March 2014 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 craig thomas
    March 11, 2014

    Real scientists continue to conduct research and to add to our understanding of the changes that are occurring due to the increase in heat:
    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-sheds-new-light-on-changing-greenland-ice/index.html

    Meanwhile, what are McIntyre, Curry and co. doing?

  2. #2 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    March 12, 2014

    When challenged with facts that demolish his arguments, he simply ignores them and goes back to his original meme.

    I sometimes wonder why the “top ten” list of climate myths at Skeptical Science seems to be nearly static. Just the occasional shuffling of one or two items. But it really is this, isn’t it. There’s nothing new for them to say. It’s like a denial merry go round (perhaps gloomy go round would be better).

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Fellas, latest news on the lake that is heating up faster than any other lake on the planet:

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHDCTGL/20140310180000_CVCHDCTGL_0007559589.gif

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2014

    Olaus, tell me why species of plants and animals continue to expand their ranges polewards or to higher elevations, emerge or flower earlier in the growing season and in many cases are increasing the number of generations per year. I have asked you this about a dozen times and you have yet to answer it.

    If there is a ‘hiatus’ as you suggest, then somebody forget to tell much of the planet’s biota about it. They respond.

    You don’t because you can’t provide a cogent answer. End of story. As for your Lake Superior figure, its meaningless of course because the spatial and temporal scale is insufficient.; the lake makes up a tiny percentage of the planet’s surface. Expand the scale and the pattern becomes clear. See how true your graph holds for large scale land masses and even oceans; try the Arctic. A very different picture emerges. Moreover, how thick is the ice on the lake? How fast will it melt? All of these salient little points are important too.

    But, as we know that you are as thick as two planks, you won’t have thought of them. In your right wing political world, the truth is corporate science.

  5. #5 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Jeffie, hate to tell you this for the xxx-times in a row but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes. Try to get that into the self-abcessed conspiracy pea between you ears. I’m sure it (cliamte change) could afffect your first hand spider too.

    And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?

    The global surface wasn’t heating up faster and faster, and now, when even you guys understand that it was a lobal-thingie, you seek comfort in Lake S and the Deep Blue. :-)

    Why don’t you call on Nessie too? ;-)

  6. #6 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    Jeffie, hate to tell you this for the xxx-times in a row but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes. Try to get that into the self-abcessed conspiracy pea between you ears. I’m sure it (cliamte change) could afffect your first hand spider too.

    And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?

    The global surface wasn’t heating up faster and faster, and now, when even you guys understand that it was a lobal-thingie, you seek comfort in Lake S and the Deep Blue. :-)

    Why don’t you call on Nessie too? ;-)

    You have had this explained to you.

  7. #7 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    Since the intellectual dishonesty on this thread has become insistently repetitive, let’s review the actual science as opposed to the twisted misrepresentations parroted by those who do not understand the topic.

    The mainstream scientific position is that warming will accelerate during the course of this century if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The mainstream scientific position is that warming will not be monotonic because natural variability has not magically ceased. There will be periods when warming slows down and periods when it speeds up, each imposed on the increasing centennial trend.

    Ocean heat content is continuing to increase. Energy is continuing to accumulate in the climate system as expected. In terms of the climate system as a whole (which is mostly ocean), global warming has not even slowed down: OHC 0 – 2000m layer.

    The terms “pause” and “hiatus” – inserted into the public discourse by deniers but sadly now even used by scientists – are incorrect. Both imply a temporary halt, but there has only been a slow-down in the rate of surface temperature warming. A popular denier claim is that there has been “no warming for 18 years”. This is easily falsified:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH; annual means 1996 – present

    Finally, there is no “mystery” about the slow-down in the rate of surface warming. Several causes have been identified, including a transient increase in wind-driven ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific associated with an increase in the frequency of La Nina England et al. 2014), an increase in both anthropogenic and volcanic aerosol negative forcing (Schmidt et al. (2014), and a period of unusually low solar activity (SC23/24).

    So:

    - Scientists never said there wouldn’t be periods of less rapid warming

    - There has been no “hiatus” in global warming

    - OHC continues to increase rapidly

    - There is no “mystery” about any of this

    - Denier misrepresentations of the actual scientific position do not constitute a scientific counter-argument, only intellectual dishonesty

  8. #8 cRR Kampen
    March 12, 2014

    #2 – “but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes.”

    *septics.

    Anyway, you don’t know why those changes happen, because you have to believe in some sort of dumb god like Mother Nature wreaking magic.

    You are one Dunning-Kruger case :D

  9. #9 chek
    March 12, 2014

    but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes.

    A stupid and obvious lie. The denier position has changed with the wind from ‘no warming’ to ‘predicted cooling’ to ‘yes it is warming’. Now it’s that “climate always changes”, but without any reference to the rate of change now being measured in decades.

    And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?/blockquote>

    Indeed there are and they show warming. As do additional instruments such as the Argo float array, and additional events in the Arctic over the past decade and general loss in the cryosphere – all caused by heat – in addition to the biological indications.

    The global surface wasn’t heating up faster and faster,

    What a curious strawman claim. Maybe Olap can reference which part of WG1 this was ever claimed.

    To call back on Craig’s question yesterday about what McIntyre has been doing, it appears the answer is turning dipshit know-nothings into jumped-up, dipshit amateur “auditors” who think they have even the slightest clue what they’re pontificating about, when it’s obvious to even laymen that bluster and generalisations and plain selective dishonesty indicate that they are indeed puffed-up know-nothings more in love with their own pontificating than acquiring any understanding of the natural world..

  10. #10 chek
    March 12, 2014

    … and this time with correct html

    but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes.

    A stupid and obvious lie. The denier position has changed with the wind from ‘no warming’ to ‘predicted cooling’ to ‘yes it is warming’. Now it’s that “climate always changes”, but without any reference to the rate of change now being measured in decades.

    And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?

