July 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 6, 2014

    Good grief, the Tabernacle’s empty! Where has everyone gone? And just as I was about to bring you glad tidings of great joy! Polar ice has INCREASED overall and in the Antarctic it’s at the highest levels since satellites first started looking in 1979. Whodathunkit?

    And I know this is going to make all you ‘Believers’ spit blood but even the IPCC has ‘fessed up: “‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’”

    Yeeeees, quite, I’ve been saying that for years!

    Still, as there’s no-one here I’ll just scribble it on the wall in case some wandering tourist comes by to see (and giggle) at a place where they worshipped the Faith of AGW.

  2. #2 bill
    July 6, 2014

    Boring.

  3. #3 turboblocke
    July 6, 2014

    Do try to keep up at the back there. The IPCC quote is from WG1 of AR5 and dates from last year.

    It’s interesting how the deniers accept the IPCC conclusions that please them, but disparage the ones that don’t.

  4. #4 Olaus Petri
    July 7, 2014

    Stop tazing the corpse Duff. ;-) It wouldn’t surprise me if the Arctic region suffers from the same problem, ergo “low confidence in the scientific understanding” of the observed decrease of sea ice extent since 1979.

  5. #5 bill
    July 7, 2014

    Not instinct yet, Olaus?

  6. #6 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 7, 2014

    Sorry, sorry, sorry! I must have stepped on a squeaky floorboard and woken some of you up. Mind you, I did warn you yonks ago that you were a dwindling sect who would end up holding hands in a tiny circle and chanting “I believe! I believe!” and, lo, it has come to pass.

    As dear Oscar, such a sweet boy!, said, “It would take a heart of stone not to laugh!”

  7. #7 bill
    July 7, 2014

    Boring. Again.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    July 7, 2014

    Duff apparently missed the point made on the previous month’s thread about the reason for the quietness.

    Then again, he reliably misses every point even when they’re made right in front of him…

  9. #9 Lionel A
    July 7, 2014

    Duff would never get what any point was for there is no point for Duff.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    July 7, 2014

    Apparently he also hears voices – chanting – in his head. He should probably see someone – that is, someone real and actually qualified in psychiatry – about that kind of thing.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    July 7, 2014

    Of course we all know the quality of media that primes Duffer’s pump do we not. And yes, it could be that serial sinner David Rose in the Daily Mail which includes a large quote from Andrew Montford:

    Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

    Both of these jerks need a sharp dose of reality!

  12. #12 turboblocke
    July 7, 2014

    Both? Surely you lean all three?

  13. #13 turboblocke
    July 7, 2014

    Blooming autocorrect, that should be ” mean” not ” lean”.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    July 7, 2014

    Duffer only seems to come here when he’s repeating someone else’s dodgy claims.

    I’m not sure he realises how Pavlovian that looks. Or maybe he just doesn’t care.

  15. #15 chek
    July 7, 2014

    Seventy years ago, David Duff would be trolling William Joyce’s newscasts, with the same smug ignorance of how far removed from reality he was.

  16. #16 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 8, 2014

    I’ll repeat it one more time:

    “‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’”

    Now tell me, my little Deltoids, what is it about the words “low confidence”, “scientific understanding” and “observed increase” that you don’t understand?

    And, no, I wasn’t quoting any of the people you allude to, it comes from the IPCC, or the ‘Warmers’ High Command’ as I think of it.

  17. #17 turboblocke
    July 8, 2014

    Indeed your quote comes from the IPCC report from last September but we suspect that your source was not the IPCC. It would be surprising if you decide to post it here at the same time that it appears in the article mentioned above and there was no connection between the two events.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    July 8, 2014

    There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979,

    I would cite passage from the AR5 but unfortunately I am migrating computer systems and the internet connection is too iffy to download the full AR5 WG1 ATM onto the successor system. So I will point you at the WG1 The Physical Science base to trawl through using ‘Antarctic sea ice extent’ as a search term and note the explanations therein.

    However Duffski, whilst you were sleeping, this topic has been batted around a bit but and as usual the incomplete quote you gave takes the matter out of context, the context of the proceeses that are under observation in the Antarctic. Processes such as freshening water due to glacier ice loss to the sea and of a ramp up in the hydrological system causing more precipitation.

    There are also changes in the wind and ocean currents causing uneven aggregation of the sea ice forming.

    Both due to a warming.

    These points are brought up here:

    Antarctic sea ice volume where for example Ian Forrester puts these questions to another such as yourself (hope you don’t mind Ian):

    Can you answer the following questions?

    1 What happens to the melting point of sea water as it freshens? Does it get lower or higher?

    2 Is the ice on the Antarctic continent fresh or salty?

    3 Is it melting?

    4 Which will tend to float on the top of the other, fresh or salty water?

    If you answer all of these questions correctly you will understand one of the “plausible mechanisms” for increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. You will also understand that this mechanism is not only plausible but is actually one of the mechanisms causing the increase.

