February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    BBD#92

    Your graphs not Santers.
    The question concerned a specific graph from Santer showing corrections due to ENSO and 2 volcanic eruptions..
    You have still not answered this original question

  2. #2 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Your graphs not Santers.”

    Nope, Santer’s graphs.

    “You have still not answered this original question”

    Yes he has. Just not to the answer you’ve been led to believe MUST be there.

  3. #3 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Your graphs not Santers.
    The question concerned a specific graph from Santer showing corrections due to ENSO and 2 volcanic eruptions..
    You have still not answered this original question

    Yes I have. Read #95 again. It’s all there. I answered your eyeballing and opinionating with an empirical test – three empirical tests actually, at your specific request.

    But you won’t accept the results.

    You are wrong, Rednoise. Admit your error now.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    Maybe the problem is that deniers have a death pact: if anyone leaves the herd, like scientology, they will use the R-2 45 exception.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2014

    As I was saying:

    http://www.nature.com/news/scientist-versus-activist-debates-mislead-the-public-1.14761

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2116.html

    Demolishes Rednose’s arguments (and those of the GWPF which distort Santer’s graphs). Note how the GWPF does not approach the authors for their opinion (they would take apart, piece by piece, the GWPFs misinterpretations). Instead, in true anti-environmental fashion, they selectively take some figures and draw their own conclusions from them. CC continues unabated. End of story.

  6. #6 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    Ha, so ‘admit your error’ is like ‘go kill urself’ : )

  7. #7 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    Or “If I admit error, my “pals” will kill me”.

  8. #8 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    BBD#99

    As far as I can tell BBD, you have failed to remove the effects of ENSO, El Chichan and Pinatubo in your graphs.
    Nice try but no cigar.
    Now please answer the question with regard to Santers graph which does.

  9. #9 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Apologies for the repetition, but I’d like to keep this comment front and centre:

    To falsify the claim that there has been no warming for “about 20 years” let’s look at three periods.

    There has been no “hiatus” over the last:

    15 years

    Nor over the last:

    18 years

    Nor over the last:

    25 years

    There are the data. One of the temperature data sets is UAH TLT, as used by Santer et al. Same data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs – in which case you must show how – or you are wrong.

    Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources (including UAH TLT, as used in Santer et al.) and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.

    All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for “about 20 years”. There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.

    You are wrong. So admit your error.

    Now.

    You have no choice. Can’t you see that?

    Admit your error.

  10. #10 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    As far as I can tell BBD, you have failed to remove the effects of ENSO, El Chichan and Pinatubo in your graphs.

    El Chicon, Pinatubo and latterly ENSO (which has been predominantly in La Nina phase for the last decade) are COOLING effects, you clown.

    I’m not too sure at this point that you have the remotest idea what Santer et al. demonstrates.

    I *am* sure that you have been completely fooled by the liars at GWPF and I *am* sure that you are refusing to admit that your claim of no warming for “about 20 years” is false.

    I’m getting a little tired of you now, Rednoise.

    Admit your error. I have demonstrated it above over and over and over again. So admit that your claim is false. We can all SEE that it is false, but you need to admit it.

    Now.

  11. #11 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    CC continues unabated. End of story.

    Too true, but what is the cause?
    Is it volcanic eruptions, aerosols, solar activity, CO2, changing land use, ENSO or something else?
    If only the science was settled.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise: As far as I can tell BBD

    Yes, that’s rather the problem, isn’t it, redski. You deliberately limit yourself so as to fit within the tiny sphere that fits within your philosophy.

  13. #13 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Too true, but what is the cause?”

    Human activities, mainly CO2 over-production.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “If only the science was settled.”

    It is.

  15. #15 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise

    You made a false claim that there has been no warming for “about 20 years”.

    Admit your error.

    Now.

  16. #16 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Warming over the last:

    15 years

    And over the last:

    18 years

    And over the last:

    25 years

    I am now calling you a fucking liar.

  17. #17 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    If you won’t admit your error, Rednoise, then just go. Stop commenting. Disappear.

    At this point I will settle for your absence. I expect everybody else will too.

  18. #18 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    #6

    And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
    Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
    How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
    15, 20, or 25 years?

  19. #19 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    O a glimmer of paradise by #13.

    “Pals”, lol : )

  20. #20 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “And if you bothered to look at the graph in question”

    He did.

    And, unlike you, he didn’t take the claims made by deniers at face value.

    Nullus in verba. That’s what Mad Lord Monkfish keeps saying, isn’t it?

    And on verifying the claims by using the evidence provided FOR that claim, found the claims wrong.

    You, meanwhile, have not the wit nor intelligence to manage anything other than the expected reality you were programmed to attend to.

  21. #21 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    #6

    And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
    Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
    How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
    15, 20, or 25 years?

    Fuck off Rednoise. You have overstepped the mark now.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
    15, 20, or 25 years?”

    None of the above.

    As BBD showed you.

  23. #23 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.

    CO2 forcing. Still visible even in panel C. Wrong again. Lying again. Evading again.

    Just admit your errors or fuck off Rednoise.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    Meantime all the talk is about a miserable less than three percent of the relevant heat fluxes & budgets.
    How many Hiroshima bombs to melt 600 Gt of ice per year?

