March 2014 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    Lionel, thanks for emphasizing the points I made. Meatball clearly didn’t read any of the articles I put up there yesterday. Moreover, he does not understand whatsoever the concept of historical records. Why oh why do I bother? Its easier to communicate with my Geline wasps.

  2. #2 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    Olaus

    Why have you still not answered these questions? What are you hiding?

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

  3. #3 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    Olaus clearly believes that thirty years in the early C20th have some relevance to C21st forced climate change. Obviously they don’t but like many an denier, Olaus has created a pointless diversion and now clings desperately to it in order to avoid engaging substantively on any other topic whatsoever.

    This is another manifestation of the man’s pernicious intellectual dishonesty.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    BBD, You are 100% correct. Olaus is creating a diversion and a pathetically weak one at that. But heck, deniers do this all the time. I once had an exchange online with this anti-environmental libertarian clown in Canada that went along similar lines. In that case, the guy was attempting to dispute evidence that acid rain deleteriously affected the health of forest and freshwater ecosystems. When I challenged him, he demanded 100% proof, short of which meant there was no problem. This is the standard refrain of contrarians: that without absolute proof of causation there is no problem. Its like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk.

    In the case of Olaus, he thinks he’s on intellectual high ground with this new ‘1910-1940′ meme. As I said, there is plenty of empirical evidence of biotic responses to recent warming that are likely unprecedented, if we compare the historical ranges of plants and animals. This includes records made during Olly’s time frame. This effectively demolishes his point, but, cornered, his new tactic is to demand data on species abundances and ranges at different times over the past 100 plus years. Again, this has been dealt with, but to him its not 100% proof (e.g. only 99.5%). And, like the acid rain denier, he’s sticking to it like glue.

    To be honest, I am fed up to here with deniers like Olaus. They are dumbed down, biased, and clearly dishonest, as well as hypocritical. Watch them give clear distortions by contrarians a free pass.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    They annoy me too, Jeff, which makes me wonder about why we both post. Perhaps we have a similar compulsion to try to explain things to people who are confused.

  6. #6 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    There’s also a strange fascination with the psychology of denial. Observing all the different ways people lie to themselves and then externalise the awful, twisted unreason they have embraced. I thought I’d seen a fair sample of delusion and dishonesty in my general life, but climate blogs have shown me that I barely scratched the surface. Mind you, there is a reason for this. Just as in academia, this kind of blatant nonsense doesn’t typically cut it in a business environment (there are exceptions, as we know). So the crazy was automatically excluded from my professional milieu as it is from yours. You can only get away with behaving like that on the Internet.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    March 15, 2014

    Mr Bicorne, you and Lionel have no clue whatsoever if the speed of change was faster during 1975-1998 than it was during 1910-1940.

    Then, why do say that is was, when your have nothing to back your assumption with? Nothing….Or?

    You portentologist are something extra, that’s for sure.

    And please don’t post any more links stating that the “plant demographics” has changed since the 1960s. That most certainly the case. Get it?

    :-)

    It’s ok to say; “gosh,I didn’t know I was making stuff up! Thanks Oluas for setting the record straight!”

  8. #8 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    You are being an idiot, Olaus.

    Look at the C20th temperature record. We are not in 1910 – 1940 now. Things have changed, and because of physics, they will continue to change. The surface warming trend cannot just stop.

    GAT 1900 – present, 10 yr running means

    So arguing about 1910 – 1940 is irrelevant when the topic is ecosystem impacts of C21st forced warming.

  9. #9 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    It’s ok to say; “gosh,I didn’t know I was making stuff up! Thanks Oluas for setting the record straight!”

    In order to place your own views on the record, you need to set them out. This is why I keep on asking you those five questions.

    I’m not doing it to wind you up. I’m doing it because you have not explained your basic position. Once again, I ask that you do so. Since you have refused to answer (1) and (2) I have finally done so for you in the interests of moving this forward. If you disagree with the answers, provide evidence that they are incorrect. This must include source-linked quotes from real climate scientists and published papers.

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't.]

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't. See #1.]

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

  10. #10 GSW
    March 15, 2014

    @Olaus

    Image of our resident fantasist Jeff on a recent field trip (sporting his favoured Bicorne)
    http://www.antikcostume.com/images/1500/-10821.jpg

    It’s not known what he witnessed on this particular occasion, but it will definitely be something to do with climate change (he hasn’t decided yet). There will be no numbers, no comparative data, just a clanking of chains, a weeping and a gnashing of teeth.
    ;)

    @BBD

    More ineffectual bleating BBD?
    ;)

  11. #11 chek
    March 15, 2014

    And please don’t post any more links stating that the “plant demographics” has changed since the 1960s. That most certainly the case. Get it?

    So you’re fully accepting now that AGW has warmed the planet and will continue to warm the planet.
    Great.
    Some progress at last.

  12. #12 chek
    March 15, 2014

    just a clanking of chains, a weeping and a gnashing of teeth

    An excellent and concise general description of your fuckwitted denialism Griselda, as demonstrated by the lack of any data that you or Olap (or his recent Bjornie helpers) have advanced in support of your position.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    More ineffectual bleating BBD?

    Demonstrate it.

    Go on.

    Show where my arguments are flawed.

    Then we can have a dialogue.

    I would welcome that. You avoid it.

  14. #14 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    GSW

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't]

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't. See (1)]

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

    I’m not doing it to wind you up. I’m doing it because you have not explained your basic position. Once again, I ask that you do so. Since you have refused to answer (1) and (2) I have finally done so for you in the interests of moving this forward. If you disagree with the answers, provide evidence that they are incorrect. This must include source-linked quotes from real climate scientists and published papers.

  15. #15 chek
    March 15, 2014

    They annoy me too, Jeff, which makes me wonder about why we both post.

    Hey, don’t be the least downhearted, guy.
    Imagine the utter bankruptcy of any cause supported – putting all the evidence aside – by sleazy, dishonest arseholes like Olap and Griselda. The sort of absolute pre-lubed dickwads who look toward Jonarse the Incredible (in the original sense of the word) for “guidance” and approval.

  16. #16 chek
    March 15, 2014

    They won’t respond on your level BBD, because they can’t.
    It’s impossible for them because they don’t have the data and because they’re dishonest to the core of their beings.

    Denialism is a corrosion of the soul paid for by money either real or promised.

