February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 21, 2014

    2Stupid

    But I question why you would imply that any of them would use the phrase ” that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” ?

    Why not? It is exactly correct. Oh look, here’s a whole section on the topic in AR4.

    Let’s get something straight. What I wrote was correct. What you wrote was denial, plain and simple. Denial isn’t a scientific argument – it’s just a noise.

    The efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing is long-established. Only the stupid, the liars and the cranks dispute this.

  2. #2 BBD
    February 21, 2014

    Lionel

    Interesting stuff about David Rose. Thanks.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    What is it with these drive by wind-up merchants?

    I suppose they think it funny and clever doing what they do and probably chortle to their intellectual piers [1] about winding us up.

    What they cannot grasp is that every time they put in an appearance they get smacked down and lurkers become aware of how vacuous they are in that numpty brigade, which includes Deler’s, Nova, Cardinal Puff and the like.

    [1] No, not a spelling mistake or typo, it equates them to well know inanimate objects which are slowly being ripped apart as sea levels rise and storm forces increase – rather like their nonsense talking points.

  4. #4 Stu 2
    February 22, 2014

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
    This would probably be an article about that ‘something’ we should do about a ‘definitely serious problem’ that Sou outlines in the piece Frank D links @ #93 ?
    “Global warming isn’t all “man” made. It’s likely that more than 100% of the current warming is because of human activity. “Made” by men and women. And it’s definitely a serious problem and going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.”
    BBD @# 98,
    I have not seen the comment: ” CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” in the AR4.
    It does also appear from preliminary reports from the IPCC AR5 WG1 there will be a downgrading of the previous AR4 estimates about climate sensitivity to CO2.
    This does not mean that anyone is ‘denying’ that CO2 plays a role. What it may mean however is that words like ‘efficacious’ are perhaps overstating the scientific case ? (apart from not being something that a scientist would likely say in the first place).

  5. #5 Stu 2
    February 22, 2014

    This was in the Australian today but also found here (and no need to subscribe) :
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-criticizes-global-leaders-for-creating-an-atmosphere-of-panic-about-climate-change
    I guess it’s more commentary on that ‘something’ we have to do about that ‘definitely a serious problem’?

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    February 22, 2014

    Stu2:

    I have thus far refrained from calling you stupid but that may change is you keep putting up posts like the last 2. First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED… and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I add the last caveat on the insistence that, if humans are to mitigate the worst possible effects of C02, then we should have acted years ago. As it is, if we act now there will be serious consequences due to lag effects that occur in deterministic systems. Your feeble points (and they truly are that) appear to suggest that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%. That will not happen, and there will always be paid-for shills and a segment of the corporate sector who are addicted to the idea of business as usual in the desperate aim of maximizing short term profits and damn the future.

    As for Lomborg, I am sick and tired of this pseudo-intellectual novice and his bullshit being paraded by the corporate media as if it has scientific value. I demolished him in our 2002 Dutch debate (he was so terrified of me that when we met for one hour afterwards he could barely squeak in the fear of giving me more rope to hang him with). He also won’t appear at any venues where I do anymore, despite the massive promotion he has received from the ruling elites and their proxies in the corporate media.

    Its telling that Lomborg invited a select group of right wing neoclassical economists for his ‘Copenhagen Consesnus’ (CC, now based in Prague as its been basically booted out of his home country) ‘prioritizing investment and aid’ nonsense, and that on the 2006 shindig there is a photo of him a right wing neocon fruitcake John Bolton together in from of a UN symbol – this being the same Bolton who advocates attacks on Cuba and Iran, was an architect of the Iraq war, supports endless US expansionism abroad and once said he’d like to take down the UN entirely. Either Lomborg is profoundly stupid* or naive* or both (*delete as appropriate).

    The same CC debates the idea of donating a puny 75 billion dollars to the world and how it could be prioritized in solving a suite of problems when in reality the money (and many times more) is there and could be spent creating social justice when in reality the rich world is not at all interested in alleviating social problems in the south. In fact, as I have said before, maintaining poverty has been the real agenda, because if peoples in the developing world aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the north, then (1) we will need another 2 or 3 Earth-Like planets to sustain it and our ecological life support systems would be sent towards the abyss faster than they already are, and (2) these people would reinvest their own resource wealth towards internal investment and structure, which would conflict with the interests of western corporations. So our governments talk big about eradicating poverty but, as with most everything else, they are lying. The real agendas are not hard to find if one reads corporate and state planning documents. The older ones are available as declassified documents in most libraries. Sadly, most people – one like Stu2 who reads garbage in the Australian, a far right rag – spew out the crap they read in their corporate media as if it somehow represents the truth.

    Fact is, I don’t give a shit what Lomborg says. IMHO he’s a complete brainless nincompoop who’s been at least clever enough to know how to promote himself. Stu2, I have no idea why you comment on Deltoid. You appear rational on the surface but beneath it you are so deeply ignorant.

  7. #7 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    It does also appear from preliminary reports from the IPCC AR5 WG1 there will be a downgrading of the previous AR4 estimates about climate sensitivity to CO2.

    Another fucking stupid lie by our new top moron. AR5 gives the same lower bound for ECS as FAR, SAR, TAR. That’s all. Try reading it instead of lying about it.

  8. #8 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    CO2 is an efficacious forcing and no amount of denialist lying will change that fact.

  9. #9 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    I have not seen the comment: ” CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” in the AR4.

    You are a fucking moron. There is just no choice; no alternative. At this point, saying this is simply unavoidable. You give me no alternative.

