March 2013 Open Thread

Sorry it's late, I blame the carbon tax!

More like this

Don't ya just love how the denier-illiterate D-K acolytes here write as if they have all of the scientific angles covered? RN has obviously never been near a university science lecture room in his life, yet he comes on here parading nonsense from denier web sites (No tricks zone? Now really. The bottom of the barrel is being literally scraped) and then dismissing peer-reviewed studies by real, bonafide scientists showing that, as one would expect, huge losses in Arctic ice will affect weather patterns across much of the northern hemisphere (the polar regions playing a major role in circulation patterns).

Where do these army of overconfident illiterates 'glean' their smug, self-confidet5n wisdom? From a glut of denier weblogs set up by - you guessed it - pundits and other non-scientists and the like. Pretty well all of them share a common political and philosophical ideology: libertarian/far right anti-regulatory agendas. Science kind of gets in the way, so its a necessary evil that they wade in and distort, twist, mangle and obfuscate the empirical and theoretical literature, whilst camouflaging the real underlying agendas.

Most of the denier blogs are either linked with, or supported by people who would comfortably fit in with the agendas of the Tea Party in the US. Look at Duffer: on his web site he claimed that Obama is a Marxist/Socialist, when the reality is that Obama and his administration are every bit as embedded in the corporate/free market expansionist/Washington Consensus ideology as Bush, Clinton and their predecessors were. The current president is probably to the right of Goldwater and certainly Nixon. This just shows how far to the right this lot of science manglers is. And by quoting shills like Nova, Milloy, Morano, and others, they can't help but play their true hands for all to see.

To reiterate what I also said earlier, when some of the vacuous gaps in the scientific acumen of the deniers is exposed, they just switch topic and ignore the points raised. I discussed the essential element of scale, and Rednose, either cleverly or in just exposing his rank ignorance, made a dismissive comment then went straight back to making dumb, essentially pointless remarks about weather in a tiny corner of the biosphere, blithely unaware clearly what scale has to do with the rules governing the functioning of systems at different levels of organization.

What RN and idiots like him hope is that they can keep the discussion pinned down within an exceedingly narrow range of parameters. Since they have not even a basic understanding of complexity, and even only a kindergarten-level understanding of simplicity, they desperately try and keep the boundaries of debate stuck to the very lowest common denominator. To be honest, most of the deniers do it, for the simple reason that their ignorance is laid bare once the discussion enters the realm of dynamics.

As I said yesterday, as a senior scientist in population and evolutionary ecology, some of the first things I was taught in ecology were the importance of (1) hierarchies, (2) scales, (3) flows, (4) non-linear dynamics, (5) lags, and (6) feedbacks. These also apply to processes that regulate weather and climate are concerned. Most trained scientists clearly understand this but the armchair experts don't. They've started out with a blank slate that appears in many cases to have been filled in with 'information' from web logs. Its clear that many deniers did not start out with an open mind and set out to discuss with scientists or to learn from basic books about complexity; instead, they possess deep-rooted political views and sought out blogs which they would use to arm themselves (however incompetently) against the bulk of scientific evidence.

I have yet to encounter a single AGW denier on Deltoid - and I have been reading and writing in here for almost a decade - who has even a basic understanding of scale, complexity and non-linear dynamics in the Earth and environmental sciences. Not a single one. These idiots remind me of the expendable fighters one encounters in a Bruce Lee film like 'Enter the Dragon'. No matter how many of them come forward and are easily and summarily despatched by our hero, more fill the ranks in a never-ending procession of profound ignorance.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Mar 2013 #permalink

Vince @ 99:

You nailed it. This is EXACTLY what I mean. How the far right has seen the internet as a tool to attack and undermine scientific integrity. I honestly thought - naively as it turns out - that Deltoid might attract open-minded people who admitted that they do not posses the scientific acumen but were nevertheless interested to learn more about human effects on climate as well as these effects on natural and managed ecosystems. That they wold enquire as to useful sources of information. Instead, amongst those people I have encountered a coterie of individuals who by many factors over-estimate their knowledge in the field, who consistently smear some of the world's best scientists, and who endlessly parrot garbage spewed out by denier blogs. When their clear lack of understanding of even basic processes is exposed, they get all uppity, ignore the arguments and dig in on the most flimsy of bases.

Its depressing and I honestly think that, if the comments I see on blogs are anything to go by, our species is screwed, well and truly. David Roberts laid it out in his TED lecture. We are heading for a cliff in the dark of our own making and many of us just do not want to accept that we are riding blind. Its pure and utter folly.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Mar 2013 #permalink

One of my colleagues who has persisted in reading the Brangelina thread, in the face of repeated admonitions to the contrary, emailed this to me this morning:

Then it follows that an atmospheric CO2 of 550 ppm would be associated with a warming of

~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

Hence my true statement (to zero decimal places!) that

Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures [...] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

And now that I’ve refreshed your memory on how logarithms work, you’ll grasp why

There *is* no implied baseline.

To insist, as BBD does, that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is dyscalculic, innumerate, mathematically illiterate, or however you want to euphemise it. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no implied baseline.

It seems that as a mathematician, Brad Keyes makes a cunning linguist. Keyes needs to understand that there is a baseline. Sensitivity refers to the temperature response to every doubling of of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starting at 275* ppm.

There was much laughter up and down the corridors.

Keyes' equation:

~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

is nonsense, no more than meaningless mathematical Thimblerig. If equilibrium climate sensitivity results in a 2.5° Celsius increase in in temperature per doubling, subsequent operations with divisors and further logarithms will not alter this fact.

Keyes might fancy that he speaks fancy, but his is a mathematical ignorance that could be unpicked by a smart 13 year old.

And Keyes, if you're reading this, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 550 ppm will be catastrophic for billions of people, many societies and cultures, and a significant proportion of the species in the biosphere. I'll stake my reputation an an ecologist on this, and let posterity be the judge.

Our ecological requirements are tuned to the Holocene (not the emotive spin-doctoring term "Amish" with which you tried to taint the facts) concentration of ~275 ppm, and like it or not excursions of more than about 50-75 ppm from that figure will have long-term effects on how (and if) the sweaty naked ape lives.

[* It's salient to reiterate that the best (read 'parsimonious') median estimate for equilibrium sensitivity is still a hair over 3° Celsius. Pulling a lower value out of the air because it's more amenable to one's ideology doesn't change the objectivity of the laws of physics or of the scientific method.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Mar 2013 #permalink

The longer Keyes goes on the less intelligent and informed he looks.

I'm not entirely sure that's the effect he was going for.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

How the far right has seen the internet as a tool to attack and undermine scientific integrity.
Do you think its a conspiracy?

If you want to undermine scientific integrity, look no further than the latest gems from staff at the UWA. Soon to be renamed Crawley Comp if it carries on being associated with publications of that stature.

Rednose, hehehe, Jeff Harvey also waffled on about how warm it was in Canada, lol, look at it now.

He never could work out the difference between weather and climate, he was constantly on the look for hotspots to feed his neurosis.

DuffassRedNose:

Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

Note the emphasised text which indicates the localized nature of the colder events and that temperatures have continued to rise.

Just you wait 'till all that heat that has been accumulating in the oceans starts to be pushed back into the atmosphere and is also used increasing the melt rate of ice at the polar edges. Interesting events happening in the Arctic right now:

Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack,

and if you had bothered to follow up my suggestion to use GeoMapApp to investigate the topography of the Antarctic you would realise how the above could suddenly tip the Antarctic into rapid melt on top of that taking place up North.

So Duffski, you fail again and need to attend extra-curricular classes so that you understand the bigger picture and thus not get taken in by the garbage from those Beno & Dandy sites.

I wish you were correct in your thinking and that there is no problem. Sadly, for my children and grandchildren that is not the case and idiots like you help slow down any action to ameliorate this dire situation. For that you should eventually be pilloried at the very least for your actions are those of a socio-path.

Bernard, if you really feel you must join the crowd of Brad-enablers, could you do us all a solid and not clutter up a fourth open thread with his twaddle? If you feel you must rebut such obvious boneheadery, there is a thread for it. Thanks.

Meanwhile, Karen enjoins us to "lol, look at it [Canada] now."
So I did, and I notice the Canadian Arctic is currently showing temps 10 - 15 Celsius above normal for this time of year. So obviously self-defeating; it makes me wonder what Karen's point is.

No, let me rephrase - I wonder what the point of Karen is....

Meanwhile, meanwhile, Duffer witters on about late snow in England. He is doubtless unaware that recent research has shown Arctic Sea Ice melt producing more extreme fluctuation in the jetstream causing, by turns, more unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold weather. So we see summer temperatures in later winter in the continental US last year, and damn cold *weather* in the UK this year.

Pretty much exactly as has been predicted for years. I'm sure climatologists appreciate your endorsement of their work, David.

LA#8
Well as the whole paper was about Solar Influence on winter severity in Central Europe its bleeding obvious it would sort of be about Europe. I also showed evidence that European winters were getting colder recently, coinciding with a period of low sunspot activity.

And when exactly is this accumulated heat going to get pushed back into the atmosphere.
More to the point how exactly is it getting there, into the deep oceans?
Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.
Is all that energy sort of queing up to go down sink holes or is it by some mysterious beam technology or an example of quantum linkage. i would like to know.
Whats happening to the extra energy thats hitting the land surface. doesnt seem to be affecting the land surface temperatures much. Is that being beemed to the deep ocean and adding to it as well.
OMG. Its worse than we thought.

I am more concerned about people alive today. Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.
We should be able to adapt to future changes. generally the more affluent and more resources the greater the ability to adapt.
The policy of green miserablism is no solution.

Bernard J

Thanks for posting this.

One brief point:

[* It's salient to reiterate that the best (read 'parsimonious') median estimate for equilibrium sensitivity is still a hair over 3° Celsius. Pulling a lower value out of the air because it's more amenable to one's ideology doesn't change the objectivity of the laws of physics or of the scientific method.]

The egregious Keyes got the 2.5C ECS figure from me. In an effort to illustrate for him that even rather low estimates for ECS require emissions controls I used a conservative estimate of ~2.5C - ~3C in discussion with the Buffoon. Needless to say, he picked the bottom of that range.

It's interesting to note that the first time BK actually ventures out of rhetoric into the concrete in ~5000 comments, the great scientific genius reveals himself to be incompetent on several levels (see also the TCR vs ECS confusion).

But always ready to sneer at the supposed ignorance and naivety of others. What a loathsome little shit it is.

FrankD

Apologies. No more will be said on the subject here.

Rednose

Why do you keep ignoring the important things? First, Central European winter temperatures ≠ GAT. That's just a basic denialist bonehead conflation and you can stop doing it now because it is tedious.

Second, you ignored this graph on the previous page (twice, if you are in fact Rednose as well).

So, let me ask you again to explain what we see.

Compare TSI (yellow line at the bottom) with forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gasses (W-M GHG; green; mainly CO2) and the remarkable increase in ocean heat content (OHC, red).

TSI and OHC *diverge* from about 1980 onwards. TSI *declines* and OHC increases.

?

Here's a clue: it's not the sun. Stop being a denialist bonehead.

FrankD, yup, that's right. Its warmer over much of the Yukon and NW Territories than it is in central Europe and farther south in the USA right now. Way above normal. As it has been through much of the winter and pretty well non-stop since the early 1990s....

Note how Rednose attrempts to use a one year outlier in one small geographical area as a proxy for spring temperatures. Again, the system over the short term exhibits non-linear dynamics; only over longer time scales and larger spatial scales do processes become more predictable. Rednose again cannot get the process of scale through his thickly boned skull. Its not even like he tried to get around it; its inconvenient to his argument and thus must be ignored.

Essentially its just another example of his scientific illiteracy. Like other deniers, he thinks central Britain is some huge expanse of terrain and that 10-15 years is an eternity when it comes to climate. This is like me studying one smalkl region of boreal forest in canada in one season and attempting to make predictions of biotic processes and system functiioning on this basis. Longer term trends don't figure into this kindergarten level thinking; Rednose thionks that it is warmer now than last year, then next year must by his law of linear thinking be warmer than this year. Every dot on the graph must be higher than the one preceding it in on the y-axis. Forget doing long term regression anlyses in which trends are elucidated; his regressions are based on as few as two data points. Aha! Its colder in 0.0001% of the globe this March than last March! This proves that GW is a myth!