  17. #17 chek
    March 16, 2014

    Another interesting parallel is how they try to fit Jeff up a some type of ‘Napoleon’ figure, when history shows that Napoleon was shattered by Wellington at Waterloo. Rather like Jeff shattered Bjorn Lomborg back in 2002..
    The Skantrolls’ understanding of history is as fucked up as their understanding of climate science. But for obvious reasons they won’t be likening Jeff to Wellington anytime soon.

  18. #18 Stu
    March 16, 2014

    Mr. Petri, I am getting worried. Why are you not posting a link to a graph showing the recent hiatus in global warming you continue to speak of?

    Were you lying about the existence of such an hiatus, Mr. Petri?

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2014

    GSW, that’s our Jeff all right, with piles and dressed for faster and faster research in the piles of articles not claiming anything along the lines he think they do. :-)

  20. #20 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2014

    Stu, you are so boring. You are almost like Jeff and spam-bot BBD. You believe and believe (and hate a lot in between). Dosen’t it tell you anything when I pull the trouser down on Jeffie with such ease?

    On the other hand he’s not a climate scientist, only a climate scare druid, like the rest of you headlss chickens at deltoid.

    Regading hitatus, I presume you are referring to the one that has raised the quesion of where thethe “missing heat” has gone? The one that’s viewed as mysterious among climate scientist?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    March 16, 2014

    Good grief, how many times do I have to say it: there was very little change 1910-1940!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, the records of plants and animals in certain locations would include many species that were later absent and then either reinvaded or expanded their ranges. The warming circa past 1980 is unprecedented and exceeds any previous warming episode in recorded history. I’ve given several examples of species – insects and plants – that were either rare of absent from northern Europe until the 1980s. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE ALMOST COMPLETELY RESTRICTED TO SOUTHERN EUROPE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, AND ABSENT OR VERY RARE TO THE NORTH BETWEEN 1910 AND 1940. NOW THEY HAVE NOT ONLY SPREAD INTO NEW BIOMES SINCE THE 1980S, THEY ARE BECOMING ABUNDANT AND IN SOME CASES DISRUPTIVE PESTS THERE. End of story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And there isn’t anyone in the field who disputes tis meathead. Not one. Its full accepted that shifts in species polewards or to higher elevations as well as phenological changes to warming (including changes in voltinism – a big word for a dope like you – look it up) are greater in magnitude now than at any time in perhaps many thousands of years, and certainly dwarf any comparable period in the past 200 years. None of my colleagues dispute this. Its accepted fact. When we discuss these changes, not a single colleague speaks about 1910-1940 as a baseline comparison. Not one. What’s happening recently is massive in terms of scale. And that is a fact. I don’t need to be challenged by some pen-pushing right wing idiot from Sweden whose never studied anything remotely related to this in his miserable life to tell me what the ‘truth’ is. Stick it in your craw, meathead. Facts are facts, and on the biological magnitude of the recent warming, environmental scientists are in total agreement. So there’ the nail on your stupid, fallacious, argument.

    What f****** more needs to be said? How utterly stupid are you meathead? And you actually think you are ‘pulling down my trousers’ (God forbid) with ease?????? Are you are psychopath? I’ve demolished your stupid point a dozen times and you just do not geddit. I’ve deconstructed your stupid point piece by piece. In fact, nobody who possessdes even the simplest understanding of ecology brings it up. It says more about you and your level of scientific understanding than about anything else. You are stupid. Ignorant. You don’t understand basic concepts in a field in which I have spent more than 20 years of my life yet you think you not only do, but that you are ‘on top’. You have gormless (GSW) cheering you on from the sidelines, not because you are right (you aren’t) but because your denialism and political view fit in with his.

    Get off your ass and see if you can deconstruct the PNAS paper I linked to a couple of days ago. Give it you best shop, meathead. Let’s see if the emperor has clothes or not. You’re so dumb that you repeatedly used the wrong acronym for the journal.. I let that one pass, simply because I realize how simple you are when it comes to research in my field. I make rings around you in terms of knowledge – not hard because I was trained to and I work in the field. Your posts are actually hilarious, as I explained to my audience in Amsterdam when I spoke on Thursday evening. Your ‘territory’ argument was below pathetic. It was comedy. It revealed a singular inability to grasp basic concepts on ecology. And yet, here you are, thinking that you are ‘winning’ our debate. This exceeds narcissism; its more like a form of psychopathy.

  22. #22 adelady
    March 16, 2014

    It’s impossible for them because they don’t have the data and because they’re dishonest to the core of their beings.

    Oh, but they do have the data.

    They’re like the parents of tearaway teenagers blankly staring while they say, “No, officer. My child wouldn’t do anything like that. Vandalism? Graffiti? Not a chance. Our whole family stayed together the whole of last night – so it couldn’t *possibly* be *any* of them.”

    They know full well that their kids terrorise the street, deface every surface they find and start most of the fights at school … but they’ll never, ever admit it. To anyone. Some people – those in full-fledged denial – won’t even admit it to themselves. Others will mutter something about I wish you wouldn’t do that. Others get cross and hit these kids. But they’ll still never admit _to anyone else_ that their precious offspring would ever do anything wrong.

    I’m not sure whether our assorted assembly of denialists are in the can’t-admit-it-to-myself or won’t-admit-it-to-anyone-else groups. But whatever it is, they have the data. They just don’t want to face it.

    (They remind me a bit of some of my grandmother’s relatives getting all huffy when one of them started a genealogy project. She was in the process of publishing – for all the world to know – that their grandfather had “another” family. They couldn’t bear the thought of the shame and humiliation that would bring down on their prim and proper, mean-spirited, gossip-about-other-people heads.)

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    March 16, 2014

    Still another study (see also references therein) which evaluates the current predicament and explains the magnitude of contemporary warming when juxtaposed with other anthropogenic stresses to the environment.

    http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/160/4/1728.full.pdf+html

    The bottom line is that ongoing climate warming represents a profoundly serious threat to biodiversity. If temperatures, as projected, continue to rise, then the future is bleak. If we somehow pass 4 C this century then the consequences are too dire to contemplate.

    As an postscript, I consider this topic from my perspective closed, at least with respect to Olaus and other deniers whose understanding of ecology and complex adaptive systems is infantile. If sensible people out there want to enquire as to the more intimate effects of warming on species, food webs and communities, I am happy to respond. But I am fed up to here with nincompoops who waste my time and post utter gibberish here whilst thinking that they are making valid points.

