April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

BBD #89

"Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.

This is a lie. Your discourse is based on some nonsense that you misunderstood or made up."

a recent reminder..............

"Should Tim Flannery be fed to the crocodiles for the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eyewateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?"

Karen, Macri gives no detail beyond that this was the second heaviest rainfall in the city... 'heaviest' is ambiguous and is very likely to be a one day total,rather than a comment on relative intensities. Rainfall totals by convention are one day periods. It is very unlikely that in 1906 an hourly rate is being observed. Your assumption is obvious, your comprehension is amply demonstrated to be feeble at best.

Falls in La Plata according to local press were well in excess of the figures from BA airport.

@ #1

show me the data

Sure, #2, for a salary!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Karen, you fuckwit, Australia is not the world.

RTFR. Note the discussion of "regional" vs "global". It's the same old, same old with you, isn't it?

Now, back to the questions you refuse to answer:

1/. Now, why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase? Please justify this assertion:

Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

2/. Please summarise the effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle.

Do not dare to repeat this:

At no time did I discuss evaporation rates and temperature, your barking up the wrong tree old chum (WOOF WOOF little doggy).

Trying to pretend that this discussion *does not* derive from the effects of warming on the hydrological cycle is beyond disingenuous. It transcends contemptible.

Don't fuck about with me like this again.

My very witty, incisive and highly intelligent comment yesterday seems to have gone astray so I will try again because I am always eager to help you little Deltoids as much as possible.

So, to ensure that you have the very latest jargon, which some of those appalling 'deniers' have called 'gobbledegook', let me tell you what the next 'in' phrase is, and if anyone giggles they will get a hundred lines and stay behind after school:

"Retrospective prediction"!

Now, it is important that you use this as often as possible and when you do so you must get across that you really, really mean it, er, whatever it actually means!

No, no, please, no need to thank me.

By David Duff (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink


I see from your # 99 previous page that you are now spamming from Delingpole's midden as well.

BBD, Buenos Aires is not the world either?

Future planning for a population of several millions is not a subject that will ever trouble SpamKan's reality. And neither Doolallypole's ignorant, spittle-flecked rhetoric won't provide the resource when it's needed.

And SpamKan still hasn't the first clue clue how to even frame a question.

Hi David :)

I am happy to see that you survived an extraordinarily cold winter and very late spring.

I read that it was sooooo cold over there that your country nearly run out of gas!!!

And all the poor little sheepies froze to death, sigh, and the frozen biota would be incalculable.

It's fun to watch cretins like SpamKan try to deny that the hydrological cycle isn't strengthening when MSL is massively reduced by the very odd 'double' La Nina 2011 - 2012.

So much evaporated seawater precipitated over land that the sea level fell further and faster than at any time in the record.

Think (if you can do such a thing) about that, SpamKan!

# 7 Different regions, different effects. You are still a fuckwit, SpamKan!!

Answer the questions (# 4), you miserable excuse for a correspondent that you are!

Come on, Spammers! You started this!


Now answer those questions - or STFU and FOAD!

At no time did I discuss evaporation rates and temperature, your barking up the wrong tree old chum (WOOF WOOF little doggy).

You can't do it. You can't square your denialist clap-trap with the facts.



Dominic hmmm..........


2/ Spanish priest who founded an order whose members became known as Dominicans or carbonazi's

"My very witty, incisive and highly intelligent comment yesterday "

Yeah, very walter mitty.

You can't do it, you cretin. You look so utterly stupid now it's actually more pitiful than amusing.

You should have taken the hint a while back and STFU ;-)

Your 2/ is crap as well.

Domini Canes - look it up, fuckwit

Your use of apostrophe in your Godwin is illiterate.

You really are Teh Stupid incarnate.


# 18 we crossed

Hello, Karen, yes, all this global warming has been sheer hell, I tell you, hell! My Long Johns are in sad need of repair partly because I haven't taken them off since October last year - dread thought!!

By David Duff (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

The Argentine National Meteorological Service has produced a report on the event which ranks the precipitation recorded at official stations. No mention is made of anecdotal reports of much higher figures in La Plata. Given the report was released within a couple of days of the event, you can assume that data from private sources has not yet been collated,if indeed that is an intention.

The 24 hr total recorded at Buenos Aires is the highest for any April on record, the reference period starts in 1906. The second highest April fall occurred in 1989. So Macris remark, if accurate and accurately translated, refers to any-month falls at some time post 1906. April is not exactly the height of the wet season,which peaks Feb-March. As well, Oct and Nov are wetter on average than April. These are record falls on a seasonal shoulder,and close to all time.

The official 24 hr figure from la Plata [181mm] is the highest by a considerable margin [50mm] in data starting from 1959.

Data for shorter periods ,6 hours and 1 hour are given,and the reference period is very short,starting 1999...which strongly suggests that the all-month highest fall --Macri's 'heaviest'-- is a 24hr figure. The 2 hour fall is the second highest on record for Buenos Aires Observatory. The highest is a January fall, with the other high figures almost exclusively Jan Feb or Mar.

No 1hr fall data are available at La Plata, and the 6hr figure to midnight 2/4/13 is 125mm.

It's not the sun, Karen.

missing data eh!

It's absolutely amazing, SpamKan's lack of basic comprehension. We get another spammed link to Svensmark and his hypothesis that cosmic rays may affect cloud.

But nothing whatsoever on the hydrological cycle or how moisture enters the atmosphere to form clouds (they're formed by evaporation of water which is caused by heat which is increased by CO2 re-radiation to simplify for you SpamKan).

But all it takes is one misconstrued or not even understood concept and the deniers are off and away. Teh Stupid incarnate indeed.

No BBD, the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet, lol

Also missing how clouds become clouds: there is a lot of water surrounding a nucleation site. Putting lots of nucleation sites will inhibit clouds.

'sfunny how deniers get all bent out of shape because "greenhouse gas effect" isn't precisely the same as a greenhouse, yet are completely fine with a "cloud chamber" despite it being very little like a chamber with clouds in. If you had enough condensation to cause clouds in a "cloud chamber", you'd be unable to do anything with it.

Kaz, so now show us the cosmic ray count for the latest cycle.

And lets look at the weather for the last time the sun was like this, hmm?

#29 means the 1960's were by far the warmest decennium on record, closely followed by the 1770's.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Cosmic ray counts were at a recorded high in 2010...which was the warmest year on record.

# 34 Nick

Yes - the scepticoid numpties never seem to understand that observations of GCR flux *contradict* the Svensmark hypothesis.

But for the real death blow, ask the scepticoid numpties what they can google up about the Laschamp excursion...

Those who know nothing about paleoclimate are doomed to be hit over the head with it ;-)

Google is for chumps...GutFeeling is the new search engine on the block...JuzHazToBe is an up-and-comer

Whats the thinking on Georgieva et al
"Once again about global warming and solar activity"


"A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations..."
(shown last page fig 6)

It took you 14 hours! Too slow, lard-arse! You need to up your game.

God you lot are pitiful. You crap on about argument from authority but just fucking look at you all. You would have nothing were it not for the little coterie of lying chum-ladlers out their, feeding you your daily rotting fish guts.

Rednose's paper seems to date from 2005. Wonder why HockeySchtick and the GWPF have suddenly decided to promote it as though it were new?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Svalgaard "suggests"...

Others produce published results.
Its quite a correlation. Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years.

You ought to be gratefull for the distraction. It might stop you barking up the wrong tree

“A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations…”

Have you checked if they're right, duffer? Or are you unskeptical of its claims?

"Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years."

Still going down that up escalator, duffer?


Well I thought I would check with you first Wow.
You seem to have a comment for everything.

None of them particularly significant


You have nothing to say worth hearing (hence your improved screen-name!). If I was interested in old, mistaken papers I could visit the Denialist Middens myself.

# 41 lord_sidcup

Because they are desperate, dishonest scum with nothing better to offer.

Others produce published results.
Its quite a correlation.

Oh, a gift. You really shouldn't have said that ;-)

How much have we seen in the mainstream climate journals from the scepticoid chum-shovellers, fake experts and other and midden-curators?

Let's all have another bloody good laugh at your expense. Give us a list.

Go on. I challenge you.

"You seem to have a comment for everything."

Irony. See Duffer's comment above.

"Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years"

Oh my Lord, here we go again with this crap. I thought I put Rednose's puerile inability to understand scale to bed, and he rehashes the same shite.

Seems like he/she/it and Karen are an ignoramus tag-team.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

How much have we seen in the mainstream climate journals from the scepticoid chum-shovellers, fake experts and other and midden-curators?

BBD resorting to ad hominums, or is it ad hominae?

Any comment on the correlation, the one going back to 1856?
Is that scale long enough?

Duffer, your screed is nothing but what you complain others are doing.

Tiresome windbag.


Not rising to the challenge?

No scientific case for scepticoidism after all? Just lots of fake experts and chum-shovelling on the Intertubes?

What to do? The usual: have a whine and make a weak attempt to divert attention away from the rather obvious problem.



You must be old if you remember Professor Unwin


Perhaps you studied under him.

Here's an uncontroversial correlation for you.

What are you going to do? Be a sceptic or a scepticoid? Wow asked you this at # 43 and it is an important question. Do we trumpet a single, mistaken and, frankly, ignored, study or do we look at the standard position which is standard because it is well supported?


Some landowners are sueing some energy and chemical companies. What is interesting is the companies' defense...
"In their petition for a review by the full 5th Circuit, the companies argued that global warming was not attributable only to them but resulted from the emissions of greenhouse gases from millions of sources dating back to the Industrial Revolution."

So if even they are not denying AGW and it's causes, that shows just how far removed from reality the deniers are.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Redarse, do NOT come here and spew your half-baked vacant assertions such as #52.

AGW is an entirely scientifically robust theory supported by many lines of evidence established over the past century, studied by today's leading scientists and peer-reviewed so far up the arse, it gets a clean bill of dental health.

