February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #2 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2014
  2. #3 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2014

    Dang, beaten by Stu – but not on the old thread!

    ;-)

  3. #4 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    Bernard says this :
    “As I’ve noted on several other sites, there is no hiatus, no pause in global warming”

    And links this:
    “the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001″

    ” which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001.”

    Silly scientists.

  4. #5 cRR Kampen
    February 10, 2014

    #4, silly how you mix up ‘global’ with less than 3% of the climate system. Silly Bets.

  5. #6 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    Silly, Betty, where have you said the scientists have it wrong and proved it?

    Go on, prove there’s a haitus!

  6. #7 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “Go on, prove there’s a haitus!”

    I’m not the one who said it, the scientists are. See Bernards link at #2…

    You’re welcome.

  7. #8 Jeff Harvey
    February 10, 2014

    Betula and other denier/downplayer memes;

    “Say anything so we don’t do anything”. In other words, clutch at every straw, no matter how flimsy, just to ensure that the main policy remains business-as-usual….

    The hiatus is the latest straw. Before that it was the sun, before that there was no warming, etc. How long these people will distort and deceive to ensure that we continue spiraling towards hell in a hand basket is anyone’s guess.

  8. #9 chek
    February 10, 2014

    What Betty’s given quote says: “hiatus in surface warming ”

    What Betty sees: “hiatus in all warming”

    And that’s Bettytoofuckedinthehead’s comprehension of plain, simple English, never mind more difficult concepts.

  9. #10 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “How long these people will distort and deceive to ensure that we continue spiraling towards hell in a hand basket is anyone’s guess”

    Are you referring to the scientists?

  10. #11 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Technically correct terminology for the confused (eg Betty; 2Stupid):

    There has been a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Most precise definitions of “hiatus” and “pause” can be expressed as “temporary halt” which is not correct when applied to surface warming.

    Arguing over definitional nitpicks is a deniers’ favourite time-wasting tactic, so let’s not bother.

    The important things to remember are that the reduction in the rate of surface warming will be transient as the climate system remains in radiative imbalance and that imbalance is increasing over time. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as a whole, which is mostly ocean. OHC increased sharply in the 0 – 2000m layer during 2013, demonstrating unequivocally that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as a whole. That is called “global warming”.

  11. #12 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Betty

    What do you think is the cause of the increased rate [of sea level rise in recent decades relative to late Holocene average], Betula?

    Let’s remember that water expands when it warms up and ice melts when it warms up, both of which cause mean sea level to rise.

    Let’s factor in that pesky long term GAT graph that you won’t talk about, plus any OHC reconstruction you like for the last few decades, and those world glacier mass balance graphs you don’t want to discuss and…

    What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?

    You *still* have not told us. Please answer those questions before we continue further.

  12. #13 cRR Kampen
    February 10, 2014

    Oimjakon, Russia today -12.5° C. Busted the ‘old’ Feb record by almost 3° C (‘old’ is 2010 in this case).
    Yesterday date record at -22.2° C.

  13. #14 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “What Betty’s given quote says: “hiatus in surface warming ”

    Quote:
    “the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001″

    I must have mistaken “global average surface air temperatures” for the surface of the globe average air temperatures..

  14. #15 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “Go on, prove there’s a haitus!”

    I’m not the one who said it

    No, you did say it.

    You claim there’s a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks.

  15. #16 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    SO, Betty, I take it that you disagree that there’s been any haitus.

  16. #17 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    Looks like Betty thinks there’s been more warming than before!

    SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A DENIER CHANGE THEIR MIND!

    Well done, dear!

  17. #18 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001

    Actually it has trended up at 0.05 – 0.1C/decade with the higher figure more likely to be accurate (see Cowtan & Way 2013; in press).

  18. #19 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Ahem.

    Arguing over definitional nitpicks is a deniers’ favourite time-wasting tactic, so let’s not bother.

    Betty – please answer the questions at #12 instead of playing denialist distraction games.

  19. #20 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?”

    I don’t recall denying any of that. Though it’s not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe…
    Don’t you find it interesting that the report Bernard linked to just came out? This is new information and a new idea about what the scientist are calling a “hiatus”. How can this be? I thought we knew everything?

    Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc…all still misunderstood apparently. Yet we manage to punch all the uncertainties into GCM’S to come up with accurate predictions of future hypothetical worst case scenarios…interesting.

    Also interesting, is that the article quotes Steve Rintoul who, it just so happens, I went to High School with. Steve studies ocean currents in Antarctica and works for CSIRO…

    I was talking to him last summer at our 35th high school reunion….he told me that the they need more data in his field of research to make any conclusions about anything…the science of studying ocean currents in this area is way to young and more information is needed…

  20. #21 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “You claim there’s a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks”

    I just link to what the scientists say. You read the links and claim they didn’t say it.

  21. #22 FrankD
    February 10, 2014

    Jeepers, Tamino’s caught a live one. Got a clowntroll who thinks that using all the available data is a cherry pick, put selecting two points from a dataset with 12500 data points in it is sensible. Best unintentional comedy I’ve seen for a while.

    I must say, the quality of denial (just either by misdirected intellect or sheer unintentional entertainment) has really gone down over the last few years, on all the blogs I read and the smaller group I post at as well. WUWT collapsing into infighting, the almost-sensible-but-misguided having to make common cause with tinfoil hatters, not even imitation serious science to put on the table – its like they’re not even trying anymore.

    Now, I realise Duffer’s probably too busy bailing out his house and Mikey needs a new keyboard beause his hyphen key jammed, so neither of them can post here, but who does that leave? Olaus, who makes clowntrolls past look like Nobel Laureates; GSW, who still hasn’t seen the “kick me” sign stuck on his back for going on four years and Betula, who tries so hard to be Brangelina but only manages to be Kimye. Kind of like kidding yourself you’re serving civet coffee when its really just Getreidekaffee…

    Nil desperandum guys, no doubt you’re regretting nailing your colours to the “no global warming since YYYY” mast, but I’m sure someone will toss you another talking point soon…

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    February 10, 2014

    “Are you referring to the scientists?”

    Scientists aren’t the ones clutching at every straw to deny, deny and deny Batty. The goalpost shifters are the deniers. The latest mantra is the alleged ‘hiatus’. But that pre-supposes that there was warming until recently. But wait – until recently according to your lot it wasn’t warming! What gives? There can’t be a hiatus if it didn’t warm to begin with. Oh yes, I forgot: those convenient ‘natural cycles’ and/or ‘its the sun’. Its a doomsday myth, its the sun, it is warming, it isn’t, and if it is its not due to us…. the list of lies and distortions is endless.

    Anything, so long as humans are not culpable.

    The debate was actually ‘over’ more than a decade ago, but given the influence of those with power and privilege on policy, its a small wonder that humanity is intent on going over the precipice. And they can thank the army of idiots helping them along. Just look at the intellectual ‘quality’ of most of the comments to the Independent article Bernard linked. Bottom-feeders. But they all think they know what they are talking about. Sad.

  23. #24 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    I don’t recall denying any of that. Though it’s not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe…

    You are wriggling again.

    Let me make it simpler:

    Do you deny that –

    There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

  24. #25 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    How can this be? I thought we knew everything?

    A really stupid strawman. Stop it Betty.

  25. #26 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc…all still misunderstood apparently.

    This is just a stupid lie, Betty. Stop it.

  26. #27 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?”

    I don’t recall denying any of that

    Well, yet more expected “I’m not saying nuthin'” from Betty, but HILARIOUSLY then goes immediately to go on with:

    Though it’s not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe…

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc…all still misunderstood apparently.

    Ah, since the only one who thinks it doesn’t exist is you, Betty, that would be YOU misunderstanding them, dearie!

  27. #28 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “You claim there’s a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks”

    I just link to what the scientists say.

    Ah, a reality denier too!

    But do you agree that you DO NOT think that there has been any temperature haitus, dearie?

  28. #29 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “But do you agree that you DO NOT think that there has been any temperature haitus, dearie?”

    In terms of “hiatus” I agree with the scientists in Bernard’s link.

    Thanks Bernard, for backing me on this.

  29. #30 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    In terms of “hiatus” I agree with the scientists in Bernard’s link.

    So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty.

    Like I said, eventually a denier changes their mind and agrees that there is genuinely global warming going on!

  30. #31 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    In terms of “hiatus” I agree with the scientists in Bernard’s link.