    Indeed there are and they show warming. As do additional instruments such as the Argo float array, and additional events in the Arctic over the past decade and general mass loss in the cryosphere – all caused by heat – in addition to the biological indications.

    The global surface wasn’t heating up faster and faster,

    What a curious strawman claim. Maybe Olap can reference which part of WG1 this was ever claimed.

    To call back on Craig’s question yesterday about what McIntyre has been doing, it appears the answer is turning dipshit know-nothings into jumped-up, dipshit amateur “auditors” who think they have even the slightest clue what they’re pontificating about, when it’s obvious to even laymen that bluster and generalisations and plain selective dishonesty indicate that they are indeed puffed-up know-nothings more in love with their own pontificating than acquiring any understanding of the natural world..

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Chek, your fantasies and fabrications wrt what sceptics think and know are as bad as Jeff’s unscientific delusions. You religious scaremongers invented the sceptics and gave them qualities with no match in reality. Like the “faster and faster”-meme you invented too. And now reality bites you in the ass. Tough on you, I can imagine.

    Face it, the sceptics were right all along. The science wasn’t settled, weather wasn’t climate and there was/is no right wing conspiracy denying the CO2-hypothesis obstructing climate science.

    Your authoritarian secteristic minds need enimes to feel good. If there arn’t any around in the real world, you invent them and fight righteous battles. Anythying for the possibility to blame others.

    Poor sods, that’s what your are. And now you are crying that sceptics are moving the goalposts you set up all by yourself. Only in Deltoid la-la land. :-)

  12. #12 chek
    March 12, 2014

    Olap, You’re in a terminal tailspin of denying your denial. Deltois, Tamino’s, Real Climate, Stoat and Skeptical Science to name only a very, very few are a catalogue of the ever-shifting denier stupid – and all in their own words too.

    Your fantasy re-imagining of the history recorded for posterity in all the above blogs is just that, a fantasy.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    Face it, the sceptics were right all along.

    More stupid lies. Read the fucking words – #4.

    Olaus, simply spewing out rubbish isn’t an argument. Get that into your head. All you are doing is making a noise. What I wrote at #4 is a referenced, supported argument.

    This is self-evident. So address the actual argument, point for point. Or fuck off. Just how intellectually dishonest and buttock-stupid can you really be?

  14. #14 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    there was/is no right wing conspiracy denying the CO2-hypothesis obstructing climate science.

    So what the fuck is Donors Trust, Olaus? Explain that for us.

  15. #15 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    Crickets.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    March 12, 2014

    O Petriervert, for you are being persistently perverse, it has been brought to your attention that there is no such thing as slow down in warming over the last 15, 18, 20, 30 years and sources have been cited.

    The fact that you continue to spout the rabid BS that you do is a sign that your are either intellectually or morally bankrupt, quite likely both.

    Some of the following have been brought to your attention but do go study them, and follow in-line links within for more:

    Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise

    By Request.

    Now I invited you to look up my citations of a June 2013 3 Part Met’ Office report on this topic:

    The recent pause in warming

    study each part carefully and don’t get excited by the unfortunate title.

    However if you really wish to be remembered as a dishonest ignoramus do continue with your vacuous drivel for each one marks you for lurkers to recognise how well you deserve to be given the labels that you have and these lurkers also get to learn where to look for the honest truth.

    Your current line is self defeating.

  17. #17 chek
    March 12, 2014

    Olap @ #8 shows exactly the kind of rhetoric and pure projection that convinces idiot know-nothings of his own calibre. No supportive facts, just bluster, wind and piss is enough for him.

    No wonder the denial machine of cranks, liars and sharp operators chews such idiocy up and spits it out leaving him wondering why he convinces nobody looking for at least some grounding in the real world of easily checkable facts and data.

  18. #19 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    March 12, 2014

    I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes.

    And like all deniers who like to call themselves sceptics, you leave out the most important bit about “climate changes”.

    Climate only ever changes for a reason. If nothing special happens, then nothing much changes in climate.

    Just look at the climate for the whole of agricultural history. Lots of changes year by year and place by place, but the only observable change over the last 8000 years has been a very small but steady cooling of the overall climate. And that steady cooling has suddenly stopped in a couple of centuries and is now rapidly warming.

    Something’s changed. Perhaps the several thousand comments on hundreds of threads on this blog alone might have told you why. It’s us. It’s anthropogenic. It’s CO2.

  19. #20 chek
    March 12, 2014

    Adelady, in isolation, your quote from Olap reminds me of Faux News’ Bill O’Reilly’s now infamous quote, See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can’t explain that. “

    Substitute “the climate changes” for “tide” and you’re looking at the same standard of fucked-in-the-head ignorance.

  20. #21 Lionel A
    March 12, 2014

    O’Reilly played that ‘Tides come in, tides go out’ on Richard Dawkins some time back.

    Which just goes to show that deniers are repetitive ignoramuses.

  21. #22 chek
    March 12, 2014

    A thought provoking article on scepticism and denialism to be found here.
    The money shot is neatly put:
    Tens of thousands of Denialists egotistically assume that their fact-poor, pre-spun, group-rage opinion entitles them to howl “corrupt fools!” at the men and women who have actually studied and are confronting this important topic.
    As I have suggested elsewhere, the real purpose of it all may be to undermine the very notion of expertise in our civilization, leaving no strong force to challenge any ruling elite.

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2014

    Olaus, you complete and utter ignoramus, nature itself is a far better proxy for a changing climate than any devices Homo sapiens can create. And you can talk about a ‘spider’ all you like, but I am talking about a huge and growing empirical base involving vascular plants, pathogens, fungi, many types of invertebrates as well as vertebrates. Now you may feign intelligence, but what each of your ludicrous posts points to is a complete and utter lack of intelligence.