I've had idiots make it easy to debunk their nonsense but Rednose might just be the easiest.He's be laughed out of any science room or lecture hall with this kind of comedy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

Meanwhile, meanwhile, Duffer witters on about late snow in England. He is doubtless unaware that recent research has shown Arctic Sea Ice melt producing more extreme fluctuation in the jetstream causing, by turns, more unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold weather. So we see summer temperatures in later winter in the continental US last year, and damn cold *weather* in the UK this year.

Actually no, duffer has admitted this and used it to explain the drought the Kiwis are having. Here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/03/07/march-2013-open-thread/comme…

Which makes you wonder what his point was.

Its a great pity they have probably all now frozen to death under 3 feet of the stuff.

So you're saying that we've never had 3ft of snow before?

Then he writes this gibberish:

"We should be able to adapt to future changes. generally the more affluent and more resources the greater the ability to adapt"

I've debunked this crap so many times I have lost count. The old 'humans can adapt' canard. Of course, as I tirelessly repeat over and over and oevr and over again, its beyond our control. Human technology cannot replicate the conditions necessary to create functioning ecosystems that generate conditions which permit us to exist and persist. In other words, if natural systems fail to produce vital services upon which human civilization rests, then it does nopt matter how brillaint and innovatgive we think our species is, we will go down the drain. End of story.

Human technology cannt effectively replicate the following ecological servcies with any kind of efficiency: water purification, breakdown of terrestrial wastes, nutrient cycling, pollination, seed dispersal, pest control, maintenance of ecosystem functions and stability, mitigation of floods and droughts and regnerations of soil fertility. These services freely emerge from natgure and our species is the main beneficiary; no species depends more on nature or utiolizes more of it: up to 50% of net primary production and freshwatger flows are co-oped by man. As we continue our assault on natural systems, effectively simplifying them, we push them towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves - and us. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) showed that human activities have already negatively affected some 60% of critical ecosystem services, and the social and economic costs of business-as-usual will be profound. Al;ready, overharvesting of marine ecosystems has put many of the brink of irreversible collapse. Terrestrail systemjs are not far behind. We should count our lucky stars that these systems have been resileint enough to withstand that diverse human assault thus far - but there is no reason to believe that ecological services are as resilient as the systems themselves.

But since Rednose is just another scientifically illiterate denier, he does not know any of this (don't worry RN, your lot is brimming with equally vapid throngs). What people like RN illustrate, almost without exception, if a lack of even a basic understanding of systems ecology and how this translates into the well being of humans and the material economy. They write as if humans are virtually exempt from the laws of nature. Pretty much every AGW denier I have encountered has a similar hole in their understanding of systems ecology and what it means for civilization. No problem there, except when they write into blogs and play the 'adaptation' hand, whilst lacking even a basic understanding of what this involves.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

I’ve debunked this crap so many times I have lost count. The old ‘humans can adapt’ canard.

Well, going extinct is an adaption.

I wonder if they know that they appear to prefer the extinction of the human race to having to clean up their mess and the mess of previous generations.

RedNose,

Having deliberately evaded the context of my post, hint links, you then produce this gibberish:

I am more concerned about people alive today. Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.

The state of the economy has nothing to do with your so called green policies, maybe you would care to share what you think those are EXACTLY, or carbon taxes and everything to do with greedy bastids like this who helped precipitate the financial crisis. Also consider the behaviour of the one time heads of RBS and Barclays. But they, like Gideoneorge Osborne and Cameron or just puppets dancing to the tune of those who wish to recreate a medieval society where most have been stripped of their assets. See Cyprus here some time but much modified so that the one percent have let outs.

You seem a typical Daily Fail, Sun, Star, Sport reader who works his frames of reference from opinion columns in such and of course the worst blogs on the net which belong to what the Ehrlichs termed the 'Brownlash' in their Betrayal of Science and Reason:
How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future
. Now I suggest that you find a copy and read it, you will then discover why regulation of industry and taxes to cover externalities not factored into the way business has been carried out up to this point in time.

You will also find examples of how miscreants of the Brownlash have distorted the writings of scientists. Of course you do this yourself by your selective quoting, quoting without context.

Have you not noticed that across the country many have suffer from flooding as the result not only of global warming induced climate change and extreme weather but because of bad development policies where the fast buck is king building real estate without adequate infrastructure. This is the result of altered patterns of jets stream behaviour from Arctic ice loss which also puts more moisture into the atmosphere. That some of the increased precipitation falls as snow is just one aspect of the same phenomenon.

Pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes

Since most of the rise has been because we've been at the mercy of international sellers of fossil fuels, you should be demanding that they are replaced.

and youngsters who cannot get jobs because of the state of the economy

Which is made worse by our balance of payments being hit by

1) Austerity measures, ensuring nobody has any money, therefore nothing is bought, therefore nobody employed making or selling it
2) Importing gas, coal, nuclear material.

which is not being helped by green policies and carbon taxes.

The only "green taxes" are subsidies to renewables and that costs about £2. Compared to £66 from the increase in fossil fuels cost, you should be pointing your wagging finger elsewhere.

ruddyshnozzle:

And when exactly is this accumulated heat going to get pushed back into the atmosphere.

If you had bothered to view pages cited you would have seen this:

Additionally, after the very strong El Niño event of 1998, a cooling of the upper 300 and 700 meters of oceans is visible as a result of heat being transfered from the surface ocean to the atmosphere.

You also wrote this:

Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.

Emphasised part; who says?

Whatever that statement again makes it clear that you didn't bother to go to source for then you would appreciate the nonsense that is.

On affluence, in general the prosperity gap is widening and with the percentage of those on the wrong side increasing. HTF do you think those washed out of their homes, off their farms and out of their jobs are going to adapt.

How do you think organisms are going to adapt when temperatures, salinity, atmospheric pressure or some other factor goes outside of their liveability zone faster than they can move, assuming they have anywhere to move to. You just don't get the scale or scope of this issue do you.

You are clearly educated to the guidelines that Gove is trying to return to. Narrow education to produce narrow little minds.

BTW RedNose isn't a Keyes sock emulating Duffspeak is it?

maybe you would care to share what you think those are EXACTLY,

Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich, useless, industrialising the landscape and acting as a sop to the "we must do somethingto save the polar bear brigade" to gain popularity and votes

Bleeding windmills.

Oh! Is that all.

As Wow indicated, wag your finger at the oligarchs (and then hide perhaps).

Wait 'till you have been 'fracked'. Snag is I don't want to be fracked and neither would anybody else if they understood the hazards. We will have enough trouble finding plentiful drinking water without this crazy.

Bleeding windmills

The subsidy for that is £2 on the average bill.

The subsidy for the banks was, what, £3,000 per household? Gas price increases £66.

Rednose

You ignored my comment at # 13 again

This is surprising as it also demonstrates that your statement is false:

Its not showing iself in the sea surface, land or lower troposhere records which have been steady for at least 15 years so no sign of a build up there. It seems to be sneaking past the argo buoys.

This is of course bollocks. Here is another view of OHC, this time showing 0 - 2000m (black) as well as 0 - 700m (red).

Why are you spouting nonsense and ignoring correction?

Do you find these explanations difficult to follow?

Rednose

bleeding windmills

Not this tripe again. Gas companies are killing the poor, not 'green taxes'. Do your homework. Check your numbers. This lie was concocted by the GWPF and inserted in to the British popular imagination by the Daily Fail.

It has since been formally retracted by that rag, but only after action by the Press Complaints Commission and not before the damage was done. You should be more careful what, and who, you believe. Some people out there are not using the correct numbers.

"Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich"

Good grief, does Rednose have no shame? Diverting funds from poor to rich? That's the whole ethos of the Washington Consensus, man! Why on Earth do you think the electoral system in the US has long been co-opted by the privileged few? Your comment is so utterly flippant, its akin to a drop of water in a bottomless sea....

And the las thing those who have their hands on the reins of power want is for us to be weaned off of our dependence on fossil fuels. Heck, we essentially eat the stuff, since every facet of our lives is dependent, either directly or indirectly, on them. The social and environmental costs of extraction, refining, delivery and use is externalized; in other words, society is subsidizing the ecological costs without understanding how likely to be. It explains why at Rio in 92' the corporate lobby was there big time, ensuring that full-cost pricing was kept well away from the political agenda whilst working more towards fighting for the right to treat nature as intellectual property, rather than to protect it.

You really are a loon.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

“Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich”

Good grief, does Rednose have no shame? Diverting funds from poor to rich? That’s the whole ethos of the Washington Consensus, man!

Yeah I think duffer here has an envy problem with rich people.

FrankD:

Meanwhile, Karen enjoins us to “lol, look at it [Canada] now.”

Actually, there's a thread for that too - it's called the Sunspot Thread...

;-)

Fair point though. I'll go over and see if Keyes has justified his rubbery equation.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

I see that Brad has forfeited his right to post at SKS;

Moderator Response:
[DB] Note to all participants: The posting rights of Mr. Keyes have been deemed forfeit due to dishonesty on the part of Mr. Keyes, earlier
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1934&p=2#92682

Cue up the anguished cries of martyrdom.

Brad's swan song on that SKS thread was to refer to the likes of WUWT, Morano, CA, et. al. as 'science defending'. I suppose that kinda explains why he has his own self-contained thread here. At least when you bang your head against a brick wall, you can eventually get back something for your efforts, even if it is only a severe headache. Whereas trying to engage with Brad...

Anyway, in other news, the WUWT echo chamber is delirious with itself for managing to stack the voting to gain yet another Bloggie for best anti-science site. Any attempt to explain that they essentially voted for themselves of course falls on deaf ears.

By metzomagic (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

Cue us not getting rid of him.

Sadly.

New paper in Nature Climate Change - "Temperature and vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands"
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1836…

Check out the inline ad to the right of the article.

Piping Bitumen Without the Use of Diluents
Deadline:Mar 27 2013 Reward:$10,000 USD
A group of progressive oil sands companies are looking for creative and innovative ways to flowing bitumen through pipelines…

Eventually leads you to here
https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9932959

Nature Publishing Group - you have to be fucking joking.

Bleeding windmills. Expensive, diverting funds from poor to rich

Delingpole, is that you?

;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Mar 2013 #permalink

Nah, Delingpole's just the hand up the-
never mind... ;-)

BBD#28

You must be every salesman's dream customer.
I will make you an appontment now. Have your cheque book ready. Better still I will knock 10% off if you pay the full amount cash upfront, but the offer is only open today.

A different perspective here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/wind_power_how_much/page2.html
Hughes calculates that the national and EU policies favouring wind will incur an additional cost to citizens of £120bn for the turbines, and the backups they require, to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets, when the same electricity could be generated for just £13bn if the UK used open cycle gas plants instead.

Meeting the 2020 renewable target using wind will require 36GW worth of wind backed up by 13GW of the rather more reliable gas. "Overall, the net saving in fuel, operating and maintenance costs for the wind scenario relative to the gas scenario is less than £500m per year, a very poor return on an additional investment of over £105bn," concludes Hughes.

Wind turbines may even increase the UK's CO2 emissions – depending on when the wind blows.

Hughes adds: "The response has been to rig the market to (in effect) guarantee the return on investment in immature technologies which are not economic at any reasonable price on CO2 emissions or if their impact on landscapes and the environment was properly internalised."

Slightly different perspective here

BBD#14

Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page.

Hughes calculates that the national and EU policies favouring wind will incur an additional cost to citizens of £120bn for the turbines,

And why do you think he is right?

Slightly different perspective here

"Wrong" is another perspective.

Just because you have a different perspective doesn't mean you have a valid one.

LionelA#22

Emphasised part; who says?

Try this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcru…

Re the new paper you referred to, as I undersdtand there have been no measurements below 2000m and very few from 700-1500m by the Argo buoys. Before Argo there were no measurements at depth and very few in the Southern Hemisphere. .
Also the Argo data even very recently has been described as "Provide limited value due to missing and erroneous data and calibration."
Also in this article, there does not seem to be a process descibed which explains adequately how this heat reaches below 2000m at the speeds necessary to mask its build up elsewhere.
So the models might predict it going there but measurements do not seem to have confirmed this yet.
A work still in progress.