  10. #10 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    What it may mean however is that words like ‘efficacious’ are perhaps overstating the scientific case ? (apart from not being something that a scientist would likely say in the first place).

    No, central estimates of ECS from paleoclimate and modelling remain ~3C/2xCO2. Scientists have been classifying CO2 as an efficacious forcing for over a century you stupid, lying, ignorant moron.

    I simply do not know how to deal with wilfully stupid, stubbornly mendacious denialism like yours. You are mentally ill.

  11. #11 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    I have thus far refrained from calling you stupid

    Why, Jeff? Why?

  12. #12 Lionel A
    February 22, 2014

    Are you 2Stupid to recognise the efficacious warming effect shown here:

    Watch 63 Years of Global Warming in 14 Seconds.

    If it runs too quick for your brain 2Stupid then watch it again, and again!

  13. #13 chek
    February 22, 2014

    The denier position has shifted in a few short years from “we’re entering a cooling phase” to “it’s not warming” to “yes it is warming, but it’s not our fault”.
    Presumably denier morons like StuPid see no contradiction, let alone utter unhinged bankruptcy in that.

  14. #14 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 22, 2014

    Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.

    Anyway, as your deputy cult leader urges you on, let us all join hands and chant together: “First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED… and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”.

    Simply, too, too, er, simple.

  15. #15 chek
    February 22, 2014

    despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.

    … which you aren’t able to present. What a maroon.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    February 22, 2014

    Aha! DD puts in an appearance with more ideological cretinallia.

    Simply, too, too, er, simple.

    Which is clearly still over your head to understand.

    That you should cling onto the belief that our position is based on belief and not understanding is an indicator of your mental unbalance, this reinforced by your refusal to acknowledge that recent events make our understanding even stronger and coming down on the fact that dangerous anthropogenically induced warming, causing climate change is underway. That and the many recent research papers that fill in some of the gaps, but not gaps that fatally detract from the dangerous warming position.

    Maybe you have missed the mention of happenings in the cryosphere, with sea level, ecological disruptions and much more.

    Go look up some of the links we have provided up-thread here or slink back to Cretinistan from whence you came.

  17. #17 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    Duff

    Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al. (2005): Efficacy of climate forcings.

    Look ‘em up yourself.

    * * *

    2Stupid liar – note the TITLE of the Hansen paper.

  18. #18 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 22, 2014

    Oh, yeah, right, I geddit . . .

    Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
    I belieeeeve
    Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
    I belieeeeve
    Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
    I belieeeeve

    It has a sort of swing to it after a while, doesn’t it? But if you don’t mind me saying so, it sort of echoes in here, I mean, what with there being so few of you these days . . .

  19. #19 chek
    February 22, 2014

    Primary school level denial is your usual MO, Duffer. If ignorance is bliss, you must be permanently fucking off-your-tits ecstatic.

  20. #20 chek
    February 22, 2014

    Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
    I belieeeeve

    Anyway, enough of the abuse, howevewr richly deserved.
    You’ll note the operative word is ‘calculations’.
    Calculations that your consulting rag-bag gaggle of cranks, shills and blog-shamans haven’t disproved. But you ‘belieeeeve’ in them anyway.
    Which begs the question who’s the greater loony – the liars whose paid-for opinions you frequent, or the dupe who ‘belieeeeves’ them?

  21. #21 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    Are you suggesting that Hansen and co-workers are guilty of scientific misconduct, Duff? They didn’t do a very good job since their results are in line with the rest of the field. Perhaps they should have tried harder?

    Or possibly you have no evidence for your claim and are simply spouting libellous bollocks for rhetorical effect?

    * * *

    But if you don’t mind me saying so, it sort of echoes in here, I mean, what with there being so few of you these days . . .

    I love the acoustics in here. You can hear the mouse-farts perfectly.

  22. #22 chek
    February 22, 2014

    I wonder if it ever crosses David ‘mousefart’ Duffer’s mind that denialism is constructed by and inhabited by cretins and cranks and therefore what a cretinous crank he is for falling hook, line and bibbling ineptitude for the denier slant.

    Somehow I don’t think he’d understand the import or impact of Philip K. Dick’s trenchantly brutal aphorism: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”.

  23. #23 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    Or to paraphrase: “The truth abides, dude.”

  24. #24 chek
    February 22, 2014

    But it’s so pants-passingly cute when the cretins and cranks enter some misbegotten phase where they like to think they’ve gained some kind of “upper hand”.
    Look at “Mousefart” Duffer – so full of piss after his David Rose in da Mail fix.

  25. #25 BBD
    February 22, 2014

    they like to think they’ve gained some kind of “upper hand”.

    The day the deniers alter the laws of physics by force of belief alone will be a landmark in the evolution of the species. At last, practical magic will have moved from myth to demonstrable reality. I can simply *wish* to be a superlative musician hard enough and shazam, there I go.

    Sadly, the dude truth abides.

  26. #26 chek
    February 22, 2014

    Ah yes – magickal thinking.
    It’s what sustains Duffer’s belief that he’s smarter than James Hansen et al.
    And you don’t get any more cretinous than that.