    Can you manage that Duffsepticsceptic?

    at the above BBD offers this:

    So exaggerating the significance of Antarctic sea ice growth in order to manufacture uncertainty about the reality of AGW is diagnostic of pseudoscepticsm.

    The scientifically interesting discussions seem to be closing in on increased zonal windspeeds, eg Holland & Kwok (2012) [1] Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift which is paywalled, but there’s a press release here. [2]

    See also Zhang (2013) [3] Modeling the impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume.

    [1] [1]

    [2] [2]

    The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change.

    [3] [3]

    Much attention is paid to melting sea ice in the Arctic. But less clear is the situation on the other side of the planet. Despite warmer air and oceans, there’s more sea ice in Antarctica now than in the 1970s — a fact often pounced on by global warming skeptics. The latest numbers suggest the Antarctic sea ice may be heading toward a record high this year.

    A University of Washington researcher says the reason may lie in the winds. A new modeling study to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even in a warming climate.

    “The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said author Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

    I could point you at a number of other sources of explanation BWITFP!

    BTW searching on the quote you supplied throws up The Daily Mail and GWPF at the head of the queue – go figure it is most certainly the echo chamber that you inhabit that provides you with misinformation. You are not an honest skeptic but rather more a septic sceptic.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    July 8, 2014

    Drat. Always one little html slip, this time a spurious character in the a hrefequals tag.

    [2] [2]

    The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    July 8, 2014

    I’ll repeat it one more time:

    If only you limited your bollocks to one repeat!

    Duff appears to be having troubling understanding the very simple facts that:

    1) we already knew that the IPCC report expressed low confidence of scientific understanding of the dynamics of Antarctic sea ice. Duff’s belief to the contrary does not change this, nor does his “I’ll repeat it one more time”.

    2) We also know the Arctic is losing ice volume about 10 times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so his initial claim that “Polar ice has INCREASED overall” looks both dodgy, and designed to deceive the gullible reader.

    3) Accordingly, and for other reasons obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of science, Duff’s claims about ice increasing are in no way “glad tidings” about climate change.

    I suspect (2) is why he (and the sources he is cutting and pasting his opinions from) are trying – again, as if we haven’t rejected the fallacy a hundred times before – to focus on ice area rather than volume, and within that frame are trying to direct attention to the relatively small area gains in the Antarctic and away from the obvious clusterfuck in the Arctic.

    Then again, Duff routinely has problems understanding certain types of simple facts, especially the ones that rebut his “glad tidings” claims, doesn’t he? It’s not like he comes here for the hunting…

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    July 8, 2014

    The other irony here is that Duff is industriously trying to give the impression that there’s nothing to worry about by citing “low scientific understanding” of (sea) ice in the Antarctic, only weeks after papers came out indicating that the WAIS land ice melt is already likely to be both underway and irreversible, and not that long after other papers reported EAIS losses as well. And then there are other research efforts like the one discussed in this report today.

    “Low scientific understanding” doesn’t imply nothing to worry about, as it means that “oh, shit!” events can happen without even the luxury of scientific understanding foreseeing their likelihood. And low scientific understanding of Antarctic sea ice dynamics won’t stop the WAIS melting.

    But if Duff foreswore the “low understanding means nothing to worry about” fallacy, he’d lose half his “material”…

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    July 8, 2014

    In other words Loth: They don’t knowwell why the sea ice increased in the Antarctic and they don’t know well why the sea ice decreased in the Arctic.

    Sicence is, as always, settled. :-)

  23. #23 Lionel A
    July 8, 2014

    Indeed, I was going to chip in that uncertainty is a double-edged sword with the edge of uncertainty pointing to a good outcome becoming ever blunter.

    And ever blunter should be the messages sent in Montford’s direction.

    I note that Skeptical Science has a timely article up which also nails the ‘fiddling weather station data’ oil slick that is going the rounds.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    July 8, 2014

    Oh and look, another ‘squirrel’ from Oily Prat.

    What does he not get about the dots being joined on this issue!

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    July 8, 2014

    I see that Olap refuses to go ‘instinct’. Pity.

    There are plenty of reasons why the Antarctic ice may increase slightly whereas the Arctic iced decreases precipitously (note the difference in scale). For one thing, even with warming its still going to be very cold in the Antarctic – well below freezing. With increased precipitation, it would fall as snow. Denier idiots like Olap think that warming emans that the Antarctic must be basking in Caribbean type temperatures. Given that the Antarctic is many degrees below freezing most of the year, it will still be very cold under a warming climate. This is hardly rocket science… except for those like Olap who has never read a scientific journal in his miserable life. Hence his hilarious misuse of the word ‘instinct’……

  26. #26 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    July 8, 2014

    I must be losing it. I keep on believing that, this year, every year when the Arctic melt gets going, we’ll finally see from the reluctant corners of the climate debate the realisation that sea ice and ice sheets are different things.