Also other sources suggest it takes upwards of 1000years for water to circulate from the surface to these depths and back to the surface.
Are you suggesting our climate is influenced today by events in 1066.

Agree about the crazy building on flood planes.

So who is gift aiding the other 110 odd billion necessary for the bleeding wind farms?

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php

And wind is producing about 2.5GW from a demand for about 50GW presently.

110 billion pounds to produce 2.5GW. Fantastic value.

So who is gift aiding the other 110 odd billion necessary for the bleeding wind farms?

So who says there is another 110 odd billion necessary?

Really, duffer, you're pathetic.

Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

"It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW
...
Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion"

Then fuel it, run it, fix it and clear up. The latter costing something north of £60Bn.

And remember, Nukes get about 60% nameplate capacity in output. 960MW.

And as we've seen, without gas, a gas generator is just a pile of metal. And that can happen because a valve went wrong.

Rednose should learn to be sceptical of what he reads in the Dail Fail/Fail on Sunday/Fail online:

The £110 billion figure is quoted fairly often in discussions about UK energy policy. It's the amount of private sector investment that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates will be needed to construct new power plants and upgrade the UK's electricity networks over the next eight years. DECC breaks this down into £75 billion for constructing new generation capacity and £35 billion for upgrading the network grid. This total sum will not be paid directly through taxes - or even consumer energy bills. It's an investment the government is seeking from the private sector - which will presumably expect a return.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/david-rose-and-the-%C2%A3110-bi…

Rednose wants to leave the UK's ageing energy infrastructure to rot away.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

It doesn't even say that it's for wind power, never mind only wind power generators.

"It’s an investment the government is seeking from the private sector – which will presumably expect a return."

Hang on, a small business, for example a high street shop, is expected to keep their place in good repair or they can lose the building and license to operate.

That cost of repair is taken from the profits. It isn't expected that fixing the roof will be an investment that will pay back directly.

So why are the owners of the grid allowed to expect the cost of maintenance of their infrastructure to be a profitable venture?

Hell, it's the same for the bloody water companies: "We must be allowed to increase the rates so we can pay for upkeep on the stuff we bought but didn't do and now have to".

Sod off. If you can't keep it running, you shouldn't be making ANY profit.

Rednose

Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page

Oh fuck off with evasive your nonsense! Download another browser if whatever junk you are running is that badly borked.

He's got the UKIP browser. It won't display discouraging information for UKIP ideology.

Sort of a racist "peril sensitive sunglasses".

Always useful to divide those big scarey numbers by the number of people paying for it and the number of years...

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

Note the chain of causality:

GWPF (Lawson) ->

Daily Fail - Paul Dacre; Editor and buddy of Lawson's ->

David Rose; Daily Fail hack and serial climate science misrepresenter ->

British electorate

This is how fake charity fake 'think tanks' use influential media to distort public perceptions and warp public policy.

rudyschnozzle

Did not mean to be rude on this occasion. My browser will not support displaying that page.

Try using browser settings so as to handle the appropriate graphic file format. Shouldn't be that difficult.

BBD#56
Following on from my reply to you link to a crappo SKS post:

And the Ocean Heat Content 0-700 metres for thr Atlantic and Pacific, for which there are Argo readings also seem to be decreasing. So its not hiding there.

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-p…

Something else to put you in a good mood:
Piers is forcasting the Worst Easter Bank Holiday for decades. Blames it on the comming MIA.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=11388

And Die Welt reports "Scientists Warning of an Iceage"
http://notrickszone.com/
maybe its related to the low sunspot activity.
Interesting to see what happens when the AMO goes negative.
Find an uptic in that lot..
You only need one outlier.

Always useful to divide those big scarey numbers by the number of people paying for it and the number of years

You still end up with a number at least ten times bigger than the one given in a trade magazine.

'Emphasised part; who says?'

Try this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcru…

Aha! Another step on the Up Escalator and one with a decided up slope at that. What happens when all dates are set from 1980? Just saying.

As for the rest of your answer, which from one quote within 'Provide limited value due to missing and erroneous data and calibration' appears based upon effluent from WUWT and what does not reflect that betrays a lack of parsing of all element of the article cited so here is some more suggested reading which will provide you with a better grounding in this aspect.

It could be a novel experience for you to read about this topic in depth as well as breadth but stick at it.

As for sources suggesting 1000 year ocean turnover - which ones have YOU studied YOURSELF?

As for human effect on climate back in 1066 - well yes and way before. Check out works by William Ruddiman.

Rednose

Following on from my reply to you link to a crappo SKS post:

No, I did not, you lying buffoon. I linked you directly to an image on the NODC OHC data site.

Don't start the Bray-style blatant misrepresentations/evasions here. Do not lie about what I write.

Bob Tisdale is not a reliable source, so please don't link to any more of his stuff.

Another bonehead fucking troll.

Primary reference: Levitus et al. (2012). (Full paper pdf).

Abstract:

[1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

Trust our latest resident moron to cite crap from Bob Tisdale, another non-scientist blogger, and not the primary literature. Well, two can play the blog game:

http://wottsupwiththat.com/tag/bob-tisdale/

Note how RN has, as expected, slithered on from several of his older weather-related/human adaptation posts which were comprehensively debunked. Bait and switch. Its the deniers main strategy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

...to follow on from my last post, note also how Tisdale mangles his data: by selecting a time scale that fits his narrative. A very short one, of course, as is keeping with the scientifically illiterate denier hordes out there who claim to embrace science but in the end do not understand (or deliberately ignore) vitally important concepts including scale. I am still waiting for RN ot cite some of the primary literature, but it seems to much to ask. Instead, as with most of the deniers, we are inundated with links to right wing blogs run by a veritable army of nincompoops whose ideas wouldn't last 5 seconds were they exposed to serious peer-review.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

RedNose,

Bob Tisdale, (and don't just lob in graphics out of context - that's a Monckton Manoeuvre).

Climate Realists

and

notrickzone

and Potty Piers (to add to a Potty Peer)

You gotta be kidding us.

But then Piers is only going on what our senses, the Met Office and the current state of warming disturbed jet stream is telling us. Heck I have pointed you at the Master's site which should have given you a clue.

Here is a take on Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy? dragon that you have awaken and here is some stuff on Tisdale's tricks with tracks.

We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available,

Is that early data when they used to chuck a bucket over the side on the end of a rope and measure the temperature after it had been pulledback in. Probabbly left hanging around for a while ot next to a hot fiunnel. Get some really good data with that.

Rednose

Instead of more witless prattle, why not STFU and RTFR?

;-)

lord_sidcup

At a skim, this looks good. Thank you and will read properly this evening.

I wish I could convey this to the Thing In The Basement (BK):

Our advice is framed around an overall objective to keep a 50:50 probability of a temperature rise close to 2°C and a negligible chance of reaching 4°C by 2100. Modelling work with the Met Office Hadley Centre in 2008 showed that global emissions therefore ought to peak by 2020 and halve by 2050. Results showed that this still gave a 10% chance of reaching at least 3.5°C. If new findings confirm a reduction in this high-range possibility this would clearly be good, but would not suggest that delaying action is a sensible way to meet our objective.

But Brad doesn't get it at all.

Oooh! It's in Die Welt so it must be true!

You buffoon.

STFU and RTFR. Levitus.

We are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising.

Sort your nonsense out. *THINK* instead of prattling.

Poor link. try again
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%…

To some extent it was able to win a series of tests a picture of how the solar wind affects the ionizing cloud formation and thus the temperature of the Earth. (Pixie dust)

he two researchers came to the conclusion: "The anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been in the second half of the 20th century probably overestimated by a factor of two," actually only half as large as expected. The flow and pressure conditions in the oceans and on the other hand, would fundamentally underestimated.

More clueless from he who makes Clouseau look bright:

Is that early data when they used to chuck a bucket over the side on the end of a rope and measure the temperature after it had been pulledback in. Probabbly left hanging around for a while ot next to a hot fiunnel. Get some really good data with that.

Not that old nutshell. Daily Fail standard though.

We are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising.

Yagger. Yagger

Lionel
you really should try to broaden your reading matter. Restricting it to Tamino and SKS will give you a very cyclops view.

RuddyschNozzle:

you really should try to broaden your reading matter. Restricting it to Tamino and SKS will give you a very cyclops view.

Unfortunate and erroneous assumptions are your forte as in that prime example.

So, you have nothing useful to offer. Thought so.

" maybe its related to the low sunspot activity."

That hypothesis has been falsified.

Rednose

From the Die Welt article

Die beiden Biogeochemiker – eine Disziplin, zu der auch die Ergründung der Erdatmosphäre zählt – haben das Papier für das Forschungsinstitut Vniigaz des Gazprom-Konzerns erarbeitet, eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.

Oh my sides. This solar wind stuff is coming from two geezers nobody has ever heard of, who work for GAZPROM - "eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist." 'Not exactly free of the suspicion of vested interest' or words to that effect ;-)

You credulous buffoon, you!

[T]he two researchers came to the conclusion: “The anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been in the second half of the 20th century probably overestimated by a factor of two,” actually only half as large as expected. The flow and pressure conditions in the oceans and on the other hand, would fundamentally underestimated.

This bit has *nothing to do* with Bashkin & Galiulin (the Gazprom crew). It refers to the latest badly flawed AMO analysis from Tung & Zhou which demonstrates convincingly that the authors' confidence in their methodolgy was overstated by a factor of at least two ;-)

Here's a link to a really thorough debunking of Z&T's stuff at Skeptical Science! Just for you!

:-)

And we still are not going to enter a glacial or even a re-run of the LIA with OHC rising. See Levitus et al. (2012).

Its been cold in Germany for a few weeks and a newspapers warn of a potential ice-age? Seems that December wasn't so long ago which was once of the warmest ever recorded in central and western Europe. But of course the job of the corporate media is to emphasize every tiny bit of weather-related news that can be used to downplay AGW.

Strange they aren't reporting temperatures in the Yukon and NW Territories now, which are some 5-15 C above normal (and presage another year of alarming ice loss in the Arctic). Again, par for the course. Downplay events that do not conform with the business-as-usual model, and highlight the far smaller number of weather-related events that do.

To repeat: Rednose ran out of arguments (well, he never really had any) pretty soon after arriving. Since everything he says is nonsense, its been bait and switch ever since.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

I love the way I reference Levitus (2012) and the Rednosed Clown comes back with a crappy article from Die Welt ;-)

Which the Clown hasn't even understood!

Does it juggle?

Jeff - Presumably you speak Dutch, which is close enough to Deutsch to be named after it - can you sharpen up my crap translation of this?

eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.

The Clown seems to react quite strongly to certain types of content. Let's try an experiment (apologies for repeat comment):

Note the chain of causality:

GWPF (Lawson) ->

Daily Fail – Paul Dacre; Editor and buddy of Lawson’s ->

David Rose; Daily Fail hack and serial climate science misrepresenter ->

-> British electorate

This is how fake charity fake ‘think tanks’ use influential media to distort public perceptions and warp public policy.

I've been reading some posts that are being left at Jo Nova's website by somebody who is showing some above-average dedication in the face of the abject stupidity Joanne Codling encourages over there.
Calling herself, "Nice One", she's having a go with plenty of facts and then some cracking good lines such as the following:

Because as an amateur it’s quite easy to make up some convoluted mixture of bogus theories, mash them together and blog about them in some difficult to follow manner and then claim “Climate Science hasn’t caught up”. When the truth is that you’re a possible lunatic with an overstated opinion of your own skills.

I like it!

The thread it's on is an article jointly written by the idiotic conspiracist Jo Nova in cahoots with professional know-nothing and liar Anthony Cox:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#com…

Yes, Anthony Cox claims to have disproved man-made global warming. What an utter moron.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

Lol - apparently Joanne Codling is extremely sensitive about being called a "nutter".

But what else could you call somebody who has that freak Monckton as a house guest?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Mar 2013 #permalink

Profoundly confused.

Awww, so 'Cohenite' (Anthony Cox) found a natural home for his lawyerly (lack of) talent after all in Mama Codling's batshit crazy apron strings.

Likely "Brad's" eventual resting place circle of hell too.
Peas in a pod, and all that.

A UK version of "The Conversation" web site is starting in May.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/jaspan-takes-the-conversation-bac…

The Australian climate cranks (including Cox) attacked the comments in the Oz version aggressively because it regularly published articles from our leading climate scientists. They seem to have dropped off in recent times - probably punch drunk :-).

