I had to educate you as to where Hansen works and the location of GISS, you were completely clueless.

    What are you talking about? A fucking typo? Colombia >>> Columbia? And I *knew* where GISS is – you introduced that later. If this is supposed to be a gotcha it is more than usually crap.

    * * *

    What is at issue here – and you are continuing with this behaviour – is that you flatly refuse to read the fucking reference. Instead you tenaciously persist in infantile misdirections.

    This started off very simply: you made an unwise assertion about S which I countered with four (4) references. You then re-started your lunatic conspiracy theory rubbish because, well, Hansen. You nutters always go off at the deep end when his name comes up, but so fucking what. This is about a scientific argument over S. So engage in same. RTFR and respond.

    Enough utterly nutterly squirrels.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    January 10, 2014

    Betty boops again,

    Congratulations Lionel, you are officially a conspiracy theorist…

    I don’t think you know the meaning of the term and if you had read to which I linked you would understand that there is no theory involved.

  97. #98 Wow
    January 10, 2014

    Betty’s hypothesis:

    Every court case with evidence of the defendant being guilty of the crime is a conspiracy theorist.

  98. #99 Jeff Harvey
    January 10, 2014

    I think any of Chris Hedge’s recent interviews on the Real News Network or articles for Truth Dig show exactly what has happened to the political landscape in his allegedly democratic country… ditto Sheldon Wolin et al. “Inverted totalitarianism” is how Wolin describes it, and yet there’s nothing remotely conspiracy-related in the shift to corporate government. Sure, the shift has come by wealth and stealth, but it should be out in the open.

  99. #100 BBD
    January 11, 2014

    The road to nowhere.