  24. #24 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2014

    Jeff, calm down and admit that there is no scientific studies dealing with the adressed topic (speed). Don’t be mad at me for your own unsientific flatulence. The PNSA doesn’t determine what you say it does. Get over it, you cultist.

    Where is your piles of articles Mr Bicorne? :-)

    And the warming period of ca 1975-1998 isn’t unprecedented. And now we have had a mysterious hiatus for the last ca 15 years, despite you protentologists feel that the heat is accelerating (in an unprecedented pace). :-)

  25. #25 Olaus Petri
    March 16, 2014

    Jeffie, the unscientific force is strong in you. Farwell, again. I’ll take it you go back to your own litte fantasy world where you can fabricate your own truths?

    I’m here for you though, when you are ready to face reality again. :-)

  26. #26 GSW
    March 16, 2014

    @Olaus

    “And now we have had a mysterious hiatus for the last ca 15 years,”

    just thought i’d point out that nature has it 16yrs, but ca 15 is fine. ;) and they agree with you that it is “mysterious”,

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

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

    @jeff
    You seem to be out on limb here with your ‘Hiatus’ denial and “spider” thermometers, the “Hiatus” is real, get used to it!
    ;)

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    March 16, 2014

    GSW, Olaus,

    YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. More empty musings from Beavis and Butthead. Both of you are as thick as two planks. I see meathead hasn’t even begun to read any of the papers I linked. Note also how meathead used the wrong acronym for PNAS (PNSA) again. Talk about dumb.

    It would be sad if it wasn’t so funny.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    March 16, 2014

    GSW you dishonest shill tool, have you forgotten the many illustrations of continued warming presented on this blog alone over the last several years that counter your bullshit statements, statement not based in any kind of fact?

    see here for starters:

    Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown and note:

    A new NASA study shows Earth’s climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.

    You see, no pause in warming, warming has not stopped, no real hiatus despite the sloppy language of a few commentators and the ill intentioned amplification by the shills in the media and on blogs.

    Such latter liars for hire should start to feel the heat for their dangerous mendacity as mooted hereIs misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? as should you.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    March 16, 2014

    Olaus the disturbed:

    … no scientific studies dealing with the adressed topic (speed).

    Infantile blatherings from a grinning idiot (GIT).

    Here you go on speed.

    In 1835 with the Great Western (Railway) Bill passing through parliament one self professed expert a Dr Dionysius

    Lardner asserted that if a train’s brakes were to fail in the tunnel, it would accelerate to over 120 mph (190 km/h), at which speed the passengers would die of asphyxia. Brunel pointed out that Lardner’s calculations totally disregarded air-resistance and friction, a basic error.

    What has this to do with the matter at hand – nothing, just like your mall-formed questions. Other than that I was reminded of Matt Ridley when I read this

    Lardner showed himself to be a successful popularizer of science.

    Sources Wkiki and McDermot & Clinker.

    Any questions of yours don’t deserve an answer until you have answered those put to YOU.

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    March 16, 2014

    I indicated once before, several years ago, that my pedagogical approach to teaching incorporates the frequent use of questions rather than to simply put fact down in front of my students. And when they ask me questions, if they ask something that I know to be within their capacity to elucidate themselves I’ll ask them how they think that they might go about finding the answer.

    In doing this I have noted three things. Students with a genuine interest to know – whether they are of superior, average, or even less-than-average intelligence – enthusiastically embrace the challenge and are not daunted if they answer incorrectly. Those who are intellectually lazy or incurious become irritated and/or impatient when challenged with the possibility of answering questions themselves. And amongst mature/adult students, those who don’t want to risk getting answers that might challenge their own biases or comfortable perspectives assiduously avoid answering questions posed to them.

    To which of the three groups do Olaus Petri and his Scandinavian Troll Collective mates, KarenMackSunspot, Betula belong…?

    For Olaus benefit as he is unable to confront the questions on the first dozen or thereabouts askings (and leaving BBD’s similar challenges alone for the moment):

    For any vaguely arbitrary value of x ranging up to several score*:

    1) How many 10-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?

    2) How many 11-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?

    3) How many 12-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?

    x) How many (x+9)-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?

    x+1) Where does the current “pause” fit in this spectrum? (bonus points if they mention Poisson or similar distributions)

    x+2) What have global temperatures done across the complete time span of the record?

    x+3) What does all this mean?

    A pat on the head if you can detail how you would arrive at such determinations.

    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?

    The semester is marching onward Olaus,

  31. #31 chek
    March 16, 2014

    I see the monocornes are relying on Hadcrut4 in an attempt to show their ‘hiatus’, when it’s well known that the series only covers 84% of the globe with regions showing most warming not included.
    ” The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa.”

    When more complete global coverage is included, as BBD has already shown that also includes NOAA, RSS, GISS, BEST and SSTs from Hadcrut 3 to give the most complete global picture, their dishonesty and delusion is exposed.
    Giving data to fools who neither know what it describes or how to use it pretty much sums up Olap and GSW’s comprehension, and deniers generally.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    March 16, 2014

    You just dropped a pin chek?

    I’ll drop one, have you seen this ‘Phoenix Squadron’ review in the Telegraph of which I was recently made aware?

  33. #33 chek
    March 16, 2014

    It’s a great read Lionel, and that review does what a review should – compel you to read the story. Plus it’s amazing what and who can show up when researching the period.

    The one thing that niggles me though is that (and this not only applies to the Services) it encourages politicians to think that more can be done with less. And less, and less…

  34. #34 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    #28 Thanks chek.

    Getting sick of repeating previous comments over and over again as the same old liars repeat the same old debunked lies. Again and again.

  35. #35 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    I see neither GSW nor Olaus has even acknowledged my repeated posting of those five questions. When people won’t engage, you know they are lying.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    I also wonder how long we are going to have to wait before GSW explains how a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present can be squared with a low climate sensitivity.

    Please do explain this, GSW, since it was you that most recently reintroduced that claim to the thread.

  37. #37 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    Since the cherry-picking and lies continue unabated…

    And now we have had a mysterious hiatus for the last ca 15 years

    No we haven’t, you miserable lying fuck. Your dishonesty is jaw-dropping. You repeat this lie just a few comments after lamely producing a graph covering thirteen years – not fifteen – and using a cherry pick for your choice of record.