    And every single year, the same old, same old keeps plodding on. This year is just like all the other years. The Arctic looks like it’s disintegrating in front of our eyes, and these loons rattle on about the Antarctic, but not the leading act of the Antarctic, only the little fringe festival on the edges.

    I really don’t want to live through it, but I sometimes think I’d like to get it over and done with. Let the bloody Pacific do its thing and give us a couple of cracking big El Nino years. There’s enough energy in that ocean waiting for its chance to overheat a goodly part of the atmosphere. A couple of blistering summers might even be worth it if it would shut these people up on their idiotic distractions. In fact, it would be worth it if it was only my own comfort that was at stake. But it’s not, more’s the pity.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    July 9, 2014

    I head you adelady, but even a super El Nino won’t do it. The year after it wanes they’ll be crowing again about how it’s now cooling so there’s really nothing to worry about. And it won’t matter if the Arctic sea ice almost completely disappears in summer because they’ll crow about how “large” the “recovery” is in winter via dividing winter maximum extent by summer minimum extent, or something similar.

    Some of them are cognitively incapable of grasping why those are very stupid arguments, and the rest can grasp it but are lying about it, either to themselves or to everyone else.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    July 9, 2014

    Er…”I hear you adelady…”

  29. #29 Lionel A
    July 9, 2014

    Yep, deniers seem to walk a moving baseline dragging an eraser behind them.

    Which leads me to ponder about the movers and shakers erasing the internet record which could cause them all sorts of grief err long. I am sure they are already on it for the internet has been a massive asset in ensuring the exposure and black knighting of these charlatans and mountebanks and they are smarting (as in sore, not becoming more intelligent).

  30. #30 Lionel A
    July 9, 2014

    The liars for hire will maybe soon crowing, ‘the El Nino didn’t happen so there.’

    El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?.

    Boy have I been wadding through the pigs**t at CP of late, things seem well contained elsewhere, the thread format is hard work ploughing through opening up thread branches. There are many deadheads there but I have been surprised by some support.

  31. #31 Nick
    July 10, 2014

    It’s a curious thing watching self-oblivious idiots sneering about ‘low confidence’ in Antarctic sea ice increase mechanisms under AGW, when those idiots offer nothing at all. Nothing. They do no research, and avoid alternative coherent science explanations because their intention is nothing more than to reject. So we can have ‘no confidence’ in their ‘position’.

    Essentially they unwittingly argue “our rejectionism is the best explanation for Antarctic sea ice processes”. What are they arguing if not this? That we don’t know, don’t need to know, that it doesn’t matter? None of those positions is scientifically useful, or of any interest…except as another indication of delusion and misconception, the hallmarks of incoherent rejectionism.

    I look forward to a response, an alternative explanation for climate south of 70S, with citations.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    July 11, 2014

    ……

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    July 11, 2014

    (The previous comment was meant to invoke the sound of crickets, but ScienceBlogs removed some of the text. It’s almost more evocative without it ;-)

  34. #34 Lionel A
    July 11, 2014

    Not directly climate change related but this charge was levelled at the Daily Mail recently:

    “What separates this from all of the ridiculous things the Mail makes up is that now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie.”

    Now will Climate Scientists start taking on this ridiculous paper for what David Rose produces is full of lies?

  35. #35 BBD
    July 11, 2014

    One of the many things that never ceases to amaze me about the denialist mindset is its utter shamelessness. Catch a denier in a lie and they simply move on to something else as if nothing had happened. And like as not they will be repeating the same lie the next day or week and you go through the whole process again, to no noticeable effect.

    Normal people are shamed if caught in a lie. Normal people tend in fact to avoid lying rather than make it a core part of their MO.

  36. #36 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 11, 2014

    ” self-oblivious idiots sneering about ‘low confidence’ ”

    Sir, I would have you know that you speak of the IPCC, the God-head of all climate science!

  37. #37 turboblocke
    July 11, 2014

    Comprehension fail again.

  38. #38 Nick
    July 12, 2014

    #36, true to form, more sneering from Duffy

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    July 12, 2014

    Well, Duff hasn’t got a better explanation for the climate south of 70S, and he can’t admit that he’s advocating a position of even less understanding than the scientists currently have, so it’s not surprising that he’s reduced to sneering that only convinces the ignorant and gullible.

    It’s a risky tactic though. It tends to draw attention to his lack of understanding. Then again, as the joke goes, he’s not here for the hunting…

  40. #40 Lionel A
    July 12, 2014

    It tends to draw attention to his lack of understanding.

    Nothing better to be expected from one steeped in the Daily Fail. And don’t try to make out you aren’t Duffer for you are even if it is by one remove such as The Torygraph or The ‘Wizard of Oz’ Times.

    Isn’t it weird that Duffer thinks Climate Science advocacy is weakening when the other side are running around like headless chickens talking to themselves. Yes they can do that headless for we all know from whence their offerings come, and eggs they ain’t.

  41. #41 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 12, 2014

    Oh, no, say it ain’t so!