    That was illustrated in your ‘maggot’ comments; an feeble attempt to smear and dismiss me and scientists like me who work with insects. As I said, I don’t work much with the Diptera (though I would like to, as they are a fascinating order) but primarily with the Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera.

    But let me make one point abundantly clear for your pointy little head: those ‘ maggoty’ critters you so deride are worth billions of dollars to the global economy every year in terms of costs and benefits. As pests of crops, livestock (biotrophs) and as disease vectors, Diptera generate huge costs; on the other side of the ledger, as predators and parasites they are hugely important in biological control programs. Some of the most important pollinators are in the Diptera. But perhaps their greatest contribution is a decomposing organisms (e.g. breaking down biological wastes in terrestrial ecosystems). That service alone renders them as vitally important organisms in natural systems. Without those ‘maggoty’ things the landscape would be utterly littered with biotic detritus that would take many times longer to decompose.

    And of course, in forensics they are very important organisms too. So the next time you open your big gob and attempt to impact some kind of humorous wisdom of yours, my advice is to think again. It may save you from your ritual self-humiliation.

  23. #24 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2014

    Olaus has the audacity to write this: “Jeff’s unscientific delusions”

    Good grief, I have more scientific expertise and acumen in the fingernail of my pinky than Olaus has in his entire body. I’ve explained that the best proxies fro a changing climate are biotic ones. There’s no debate whatsoever on this point. Climate changes: nature responds. And this clod comes back with arguments that I would have found embarrassing when I was 5 years old.

    Olaus is an idiot of the highest order. The real mystery is why he comes back here repeating is sandbox-level arguments. One can only surmise that his stupidity greatly outweighs any scintilla of common sense.

  24. #25 GSW
    March 12, 2014

    @All

    Wake-up call for the climate alarm industry via Bjørn Lomborg.

    “A new survey from Gallup shows that Americans don’t worry all that much about global warming.

    This is very similar to the survey showing Europeans worrying a lot more about almost all other issues than global warming….”

    “Moreover, notice, how they’ve bunched up environment, climate *and* energy issues, and still can’t get it above 5%.”
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349665523968

    (h/t wuwt)

  25. #26 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    There is no climate alarm industry. You just made that up. There is physics and there is paleoclimate and there is modelling. These combine to inform us that at the very, very least we are going to see ~2C warming this century under BAU unless there is a policy response.

    How buttock-stupid and intellectually dishonest can you be, GSW?

  26. #27 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2014

    GSWs scraping the bucket now, having to cite something from a guy with a single peer-reviewed paper in his career (and on iterated prisoner’s dilemma, of all things). But I am sure someone as daft as gormless probably thinks that Lomborg is a sage of wisdom. And this is a tip from WUWT? Gosh, how utterly stupid are they? Clearly very.

    As for his analysis of the poll, what does this tell you? It says that the population are dumbed down by their dependence on the state/corporate media which of course downplays AGW or else insists on giving deniers ‘equal time’ in discussions on the topic when in reality the view amongst scientists is more like 95% against 5%. And many of the deniers are blowhards and laymen and have no relevant scientific expertise.

    And what drives the media distortions of AGW? Owner-advertiser pressures for sure. Its Herman/Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ in Manufacturing Consent writ large. But since gormless (and Lomborg, for that matter) are so utterly naive, its a small wonder they parrot polls as if they actually mean something. Well, they do: that the public swallows a veritable tsunami of disinformation for the media. That’s not hard to imagine: look at how utterly gullible Americans were in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Bombarded with relentless media propaganda about illusory WMD and the alleged ‘imminent threat’ of attack by Iraq, by 2003 many (the majority) swallowed it hook. line and sinker.

    The AGW denial-propaganda machine has hired the biggest heavyweights in perception management to mislead the public. Think tanks, astroturf lobbying organizations, Public Relations Corporations, and the media: nothing has been overlooked by those anxious to ensure that nothing is done to reel in the use of fossil fuels. Lomborg ought to be discussing how this well organized and funded movement has affected public opinion. But since Lomborg is IMHO also as thick as two planks, its hardly surprising that he would spew out this crap. I debated the guy in 2002 and he was as scared as a chicken when I debated and then spoke privately with him. He was clearly afraid of saying anything I could use against him, so he wisely shut up during our private talk.

  27. #28 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Lookie, lookie at Jeffie! He’s still completely stuck in his unscientific mindset, which forces him to invent and fabricate what is said. Why is it that, Little Napoleon? READ THIS SLOWLY AND MANY TIMES: I didn’t claim that nature itelf wasn’t a good proxie for climate change. Like always you made stuff up. You are such a loser and dishonest authoritarian activist troll.

    What I did say was:

    “And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?”

    The fantiasy industry of the climte scare church can only find a valid argument if they invent stuff.

  28. #29 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Jeffie, the poll tells you that normal human beings have been repelled by the mouth-frothin, crystal balling lies guys like you are so good at delivering.

    Your unscientific and religious mantras are not appreciated. Deal with it.

  29. #30 Lionel A
    March 12, 2014

    Old Parrot and GaSbag Witless,

    A new survey from Gallup shows that Americans don’t worry all that much about global warming…

    The natural world pays Sweet Fanny Adams attention to polls, even those promoted by the likes Wlillard Anthony and Bjorn Lomborg.

    You are as deluded as you are pig ignorant.

    Think about it you dupes.

    And in that #26 we see classic – How does it go – projection.

  30. #31 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    “And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?”

    Indeed there are. And according to both, there’s been no fucking hiatus.

    All this was written up on the previous page, and again at #4 above. If you weren’t a snivelling liar, you wouldn’t need to pretend that what I wrote and the data I linked to didn’t exist.

    The fact that you keep on blanking all this stuff simply proves my point.

  31. #32 craig thomas
    March 12, 2014
  32. #33 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    Dear BBD, no one is interested in your off the mark yapping. The hiatus is real and so is your accelerating lobal warming.

    You invent as much as Jeffie.