    So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty.

    Like I said, eventually a denier changes their mind and agrees that there is genuinely global warming going on!

  31. #32 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    I wish you would actually read the links people provide. From Bernard J’s link at #2:

    “The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Prof England said.

    “Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”

    The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

    “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.

    “We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

    England is talking about ENSO, or more precisely, the La Nina phase of ENSO. You should know that LN has been predominant over the last decade and this explains much of the recent slowdown in the rate of surface warming which is commonly but erroneously characterised by scientists as a “pause” or “hiatus” – terms apparently picked up from the MSM which has been targeted relentlessly by misinformers and deniers misleadingly over-emphasising the importance of this transient phenomenon.

    * * *

    Just look at you though, Betty. You cannot leave this alone. You are trolling with it for all you are worth but at the same time avoiding facing up to the core issues:

    – CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing

    – OHC is increasing rapidly (QED)

    – The slowdown in surface warming is a transient phenomenon

    – Decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales

    – The long-term trend is our real concern

  32. #33 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Let’s remind ourselves that the climate system is mostly ocean. Let’s have another look at OHC 0 – 2000m.

    That is global warming in correct usage.

  33. #34 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    BBD, the long post there is hiding the salient fact:

    Betty thinks that there has been no haitus and that Global Warming is still underway.

    They just can’t bring themselves to say it.

    Probably afraid they’ll be crucified for apostasy!

  34. #35 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty”

    I agree with the scientists that claim…”the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001″

    English is obviously not your strong suit.

  35. #36 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty”

    I agree with the scientists that claim

    So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, then, Betty?

    Is it REALLY so difficult to say what you think? You’ve prattled what you think plenty of times without equivocation before, when it led to “There is no problem to deal with”, what’s the problem now?

    Why are you unable to actually say that what you think? Because it’s that there is continuing global warming?

  36. #37 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    Or do you claim that there has been a haitus, which really does rather indicate that you have been whining in, for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus!

  37. #38 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Sure Wow. Either we decide that the OHC data are faked by a cabal of climate scientists hell-bent on ushering in world socialism or we accept what they say: global warming in its correct usage hasn’t stopped or even slowed down. Decadal variability in the rate of surface temperature warming is a normal part of natural variability. It’s only desperate deniers who try to make a big deal out of this by claiming – incorrectly – that “global warming has stopped”. I do wish actual scientists would be more careful with the fucking terminology though – it encourages the denial monkeys.

  38. #39 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.

    “We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

  39. #40 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    I do wish actual scientists would be more careful with the fucking terminology though – it encourages the denial monkeys.

    I suspect politicians. They will insist that any official word contain nothing that would “alarm” “important people” or cause some connected lobby group to create problems for an MP. Therefore they will want to vet every word and insert as much scope for plausible deniability of what’s said (see Betty for the classic example of “say nothing in every word”).

    When media barons keep talking about “What about this haitus”, then the IPCC reports are going to be asked to put something about “this haitus” into it.

  40. #41 Jeff Harvey
    February 10, 2014

    As I said, anything to deny, deny, deny. The alleged hiatus is the latest thread of comfort for this bunch of deceivers. Note the important point the Birchy leaves out”that the heat has been taken up by the oceans. Once some threshold is reached, probably around 2020, the warming starts again. They explained it.

    All Batty can do is to say there is a hiatus – and leave it at that. No depth. Ne analytical thinking. Just, ‘there’s a hiatus’. The tow warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005 respectively. All of the warmest 10 years have occurred since 1998. But none of this matters to the deniers.

    Is it really worth debating them then? They cannot debate science because science is not their strong suit to begin with, and second, they only (ab)use science to bolster a very different agenda.

  41. #42 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “As I said, anything to deny, deny, deny.”

    Heck, Betty is reduced to denying anything they’ve said means anything or indicates anything it believes or accepts.

    Remember: Betty claims never to have said there is a haitus (see post #7, but it’s in other posts too) and accepts the scientists who say that there is no haitus, but the only quote of the scientists it’ll give (but, remember, NOT say they agree with) is on about a haitus existing.

    Every word has meaning until they’re asked to support the claims. Then there was no claim whatsoever…

  42. #43 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Come on Betty.