  25. #25 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    WTF has chewed up all my links???

    Test

    Warming over the last:

    15 years

  26. #26 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Bizzar-o

    Warming over the last:

    15 years

    And over the last:

    18 years

    And over the last:

    25 years

  27. #27 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    #19 BBD

    CO2 forcing in the CIMP 5 Multi modal average but not in the observations.
    Seems to be a discrepancy which you ignore and Santer tries to explain.

    Fuck off yourself.

  28. #28 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    R-2 45… Pfff.. Yes there are sekts behind climate revisionism where palpacts are in the ‘leave the herd and decease’ domain, but such pacts operate higher up than at the level of the echelon (cf list elsewhere in this thread) printing here.

  29. #29 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #23 Redrum, ice. How many Hiroshima bombs?

  30. #30 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “CO2 forcing in the CIMP 5 Multi modal average but not in the observations.”

    CO2 forcings ARE in the observations.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2014

    The latest from Carbon Brief, including comments from Santer:

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/02/big-picture-science-new-report-focuses-on-climate-science-certainty/

    “Today two major national academies have laid out what scientists know about climate change”. The report is by the UK’s Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. The conclusion could not be any clearer. Warming continues unabated. This demolishes Rednose’s GWPF distortion, as expected.

    Its back to the denial blogs for Rednose, I can’t wait to see what crap he spews out here next.

  32. #32 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    #26

    He hasn’t got a fucking clue.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    But the fear of a colt mouthwash is making him assert otherwise, BBD.

  34. #34 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    :-)

    Although at least that would be quick and painless. Unlike his visits here.

  35. #35 chek
    February 28, 2014

    I doubt Redarse had had the gumption to actually read Santer’s paper, which is why he’s glued to having his malformed opinion as pre-loaded by the GWPF’s ‘interpretation’ from some nonentity like Benny fucking Pizzle.

  36. #36 chek
    February 28, 2014

    It would further help if deniers such as Redarse realised that the output of garbage that flows from think-tanks like Heartless and Pizzle’s outfit are solely aimed at reactionary conservative morons and are not fit for intelligent human beings.
    Otherwise they’d link directly to the source material, and not the sewage outlet version.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    WTF has chewed up all my links???

    Probably a similar gremlin to that which chewed up my blockquote tags a page or so ago. On inspecting Page Source they had vanished completely.

    Now Rednoise you little scamp check this out, and that does not mean just read the article look behind, drill down through links:

    National Academy Of Sciences [and Royal Society] Delivers Highly Readable Climate Change Warning.

    You are either a clueless chump Rednoise or a member of GWPF, is your real name Benny?

  38. #38 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Something that I suspect is too subtle for the… contrarians here is the difference between ENSO itself and the longer-term cooling influence caused by wind-driven ocean mixing (see England et al. (2014) for detail on the latter).

    Studies like Santer14 and Schmidt14 are correcting for ENSO peaks and troughs but *not* for the climatologically significant generalised cooling caused by enhanced wind-driven ocean mixing in the equatorial Pacific. That’s still there.

    Another factor not accounted for in the analysis in Santer14 are the spatial limitations of satellite data and the effects they have on trends.

    UAH covers 85.0N to 85.0S and RSS covers 82.5N to 70S. Consequently:

    – UAH and RSS do not pick up the strong warming in the Arctic

    – UAH is cool-biased in the Antarctic because the elevation of Antarctica introduces a cool bias into the TLT product.

    So *both* satellite TLT products are biased cool relative to surface temperature data sets. To compound this, it now seems that even the surface temperature products suffer from a cool bias (Cowtan & Way 2013).

    Here I make a bet with the contrarians: future analyses using improved surface temperature data and accounting for the transient cooling mechanism described in England14 will show very good agreement between the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “UAH covers 85.0N to 85.0S and RSS covers 82.5N to 70S. Consequently:”

    It’s not the entire globe.

    So relying it on as the sole arbiter of global warming or not (as deniers try to do) is inherently wrong.

  40. #40 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    So remind me again, what was your estimate for the number of years the trend for temperature observations was flat on the Santer graph fig 1c

  41. #41 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “So remind me again”

    So remind us again where you asked this leading question, as opposed to the one you actually asked “How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
    15, 20, or 25 years?”?

  42. #42 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    PS don’t ask everyone else to prove your assertion just because you can’t.

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2014

    Rednose,

    Get lost. Read the new report from the Royal Society and National Academy of Science and learn something, instead of parroting crap from shills.

  44. #44 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    They aren’t observations, Rednoise. They are *model output*. They have been *processed* to remove various bits of information. Yes – a denier is making a strong claim based on model output compared to… model output. But only because you don’t know what you are doing.

    You made a statement based on OBSERVATIONS which you then tried to back up with PROCESSED OUTPUT when I demonstrated that it was FALSE by using OBSERVATIONAL DATA.

    I am absolutely fucking fed up with trying to get you to see this.

    Your claim was FALSE.

  45. #45 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise

    Now read #34 again. Perhaps at last it will all start to make sense.

    Or perhaps not.