  33. #34 chek
    March 12, 2014

    Olap. you can huff, puff and wish as hard as your little head allows you to, but there is no hiatus – it’s a denier fantasy foisted on you by shonky statistics.

    That’s what the data sows – and why all; you can do is insist and insist and stamp your little booties.
    But that won’t do.
    It’s facts and data that count. 1998 isn’t even the warmest year anymore (not that you’ve a fucking clue as to why they chose that start point).

  34. #35 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    The hiatus is real

    No it isn’t and I can falsify your lies with a single graph.

    Which I have now posted for the fourth time on this thread.

    Olaus, you are pathetic, and you are a liar.

  35. #36 GSW
    March 12, 2014

    More from the climate alarm industry,

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3397541/nc-climate-links-removed/

    North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under attack from Climate Progress.

    “Mather did say, however, that climate change programs were not of great importance to the DENR because of a lack of federal regulation.”

    “DENR’s website change has raised questions on whether the removal of climate change information is a reflection of the current administration’s philosophy. Both McCrory and DENR Secretary John Skvarla have made no secret of their skepticism on climate change..”

    ““Our secretary has said that he feels that our department needs to recognize that there are all kinds of views on this subject, a diversity of views, and that’s been his primary position,”

    A “diversity of views” obviously unacceptable to Romm et al. How will the whole “climate change gravy train” stay on track if a diversity of views are tolerated? (you’ve guessed it, it won’t)

    More on the gravy train from the Herald Sun last year..

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/climate-hysterias-budget-pain/story-fni0d8gi-1226768191030

    “And all to achieve absolutely nothing.”

    eh, well yeah, who knew?.

  36. #37 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    You invent as much as Jeffie.

    I invent nothing Olaus. I only look at the data.

    Now you must look at the data too. There is no hiatus. The data don’t lie Olaus, but you do.

    Click the link, Olaus.

    Click it. See for yourself.

    No hiatus.

  37. #38 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    There is no climate alarm industry GSW. You made that up.

    I answered your rubbish above. Why can’t you read the words, troll?

  38. #39 BBD
    March 12, 2014

    What an unbelievable pair of knobheads.

  39. #40 chek
    March 12, 2014

    The climate alarm “industry”, like the poverty “industry” is another loony-toon right wing invention, projecting on to others what their lobby groups are actually doing in reality.

    Olap and Griselda aren’t interested in climate science – they’re rabid activists working to an agenda, whether they know it or not.

  40. #41 chek
    March 12, 2014

    Click the link, Olaus. Click it. See for yourself.
    No hiatus.

    Olap is too dumb to understand what data are, or how to use them.
    He’ll deny the data, because he’s an activist loony, and also because he doesn’t understand that tactic doesn’t work on the educated who can work out for themselves that 2+2 will never equal 5. But he’ll happily believe the result is 5 if his preferred sources say so. He’s that fucking dumb.

  41. #42 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    BBD, even the IPCC recognizes the hiatus. You know it, I know it and your own little graph doesn’t change that fact. Don’t forget to adjust for the missing heat trapped in the deep blue, which Trendberth thinks might explain the hiatus. ;-) Read this and weep:

    “Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.”

    No signficant warming….

  42. #43 Lionel A
    March 12, 2014

    craig @#29

    Indeed, but the foxes in charge of the UK hen-coop don’t mind Total tacking an interest in shale gas development here French oil giant Total to invest in UK shale gas. The stink from No 11 is growing.

  43. #44 chek
    March 12, 2014

    See what I mean folks? Olap the fuckwit strikes again.
    No comprehension of the data, and a staggering ignorance of real world events.

  44. #45 Olaus Petri
    March 12, 2014

    OT, the German energiewände has become great laughing material:

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/12/german-mainstream-media-mocks-fires-stinging-parody-at-germanys-collapsing-renewable-energies-project/

    The secularization process of the climate scare church continues. :-)

  45. #46 Lionel A
    March 12, 2014

    GaSbag Witless at #33

    North Carolina is governed by scientific ignoramuses funded by fossil fuel don’t ya know, after all they banned mention of sea level rise as if that would make it go away. Ultimate head up seventh rock from the sun syndrome right there. You are as bad it would seem..

  46. #47 chek
    March 12, 2014

    even the IPCC recognizes the hiatus.

    If you were able to comprehend English, what the IPCC addresses is the denier hullaballoo about your mythical hiatus.
    They don’t “accept” it, because it’s statistical garbage based on 1998 being the hottest year when some think-tank devised the lie.

    But since then, 2010 became the hottest year, only nobody thought to inform the fuckwit brigade (that’s you, Olap). Likely because they thought them incapable of understanding the difference anyway. And true to form you don’t, do you? Because you’re a fuckwit.

    All this data are in the thread. You just can’t understand it.

  47. #48 chek
    March 12, 2014

    the German energiewände has become great laughing material:

    notrickszone>

    Indeed, but only amongst the most knuckle-dragging of the fuckwitted (looking at you, Olap which is no recommendation at all) who haven’t yet twigged that fossil fuels are a finite resource that are running out, even leaving the damage they do aside.

    Even if the dire consequences for climate stability were put to one side and ignored, fossil fuels are finite and alternatives must be found.

    Of course, planning for a future is beyond the comprehension of fuckwits of whatever nationality, which is why their counsel has been ignored since time immemorial..

  48. #49 Bernard J.
    March 13, 2014

    Answer the questions Olaus:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/03/01/march-2014-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-176234

    And for a gold star and a koala stamp, can you explain how the heat budget of the Earth has changed over the last 16 years compared to the time before that? In other words, is the difference between heat in and heat out at the top-of-atmosphere differen today compared to 16 or more years ago?

    And if so, how?