    Do you deny that:

    – There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    – CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

  43. #44 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    “for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

    Never happened. Your interpretation. I was correcting you, because you were taking the words of scientists as my own. But thanks for treating me like a scientist, it’s the thought that counts…

    Now, you may be addressing OHC, but you are ignoring the article that Bernard linked, including words in the title of the article itself, “the ongoing warming hiatus”, along with “it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing” and “This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”

    Note the words “unclear”, implying there is something we don’t know, and the word “expected”, which implies it may not…..perhaps because some things are “unclear”.

  44. #45 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

    Never happened.

    Reality denial: post #7 exists. If it didn’t, there’d be a gap between #6 and #8.

  45. #46 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “Your interpretation. I was correcting you, because you were taking the words of scientists as my own”

    So you don’t believe the scientists who claim that there’s been a haitus.

  46. #47 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Betty

    The slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot go on for very long because the radiative imbalance within the climate system is increasing. At best you might get a few more years, then very rapid warming will resume. You don’t understand physical climatology. Listen to the experts:

    “Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”

    The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

    “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.

    “We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

  47. #48 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Now come on Betty.

    Do you deny that:

    – There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    – CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

  48. #49 Wow
    February 10, 2014

    “The slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot go on for very long”

    Remember, BBD, Betty here is insisting that any words about haitus are about what OTHER people are saying.

    Therefore addressing any points made by any words on haitus, not being believed by betty, are addressed to a different person.

    Maybe it would be best to see what BETTY thinks, rather than what it thinks other people say.

    After all, if other people have already said it, there’s no point to betty saying they said it.

    So, give a point to your lack of posting, betty, there’s a dear.

  49. #50 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Dishonest denialist tripe from Betty:

    Note the words “unclear”, implying there is something we don’t know, and the word “expected”, which implies it may not…..perhaps because some things are “unclear”.

    What the experts say:

    “Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear” said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

    “But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

  50. #51 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Maybe it would be best to see what BETTY thinks, rather than what it thinks other people say.

    – Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    – Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

    – Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

    – Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

    – Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

    – The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

  51. #52 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    That was @ Betty, obviously…

  52. #53 Betula
    February 10, 2014

    BBD, the earth is a little more complicated than yes or no’s. My question is, and always has been about how future scenarios are predicted and whether or not they are exaggerated to create desired global policies under the guise of sustainable development, which coincidently, is wealth redistribution.

    Simplified…yes, there is a greenhouse effect, without it we wouldn’t exist. Is CO2 one type of forcing, yes, it is a type of forcing.

  53. #54 cRR Kampen
    February 10, 2014

    #53, NWO complottery?
    How about the ‘redistribution of wealth’ happening right now, in the Koch- and Exxonsystem presently at rule, that is making the 10% richest ever richer and the rest, particularly the poorest, ever poorer? (US, Holland at least this is true for).

    It is right to be wary, which is all the more reason for you to gain some knowledge of climate science. Only that will enable you to distinguish reality from lobby. Your #53 suggests you’d be quite willing to learn. Other posts, not at all. So what’s it gonna be?

    The questions by BBD in #51 actually ARE simple Y/N questions. You tackled the first two (Y on both). What is so hard about the other four?

  54. #55 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Just answer the fucking questions yes or no, you evasive little shit. Your dishonesty sickens me.

  55. #56 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    My question is, and always has been about how future scenarios are predicted and whether or not they are exaggerated to create desired global policies under the guise of sustainable development, which coincidently, is wealth redistribution.

    You are mentally ill, btw. Still, let’s get the job finished:

    – Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    – Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

    – Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

    – Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

    – Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

    – The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

  56. #57 BBD
    February 10, 2014

    Is CO2 one type of forcing, yes, it is a type of forcing.

    Look at the pretty picture Betty.

    GAT and climate forcings 1900 – present

    Key: GAT (decadal means) are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

  57. #58 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2014

    Betula at #3.

    Reread and parse my post very carefully.

    I said very deliberately said “global warming”, not “surface temperature”, knowing that you or one of your mates would split hairs to claim that there’s somehow no continued accumulation of heat. There is no “hiatus” in global warming, as the England et al 2014 paper very clearly explains.

    You are a fool.