  46. #46 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    You are right of course BBD.
    I should say
    Remind me again, what is your estimate for the number of years the trend for the processed temperature observations was flat in graph 1c

  47. #47 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    #37 wow

    Well an answer to either will do. Why don’t you take a stab at it.
    :-)

  48. #48 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    I don’t like eyeballing graphs and opinionating, but since that’s all Rednoise has got re Santer14 panel c, here goes. I see a positive trend from 1979 – 2002, a slight downward step, then a positive trend from 2002 – 2014 (or 2013 if that is the final year shown).

    Santer et al. notes that there have been 17 eruptions since 1999, over half of which occurred in the tropics, where their effect on global climate is greatest. The flattening since then is the key result, demonstrating the effects of this spate of minor volcanism on TLT (but see caveats at #34).

    Please note that the effects of this volcanism have not been removed from the curves in panel c.

  49. #49 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    It is painfully clear, Rednoise, that you haven’t understood Santer14 and you *have* been tricked by a misrepresentation of a single, decontextualised figure from it.

    It is telling that (as Jeff Harvey remarks above) that Whitehouse has eyeballed and opinionated to his heart’s content but did not contact the authors for comment.

    You really should pick up on the obvious cues. The rest of us do, and it would make these interactions far less problematic.

  50. #50 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Now, I’ve been reduced to opinionating, albeit in an attempt to get you to understand Santer14.

    When are you going to admit that your claim – initially based on OBSERVATIONAL DATA was falsified using OBSERVATIONAL DATA?

    When are you going to do that?

  51. #51 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise claims: no warming for “about 20 years”.

    Observational data falsifying this claim here

    This is an entirely separate issue from the processed data presented in Santer14. Any attempt by you to pretend otherwise is dishonest evasion.

    Your claim was false. Please admit your error now.

  52. #52 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    I have just discovered another blog pushing GWPF propaganda:

    Scotland Against Spin with
    New Paper Says Sun Is Causing Global Warming Pause/GWPF
    .

    So the GWPF has too little influence to be subject to Charity Commission investigation has it? I don’t think so.

    Is the population of the country aware of the GWPF using tax evasion whilst continuing to try to delay action on tackling climate change, climate change which has not only ruined the lives of many in this country but killed some here and many many more abroad.

    There is are words to describe such activity.

    So Rednoise are you just a simple dupe or are you complicit?

  53. #53 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    Benny fucking Pizzle

    Related to the Koch’s by any chance?

  54. #54 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Lionel A

    Arf, arf.

    * * *

    GWPF (and Scotland against Spin) has chosen an odd paper to push.

    To avoid having to link to “sceptic” blogs, here’s press coverage of Stauning (2014) from a neutral source.

    Apparently, the conclusion of the paper states:

    The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane, and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001. The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

    The problem with this is that it seems to require huge sensitivity to very small changes in solar forcing (on the order of 0.2W^m2 in an 11yr cycle that largely averages out over time).

    Perhaps the easiest way to get a handle on the relative size of various forcings is to see them scaled coherently. Solar is in red. It’s quite hard to see.

  55. #55 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    #44
    Apologies, delay while cooking tea.

    Your attempt at eyballing gets a Ho, Ho, Ho
    Hint, try working backwards from the present showing an obvious
    slight downward slope from 1998 or flattish since 1994/5
    You also notice the differences emerging about 2010 between the processed temperatures referred to as observations (UAH or RSS) by Santer and the CMIP5 multi model average, which Santer then puts down to these 19 VE4 volcanoes.

  56. #56 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Your attempt at eyballing gets a Ho, Ho, Ho

    Which is why I don’t like doing it. But I can just as easily laugh at Whitehouse’s eyeballing. I hope you can see that.

    Everything else has been explained above. You still seem to misunderstand Santer14. You still haven’t conceded that your original claim was incorrect.

    We aren’t going anywhere and it’s not my fault. I have tried. You have not.

  57. #57 Stu 2
    February 28, 2014

    Frank D,
    If people can’t afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
    The answer remains the same. Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences.
    Obviously you don’t like that answer. But that is my simple answer to that question.
    If it helps to make it any clearer – I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work.
    For a different example (not housing affordability/availability) there would be different government initiatives that will or won’t achieve results.
    I do not believe in one particular socio-economic theory. I judge by matching stated goals and purposes against results.
    I hope that assists you in moving on?

  58. #58 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    Well you might well laugh at Whitehouse’s eyeballing but it seems pretty flat to me for the last 15-20 years indicating little if any temperature change when it was expected to rise due to increased CO2 concentrations.

    Even Nature acknowledges a 16 year hiatus

    Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

    So a claim of ” it seems to have been going on for about 20 years” is not unreasonable.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    An interesting article

  59. #59 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise

    Still missing the fundamental point: we see short term variability imposed on a long term trend. You can’t use the former to estimate the latter. You need a bigger picture.

    * * *

    So a claim of ” it seems to have been going on for about 20 years” is not unreasonable.

    It is incorrect. See for yourself:

    GAT/TLT 1994 – 2014 twenty year trends

    Those are not flat trends. They are positive.