    I will do the same, but rather than the hated Hadley CRU data I will use that of noted sceptic Roy Spencer at UAH.

    The trend is positive over 13 years and even more positive over 15 years.

    You are simply lying. And you have been shown that you are lying over and over and over again on this thread alone.

    GSW

    just thought i’d point out that nature has it 16yrs, but ca 15 is fine.

    The 16 year claim is wrong, just like the 15 year claim. I told you a couple of pages back that the Tollefson article was a mess and his use of “hiatus” was – like yours – indefensible.

    Read the words; you might learn something important. And in the meantime, stop lying incessantly.

    * * *

    Let’s get rid of the 1998 Super El Nino cherry-pick shall we? In an absolutely fair and transparent manner:

    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.

    Look mum – no “hiatus”…

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

    As above, but with linear trend 1979 – present

    Over a full climatology, the warming trend is unequivocal.

    Now, once again, the questions you are both too dishonest and cowardly to address:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't]

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    [No, it doesn't. See (1)]

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

    * * *

    By the way, I would like you to know that you are scum, the pair of you.

  38. #38 chek
    March 16, 2014

    They’re like the very worst used car salesmen, aren’t they?Sleazy water carriers for liars with no idea of the value of the truth or the right thing.
    In fact everything their dumb conspiracy accuses others of.

  39. #39 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    It’s the combination of self-congratulatory wrongness and all-consuming intellectual dishonesty that is so galling. How is it possible to be so smug and so hopelessly and demonstrably wrong at the same time?

    The hard-core denialist mindset is incomprehensible.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    March 16, 2014

    How is it possible to be so smug and so hopelessly and demonstrably wrong at the same time?

    Maybe this should be asked of Lord Ridley, but then he has grounds to be smug:

    Viscount Ridley, interesting conflicts of interest there.

  41. #41 chek
    March 16, 2014

    How is it possible to be so smug and so hopelessly and demonstrably wrong at the same time?

    Their own projection provides the answer.
    It’s a cult.
    And some cults are fostered by outside interests for their own purposes. I don’t know if you caught this here earlier but I find it explains the full spectrum of loony-toons from McIntyre and Watts down to the dregs like Olap and Griselda and Duffer et al.

    ” 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.

    Ruling elites are ruthless bastards and the right wing push involving Rove and similar apparatchicks in Sweden and elsewhere to dismantle European social democracy is in full swing.

  42. #42 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    Chek

    I did see your comment and I’ve read David Brin’s article before. I tend to agree. Hence the projection about “green” authoritarianism by the other lot.

    As to Rove – and the rest – the termite-hollowing of democracy by vested interest buzzes along nicely.

    On which point, I wonder who the overseas investors Noel Edmonds has lined up to bid for the BBC are?

    I think that’s a first, btw. A link to the Daily Mail without the intention of demonstrating that what is written there is bollocks. It may well *be* bollocks, but the same story ran in the Sunday Times today. One to keep an eye on, IMO.

  43. #43 BBD
    March 16, 2014

    Oops. Missed the key link and point: that would be Noel Edmonds who is in very tight with the Renewable Energy Foundation, which is not exactly a pressure group pushing for more wind and solar.

  44. #44 craig thomas
    March 16, 2014

    Apparently Olaus isn’t aware the “hiatus” ended 3 years ago:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/trend

    A bit slow on the uptake, these deniers, aren’t they?

  45. #45 craig thomas
    March 16, 2014
  46. #46 craig thomas
    March 16, 2014

    “Another example is provided by the giant wombat, the diprotodon, which some scientists have argued browsed bush across Australia and kept biomass levels very low. When the diprotodon vanished, plants and shrubs across the outback grew unhindered. The result was major bush fires which, archaeologists have discovered, became a serious problem just after the giant wombat disappeared from Australia.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/15/what-killed-giant-beasts-mammoths-climate-change-or-man

    So….we need to bring back the giant wombats!

  47. #47 jp
    March 16, 2014

    O’lapdog The Dishonest links us to a temp data plot from a cherry-picked 2001 to illustrate a hiatus. It does look pretty flat.

    Let’s have a look at it when we start at 2000. How strange _ the hiatus is gone and there’s a definite trend up. There’s also a trend up starting at 1999; there’s a trend up starting at that favoured cherry-pick year of 1998; there’s a trend up at 1997, and at 1996 the slope is even more steep.

    Now let’s look at the 30 year timespan that climate scientists tell us is the accepted length of time for a meaningful analysis. Aye Carumba!! Look at the steepness of the slope! Oh well….

    OK, let’s try a different timespan; a shorter one because deniers just love analysing short timespan (they get more choice to cherry-pick from). 2010 to 2012. Holy Scandinavian batshit! THERE’S AN ICE AGE COMING!!!

  48. #48 Olaus Petri
    March 17, 2014

    Oh, so much agony because Mr self-loving Bicorne, climate scare geezer, couldn’t back up his portentology with science. :-)

    The piles of science was only Jeff’s own itching piles. Ass usual. ;-)

    And while the scientific world tries to understand the hiauts, deltoids live in the fantasy that the accerlerating global warming is still all over the place. :-)

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    March 17, 2014

    “The piles of science was only Jeff’s own itching piles”

    Says meatball, who didn’t read a single study I pasted up, continually gave the wrong acronym for a major journal, and fails to explain why the Web of Science is full of studies showing a link between climate warming and responses across ecosystems.

    This is his only response after being thoroughly shellacked. Heck, Lomborg was easy to debate, but meathead is much easier. One has lost a debate when, in response to a massive amount of empirical literature, all they can respond is by saying much of what meathead says. The only reason he gets away with it is because its a blog and one can be super selective in their responses. In a public venue he’d be jeered off the stage. But what does one expect when they pit a scientist with 25 years experience against a non-scientist pen pusher? Olaus and I weren’t exactly starting on even intellectual ground.

  50. #50 cRR Kampen
    March 17, 2014

    #45, it has emotions, therefore typos. Interesting.

  51. #51 Lionel A
    March 17, 2014

    Is the REF an outreach for the GWPF. Probably not that simple but given the following:

    From a linked to Guardian article: Edmonds joins fight against wind farms which admittedly is ten years old,

    The Renewable Energy Foundation, or Ref, is backed by anonymous wealthy individuals and hopes to gather the 80 or so groups opposing wind farms around the country. It says turbines will irreversibly damage the landscape for a “pittance of power”.