Expect the same in the UK.

Olaus, true to his high-school science drop out form, still cannot find the primary literature and has to constantly paste up here bilge from a second rate weatherman...

What else is new. They ALL do it. Deniers live, breathe, eat and sleep on right wing denier blogs.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

Hey Jeff, EdWood seems to be a good proxie as any in climate astrology. ;-)

And now the horrific low temps in the NH is caused by Lobal warming as well. The correlation between ice extent in the arctic region and temps are truly abominable. As clear as a Yeti in Himalaya... ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

So you're taking over from duffer in supplying content-free posts and asking grown ups to help you understand it because you don't know what it says, but it MUST have a pony in it somewhere.

Is that really job satisfaction?

"And now the horrific low temps in the NH "

And your calculation of the NH temperature is..?

Wow, I asked grown ups, yet you answered. That is indeed a true mystery :-).

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

But what else could you call somebody who has that freak Monckton as a house guest?

And who makes up her own private definition of "statistical significance" because the real one doesn't support her claims.

And ... aw heck, there are way too many to enumerate them all.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

Well how are things in fantasy land this morning.
Looks like Ed Davey has finally come clean about Green Taxes.

Its reported in most of the dailys, including the one you all love.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299652/286-green-tax-energy-bi…

Looks a bit more than the 50p or something that was quoted in that trade journal mentioned earlier.

Caroline Flint calls it shameful. Wasn't it her lot that brought this all in.

Oh and hears another link to one of your favourites.
http://notrickszone.com/
This time quoting from Bild

- Berlin’s high temperature of -3°C was the lowest high for this time of the year in 150 years!

- The first snow fell in the flatlands already on October 26, 2012. For many regions, it was the earliest snowfall on record!

- Nature right now is 4 weeks behind schedule!

- In early March in Northern India an unusual cold spell in the state of Uttar Pradesh led to at least 100 people freezing to death!

- Record snow fell in Moscow – 80 cm!

- In Great Britain, thousands lost power in the relentless cold.

- Kiev, Ukraine saw the most severe snowfall in more than 100 years!
Add that to most of the rest of europe and the well documented winter in the good old USA.
What percentage of the Northern Hemishere Land Mass are we up to now.
Seems a bit more than just a local issue.
Oh, There should be a link there to the original German. I know you like to practice.

I see Jeff Harvey is still freaking out about the weather in Canada, lol, he thinks the Yukon is frying, hehehe

Here is the expected/current temps for Mayo, thats right in the centre of the Yukon. http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/yt-10_metric_e.html

Here is the average temps for March http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Canada/Yukon-Territory/Dawson/clima…

and here is the average temps for April http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Canada/Yukon-Territory/Dawson/clima…

Poor Jeffery, the Yukon temps are average, ordinary, at their median

Poor deluded Jeffery :)

RedNose stupid or mendacious?

Here is an article going back to late summer 2012 that show that real climate scientists new what to expect from a rapid loss of Arctic ice: Arctic sea ice melt 'may bring harsh winter to Europe'.

Now do take the time to follow through on the links within and also watch from the following list of videos featuring Jennifer Francis.

Take you time, absorb and follow any trails that you don't understand. This because you seem woefully misinformed which is a common condition of those who feed off the pig swill from such as notrickzone, WUWT etc.

It is painfully obvious that you did not bother following earlier advice to sources of factual information. If you persist in this wilful ignorance mode then it really is not worth the bother of any further countering of your obfuscation. It is about time you had your own padded cell drawer, along with the other socks.

And Lioniel strikes back with a nostradamian "may"-article. Everything's covered, as usual. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

What is it with this influx of know-nothing numpties that flit in here gloating about the cold every winter (northern hemisphere) without fail? It seems they never learn anything, and never will.

Write up your paper on how AGW is over, otherwise STFU. Idiots.

Karen
They might be average for the Ukon, but they look fairly attractive from here.

OP

ditto.

"RedNose stupid or mendacious?"

Yes.

:-)

"- Nature right now is 4 weeks behind schedule!"

Really? In the Yukon it's about three months early.

"gloating about the cold every winter (northern hemisphere) "

One region.

Don't forget. They'll pretend the NH is Bristol or Florida or whatever happens to be colder at the time. When asked to calculate the NH temperature, galloping off on another wild goose-chase is their answer.

They'd use snow in the Arctic as proof of cooling if there wasn't anywhere in the NH that was colder than normal.

"Wow, I asked grown ups"

And I answered.

However, you don't actually seem to have wanted an answer.

This will be the default reason for any future ignorings of your petulant demands: you don't want an answer, so why bother wasting energy answering it?

Karen, you brainelss ass****, part of the reason I make the points I do is because, and get this thropugh your Pachcephalosaurian skull:

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. WAETHER IS NOT CLIMATE; WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. WEATHER IS N OT CLIMATE. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.

Now repeat that a zillion times until it sinks into your pea-sized brain. Weather is stochastic and unpredictable; only at appreciabl;y long time scales can we infer causation. And we also need to invoke geographical scale as well. Scientists do not take cold snaps in Europe, Australia, North America, Mars, or Ganymede for that matter seriously, because they represent stochastic properties. However, one can infer from longer term data sets globally that there have been more and more heat waves and record high temperatures set in an increment over the past several decades. This upward trend is important. But it takes decades to elucidate.

The truth is that you deniers are still in your intellectual diapers. You can't argue your way out of wet paper bags. You are neophytes when it comes to essential elements in understanding the dynamics of systems where hierarchies are concerned. And you can't even agree on where you stand with respect to warming. Some of you idiots agree that it is warming, but claim that humans are not involved; others that it isn't warming, and others that it is but within boundaries that are 'normal'. The only thing that links you all in this way is that you deny, deny, deny. And not based on science, because most of you - you, Karen, Rednose, Olaus, et al. - have no relevant expertise in any field of Earth science. But you have well-defined political beliefs, which denial fits in very with. So you surf the internet desperate for other voices to join you in your charade.

Most people here realize that your views are garbage, Its time you realized that too.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

RedNoseDuff:

Piers is forcasting the Worst Easter Bank Holiday for decades.

Piers is well framed here: Prat watch #10: the ice age is here!. In fact Piers frames himself.

No doubt about it, you also have class when it comes to stupid.

Corbin's graphs are a hoot.
Worth zooming in on to see the x-axis scales of his 'comparison'.

Great Medialens article by David Cromwell:

http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/726-hea…

As far as Corbyn goes, two years ago he predicted that Britain and much of western Europe would have a November that was punctuated by blizzards and bitter cold. It turned out that it was the warmest November on record in Ireland, second warmest and driest ever in Benelux, and way above normal elsewhere in the region. And then there was his 'May will be record cold with blizzards in East Anglia prediction for the UK a few years back - ended up the month was normal or slighly abovge and there was no snow.

His web site is more funny than anything else in my opinion.

This weekend its supposed to be mostly dry and cool in the UK - 5- 7 degrees under the influence of the Arctic high.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

I see Rednose The Clown is back pretending he did not get his backside soundly kicked yesterday.

Pitiful.

Karen,this is what your link says above about Mayo's average March temperatures: "Throughout the month of March daytime temperatures will generally reach highs of around -4°C that's about 25°F. At night the average minimum temperature drops down to around -22°C, that's -7°F."
Your link to the forecast gives highs of >3C this week. What was the point that you were trying to make?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

Dear Jeff, good to see that you finally got the distincion between climate and weather. Was it a first? Normally your hate saturated walls of protentolgy declare the opposite, ergo that any weather event is a proof of Global warming and sign for coming climate disasters.

Are you on your way to the other side? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

"Dear Jeff, good to see that you finally got the distincion between climate and weather."

I see you don't care to correct your fellow denier on the subject.

Nor, indeed, yourself.

some seriously anomalous weather here in zombie island UK. its so weirdly, anomalously, endlessly freezing cold its starting to freak out even those hardy white van yeomen types who usually laugh in the face of climate science as they merrily go about their day feasting on all other products of science without a hint of denialism, scorn or complaint.

Talking about getting arses kicked, where were we on the green taxes issue, or whether this cold weather was local r or widespread.

well you got your arse thoroughly kicked on the green taxes issue. and we found the anomalously cold weather in the UK (sorry, i mean zombie island) was balanced by some naughty warm weather in places where it shouldn't have been due to a very bendy jet steam caused by you driving everywhere. ok?

"Talking about getting arses kicked, where were we on the green taxes issue"

Duffer with yet another non-sequitur.

# 22 Clown

You were shown to be using the wrong numbers on the 'green taxes issue' (see what he did there? Lurvely bit of framing, that).

You were shown that TSI and GAT diverged in the 1980s. TSI *decreased* while GAT *increased*. The same divergence occurs with OHC over the same period.

Were you not a mendacious buffoon, this would have stopped your gabble.

rednose. your a denialist right? now this is a pointless question as i know the answer already, but do global warming denialists actually feel any decent human traits like shame, inconsistency or irony in denying well established scientific facts when at the same time you are all running about happily enjoying the countless benefits, luxuries, long life, health and happiness afforded by science. because, and its just a wild stab in the dark here, i suspect you lot don't all run around like headless chickens, making arses of yourselves on youtube denying and complaining about every other known scientific fact.

or maybe i've got you all wrong. maybe you are all totally intellectually consistent after-all. maybe you are all complete technology and science hating luddites that live in caves like hermits, and despise and reject all aspects of modern life like electricity or running water, although how you all operate computers i don't know. but i have a sneaking suspicion you do use computers, tvs, buy food from supermarkets, go on planes to faraway destinations (at any opportunity), drive cars (everywhere), accept modern medicine, vaccinations, cancer treatments etc. and you dont deny the science of any of them, ever. in fact i bet climate science is the first time you have given science a second thought since school.

so denialists. if you wanna deny climate science, go ahead. but at least be consistent - stop using all scientific products and go back to being medieval. you think it was all nice and tropical there anyway so you should like it

Andyuk, you don't need to be a denier of any sort to register that there has been no significant global warming the last 15 years or so. Its worse than you thought! :-)

Portentology, crystall balling, and doomsaying isn't science.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

and despise and reject all aspects of modern life like electricity or running water, although how you all operate computers i don’t know. but i have a sneaking suspicion you do use computers, tvs, buy food from supermarkets, go on planes to faraway destinations (at any opportunity), drive cars (everywhere), accept modern medicine, vaccinations, cancer treatments etc.

With windmills of course
You have such a large carbon footprint. You really should try to cut down otherwise you will be first for the cull.

# 27Olaus Petri

Andyuk, you don’t need to be a denier of any sort to register that there has been no significant global warming the last 15 years or so.

Another buffoon who confuses *surface air temperature* with 'global warming'.

Pay attention, Petri:

- Most of the energy (>90%) accumulating in the climate system because it is increasingly in radiative imbalance is going into the ocean.

- This has been pointed out several times on this thread.

- Why are you repeating nonsense?

(Levitus et al. 2012):

The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.

(Levitus et al. 2012).

no significant global warming the last 15 years or so.

I've asked you this before Olap, but you only run away. Which is a good enough result.

If there's been this 15/16/17 year "hiatus" (the figure is variable amongst deniers) why has summer arctic ice melt been increasing year on year and accelerating from 2007? Only heat melts ice, not storms or the other fairy stories you've been fed. 'Hiatus' heat. But obviously not enough to induce you to think independently.

You of course have no answer according to the unscientific pap you prefer to believe, and you'll no doubt disappear and lie low until everyone forgets what a clownshoe you are. But that ain't gonna happen. And it's no use asking your leader Jonarse - it's one of the questions that ended his Keyesian tenancy here.

“RedNose stupid or mendacious?”

Yes.

:-)

naughty warm weather in places where it shouldn’t have been due

Name them. Lets see if they stack up.