    According to ‘Meteo France’ (no, me, neither) reporting from their weather station at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station, June was the coldest month EVER!!!!

    Look, you lot promised me some global warming and I actually love global warming, so much better than an ice age, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only warming you lot are finding is by sticking your heads up your arses! I want my money back¬

  42. #42 Lionel A
    July 12, 2014

    Antarctic is in the southern hemisphere where it is currently Winter. Not allot of people know that because they have their heads buried in the sand Daily Fail.

    Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station can also be viewed using Google Map.

    Now instead of crowing about the colder temp’s there why not provide a credible scientific explanation for why that could be. Start doing valid homework Duffer. You may need to do much groundwork as you seem out of contact with the subject.

  43. #43 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 12, 2014

    I know where it is, Lionel, but do tell me what it is about the word “ever”, as in the coldest month ever, that you do not understand?

    Look, it is you and your Tabernacle choir that has been promising and promising global warming and there’s no sign of it and hasn’t been for over a dozen years. And yet . . . and yet . . . the CO2 keeps belching out all over Asia. So where is it? I want it!

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    July 12, 2014

    Duff, still uncomprehending of a thousand previous explanations, confuses the local data with the global average and still pretends there “has been no warming for over a dozen years”.

    He’s totally not here for the hunting, folks.

  45. #45 Lionel A
    July 12, 2014

    …promising global warming and there’s no sign of it and hasn’t been for over a dozen years.

    Are you plain ignorant, a liar or an ignorant liar.

    What do you think this shows ?

    And for a bonus why I have I used that PARTICULAR period and those data sets?

    Common, common one of your pundits skated around this.

    Of course that illustration alone is only one element of a WARMING SIGNAL, what are the others?

    Of course at this juncture you’ll do your usual ‘…toodle-pip must go and feed the dogs’ sort of stunt. Why? Because you are a total ‘rhymes with stunt’. Duffers cupid stunts! Go play with your marbles.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    July 12, 2014

    Now Duffer maybe you will see the picture emerging if you read these two articles:

    If these are the early stages…

    Wrong Track

    with the message of that latter being relevant to the UK and most other nations with a supposed democracy.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2014

    Duffer has passed over the fact that May was the warmest ever globally….. Now how much does that smash his silly argument to smithereens?

    But remember all, this is the same guy who once called Obama a Marxist. No kidding. Obama, a corporate bought-and-paid for plutocrat through and through, and Duffer suggests he’s far to the left. This should say everything about Duffer’s credibility, which by now is in negative figures.

  48. #48 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 12, 2014

    Look, it’s no good you lot beating up the messenger! You all predicted global warming – I love global warming – I want global warming – but I’m not getting it!

    The satellite survey of lower troposphere temperatures SHOWS NO SIGN OF WARMING FOR JUST UNDER 18 YEARS, the longest period of nil warming since satellites began measuring.

    And still the CO2 gushes forth in ever increasing amounts – and on that basis you promised me global warming! I used to flog second-hand cars and I would have had my arse sued off if I had made that sort of promise and failed to live up to it!

    So where is it?

  49. #49 turboblocke
    July 12, 2014
  50. #50 turboblocke
    July 12, 2014

    OMG, it looks like Duff is basing his claim on something written by TVMOB. What a loser.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    July 13, 2014

    …but I’m not getting it!

    Except that you are. But you simply refuse to understand what the term “global warming” means, perhaps because that’s the only way you can cling to your denial of reality.

    That’s why I keep saying that, as in the joke, you’re not here for the hunting…

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2014

    “I used to flog second-hand cars”

    Now you are flogging second hand stupidity…. good grief, you are a simpleton…

  53. #53 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 13, 2014

    Oh, I see, as ‘Lottie’ tells me:

    “Except that you are [getting global warming]. But you simply refuse to understand what the term “global warming” means”.

    You mean cold and rainy winters and virtually no significant change in temperatures is the NEW global warming!

    Lottie, could I interest you in a very low mileage, 1985, one elderly lady owner, full service history (I printed it myself) Ford Escort?

  54. #54 Stu 2
    July 13, 2014

    @ # 45.
    Yes, pretty wft graph that shows a .045 deg rise of global average temp since 1995.
    Plot the last 10 years on the same graph (ie from 2004 rather than 1995) & the trend is cooling .02 deg .
    But neither figure is particularly significant or alarming.
    As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
    experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    July 13, 2014

    As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
    experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds.
    Fool.

    Pass your fingers through a candle flame – no problems.

    Hold a finger in the flame – now what?

    Now some more context you ignorant twerp:

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=trophic+webs+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=n2fCU7nRA6qO7Qb14IDwAw&ved=0CCAQgQMwAA

    A sudden outbreak of rank stupidity, ignorance is excusable – first time around but continued ignorance in the face of supplied information is not. How many times have these goons been shown where they are wrong?