If you want to wank on about 'correlations going back to 1856' picked up from your failing PR sites, it's up to YOU to do the work and bring something substantial to the table. Not pathetic innuendos suggesting 'maybes' and 'what ifs'.

But of course we already know you're just a spam chumming idiot without the wherewithal, and all that you CAN do is repeat the same formulated bilge to thinking people that your preferred disinformers churn out, which satisfies the easily satisfied, uninformed idiot minds of you and your ilk.

Take your received, second-hand shiteideas to Watts' place or wherever, but not here.

Speaking of many lines of evidence -

Recently observed extreme temperatures at high northern latitudes are rare by definition, making the longer time span afforded by climate proxies important for assessing how the frequency of such extremes may be changing. Previous reconstructions of past temperature variability have demonstrated that recent warmth is anomalous relative to preceding centuries or millennia, but extreme events can be more thoroughly evaluated using a spatially resolved approach that provides an ensemble of possible temperature histories. Here, using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of instrumental, tree-ring, ice-core and lake-sediment records, we show that the magnitude and frequency of recent warm temperature extremes at high northern latitudes are unprecedented in the past 600 years. The summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400 (probability P > 0.95), in terms of the spatial average. The summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia (P > 0.99) and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well (P > 0.90). These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate, but can be understood as resulting from constant space–time variability about an increased mean temperature. [Emphasis mine]

What many a Denialatus doesn't know - and I assure you this is true, this collective and tacit accord embracing willful ignorance is how meatbots like Rednose and SpamKan are able to operate - is that research like this - proper, bona-fide scientific assessments reviewed by people who actually know what they're doing - is being published all the time.

We're actually drowning in evidence, but these people are the Creationists of the 21st Century, and mere science cannot move them.

So the jackasses and jillasses simply extrude themselves out of the oily sheen of the epistemic bubble momentarily, gurgling and sputtering their mantra of 'no evidence'; knowing all the while that shortly surface-tension will suck them safely back inside in the warm goo.

And, seriously, Svensmark? You're cracking me up!

So the warming is unprecedented in the last 600 yrs, eh O' flaccid one ?

Unprecedented since the LITTLE IC AGE !!

It looks like you just swallowed another big turd sillybilly, lol

Shop-worn, unimaginative abuse, coprolalia, and illiteracy.

And, through it all, a profound, impenetrable, and irredeemable ignorance.

You truly are one of the most inconsequential creatures to have ever blighted the face of the earth, aren't you, SpamKan?

This pathetic, would-be interventionist smirking and drooling is the most you've ever achieved in your sad, sordid, worthless little excuse for an existence, isn't it?

And the sad truth is, you're right; this is the highlight. This dreary little spittle-stain is your mark on history.

I just had a look on google earth ?

What gives ?

I thought that if it was so warm up there the Vikings would have moved back ?

Fascinating :)

SpamKan, in all honesty the best you could possibly do for your sorry cause is to quit altogether; since any well-informed, moderately-intelligent 12 year old could swat down your mindless inanities it's trivially easy to demolish your 'case', and you're a constant reminder of how uninformed - and even unhinged - Denial really is.

Do you imagine that anyone at all is impressed by your antics?

"that research like this – proper, bona-fide scientific assessments reviewed by people who actually know HOW TO DRAW HOCKEY STICKS – is being published all the time."

You are a numb scull Bill, I just shot your ExPeRt paper down with two really dumb observations, but you, being the flaccid blind old fool that you are, will no doubt continue to be fooled by hockey sticks, :)


ummm........ try this sucker https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/6338/study-may-answer-longstanding…

#69 Karen, still compiling that list? Or have you become frightened? You do not have to kneel in order to be allowed to talk to me. Really. So, speak!

As for your sucker, you must be bruised badly :)
"The study, led by the University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations, suggests that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D. The persistence of cold summers following the eruptions is best explained by a subsequent expansion of sea ice and a related weakening of Atlantic currents, according to computer simulations conducted for the study."

Did you check the relation between this and your silly assertion about the 1960's and 1770's being the warmest decades of the world climate record?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

CampOne said "Did you check the relation between this and your silly assertion about the 1960′s and 1770′s being the warmest decades of the world climate record?"

Your interpretation Einstein, lol

"So the warming is unprecedented in the last 600 yrs, eh ...

Unprecedented since the LITTLE IC AGE !!"

Yes, spots, since the little ice age. That's what "unprecedented in the last 600 years" means.

Why do you complain about the meaning of words you don't understand, spots?

"here we have a FOIA obtained Met Office document that says CO2 can’t be blamed for the droughts floods ect in Pommie Land"

Except watts is refuting your statement here with the headline.

It says: "met-office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate".

Watts says that the Met Office document shows they DO NOT KNOW that CO2 didn't affect the weather in pommie land.

#71, your interpretation, Karen. Not mine.

#72, where's the last page? Anyway, the last page given by Watts is clear about Trenberth's Law (and global warming).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink


Name the warming period'S the planet has had since the Little Ic Age

1900-date, spots.

Unless you're claiming we're still IN the little ice age, what on earth was your point?

woW, sillybilly has realized how stoooopid his toilet paper IS and has nicked off for a drive in his old decrepit taxi, lol

Every time Karen's wafer thin b* is undermined, he/she/it scuttles back to WUWT. I find his/her/its persistence in the face of a consistent hammering to represent either profound ignorance or else just that Karen is a sucker for punishment. Nobody who reads Deltoid - with the exception of equally brush-daft clowns such as Rednose - swallow Karen's nonsense, yet he/she/it keeps returning to be bashed again and again.

Get a life, Karen. You give me the impression that you sit in front of a computer all day reading and re-reading garbage from a bunch of climate change denial web sites which you then rehash by cutting and pasting over here. You are willfully ignorant in just about every facet of science, as demonstrated every time you write something. And, like Rednose, you have mastered the art of 'baiting and switching' - writing some such gibberish, having it categorically debunked, then moving on the something else. Worse still, also like Rednose you then return to the original meme (for instance the 'it hasn't warmed since 1996 despite an increase in atmospheric C02') canard, of course ignoring, or, as is more likely, failing to understand the dynamics of scale or the difference between stochastic and deterministic processes.

Moreover, you also seem to think that highlighting a few outlier points - such as a cold weather event here or there, or else some example of local biodiversity suffering as a response to these events somehow disproves AGW. You actually paste this stuff up here when anybody who has even a basic understanding of science knows that many data points are generally needed to make a regression significant - and that, based on the empirical data, there are many more data points showing polewards or altitudinal shifts in the distributions of many species and species populations since the 1970s, that growing seasons and life cycles (e.g. intra-seasonal generations) have been increased, and so on and so forth. On the other side of the ledger we have seen a number of phenological mis-matches generated by differential responses of species in food chains to rapid recent regional warming. None of this is remotely controversial because we have the data - lots of it - to prove it.

And then you cut and past a few articles showing the odd outlier and try to claim this disproves what hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals show.

In summary, this clearly shows that you are not interested in science, but in promoting your own, twisted version of the world. Only those with a similar mind set are sucked in by your histrionics, Karen. And on Deltoid there are thankfully few of those. Why don't you stick with the denier blogs run ostensibly by people like you? Those with little or no scientific pedigree who try and 'package' their clearly ideological views as science?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

While the doofus is in the away phase, the BoM has a serious announcement to make.

That's the official website of a premier scientific institution full of trained boffins and actual meteorologists, rather than a blog run by, oh, let's say some some superannuated TV weatherman who looks like a Scooby Doo villain*, or any of a selection of oil-funded cranks, ageing tin-foil hat misanthropes, or complete Libertarian lunatics.

Because that's what constitutes 'science' in SpamKan's world. And Rednose's, Olaus's, Duffer's, etc..

*and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling science kids...

The Real JH #81

Following your advice, I looked up stochasticism and determinism to fill in the obvious gaps in my knowledge which you kindly drew to my attention. I am convinced now and wish to mend my ways. Do you think if you put a good word in for me they would let me join?


#83,I think they're crying out for you at that website, Redface. Off you go...last updated May 2004. It's all yours

Have you ever noticed that 'lol' is a term much-favoured by slack-jawed individuals whose tongue is, indeed, inclined to loll in their open mouths, just as a little runnel of drool tends regularly to slide down their chins?

I repeat, you do your cause no good whatsoever; calling a paper in Nature 'toilet paper' only convinces us that you are a childish, resentful ignoramus, who bitterly resents those smarter than herself - one mightily big set!

"sillybilly has realized how stoooopid his toilet paper IS"

Nonsense. What the hell are you blithering on about now, you thundering buffoon?

Get a life, Karen. You give me the impression that you sit in front of a computer all day reading and re-reading garbage from a bunch of climate change denial web sites which you then rehash by cutting and pasting over here.

Spots is being PAID to do this. Resources and all that jazz.

Ah,Karen's back, the little gust of illiterate paranoid hot air...

Jefffferyyy........." (for instance the ‘it hasn’t warmed since 1996 despite an increase in atmospheric C02′)"

I know you have problems reading charts deary, lol, but this chart also shows that Australia was warmer in 1915, golly gosh pumpkin :) and lookie at that massive sea of beautiful blue compared to the smaller amount of red.

Now WHY didn't BOM include 2011 & 2012 data in their alarmist report ? Hmmm...............

'Toilet paper' is, believe it or not, a reference to the paper just published in Nature I quoted from and linked to earlier. Yes, this creature possesses no dignity whatsoever.

Karen, you need never fear having anything published in Nature, though I suspect you might yet get your own call-out box in the DSM V...

Again; Denial is about good faith arguments from intelligent people? Hardly!

Now the gibbering fool suggests the BoM can't make sense of its own data!

This is, characteristically, disgraceful behaviour, Karen; you really ought to be shamed of yourself, but shame is clearly an emotion too elevated to be available to you.