    I have (a token amount of) money with a colleague that says that you will not answer a single question. Sadly, he wouldn’t take the supplementary bet that you wouldn’t get even a single one correct if you did answer…

  49. #50 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus, you uneducated rightwing loon, biotic proxies are far better than thermometers for measuring changes in nature. The latest Royal Society/National Academy of Science joint report on AGW emphasizes the importance of distributional/altitudinal/phenological shifts in species over the past 30 years that are ongoing. In other words you clot, they did not magically stop in 1998; species of plants and animals continue to respond to warming that is ongoing. You are so utterly native and stupid that this salient point just does not sink into your indoctrinated pointy little head.

    I’ll give you plenty of examples if you like, and tell you to read a spate of published papers in the peer-reviewed literature, but your only retort will be about a singe spider and ‘non-science’. What the f*** do you know about the scientific method? Get his through your thick head: THERE IS NO HIATUS. THERE IS NO HIATUS. THE WARMING CONTINUES UNABATED.

  50. #51 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus

    BBD, even the IPCC recognizes the hiatus.

    It’s the wrong word. Slowdown in the rate of surface warming is correct. AR5 barely mentions this as it is widely regarded as a transient and relatively unimportant phenomenon. Only deniers are making a huge fuss about it because they don’t understand the science, which I summarised for you (again) at #4. Read my fucking comments. Then you will understand what is actually going on.

    You know it, I know it and your own little graph doesn’t change that fact.

    That graph demonstrates only one FACT: there has been no “hiatus”. It’s not “my little graph”. It is the data. The measurements. Reality. Deal with it.

    Don’t forget to adjust for the missing heat trapped in the deep blue, which Trendberth thinks might explain the hiatus

    When you do that, the true extent of global warming becomes apparent – it has *accelerated*. See Balmaseda et al. (2013):

    The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

    Now we come to the most bizarre and puzzling part of your comment:

    Read this and weep:

    “Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.”

    No signficant warming….

    First, this explanation is now regarded as incorrect (where did it come from btw? Reference it please). A multifactoral explanation for the slow-down in the rate of surface warming is now considered more likely. Please go back and read #4 on this page. You will see that wind-driven ocean circulation is probably the major factor, per your quote, but volcanism, anthropogenic aerosol loading and solar variability all play a role too.

    What I simply cannot understand is why you can’t see that a transient slowdown in the rate of warming doesn’t change anything. The centennial trend is completely unaffected by this kind of natural variability and it is the centennial trend that matters when considering AGW and ultimately, policy responses.

    You need to do some proper thinking. You are confused.

  51. #52 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Surprise surprise ;-), Jeffie couldn’t even understand what I told him about climate change (in uppercases). From his fetus position he again cries about me denying something I don’t. What’s the matter with you? Why can’t you digest and deal with the simple information/statement that I (too) belive “nature itself” is a good proxie for climate change. What else would be? Truly amazing, and then Little Napoleon tops it off by labeling me “Right wing” loon. :-)

    AGAIN: NATURE ITSELF IS THE PLACE WERE CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE OBSERVED.

    Get it? I guess not.

    And the hiatus is real, and mysterious, and therfore a very intersting scientific subject, to us blessed with a scientific interest that is. That rules you out Jeffi, of course.

    The missing heat, you know the one we felt for 15 years even though it wasn’t there, is a main scientific problem that climate science is dealing with. Good for science, bad for you.

    And the accelerating global warming isn’t unabated. That’s why we have a hiatus, remember. ;-) Where is the missing heat? So far the only place where it can be detected with any degree of certainty is in your (and fellow deltoiders) climate scareology zealot-brain.. :-)

  52. #53 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    I see: your quote was from the Jeff Tollefson article in Nature. That excerpt was reproduced at the denier blog WUWT, which is without doubt where you came across it.

    Here’s a bit WUWT missed out:

    The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

    Here’s another quote WUWT mysteriously didn’t use:

    And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

    The article isn’t very well written and the incessant use of “hiatus” is indefensible. Tollefson and the editor of this article have made a mess.

  53. #54 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Oh stop lying, Olaus:

    And the hiatus is real, and mysterious, and therfore a very intersting scientific subject, to us blessed with a scientific interest that is.

    A slow-down isn’t a hiatus. It’s just sloppy writing and the pernicious influence of denialist rhetoric on the public discourse. It’s not really mysterious any more (see above, endlessly repeated). You have zero interest in, or knowledge of, the relevant science.

    You are simply a polemicist (and a piss-poor one) and a liar. Your cheap talking points have been rebutted comprehensively now and yet you carry on repeating them, Jonarse-style. It’s annoying, but it isn’t advancing your “argument”. You just come across as moronic and dishonest. Hardly a great victory for contrarianism, is it?

  54. #55 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    BBD, the hiatus is a hiatus because observations contradicts what was supposed to be there: an accelerating surface temp.

    Stop crying will ya, and deal with it. There is no significant global warming the last 15 years and your church is crumbling.

  55. #56 Lotharsson
    March 13, 2014

    …the hiatus is a hiatus because observations contradicts what was supposed to be there: an accelerating surface temp.

    Er, no.

    Multiple different falsenesses of your claim about “what was supposed to be there” over this time scale have now been explained to you in several different ways.

    You’re either a liar, or you are not equipped with sufficient knowledge or intelligence to discuss this subject. (And those possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive…)

  56. #57 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Lothy, the sceptics have always claimed what you now try to attribute to you side. :-) The scale thingie has always been an issue for us. You, and the rest of the accelerating lobal warmers, have always had a hard time making difference between wether and climate. And now when you have realised that your original “scale” is working against your beliefs, you try acclaim an new one.

    Hilarious. :-)

    Any weather event has been accelerating global warming (climte) to you guys, ergo a scale-thing that was way out of scientific line. :-)

  57. #58 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Still repeating crap, Olaus. Lotharsson is correct: you are either stupid or a liar or both.

    Go back and read the previous comments and stop repeating rubbish.

  58. #59 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Lothy, the sceptics have always claimed what you now try to attribute to you side.