    WTF do these anti wind farmers think the countryside will be like if fracked to hell into some form of Mordor. I know which I would prefer. If Delingpole is against it then anybody else of like mind is a similar jerk. I also smell Peter Lilley in the mix behind this.

    Mr Crinkley Bottom certainly saw to it that the BBC wasted much license fee money in the production of his execrable TV show – froth but of the type OP and GSW would appreciate no doubt.

  52. #52 Lionel A
    March 17, 2014

    Good catch that one on biogas craig seeing as the topic featured on yesterdays Countryfile., another example of ‘the unintended consequences of political meddling’

    Biogas from waste (all that food supermarkets chuck out) only is one thing for in landfill it will output methane anyway.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    March 17, 2014

    So….we need to bring back the giant wombats!

    Maybe the Abbott administration, and its cheerleaders in the media, can be sent out to do the giant wombat dinner and dance.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    March 17, 2014

    Unknown knowns.

    We have long known that melting Greenland ice is contributing to sea level rise (look up Chasing Ice) and that the melt will probably increase in pace as the Earth warms with the Arctic warming many times faster than the average but now one of those unknowns is becoming better known as:

    Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming

    For background story see here:

    New Greenland Ice Melt Fuels Sea Level Rise Concerns.

    Hiatus! Whisky Foxtrot hiatus?

  55. #55 BBD
    March 17, 2014

    Olaus redundantly confirms that he is too stupid or too dishonest (or both) to grasp anything that has been explained to him on this thread.

  56. #56 chek
    March 17, 2014

    Don’t forget everything Mr. Monocorne says is emotional projection and that can’t answer the outstanding questions for him. He can only babble ‘hiatus’ because he doesn’t understand the data, and doesn’t comprehend his assertion has been proven false.

    He thinks there’s an argument where there’s none to be had once the lies have been stripped away.

  57. #57 BBD
    March 17, 2014

    Until Olaus learns that the climate system as a whole is mostly ocean and OHC continues to rise without “pause” or “hiatus”, he will be vulnerable to the liars and he will re-broadcast their lies.

    Until Olaus learns that climate science never predicted monotonic warming nor ever said that natural variability will stop, he won’t be able to understand that there’s nothing really “mysterious” about a decade where the troposphere has warmed less rapidly than previous decades.

    Until he learns what “transient” actually means in the context of natural climate variability, he will continue to imagine that there actually *is* a “hiatus” and that it actually means something for our understanding of AGW.

    Until Olaus and many, many other denier simpletons learn that you cannot extract an informative estimate of TCR never mind ECS from a decade or two of data they will carry on claiming – incorrectly – that a period of transient variability somehow undermines the scientific understanding of AGW.

    Unfortunately, some combinations of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty are virtually impossible to crack.

  58. #58 chek
    March 17, 2014

    stupidity and intellectual dishonesty

    And laziness. Don’t forget Mr. Monocorne is (like the vast majority of deniers) primarily a conspiracy theorist. One definition of which gives idiots the chance to feel smarter than everybody else (because they’ve seen through the scam) without doing the necessary work required to be so.
    Think of how many other total morons fitting the description have passed through these doors.

  59. #59 Lionel A
    March 17, 2014

    Until Olaus learns that the climate system as a whole is mostly ocean…

    Note that the O’lap-dog also failed to answer my question WRT the heat capacities of those components of the climate system.

  60. #60 BBD
    March 17, 2014

    Too complicated, Lionel. Baby steps…

  61. #61 bill
    March 17, 2014

    Here we go again again again –

    There is no credible evidence that wind farms have a negative impact on the health of people who live near them, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) says.

    So we can add the AMA to the list of the people the reactionary blowhards know better than…

  62. #62 chek
    March 18, 2014

    I don’tt suppose it would come as too great a shock Bill, to find that The prime movers in that story are an astroturf entity
    “The Waubra Foundation claims to be an independent organisation but it has direct links to the Australian Landscape Guardians, the Liberal Party of Australia and mining interests who in turn have inks with the right wing thinktank, Institute of Public Affairs, (IPA).

    The Waubra Foundation does not exist in any physical sense, there is no building, just a post office box. The address, Box No.1136, South Melbourne, Victoria 3205, is shared by Sarah Laurie, the Australian Landscape Guardians and Lowell Resources, a mining investment company owned by Peter Mitchell.

  63. #63 craig thomas
    March 18, 2014

    Honestly, the gall of this stupid woman:

    “I work full time and despite the claims, big oil isn’t sending cheques, and there are no government grants to fund someone to fill in the gaps the CSIRO ($1.2b budget) and BOM ($300m) seem to miss. ”

    Yes, Jo Nova, who has never conducted let alone published any science research, is filling in the gaps CSIRO and BOM are missing.

    What a stupendous twit.

  64. #64 chek
    March 18, 2014

    Didn’t she supply a “sceptic” handbook or similar to Heartless for a mass mailing? Or doesn’t she count that as “big oil”?

  65. #65 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    March 18, 2014

    … fill in the gaps the CSIRO ($1.2b budget) and BOM ($300m) seem to miss.

    The sheer, oblivious arrogance of this statement – and the dozens like it – just blows me away.

    Even if I found something weird, strange, apparently missing in a dataset or an analysis or a report, I’d presume that the first, best strategy for resolving it would be to write to the people concerned and ask them to clear it up for me. (I wouldn’t though. I know full well that any such misapprehension on my part will be explained by something so clearly, appallingly simple and obvious that I’d blush with shame in the privacy of my own house.)

    She can’t bring herself to ask questions of the people who’re paid all those dollars to explain stuff to us. Arrogant doesn’t begin to cover it.

  66. #66 bill
    March 18, 2014

    Yep, the hubris is something to see!

  67. #67 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    March 18, 2014

    Are we still interested in ecological shifts due to climate changing in particular regions? Here ya go.

    Summary
    A 39-year study of wildflower blooms in a Rocky Mountain meadow shows more than two-thirds of alpine flowers changed their blooming pattern in response to climate change. Half are beginning to bloom weeks earlier, more than a third are reaching peak bloom earlier, and others’ last blooms are later. Records of more than two million blooms show flowering plants’ response to climate change is more complex than previously believed. Species that depend on wildflowers are likely to be affected.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140317155611.htm

    Or is there something wrong about observing something carefully for 4 decades and making 2 million individual observations?