#61 chek

Your painfull sounding anatomical position goes some way to explaining how you can vomit copious amounts of both shit and bile at the same time.

"AGW is an entirely scientifically robust theory supported by many lines of evidence"

If you read the "Met Office Briefing Document" mentioned above, you might notice the responses are hedged and uncertain.
Are there doubts appearing about some of this "robust theory".

So Epicycles to you.


The entire document is at the bottom of the link, so you do not have to taint yourself by reading the commentary.

hehehe, O' flaccid one is a bad loser, lol

lol lol lol lol lol

"I know you have problems reading charts deary, lol, but this chart also shows that Australia was warmer in 1915"

Weather, not climate, spots.

Olap would be so correcting you here if he were in the least bit honest.

Yup, duffer, ignorance and lack of knowledge is all you have to parade for your cause.

Hey billy, I don't know if you quite understand what I'm telling you ?

but try this, at 100mm from your hearing aid at 120db,


Spots is being PAID to do this.

Someone should ask for their money back, he's providing really crap service that only discredits them.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

#96, it is, but if it weren't: you find it funny because you hate science, eh, creationist? Or are you also like ¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte! ?
Don't be shy, it's a free country. Speak!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

Well, if nothing else Bill, they demonstrate the kind of numpties that vote for prehistoric idiots like Joe Barton.

"Someone should ask for their money back"

He's sowing discord and (if you're sufficiently motivated to believe the shit) doubt. The BAU businesses make so much money, it's like spammers: absolutely doesn't matter if it doesn't work, it only has to have a possibility of working to make the sociopaths feel assured supporting it.

Why the sockpuppet imagines I'm old, or that I, or anyone else, would be disturbed or impressed by references to my having been a cabbie many years ago, is indicative both of its general level of comprehension and of its relationship to evidence.

And, yes, one can only agree that if this were to be a paid service someone really needs to demand their money back.

But perhaps it's really Soros that is funding you, Karen, cunningly deploying you to make Deniers look stupid? Now, he's getting his money's worth!


Smearing studies they don't like - even those published in the most esteemed journals like Nature and Science - is par for the course for deniers. Smearing scientists who write these articles goes along with it. Why do they do it? BECAUSE ON A BLOG WHERE THEY ARE ANONYMOUS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.AND ITS SO EASY TO WRITE INTO A BLOG. In any scientific venue or journal they'd be tarred and feathered as laughingstocks. But on weblogs they can pound their chests like Silverbacks and belittle, deride, ridicule, and smear at will because there are no repercussions and because in their puny little minds it elevates them to the status of 'experts'. If they can trash Nature papers, they think that they must be, by default, esteemed experts with a deep knowledge of the field.

And Karen, as utterly idiotic as he/she/it is, is not the worst. Hop over the Jonas thread and the king of self--righteous arrogance resides: the man (Jonas) himself. Tim Curtin did it too, with papers in journals like PNAS that he didn't like. Essentially, we have a veritable army of ignorants casually dismissing studies they don't like whilst bolstering denier weblogs and a few studies often published in comedy venues (e.g. E & E, 21st centruy S & T) etc.

And note that the vast majority of these self-professed 'experts' like Jonas and Karen have never published a single, scientific paper in their lives. Heck, even if they had something in athe journal 'Fartology' on the origins of flatulence I would give them a scintalla of credit. But they have NIX. And none of them are scientists, either. They don't have scientific degrees (my bet is that many of them don't even have any degree) and they have never attended conferences, workshops or other venues where these issues are debated and discussed.

Instead, these nitwits contaminate the blogosphere which is the only available venue for them to spread their piffle. But, as I said, its not just that they do this, but that they do this with absolute arrogance and self-righteousness. They continaully beat their chests as if to say they desrve to be hears, and not only that, but that their views are important.

Of course we know that they are, in reality, an army of scientific illiterates.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink


Exhibitionist behavior
Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
A need to be the center of attention
Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
Making rash decisions[4]
Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]

This is funny, and demonstrates that scepticism and basic fact checking are not Anthony Watts thing.


You would think a graph showing a greater than 50% drop in US gasolene consumption (that's a bad thing by the way) would prick his scepticism - but no, he runs with it.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

Redarse #92
The 'uncertainties' referred to by the Met Office have nothing to do with the basic science, which is what you desperately hope.

But you're wrong, as you would discover if you quit wallowing in the alternate worlds of trash denier blogs.

While we're on th esubject of trollism, it sometimes occurs to me that The 'Goddard' Collective, The Watts Collective and their ilk probably don't actually spend all day every day twisting their brains to hunt for loopholes or ways to distort real science.

I suspect the rest of their time is spent socking for each other in support of the collective rubbish they publish.

It's one possible reason those like SpamKan don't even attempt to defend the indefensible nonsense they spam, but instead adopt the tactic of swiftly moving on to the next pile of crap that's been flung.

SpamKan demonstrates its idiocy once more, this time on the matter of La Nina's influence on Australian annual mean temperature.

Get a clue, SpamKan! Look at the long term trend!

Now, remember, that giant, double-dip La Nina is over now, and ooh! Look what happened to temperatures in Australia!


The last seven months have been exceptional in terms of heat records.

During this period, Australia registered the warmest September–March on record, the hottest summer on record, the hottest month on record and the hottest day on record.

A record was also set for the longest national scale heatwave.

And El Nino isn't developing yet *still* Australia boils and burns!



Well look you.
Two more Russian scientists from the Russian Academy of Experts warn of an imminent cold period.
How many is this? I am beginning to loose count.


But the science is entirely scientifically robust and they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

#6 chek

I take the "uncertainties" to be a fairly honest assessment about what they do not know. Would that were always the case.

So, what is it they do not know?

You don't know. Because you don't understand what it says, but are blathering out bullshit because you think it proves something it doesn't.

"How many is this? I am beginning to loose count."

To be honest, you have problem counting to three...

Rednose #9, what's to be done about it? More CO2 in the air?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink


I know its more than 3. Thats why I asked for help. :-)

I suggest find ways to keep warm.

"I know its more than 3."

No, you don't know that.

Well, Rednose, it's not going to happen. Did you read your link, citing another 30 'scientists' expecting cooling, published in early autumn 2010? I guess they thought the Russian summer that year was a wee bit over climate, good gamble to predict some 'cooling' then.
Incidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhere. Except maybe part of China part of last winter, and part of Alaska winter 11-12, even the so called really really cold winters everywhere are actually just the norm for say 1961-1990... Cold winters are warming up, too :)

We'll wait till Karen's finished her list for adstruction.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

"Incidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhere"

Best tell that to the sheepfarmers in N Wales.
They will be glad to know.
Not sure what planet you are on but I dont think its planet Earth.

But the science is entirely scientifically robust and they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

Well, quelle surprise you've chuffed out another solar cycle crank who appears to be a computer scientist, not a climate scientist , and a conspiracy theorist to boot: "The scientists add that part of the motive behind the “marketing trick” [the 'AGW scare', natch] is to manipulate the market for fossil fuels."

Basically, the thing is Redarse that you'll believe anything with no scepticism whatsoever.


Well look you.
Two more Russian scientists from the Russian Academy of Experts warn of an imminent cold period.
How many is this? I am beginning to loose count.

Oh you utter, utter fuckwit.

That's Bashkin & Galiullin AGAIN. You made a mammary of yourself over this last week. These two clowns work for GAZPROM. As I pointed out to you at the time.

Prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat!!!!!!!!

“Incidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhere”

Did they say every winter without fail, or did you imagine that's what was meant because abstract concepts like 'trends' and 'averages' are really beyond you?

"Best tell that to the sheepfarmers in N Wales."

Yup, weather again.

Rednoise The Clown

they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

;-) ;-) ;-)

Still more than 3.
:-) :-) :-) :-)

The list you provide in your second link is a mix of the demented and the misrepresented. My guess is that you are too much of an ignoramus to determine which is which.

Remember, you have been listening to the "Voice of GAZPROM!"

You prat!

three what?

Russian oil shills?

three french hens?

And a denialist in a pear tree...

(well, I was expecting something like "Two dippy trolls")

I was using a numbering system derived from libertarian physics...


Rednoise really stuffed himself up this time, didn't he? Still chortling over that one.

That's *twice* he's been slipped and fallen on his arse in the same puddle of oily Russian chum!

Brilliant clowning. Evidence for intellectual integrity & coherence... not so much.

Hardly a name on the denier blog Rednose cites has a lengthy pedigree in science. Most of the names listed are scientists with few peer-reviewed publications; the usual suspects (Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi etc) also appear.

Essentially its the old bucket=scraping exercise again. Note also how Hulme's quote is taken out of context (re 2500 climate scientists endorsing the IPCC findings). Hulme was only referring to he scientists who actually contributed to the latest IPCC draft; he wasn't suggesting that the majority of climate scientists don't defend the theory of AGW.

But deniers are masters at taking quotes out of context and twisting them to say something else.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

'I am beginning to loose count' is more accurate than he realised! ;-)

'What a maroon!,' as a certain Lagomorph might say.

Mann and Nuccitelli take on The Economist on ECS at the ABC.

Young Dana will go far, methinks.

Help me Jeffie, there's a problem with understanding scale at NOAA:

"Today, a new report by the NOAA Drought Task Force and the NOAA-led National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) finds natural variations in weather patterns caused this sudden “flash drought,” and is rules out global ocean conditions, as well as human-induced climate change, as major culprits."


Some "task force"...

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

Olaus,until you read the full media release and the report, there's little point in discussing it with you.

Watts up Nick? You too have problem with scale?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

Gee; another uncomprehending buffoon who thinks he's a genius.

#41 problem with scale? it's your problem with scale that will be helped by reading the report ,OP....or,as Bill says.