  27. #27 Stu 2
    February 23, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 3,
    We all have personal opinions and viewpoints.
    From the beginning of this thread I was attempting to move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in.
    I did not post those links above because I’m suggesting:
    ” that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%.”
    Nor did I offer a personal opinion about Lomborg.
    I offered both of those as a further addition to the link that Frank D posted from Hotwhopper and I was questioning whether commenters here think these articles discuss the ‘something’ we should be doing.
    I have asked you on a couple of occasions what you would consider are the provable, practical or workable solutions to the socio/economic/environmental issues that clearly concern you.
    Despite all the accusations and name calling here, those issues do also concern me.
    I offered a couple of examples earlier in the thread re overpopulation and agricultural practices.
    My personal opinion and viewpoint is that the ‘something’ most commenters here appear to support is creating a global market out of CO2 with all the attendant regulations and licencing created by some type of independent and benevolent centralised bureaucracy.
    I don’t think that has been at all successful and I don’t think it is returning worthwhile results for the environment, the climate or really important human issues such as poverty, overpopulation and poor land use practices.
    Do you?

  28. #28 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    My personal opinion and viewpoint is that the ‘something’ most commenters here appear to support is creating a global market out of CO2 with all the attendant regulations and licencing created by some type of independent and benevolent centralised bureaucracy.

    Nope. We just understand that a rapid and sustained increase in CO2 emissions will result in rapid and sustained climate change.

    *You* put the politics before the science and then claim that we are doing this. It’s absurd intellectual dishonesty.

  29. #29 andyuk
    February 23, 2014

    “Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.”

    is this why they call you duff. because things like storms, heat records, floods, melting ice and warming oceans are not happening and you think there is mounting evidence in favour of climate ‘skepticism’. haha. whats up with that lol. and of course, science is a religion isn’t it. ah, seen that one a few times in the youtube comments section. always the last stand of the deluded, clueless right wing political zealot, with the same deranged conservative or religious beliefs or values. its always the same type of person who says science is a religion. they have no evidence or arguments themselves, but somehow ‘science is a religion’. so how does that work. isnt someone who holds magical beliefs (like physics doesnt work or ‘growth can be infinite on a finite planet’) the religious one? no wonder they call you duff. i cant believe anyone would be so naive not to see that inevitable insult coming.

    there is no difference at all between creationists and global warming denialists. they are just born ignorant tossers. some escape the fold, but nothing changes in between birth and death with most of them because the inferior intellect that allowed them to be infected with moronic right wing or religious ideology in the first place stays with them for life. all that happens over time they become more and more twisted up and perverted as reality confronts their belief system with constant evidence they are wrong. because they are gutless, self interested, narcissistic cowards and psychopaths they end up having to invert everything. they have to believe all nature is wrong rather than admit their worldview is wrong.

  30. #30 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2014

    What’s the take on “Rigo(rgate”, fellas? Is the Mann on track or is he doing deloid stuff, eg making stuff up?

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/22/doctor-mann-i-presume.html

  31. #31 chek
    February 23, 2014

    “or is he doing deloid (sic) stuff, eg making stuff up?”

    You actually mean “denier stuff” Olap, you’re just too dishonest to admit it.

    Anybody interested in this week’s denier special offer should ignore Olap’s invitation to go to Montford’s provincial franchise version, and get the latest shock horror yawn direct from the chief picker of nits himself here and here.

    The full politburo of frothing loons are showing up for this one, and Nick Stokes tries valiantly to make them, understand that a judge is not going to turn his/her sideways and squint just right while flapping a sheet of paper in front of their left eye in order to see things as deniers would wish them to be seen.

  32. #32 FrankD
    February 23, 2014

    Stu2, firstly, I think you might have followed the wrong link, because my link was to Roy Spencer spitting the dummy.

    However, suitable policy is a sensible line of discussion given that the opposition to the science is looking increasingly like the mumblings of Terry Pratchett’s “Canting Crew”.

    To better understand where you come from economically, can I ask for answer to the following question (it doesn’t matter if you agree with the premises, just given those, what would you answer be):
    Given the premise that purchasing housing is becoming unaffordable for ordinary people in Australia, and further given the premise that this is a bad thing, governments should:
    A. release more land for subdivision to ease supply side pressures
    B. reduce bureaucratic costs (title search fees etc) associated with buying and selling land, trimming unncessary costs off the purchase price.
    C. reduce or remove negative gearing to make property less attractive to investor-buyers, and avoiding owner-buyers being crowded out.
    D. exclude foreign purchasers from buying Australian property.
    E. Some or all of the above, or something different (please explain).

    Answers will help avoid assumptive pitfalls down the track.

  33. #33 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    Well, apropos ‘scientists’ making it up, we shall soon find out because Mark Steyn has just issued a writ *against* Prof. Mann lest – perish the thought – Mann suddenly backs out of *his* writ against Steyn on the courthouse steps. Now there is no exit, everybody must and will have their day in court – probably several days and several courts knowing the American system!

    Such fun – now, get back to your chanting . . .

  34. #34 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Yes Duffer, in fact so confident of victory is Steyn’s legal team, that they dropped Steyn like a hot, raw plutonium, shit-covered brick last month.

    But as we already well know, fuckheaded deniers like you aren’t equipped to deal with reality.

  35. #35 adelady
    February 23, 2014

    Anyone who wants details on the current state of the Mann-Steyn kerfuffle can go here. http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/unclear-on-concept.html

    And for a light touch when referring to the anti-science crowd you might do well to emulate Rep Markey in the US Congress. Check the video in this post.
    http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/juan-cole-on-denial.html

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    February 23, 2014

    You cannot get much more repugnant than Mark Steyn, which is apparently why Olaus and the old Duffer love him. That alone says a lot about two of our resident loony deniers.