  68. #68 GSW
    March 18, 2014

    @chek (aka Mr Monocorne)
    http://www.royalcrowntattoo.net/images/dunce-cap.jpg
    Come on chek, we know you’re not the sharpest tool in the box, but ref your #17, and thinking jeff is ‘Napolean’, nobody thinks that! He’s a fantasist, that’s the point!

    Reliving past conflicts in his head where, rather than being an embarrassment, people are “scared” of him, audiences cheer him, (and tell him privately afterwards that he is the best) He lives in his own little world; a complete, certifiable, fruit cake!

    I see the “Hiatus” denial continues up thread.
    Enjoy Deltards!
    ;)

  69. #69 bill
    March 18, 2014

    So kind of you to take the time to transcribe your brainfart…

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    March 18, 2014

    GSW, In your book I am a ‘certifiable fruitcake’ for the simple reasons that (1) I disagree with just about everything you say, (2) I do it by demolishing it with empirical arguments, and (3) I am a qualified scientist. The latter is important because, like it or not, it gives credibility to my arguments.

    Its probably no coincidence that in my career the few people I have met that attack me are all what I would refer to as ‘contrarians’, ‘deniers’, ‘anti-environmentalists’ and others with similar generally right wing views. I actually must be considered a threat when I am attacked by these kinds of people, including those in right wing think tanks and lobbying groups, as well as a very small number of mostly old retired scientists. On the other hand, my research is very well respected in the scientific community, I am invited to many conferences and workshops, often as keynote or plenary speaker, and I get along very well with my colleagues and others I have met around the world.

    That I clash with dopes like you, Olaus, Jonas and others therefore does not bother me in the least. I am actually flattered – it means I am saying the right things. But to called a ‘fantasist’- given that powerful, vested interests appear to be intent on sending our planet’s ecological life support systems to hell – takes the cake. I am sure that esteemed researchers like Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson, Tom Lovejoy, the late Stephen Schneider, Michael Mann, James Hansen etc. have also been called ‘fantasists’from those on the academic fringe or from the broad anti-environmental movement. It goes with the territory when qualified people speak out.

    GSW, I should therefore thank you for what, coming from an idiot like you, is indeed a compliment. I think Bill also sums it up @69.

  71. #71 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    craig,

    What a stupendous twit.

    Did you misspell that last word by any chance, easy typo to do?

    And I see that GSW is demonstrating that his brain is also composed of

    an aqueous solution of greater than 95% water, with the remaining constituents, in order of decreasing concentration urea 9.3 g/L, chloride 1.87 g/L, sodium 1.17 g/L, potassium 0.750 g/L, creatinine 0.670 g/L and other dissolved ions, inorganic and organic compounds.

    and he tops up with every post he makes.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    The latest state of Greenland Ice movement, see #54 above, has now been picked up at Climate Crocks:

    New Paper: Awakening Greenland Giant – Not So Jolly

  73. #73 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    I find Climate Progress returning a 503 error, on the odd occasion when the home page fetches clicking a story link brings up a 503. I am curious as to if this is just a UK thing.

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    March 18, 2014

    Fellow (sensible) Deltoiders,

    Just one more comment in addition that that I posted above in response to GSW’s smear.

    I know he, Olaus and the few other deniers that post in here aren’t the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but what strikes me is their utter hypocrisy. No person who has posted on Deltoid in my experience ever had a higher view of themselves than Jonas. Though he clearly has no scientific background, there were many occasions where he said that he knew more than anyone else on Deltoid. One could not be more brazen, given their lack of professional training. Against this background Jonas was cheered on supinely by GSW, Olaus, PentaxZ and a few others. They were his ‘ego-stokers’.

    The denier blogs are full of self-righteous, narcissistic blowhards, yet I don’t see GSW attacking any of them. Some have no scientific pedigree at all, but act is they are know-it-alls, whereas those few who are scientists in any fields lap up the compliments thrown at them, or else have their qualifications blown up out of all proportion (e.g. see Poptech’s list).

    Again, if I agreed with the bile spewed out by GSW, I’d be treated like a deity by him. But since I vehemently disagree with all of it, then I am a pariah. As I said earlier, I get along well with the vast majority of my peers and there are very few people I know with whom I don’t get along well. GSWs attack says more about him than it does about me.

  75. #75 BBD
    March 18, 2014

    GSW

    I see the “Hiatus” denial continues up thread.

    Yet another lie.

    As you are too dishonest to acknowledge, the problem lies in the terminology. “Hiatus” – though used by some scientists – is inaccurate as it implies a halt, albeit a temporary one. Ditto “pause”.

    It is much more correct to say that we are experiencing a transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming. No such transient slowdown in the rate of ocean heat uptake has occurred, so the climate system as a whole has not experienced any “hiatus” in warming.

    The first mistake is to treat the troposphere as if it were the entire climate system rather than just a very small part of it. The bulk being ocean.

    The second mistake is to believe that we can extract informative estimates of TCR or even ECS from a brief and transient period of variability in the rate of surface warming.

    All we end up with, GSW, is another redundant demonstration that you, like Olaus, are either too stupid or too mendacious (or both) to understand what I have now said countless times on this thread.

  76. #76 Olaus Petri
    March 18, 2014

    Jeff, yes you make stuff up, all the time. Your epic win against Lomborg is most likely the very opposit, like GSW points out: an embarresment for you. :_)

    And Jeff, there are probably some areas where we disagree, but most of them are things you have fabricated. Just take a lookie at your miserable performance regarding the speed of “plant demograhics”. You invent that I didn’t blieved that “plant demographics” had changed since the 1980s, and attacked me for it. It didn’t matter that I told you over and over again that I agreed with you inte that respect.

    Anything for not adressing the real issue: that you had invented (or wished) that it was “unprecedented”. :-)

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    March 18, 2014

    Meathead, please tell me once – ONCE – where I have made something up. Never have, never will. Unlike you, I do have some professional experience in the field and piles more knowledge than you or Jonas or his poodle, GSW in population and systems ecology (as well as in global change biology). Your problem is that, like Jonas, you expect everyone here to believe the shit you peddle.