    No. The “sceptics” have never advanced a coherent argument. They all bray their own, typically contradictory pseudoscience or anti-science nonsense and the result is a great, amorphous noise. You trying to claim that “the sceptics claim” *anything” as a coherent group is farcical. Get a grip.

  59. #60 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus, el thicko: please ergo inform me why many species of plants and animals are continuing to move polewards, to higher elevations; are shifting their season phenologies; are increasing the number of generations per year in many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems if there has been a hiatuis in the warming. Clearly, somebody forget to tell nature.

    You are a clot, an idiot, a moron, et al. ad nauseum if you cannot grasp this simple principle. (Throw in the liar fro good measure). We’ve had the 2nd warmest winter in 308 years in Benelux and the warmest start to spring ever. The warmest was 2006/2007. Both during your bloody ‘hiatus’. All three of Australia’s warmest summers have occurred since 2009. All during your bloody hiatus.

    In Europe, Plutella xylostella, a serious pest of collard crops, exapnded north during the 1980s and only began overwintering locally about a decade ago. Their overwintering range continues to expand north and east. All during Olly’s bloody hiatus. The Oak Processionary caterpillar, a major health threat due to the release of toxic urticating hairs from the mature caterpillars, began spreading north from southern Europe in the 1980s, reached Holland by 1991 and has continued to increase to the north and in number over the past decade. All during Olly’s bloody hiatus. A number of plants – amongst them Rorippa austriaca – that are native to central-southern Europe, began to colonize new habitats in northern Europe over the past decade. They continue to exapnd northwards and increase in abundance. All during Olly’s bloody hiatus.

    There is NO hiatus. Temperatures increase, nature responds. And species and populations continue to respond biologically. Olaus is just an arrogant, brainless idiot who promulgates garbage.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Loth to Olly: “You’re either a liar, or you are not equipped with sufficient knowledge or intelligence to discuss this subject. (And those possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive…)”

    Liar: most probably, yes. A right wing lunatic, almost certainly. But definitely Olly is not intellectually equipped to deal with any scientific subject. He’s an urban geek who sticks his finger to the wind and professes wisdom. What a dork.

  61. #62 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Jeffie, stupido, the speices have most likely moved northbounds due to the observed warming the past ca 150 years making new territories habitable. Why shouldn’t they? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY: WHY DO YOU STILL FABRICATE THAT I DON’T BELIVE NATURE REPSONDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE, e.g. warming?

    Stop humping the leg of your own straw-man, please?

    Then we other expl. of course. Land use, deforrestation, globalisation etc.

    Now, stop lying and start reading, you secteristic nut case.

  62. #63 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    There is no significant global warming the last 15 years

    So what? Nobody ever claimed that warming would be monotonic. Natural variability continues to over-print the forced trend. All this has been set out above, several times. See eg. #4 this page.

    Read the words. Try to understand them.

  63. #64 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus, you are in no position to accuse anyone of advancing a strawman argument. You are profoundly guilty of this yourself. See eg. your insistence that a slow-down in the rate of surface warming can tell us anything at all about TCR, let alone ECS.

    You are either intellectually dishonest or you do not understand this topic at all. See # 4 this page.

    Read the words. Try to understand what is being said.

  64. #65 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Then we other expl. of course. Land use, deforrestation, globalisation etc.

    Trivial, localised forcings. GHG forcing and aerosols are by far the most powerful. You don’t understand the relative strengths of forcings at all.

  65. #66 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus comes up with another boner. What a dork.

    The range expansions began in the 1980s. There’s a huge volume of empirical evidence showing without any doubt that ranges and traits like seasonal phenology were pretty static for many species until about 20-30 years ago. Then things began to change rapidly. The data are there and they are published. Olly’s 150 year argument comes off the top of his pointy little head. There’s not a shred of ecological understanding in it. He makes things up on the spot.

    I might as well be debating a spider, given that there’s more logic in the left pedipalp of Cheiricanthium meldei than in Olly’s simple brain. Climate change is a major driver in the loss of genetic diversity in species. It will exacerbate the major extinction event already underway.

    But heck, this is a guy who derides fly larvae as if they are unimportant. He tries to impugn me by suggesting that I work with ‘maggoty things’. As I said earlier, its just another example of his sheer and unadulterated ignorance.

  66. #67 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    To quote our Swedish meatball: “speices have most likely moved northbounds due to the observed warming the past ca 150 years making new territories habitable”

    This is so utterly wrong its laughable. Were Mr. Pointy Head to speak at a conference and start with this he’d be laughed off the stage. ‘New territories habitable’??? Olly, where do you pick up this childish garbage? This isn’t science, this is play school. You’re trying to debate ecology with a professional in the field. Now I sometimes encounter students who make flippant remarks, but your comments are literally lamentable. Nothing in them goes beyond sophomoric in terms of scientific acumen. That makes it hard fro me, a scientist, to actually counter them. I am being forced into the sandbox. Try at least to elevate your discourse to the elementary.

  67. #68 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    There’s an interesting graph up at SkS showing just how vital to denialist cherry-picks the 1998 El Nino really is.

    Being a sceptic I have attempted to replicate the graph myself, rather than trusting SkS uncritically. Here’s my version:

    GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – 1997 and 1998 – present

    The amazing vanishing “hiatus”…

  68. #69 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Sorry Jeffie, I was not writing a paper, I was only responding to your fabrications that I didn’t blieved nature responded to climate change.

    Stop inventing stuff and see yourself for what you really are: a hysterlical climate scare secterist with a scary authoritarian mind set.

  69. #70 Lionel A
    March 13, 2014

    SkS as ever, and not alone, serves up the goods that expose the Olases for what they are Grinning Idiots (GITs).

    The last link ‘beyond our capacity to adapt’ is now fixed and it is to this article which the GITs need to read slowly and thoughtfully:

    Tennis heat just the beginning .