Hmm...Nick, can you elaborate on your scale problem? Or are you saying that the task force team has one? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Ball's in your court Ollie: why don't you enlighten us here with your understanding of the difference between a stochastic process and a deterministic one, and of the importance of scale in the Earth and environmental sciences. Both are important concepts in predicting local and large scale responses to perturbations.

I can't wait to hear your scientific 'wisdom' laid out here for all to see.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Olap's slimy evasion is indication enough of his "understanding".

Rednose #19 thinks N Wales is the whóóóóóóóóóóle world (just for a moment)
:D :D

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Me evasive? Explain to me: Who's got the problem with scale, the task force team or the jacob creutzfeldt-suffering climate scare sheeps in the deltoid paddok?

Help me out here fellas!


By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#23, yeah, patterns as cold as they get but no way a winter could compare to the likes of 1963 or 1940 of course. You just have to add like two degrees of warming. Coldest winters are gradually becoming mild too.

But maybe Blednose saw some snow. Well, a lot of snow, as global warming induces more precipitation et c.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Karen #49, please explain those graphs. We are clueless as to their interpretation.

And move on with that list.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#22 chek - you fired at wrong target.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Watts up, Olap?

Spots here is using weather rather than climate, and you're silent.

Well, I guess it's merely more proof that you don't know what climate is.

OP, the report is about a regional drought in 2012. Meanwhile,central and south-western US and northern Mexico are in a rolling drought against a backdrop of a fall in average rainfall over the past century. Hence your problem with scale.

The report finds CC was not a major player in the 2012 'flash drought' in the Central Great Plains region,and lays out some meteorological mechanisms. I expect you thought you could extrapolate from this event to the broader moisture deficit and droughting in the greater area,given your fixations.

Kaz has discovered the expected change to diurnal temp variation,and the 'evaporation paradox' and wants to be guided...again.

"Me evasive? Explain to me: Who’s got the problem with scale"

You, you blithering fool.

What was the expected change to diurnal temp Nickie ?

Is it possible Karen has stumbled on diurnal temperature range and confused it with temperature? Is he that dumb?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Nick, that's indeed a scale problem.:-) A regional climate change activity that started prior to AGW-effects and a regional weather event claimed to be a(nother) portent for CAGW which wasn't.

Very good scale comprehension. :-D

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#57, slightly going down as nights warm up more quickly than daytime. So you posted one of those simple pieces of evidence for AGW again :)

Is the unique run of 20+ minimum temps of Melbourne of around six weeks ago already on your list, or haven't you come to that yet?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink



Thanks for drawing more evidence of AGW to our attention, SpamKan; this is every bit as stupid as your recent inability to distinguish to distinguish between years.

It's too much to hope that you could ever feel a fool, but you certainly are one.

Hi happy camper :)

Thanks, I thought that was how it was supposed to go ?

Maybe you hadn't noticed something strange about it http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=dtr&a… the running average turned up in 1992

Hi Lordy :)

may zing :)

um...where iz it ?...................um.......

I'm looking for something for Frank......oh here it is http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_…

That should cheer him up :)

hehehe, poor old billyboy is still sooking because of his last three monumental blunders.

Hey......billy...........that paper is 9 yrs old :)

Great riposte Wow, now, you got anything more to say on the scale gas problem? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#59 ....and I did mention your fixations... a regional climate change activity that started prior to AGW effects is exactly how you'd prefer to see it. Your certainty is unwarranted.

And while a more local atmospheric mechanism is indicated for twelve months of intense drought in the Central Great Plains,the broader areal trend remains,and temperature trends are such that dryness [2012 driest May-August on record for that region] will be exacerbated.

From the report: This is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the possible effects of global warming on the 2012 Central plains drought,and hence results here are inconclusive

Hey……billy………..don't go thrashing the guts out that ooold FJ Holden taxi of yours just because you were StOoOOPid again :)


#62, nothing strange for me, for I know it all.
See you turned on ice now. That's good. Means you're gone in less than three months or so.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Kazbot is the kind of dataminer which only sees the very latest and smallest subset of the data. Of very limited use.

21 years Nickie :)

21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down ?

maze ing.... totally contrary to the consensus science stuphhhhh, you guys should be doing cartwheels.

21 years Nickie :)

21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down ?

maze ing.... totally contrary to the consensus science stuphhhhh, you guys should be doing cartwheels.......

Not at all, cRR K. #52.
What I wanted was a demonstration that Olap had the faintest idea of what he's talking about spamming. Which he amply provided, thanks.

#69, finish the drink and go to bed. Tomorrow's another day.

#70, chek, I thought you were telling me certain magical concepts like trend and average were beyond me. Well hell no, though it is beyond me to explain such to climate revisionists. I don't even try.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down

According to SpamKan, 1992 to 2005 = 21 years. You should really try looking at your own spam Karen.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#69... dumbshit ,you wouldn't want DT range to keep falling,would ya! You know so little about this issue you'd even reject Venusion DTR as evidence of climate change...what a joke you are!

If Karen's so convinced that the current ice picture invalidates the climate science consensus s/he should be borrowing every dollar they can and plonking it down in the bet that Bernard J. offered on quite generous terms.

But Karen hasn't - and Karen won't, which strongly indicates that even s/he doesn't believe the crap s/he spouts here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

I think I got it, the scale thing: Katrina, not AGW just weather; Russian heat wave, not AGW just weather; Sandy, not AGW just weather; Mid west drought 2012, not AGW just weather, etc...= CAGW.

Correct? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#76 yawn...Olaus, you get nothing,and possibly quite intentionally. After a while playing at stupid becomes indistinguishable from stupid. How long ago do you reckon you made the transition?

#76, like: one swallow makes no summer, so a million swallows CERTAINLY make no summer.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

So what are you saying Nick? That NOAA has a problem with scale, and you don't? ;-)

No cRRKampen, if extreme weather events had become more frequent you might have had a case, but since that's not it, you end up having a problem with scale. ;-)

Like Jeffie..

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#79, extreme weather events have become more frequent. About a factor three over the past three decades.
Follow the money e.g. here: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/graph0.jpg
Now, you are looking at the world's principal database for natural disasters, compiled by the world's second largest insurance company.

Any questions?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

Extreme weather events ARE becoming more problematical, as James Hansen explained in his TED lecture last year. In other words, a greater area of the biopshere is affected by extreme conditions - heat waves, droughts, storms over the course of time - than happened in 1960 (in fact, the incidence has increased by many factors). Whereas one exteme event cannot, of course, be attributed to AGW, this significant increase in many events over many years can be. Its the same thing as saying one record temperature recorded soemwhere cannot be attributed to AGW, but the fact that the ratio of warm:cold records has icnreased significantly and linearly with every decade since the 1960s can be. This is where one sees the shift from small to large scale data sets, and even simple regression analyses can tease out the statistical significance.

I know Olaus that this is over your wafer-thin head, as expected, because you are an imbecile who has no scientific acumen whatsoever. No need for you to apologize for your affliction; its best that you seek some kind of medical help.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

The post by Olaus at # 76 is a case in point. Its so mind numbingly gumbified that I wonder why we even engage with this clown?

Essentially, Olaus needs to start reading some elementary text books. His comment (# 76) is so utterly naive that it tells me now exactly on what intellectual level we are delaing with. Benthic. Anoxic. Embedded in the substrate.

And to think that Olaus is one of the biggest supporters of Jonas in the insanity thread. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#81 is the explanation of my swallows saying but in Wonderland. Paraphrased: if one record temperature recorded somewhere cannot be attributed to AGW, then a million such records CERTAINLY cannot be attributed to AGW :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#79 What am I saying? That your knowledge base is woeful. Try harder.

#83, because insurance companies are quite sharp with spotting swallows. Did you register my comment: follow the money? It's always the climate revistionists' sorta nonsense, I'm making sense thereof.

Your link contains observations like "Our finding of an increasing trend in the frequency
count of weather-related disasters, including only major ones,..." or
"... If so, the past will be a poor guide to the future.
In sum, while we find no evidence for an increasing trend in
normalized economic damage from natural disasters, this provides no reason for complacency. That inflation-adjusted non-normalized disaster damage is significantly increasing should prompt policy-makers into seriously considering measures to prevent the further accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas. More importantly for the debate on climate change, our results do not undermine the argument of those who, based on the precautionary
principle, wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent or reduce a potentially increasing economic toll from natural disasters in the future. We find no evidence for an increasing trend in the normalized economic toll from natural disasters based on historical data, but given our inability to control for defensive mitigating measures we cannot rule out its existence, let alone rule out the possibility of an increasing trend in the future."

Did your work again (climate revisionists are always quite handicapped see). $28.95 will do.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

CrrKampen, you rely on insurance companies, I rely on research.:-D

Yeah, there must be a scale problem. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

#87 There's a plaque buildup in your brain OP. That's a scale problem ...

#87, how can you rely on something you are totally ignorant of? Please find someone who can read, so you become aquainted to the conclusions of YOUR reference in #83
(for those who can read I provided some in #86).
You may speak to me after that. Meantime, $57.90.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

further to #81, US wide data shows most of the country is seeing a statistically significant trending increase in storms with extreme precipitation. There was a recent paper looking at 70 years of one hourly data at a number of sites.The interesting site was a mountain one with a maritime climate and precipitation on most days of the year, IOW a very stable predictably wet climate with a moderate temperature range. A significant increase in intense precipitation events was detected.

#90, somewhat likewise in Holland we are finding a very significant increase of days where somewhere in the country 50mm or more is registered (not due to an increase in measuring points). More generally the country is getting wetter, without the number of hours of precipitation having increased. If it rains, tendency to pour is up.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

" I rely on research"

No, you rely on not researching, Olap.

Insurance copany figures is climate research in your world, not in mine. :-) I do believe insurance companies are sharp though – on finding out if the costs start to rise. Imagine that! Amazing news here in deltoid land. :-)

So can we finally agree on that the extreme weather events haven't increased? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2013 #permalink

No, Olaus we cannot. Because they have, and all data show this. Whatever you claim to the contrary.