  60. #60 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Decadal trends 1994 – 2014:

    HadCRUT4 = 0.1C

    GISTEMP = 0.11C

    UAH TLT = 0.12C

  61. #61 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise @ #54

    But still you are refusing to do other than cherry pick statements and to look at some data in isolation rather than take in the whole abstract at your link and if you also visit the links to the three part Met’ Offce report I made up-thread and also to their February 2014 report on recent storms into the UK which has a good section on climate models.

    Now stop pissing about and do some wider study and stop drinking at the poisoned pools, like too much hard stuff that can also lead to red noses.

  62. #62 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Uisgebeatha it ain’t.

  63. #63 Rednose
    March 1, 2014

    I prefer an Edradour myself. More exclusive

  64. #64 BBD
    March 1, 2014

    Laphroaig for me, but Edradour is nice. Almost chocolatey.

  65. #65 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2014

    Rednoise is confused about the influence on the temeprature record of of ENSO, volcanoes and such. His confusion might (just might…) be resolved if he reads this:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

    On the matter of the statistics of detecting significance in the data, Rednumpty might follow the links starting here:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/breaking-news-bbc-gets-science-from.html?showComment=1389703725101#c331016408439153629

    or take it from someone who knows:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/uncertain-t/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gone-with-the-wind/

  66. #66 FrankD
    March 1, 2014

    Stu2

    See, this is why I want to be specific.
    If people can’t afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
    That’s wrong. If people can’t afford to buy housing, they can rent it. Investors can buy (because their situation is different), but less well cashed wanne-be owner-occupiers cannot. That is the difference between availability and affordability.

    Obviously you don’t like that answer.
    I neither like nor dislike that answer, so you are just projecting. I did not like the ambiguity of your answer, because I fully expect the same ambiguity in any discussion of policy options.

    I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work.
    Well that is something we can agree on, regardless of whether we agree on underlying economics. The problem is that “Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences” is bullshit.

    Option A simply privatises profit while socialising cost – this is the exact problem with Direct Action (in fact, its pretty much the problem with all policies that get the tick from media and business groups. If you think land releases solve the affordability problem “without creating too many third party or unintended consequences” the you are mistaken. At a minimum, housing does not exist in a vavuum – houses require water and power and sewerage and roads, and then bigger roads to carry the residents to wherever work is. Which means that tax-payers as a whole are subsidising all house buyers, whether investors or owner-occupiers. The money for this infrastructure diverts funds from other areas where it would be useful, whether ones economic mindset says that should be schools and hospitals, or back in peoples pockets. The fact that these developments are associated with minimal infrastructure support means you can forget about anything like public transport. Instead we are creating vast acreage of car-only suburban wasteland.

    Nor does it do anything substantial to address the bubblicious nature of house prices, it just means people can pay a lot to live a long way from anywhere. I’ll concede that increased supply exerts a modest downward pressure (modest because the rate of building is relatively small compared to oveall stocks, but without unintended consequences? Anyone who thinks that is smoking something….

    Bureacratic costs are an easy mark, but a trivial proportion of the oveall price of buying a new house. It would be easy to target these at specific market sectors (eg a means-tested waiver of stamp duty). In some instances this has been tried, but in the main these sorts of trimmings, while they get good press, achieve nothing because the tide raises all boats equally. If governments reduced stamp duty by a flat $5000 all subsequent sales will be $5000 higher – all that would achieve is to make sellers $5000 richer. Doesn’t achieve the desired aim in the least, and has unintented consequences – again reducing revenue that governments need elsewhere.

    0 for 2.

    More to follow – I have to leave now (as in my lift is waiting).

  67. #67 Lionel A
    March 1, 2014

    Lionel A

    Arf, arf.

    The following has a certain ring to it:

    Benny Peiser the Koch’s teaser.

    As for the malts, I tried a few out over the years whilst visiting. I had to do this slowly because of a damaged heart, but Ardbeg, an Islay peaty type, is worth it once the taste has been acquired (;like Guinness and Marmite I suppose you either love it or loath it). I was once given a bottle of Caol Ila, once again an acquired taste – good excuse to buy another bottle.

    On the more gentle side is Dalwhinnie which I tasted for the first time in 2008 whilst on Ardamurchan, and got stick from SWMBO for my trouble. This one will please those with more refined tastes. But…

    If on holiday up there and visiting a bar check out the Black Bottle blended variety, it’s good value for money and the one I tasted very smooth, unlike Bells (Ugh!).

    I had long wondered what this Dalwhinnie malt tasted like having set off from near the distillery Dalwhinnie along Loch Ericht on a long trek across the hills to Poldubh (near what used to be know as ‘Thunderclap Bridge’ since removed and replaced by a new bridge about 3/4 mile upstream as I discovered in 2008) in Glen Nevis.

    This trek was one of a number of two week periods spent in the hills ”Venture Training’ whilst doing RN FAA trade training near Arbroath over a period of about 4 years with an 18 month interruption at an Air Station on (in the) field training.

    In those days the Clachaig inn in Glen Coe was a small cosy establishment with a dartboard just inside the door which let in a right hoolie when opened. Propping up the bar, and irritating some with his pipes, would often be ‘The Mad Piper of Clen Coe’ who turned out to be a Yorkshireman and who would walk the Glen playing his pipes, the Glen being a more lonely place then.