    We haven’t heard much from the Duffer in this winter that wasn’t, with few frosts, record amounts of rain and one that will be one of the mildest on record. Every time a snow flake flutters to the ground, Duffer is on it like a dog on a bone. But, as events have transpired, and exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    February 23, 2014

    I have to admit, a few minutes of perusing through the assorted comments at BH reveals a sea of ignoramuses. Olaus is certainly at home there. Moreover, for AGW deniers to accuse anyone of anything is rich. Nobody is better at selectively doctoring quotes that AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists. They did it over and over again with Steve Schneider’s double ethical bind quote and Lomborg did the same thing with a quote by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. They are masters of the art.

    I am waiting for Poptech (who was given a jolly good hiding on Deltoid on just about everything he said) to also come on here defending Michael Mann with the same vigor that he defended far less qualified deniers on his blog. Mann’s bonafides are light years ahead of many of the clowns whose qualifications he tries to bloat. But of course! Mann is on the ‘wrong’ side! So any smear is acceptable.

    I still haven’t seen old Poppy try and defend his comic-level book analysis of the US as a “Constitutional Republic” either. But then again, given the bilge he spewed out here, it is indeed good riddance (hint! hint! for Olaus).

  38. #38 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    “exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW.”

    Er, someone forgot to tell the Met Office because they were forecasting a dryer than usual winter.

    Also, Dame ‘Slingyerhook’ who stated that the current record rainfall was due to climate change was flatly denied by, er, well, one of her top scientists!

    Then, according to Geoff the Swot: “predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW”.

    Unfortunately the Met Office reported:

    “The UK annual average rainfall has increased by a relatively small amount – around 2% – when comparing 1981-2010 with 1971-2000. This is a similar increase to that from 1961-1990 to 1971-2000.”

    To paraphrase Adm. Beatty, “Something wrong with our bloody forecasts today!”

  39. #39 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Dufferbrains, you really need to stop believing the shysters and liars you so desperately want to believe in.

    The Met Office ripped Rose a new arsehole over his article here

    But I guess your information sewers, just like you, don’t admit their lies.

  40. #40 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Brilliant to see David ‘shitferbrains’ Duffer in his size 40 clownshoes tramping round the circus ring jam-packed with rakes with custard pies attached, still coming back for more.

    Indeed to paraphrase Beatty who might well say, “there seems to be something wrong with our bloody deniers today” as another self-inflicted custard pie bomb blows up in Duffer’s supercilious face for the third time in as many hours.

    You’d think such a self-professed, amateur(ish) “historian” would appreciate the value of primary sources over trash, But you’d be wrong in Duffer’s case.

  41. #41 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    Ok, you read and you judge:

    Dame ‘Slingyerhook’ Chief ‘Scientist’ at the Met Office who in November forecast a ‘dryer than normal winter’: “”But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

    Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.”

    So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along . . .

  42. #42 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Duff

    Specifc humidity is increasing as the troposphere warms. Heavier rainfall is therefore an unavoidable consequence of basic physical climatology irrespective of the argument over whether or not AGW is altering the jet streams.

    I know you are fucking clueless, but this isn’t actually very complicated, so try, will you.

    See also Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset

    And Westra et al. (2012) Global increasing trends in annual maximum daily precipitation

  43. #43 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    “I know you are fucking clueless, but this isn’t actually very complicated, so try, will you”

    Er, sorry, are you asking me or Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University?

  44. #44 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Right on cue after Jeff’s post, Duffer tries it on with selectively quoting from his beloved shitsources.

    Dame ‘Slingyerhook’ (sic) Chief ‘Scientist’ (sic) at the Met Office who in November forecast a ‘dryer than normal winter’:

    For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation.” , bearing in mind February is not yet through.

    “”But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

    But what Dr Slingo actually says is: ““Of course, as yet there can be no definitive answer on the particular events that we have seen this winter, but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution.
    In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it.
    There is indeed as far as I can see no evidence to counter the premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.”

    So, another dishonest Dufferism..

    “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.

    But Julia Slingo doesn’t mention the jetstream, so Duffbrains is quite right – “So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along” while still managing to be dishonest. What a Duffer.

    Jennifer Francis is researching the impact of a warming arctic on the Jetstream but even she isn’t claiming her findings so far are definitive, although they are compelling.

    Any more lies to come from you today Duffer? Do try to get your information from primary sources in future as you’ve been told many, many times in the past. You’ll look less of a twat, and it saves the tediousness of dealing with your own gullibility and outright dishonesty brought on by your dismal failure to research the lies you’re such an obedient little water carrier for.

  45. #45 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    Does anyone (apart from ‘Slingyerhook’) *disagree* that the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK?

  46. #46 chek
    February 23, 2014

    the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK

    [citation needed]

  47. #47 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University

  48. #48 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    And just about every other expert I have seen interviewed on the TV.

  49. #49 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Duff

    Just how poor is your reading contribution? And how much is childish disingenuity. Read what I wrote again.

    You are parroting dishonest journalism in the Mail on Sunday. It’s just more denialist cant and is dismissed here. This sums it up:

    But yesterday, Collins and the Met Office issued a joint statement dismissing the interpretation, saying “this is not the case and there is no disagreement.”

    You are peddling the usual lying denier misdirections and confected “arguments” inserted into the gutter press by right-wing ideologues. Nothing changes the facts, which are determined by physics and the consequent forcing efficacy of CO2.