Here is an article going back to late summer 2012 that show that real climate scientists new what to expect from a rapid loss of Arctic ice

Well if we are trawling through newspapers historical records we could do no better than this from about 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing…

The real climate scientists as late as 2007 were saying for Europe:
"cold extremes would decrease"
"Much of the warming is connected to higher temperatures on cold days"
"The warming of Northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter"
The overall warming is likely to shorten the snow season in all Europe."
"snow depth is likely to be reduced in most areas"
(except in Northern Ireland)
"in a region comprising mainly of Germany, circulation changes enhanced the warming in most models in Winter due to increase in the westerly flow"
(Tell that to the Beast from the East)

Course after these statements were published Europe and the UK had a series of winters described as "the worst in living memory" or "the worst since records began".
Classic. Experts???
Strikes me they had to come up with a new tune.
It took them long enough

# 31 Clown

From the NASA link discussing the NRC report The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

You should read the material you link more carefully. Some pratfalls might be avoided.

Who can remember the 80s. That was 30 odd years ago. Was it glam-rock then?
Whats going on now?

This is.

Redschnozz, a simple question, for a simple press-fed fact person.

What do you suppose is most in error; AGW as defined by the IPCC, or your (mis)understanding of it?

Frist Chek, weather isn't climate. Got it? And second: the no significant global warming in 15 years is an average. Got it?

By the way, who taught you that regional is global? Your lobals, ergo the lower hemispheres? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

Clown

Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010)

The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

Pretty picture.

Discussion at your favorite climate site.

Dear BBD, here is your problem (big) in a nutshell:

"We seek it here, we seek it there,
Those warmists seek it everywhere.
Is it in heaven?—Is it in hell?
That demmed, elusive climate disruptionell" ;-)

And I'll bet the science is settled as well? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

Olaus Petri

Found.

I see you are an avoider.

Olaus Petri, are you blind?

No, he's just clueless and ignorant.
Oh, and Olap, a snappy dismissal viz weather/climate does NOT provide an answer to where the heat has been coming from during your beloved but mistaken, 'hiatus'.

But then I've grown to expect nothing but flippant dishonesty and trash 'facts' from deniers.

RedNoseDuff only reads part of an article looking for cherries and missed this:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Considering that Arctic Ea ice melt conditions have accelerated faster than anticipated back then only the timescale was in error.

Note also that I exhorted you to discover more about this and have provided links. Sorry that the reading matter found there is not so easy as Janet & John.

What heat chek? The regional or the non global one?

But in the shaking climate scare tent reality is no for sola scriptura.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Mar 2013 #permalink

What heat chek? The regional or the non global one?

Why both of course. Don't they direct you to real information in your denier shadow world, Olap?

"What heat chek? The regional or the non global one?"

Go on, you guess. Here's a hint, lappy, global warming.

Ooops - skipped correcting Olap the Buffoon's non-sequitur. #44
"What heat chek? The regional or the non global one?"
..and answered at #45

Olaus Petri

You astonish me.

What heat chek? The regional or the non global one?

This *global* one. The one I keep referencing for you.

This goes beyond mere stupidity.

This goes beyond mere stupidity.

But it is useful to know what they're being fed. And how stupid they need to be to not only accept it but proselytise it to the world like the true fuckwitted believers they are to a man.

"Dear Jeff, good to see that you finally got the distincion between climate and weather."

Its too bad Olaus that you can't. At the scales being discussed, cherry picking at selected intervals of 15 or 16 years is nothing more than another intellectually dishonest exercise by climate change deniers. And in the context of a normally stable system, its the blink of a geological eye. The climate system has been pretty stable over the past 10,000 years as pointed out in Robert's TED lecture. At the global level plus or minus 1 degree C. Now idiots like you are bleating on about 15 years.

Again all this shows is that you do not understand the importance of temporal hierarchies or scale. But then again, I have asked you for over a year what you scientific background is Olaus and this question has been consistently avoided. We all know why, the same as for your hero, Jonas. Neither of you have any scientific pedigree. We can add Rednose to that. He is brazenly confident, in spite of having his ass kicked over and over again here. Like you, he routinely steps around each ritual humiliation and goes on to a new topic.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner
Yeah
He really was expecting it to return in such good measure 5-6 years on the trot with more likely to come.

Jeffery hasn't seen a 10000 yr temperature chart.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature…

Plenty of other charts show the same thing, except for the dodgy ones grafted in by "The Team" for propaganda purpose's.

While I'm at it here is a paper that demonstrates that there is nothing unusual about an ice free Arctic.

LOL, your such a nuffie Jeffery

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

From the NASA link discussing the NRC report The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate:

Yes I read the complete article, but did not quote specific bits.
So you minequote it with your narrow minded viewpoint.

It also said:

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

So we get feable excuse after feable excuse for the crap predictions.

What about this one made in 2007, ignored so far
“in a region comprising mainly of Germany, circulation changes enhanced the warming in most models in Winter due to increase in the westerly flow”
(Tell that to the Beast from the East)

Any feeble excuse for that gem

Again all this shows is that you do not understand the importance of temporal hierarchies
Pratting on about Time Lords again. Such a Dr Who fan.

Hi Karen
They seem to be toppling over here too in 50mph winds.
And the 25 year projected life seems to be a more realistic 12-15 years adding to the maintenance costs.
Still we must be seen to be doing something.

So when Australia is having the hottest summer they've had for ages, this proves AGW.

Or does this only go one way?

"He really was expecting it to return in such good measure"

It's causing chaos.

Hell, look at your frightened mein on the appearance of it.

Nice work by Kazza, she's really got Arctic Sea Ice worked out, by golly.

Her latest is up to standard previously seen with her less-is-more nonsense about Svalbard the last time she hung out here for any length.

Her "while I'm at it" paper shows that sea ice coverage is now lower than at any time in the last 9500 years. The modern duration for <50% coverage is pegged at 10.5 months per year (+/- 1 month) while the previous higest values since the end of the last ice age were below 10.

I wonder if she even reads what she links to here? Or perhaps she just hope no one else does. She's been posting here for a few years, and not a single word she's said has stood even the most cursory scrutiny.

She's like a posterchild for the term "fuckwit". And sooo proud of it.

I wonder if she even reads what she links to here?

Sunspot is famous for clown trolling - posting material time after time that refuted the claims that Sunspot asserted the material supported. Karen is either the same poster - or has the same modus operandi, and OP isn't much better.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

Note how Karen's latest graph supports exactly what I said and what Roberts says in his TED lecture: over the past 10,000 years temperatures have been quite stable (plus or minus 1 C). And Arctic sea ice? Note the article cited by Karen says that sea ice may have been as low as at the end of the 20th centruy. What about 2012, Karen, and the years 2000-2012 when sea ice extent plummeted and reached cover way below 2000 levels?

Either you cannot read graphs and plain English or you are just plainly stupid. How about both?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

BTW Karen, at which educational/research institute do you work?

My guess the closest is a mental hospital. Correct?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

"There is some really disturbed whacko’s that believe the CO2 propaganda."

You, for example, spots. You believe the propoganda that AGW is all a communist scam to rob you/black people of money to give to black people/white people (delete as appropriate for the bigotry or wish to avoid it for the speaker).

He really was expecting it to return in such good measure 5-6 years on the trot with more likely to come.

What part of 'Climate CHANGE' do you NOT understand?

Ah! Pretty much all of its parts.

BTW I get the feeling that this sock is not Duff, unless the latter has had a sudden infusion of active brain cells.

"What part of ‘Climate CHANGE’ do you NOT understand?"

The bit that makes their libertarian free-market religion a problem.

He really was expecting it to return in such good measure 5-6 years on the trot with more likely to come.

No, this is all about what YOU are expecting. YOU "expected" no snow at all because that is what YOU were told he'd said. You are an idiot and all that statement says is confirmation of it.

Australia has started 2013 with a record-breaking heat wave that has lasted more than two weeks across many parts of the country. Temperatures have regularly gone above 48°C, with the highest recorded maximum of 49.6°C at Moomba in South Australia.

Explain.

Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars

Forecast temperatures are so extreme that the Bureau of Meteorology has had to add a new colour to its scale. It is a sign of things to come

Explain.

Oh Fwanker, I see your still blinded blinded by the faith.

"Modern sea-ice cover in the study area, expressed here as the
number of months/year with >50% coverage, averages 10.6 ±
1.2months/year (cf. 1954–2001 data from NSIDC; nsidc.org/
data/docs/noaa/g00799_arctic_southern_sea_ice/). Present-day SST and SSS in August are 1.1 ± 2.48C and 28.5 ±
1.3, respectively (NODC 2001 World Ocean Atlas; www.
nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA01/woa01dat.html). In the Holo-cene record of core HLY0501-05, sea-ice cover has ranged
between 5.5 and 9 months/year, summer SSS has varied
between 22 and 30, and summer SST has ranged from 3
to 7.5 8C (Fig. 7)."

dream on fwanker :)

Australia has started 2013 with a record-breaking heat wave that has lasted more than two weeks across many parts of the country. Temperatures have regularly gone above 48°C, with the highest recorded maximum of 49.6°C at Moomba in South Australia.

Explain.

City newspapers warned of “Armageddon” as the bushfire danger in NSW reached catastrophic levels, heightened by a build-up of fuel from two cool years of heavy rain.

Explain.

Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars

Forecast temperatures are so extreme that the Bureau of Meteorology has had to add a new colour to its scale. It is a sign of things to come

Explain.

Soooo.......... no one wants to discuss their fellow cultist that wants to eradicate 90% of the population ?

Embarrassing eh ?

Sooo.... still completely clueless as to what's going on, Spots.

Embarrassing, eh?

And why do you want to eradicate 90% of the human population, spots?

I live and travel quite a bit in oz woW,
Many people accross the country, including myself, do not believe the dodgy temperature data, I'm sure you have been referenced to the work done at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

As for the bushfires !!!

The problem here is the whacko greenie mindset that has permeated our government, the major reason towns are now being burnt out is because we dont burn off and creat fire breaks around towns anymore.

Why ? Because the WHACKO GREENIES that live in the cities put a stop to it, personally I think that for every innocent person that is burnt to death in a bushfire, a greenie should be burnt at the stake as a form of compensation, then they might come to their senses.

But you wouldn't know anything about bushfires would you woW, your currently freezing in a once in a hundred year winter snow, or is it spring yet ?

Oh thats right ???? THE CO2 MAKES IT HOTTER SO IT SNOWZZZZZZ

"I live and travel quite a bit in oz woW,"

Who cares?

" Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars

Forecast temperatures are so extreme that the Bureau of Meteorology has had to add a new colour to its scale. It is a sign of things to come"

Explain.

"Oh thats right ???? THE CO2 MAKES IT HOTTER SO IT SNOWZZZZZZ"

No, that's not the explanation.

PS According to Watts, it's so cold CO2 rains out of the sky...

"As for the bushfires !!!"

What "As for the bushfires"? I never talked about it.

You don't know what you're reading, never mind what it means.

"Why ? Because the WHACKO GREENIES that live in the cities put a stop to it"

So is your explanation for the heatwave that greenies put a stop to cold weather???

“Why ? Because the WHACKO GREENIES that live in the cities put a stop to it”

So there weren't any bushfires before "greenies" stopped them?

I reckon you have mike mann's photo beside your bed woW

# 54 Clown

Feeble! You didn't RTFR, did you?

And because you came back with more drivel, I'm going to make you eat it.

From the Preface to the NRC report:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism, it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

[...]

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

So, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation *if real at all* do not significantly change GAT or global OHC. This is from the primary source of your own link!

Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

Read your own references, Clown.

Karen

Waving at Arctic sea ice extent during the Holocene Climatic Optimum isn't too clever. The HCO was the mainly NH response to precessional forcing which peaked ~9ka and reached a minimum ~2ka.

If Arctic sea ice approaches or exceeds HCO minima the obvious question is WTF is going on? We are a the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now.

Do you understand this?

Oh my gorwd, BBD

sheez ??? another religo

you know that red line is crappola !!!!

All you boys seem to have an uncontrollable fascination for stiffies on the end of dodgy temperature graphs.

You all really are sick a bunch of cranks.

I will reiterate what I said earlier: Karen posts up articles and links she/he/it does not understand. I claimed there has been a stable climate for the past 10,000 years. Karen posts of a link from Wikipedia guess what - saying that. Thanks for the confirmation. She then posts up an article claiming that at various times in the Holocene sea ice extent in the Arctic may have approached levels lst by the end of the 20th century. This is of course, debatable, as many other studies disagree. But either way, we aren't discussing the end of the 20th century. We are talking about 2007 and last year, when ice extent was reduced calamitously, Note how deniers always play with numbers.