You seem to belong to the same school of compartmentalised "thinking" attended by our Kaz.

You apparently believe that increasing GAT (SST, LST, tropospheric T) will not have any effects on evaporation/precipitation etc.

Please explain why not.

Please explain why not.

Because Olap doesn't understand even the most basic science. He's one of Rove's idiots who believe reality is to be created rather than observed and understood. More commonly referred to as 'a nutter'.

"Insurance copany figures is climate research in your world, not in mine"

Geologist executives do, though, don't they, Olap.

So you now want everyone else to do your analysis for you, which, when it inevitably doesn't show what you want it to, you will abandon for yet another trotski bullshit post?

I suppose a malformed link containing the modifier 'sortby' is as indicative of a malformed argument as anything.

@ Olaus Petri

You seem to belong to the same school of compartmentalised “thinking” attended by our Kaz.

You apparently believe that increasing GAT (SST, LST, tropospheric T) will not have any effects on evaporation/precipitation etc.

Please explain why not.

So Olap has discovered glacial retreat! He is coming along,though glacially.

What was that about the Rhonegletscher,Ollie?

#98. Ollie,I've explained to you already that the 'scale comprehension' problem is yours alone....like a good idiot you have taken the NOAA Drought Task Force report on drought on a tightly defined area,and not noticed that it was 'drought-within-a-drought',something which the report poorly conveyed . So your comprehensional insufficiency will explain your scale problem.

Petrie like Karen?

You mean that famous pratfall duo, Spam and Ollie?

Way back here at #18 on page 5 KarenMackSunspot claimed record low temperatures for Tasmania in July 2012, as if to prove a cold winter.

KMS is either an uneducated ignoramus, or a liar, or quite likely both.

As others have noted Tasmania's winter last year was much warmer than average. Quite aside from the evidence of thermometers, nature itself reflected the unusually warm conditions. The local cherries flowered two weeks earlier here than they regularly did until a few years ago, and last year the spur-winged plovers had (and successfully raised) chicks in July, when they have previously always been commencing their first incubation just before mid-August. The European wasps, which are usually viciously culled by winters here, survived very well thank you, and were still raiding the compost bins three months later than they usually completely disappear.

Ask the fishers how many new species they're catching, that previously only occurred hundreds of kilometres further north. And a digression - summers here are now so warm that the east-coast kelp forests almost completely disappear in some places by February, in part directly from the highly unusual warm water temperatures, and partly from the sea urchin plagues those temperatures enable. My contacts at IMAS are starting to discuss a time in the near future when they will be functionally extinct ecosystems.

Back to last year's winter... My sister and brother-in-law used half of the usual amount of wood for heating, and my gloves and scarf remained in the wardrobe the whole winter, and were not used once. Usually they're gainfully employed for at least six weeks each year.

KarenMackSunspot might like to pretend that he has some grasp of a higher reality than that of the scientific concensus, but empirical data show that KMS is simply full of shit.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Apr 2013 #permalink

It's telling that the primary source for that list comes from someone whose first 'Climate Thought Starter' is a link is to a discussion of one of Don Easterbrook's famous charts that not only holds Greenland to be the entire world, it has 1855 as the present!

Hence the ludicrous claim that '[f]or most of the past 10,000 years the earth was warmer than today's temperatures'.

Wrong. No ifs, no buts, no maybes - just wrong.

Need one go on? The simple answer to the blog title - 'Is there global cooling?' - is 'no'.

Cranks take note : there is only one debate, and that's the one about ECS. You're not winning it. All this 'it's actually cooling, treely-ruly' stuff is just emotive noise tailored to reassure angry dullards.

Nick @#3 FTW!

Great website, shame it's really a testament to stupidity...but that make it perfect for Mäster Olof.

Maybe you have a infection of some type barnturd ? That could explain why you didn't need to wear your little scarfy and gloveywoveys, or maybe you have a thyroid problem ? What sex are you barnturd, I'm now assuming female.
Buy your brother in law a new chainsaw with all that money you made from your bet.


barnturd resides in banjo country, right down the bottom of oz, that could be why feces is constantly dribbling out of her posts in here.

1910 - 2012 trend in mean temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

1910 - 2012 trend in maximum temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

1910 - 2012 trend in minimum temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

THAT'S............ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE of a trend from 1910


2011-2012 trend 0.6C per decade, spots.

and that's GLOBAL temperatures.

That's right Wow, Kaz's failed to read again ...Tassie's in the 0.05-0.1C per decade zone on her chart. What a dope!

Yep: dumb as a Kan of Spammers!...

lol, the threee stooges :)

" Formerly the waters about Spitzbergen have held an even summer temperature in the neighbourhood of 5 degrees above freezing. This year it rose as high as 28 degrees. Last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen. This is on the authority of Dr........................


may zing :)

Later on Peary and Astrup crossed the island much further north and had to climb a solid hill of ice about 3000 feet high. But there was not always an ice cap. In time long gone by the region about the North Pole had a warm climate and all of Greenland was covered with a luxuriant tropical vegetation. This is positively known because fossil remains of palms,breadfruit trees, and other plants properly belonging to warm latitudes have been dug up there in quantities. It seems at least possible that the extra-ordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years marks a step in return to this condition. Such a change as that suggested cannot be suddenly or even rapidly accomplished; but if there shall come a time when the North Pole ice cap is entirely melted, and Greenland incidentally freed of the ice sheet which covers it, other latitudes will also experience a wonderful climatic alteration, and climates all over the world may become steadily and gradually warmer."


More impotent spam.

It's actually quite hard to impossible to gauge the depth of stupidity personified by SpamKan, although the obligatory crank-link is a good indication.

Does it imagine any of those factoids are unknown? Or have any inkling of the consequences of #16? I doubt it.

That'll be the ether crank, then?


"Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."


These scales are indeed troubleseome. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Apr 2013 #permalink

Do you actually understand anything, Olap?
Such as there is no solar forcing driving the current warming? Didn't think so.

The only scales you need be worrying about are the ones covering your eyes. But you're likely stuck with your level of stupidity.


Answer # 2 please.

Chek and I have both pointed out that there is no solar-forced component to recent warming. And the Tibetan plateau is a *region*, fuckwit.

Mind you, I have little doubt that you are of the cretinous herd that believes - despite a complete absence of evidence - that the so-called "MWP" was synchronous and global and warmer than the present.

You do believe this, don't you? Despite all the evidence demonstrating that the so-called "MWP" was made up of a series of regional and asynchronous warming events spread over ~400y and mainly confined to the NH.

"Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability,"

How many is this now?
Is it more than 3?

Tiresome, Rednoise, tiresome:

suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau.

Regional solar effect, not global!!!

How stupid are you, exactly?

Ollie is not a reader...tends to stop at the abstract.

We argue that it is the dramatic hydrological changes in the Qaidam basin that amplify the temperature signal recorded in lake waters,which allow our clear identification of temperature change patterns during the Late Holocene. Also if elevated warming in NW China is a natural response to climate warming,then any warming trend especially the recent global warming could lead to a significant high temperature over northwestern China and perhaps cause a serious economic and ecological loss.

Lots of caveats in the paper,as is only appropriate. There is 600 years of serious discrepancy between solar recon and lake record that they apparently ignore,and a fair few divergences between the lakes in timing and lengths of warmth ..quantitive estimation of warmth from our records is challenging. Indeed it is: three different lake environments [one used as a reference from another paper],with the two cored in this study varying greatly in depth and size over time,which will affect warming estimates. They acknowledge a very large potential dating uncertainty brought about by having to assume constant reservoir effects and sedimentation rates. So they are confident of the patterns of warming but less so of the timings and range,despite the abstract .

Meanwhile studies of Holocene glacial fluctuations on the Tibetan Plateau 500 to 1000km south of the Quidam Basin show many glaciers were advancing during good parts of the period identified as warm in the lake study.

And how dishonest? Clipping the end off that quote the way you did is ridiculously blatant. You do realise this just makes you look like a shit, don't you?

Why are we talking about this anyway? All Rednoise is trying to do is force a false equivalence between the so-called "MWP" and recent warming. So what if solar variability was all or part of the cause of the "MWP". It is demonstrably not the principal cause of modern warming.

Seriously? Karen's actually going back to Spitzbergen to diss anthropogenic climate change? Seriously?

Just like in Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

If last time was anything to go by, this is going to be a hoot! I'm getting the popcorn...

"Do you actually understand anything, Olap?"

Either a "Hell no" or a "Couldn't give a shit about the truth", really, isn't it.

"Regional solar effect, not global!!!

How stupid are you, exactly?"

His stupidity is over 9000!

What's even more irritating is that Rednoise is still noising about "more than three", when #1 and # 2 on his list were outed as industry shills many days ago.

Worse still, Rednoise was fooled TWICE by the chummers over the matter of two GAZPROM spokespersons by the names of Bashkin & Galiullin. He only got to # 3 by inadvertently double-counting B & G! What a clown, eh?

Any normal person would have shrivelled with embarrassment over a mistake so obviously revealing their stupidity and laziness and abysmally poor reading comprehension but this buffoon actually pops up again and reminds us what a buffoon he truly is!

WTF is wrong with his brain? We can only marvel and ponder.

#20... in which Kaz finds a typo ,eight years after it was corrected. Well done Kaz.

A typo in the Grauniad?!


How many different papers or references have been mentioned recently here claiming a solar effect, regional or global.

I have a poor memory. Perhaps you could recap for me.

Bashkin & Galiullin.


Reading comprehension issues.


All the solar stuff is regional and largely irrelevant.

Apart from a few people handicapped by severe reading comprehension issues, the rest of us understand this perfectly well.

I have a poor memory. Perhaps you could recap for me.

Redarse, there's a wonderful technology incorporated into most browsers these days called the 'scroll bar' (very often found towards the right edge of the 'browser frame' and the 'back or previous page button' often found at the top or bottom of the 'message posting'. area.