  50. #50 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Christ. “reading comprehension

  51. #51 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Since Duff is having difficulty with his native tongue, I suppose I’d better repeat myself for clarity. Read closely, Duff:

    Specifc humidity is increasing as the troposphere warms. Heavier rainfall is therefore an unavoidable consequence of basic physical climatology irrespective of the argument over whether or not AGW is altering the jet streams.

    Did we grasp it this time?

  52. #52 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Since lying shitbag deniers rarely have enough good faith to click links and actually read the facts about which they are lying, here are some quotes from the article I linked. Note that they support exactly what I wrote above:

    Basic physics says that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. That means when rain does fall, it tends to fall in heavier bursts. With so much rain in such a short space of time, the ground hasn’t had chance to recover – leading to widespread flooding.

    In the Mail on Sunday article, Collins makes the same point:

    “Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water.”

    And in the Met office statement released yesterday, the Met Office and Collins say:

    “What the Met Office report – and indeed the IPCC – does say is that there is increasing evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense … [W]hen conditions are favourable to the formation of storms there is a greater risk of intense rainfall. This is where climate change has a role to play in this year’s flooding.”

    So on the extreme amounts of rainfall we’ve been seeing, Collins, Slingo and the report she authored agree the evidence points to climate change playing a role.

  53. #53 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    And – silence.

    So quiet you could hear a mouse fart.

  54. #54 chek
    February 23, 2014

    chek @ #43 “the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK
    [citation needed]”

    Duffer @ #44 “Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University”

    Duffer arguing against himself @ #38 “Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.”

    Now that you’ve cancelled yourself out, how about taking off those ridiculous clownshoes and giving a citation for your assertion.

  55. #55 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Fascinating to see how eager Duffbrain is to belittle Slingo and Collins – professional scientists at the top of their fields, with nary a thought that he either may not understand what they say (high confidence) or they have been misrepresented by his beloved shitsources he religiously “belieeeeves” in (very high confidence).

  56. #56 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    No, I wasn’t quoting the DM, I was quoting the BBC and the Exeter Echo.

    And, no again, I do not disagree with your notions concerning humidity and heat but that was not germane to this *particular* bout of unusual weather in the UK which was due completely and entirely to the jet stream (JS) being stuck unusually far south. In other words, in the normal course of events all that rain would have dropped on Scotland (hoorah!) or Scandinavia but because of the JS it dropped down south.

    Whatever, it had absolutely nothing to do with ‘Slingyerhook’ who said:
    “But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,”
    as reported by both the BBC and the Exeter Echo.

    There is no global warming link to this particular weather event and Prof. Collins said so – good for him!

  57. #57 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Duff.

    What is it with your comprehension skills? Damaged by ideology.

    Professor Collins did not say what you want him to have said, now why don’t you go to source to find out what is really going on? Oh I know, you prefer interpretations of interpretations. And yes, you are repeating the meme in that Rose Mail headline, so stop lying.

    Read this:

    Met Office in the Media: 16 February 2014, response by Professor Mat Collins and the Met Office

    The report by the Met Office states that “As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.” This agrees with the latest IPCC Report that states: “Substantial uncertainty and thus low confidence remains in projecting changes in Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, especially for the North Atlantic basin.”

    This is the basis for Prof Collins’ comment and means that we are not sure, yet, how the features that bring storms across the Atlantic to the UK – the jet-stream and storm track – might be impacted by climate change.

    That is not saying that the scientists are not sure that warming is causing climate change related changes in distribution geographically and temporally and intensity of weather events such as storms. What it is conveying is that there is, at this moment, some doubt about the strength of the various mechanisms involved.

    Now look in these temperature maps at the sea surface temperature anomalies for January 2014 in the western Atlantic and along the track taken by these storms – what do you notice?

    Now go read, take it slowly, the Met Office Report The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK for what Julia Slingo said to give full context.

    See also my next post.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Now related stuff is found under that other denier favourite that non existent warming pause or hiatus. Visit the page in the link which follows and download and read all three parts. You may have to use some other literature to clear up points which confuse you. That is points that you are about to munge so as to make out it says something it does not.

    The recent pause in warming.

    You could look up thread here and at last months thread both being peppered with suitable links and remarks.

    Now, you like to point out scientists are uncertain about some details, but as recent events have shown, uncertainty is not our friend and one thing is certain and this is that climate change related events are happening much sooner than many scientists expected, or at least were allowed to write in IPCC reports where the language was watered down by policy makers to help along the feeling that we are going to be al-right, no need to worry until 2050 or whatever.

    That strategy didn’t work in our favour did it and is one of the reasons why scientists want to improve on the sclerotic IPCC process so that reports have more immediacy from up to data information.

  59. #59 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Amazing, isn’t it? They just keep on lying.

    Of course there are scientists who argue (in published papers) that AGW *has* altered the jet streams but Duff doesn’t know this because he is clueless.

    Now watch Duff go “yesbutthatstudyisaboutsummerextremes” and ignore the actual point – which is that strange things are happening to the jet streams because of Arctic climate change – which is without doubt anthropogenically forced. Slingo is thus of course correct to suggest that there is a *link* between the UK floods and climate change – not that CC was the sole cause of the floods but then she didn’t say that, did she?

    Cue more denier misrepresentations in 3, 2, 1…

  60. #60 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    This is a lie:

    There is no global warming link to this particular weather event and Prof. Collins said so – good for him!