Them, earlier, as in keeping with the intelletually challenged idiots who call themsleves 'sceptics', Karen psts up this article from some far right/tea party source claiming that many scientists 'hate people'. Oh God. If it isn't the watermelon analogy, its the Julian-Simonesque smear that environmentalists are 'anti-people' simply because their views fall outside of the realm of the far-right libertarian clans.

Bucket-heads like Karen resort to this kind of infantile nonsense when their arguments are exposed for what they are: bilge. Sure I loathe people who distort and twist science to bolster economic and political agendas, and the far right has been doing that for years. But the real 'anti-human' brigade are precisley those who are willing to gamble on the health of our global ecological life-support systems in bolstering their beliefs in supposedly free markets (they are not free) and the current capitalist model which is driving social injustice and environmental destrcution in equal measure. They whine about the poor whilst voting for and supporting the political agendas of groups that embrace policies designed to look after the privileged few. And it should be obvious that poverty eradication has never been a priority of elites, in spite of the hard-wired rhetoric.

I have asked Karen and the other few semi-literate deniers here what scientific bonafides they bring to the table. I ask this because, like it or not, if one's views run counter to the overwhelming mainstream view, then they must possess some hidden acument that enbales them to know more about climate science (indeed ANY science), than the ones trained in the field.

The fact is that the vast majority of qualified scientists - myself included - agree (1) that humans are forcing changes in climate that exceed pevious events in scale in many hundreds of thousands or millions of years at the very least, and (2) that, given the potential consequernces, we ought to be doing something about it. This consensus - because that is what it is - is proven by the fact that every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth has issued statements alluding to this fact, and (20 because the empircal literaure is heavily weighted towards studies supporting the theory of AGW ( >99%). The only refuge for scoundrels is on blogs, but few of these are operated by actual bonafide scientists; the scientists on the denier side are not only few and far between, but even most of these have poor CVs with low numbers of citations and few publications. Credentials for the poster boy for AGW denial, Richard Lindzen, are forever trumpeted by deier blogs, but my own research was cited 200 times more than Lindzen's research last year. I wonder when Karen is going to call Lindzen a 'cultist'?

So what are the qualifications of Karen, Olaus, Rednose, Jonas, PentaxZ et al? Fancy a guess? They don't have any! None! Nix! For all we know, they all stopped doing science when they left high school. If they did have any kind of relevant education we'd know all about it. Oh yeh. They'd be screaming it from the rooftops. One denier on another cite angrily told me he had a BA at Oxford University, as if that lent credibility to his denier views. And don't forget how much the deniers try and bloat the credentials of a few mostly medicore scientists who are deniers. So when Olaus writes in about me "waving my CV'', he is doing it precisely because he hasn't got one. Deniers forver falunt the CVs of deniers, but when it is thrown back in their face, they fall back to the Olaus-type argument.

As I said, I have attended many scientific conferences and in every one of them AGW is a major theme. And the issue is taken as a given: the talks are not about the extent of the human fingerprint but about the potentially severe consequences of inaction and of the costs already being manifested on natural systems. So to those who are on the outside, don't think for a moment that AGW is some controversial branch of climate science. It isn't. At present the effects are beinbg investigated, and much attention is being paid to scenarios based on different course of action to deal with it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

"You all really are sick a bunch of cranks"

Hilarious. This coming from someone whose views fall light years outside of the scientific mainstream. Again, if Karen were to speak at a scientific conference and spew out the kind of nonsense she does here, she'd be vanquished in seconds. Its so easy to use a hit and run strategy on blogs, but this also explains why deniers areseen as laughingstocks for the most part by people in the heart of the scientific community.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

More and more people are waking up to the fact that the climate industry is following the same path as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, so beat your chest all you want "mr oh i'm so fantastic", you spew so much verbal diarrhea a town could be run off the methane, lol

# 85 Karen

So BBD, you subscribe to the iceage cometh theory do you ?

Yup, until a better explanation for the orbitally paced termination of glacials comes along, I'm with old Milutin on this!

Why is temperature and Arctic sea ice behaving as if we are back in the HCO again. Except without the precessional forcing? I do dislike having to repeat myself unnecessarily, so please answer the fucking question this time.

***
You are fractally clueless, aren't you? See Archer & Ganopolski (2005) A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation.

you know that red line is crappola !!!!

No substantial errors have yet been demonstrated in M13. But being clueless at all levels, you wouldn't realise this, would you?

The denialati have so far only succeeded in demonstrating their own ignorance of paleo proxy interpretation and their profound intellectual dishonesty.

But being clueless at all levels, you don't realise that you are being lied to and manipulated, do you?

Karen really is losing it. She writes:

"More and more people are waking up to the fact that the climate industry is following the same path as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries"

when in reality it should say:

"More and more people are waking up to the fact that the climate change DENIAL industry is following the same path as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries"

Certainly many of the people in denying the ill-effects of tobacco are the same ones denying AGW.

You are a hoot though, Karen. Clearly an intellectual wannabe but a failure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

"So BBD, you subscribe to the iceage cometh theory do you ?"

So you ask stupid questions, do you?

“You all really are sick a bunch of cranks”

Hell, spots, you're the ones wanting people to die off rather than change the way they do things.

"I reckon you have mike mann’s photo beside your bed woW"

Yup, you're pegging accuracy at zero or less.

I've just looked back over this and it gets worse with every reading ;-)

[# 53 Karen]

Jeffery hasn’t seen a 10000 yr temperature chart.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature…

Plenty of other charts show the same thing, except for the dodgy ones grafted in by “The Team” for propaganda purpose’s [sic].

[#86 BBD demonstrates Marcott in good agreement with other Holocene reconstructions, using same Wiki graph]

[# 88 Karen]

Oh my gorwd, BBD

sheez ??? another religo

you know that red line is crappola !!!!

That's right folks. The red line in good agreement with the Wiki graph that Karen was waving about earlier!. *That* red line from M13!

WTF? This is completely contradictory blathering.

[# 61 FrankD]

She's like a posterchild for the term "fuckwit". And sooo proud of it.

;-)

Karen shows that she is typical of the right wing anti-science brigade. She quotes an article which completely misinterprets what Eric Pianka actually said.

Here is a link to an honest and scientifically accurate rebuttal. You will see that the author of the article Karen quoted used typical junk-science tactics including quote mining and distortion.

http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.ca/2006/04/seguin-gazette-ente…

It is interesting that I didn't even have to do a Google search since a long time ago I had already bookmarked a folder on the distortions of Pianka's talk.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 28 Mar 2013 #permalink

Seeing a reference to Dave Burton (comments from whom I have seen before) at Tamino's 'The Tick' I followed up Burton's link and came across this hilarious (WARNING; before visiting and reading do not have any food or drink in your mouth) page of irony showing a lack of self awareness.

Note you trolls that

("JoNova") is always always insightful.

, according to Burton.

BigBlockheaD#84

The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report. I am sure NASA would be pleased to correct any mistakes you have found with their report.

My small comment added to these quotes requested you "Stop being a Blockhead."
If any further proof were required for this assertion that
"You are a Blockead, then you just provided it.

# 2 Clown

The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report. I am sure NASA would be pleased to correct any mistakes you have found with their report.

Once again, you are lying about what I wrote. I have already told you not to do this. Because you lied again I am now going to repost the comment you are lying about. As anyone - including you - can see, I went directly to the NRC report itself, *not* the NASA news piece. I used the primary source. I have now demonstrated that you have neither read the NASA news piece nor the primary source and that you are a serial liar.

Here, again, is the comment you lied about above:

# 54 Clown

Feeble! You didn't RTFR, did you?

And because you came back with more drivel, I'm going to make you eat it.

From the Preface to the NRC report:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism, it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

[...]

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

So, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation *if real at all* do not significantly change GAT or global OHC. This is from the primary source of your own link!

Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

Read your own references, Clown.

Lying is reprehensible, Clown. Being stupid, ill-informed, *lazy* and dishonest is quite a hand to bring to the table.

I think you need to be more careful what you say to me, and about what I write. Or you are going to suffer ;-)

BigBlockheaD

You were shown to be using the wrong numbers on the ‘green taxes issue’

Missed this one.
Perhaps we should revert to being more polite.

Who posted the governments figures for what families would be paying for green energy taxes?
In case you missed it, here it is again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299652/286-green-tax-energy-bi…

Pretty damm close to the trade journal figures some greenwit posted earlier.
Yeah in fairyland.

"The drivel you mention, consisted mostly of quotes from the NASA News Report."

The drivel was your additions to it.

"Who posted the governments figures for what families would be paying for green energy taxes?"

Daily mail.

Comment #54
UK
March 28, 2013

From the NASA link discussing the NRC report The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate:

Yes I read the complete article, but did not quote specific bits.
So you minequote it with your narrow minded viewpoint.

It also said:

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate

Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Dont be such a blockhead. Wake up and smell the coffee

I stand by that post.
The article could have been the basis for an interesting discussion but you chose to select particular comments to reinforce your very narrow point of view.

Your behaviour, bad temper and threats since then provide even furthur evidence , if any more were required ,of the correctness of my small input into post 54.

#7
Daily Mail

I stand corrected.
Who posted a link to the Dail Mail post showing the government figures for green taxes.
That better?

"Who posted a link to the Dail Mail "

You did.

"showing the government figures for green taxes."

That would require taking the Daily Mail's word for it and your assertion over it. Two assumptions. Both with shaky pasts.

# 8 Clown

I stand by that post.

Then you are a fuckwit as well as a liar!

The article could have been the basis for an interesting discussion but you chose to select particular comments to reinforce your very narrow point of view.

Some facts:

- The NRC report does not say what you think it does

- You don't know what is says and you are too lazy to check

- I caught you out, and not for the first time ;-)

- You are a liar!

Let me remind you what the NRC report really does say:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

[...]

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

Your behaviour, bad temper and threats since then provide even furthur evidence , if any more were required ,of the correctness of my small input into post 54.

The usual butt-hurt whining.

You were shown to be using the wrong numbers on the ‘green taxes issue’

No, I wasn't! The GWPF and the Daily Fail were shown to be using the wrong numbers.

Daily Mail whines: Average bill is now £1,267 with £112 of that amount going on green taxes

That is 8.8%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/27/centrica-16m-gas-price-r…

Centrica bosses split £16m pay pot as customers face 6% gas price rise

Centrica chief executive Sam Laidlaw earned a salary of £950,000 in 2012, but bonuses pushed his pay to almost £5m

That's 2/3rds that 8% in gas price hikes.

And this tory government is wanting to give French-government-owned EdF twice the rate of onshore wind power GUARANTEED. And pronounce it for reducing co2. Likely adding £100 to the average bill.

But apparently you don't care about those.

Moreover, an example of "Green taxes killing us!!!" Daily Fail gives is helping to pay for loft insulation.

Does any fail reader know what insulating your house does?

Duffer, it reduces heating bills. So reducing the bills.

So -$66 for paying for loft insulation etc. Saving +£133 from being insulated, etc.

Another line item hidden in your assertion is payments to the elderly to keep warm in cold weather. Since you're against this, this means you want them to die. But you also claim that it's a tragedy that people are in fuel poverty can cannot keep warm. Something here isn't adding up. And it's not just the Daily Fail...

To discourage Clown from wittering further about the distortions in the Daily Fail, here is a pretty picture that summarises the numbers.

Warning to all who don't like being told about polar bears and ice here are some quality pictures.

Fox News swallowers beware.

No, I wasn’t! The GWPF and the Daily Fail were shown to be using the wrong numbers

Well Carbon Brief are using the same figures. and so do various other sources.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/decc-price-impacts-document-mar…

Plus £286 to pay for green taxes by 2020.
The reduction in bills might work out if you shell out loads in new eqipment.
Most comment is critical.
The Telegraph cite the Labour shadow-DECC team, who accuse the government of an " underhand" attempt to mask the impact of their policies.

"Well Carbon Brief are using the same figures."

This isn't proving the numbers right.

Maybe the Daily Fail got their wrong numbers there, didn't bother checking and printed. You read the Daily Fail, got their wrong numbers and didn't bother checking and posted them here.

"Plus £286 to pay for green taxes by 2020."