    Its pitiful to see lonely old Jonas whimpering away over in his own padded cell, claiming I am ‘screeching’ (now that’s a bit rich coming from him of all people) and that I ‘cannot have debated Lomborg’ for whatever reason. Oh yeh, I debated him alright. And it was a piece of cake, Why? Because they guy has written only a single paper in his life on “Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma”in a Danish jail. He admits in the preface of his book that ‘he is not an expert as regards environmental problems’ (Oh so true and the most honest revelation in TSE). I might as well have been debating a kindergarten student. What became clear as I dissected him bit by bit is that he is an empty vessel. He generally steers away from scientific groups where there are ecologists or environmental or climate scientists because, like me, they can shred his arguments. So he generally speaks only to social scientists, economists and journalists who are even dumber than him, at least when it comes to the science inherent in understanding the biosphere.

    Thus, Lomborg does well on the think tank, corporate media and academic circuit so long as can avoid scientists in the various fields he hashes up. Its a great act, if one considers how much laypeople have lapped it all up. But then again, Lomborg never intended his message for those who know hundreds of times more than he does. His strategy, and Jonas (although he is a nothing) uses it to, is to target people who know just a little bit less than they do. As I have said, if Jonas was the big genius he claims to be then he’d take his wisdom to the world. But he’s a loser stuck on the blogosphere (like you, meathead and GSW for that matter). Heck you clowns even hide behind acronyms. What are you afraid of? Tell us everything about your career, your vast achievements etc. I’m all eyes and ears, guys.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    March 18, 2014

    By the way meathead, the reason I call you just that is because of a ridiculously stupid remark you made in your last post. It may be a translation problem, but I never accused you of saying that ‘plant demographics have not changed since thew 1980s’. Where you get this from is anybody’s guess. What I said was that you downplay recent changes by either claiming that they aren’t really that significant in ecological terms or in evolutionary time frames, or that shifts of similar magnitude occurred earlier last century.

    Moreover, I never mentioned plants alone in the first place, but in the context of community scale interactions involving both primary producers and consumers (animals, pathogens etc). Given the historical record, I say that the magnitude of recent changes in abiotic processes linked with AGW is likely to be unprecedented in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. The temporal scale we are talking about is the blink of a geological eye. Deniers just cannot get their pointy little heads around this fact. They think 80 years is a long time and that 500 is veritably prehistoric. But for complex adaptive systems 100 years is nothing. Stasis and not stochasticity are the norm at larger scales of space and time. Against this climatic assault on nature are a myriad of other anthropogenic changes that amplify the effects of the warming. Most of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems have been severely fragmented or simplified, adding another major constraint to the ability of natural systems to respond adaptively. We are challenging natural systems to respond to a suite of constraints that far exceed anything nature has faced in human history. We already know that we have greatly reduced genetic diversity across many global ecosystems, and we also know that genetic diversity is an essential pre-requisite for adaptation.

    To be honest, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you or GSW think or say about any of this. Neither of you has a clue about what you write, at least where it overlaps into the environmental arena. The only reason I counter your crap is to ensure that anybody casually reading here will know what a couple of simpletons your are.

  79. #79 BBD
    March 18, 2014

    Olaus

    The only person “fabricating” anything here is you. Having lost the argument repeatedly and been shown up as a dishonest moron, you are now reduced to verballing Jeff in the most transparent, clumsy and childish way possible.

    You have run your course here. FWIW, I agree with others that you and GSW (and Pentax) should be confined to the Jonas thread for serial intellectual dishonesty and generally being irritating prats.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    I note that Climate progress is back, sort of as it loks like some recent articles have been culled including one on Paris smog and fracking connected quakes in Ohio state.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    Some talk of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse WRT the demise of forced culling of the human species but I figure that there are more than four, although it could be argued that the topic in mind in this post is just a part of one of them.

    Those who have read Professor Callum Roberts’s books about the depletion of aquatic species by over harvesting will be familiar with this at Climate Crocks:

    Fish Story: A Meditation.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    Your epic win against Lomborg is most likely the very opposit, like GSW points out: an embarresment for you…

    Olaus the Undone, you dolt, stat here:

    UCS Examines ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’

    more here:

    THE LOMBORG-ERRORS WEB SITE

    There isn’t much you are any good at is there you dolt Olaus the Undone, you cannot even make stuff up convincingly.

  83. #83 Lionel A
    March 18, 2014

    Of course Lomborg has been the topic of counter posts at DeSmogBlog and here:

    So what’s wrong with Lomborg?.

    Where this is a very pertinent point raised by Simon D in post #11

    Whenever I get dragged into these debates, I try to remember this old line from Huxley: Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once.

    John Mashey also adds to the brew in #13 and Jeff at #17, worth a trip down the memory hole perhaps. That will not apply to OP and GSW, they have no memory.

  84. #84 BBD
    March 18, 2014

    Leaked final draft AR5 WG2 reviewed in The Independent (UK newspaper)

  85. #85 jp
    March 18, 2014

    Here’s a question to anyone with knowledge of genetics:

    How many generations of inbreeding would be required to produce imbeciles the likes of GSW and O’louse?

    I hope the government in whatever country they’re from gives some thought to encouraging everyone in their village to go on the pill. I can’t imagive how fucked the planet will be if all those inbreds give birth to more denier cretins of the calibre of Gormless and Witless.

  86. #86 chek
    March 18, 2014

    Griselda @ #68
    Thanks for explaining to your fellow tarbaby what a monocorne is – I thought it had gone right over your and Olap’s pointy little heads.

    “Come on chek, we know you’re not the sharpest tool in the box, but ref your #17, and thinking jeff is ‘Napolean’, nobody thinks that! He’s a fantasist, that’s the point! ”

    No, the point is that your metaphor is fucked over, under, sideways and down no matter which way you look at it, with deniers like you and Lomborg being the fantasists who imagine you have the slightest clue. Your troll clique are of course thicker than concentrated shit under pressure, as you demonstrate each time you visit.

    At least after Jeff’s pounding, Lomborg has the sense to avoid conflicting with those who recognise his brand of bullcrap a mile away. But you don’t even display that low level of cunning.

    And what of your cult captain Jonarse – still no paradigm changing paper from him? Or likely he’s still not twigged that refusal to accept changes nothing and the world marched on. No doubt he’s still pining for Bjornie and badmouthing Jeff Harvey. That, after all was his whole mission here but I can no longer be bothered even to click to find out.

  87. #87 jp
    March 18, 2014

    To Gormless the Witless and his little boyfriend O’lapdog,

    In the same vein as my preceding post, could you please just keep doing what you’ve been doing in private in your motel room. At least that way you can’t procreate.