    At a fundamental level all extreme weather events are influenced by climate change because there is a huge amount more energy in the climate system now than there was several decades ago and it continues to accumulate at a staggering rate. But again, Duff either doesn’t know this or is simply blanking it because he’s in denial.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Will we see Duff pick up Spencer’s toys and chuck em out of his pram to the tune of ‘Deutschland über alles’, or has he slunk away like the devious skunk he is leaving that nasty smell behind him.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Maybe Duff would prefer the Japanese accent on heat accumulation.

  63. #63 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Lionel

    Yes – I should have thought of using that but unlike you, I didn’t know where the freestanding app could be viewed ;-)

    Useful to know. Thanks.

  64. #64 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Talking about extremes, there was an article over at Greg Laden’s about Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines last November which revealed an astounding fact: the water temperature in the region at 100m depth was as warm as normal typhoon-forming SST’s’
    It should be only a few degrees above freezing down there, as I’m sure Lionel will attest.
    That factoid has stayed with me and even some months later seems worth commenting on in light of our own extreme weather in the UK.

  65. #65 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 23, 2014

    “Arctic climate change – which is without doubt anthropogenically forced”

    Er, would that be the same “anthropogenically forced” effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?

    Personally, I blame all those polar bears shagging like mad and increasing the temperature along with their numbers, it’s called the Ursus Shagus Effect and frankly I think we should the shoot the horrible great things before we all drown in melted ice.

    Meanwhile, it’s ‘evensong’ so back to the chanting, altogether now:

    ‘Slingo is oh, oh, so right’

  66. #66 chek
    February 23, 2014

    You just keep on being wrong Duffer. You wouldn’t want to spoil the perfect record of your spoon-fed ineptitude after all this time, would you? Is it some sort of disability that makes you such a spectacular masochist?

    “Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet”.

    “Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America, has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice”.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Duffer puffed:

    Er, would that be the same “anthropogenically forced” effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?

    Well, ere, um, yes in a way. But what you need to consider is the very different topographical-oceanic structure of the driving systems North to South. Arctic is an ocean largely surrounded by landmasses whereas Antarctica is a continental landmass surrounded by water. Even then the Antarctic sea ice is the only real growth but then that is localised with some edges losing sea ice (as chek mentioned). But any sea ice gain is at the expense of continental ice. More continental ice going into the sea causes freshening – now what does that do to the freezing point and what is the result?

    I have only touched on this, but your meme is only broadcast by the denial supporting hacks in the press who count on the ignorance of their readership to do the rest. You fall for it every time. Which is, of course who you use as interpreters. Go see a shaman about your ingrowing toe nail, have some incense burned and feel better because it smells nice, well to some anyway – a matter of opinion.

    By falling for it every time that shows that you are not only ignorant but stupid with it.

    Better trolls please.

  68. #68 Lionel A
    February 23, 2014

    Have just been reminded of this:

    Roy Spencer says that if you don’t admit that environmentalists are guilty of genocide then you are like a Holocaust denier

    H/T Kilby @ Sou’s on the recent Spencer thread.

  69. #69 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Duff # 62

    What chek and Lionel A said.

    It’s predictable that instead of admitting error or trying to engage constructively, you simply skip to a new denialist misrepresentation of some other aspect of climate change.

    For some insight into Antarctic sea ice extent changes, see Holland & Kwok (2012) Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift.

    The paper is paywalled but press release is here. See also Zhang (2013) Modeling the impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume.

  70. #70 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    Sorry, wrong Zhang13 link.

    Full text here.

  71. #71 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    A little more looking and we also have a full PDF of Holland & Kwok (2012).

  72. #72 chek
    February 23, 2014

    Duffer can’t read stuff like that BBD.
    He’s too busy swallowing bullshit from and aping the attitudes of lo-life grifters like Nigie ‘that Slingo woman’ Lawson and his ilk.

  73. #73 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    chek

    Yes, I’m sure you are correct, but the links are for others, mainly, and also to demonstrate to Duff that I’m not just bullshitting in the way he does. And he knows it; make no mistake.

    I wonder what Duff is going to do when we start joining up the dots that connect increased zonal windspeeds in Antarctica with increase upwelling of coastal waters and the consequent increased rate of basal melting of ice shelves and the increase in flow rate of the glaciers that produced them? Which of course increases the rate of mass loss from the WAIS and looks set to become a major driver of sea level rise over the course of this century and beyond.

    Will he ask for references? I have them ready, of course…

    ;-)

  74. #74 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    I have some sympathy for anyone who says, look, it’s supposed to be global warming, right? But there’s more ice in Antarctica and on the face of it, that doesn’t make sense.

    Where I stop feeling benign is when the expected follow-on step does not materialise. They don’t say, okay, explain how this works, I’m genuinely puzzled and genuinely curious. The next step is of course to make an effort to understand the explanation instead of reflexively denying it in bad faith.

    Etc, ad nauseam.

    Good conversations about this topic can and do happen – even to me. I was asked exactly this over dinner before Christmas and the explanation was treated as insightful and worth the ten minutes of conversation it involved.

    As I’ve said many times, denial is a profound and damaging pathology.

  75. #75 BBD
    February 23, 2014

    I should tighten this up: denial is the opposite of curiosity. Curiosity is the key to understanding. Denial prevents understanding. It is the death of the mind.