    Further, the “hiatus” is simply noise in the surface temperature record, resulting in large part from the very same phenomenon explained in England et al 2014. The noise in the signal varies such that at least 11 years to several decades are required to discern the signal, so calling a “hiatus” from the cherry pick of 1998 is incompetence and/or deliberate mendacity – at the least. Take your pick and tell us which is your motivation.

    You’ve had this explained to you many times – did you damage your brain falling out of a tree?

  58. #59 Jeff Harvey
    February 11, 2014

    Well said, Bernard. The warming has most certainly not stopped. Biotic proxies alone continue to show ongoing range and altitudinal shifts anyway, despite the so-called hiatus in surface temperatures. And in many parts of the world, surface temperatures do continue to rise.

    And yes, I think Betty has damaged his brain falling out of a tree.

  59. #60 Olaus Petri
    February 11, 2014

    I agree with you Jeff. I totally recognaize that the best biotic proxie showing that the hiatus is non-existant is you (and the rest of the deltoiders). :-)

    Keep it up!

  60. #61 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    “BBD, the earth is a little more complicated than yes or no’s.”

    The questions weren’t:

    What is the earth? Y/N

    Apparently when you complain of English not being someone’s first language, you’re trying to paper over your own incapacity in that sphere…

  61. #62 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    Woof Woof Woof! Lappie.

  62. #63 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Olaus

    What the fuck is wrong with you brain?

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    Look at it, you dishonest idiot. Go on. Look.

    Global warming – unabated, unpaused, no hiatus. Stop lying to yourself and everyone around you. Grow up and face the facts like an adult. This ridiculous charade has gone on long enough.

  63. #64 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Wow

    Since Betty is a dishonest, evasive coward, I have filled in the answers for him:

    – Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

    YES

    – Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

    YES

    – Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

    YES

    – Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

    YES

    – Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

    YES

    – The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

    YES

  64. #65 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    So, Betty, do you disagree with any of those YES?

    If so, where is your evidence that it should be NO?

  65. #66 Lionel A
    February 11, 2014

    Probably repeating what others have linked to but WTH:

    Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?

    And by the way, for the ignoratti, the phenomena described in the above can have implications for sea level rise along north america’s east coast. Explain why?

    Note on the UK’s spot of water bother, the Met’ office has issued an interesting report. The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK – pdf

    Yes I can see the bits the likes of Betula will take out of context so if you are thinking of trying that – don’t!

    George Monbiot has some apposite words here: Drowning in Money . This administration is in a pickle of their own making. About time we saw Georgy Porgy out on the Somerset Levels explaining why he cut EA funding. Georgy boy should get an armful of jabs (been there and done that) before floating his boat as he is sure to get a ducking and catch something nasty – maybe Eric Pickles.

  66. #67 Pete Attkins
    February 11, 2014

    Thanks, BBD, for the questions and answers in #64 and your link to OHC (I’d not seen this data before).

    I’m finding it difficult to understand global warming well enough so that I can answer a few questions on it when asked by friends who also wish to learn. I’ve managed to write a few paragraphs of notes (too long to post in a comment thread), but I don’t know if they’re near enough correct or seriously flawed. Any ideas on who/where I could ask for some guidance?

  67. #68 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

    Wrong again. #7 says no such thing. Stating I didn’t say something isn’t the equivalent of saying I disagree with what it is I didn’t say…except at Deltoid of course.

  68. #69 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “The questions by BBD in #51 actually ARE simple Y/N questions. You tackled the first two (Y on both). What is so hard about the other four?”

    Probably because I was answering the questions at #48.

  69. #70 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    #51…”The long-term trend is our real concern”

    Yes, and “It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

  70. #71 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade?”

    It’s irrelevant, you said it yourself.

  71. #72 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    “for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

    Wrong again. #7 says no such thing

    Nope, #7 says as I describe it.

    Just because you want to retreat to “I was spouting meaningless babble” doesn’t mean anyone else has to retreat into your insanity with you, dear.

  72. #73 Wow
    February 11, 2014

    “Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade?”

    It’s irrelevant, you said it yourself.

    No he didn’t you cretinous arselick.

    Yes, and “It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

    So you agree that there is no such thing as a haitus!

    Again!

    To be denied!

    Again!