  68. #68 FrankD
    March 1, 2014

    So, back now…

    The point here is not that I disagree with the policies Stu2 has suggested are effective. It is that the policies are NOT effective, and have undesirable consequences. Stu has reached into the bag of economic-sound-bite flashcards and pulled out polices that are popularly thought to be effective, but are actually counterproductive.

    The only way to make housing truly more affordable, without simply socialising the costs onto the whole of society is to make the investment less attractive or less accesible, to get investors out of the market and leave the field clear for owner occupiers.

    Options c and d do that. Sure, c involves shafting investors with the addition of a whole host of unintended consequences (ripple effects through the economy), so balance and delivery of policy changes is very difficult to get right. d is probably racist. But regardless of these issues, they are the ones that attempt to actually solve the problem. The fact that Stu2 chose to focus on the side effects rather than the core effects is quite illuminating. Stu would favour a policy mix that does not solve the problem, spreads the costs among society as a whole, and has a number of unintended consequences, so long as it does not ruffle the feathers of people he cares about.

  69. #69 FrankD
    March 1, 2014

    So why this three page multi-day discussion to get to this point?

    Because – as I’m sure the more astute realised – I don’t give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned). But the solutions proposed have analogues in the climate policy space. Not a one-to-one relationship, but the choices of cost-benefit, effectiveness, risk of unintended consequences etc are similar.

    Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy “solutions” that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don’t really want solutions to these issues.

    As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure.

  70. #70 FrankD
    March 1, 2014

    For conucopian read cornucopian.

    Although its kind of a sweet neologism…

  71. #71 cRR Kampen
    March 1, 2014

    A virgin thread can be taken.

  72. #72 cRR Kampen
    March 1, 2014

    #66, double-took ‘conucopian’. Associating narrow conal vision field with this concept-to-be. Etymologically the neologism could be superfluous. Am I interpreting the sweetness rightly?

  73. #73 BBD
    March 1, 2014

    Five temperature data sets with solar variability, ENSO and volcanic aerosols removed by linear regression to reveal the underlying anthropogenically forced trend. From Foster & Rahmstorf (2011).

    * * *

    Thanks to Bernard J for reminding me that this should have been posted much earlier in the “discussion” above.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2014

    Thanks BBD for locating that animated version. I had intended to include that as well but forgot to chase it up in the process of collecting the other links.

    They all just goes to show that the pausists are all bafflegabbers and thimbleriggers. Very much like Eli’s current infestation of Richards who think that the oceans aren’t acidifiying…

  75. #75 BBD
    March 1, 2014

    That plonker trolled ATTP with that rubbish a couple of months ago. I saw him at Eli’s but could not be bothered. Has anyone pointed out to him yet that he doesn’t understand the coastal water pH ranges he’s waving around? In the sense that they allow for large, dynamic *local* variability typical of coastal environments. Nobody is suggesting that these pH ranges can be applied to entire basins. He was told this at ATTP, by me, very clearly indeed, so he’s being extremely intellectually dishonest peddling the same tripe elsewhere. Go and kick his arse. Again.

    ;-)

  76. #76 Bernard J.
    March 2, 2014

    Has anyone pointed out to him yet that he doesn’t understand the coastal water pH ranges he’s waving around?

    BBD, yes, I did exactly that a little while back after said plonker repeated for about the umpteenthth time that the range of pH in sea water is 2.5 to 8.5, as if this makes irrelevant a change of several tenths of a unit, but so far there’s been no response.

    It’ll come though, in the form of yet another display of the triumph of recalcitrantly ignorant ideology over pure and simple fact.

  77. #78 Stu 2
    March 2, 2014

    Frank D @ # 62, 64 & 65.
    Sigh
    How disappointing.

    ” Because – as I’m sure the more astute realised – I don’t give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned).”

    followed by:

    ” Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy “solutions” that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don’t really want solutions to these issues.”

    Disappointing because:

    1) From the first I questioned the relevance of using a presumed shortage of affordable housing in Australia as an example.
    2) I clearly stated (and you sort of agreed with this comment at 62) :
    ” I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work.”
    Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think – nowhere at all.
    If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem then I would obviously suggest that Governments should cease that behaviour.

    You conclude with:

    “As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure.”

    Considering my original question was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something that we all agree we should be concerned about – those comments of yours are very disappointing as they are just basically sweeping negative comments and are not really addressing the practical concerns we all should have about really important issues such as overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm.

    However, as I don’t wish to be summarily dismissive, please consider these clarification questions and I will try to keep them as direct and simple as possible.
    1) Is your – ‘bit of a problem with that as a solution’ – the fact that you’re personally paying $150/t for CO2 or are you questioning something else?
    2) Who in particular would the “f******s” be paying (to pollute) and for what particular purpose other than to pollute?
    3) You may not have intended to but you have basically argued that because what we’re doing now has unintended consequences then there is nothing wrong with creating more unintended consequences. Would you care to clarify?

  78. #79 Stu 2
    March 2, 2014

    Also Frank,
    Considering you went into a lot of detail above – I should be fair and clarify what I observed to be the unintended consequences of option c.
    I do not profess to be an expert of course – but my observation was that when negative gearing was removed as an option for property investors in Australia, while it did release some affordable housing for home owners, it created a problem with the lower end of the rental market and also revealed a chronic shortage of public housing available to compensate for the less fortunate who were at the lower end of the rental market.