Acquiring even the most rudimentary skill with these items will not only help refresh conveniently forgotten memories, but also reduce perception of you as a whining gimp brattishly demanding others attend to your eminently ignorable needs.


If that's all a bit to complicated, there's always [ctrl_F].

Speaking of The Graun...

And, yes, a disgraceful effort by Oily there, as mindlessly echoed by Brownnose.

Sunspot, who has previously masqueraded as 'Mack, and now cross-dresses as 'Karen'...

You have a pathological issue with inconvenient truths, don't you? Being presented with such sends you into a frenzy of Tourettes, and ironically induces you to project on to me your own transvestitism.

Scream as frantically as you must, it won't change the facts. Tasmania is extraordinarily warm these days compared with the past, and it is manifesting on land and in the oceans. You have no direct experience of the climate here, so pardon me if I call your nonsense for the bogus shit that it is.



By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

Since Kazza is such an authority on Spitsbergen, she will know that the highest official temperature ever recorded there was 21.3 recorded in 1979. How does she square that with the claim of 28 degrees for 1923?

I'm sure her response will dazzle us all... :-)

Oooh, my popcorn's ready! Yum!

I'm surprised that you weren't taught about the 28 deg C at church brother fwanker :)


Dr. Adolf Hoel, professor of geology in the University of Christiania, should be a climate change cult hero to you fwanker, after all he is one of the many warmers that first told the world about the melting Arctic all those years ago.

This IS inconvenient information tho, that is why I posted it fwanker, does it upset your little theory that the Arctic ice has never melted before ?

So why did it melt ?


what was the temperature in Tas 2000 yrs ago ?

Yeah, "pffftttt" is about all your posts are able to manage, spots.

"what was the temperature in Tas 2000 yrs ago ?"

Hey, Olap, dog, spots is using weather instead of climate again!

woW, you are licking barnturds bum

Observations to that effect have covered the last five years during which the warmth has been steadily increasing

So, since you agree with the paper in toto, you're agreeing that the climate is changing.

Are the Arctic regions warming up with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world?

You're agreeing with the IPCC if you're saying that this paper column is correct.


Seals, which used to be plentiful in those seas, have almost entirely disappeared. It would seem as if the ocean must have be- come uncomfortably warm for some of its denizens which formerly frequented those latitudes, causing them to flock northward towards the Pole.

And you agree with the WG2 stuff which talks about climate change and polar bears being affected by climate change.

And these effects were noted by science in 1923, but you and your idiot cohorts have been denying it all.

You really don't read a damn thing you get paid to research, do you spots.

Ah, spots, failing at trolling, tries BAD trolling.

Shows how weak your argument is, spots, when the very best you can come up with is that.

But you're desperate to earn your crust, aren't you.

woW, do you know why I always write your name backwards ?

Because you are backwards and you always get everything backwards. lol

So now you think that the skeptics are skeptical that it has warmed ?
Sorry woW, what we dispute is the radical alarmizm about the CO2 cult propaganda luvvie. :)

Whilst the slapheads around here (we know who you are and you know who you are) are pissing into wind more signs of trouble emerge Biodiversity.

And what the 'usual suspects' are trying to hide from you : Good Business. Note the remark from Susan Anderson:

Meanwhile, Kochs are buying more pubs up. Message prevention has become the industry standard.


For the Duffers of the world 'pubs' is not describing watering holes. Killing the messengers Koch (and I don't think of that as Coke BTW) style. The Kochs should be facing trials such as Delingpole described and so should all aiders and abettors if only through 'the stupid' like the aforementioned slapheads here.

The article that Karen has dug up from Trove is no doubt syndicated material,here reproduced in an Australian regional newspaper, so temperatures would be in Farenheit.
It suggests that summer water temperatures are normally about 5F above freezing [ 2.8C] and had reached as high as '28 degrees above freezing' = 60F/15.5C.

Land ice on Svalbard was known to be retreating at the time of the article. The islands have been well studied for the last century.

No need to apologise,Karen,it's in an Aussie paper. Australia used the Farenheit scale at the time. There is no way that SSTs of 28C would be recorded around Svalbard. The sea will never reach that warmth at that latitude.

You might find sumfin here fwanker


Somehow I thing this guy would know how to read and record temperature, unlike the hopeless temp data we have seen of late.

"The geologist Adolf Hoel was the leading Svalbard researcher in the first half of the 20th century. He conducted geological fieldwork in Svalbard every summer during the period 1907-1926 and made a comprehensive mapping of the geology of Svalbard. In 1911 he started his long-term career at the University of Oslo. Besides his work as an associate professor at the university, he was instrumental in the establishment in 1928 of Norges Svalbard- og Ishavsundersøkelser (Norway´s Svalbard and Arctic Ocean Research Survey), which he headed until 1945."


So Kaz, do you agree that it's converted to Farenheit? Yes or no?

"woW, do you know why I always write your name backwards ?"

Yeah, you're thick.

Spots will never agree to anything if it doesn't help their crusade.

If it does, spots will agree to ANYTHING.

#58 "So Kaz, do you agree that it’s converted to Farenheit? Yes or no?"


"Formerly the waters about Spitzbergen have held an even summer temperature in the neighborhood of 5 degrees above freezing."

5 deg F = - 15 deg C .....this is below freezing Nick

"This year it rose as high as 28 degrees." 28 deg F = - 2.22 deg C ????

Did you miss this tasty little quote Nicky ?

"Last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen. This is on the authority of Dr Adolf Hoel

Yep............ that quote sure does make it a sure thing that it 28 deg C

“Last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen."

Repeated for the fwanker, :)

woW "

“woW, do you know why I always write your name backwards ?”

Yeah, you’re thick."

backwards woW, lol, I'm thin

Karen you're in a very deep hole-as usual. Because you are stupid. The report,about an August 1922 expedition is reproduced in April 1923 [news travels fast] in a regional Australian newspaper,with its temps converted to what a local would understand: degrees Farenheit

'Freezing' is 32F/0C...you know that? So five degrees F above freezing is 37F/2.8C. 32F + 28F =60F/15.5C

The north flowing West Spitzbergen current has a mean core temperature of 2-3C reaching up to 6C in summer, it keeps Svalbard sea-ice free most of the time. Summer SSts will reach above 10C regularly.
Average Summer SSts around Svalbard are not minus15C...nowhere in the world are SSts that low, dimshit!
Arctic sea temps under sea ice are no colder than minus 2C. If the water north of Svalbard reached only minus 2C in summer it would still be iced up to the islands.


Yep..that quote makes it a sure thing that it 28C [sic]

28C is a typical tropical sea temperature,Kaz. Like summer in the Coral Sea or the Carribean...

Worse even than the usual blether.

Still, at least O'Louse and Rednoise have fecked orf.

Karen's gone on an ignorance shotgun offensive.

She/he/it gets continually knocked around the ring and keeps coming back for more.


By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink


"Mind you, I have little doubt that you are of the cretinous herd that believes – despite a complete absence of evidence – that the so-called “MWP” was synchronous and global and warmer than the present."

Well there seems to be some:
Ljungquist 2010:
"Temperature changes in all the investigated regions, Scandinvia, Siberia, Greenland, Central Europe, China and North America, associated with large scale weather patterns such as the MWP, occured quite coherently. Exceptional warming in the 10th century was seeen in all 6 regional reconstructions."
Also "The present paleotemperature proxy data records do not support the assumption that the late 20th century temperature exceeded those of the MWP in most regions."



Just once, why don't you *read* your own fucking references?

Ljundqvist (2010):

Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period.

You don't even understand that Ljungqvist (2010) only deals with the mid- and high-latitude NH do you?

It's not a global study, you clown.

The Canadian High Arctic is a *region* at a specific *time*. NOT evidence for a global, synchronous "MWP". I knew you were of the cretinous herd, but thanks for confirming it.

I have a problem with your reference. I took you to be citing "Lungqvist (2010)":

Ljungqvist, F.C., 2010: A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geogr. Ann., 92 A (3): 339–351

In fact you are referencing a chapter from a book rather than the actual paper published in the reviewed journal Geografiska Annaler: Series A:

Fredrik Ljungqvist (2010). A Regional Approach to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, Climate Change and Variability, Suzanne Simard (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-144-2, InTech.

Ljungqvist's claims are much stronger in the book chapter than in the reviewed paper published in Geogr. Ann.

Which is interesting.

As usual, some people are seriously geography-challenged, and want to believe that {Central England, Europe, extrattroipical NH} = NH or the Earth.
A useful table is % of earth's surface from X to 90 degN:
50% 00 deg N, NH (~MBH)
30% 23.4 deg N, Tropic of Cancer (!Moberg}
25% 30 deg N (~Ljunqvist}
18% 40 deg N
09% 60 deg N

Ljungquistl(2010). Table 1 has the locations:
13 from 30 deg N to59 deg N, 17 from 60deg N to 90 deg N.

Given the preponderance of land in NH, ice/snow-albedo feedback, and the 200-year Law Dome CO2 record, mid-high North latitudes are exactly where you'd expect the medieval warming.
Bill Ruddiman has pretty good explanations for that CO2 graph, i.e., much of it is anthropogenic.

People want to stick with "flat-earth maps", like Lamb ~1965.
Readers here may find some history amusing. See Hockey stick controversy, Talk page, section "History of variants of IPCC(1990) Fig 7.1(c), p.202 ... falsely claimed to be that, or even from 1995, plus the Deming tale."

Basically, this whole argument over global MWP was really *manufactured*" by McIntyre and McKitrick and allies in 2005, after a few others had tried for a few years, includign John Daly, "science advisor" for the (coal) Western Fuels Association.
In real science, the argument was gone by the early 1990s.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

While we ponder this, let's return to the more fundamentally interesting question of what a warm "MWP" really means for fake sceptics.