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2014

    “As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
    experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds”

    Therein lies the rub. As far as a complete layman is aware… the truth is that none of the deniers who write into Deltoid are remotely aware of anything other than their own profound ignorance when it comes to science. Duffer claims to want warming, ignoring the fact that complex adaptive systems that serve as life support for humanity certainly don’t, not at the time scales Duffer suggests.

    Is it warming? Yes, it most certainly is. And natural systems are responding. Dopes like Duffer and Stu2 cannot counter examples that proliferate from natural systems. They rely on spewing b* about instrumental trends, distorting this to serve their own agendas.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    July 13, 2014

    You mean cold and rainy winters and virtually no significant change in temperatures is the NEW global warming!

    You are being deliberately obtuse – not a good attribute, if before you wrote your #48 you had paid attention to my #45 you should get the picture.

    Here is a reminder:

    What do you think this shows ?

    And for a bonus why I have I used that PARTICULAR period and those data sets?

    But we are wasting our time for anybody who gives Rod Liddle a pat on the back has to be a few sandwiches short of a ‘balanced world view’ diet. I wouldn’t be surprise if he also gives a chuck up for Melanie Phillips (I just chuck up hearing her speak). Oh wait! Whilst scanning down his blog of bigotry and finding this:

    Global warming is creating MORE ice: Antarctic levels reach a record high because of climate change, scientists claim. Remember, next time you want ice cubes put the ice trays in the oven and bake.

    I noticed an image of the harridan from Fleet Street. I came across truly dreadful articles from Phillips and Liddle Rod back when the Sunday Times was around the place – I liked to see how the others tick.

    This guy Duff is beyond our help, dyed in the wool like the sheep he doesn’t recognise he is.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    July 13, 2014

    You mean cold and rainy winters and virtually no significant change in temperatures is the NEW global warming!

    Nope, I don’t mean that, so thanks for further illustrating my point. (You’re not here for the hunting, yada yada…)

    I mean global warming, which means assessing temperatures across the globe (including surface, ocean subsurface and atmospheric temperatures), or if you want to be really rigorous starting at the top of atmosphere and measuring the radiation energy imbalance. It also means assessing them across the entire year, not just winter wherever you happen to be.

    Your local conditions are no measure of global temperature trends, and your winter conditions are no measure of annual conditions – as you either well know or abjectly deny (rather than admit you’ve been spouting stupidity for several years now).

    It’s a “good” used car salesmen trick to pretend that a word that other people understand to mean something means something different to yourself, therefore you can claim you weren’t outright lying when you used it the unusual way you had in mind even though you knew or ought to have known that it would be interpreted differently. It doesn’t work when you’re talking about science though, and it paints you as the intellectual equivalent of a shonky used car salesman.

    Lottie, could I interest you in a very low mileage, 1985, one elderly lady owner, full service history (I printed it myself) Ford Escort?

    Me? No. See, I happen to have exactly one of those sitting here right now surplus to requirements and I simply don’t have time myself to get around to finding a buyer. I will let you have it cheap, seeing you’re so good at flogging that kind of thing which will make it a win/win. Deal?

    (They say that salespeople are the easiest people to sell to, because they tend to fall for the very techniques they apply to others. I suspect that often extends to intellectual bullshit as well as sales bullshit.)

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    July 13, 2014

    But neither figure is particularly significant or alarming.
    As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
    experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds.

    So when my accountant tells me I should be worried and take action because I’m spending $1000 more per month than I earn and that’s going to be a real problem as my savings are increasingly depleted, the appropriate response is “those figures are not particularly significant or alarming, because my bank account can normally survive shifts in balance of $1000 up and down per day”, right?

    Or does your “logic” only work when it’s applied to climate?

  60. #60 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 13, 2014

    Well, this is an Aussie site so why don’t you go tell all those shivering Aussies in Brisbane who are experiencing the coldest winter in 103 years!

    As for scientific, er, ‘expertise’, I think if I had been forecasting horrendous global warming because of CO2 emissions for the past 30 years, I would keep very, very quiet on the subject of my, er, learning!

  61. #61 BBD
    July 13, 2014

    David Duff

    The satellite survey of lower troposphere temperatures SHOWS NO SIGN OF WARMING FOR JUST UNDER 18 YEARS, the longest period of nil warming since satellites began measuring.

    You are lying by omission.

    GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1996 – present; annual means, linear fit

  62. #62 BBD
    July 13, 2014

    So the deniers cherry-pick the outlier, RSS:

    RSS, 1996 – present, annual means, linear fit

    RSS TLT is borked. Even Dr Roy knows that:

    Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

  63. #63 BBD
    July 13, 2014

    You’ve been conned by liars, Duff.

  64. #64 Lionel A
    July 13, 2014

    Duff #60

    Warming induced climate change is a global concern so pack it in with your Liddle Englander stance it makes you look well, er small.

    I’ll bet that the dinner parties between Lawson, Ridley, Liddle, Delers and Phillips are curious affairs as they ritually slice and eat water-melons, this must come as a relief to Phillips who always appears to be sucking lemons.