  76. #76 Stu 2
    February 23, 2014

    Frank D @ # 29
    You posted a link from Hotwhopper @ # 93 previous page.
    Here:
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-dummy-spit-shows-his-lack.html
    Your questions @ # 29 are related to Australia and a presumption that housing is a serious issue that needs solving.
    My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to underprivileged nations and poverty, overpopulation and environmental harm due to inappropriate land use practices.
    Australia is not an underprivileged nation, Australia educates females, Australia does not experience comparable levels of poverty, Australia is not comparably overpopulated and Australian farmers use world’s best practice, sustainable agricultural methods.
    The presumed housing shortage is primarily a problem in the Australian capital cities.
    I’m guessing that Jeff Harvey would agree with me that Australia’s presumed housing shortage is not the serious problem that we should be concerned about?
    However; purely as an observation re you multiple choice above:
    A to D have all been tried before.
    A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences.
    C & D did create unintended consequences.

  77. #77 chek
    February 23, 2014

    It is the death of the mind

    Indeed, without becoming too Godwinesque, it’s the foundation layer of feudalism and fascism.

    I have no doubt (contrary to what Duffer has been fed and devoutly, slavishly believes, and in honour of him) that were the previously undiscovered element stupidium found to be responsible for what was heretofore ascribed to AGW that Mann, Hansen, Jones, Emanuel et al would alter their views in accordance with the new data.

    Duffer et al have already decided that no matter how shonky and easily demolished the bedrock of their piss-poor belief system is, they will continue to support it, even as it comes crashing down around their heads.

    El Duffo opened this salvo @ #11 saying ” despite the horrific evidence piling up outside”.. Projection, anyone?
    You just have to imagine what it must be like to be too old, and more relevantly, too stupid to learn.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.”

    You mean all the warmest and wetter winter your area has ever seen piling up outside, just as the scientists were telling you would happen from AGW 30 years ago..?

  79. #79 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “we shall soon find out because Mark Steyn has just issued a writ *against* Prof. Mann ”

    For what?

    Oh, that’s right: for bringing up a libel case and pursuing it despite Steyn et al laughing that Mann would drop it.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “Dame ‘Slingyerhook’ Chief ‘Scientist’ at the Met Office who in November forecast a ‘dryer than normal winter’:”

    But climatologically expecting wetter and warmer winters than normal.

    Seems like you’re taking actual AGW as proof that Dame Slingo is wrong… Somehow…

  81. #81 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “At a fundamental level all extreme weather events are influenced by climate change ”

    At a fundamental level all weather events are influenced by climate change.

    You’d have to show that the weather event would have happened anyway if there had been no climate change.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “Er, would that be the same “anthropogenically forced” effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?”

    What increase, duffski? Spreading your butter over your toast doesn’t make more butter, dearie.

  83. #83 FrankD
    February 24, 2014

    Stu2, you’re being tiresome – Sou’s article is about Roy Spancer throwing a grand-mal tanty and all you allude to is a single irrelevant quote-mined line? So if you want to refer to the article, how about engaging properly? Do you think its okay to call people who accept the science “Nazis”?

    My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to …
    I made no reference to any questions between Jeff and yourself, I simply asked you a fairly simple question. Perhaps you can only conduct one conversation at a time? You responded with a history lesson of what (you claim) has been tried, but I asked you what you think governments should do. So…?

    It is simply unproductive to carry out such a discussion without understanding the economic worldview of the other person. Therefore, an answer will allow readers (specifically me) to contextualise your comments re climate change policy wrt consistency with other economic policy. Further evasion of such a non-controversial question will just demonstrate that your claim of wanting to “move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in” is just high-toned horseshit. I’m trying to deal straight here, but your not convincing me that is being reciprocated.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 24, 2014

    Don’t confuse him, Wow. The West Antarctic Ice sheet is losing ice mass. There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation). Taken together, net ice mass balance for the entire Antarctic is negative – Antarctica as a whole is losing ice mass (IMBIE 2012).

    Antarctic winter sea ice extent is increasing slightly (see previous comments and links).

  85. #85 Wow
    February 24, 2014

    “There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation).”

    And when you spread the butter, there’s more butter where you’ve just moved it to.

    Unless Duffer doesn’t do any toast or bread-and-butter (in which case, he’s faking being from the UK), the factualities should be eminently visible to him.

  86. #86 Jeff Harvey
    February 24, 2014

    More evidence of the massive corporate funding of the climate change denial community in this excellent new study by Robert J. Brulle:

    http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

    An excellent commentary on this by Media Lens (UK):

    http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/756-the-fateful-collision-floods-catastrophe-and-climate-denial.html

    The key point is that if the global mean temperature is allowed to rise by 4 C or more, then our species is staring its own extinction squarely in the face. No amount of technology will be able to counter the catastrophic damage that will do to our global ecological life support systems.

  87. #87 Lionel A
    February 24, 2014

    Some may miss the full text of that Independent article linked with that second reference in Jeff’s reply (after all our crowd of deniers are not renowned or following through such) so here is a direct link: UK weather: Floods could have devastating environmental impact – as animals drown or die from lack of food.

    Our irritants are probably as ignorant about the ecology that underpins our survival being about the same level of education as the pair of my grandchildren twins, then about five years, awhile back when going out into the fields of my brother-in-laws farm with a spade and a bucket going to get some spuds for dinner. After a few steps one asked, ‘Where is the ASDA then?’ Digging potatoes out off the ground was a novel idea to her. ASDA being a supermarket in the UK owned by Walmart.’

    I have little doubt that things are going to be bad and I also think that those who want to wish the problems away will do everything they can to keep as much as possible from the general public.

    So, watch closely where your politicians and local government officials do their shopping, and what they purchase. I suspect they will purchase in stealth before rationing is imposed on the rest of us. Rationing that will make us glad to get provisions even if contaminated.