What it means is trouble. Since there is no evidence for any *major* change in forcings, a warm "MWP" means that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. Highly.

This is anathema to the "it's-not-CO2" brigade, who are stuck in one of three camps:

- deny the physics (eg Sky Dragons)

- accept the physics but handwave an improbably low climate sensitivity

The problem with improbably low climate sensitivities is that paleoclimate behaviour stops making any kind of sense. Nothing works, from the overall cooling trend characterising the Cenozoic to orbitally-triggered deglaciations to the "MWP" and LIA.

For all that to *work* you need at least a moderately sensitive climate system. And if we have one, then the radiative forcing from an ever-increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 means warming. Exactly as predicted.

Out of curiosity, do you think about this when you argue for a warm "MWP"?

Thank you, John!

To be absolutely clear:

While we ponder this, let’s return to the more fundamentally interesting question

The "this" that we are pondering is my # 74. I crossed with JM.


"#58 “So Kaz, do you agree that it’s converted to Farenheit? Yes or no?”


Well this proves the only fuckwitted wanker here is you, spots.

Then there is Cook et al 2002

"Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand"

"This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP."

Cannot get the link to work for this one.


Your thoughts on # 76 would be welcome now.

Cook points out that (as I have repeatedly stated) the MWP was not global AND synchronous, hence the failure of the claim that "the MWP" was "as warm or warmer than the late C20th". The attempt to compare regional and asynchronous warming events with current global average temperature is false equivalence.

Cook (2002):

Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space.

I think we may have run up against a problem with your reading comprehension again.


Rather than continuing to spam the thread with stuff from CO2 Science that you haven't bothered to read, why not engage properly?

Share your reactions to # 76. Explain your position on this matter.

why not engage properly?

Because they can't, BBD. It'd be like developing an argument on gravity armed only with a one frame cartoon out of the Beano showing Newton getting plonked on the head by an apple.

The question really is who do Redarse et al think they're kidding with their irrelevant, third-hand reducia and shit-poor grasp of both time and space?


Are you aware of "Thin Ice" (The inside story of climate science) a movie that launches on Earth Day 22nd April? You can watch it for free or download it to organise a public/private screening.


By Turboblocke (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

Your statement in BBD#23

"despite a complete absence of evidence – that the so-called “MWP” was synchronous and global"

There seems to be considerable evidence that it was widespread and synchronous, though some sources suggest a time differential of about 150 years between N and Southern hemisperes though still overlap.

So I suggest you opened your big mouth to make that comment and put both feet into it.

There seems to be considerable evidence that it was widespread and synchronous, though some sources suggest a time differential of about 150 years between N and Southern hemisperes though still overlap.

So do the fucking work and show it.

Nevermind that the professionals already have and all you've got motivating you is innuendo from professional delayers, cranks and paranoids leading you to believe you're being 'scammed'. That's your moronic bottom line.

There seems to be considerable evidence that it was widespread and synchronous

Then let's see it.

And please will you *respond* to # 76?

I have a bad feeling about your comprehension of this discussion, so I will repeat an essential sentence (with even more emphasis, at no extra charge!):

The attempt to compare regional and asynchronous warming events occurring over ~ 400yr with modern global average temperature is false equivalence.

Do you understand this?

Flat-Earth Society is always looking for new members, especially those adept at proving the Earth is flat, for example, known by selecting cricket pitches in UK and Australia, and finding they are flat ... and reporting their locations with GPS.

See this and the earlier falsification, flat-earth maps and dog astrology journal.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

Flat-Earth Society is always looking for new members, especially those adept at proving the Earth is flat, for example, known by selecting cricket pitches in UK and Australia, and finding they are flat … and reporting their locations with GPS.

Cheers John!
Whether true or not, that's got to be the comedy gem of the year.

Speaking of the Skydragons and the Flat Earthers - O'Sullivan vs. Monckton.

'Poacher turned gatekeeper' indeed! More unintended comedy gold...

Chek: I think bill's comment wins, I could never make that up.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

Well, Bill's is good - O'Sullivan is a natural clown.
But there's something very Steve Wright about GPS-wielding flat-earthers. To me anyway.

The witticism - intended or otherwise* - is O'Sullivans!

I'd be interested to know where the local Denialati stand in this clash. Duffer, SpamKan and Oily - the Friends of Blogscience - would be SkyDragons all the way, surely?

*I suspect otherwise; 'you are the veritable “poacher turned gatekeeper.” '


Thank you for the laugh of the week! I thought that Tim Curtin and Spangled Drongo were the epitomes of mangled basic scientific comprehension, but their efforts to captain ignorance are amateurish compared with yours.

A word of advice... If you can't distinguish between Fahrenheit and Celsius, you are incapable of informed comment on anything relating to climate science.

Permit me to let you in on a secret - the planet is warming, the oceans are acidifying, sea level is rising, and all of this is a result of human carbon emissions.

And just to bring you up to speed, there is no Easter bunny nor a Santa Claus, a stork did not deposit you on your parents' doorstep - and the homonymous reality was probably betrayed by a caoutchouc of dubious structural integrity.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2013 #permalink

Sou - that's a rather convenient lapse of memory, don't you think?

Flat-earthers with GPS ~
people who reject conservation of energy and quantum mechanics, using their computers and the Internet.

I.e., it might make sense to reject Greenhouse Effect warming if you were chiseling it in stone. That would at least be consistent with state of knowledge a while back.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

# 1, so is Watts lying in forgetting he mentioned it at the time,or is it his increasing dementia? Inquiring minds want to know....

I don't know Nick, why don't you ask him about it? Regardless King Lewie should have some solid unbiased material to work with, right? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

Here is a bit of info for the demented little cack barnturd.
These two links will supply her with the understanding that the Tasmanian Climate is following it's natural cycle, there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about the piddly bit of warming since the Little Ic Age and and her fear of the CO2 BOOoooogy MAAaaaan is completely unfounded.

Southern Annular Mode (SAM)

Warm-season temperatures since 1600 BC reconstructed
from Tasmanian tree rings and their relationship
to large-scale sea surface temperature anomalies


PS. barnturd, your groveling apology is not accepted, go away, bind yourself to a Huon pine with your gay bow-tie hold your breath and count to one million. lol

#1 Olaus

I expect Mann is furious

Oh, Olap, you keep just missing duffer and spots using weather instead of climate.

You could have told them they were wrong!

This Karen is actually turning me on. Must be a young, slender blóóóóónd, lol.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

I see Karen is reverting to type (used to work on Wall St, don't ya know).

And let's please not forget the definitive statement of SpamKan's sciencey skillz on the previous page - manages to outdo being unable to distinguish one year from another by not fathoming the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

Highly consistent with working on Wall Street in both cases. Thanks for 2008, dork!

Oh, and Brownnose, read the previous page. I know it's hard this whole thinking thing and everything, but do at least try to keep up...

Bill, so your a BIG supporter of Monsanto, their ethics parallels that of climate science, doncha tink

#10...on Wall Street? That explains the innumeracy.
Nice links,Kaz.. Now in your own words,explain why a beefed up SAM and warming north of 40S is going to make Tasmania all comfy.

..your a BIG supporter..

You're semi-literate.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

What about my big supporter of Monsanto, skuzzball?

English hard brain think is. Oh, Lord S has pointed it our already - it won't make any difference, mind...

@ Olaus Petri - multiply-repeated:

You seem to belong to the same school of compartmentalised “thinking” attended by our Kaz.

You apparently believe that increasing GAT (SST, LST, tropospheric T) will not have any effects on evaporation/precipitation etc.

Please explain why not.


You have not answered my earlier questions.

Let’s return to the fundamentally interesting question of what a warm “MWP” really means for fake sceptics.

What it means is trouble. Since there is no evidence for any *major* change in forcings, a warm “MWP” means that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. Highly.

This is anathema to the “it’s-not-CO2″ brigade, who are stuck in one of two camps:

- deny the physics (eg Sky Dragons)

- accept the physics but handwave an improbably low climate sensitivity

The trouble with improbably low climate sensitivities is that paleoclimate behaviour stops making any kind of sense. Nothing works, from the overall cooling trend characterising the Cenozoic to orbitally-triggered deglaciations to the “MWP” and LIA.

For all that to *work* you need at least a moderately sensitive climate system. And if we have one, then the radiative forcing from an ever-increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 means warming. Exactly as predicted.

- Do you think about this when you argue for a warm “MWP”?

- If so, how do you resolve the apparent contradictions?

- Do you deny the existence or efficacy of GHG forcing?

- If not, how *do* you square the circle?

Nick, thanks for taking the running while I was out making more popcorn. You have it exactly. The first column of next page (p.4) of that paper makes for fascinating reading: a farmer making £2000 from his 800 acre farm, butter selling for 224s per cwt, and ... oh, whats that? Temperatures in the district ranged from 60 to 78 degrees. Maybe Karen can use those to show it was hotter in 1923: it only got to 38 in the "Angry Summer", and it was 78, back in 1923 - that's 40 degrees colder in 90 years! Take that, global warming!

Of course an Australian newspaper was reporting in Fahrenheit - Nicks conversions are self-evidently correct, referring to 2.8 C ("5 degrees above freezing") and 15.6 C ("28 degrees"). Northern Star's readers in 1923 wouldn't know a celsius from a kilojoule! Only a complete fucking moron would think it was celsius!

And who thought it was celsius?

Actually, though "she" totally qualifies in other respects, the answer is "not Karen". "She" didn't think at all. She just reposted from her mate Rog "Tallbloke", who has nothing better to do now that he's too scared to trawl CG3 emails for misquotes, in case the Norfolk Constabulary decide he can assist them with their enquiries again.

Too funny....

I'm tempted to see if Karen will double down on her ridiculousness, but I won't be around much over the next week, so let me save a bit of bother.