    Nigel’s opening sermon followed by Liddle special roast mole for starters, grilled Ridley turtle for mains, dribbled with lemon juice then the palette freshened by water melon all consumed around a centrepiece of dressed Rose. Why don’t you join them Duff after all they are clearly your kinda of people.

    Their flies on the wall would surely have nothing to tell for their message is empty of all sensible and rational discourse.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    July 13, 2014

    RSS TLT is borked. Even Dr Roy knows that:

    But Monkytunes still uses it as the basis for the header at his con site. Hence my question, repeated, which Duffer boy avoids answering, as they always do.

  66. #66 BBD
    July 13, 2014

    Let’s be fair:

    You are lying by omission.

    You have been misled by people who are lying by omission.

  67. #67 Stu 2
    July 14, 2014

    @#55 &#56 #59
    We are talking about +0.045 deg over 20 years or -0.02 deg over 10 years.
    Look at the wft graph posted @# 45 & then type in 2004 for the 10 year trend.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2014

    You’ve been conned by liars, Duff.

    Or intellectual used car salesmen – and he prefers to try and defend the lemon he bought from them rather than admit he was conned.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2014

    @#55 &#56 #59

    Interesting. You simply ignore the fact that your illogic was pointed out and carry on as if your argument still holds. Why am I not surprised?

    We are talking about +0.045 deg over 20 years. Look at the wft graph posted @# 45…

    I did. Did you?

    The graph in #45 runs for just over 17 years rather than 20, and it shows a rise in linear trend of about 0.15C in UAH (more than 3x what you claimed), about 0.14C in GISTEMP (more than 3x what you claimed), and about 0.10C (more than 2x what you claimed) in HADCRUT4.

    Given how badly off your characterisation of it was, would you care to reconsider your use of the graph (and the illogic you previously applied to it) as evidence that there’s nothing to worry about?

    And then there’s this from the same comment as the graph you focused on:

    Of course that illustration alone is only one element of a WARMING SIGNAL, what are the others?

  70. #70 Nick
    July 14, 2014

    Well, this is an Aussie site so why don’t you go tell all those shivering Aussies in Brisbane who are experiencing the coldest winter in 103 years!

    Poor Duff…Brisbane metro had its coldest July night—one night–since 1911… how this becomes a claim about winter I don’t know…apart from the obvious observation that you are an ass.

    Meanwhile,June in Brisbane–the first month of winter [offered in the certainty that you will be hemispherically confused]– was 2C above the long term average.

    The July mean is so far average….so there is no sign yet that Brisbane’s winter will be the ‘coldest in 103 years’. It is more likely to rank as one of the warmer ones.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2014

    …why don’t you go tell all those shivering Aussies in Brisbane …

    Because I am too savvy to buy the intellectual lemon that local conditions are indicative of global conditions. You, on the other hand, are stupid or dishonest enough to repeat it after it has been explained to you a hundred times.

    I think if I had been forecasting horrendous global warming because of CO2 emissions for the past 30 years…

    You have bought a lemon there too – bit of a habit with you – and you’re waxing lyrical about what a great deal you got! No-one has been forecasting “horrendous global warming” over the 30 year period starting from 30 years ago.

  72. #72 turboblocke
    July 14, 2014

    Oops sorry about that plot at #49.Didn’t réalisé that RSS was now thé deniers’ favorite. Here’s its trend coared tout thé others:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend

  73. #73 turboblocke
    July 14, 2014

    The above is what you get if you leave autocorrect in French and don’t correct the corrections before posting. Can you work out what I was trying to say?

  74. #74 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    turboblocke

    Yes ;-)

    I quite like this as a means of illustrating just how out of whack RSS really is wrt UAH TLT and surface temperature reconstructions.

    RSS has been recurrent denier cherry-pick du jour for some time. Monckton started peddling it (falsely labelled as surface temperature!) a good few months ago. Maybe longer.

    What amazes me is that you can point out the deliberate deception using a single graph (eg yours or mine) and yet the deceived party doesn’t react by getting angry with Monckton.

    Why is that? In normal reality, if somebody tricks you and you find out about it, you get annoyed or worse with the person who deceived you. But pseudosceptics just keep ploughing on from one rigged graph to the next, apparently uncaring that they have been manipulated and deceived.

    How bizarre is that?

  75. #75 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    Actually, now I check, it seems he’s been doing this for several years. Here’s a recent example. Note the false labelling of RSS TLT as ‘global mean surface temperature change’.

    That’s just a careless, ignorant error. The presentation of an outlier alone is deliberately deceptive.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    July 14, 2014

    BBD, #75 that is exactly the one I took issue with here:

    in June’s Open Thread

    the one which appears at the top of the ‘Charter’ (FFS) of his latest so called charity wheeze and which was the basis of my woodfortrees diagrams brought to Duffer’s attention here, again, in my #57 above.

    Duffer has still not grasped the purpose of my time period pick. What a Duffer!

    Interesting where you found your version.