  79. #80 FrankD
    March 2, 2014

    Stu2 – the housing question was not irrelevant. Its purpose – as stated several times – was to establish your general economic outlook. And as called, you think it is okay to socialise costs and privatise profits. The fact that your answers served as a metaphor for your outlook on climate change policy is merely a fringe benefit.

    “Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think – nowhere at all.”
    Ahh, yes, you did. Which is why I took such pains to clarify exactly what you meant. At page 7, #73, you said: “A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences.”

    So my summary of your position is exactly correct.

    Later on…
    Stu2 (page 8, #50): “If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success…”

    I called the weasel-wording out ahead of time.
    Me (page 8, #69): (that “if” could be misconstrued…)

    Since you had previously stated that the evidence did indicate that, claiming you were only conditionally endorsing those positions…
    “If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem …”
    … is just lame. Your “if” wasn’t conditional, it was a syllogism, based on a premise which, though false, you had already asserted,

    “was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something…”
    Well, what is this “something” we want to tackle? So far you shown a remarkable inability to fix on a single question, whether put to you or put by you. But if you can state it the “something” unambiguously, I’ll happily speak to it.

    But since nobody has PROVEN and PRACTICAL solutions to such a ridiculous generalisation as “…overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm…”, I can only assume this is a deliberate attempt to “poison the well”, as it were. Your comments on Page 5 #11, for example:

    “Which is a proven, practical way to prevent environmental harm in agriculture?
    a) Educate farmers in developing nations about best practice and efficient farming methods or
    b) Create a emissions trading market?”

    speak to a terminal lack of good faith.

    The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it.

    And before you witter on about being negative again, I’m just stating a fact. That this fact makes for unpleasant reading isn’t my fault.

    As to your questions:
    1. I am. You are. Everybody is. But there was a bit lost in editing: “That as a solution” = Continuing to emit GHG’s without cost to the emitters and mitigate the consequences.
    2. On the first pass, it doesn’t matter. A remediation fund/governments, national/international. getting tied up on that is another dodge, a failure to understand the key point. What is absolutely critical is that the energy market no longer be allowed to continue to externalise the cost of their emissions. That makes sense from whatever your economic persepective. So the question is, do you agree that a price on carbon commensurate with the cost? Once we agree on that, debating about the best mechanism might be worthwhile.
    3. Where have I argued that? Quotes please.

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    March 2, 2014

    Stu2, whatv Frank is referring to is the fact that the environmental costs of economic activities are externalized. Society therefore picks up the costs whereas the polluters don’t pay anything. Progressive economists and those advocating a steady-state approach to counter the effects of dwindling resources and environmental destruction have been arguing this point for years, only to be drowned out by the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade who appear to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. They think that consumption and waste production can forever increase due to their almost religious belief in the triage of economic efficiency, unlimited substitutability and technology.

    Of course, many of these same people are pretty silent when it comes to policies in developing nations. where are corporations obtain most of their raw materials. They realize well enough that if the poor in developing nations aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the west, then we’ll urgently need to find another few Earth like planets nearby in the cosmos to plunder. But, as far as I know, Earth-like planets are hard to find these days. So we have to constrain our plunder to lands of the south – meaning our politicians pay lip service to eradicating poverty (they are lying) whilst we continue to loot, steal, plunder, thieve, call it what you like, resources and capital from these countries, all at the behest of our transnational corporations to ensure that they continue to rack up big profits. Its ecocide writ large, but our supine corporate media doesn’t write up much about it, because its owned by, or depends on advertising from, many of the same corporations that are reaping the rewards from the current rapaciously undemocratic system.

    In Rio at the Biodiversity Summit (actually, the summit was more about who had patent rights over biodiversity than protecting it) in 1992 corporations fought tooth-and-nail against full cost pricing (e.g. internalizing the costs of corporate activities). They knew full well that a move in this direction would necessitate a massive shift away from a fossil-fuel based economy because of the massive social and environmental costs of extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels. And since the US is by-and-large a corporate state, where the citizenry has been rendered impotent. of course they got their way.

  81. #82 Lionel A
    March 2, 2014

    Something we have long suspected:

    Study suggests internet trolls may not be mentally healthy in real life. H/T caerbannog666 in a reply at Climate Crocks on the Holdren v Pielke article.

    Note this story in a thumbnail at the head of that ‘Raw Story’ page:

    Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones: Democratic Party now the KKK, but ‘with minorities’

    where a media shill and a crank give vent to their spleens no doubt. Some other items of interest up there too.

  82. #83 FrankD
    March 2, 2014

    Jeff #77,

    Actually the people who you refer to as “the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade” would, if they had any consistency, support a substantial price on carbon.

    Externalities are by definition a market failure, and market failures by definition represent economic inefficiencies. A free-market economist of any stripe will supports the idea that market failures should be corrected to improve the efficiency of the market.

    It should not matter whether you are Keynesian or Chicago-schoolian or any of the dozens of other streams of ëconomic “thought” (some of which are little better than kaffee-klatches), all implicitly or explicitly support a price on carbon.