    Considering all the information that has been placed in front of the GITs then if they continue with their fatuous trumpetings then they can only be judged as dishonest and the sources they suck from need to feel the consequences of their propaganda, a list appears at any denier blog site such as Jo Nova which does not contain notrickzone or hockeyschtick which the GITs also seem to favour.

  70. #71 Bernard J.
    March 13, 2014

    My money’s looking good.

    Olaus, it appears that you have questionophobia, so I’ll frame those scary things in a different way.

    How many 15-year periods (or greater) of “hiatus” can be identified in the global temperature record starting from the beginning of the 20th century?

    It’s not a difficult question. Really. Just one number.

    Be brave and answer it.

  71. #72 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus, may I offer you some sage advice. You are humiliating yourself with every post. Everything you write stinks of Dunning-Kruger – its clear you have no relevant knowledge or expertise of anything remotely scientific, except what you’ve read in books or on web sites – primarily denier ones. You have no formal education in relevant fields, leading to you to vastly overestimate what you think you know.

    Your statement re: range expansions ‘over the past 150 years’ and ‘making new territories habitable’ is pure and utter gibberish. There is nothing remotely empirical in that except what you are making up on the spot. I and others have cornered you and you don’t know how to get out of the mire you have created. And you are sinking fast.

    First of all, we don’t have proper demographic data sets for most plants and animals beyond a few descriptive records from trappers and early biologists, pollen records and similar thin evidence. We know that a range of anthropogenic factors – for instance the mass-cutting of forests in North America – affected many species, both negatively and positively. But there is certainly little evidence of climate-related range shifts that were noticeable until the 1980s. There’s an already huge and growing body of literature showing a phylogentically wide range of taxa began responding to climate changeat around the same time – as I said, in the 1980′s and later – and that this is in response to recent warming. Now, you can make up all of the crap you want about 150 year time frames (where are your references, Mr. Swedish Meathead?) but it won’t wash with me and it won’t wash as empirical proof. The empirical evidence is there and you just don’t understand it or ignore it or both.

    You are being shellacked here and the more you say the deeper the hole. I am not going to let you off the hook. I want you to provide studies showing range shifts etc. began 150 years ago. I ask this because the evidence does not exist. You have made it up, just as deniers make up all kinds of other lies to suit their agendas. Now I can provide you with a lot of studies showing that range/elevational/phenological changes are a recent manifestation of AGW. Ultimately, it will be the made up views of an arrogant Swede with no relevant expertise versus many professional scientists.

    Aw shucks, its no contest then. My advice Olaus is to shut up while you can and leave here for good. You are tarred and feathered and everything you say makes you look even worse that you already are.

  72. #73 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Bernard J

    IMO it was unethical of you to persuade your colleague to take the other side of the wager. Knowing what you know, you might as well have simply picked his pocket :-)

  73. #74 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    That is, knowing what you know about Olaus’ track record.

  74. #75 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus reminds me of the infamous boxing match between Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb and Larry Holmes in 1980. Olaus is Cobb and the rest of us here are Holmes. Essentially, what transpired was that Holmes literally pummeled Cobb for 12 rounds like a punching bag. Cobb’s response was by feebly pawing at Holmes, without ever landing a single punch. Finally, the referee stepped in, at which point Cobb’s head was a pulpy mass. And yet when it was stopped Cobb protested, claiming he was doing well and that he could continue.

    Olaus is at the same receiving end here, and he is being beaten to an intellectual pulp, yet somehow he thinks he has the upper hand. This is a pathology I have come to see with climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists like Olaus. Most are not trained in science, and yet they greatly inflate what they think they know. I have yet to see many of them put up anything than feeble arguments, yet they have convinced themselves that they are intellectual heavyweights. Its so utterly bizarre.

  75. #76 Lionel A
    March 13, 2014

    I have just had a look into Sou’s HotWhopper again and the article (Not) looking forward to hotter and drier… which I suggest our parroting GITs go take a look at.

    Now having done that what chances do you think your descendants are going to have, even if they be as rich as Croesus?

    Assuming that is they are bright enough to have begat any descendants.

  76. #77 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Jeffie, your lingua-smegma can’t hide your constipatorial fantasies abot others. Nor can it hide that the accelerating global warming the last 15 years was lobal only.

    I feel sorry for you down there in your little bunker. ;-)

  77. #78 chek
    March 13, 2014

    Save your pity for yourself Olap, because your performance indicates your grasp of even the basics are pitiful. Why else does a loon with no idea of what he’s talking about pretend he does?
    At least Pielke and Curry are able to cobble together semi-plausible non-arguments. Your efforts are just laughable, with a large dollop of crazy thrown in.

    Oh, and btw – stop projecting your filthy and fetid mindset onto others. You’re the loons who think the IPCC is a grand conspiracy to take away your teddy bears, remember?

  78. #79 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    Chek, I don’t need to excuse myself. Unlike you and the delturds, I can make difference between weather and climate. Ialso know that there has not been any significant global warming the last 15 years.

    “But, but, but,… I felt it!”, says chek and Jeffie. :-)

    Don’t worry, I believe you.

  79. #80 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus

    Do you understand the following:

    - Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)

    - Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)

    Just indicate Yes or No.

    Thanks.

  80. #81 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    BBD, do you understand the following:

    – There is a mysterious hiatus. ;-)
    – There is no accelrating global warming, despite all the unsicientific doom and gloom for you.
    – There was no settled science, especially about a missing heat hiding in the deep oceans. :-)

    And YES, this means that it’s worse than you thought. :-)

  81. #82 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Olaus

    Please just answer the simple questions. Don’t be evasive.

  82. #83 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    There was no settled science, especially about a missing heat hiding in the deep oceans.

    Shows what you don’t know, Olaus.

    From the famous “Charney Report”, way, way back in 1979:

    One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well-mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so. It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

    Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.