  77. #77 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    Ah that’s comedy gold, Lionel. You should have quoted some for the thread:

    [Deliberately misleading and incorrectly labelled graph here]

    The Lord Monckton Foundation Charter

    The Lord Monckton Foundation stands as the wall of the West, the redoubt of reason, the sentinel of science, the fortress of freedom, and the defender of democracy. By this Charter, the Governing Council is directed to obtain and to deploy whatever resources may be necessary for the energetic furtherance of the ambitions and activities of the Foundation, which shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure.

    And so on and on. For another four paragraphs. Highlights include:

    The politicization and perversion of objective science, and especially of climate science, are a menace to the West and to the world.

    [...] entities such as the United Nations, the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the latest and crudest pretext for necessary tyranny.

    [...]

    Is science dead? Must reason fail? Shall objectivity be slaughtered again on the pagan altar of mere ideology?

    You want to live in a world where this is simply satire, don’t you? It would be a better world than this.

  78. #78 Lionel A
    July 14, 2014

    I think Munchkin is deluded enough to believe his own BS.

    I didn’t quote it here because I felt too sick whilst reading it and didn’t wish to pass on the discomfort. Not a criticism of you doing so BTW.

    This from somebody who has been in a ‘bang seat’ of heavy metal being thrown around the skies on practice intercepts without feeling the slightest qualms, my only problem being excruciating pain in ears during the decent phase of one such trip, yes I did follow the equalising procedures without success.

  79. #79 turboblocke
    July 14, 2014

    BBD ref your plot in #74: how did you determine the offsets?

  80. #80 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    turboblocke

    I rebaselined everything to the UAH 1981 – 2010 baseline by obtaining the mean for that period for the chosen time-series and using the WfT “offset” function to subtract it from the time-series. The mean is helpfully provided in the WfT “Raw data” page.

    Remember to use From: 1981 – To: 2011 to get JAN 1981 – DEC 2010

  81. #81 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    Sorry, I should have included this:

    Hadcrut4, GISTEMP, RSS 1981 – 2010:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1981/to:2011/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:2011/plot/rss/from:1981/to:2011/plot/uah/from:1981/to:2011

    The Raw data gives rounded means (offset values) of:

    HadCRUT4 – 0.3
    GISTEMP – 0.4
    RSS – 0.1

  82. #83 turboblocke
    July 14, 2014

    Thanks BBD that’s useful to know.

  83. #84 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    It changed my life.

    :-)

  84. #85 BBD
    July 14, 2014

    RSS TLT vs UAH TLT is interesting. If you look closely, RSS diverges from UAH ~2005.

    RSS TLT and UAH TLT 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; linear fits 1979 – present and 1996 – present

  85. #86 Russell
    July 16, 2014
  86. #87 BBD
    July 16, 2014

    Calvin Beisner, Dr Roy, the Cornwall Alliance and dominionist theology. A damn big oh dear.

    Here’s an article about it all, which is the source for these quotes from the Cornwall Alliance publication Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion not Death:

    The Litany of the Green Dragon provides some certainty for people without God, who drift steadily from their rational moorings, and for whom there is an increasing sense of separation anxiety…

    We humans are special creatures, in a class of our own, quite separate from, and superior to, trees and animals…

    The Green Dragon must die…[There] is no excuse to become befuddled by the noxious Green odors and doctrines emanating from the foul beast…

    This slimy jade road…is paved with all kinds of perverted and destructive behaviours, leads to death itself, and finally, to the pains of hell forever…No Hollywood celebrity bunnies draped over its foul form can deny its native evil…

    It is no coincidence the rise of environmentalism as a significant political entity tracks the rising political clout of modern feminism…

    Savage wolves have come to be among the church…No one can serve two masters…

    The first few chapters in the Book of Genesis are an infinite mine to plumb for riches. All the world has no wisdom that is greater…

    So-called “natural” or wilderness areas are not hospitable to man, and God does not consider this a good or natural state…

    The fruits of the Green Dragon are not good, but evil…Humans are urged to surrender as many liberites as judged fit to save the world, which is pretty much all liberty that makes life worth living…

    Christians must resist Green overtures to recast true religion, nor allow themselves to be prey for teachers of pagan heresies…

    Good to know where they are coming from.

  87. #88 Stu 2
    July 17, 2014

    You guys are still only talking about fractions of degrees over approx 20 years on a global average scale.
    It is also clear that the GLOBAL trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose.

  88. #89 turboblocke
    July 17, 2014
  89. #90 FrankD
    July 17, 2014

    Is Stu saying that the current levelling means we don’t have to be concerned about the future trajectory?

    Does Stu2 have any evidence to support his notion that the current levelling off will continue indefinitely?

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    July 17, 2014

    You guys are still only talking about fractions of degrees over approx 20 years on a global average scale.

    So…in response to my:

    Given how badly off your characterisation of it was, would you care to reconsider your use of the graph (and the illogic you previously applied to it) as evidence that there’s nothing to worry about?