    So why is this a contentious point? Hint: the word “hypocrisy” must feature in any answer to this question.

    The question of conucopianism* versus steady-state reform is also a critical one to environmental degradation generally, but also more vexed, and away from the first issue of cricing GHG emissions. One step at a time, I think.

    *It amuses me to stick with that accidental neologism for now. For cRR’s benefit – since it seemed to get by him at #68, “con-” as in confidence trick. Seems apt.

  83. #84 Redose
    March 2, 2014

    BBD#55
    Another one from Nature concerning “seems to have been going on for 20 years” meme

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html

    Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors…

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

    Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
    +1 for Delwhinney

  84. #85 Rednose
    March 2, 2014

    March 2, 2014

    BBD#55
    Another one from Nature concerning the “seems to have been going on for 20 years” meme

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html

    Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors…

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

    Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
    +1 for Delwhinney

  85. #86 FrankD
    March 2, 2014

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a famous letter to James Madison in which he questioned the right of governments to incur long term debts. WRT to debt, I think his thesis is a little lacking*, but with regard to our attitude to the environment, it is worth quoting a section:

    The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another…[is]… a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.–I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living”: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

    Yet future generations will look at what we had and what we left to them and recognise that we have burdened them with our intergenerational debt. The dead us will indeed be exercising power and rights over the future living them.

    * Jefferson was talking about intergenerational debt, but he lived in a time when governments did not typically invest in long term capital assets, but normally only for consumptive activities like wars. Consequently he does not consider the cases where a valuable asset is developed at the cost of incurring that long term debt. Such debts are not of the kind he is discussing, since they (hopefully, at least) provide more future economic good than future economic harm.

    But the intergenerational environmental debt we are passing on is out of all proportion with any long-term economic good that might come from it. Only in some conucopian fantasy where there will always be more of everything can that sort of activity be justified, What we are doing here (and with a great number of commonly-owned assets, incidentally) is more analogous asset stripping.

    Pillaging for profit and leaving only debt in your wake is generally considered a bad thing. So why is this a contentious point?

  86. #87 Lionel A
    March 2, 2014

    I wrote in #78 above:

    Something we have long suspected etc., etc.,

    And look what turns up to start the March thread.

    And Rednoise:

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

    Who says? CATO institute? You too belong in that study through #78 above.

    Do you not grasp what is going on around the world and how devastating this is an from only around one degree Celsius increase in temps since C1900?

    This is all your sort can do quibble and wibble. The big picture does not change. Despicable!

  87. #88 Bernard J.
    March 2, 2014

    Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.

    Try not painting the town red with it.

    And try to get your scientific facts right while you’re at it.

  88. #89 BBD
    March 2, 2014

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

    This is just a stupid lie. You discredit only yourself by lying like this.

    * * *

    Fyfe and Gillett have been banging a drum for low TCR for years. They are over-invested in attempts to derive TCR estimates from recent climate behaviour and all such efforts are highly sensitive to transient variability. So they low-ball the estimate. In simple terms: wrong-o.

    If you actually understood any of this, you would grasp the nuances, but since you are essentially a denier arguing from ignorance and profound prior commitment, presumably to some foul political fantasy, you always get it wrong.

    * * *

    Add a drop of water to your scotch if you cannot cope with it neat. You will find that it opens the palette and allows you to appreciate what you are paying for.

    And wittering about preferring a particular dram because it is “more exclusive” makes you sound like a complete prat.

  89. #90 BBD
    March 2, 2014

    And don’t quote selectively either. At least go and find a full version of the abstract even if you can’t be bothered to read the paper you are waving around. The truncated paragraph you pasted up reads as follows:

    Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

    If you had a clue, you would know that solar forcing has been over-estimated relative to the very low activity during SC24, volcanic aerosol negative forcing has been under-estimated, and natural variability under-accounted for (wind-driven equatorial Pacific circulation; see England et al. 2014).

    Account properly for the transient influences and two things happen: you get good agreement between models and observations (Schmidt et al. 2014), and your estimates for TCR and ECS are validated.

    Bad news for deniers.

  90. #91 BBD
    March 2, 2014

    And you can’t even spell “Dalwhinnie.”

  91. #92 Lionel A
    March 2, 2014

    Rednoise, perhaps this article, On mismatches between models and observations will assist you in rationalising your thoughts on this particular thorny issue with which you have spiked yourself.

    Note:

    But does this exposition help in any current issues related to climate science? I think it does – mainly because it forces one to think about the other ancillary hypotheses are. For three particular mismatches – sea ice loss rates being much too low in CMIP3, tropical MSU-TMT rising too fast in CMIP5, or the ensemble mean global mean temperatures diverging from HadCRUT4 – it is likely that there are multiple sources of these mismatches across all three categories described above. The sea ice loss rate seems to be very sensitive to model resolution and has improved in CMIP5 – implicating aspects of the model structure as the main source of the problem. MSU-TMT trends have a lot of structural uncertainty in the observations (note the differences in trends between the UAH and RSS products). And global mean temperature trends are quite sensitive to observational products, masking, forcings in the models, and initial condition sensitivity.

    Note also the remarks on Feynman.