    But for the love of God, and humanity’s sake, DON’T GO MESSING ABOUT WITH WOMEN!! Please don’t spread those genes!! Please, please!! Have pity on mankind.

  88. #88 jp
    March 18, 2014
  89. #89 craig thomas
    March 18, 2014

    GSW says he sees “hiatus denial”.

    I see if there ever was any “hiatus” (eg, the laws of physics suspended themselves for a while or something) it is clearly over:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/trend

    So who’s in denial, GSW?

  90. #90 chek
    March 18, 2014

    C’mon guys, we know by now that reasoned answers to questions are a no-go territory for the spamklan. Spouting memes from the dregs of denier central is all they do.

    With the information and number of links to data in this thread alone, a vaguely interested amoeba would be educated by now.

  91. #91 craig thomas
    March 18, 2014

    Unusually warm winter causes gas demand to drop by 21.5% in France this year:

    “La douceur du climat fait plonger la consommation de gaz

    La consommation de gaz en France a chuté de 21,5% en janvier-février du fait de l’hiver anormalement doux dans l’Hexagone qui a notamment réduit les besoins en chauffage.”

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2014/03/18/05007-20140318ARTFIG00228-la-douceur-du-climat-fait-plonger-la-consommation-de-gaz.php

  92. #92 Stu 2
    March 19, 2014

    Craig @ # 89.
    Using the the same program and plotting the last 10 years.
    2004 to 2014.
    This is the result.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/trend
    For 15 years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/to:2014/trend
    The trend line shows less that 0.1 degree across the whole 15 years.
    20 Years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2014/trend
    Once again it is only around 0.1 degrees.
    I would question whether plotting 3 years would be proof of anything having started or finished or paused or whatever.
    I think time frames for significant trends for climate need to be a bit longer than 3 years don’t they?
    If we plot the previous 3 years this is the result:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008/to:2011/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008/to:2011/trend
    Which has a very slight but stronger trend than the 3 years you picked

  93. #93 chek
    March 19, 2014

    2 stupid – read #31 and try to understand why amateurs playing with numbers they don’t understand are disregarded at best and ridiculed at worst. Your post history places you in the latter group.

  94. #94 chek
    March 19, 2014

    Apologies 2 stupid. I said “amateurs”, when I of course meant “idiots”.

  95. #95 bill
    March 19, 2014

    Good post at Eli’s, illustrating the point that deniers – and their tropes – really haven’t changed much over the years…

  96. #96 craig thomas
    March 19, 2014

    The point is, Stu2, there can’t possibly be any “hiatus” when the last 3 years shows a strong warming trend.

    Don’t believe me, just believe the facts:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/trend

    Clearly, it is warming.

    And if you’re not happy with using 3 years as a suitable time period, let’s use all the available data:
    40 years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2014/trend

    or 114 years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1901/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1901/to:2014/trend

    More warming. Clearly, it is warming. Only an idiot would deny that it is warming. None of the scientists deny it, for the very good reason that they understand how physics works: the radiative imbalance is a reality and it is a plain fact that it is causing wamring, and has done so for a good long while now.

  97. #97 Stu 2
    March 19, 2014

    Chek @ #94,
    Yes I read your post @ #31

    ” ” The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa.”

    I am unclear why you think that makes any difference to my comment to Craig @ #92 ?
    I questioned Craig’s claim @ # 89 that the Hadcrut4 graph from 2011 to 2014 would indicate anything particularly significant or as Craig claimed:
    ” it is clearly over”

  98. #98 Stu 2
    March 19, 2014

    Craig Thomas,
    I wasn’t denying it is warming.
    I was simply questioning your claim ‘it is clearly over’ based on the Hadcrut4 graph?
    By ‘it’ I assumed you meant the ‘hiatus’ or the ‘pause’ or even BBD’s terminology @ # 75 – ‘a transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming.’ ?

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    March 19, 2014

    Thanks for the link Bill to Eli’s post. Its a good illustration of the various stages of denial until the shit truly hits the fan. Passenger pigeons were, when North America was ‘colonized’ by Europeans, the most abundant species of bird in North America. They ranged from the Gulf States to southern Canada, and numbers were estimated in the tens of billions. Audubon, that famous naturalist/killer of birds and mammals, claimed to have seen a flock that stretched over the horizon. A combination of factors led to their demise. First of all, their tight flocks meant a single buckshot could kill dozens. The birds remained in certain areas, making it easy to annihilate vast numbers of them. Surprisingly, they had a low reproductive potential, but lived for quite a long time, meaning they were highly K-selected; k-selected species are often much more vulnerable to extinction that r-selected species. They also depended on large swathes of unbroken habitat for their survival, and bred in large colonies with a complex social structure that required the persistence of large numbers of individuals. The loss of forest habitat therefore was certainly a factor in their demise (by 1872 about half of the eastern forests had been cleared – an historical low). There has even been a compelling argument made that the extirpation of the passenger pigeon has played a significant role in the spread of deer-tick borne Lyme disease in the northern US. What this shows is that there are huge and unpredictable consequences of global change that trickle down from biomes through ecosystems to the level of species and populations. Ecologist Daniel Janzen once said that the ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions, and on this he is certainly correct.

    It would have been interesting to see how denial played out in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Certainly, pressures on nature have increased by many factors since then as the human population, coupled with per capita consumption, has grown virtually exponentially. Still, the human assault on nature has been going on for centuries. And along with it there must have been some forms of denial, even if our understanding of the consequences of this destruction was much less defined than it is today.

  100. #100 Stu
    March 19, 2014

    Stu 2 knows better, and so does Olaus — so for the lurkers:

    When pushed for a “hiatus”, we get a cherry-picked, stupidly short period of a known incomplete instrument record @20 — 2001 to 2014 shows a down trend! Yay! Now try 2000-2014. Oh. Right.

    Let’s count the myriad ways people have shown this to be idiotic.

    – Hadcrut4 is not global warming.
    – One year fiddle and the trend reverses.
    – You can find many magical 13-year “hiatuses” (try 63-76, for example). Did warming end in 76? No. That’s why 13 years means squat.
    – To drive this home, we’ve been pointing out the strong warming over the past 3 years. Yes, it’s ludicrous — that’s the point.

    The denialists still don’t get it, and still talk of an “hiatus”. Idiots, liars or both? You decide.

1 4 5 6 7 8 12

Current ye@r *