    I still remember the petrol coupons issued in early 1974. I was a bad boy in those days by having a 3-litre Wolseley 6/110 (purchased second hand) but in my defence it had better mileage than a 2-litre Ford Capri, a pal had one of those and we swapped notes and I tuned the twin SU carb’s myself, but with my wife owning a Mini that would have been the vehicle for running about. The Wolseley would put in about 35-36 mpg on a run at a most economical motorway cruising speed of about 82-83 mph. with overdrive on the top gears. The petrol shortage saw a speed restriction to 60mph on motorways here which was a nonsense for cars such as that Wolseley.

    The writing was on the wall though, so a step down in vehicle size and to one only was taken.

  88. #88 Lionel A
    February 24, 2014

    As in California, water shortages and drought threaten Brazil, how much for a cup of coffee? Drought Could Drain More Than Brazil’s Coffee Crop

  89. #89 Stu
    February 24, 2014

    Isn’t Duffer the clown who thinks local tides trump all climate change? Can I get the incoherent git to at least come water my fruit trees for me to combat the unprecedented drought here in California for me then?

  90. #90 Stu
    February 24, 2014

    @Lionel: If you were to buy a new car, why not go for a Fiesta 1.0, or Cruze Eco, or an iQ? I commute next to people sitting in F-350s or Excursions by their lonesome, and I just shake my head.

  91. #91 Stu 2
    February 25, 2014

    Frank D @# 80
    1) You claimed I followed the wrong link.
    2) No I don’t think it’s OK to call people derogatory names like ‘Nazi’ but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.
    3) I reasonably assumed your questions arose from my comment to Jeff Harvey, which were also linked to your link to Hotwhopper and the ‘something’ we should be doing.
    4) I found your multiple choice question re a presumed housing shortage in Australia somewhat irrelevant to the previous comment except that 2 of those items have demonstrated that they are PROVEN and PRACTICAL measures to help solve that particular problem but not the ‘serious problem’ that Sou comments on.
    6) I was not attempting to be evasive.

    Maybe I should ask you if you think creating a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy is the right ‘something’ we should be doing?

  92. #92 Wow
    February 25, 2014

    “Isn’t Duffer the clown who thinks local tides trump all climate change?”

    Not, apparently, if the local weather is warmer than usual, in which case, it doesn’t.

  93. #93 Wow
    February 25, 2014

    “2) No I don’t think it’s OK to call people derogatory names like ‘Nazi’ but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.”

    I take it you’ve never been to WTFUWT or other blogrolls you quote from then, StuPid?

    And note that if you’re accepting rude names, then you’re accepting rude names, so shut the fuck up about them you whining little shit.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    February 25, 2014

    @Lionel: If you were to buy a new car, why not go for a Fiesta 1.0, or Cruze Eco, or an iQ?

    I am afraid I am too physical disabled to contemplate driving these days, but then I know of people with similar problems, but maybe not the exact combination, who chance their luck but more reprehensibly chance the safety of others.

  95. #95 FrankD
    February 25, 2014

    Stu 2: “somewhat irrelevant “.
    Yes, unconnected with previous discussions you’ve had with someone who isn’t me. But I’ve explained why I asked it, when I asked itand again later, and asked that you not continue to evade it.

    6) I was not attempting to be evasive
    And yet you evaded it. Just natural talent, I guess…

    Perhaps I should ask you if you actually have any desire to rationally discuss policy options, or just play lame “when I grow up I want to be Brad Keyes” games.

    Your continued evasion suggests to me that you are shit-scared of actually offering your own opinion on a topic on which you might be found wanting. Which is more than a bit sad, and leads me to deduce that all we can expect is tedious talking points from the same “world government, income redistribution shock-horror” songsheet Betula sings from, not engagement with the topic. Pity, because its quite a worthwhile one, and one that does not start and finish with “a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy”, despite this being your preferred topic.

    You claim to want to “move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in”, and yet when I throw you a bone – two bones – it’s duck and weave. So I call bullshit on your claim to ever-so-lofty motivations…

  96. #96 Wow
    February 25, 2014

    Your continued evasion suggests to me that you are shit-scared of actually offering your own opinion on a topic on which you might be found wanting

    Be fair. It’s the M.O. of Olap Dog, Duffer, Betty, Bray, Grima, Joan and the entire “tedious toad, squatting slug” denier squad.

  97. #97 BBD
    February 25, 2014

    2) No I don’t think it’s OK to call people derogatory names like ‘Nazi’ but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.

    Only when provoked by the constant lying, evasion, misrepresentation and intellectual laziness of others. Not to mention tone-trolling, which under the circumstances is truly unforgivable. Sod off.

  98. #98 Wow
    February 25, 2014

    Hey, deniers, tell you what, stop slagging off others (and whining about being called deniers when you’re actually there denying is likewise slagging off others), and start policing your own counter-culture, THEN we’ll stop with the insults.

    Deal?

  99. #99 chek
    February 25, 2014

    Yeah, the selective blind spot of deniers for their other fellow travelling deniers is just one of their giveaways.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    February 25, 2014

    Now, this post is for Duff, GSW, Betula etc,.

    I remarked in a post late on the previous page (#97) about how a recent NOAA-NCDC report had an illustration, a map, showing how large parts of the Atlantic had positive temperature anomalies during January 2014.

    Now watch this video and note the opening sequence as storms track across the Atlantic H/T Climate Crocks, see the route that they took. Get it now all you people at the back?