  73. #74 Pete Attkins
    UK
    February 11, 2014

    @Lionel A
    Many thanks for the links, especially the UK Met Office report.

  74. #75 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “There is no “hiatus” in global warming”

    “Further, the “hiatus” is simply noise in the surface temperature record”

    What hiatus?

    Oh, the surface temperature hiatus, not a deep ocean hiatus! I keep getting my hiati mixed up, what with England throwing around the phrase “a hiatus in global warming” and all…

    ” Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Prof England said.”

    Just curious, how accurate are the records of deep ocean heat (below 700m) before, say 2000? How many bathythermograph data points were used during the first 2 decades of measurements? How about after 2 decades? And why did the sea level drop 7mm in 2011? And what is causing the trade winds? And how long will they last?

  75. #76 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “No he didn’t you cretinous arselick”

    “Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES”

  76. #77 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    Lionel,

    Regarding your Met office link, it says nothing, it summarizes nothing…
    What’s to take out of context? Nothing.

  77. #78 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Oh for fuck’s sake Betty. Sometimes you really do take the biscuit. OHC is increasing. The rate it increases is called the rate of ocean heat uptake. Wind-driven variability in mixing affects the rate of OHU and so the rate of OHC increase. They both modulate the rate of surface temperature increase.

    Sometimes more energy goes into the sea. This produces decadal variability in OHC increase and in the rate of surface warming. My point, as you know perfectly fucking well, is that deniers like you cannot wave at transient variability in the rate of GAT increase and pretend that it has any effect on the long-term forced trend.

    Fuck you and you intellectual dishonesty.

  78. #79 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Yes, and “It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

    Reference your quote-mining or expect no response.

  79. #80 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    And why did the sea level drop 7mm in 2011?

    Massive acceleration of the hydrological cycle caused by evaporation from a warming ocean, as predicted by climate scientists for decades.

    Less denial and more reading would help.

    Just curious, how accurate are the records of deep ocean heat (below 700m) before, say 2000? How many bathythermograph data points were used during the first 2 decades of measurements?

    If you think that sparsity of sampling means inaccuracy of results, then you are even more of an ignorant fuckwit than I supposed. Furthermore, I reject your crude attempts to inject evidence denial into this discussion. If you think you can prove error with the OHC reconstructions, fuck off and publish. If not, accept the reconstructions – with their published error bars.

    Always the same with you lot – get shoved into a corner by the scientific evidence and you start trying to deny it. But it won’t wash here. Either you turn up some solid evidence that there are real problems with OHC data or shut up with the denialist cant.

  80. #81 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    And one last thing, you dishonest little shit. You quote mined the questions to misrepresent them. Here’s the context you clipped away so you could try and lie about what was really said. The bit you wanted to lie about is in bold:

    – Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

    YES

    - Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

    YES

  81. #82 cRR Kampen
    February 11, 2014

    #68, nice try. You actually can do some research. I think you ‘probably’ actually responded to #51 with your #53. I surmise this from the interjection of the first paragraph in #53. There remains reason to ask you what is so hard about the other four questions. And you are quite aware of that.

  82. #83 Lionel A
    February 11, 2014

    Batty,

    And what is causing the trade winds?

    Are you blind? See first ref’ in my #66.

    And there have been known trade winds as long as sailing vessels ventured further than their own coastlines.

    How long will they last?

    Sheeesh what a gormless question! How long is a piece of string?

    As for sea level rise, ref’ to Jerry Metrovica and also Scott Mandia. Go read up.

    I see that you didn’t understand that Met Office report, that is if you bothered to read it which I doubt.

  83. #85 Olaus Petri
    February 11, 2014

    Betula, you can be sure that the OHC is accelarating in the very same robust way “thousands of scientists” knew that the atmosphere was warming faster and faster. :-)

    :-)

  84. #86 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)? YES”

    ” Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)? YES”

    ” Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES”

    If question #3 claims question #1 is an irrelevance, then question #2 is also an irrelevance..

    The long term trend is our real concern…

  85. #87 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “I see that you didn’t understand that Met Office report, that is if you bothered to read it which I doubt.”

    I read it. It talks about current weather and makes predictions about the future.

  86. #88 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “I think you ‘probably’ actually responded to #51 with your #53.”