    Now, models may have you confused, after all there are a number of them and they are aimed at different problems. For a good explanation of model limitations and what is being done to improve them then I once again refer you to the excellent Met’ Office report by Julia Slingo (that got Lawson so heated hah!): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf

    and the earlier three parter on The recent pause in warming.

    Now you cannot claim ignorance of the type that leads you to make such preposterous replies here, for these have been pointed out to you time and time again.

    Now stop being a prat.

  92. #93 BBD
    March 2, 2014

    So having been comprehensively shredded once again, “Rednoise” morphs into “David Duff” and starts posting shite on the next thread.

    These socks were made for talking,
    And they’re gonna talk, talk, talk right over you…

  93. #94 BBD
    March 2, 2014

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

    I think I let this go too easily.

    Which journal was the rebuttal published in, when was it published and who were the authors. Please link to the paper(s) you refer to.

    If you can’t then you can acknowledge your error like this:

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

  94. #95 Lionel A
    March 2, 2014

    Which journal was the rebuttal published in, when was it published and who were the authors. Please link to the paper(s) you refer to.

    I asked that in #82 but he has not replied as yet. I’ll not hold my breath.

  95. #96 Bernard J.
    March 2, 2014

    He can’t spell ‘palate’ either…

  96. #97 Stu 2
    March 2, 2014

    Frank D
    The thread has probably petered out but I will re iterate that I am very disappointed:

    “The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it.”

    Firstly I am amazed that you could tag me as some type of enemy and the source of the problem? That is not a good way to foster a discussion Frank. Despite your ridiculous assertion I am concerned about caring for our planet and future generations.

    That comment was in relation to a question I asked Jeff Harvey earlier in this thread and I was questioning him about how to solve the environmental harm that is occurring in third world countries.

    Option a in that question is far from the cause of the problem. The harm caused by inappropriate land use is largely caused by people who do not understand how to use modern, best practice, sustainable farming methods and who therefore, out of the necessity to survive, continue to use primitive slash and burn type methods.
    That question was also accompanied by another about overpopulation in third world countries.

    And in answer to your question – this is the quote re ‘unintended consequences:
    ” What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure.”
    Considering that my original question and hence the continuing comments was linked to that ‘something’ that we should all be doing about it, I do find this comment of yours disconcerting.
    It appears that you’re just interested in making someone else pay and wasting time on a false, negative psychoanalysis of me, rather than a discussion about what could actually solve some of the issues that Jeff Harvey raised earlier in the thread.

  97. #98 Rednose
    March 2, 2014

    #89
    Its Foster and Rahmsdorf. I thinkFoster Grant used to make sunglasses
    A by no means exhaustive search produced the following:
    Masters 2013
    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/1065/2013/esdd-4-1065-2013.pdf

    Problems with solar, volcanic, and ENSO
    attribution using multiple linear
    regression methods on temperatures
    from 1979–2012

    y.After adjusting the observed surface temperature record based on the natural only multi-model mean from several CMIP5 GCMs and an empirical ENSO adjustment, a significant deceleration in the surface temperature increase is found, ranging in magnitude from -0.06 to -0.12 Kdec-2 depending on model sensitivity and the temperature index used. This likely points to internal decadal variability beyond these solar, volcanic, and ENSO influences.

    The sensitivity to
    the form of the underlying warming highlights the danger of multiple linear regressions when other important factors may be missing…

    Then there is Tung and Zhou 2012

    Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.full

    The 33-y net anthropogenic warming rate obtained, at 0.07 °C/decade, is less than half of Foster and Rahmstorf’s.

    Then there is an article by Stevef on The Blackboard
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/estimating-the-underlying-trend-in-recent-warming/

    Many people found the F&R paper to be technically weak, and its conclusions doubtful;

    So, I have quoted two recent papers from Nature in support of my statement

    “seems to have been going on for 20 years”

    All you have offered to counter this is a 3 year old discredited paper.
    By the rules of the blog which you kindly explained several months ago, I claim victory in this argument and my prize will be a small and exclusive single malt to be sipped neat without water

  98. #99 BBD
    March 3, 2014

    Rednoise

    After adjusting the observed surface temperature record based on the natural only multi-model mean from several CMIP5 GCMs and an empirical ENSO adjustment, a significant deceleration in the surface temperature increase is found, ranging in magnitude from -0.06 to -0.12 Kdec-2 depending on model sensitivity and the temperature index used. This likely points to internal decadal variability beyond these solar, volcanic, and ENSO influences.

    Yes, of course. F&R didn’t compensate for the effects of wind-driven equatorial Pacific mixing (England et al. 2014). Nor does Schmidt et al. (2014) or for that matter, Santer et al. (2014).

    If we took that further transient cooling influence away, the forced trend would be more evident still.

    * * *

    If you don’t know where Tung & Zhou (2012) went wrong yet, this will be useful.

    * * *

    Many people found the F&R paper to be technically weak, and its conclusions doubtful

    But none of them has published a rebuttal demonstrating error in the methodology in F&R11.

    And until someone does, this claim remains false:

    Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.

  99. #100 Rednose
    March 3, 2014

    Yes of course, F&R did not compensate for….”
    Which is the problem of relying entirely on a single dated paper to defend your argument.

    And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.

    As I have already drank the prize you cant have it back

Current ye@r *