So you're saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

BlockHeaD

Liar Liar pants on fire

Are you saying the The Nasa news bulletin I linked to did not contain the following

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate

Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

If I could highlight in bright green I would.

If you cant read then its obvious you are another failure in the education system. I really would consider taking your old school to court as they have obviously failed in their duty to teach you to read. You really have a good case.
They cannot make the excuse you were too dumb to follow your finger pointing out the words

"BlockHeaD

Liar Liar pants on fire"

Since your posting is all
"Put person's name"
"put a quote of theirs"
"write your own tripe"

Please tell us where bbd said liar liar pants on fire.

"In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course."

Oh dear, the weather is far more complex than that.

You need to include ALL the forces on surface weather, not just "it was the sun wot did it" like your childish prattle does.

Come back when you've included all the factors that make the weather.

o you’re saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

Seems to be the thrust of government policy.
Cameron was going to lead a green goverment. Maybe its their way of reducing the population to a more "sustainable" level.

“In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.”

Oh so you read it as well.
How could you? Its not there.

not just “it was the sun wot did it” like your childish prattle does.

where did I say this?
i thought you were the main instigator of childish prattle on this blog

Yup, you're a nutcase.

Enjoy your insanity, duffer.

duffer, may you freeze to death because you think insulating your house is an unconscionable imposition on you.

"Wo you’re saying you want old people to die of cold and families to be unable to stay warm?

Seems to be the thrust of government policy."

Really? So when they say they want to collect money to pay old people to keep warm, you think this is a policy to make them freeze?

Fuck you're a nut.

Oh dear, Clown.

In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

'Pushing storm tracks off course' alters regional climate.

So, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation *if real at all* do not significantly change GAT or global OHC.

Which is why, when we turn to the NRC report itself, we find the following statements:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

[...]

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences. The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years. However, the mechanisms by which solar variations can affect climate over longer timescales remain an open area of research.

Read the words, especially those in bold type.

If I could highlight in bright green I would.

Well it would help if you could learn to blockquote (hint use that within at start of quoted string and adding a / prefix within same at end of string.

I wonder if you can satisfactorily parse that above information.

And no Keyes (seeing as you read this thread like), I didn't seriously think you were in the drag disguise of RedNose. That you should consider me daft for thinking that, and I didn't as I was teasing, shows that you take yourself far to seriously. Now that would be a magnetic quality at parties, but one that would repel.

I'm going to repeat part of this yet again, because you don't seem to understand what the words mean:

[...] this mechanism [EUV/stratospheric effects] could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

Time to acknowledge your repeated errors or STFU now.

For the record: I think there is a real danger that the rising cost of energy, overwhelmingly driven by the rising cost of gas needs further policy response in the UK.

I think low-income groups are increasingly being forced into energy hardship and in some cases, energy poverty.

I think this should be quantified and addressed by strengthening existing policy (targeted benefits) and through compelling energy companies to reduce charges to low-income households. In other words, to extract a little less profit from those least able to pay.

Additional costs arising from decarbonisation policy should be *scaled* so that the least able to pay are not disproportionately affected.

‘Pushing storm tracks off course’ alters regional climate

TFFT
You have managed to find them.
Hooray.
So stop denying their in the bulletin.
I know what I read.
I did not agree or disagree with any of the statements
So dont put words into my mouth.
I said they were interesting.
To me they pose some questions that may or may not have been answered.
Does the Sun have some influence on the tracking of the Jet Stream.
Corbyn thinks it does and has made his call for this weekend. Least I think he thinks it does.
At the moment the Met Office, dry and cold, looks the favourite, but there are low pressure systems lurking in the Atlantic that might sneek in.
Wont prove anything but an interesting little short term experiment.

"Well it would help if you could learn to blockquote (hint use that within at start of quoted string and adding a / prefix within same at end of string"

Well thanks for that. Since the bulletin was only a page long , with pretty pictures to keep his interest, it shouldn't have been that difficult to find them. He could have tried tracing the text out with his fingers on the screen if he has difficulty reading.

#30
No problem there. But the price of gas is comming down in the USA which apparently is making coal cheaper and encouraging its use outside the US.

FFS, Clown, give it up.

You have managed to find them.

I already knew they were there. Unlike you, I had RTFR. Some time ago.

So stop denying their in the bulletin.

I didn't. I pointed out - repeatedly - that you were confusing regional with global effects.

So dont put words into my mouth.

This is ironic, coming from you.

I told you you would suffer unless you were more careful what you wrote.

"I know what I read."

We read what you knew.

"I did not agree or disagree with any of the statements"

Then why waste time pushing the tripe you can't understand enough to either agree or disagree with, then, duffer.

"I said they were interesting."

How would you know, duffer? You didn't understand what they said.

"To me they pose some questions that may or may not have been answered."

So why not go away and try and answer them for yourself?

Because you don't understand them, duffer?

"But the price of gas is comming down in the USA "

Because they have government interference that insists they cannot use the gas for anything other than internal market use.

Seems like you are demanding not only the death of the elderly if it will cost you anything, but the interference of government edict on energy markets.

N.B. this is a rhetorical question.
Whatever happened to David Duff?

Zoot: the rednosed beast ate him, though the noises coming from the belly of the beast suggest that Duff is indigestible and causing much distress. Presumably he'll emerge from the redarse in time, indistinguishable from before, just like the Scandinavian Troll Collective.

So you just believe what Jo says, Oh lap dog?

Not very smart for someone pretending to be "skeptical".

So, it's not that you believe jo with anything, it's that reality doesn't impinge on your world in the least.

@Russell #35 - let's hope they don't come here.

On another note, I see in the Guardian that the number of house sparrows and starlings in the UK are dropping to worrying levels. We have lots of them down here and starlings in particular are considered a real pest. Kind of sad, really - in themselves they are nice little birds, just living in the wrong place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/28/rsbp-garden-birdwatch…

Happy holidays everyone.

Karen might try considering the additional data that has come in since McKay et al was published in 2008 to understand why I say ice is at an historic (and pre-historic) low.

But thats obviously too difficult, so perhaps the first two sentences of the introduction of the paper are sufficiently plain to penetrate:

"There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the Arctic has been experiencing dramatic environmental changes (e.g., Serreze et al. 2000; Comiso and Parkinson 2004). Most notably, there has been a rapid decline in the extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently in winter as well (e.g., Parkinson et al. 1999; Comiso 2002; Serreze et al. 2003; Rigor and Wallace 2004; Meier et al. 2005; Comiso 2006; Comiso et al. 2008; Stroeve et al. 2008)."

Compare with Karen's BS: "While I’m at it here is a paper that demonstrates that there is nothing unusual about an ice free Arctic."

Sure, everyone would agree these two statements are the same.

As long as they are fuckwits like Karen.

Who is this "we"? It was only you and duffers various socks whinging about weather.

Karen

I am having difficulty getting a response from you.

Waving at Arctic sea ice extent during the Holocene Climatic Optimum isn’t too clever. The HCO was the mainly NH response to precessional forcing which peaked ~9ka and reached a minimum ~2ka.

If Arctic sea ice approaches or exceeds HCO minima the obvious question is WTF is going on? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now, so why the melting?

Marcott et al. is in very good agreement with existing Holocene reconstructions. Here it is superposed on the Wikipedia graphic you linked for comparison. Once again, WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high global (never mind NH) temperatures?

BBD you really need to keep up with it.

"Many people have been wondering what sort of response would be coming now that Steve has conclusively shown that the Marcott et al “hockey stick” is nothing more than an artifact of what appears to be the worst case of cherry picking ever.

His latest post reveals how to ‘Hide the Decline’, Marcott style:"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/real-climate-responds-to-mcintyre…

“…there are some interesting developments in the “Marcott curve” which puts more of the circus in jeopardy. In addition to a new post on CA detailing changes in the core top record, there is this very significant comment on a prior thread which deserves some serious exploration:”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/19/uh-oh-there-be-grafting-in-marcot…

"Guest post by John Kehr

While it took me a while to get the time together to write an article about the Marcott paper, that does not mean I have not been looking at it and discussing it from nearly the day it was released. There has been volumes of discussion within The Right Climate Stuff group that I have been involved with. The ones that lean towards CO2 as something to be concerned about were initially rather excited about this paper, but that has taken a course correction as it has become clear how poor the science is in the Marcott paper."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marco…

Keep an eye on retraction watch for that paper.

Like I said earlier BBD, Marcott's temperature graph is propaganda, it's alarmist papers such as that that are convincing the world that CO2 is not the apocalyptical demon the cultist climate sect would have us believe.

The NO recent warming along with the ever increasing CO2 and the change in solar activity is seriously putting the alarmist theory of unstoppable tipping points into the silly science basket that will laughed at for centuries.

hmmm.........missing hot spot ?

hmmm........The Antarctic sea ice stayed above average right through summer, so much for the canary in the coal mine caper, lol.

and um......NO the missing heat has not been found !!!

spots, you say it best when you say nothing at all.

You say it worst when you spend so many words saying fuck all.

Karen

Like I said earlier BBD, Marcott’s temperature graph is propaganda, it’s alarmist papers such as that that are convincing the world that CO2 is not the apocalyptical demon the cultist climate sect would have us believe.

But Marcott is in good agreement with the graph *you* linked earlier. Note the 2004 label on the right side of the graph. Why is only Marcott 'propaganda'? And why haven't you contested the Wiki graph? It's been up since 2005.

Marcott provides the best context yet for the modern instrumental record, and that is why I keep asking you the same two questions:

1/ If Arctic sea ice approaches or exceeds HCO minima the obvious question is WTF is going on? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now, so why the melting now?

2/ Marcott et al. is in very good agreement with existing Holocene reconstructions. Here it is superposed on the Wikipedia graphic you linked for comparison. Once again, WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again? We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high temperatures?

Here's number three:

3/ Why are you not answering these questions?

BBD, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Shaun Marcott drew that big red line on the graph with his lipstick.

Why don't you stop trying to pass this childish artwork off as science and accept the fact that he fooled you ?

BBD

"WTF? Why are we up at HCO levels again?"

Here is the unadulterated graffff ! It is patently obvious that the HCO was warmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

"We are at the bottom of the precessional forcing curve now. Why the anomalously high temperatures?"

It seems to me that you allow your head to be filled with garbage from the climate propaganda industry, maybe you need to broaden your horizons ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5641/1890.abstract

BBD, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Shaun Marcott drew that big red line on the graph with his lipstick.

Why?

This, from M13 (first page, middle column; surprised you missed it):

In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, we also implemented the RegEM
algorithm (11) to statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which
is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig. 1G).Without filling data gaps, our Standard 5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 °C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gap-filled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).

So what's "wrong" in M13?

This is from the M13 abstact, so I am surprised that you missed it:

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

And from the paper itself:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the
Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean
for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

What is "wrong" in M13? I really would like to know. :-)

Because otherwise it poses interesting questions like these.

No response from you so far, despite repeated prompting. This is odd.

Karen, why do you persist in trying to argue that which you patently do not understand? It's not as if water-carriers are required to. We know that. Why don't you?

Karen

Here is the unadulterated graffff ! It is patently obvious that the HCO was warmer.

Marcott et al.

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.

Marott is wrong how, again?

You link Hu et al. (2003):

Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments. They also provide evidence that centennial-scale shifts in the Holocene climate were similar between the subpolar regions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, possibly because of Sun-ocean-climate linkages.

Regional effects. Reading the thread always helps.

Once again:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.

Or: as far as can be determined, hypothesised EUV stratospheric effects on regional atmospheric circulation do not significantly affect multidecadal trends in global average temperature or global ocean heat content.

Still saying nothing in 52.

And adding a huge impenetrable link never increased the content to any use.

BBD, "Marott is wrong how, again?"

"Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre we now know that the specular uptick at the end of Marcott's temperature graph that lead to the alarming claims, is an artefact of an inappropriate statistical methodology, It seems the dates of sediments from cores used in the study were shifted in time up to 1000 years. This effectively shifted warming of the Medieval Warm Period into the modern period. Results that showed cooling were truncated from the period of the uptick. Anyone smell the cherries?"

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/marcott-another-gergis-mome…

Here is the unadulterated graffff...

That is real funny Karen, made me think immediately that a giraffe would be of more utility in tracing that uptick in Marcott et. al. than a Rabbet or even a wheelchair.