    Keep thinking.

  87. #89 Betula
    February 11, 2014

    “Sheeesh what a gormless question!”

    I thought climate models could predict these things.

  88. #90 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    #84

    If you weren’t a pathological denier, you would have no trouble at all in understanding the internal consistency in what I wrote. Energy is accumulating in the climate system (ie the ocean) at a rapid rate. Sometimes, the rate increases slightly – just slightly – but that’s enough to reduce the rate of surface warming for a decade or so. Which is why you cannot use decadal variability in the rate of surface temperature rise as the basis of a claim that “global warming” has paused.

    It’s a lie, Betty. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly on this thread. It should be obvious by now.

    But you go beyond mere intellectual dishonesty. In your case, it really is mental illness.

  89. #91 chek
    February 11, 2014

    We can also be sure Olap doesn’t have a citation for his drivel-cum-slur. Nor does he understand the meaning regardless of tense of the verb ‘to know’. Although to be fair, Olap is well versed as a ‘know nothing’.

    In other news, (h/t to Barry over at the warren), Dr Charles Monnett (of drowned polar bear renown) has been vindicated after a Clouseau-level series of harrassments investigations by the IG.
    “This agency attempted to silence me, discredit me and our work and send a chilling message to other scientists at a key time when permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic were being considered. Following over two years of hell for me and my family, my name has been cleared and the accusations against the scientific findings in our paper have been shown to be groundless” Dr. Monnett said.

  90. #92 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Betty

    It’s just dawned on me that in your ignorance you might not grasp the key physical concept here. Do you understand the term specific heat?

    Do you understand that tiny variations in OHU will have major impacts on surface/tropospheric GAT because of the difference in specific heat between water and air?

  91. #93 chek
    February 11, 2014
  92. #94 BBD
    February 11, 2014

    Thank’ee chek.

  93. #95 jp
    February 11, 2014

    I wanted to say that it’s hard to believe the deniers have such trouble understanding the “hiatus”, with all the explanations that are given out there, but it’s not really hard to believe when you understand how dumb a denier can be.

    The hiatus, which refers to atmospheric temperatures only, in the context of the planet continuously gaining energy means very little in the same way that a few days of steady or even dropping temperatures over a summer says nothing about any trends in the temperature for that season, or for the year. A good illustration is the “escalator” at SkepticalScience. An ideologically motivated denier with low intelligence would look at that graph and to them it would mean nothing; nothing would register. They can’t understand that when looking at a set of stairs, fixating on the horizontal section of an individual step tells you nothing about where the stairs are going.

    With a denier idiot, when you have such a high level of stupidity compounded by politically motivated intellectual dishonesty, the result is a human being whose reasoning ability is reduced to a level worse than that of a dumb animal. So trying to reason with a Betula or a Karen or O’louse is as futile as having a discussion with a dog. Actually some dogs are pretty smart, so maybe I should say _ as futile as a discussion with a dog’s arse. A flatulent one. The experience is not productive but very unpleasant. When I see BBD or Jeff Harvey give long, detailed responses to those idiots I shake my head knowing that it’s an absolute waste of time and effort and that nothing that both of them have said will even register in their moronic heads.

  94. #96 cRR Kampen
    February 11, 2014

    Betty, 42.

  95. #97 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2014

    Betula at #73:

    What hiatus?

    Given that you’re having extreme difficulty discerning the difference between a real halt in the warming of the planet and mere noise in the signal, try this exercise:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-real-difference-between-skeptics-and-deniers/#comment-85157

    A gold star and a koala stamp if you can show your working as well as report your results…

  96. #98 chek
    February 11, 2014

    I never could get as denier to explain how all the extreme heat events (record arctic melts 2005 & 2012, US droughts and Aussie and US wildfires, Katrina etc etc.) happened during their dearly beloved hiatus.

  97. #99 Olaus Petri
    February 12, 2014

    Chek, among all believers at Deltoid, you might be the thickest, :-) Weather doesn’t end with the “hiatus”, and why should it?

    Now, run to Jeffie!

  98. #100 chek
    February 12, 2014

    Maybe try that again only with words that mean something in English, Olap.
    ” Weather doesn’t end” drivel drivel drivel – wtf?

1 2 3 10

Current ye@r *