  83. #84 Lionel A
    March 13, 2014

    GIT doubles down with inane incoherent comments. Deeper and deeper goes his hole.

    I wonder if he is already institutionalised, not sane.

  84. #85 chek
    March 13, 2014

    An activist loon like Olap cannot behave logically or give reasoned logical answers (even when simplified down to yes or no)
    a)because he doesn’t understand the questions
    and
    b) because his activist cause cannot withstand the data.
    Cue more bluster and irrelevance from Olap.

  85. #86 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Now answer the simple questions please Olaus. No more evasions.

    Do you understand the following:

    - Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)

    - Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)

    Just indicate Yes or No.

  86. #87 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    – There is a mysterious hiatus. ;-)
    – There is no accelrating global warming, despite all the unsicientific doom and gloom for you.

    There is no hiatus in the correct definition of the term, only a slow-down in the rate of surface warming. This has been demonstrated repeatedly to you above, so insistence on this point is pure dishonesty on your part.

    The rate of ocean heat uptake has *increased*, so the rate of global warming correctly defined as the accumulation of energy in the climate system is increasing. This has been explained to you (with OHC data) repeatedly above, so insistence on this point is pure dishonesty on your part.

  87. #88 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Once you disallow the denialist cherry-pick of the 1998 El Nino as a start point, look what happens!

    This is the anatomy of a climate lie revealed for all to see in one, simple graph.

    Look closely Olaus. Then go back and read that excerpt from the Charney report from way back in 1979. You have been lied to and you have been utterly confused.

    Wake up.

  88. #89 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014

    BBD, I know the meme “it’s worse than we thought” is a parallell to the 1970s ice-age scare. No real substance behind it. That’s the sceptic point of view, all along by the way. But the accelerating global warming is part of the unscientific scar-narrative that is the core of the Deltoid belief system:

    http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate

    Those damned lies! ;-)

  89. #90 chek
    March 13, 2014

    … and true to form @ #82, that’s just what Olap does.
    Stupid AND predictable.

  90. #91 Lionel A
    March 13, 2014

    Stupid and predictable as only a grinning idiot can be.

    Olap is falling down his hole only there is no problem because he is still falling, the SPLAT moment has yet to come and therefore does not exist.

    Sheer numbskull idiocy on parade, with every post he looks dumber, dunning-Kruger ain’t in it.

  91. #92 chek
    March 13, 2014

    is a parallell to the 1970s ice-age scare

    Hey, fuckwit. Give us a reference for the Intergovernmental Panel on Ice Ages. Show us where every National Science Academy on Earth and every professional scientific body in existence made their joint declarations to prepare for the next ice age, because apart from a few silly-season stories in the press, I can’t find any parallel at all.
    The only parallel exists within the vaporous medium occupying your skull.

  92. #93 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    #86 Just empty blather. And evasion, of course.

    I repeat:

    Do you understand the following:

    - Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)

    - Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)

    Just indicate Yes or No.

  93. #94 Olaus Petri
    March 13, 2014
  94. #95 BBD
    March 13, 2014

    Seen it, Olaus. More dodging by you. To help you answer the questions above, here are some more graphs:

    First, the short-term trend comparisons:

    GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 – present

    That’s with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.

    Now, let’s add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:

    As above, but with linear trend 1979 – present

    Finally, expand the view to 1900 – present:

    GISTEMP 1900 – present linear trend; 1979 – (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 – present linear trend

    The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.

    So, do you understand the following:

    - Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)

    - Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)

    Just indicate Yes or No.

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    March 14, 2014

    Lothy, the sceptics have always claimed what you now try to attribute to you side.

    ROFLMAO! Were you going for tragicomedic effect with your attempt to rewrite history?

    You, and the rest of the accelerating lobal warmers, have always had a hard time making difference between wether and climate.

    You’re projecting again. A big chunk of climate science denialism, including much of the stuff you spout, RELIES on conflating weather and climate.

    And now when you have realised that your original “scale” is working against your beliefs, you try acclaim an new one.

    You are a blatant liar. I haven’t done this, and I don’t know any scientist who has. Their claims have been consistent – that we are forcing climate which will result in a long term warming trend, on top of which there will be a lot of natural variability.

    Any weather event has been accelerating global warming (climte) to you guys,…

    And you are unwilling or unable to understand this: a weather event may be held up as an example of what we expect to see in a warming world, but that does not mean that the conclusion that climate is changing pretty much as expected is derived from a weather event in isolation.

    I suspect you’re simply throwing a lot of mud because you know that you can’t honestly answer BBD or Bernard’s questions.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    March 14, 2014

    And you know what’s most amusing about your position, Olaus?

    You’re parroting Jeff’s terminology about the “importance of scale” and saying you and your fellow “skeptics” have “always” understood it, at the very same time as you’re parroting a denialist meme that relies on not taking the time scale of the relevant processes appropriately into account.

    I’d bet good money that you don’t even understand that you’re arguing against your own position.

  97. #98 Lotharsson
    March 14, 2014

    And if one were really pedantic, one would also point out that your current favourite meme relies on a highly inappropriate concept of physical scale as well, because it conflates a thin slice of the near-surface with the entire climate system.

    But you cannot or will not understand this, right?

  98. #99 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Lothy, you can whine as much as you like. :-) The hiatus is there, despite the accelerating global warming (not to mentio the models accuracy). And the weather was weather, not climate, which was and is the sceptic vuiew.

    And of course I’m parroting the parrtot. The scale thing is hilarious, at least when comming from him. :-)

  99. #100 Bernard J.
    March 14, 2014

    IMO it was unethical of you to persuade your colleague to take the other side of the wager. Knowing what you know, you might as well have simply picked his pocket :-)

    Yes, I did have a twinge of guilt but it was obly a dollar, and my colleague thought that Olaus would respond with a straw man.

    As it turned out Olaus has simply pretended that the questions just aren’t there, and as of an hour ago I am a dolar richer.