One other thing that follows a similar curve is the desperation of the climate denial cheerleaders such as you over recent times with the slight dip being the reduced desperation at about Climategate time. That didn't last long (as we knew it couldn't for nature does what it does and doesn't register such as McIntyre's desperate tactics) and now we are seeing the expected rapid rise in desperation tactics from the usual suspects and your kind.

“Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre'

Ah, yes, appeal to invalid authority.

Ah, yes, appeal to invalide authority.

Fixed that for you.

Ah yes...................shoot the messenger that pointed out the lipstick on the pig, :)

No, to be a messenger, you need an actual message.

Not "Please explain what this means, I'm not going to read it" like you and duffer do all the bloody time.

Karen

Once again, you have been tricked by liars. If you are interested in the facts, you can review them here.

Toward the end of the analysis, you will find a discussion of the real effects of proxy recalibration. It is instantly apparent that you have been seriously misled on this point:

Published age vs Calib6.0.1 age (full series)

Published age vs Calib6.0.1 age (post-1600)

When people lie to me, it makes me angry, especially if I was successfully fooled. Why are you not angry with those who are deceiving you Karen?

You should be.

Now, I'm getting a little tired of the one-way flow of information in this exchange with you, Karen.

I would like you, please, to answer my questions. In you next response.

Karen had me on the floor with this nugget:

"Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre..."

Nothing more needs to be said, really. Whatever credibility she may have had (and that's not much) is shot all to hell with this one remark.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2013 #permalink

Karen

Let's try and unpick the confusion that others have been creating in you mind. Go back and start afresh, as it were:

- The point of Marcott (M13) is that it provides a full Holocene temperature reconstruction.

- The least important part of M13 is the final century (modern).

- M13 uses proxies that provide absolute temperature information.

- This means that any artefactual 'uptick' at the end of the reconstruction does not invalidate the rest of it in any way whatsoever.

- The modern instrumental record can be used in preference to the last century of M13, instantly exposing the fake controversy over the robustness* of the uptick in M13 for the deliberate and meaningless distraction that it is. **

- This means we can consider the modern instrumental record in the *context* of Holocene temperatures reconstructed in M13. Here is HadCRUT4 (blue) superposed onto the Marcott curve. Quite the uptick, no?

- Finally, we arrive at this composite understanding, which is profoundly disturbing.

*Remember, Marcott et al. states clearly that the size of the uptick is probably a methodological artefact and not robust:

Without filling data gaps, our Standard 5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 °C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gap-filled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).

** Yes, those 'tireless efforts' of McIntyre and others.

Those legendary 'tireless efforts' being namely to convince Karen et al that there is no anthropocene, no matter how contradictory it is to last week's meme..

That is, when the other sides of their faces aren't telling us 'warming is good', 'warming won't be a problem' or 'warming is a natural cycle coming out of the LIA'.

There's no doubt about it, you have to be seriously fucked in the head to keep up with the almost daily doubleplusgood revisionism that characterises denial. Hence Karen, I suppose.

Jeff Harvey

Nothing more needs to be said, really. Whatever credibility she may have had (and that’s not much) is shot all to hell with this one remark.

Follow the link to where that remark originated. It's worse than you think.

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/marcott-another-gergis-mome…

Whoever wrote this tripe is clueless. At least McIntyre understands the mechanisms by which he is creating the fake controversy over M13.

It's just depressing that people are *fooled* by these lies, over and over and over again.

Another thing the 'Karens' should appreciate is covered in Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks, which of course applies to Christopher Booker and Cardinal Puff.

Currently the full report is available through the link Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks available at the above.

The article at Rick Piltz's Climate Science Watch (new one for you Karen)
The connection between climate change denial books and right-wing think tanks implies that the full report is pay walled.

Thanks for the link to the full version of Dunlap & Jacques which I had been *too lazy* to find ;-)

Of course, this study must be set aside. We all know that there is no such thing as organised denial. Nor are numerous conservative 'think tanks' and fundamentalist religious organisations funded via the anonymising Donors Trust front. So there's no connection between denialist tracts and anonymous - but big - money.

None whatsoever. None at all. Absolutely none.

;-)

"None whatsoever. None at all. Absolutely none".

Why, any passing denier will be pleased confirm that is categorically and absolutely true, and any hint otherwise can only possibly be activist C.T

The first rule of organised denial: deny the existence of organised denial ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Mar 2013 #permalink

Lionel,

Many thanks for this information. These studies will figure prominently in my lectures on science and he environment. I think its vital that the link between right wing think tanks, their corporate sponsors, and anti-environmental propaganda is highlighted. Many of the climate change deniers who write into blogs continually (and ineffectively) try and downplay the well funded industry of denial, but as Andrew Rowell showed in 'Green Backlash' it is a huge and well organized lobby, involving PR companies, think tanks, astroturf groups, the corporate media and corporations themselves. The strategy that deniers use to downplay this lobby is to use the ignorance card: because they don't know anything about it (or wish not to), then it doesn't exist. Yet one doesn't have to look far to see that there are huge sums invested in denying climate change and other anthropogenic assaults across the biosphere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Mar 2013 #permalink

hehe, I do find it extremely amusing how you all support each other by passing on psychotic propaganda, the mass hysteria has well and truly passed beyond the Orson Welles "War Of The Worlds" debacle, lol. hehehe, Why is it that every new skeptic that comes in here you think is someone else, haha, talk about paranoia, lol

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-ris…

Below average temps, http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=…

People freezing to death because of green lunacy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-…

Failed predictions abound.

No warming for 20 years, 20 YEARS !!!

Nearly every science paper these days must insert the words "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" or "Climate Change" or else they will be out of the funding loop, no matter how stoooopid the connection, the words must be there !

Repeat and Repeat the lie.

Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists ? Maybe some of you just consider yourselves to be the "Climate Cheka" ? That certainly looks like case with one of the cranks.

Your already diminished creditability will follow the temperature, you may have to have to invent temperature gauge Viagra to keep it up :)

Oh dear !!!

I sounded just like barnturd j in that last line.

I don't normally stammer

Lionel; Jeff H

I have to say I was slightly disappointed that D&J have been unable to say more about Stacey International that that it is an "overtly conservative publisher".

It's a bit more than that!. Take a look ;-)

I think Montford's Hockey Stick karaoke came first, followed rapidly by a tranche of other titles.

Karen! You're back!

# 67?

#68?

#70?

Do you have anything, spots?

Anything at all, or are you really only here to ask your betters to explain things to you?

It works "just asking questions" if you control the entire medium, a' la Glen Beck, but it doesn't work otherwise.

Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ?

Of course 'we' are, after all 'we' are located in a variety of time zones. But of course your limited powers of deduction have let you down again.

"Failed predictions abound."

They certainly do. Deniers have been wrong predicting the temperature that would have been here many times before.

But you aren't talking about those errors, are you?

Karen

# 67?

# 68?

# 70?

"Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists "

So you agree that extensive posting is at least circumstantial proof and sufficient to require investigation of a cabal of paid-for trolls.

Most of the people in here appear to be here at all hours ? How many of you are paid propagandists ? Maybe some of you just consider yourselves to be the “Climate Cheka” ? That certainly looks like case with one of the cranks.

Quite apart from rather embarrassing failure to remember that there are different time-zones and the intertubes cross them all, there is another logical problem which Karen did not spot.

Why would 'paid propagandists' be salaried to talk amongst themselves?

If I were paymaster, I would be *docking some paychecks* around here ;-)

It's not clear if Karen's 'climate Cheka' quip was aimed at me, but on the general point, responding to matter-of-fact discussion of science with insults is stupid and ridiculous.

No warming for 20 years, 20 YEARS !!!

Sure, no warming here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/plot/hadcrut4gl/f…
Oh, wait...

Karen doesn't believe this crap, but apparently has become so desperate for attention that she'll fling any old shit at the bystanders just to maintain her narrative.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Repeat and Repeat the lie.

It seems that Graham Lloyd is now so desperate that verballing scientists is no longer sufficient. Instead, its okay for him to just make shit up. I think that's known as "Lying for Jesus" in some circles.

And like a good little footsoldier for her richer-and-betters, Karen will do so too. Repeat and repeat the lie - straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook. So I'm sure we'll see plenty of this "20-year" bullshit, while the Karen's of the world get busy repeating and repeating the lie.

I think Karen must be a Monckton fan with her twenty year delusion (and hard of hearing with all the shouting she does).

The conspiratorial ideation in Karen's last blurp is most interesting. (Is she aware she is engaging in it? Naaaaaah, don't think so.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Mar 2013 #permalink

I note a reference to abcnewswatch .blogspot.com.au above, and was interested to see the the focus was not on ABC news, but rather on ABC climate-related news. Now, who is it that has such a partisan and scientifically-ignorant interest in "auditing" the ABC's reporting of climate matters? Oh, I know that the front name is Marc Hendrickx, who in the past has demonstrated himself to be a rabidly partisan Denialatus, but who's feeding him the stuff that he "edits"?

And Karen/Mack/Sunspot. It's most gratifying to see that I'm still living rent-free in your head even though I've been more frequently AFK for the last few months. You're obviously damaged by my previous rebuttals of your nonsensical non-science... which leads me to wonder if there might not be an Honours or a Masters project in formally assessing the psychological phenomena underpinning the tactics used by deniers of human-caused climate change, when they are confronted by and respond to scientific explanations on the internet.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 31 Mar 2013 #permalink

It's true. Predictions rise, but global temperatures don't.

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 31 Mar 2013 #permalink

#97

Pielke's pompous post is on "scientific integrity". Which is why he makes the claim in the comments

There are a few bad eggs, with the Real Climate mafia being among them, who are exploiting climate science for personal and political gain.

Of course Roger being a person of impeccable integrity substantiates his claim with chapter and verse. /sarc

barnturd said: "And Karen/Mack/Sunspot. It’s most gratifying to see that I’m still living rent-free in your head even though I’ve been more frequently AFK for the last few months."

Sorry to disappoint you barnturd, I remember you because you are the funny little midget arm waving clown, :)

He demonstrates his flawed mental model, which prevents him from honestly appraising science.

Now who does he remind me of?

"It’s true. Predictions rise, but global temperatures don’t."

Temperatures have risen at a rate of 0.6C per decade from 2011 to 2012.

Rising.

I have a denier in my corner of the internet that will not relent with the question of " how much has the planet has warmed since 2000."

I'm a novice but familiar with a lot of the literature. I was going to post a response from 'skeptical science' on global warming since 1998. It's a good primer on the Earth's energy budget but any other answers would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

"I have a denier in my corner of the internet that will not relent with the question of ” how much has the planet has warmed since 2000.”"

Heh, little did he realise his wording was precisely wrong for his trolling purposes.

Oceans are part of the planet.

I don't know why you all get so cross with me, I only try to help.

So let me try again, this time I want to bring you little Androids, sorry, Deltoids up to speed with the latest lingo, after all as you chant your mantras at the chapel it is essential to get the language right. This is the latest and anyone who giggles will get a hundred lines and stay in after school:

“Predict retrospectively”

Ain't that a corker?! And, no, it's not from 'Alice in Wonderland' since you ask, er, you did ask, didn't you?

And also, I bring you glad tidings. Now we all know where that missing heat from the last 10-15 years went - it sank into the oceans, er, but in the *deep* part of the oceans, it left the surface as cold as, well, as cold as the bloody sea always is when I splash about in it.

Anyway, no need to thank me . . .

By David Duff (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Tony's latest crop of articles:
We're heading for an ice age, the slayers are wrong - except for Tisdale (is he an actual slayer, or just a nincompoop?), who thinks global warming is caused by ENSO and if you subtract double the heat from the warming, the oceans are cooling.

Hard to get your head around all that. Almost as bad as Duff.

And when you're wrong, Grima?

What then?

“Predict retrospectively”

Ain’t that a corker?!

Only if you're a complete blithering buffoon, Duffer.

To those with operating brains, the point is pellucidly clear.

it left the surface as cold as, well, as cold as the bloody sea always is when I splash about in it.

It left the surface as cold as the warmest decade ever on record.

Duffer, you're even in denial of warmth.

"That is Girma’s prediction"

Considering you are a complete and total idiot, your prediction ain't worth beans.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Apr 2013 #permalink