    …the answer appears to be “no”. I’d point out the stupidity of the (apparent) argument, but it’s been done over and over again.

    It is also clear that the GLOBAL trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose.

    What FrankD and turboblocke said. Just about every single denialist that isn’t a drive by commenter eventually tries that particular piece of rhetoric on, and not one of them has ever managed to back up the implication they wish to draw from it with a solid argument.

    Not one.

    I don’t know what’s worse – that they think the implication obviously follows from their observation, or that they don’t but hope that we are gullible enough to.

  91. #92 Lionel A
    July 17, 2014

    At this juncture think it useful to remind ourselves just how dishonest and devious the pair of comics 2stupid & Duff can be, earlier this year at Deltoid:

    from February 2014 Open Thread.

    2S & Duff (one the vocalist and the other the dumber) are like a pair of tapeworms running through all the threads but never absorbing anything.

  92. #93 BBD
    July 17, 2014

    Stu 2 is stuck in a loop, because we’ve had this conversation before:

    It is also clear that the GLOBAL trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose.

    I am going to edit this so that it better expresses what is actually happening:

    “It is also clear that the GLOBAL surface temperature trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose but OHC continues to rise rapidly demonstrating the ongoing accumulation of energy within the climate system as a whole. Recent studies suggest that this is a transient effect arising from a combination of a weak solar cycle, an increase in volcanic aerosols, a preponderance of La Nina events and an increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake in the equatorial Pacific. There is no evidence that climate sensitivity is lower than previously estimated, nor that “global warming” has stopped or even slowed down when the climate system as a whole is considered, rather than just the small part of it comprising the troposphere.

    Please – this time – read the words Stu 2.

  93. #94 Lionel A
    July 18, 2014

    OT, but don’t forget all the oil & gas.

    Why is the BBC so slow to to show this on their News site:

    NATO officials believe missile attack behind MH17 crash?

    Could it have been something like this used:

    Missile profile: 9K37 Buk?

  94. #95 GSW
    July 20, 2014

    From WUWT, new begging video from Tim Flannery, he wants your money – again.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/hard-times-for-aussie-alarmists-flannery-begs-in-new-video/

    I’m sure regulars here will be only too keen to contribute to such a “worthy” cause.
    ;)

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    July 20, 2014

    Already did, GSW, already did – it’s another small means to poke a stick in the (metaphorical) eye of those in power who don’t give a shit about the climate or those who will get screwed by it and want inconveniently dissenting voices to be heard an awful lot less – quite apart from the direct value provided by the Climate Council’s work.

    But if you’re going to dub things “begging”, it’s seem passing strange that you’ve failed to post about all the denialist begging that’s gone on over the last year or two. It would be irresponsible not to speculate why your observations are so one-sided, no?

  96. #97 Lionel A
    July 20, 2014

    But if you’re going to dub things “begging”, it’s seem passing strange that you’ve failed to post about all the denialist begging that’s gone on over the last year or two.

    Indeed, I wonder what GSW thinks this is about. Warning Monkey business have a barff bag handy or de-clutter the floor before viewing.

    Duffer still has not answered my question in that respect.

  97. #99 Lionel A
    July 20, 2014

    Oops, drat, being harassed by another hope this is clearer.

    To show how devious Monckton is being by displaying this graph I extended the range of my woodfortrees plot linked up-thread first back to 1995 which showed even RSS as a positive trend but not quite so marked as if one extends back to 1991.

  98. #100 Lionel A
    July 21, 2014

    Having a copy of Bill McGuire’s ‘Waking the Giant’ I was curious about his ‘Global Catastrophes’ (surprise pdf link found here) when I noticed this compact and well produced book on the shelves.

    Although a bit long in the tooth at nine years since published date , Katrina being mentioned, it looks at a range of bad moods we can expect from mother nature as we continue to warm and otherwise deface this planet.

    The beginning of the chapter, ‘Global Warming: A lot of Hot Air?’ includes these very apposite statements considering we are now those nine years on and we know some of those responsible for a lack of concerted action and Bill names one such, from pages 23-24:

    What I find extraordinarily irresponsible is that this dispute continues to be presented, at least in some circles, as a battle between two similarly sized and equally convincing schools of scientific thought, when in fact this is far from the case…

    …Notwithstanding a few maverick scientists, oil company apologists, and the president of the world’s greatest polluter, the overwhelming consensus amongst those who have a grasp of the facts is that without a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions things are going to get very bad indeed. Amazingly, this prospect is still played down and intentionally hidden behind a veil of obfuscation by some, most recently by the – in my opinion – self-deluded Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg. In his widely savaged book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg denigrates global warming and its future impact, while at the same time, through highly selective references to scientific research, coming to the conclusion that all is right with the world. Just in case you have come across this work and been lulled by its friendly, do-nothing message into a false sense of security, let me bring you back to reality, if I may, with a few pertinent facts.

    Such a book would be worth the reading for the likes of a certain John character who popped up on HotWhopper recently.