The Northern Star article was a straight lift from the November 1922 Monthly Weather Review article on Hoel's expedition. A reprint can be found here: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/1922%20SvalbardWarming%20MONTHLY%20WEAT…

Oh, looky looky: "He pointed out that waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperature up to 15°"

As to the famous 81°29 N, last year you could have sailed in open water to above 86° N.

If only Karen's idiocy could be tapped for useful work, we would truly have limitless power :-)

#20 Aha, nice find Frank. And its currently 6 to 8C off the southern coasts of Svalbard...in April. That would have knocked Prof. Hoel's socks off.


You've never forgiven me for repeatedly pointing out your multiple sock-puppets, have you? Add to that your misogyny and Tourettes, and now it seems that homophobia is another of your character flaws.

Rent-free in your head, Spotty, rent-free...

KMS, here's a challenge for you. Explain the actual forcing(s) that is (are) causing the warming seen around the world. Explain the forcing(s) that is (are) causing the ocean acidification and sea level rise seen around the world.

No ambiguous, tangential, misinterpreting linkies to your mates' red herrings and downright dissemblings - just explain with appropriate parsimony why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and what is causing the observed climate change. Using your own words, and presenting your own understanding of the science.

If you can.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

Not so much "rent free" as "vacant lot".

Not so much “rent free” as “vacant lot”.

Your Intertoobz are in the post.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Apr 2013 #permalink

Gosh, don't tell me the ignoramuses are actually capable of feeling sufficient shame to have slunk off, tails between legs?

SpamKan, in particular, is an examplar of Denial - and, consequently, the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is appalling that these braying idiots simply won't shut up.

There's a good site at NSIDC that shows known Arctic sea ice boundaries going way back, derived from ship logs etc.


For example, this page shows known ice boundaries in jpg files for the month of August for various years (not all years) going back to 1751. Obviously the entire boundary wasn't mapped before satellites.


Regarding the latest on the Antarctic - best editorial ever from the Southland Times!

OPINION: The monstrous conspiracy of global warming, perpetrated by a scandalously huge majority of the scientific world, persists.

The latest outrageous deception is the attempt to ascribe some sort of significance to the "fact" that Antarctic Peninsula is melting in summers at a level not seen for 1000 years. This requires us to take on blind faith the assumption that this so-called continent exists outside the minds of alarmists.

To point to Antarctica's presence on maps is a fatuous nonsense. When was the last time a scientist came out and acknowledged that Antarctica didn't feature in the early maps used by some of the world's most intrepid and admired explorers? Has anyone even asked who first added it, and for what reasons? Certainly not the uncritical mainstream news media. What proof do we have, beyond anecdotal reports from those who claim to have been there - a perfect way for any ne'er-do-well who needs to cover his tracks to disappear from scrutiny for long stretches at a time?

(Best line 'If history has taught us anything - and the jury is still out on that...')

What they're (that's 'they are' in standard English abbreviation, SpamKan) doing is satirising you, Duffer, Spam + Oily, Prince Pseud, Brownnose, and every other one of you clowns. The scary thing is they're barely even exaggerating...

Is "Prince Pseud" our very own Master Of Science™ and serial fuckwit, Bradley Keyes?

Only the unkind would say so. No-one here, certainly.

Absolutely Bill. I'm sure we can all agree we hold our visiting fuckwitted idiots in the highest regard possible.

The two countries took special note of the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change and its worsening impacts, including the sharp rise in global average temperatures over the past century, the alarming acidification of our oceans, the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, and the striking incidence of extreme weather events occurring all over the world. Both sides recognize that, given the latest scientific understanding of accelerating climate change and the urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, forceful, nationally appropriate action by the United States and China – including large-scale cooperative action – is more critical than ever. Such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.

Joint U.S.-China Statement on Climate Change, Dept of State, Washington DC 13 April 2013

Game over for deniers.

I can only hope the Chinese manage to drag Obama into some real commitments!

And haven't the idiots gone quiet?

#35, some days even the thick heads and hides aren't thick enough.

Here's a question: why is a 'Member of the House of Lords', and a 'former advisor' to M Thatcher, no less, currently trudging around rural NZ lecturing to farmers? Shouldn't they have sent a plane to get such a VIP back to the funeral, or something? ;-)

bill @#35&#37: The silence of the sheep vs. Healey's comment about Howe, applied to the Potty Peer.

#40...zombie one reappears!

Golly Olly,that's a bit slow even for you. That article is just warmed over 'pause porn' from the last few weeks.

Apparently Richard Tol was the victim of a 'quote-mining disaster' ; after being quoted saying his 'confidence in the data' had fallen,he then said that the uncertainty made him 'more concerned about climate change' but Reuters chose to leave that bit out!

'They' might be 'on to it', OP,but they're 'up to it' again.

Bill, above.

To any reasonably sensible person Lawrence Solomon would appear to be either:

1) incompetent at even basic analysis, or
2) ignorant of basic of even basic analysis, or
3) a mendacious dissembler intent on torturing the truth until it begs for mercy.

Or a combination of any or all of the above.

If only he could attempt suit for libel. I'd relish the opportunity for my statement to be examined in court...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

O'Louse being boring (again) on the hiatus.

You should keep up. Hansen long ago pointed out that absent climatologically significant solar variability the forced response will mainly be modulated by aerosols and the rate at which energy diffuses into the oceans. In other words, what we see in terms of surface air temperature change will be determined on a "sliding scale" between the relative strengths of those two influences.

A short term increase in the rate at which energy diffuses into the upper ocean layer is apparently the main driver of the recent warming hiatus. Gueamas et al. (2013).

Strong warming trend soon to resume. The energy is *here*, *now* because of the way the laws of physics operate in the radiating atmosphere. It hasn't just vanished. Energy cannot do that. See "laws of physics", above.

You people. Really.

And just to be clear following on from BBD, the so-called 'hiatus' in surface temperatures hasn't meant a decrease in the energy imbalance or its effects.

The Arctic is melting at a rate not seen for thousands of years, nor do we know for sure if it will continue at the rates seen since 2007, while the 'hiatus' heat cuts through it like a buzz-saw.

Neither do we know if the series of extreme global weather events (or disasters if you prefer) is peaking or just getting started.

Meanwhile, deniers point to poorly supported news articles by economists instead of any of the actual climate related sciences and congratulate themselves on the type of 'cleverness' that is indistinguishable from stupidity.

BBD barking up the wrong tree yet again.

A paper by Miyahara discussing possible solar related parameters and climate.

“however, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs”


The 'anything but CO2' cranks never give up.

New paper by Steinhilber and Beer “Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years.

Reviewed here with pretty pictures

The activity they are interested in is solar magnetic activity.
Notice the rising portion of the graph for solar magnetic activity for the last 100 odd years to about 2000.
Oh look. It looks very similar to that in the Georgieva et al paper referenced earlier.
Remember the fantastic correlation between solar geomagnetic activity and temperature.
However this one is showing a massive dip in solar magnetic activity from about 2000 onwards.

Chek hits it right on the head. ITS NOT THE SUN. ITS NOT THE SUN. ITS NOT THE SUN.

And note how Rednose's last two links - the science of which is way over his simple head - do not dispute AGW in any way. Why he cites these studies is anyone's guess (mine is to convince people here that he is up on the science).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

#49 The Real Jeff Hardy

It is well over my simple little head JH, but at least I try not to bury my head in the sand to try and escape the solar geomagnetic activity.

OP @ #39

In that Reuters article the reporter concerned is being inconsistent for only last week they wrote an article with the title, “Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“.

See here for the explanations which answer your idiotic attempt at a wind-up: Reuters Ignores Its Own Accurate Reporting On Rapid Warming Of Oceans.

But please carry on being a buffoon as it helps us present the facts to those lurkers who don't post.

It is well over my simple little head JH, but at least I try not to bury my head in the sand to try and escape the solar geomagnetic activity.

You have your head so deep in the sand that you cannot even get his name right, what a twerp you are.


See # 46; # 49.

The link at # 45 says nothing relevant to modern warming. You don't understand your own links.

Your spamming from the HockeySHIT @ # 47 likewise. I've linked the relevant science for you three times now (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010). Read it, stoopid. Repetition is tedious.

# 48 Nobody pays much attention to TM or NL because they have indulged in partial analyses yielding uninformative results. Advise you join the club.

The only reason that solar activity is concidered, Rednose, is that it plays into the hands of the 'business-as-usual', 'do nothing and maximize short-term profits' brigade. The IPCC fully considered the influence of solar activity on the recent warming - and primarily rejected it.

End of story. Or it should have been, except for those who twist, distort, and mangle science to promote a pre-determined worldview, that is. They clutch at every straw they can to expunge the human fingerprint.

And the IPCC further concludes that the only major forcing that can account for most the rapid warming of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is increased atmsopheric C02 concentrations. No other forcing makes any sense on its own.

Humans have altered and are altering much of the planet's surface, profoudly affecting cycles of water and nutrients, as well as the fucntioning of ecosystems. This is beyond dispute. Yet a relatively small number of people try and argue that humans cannot affect global climate? Come on. Get real. We live in the Anthropocene. Human impacts are global and far reaching across the biosphere. The deniers are denying not only AGW but science. And they aren't doing it out of any deep rooted committment to the truth, as elusive as that often is, but to bolster political and economic agendas.

The corollary of linking AGW deniers with creationists and those who promote intelligent design is appropriate. Evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma wrote a book way back in 1982 entitled , "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution". In the preface he wrote that he found it hard to explain why, at that point in history, he felt compelled to write a book defending evolution, which by then he felt should have attained the status of scientific fact. Yet here we are, in 2013, and creationism is still on the agenda - perhaps more than it was in 1982!

I can say the same thing about climate science with respect to climate change. Its hard for many scientists to have to defend what should be obvious by now: that humans have the capacity to force climate over large scales of space and time. But, like the creation lobby, there are those who manipulate science to promote an alternate agenda. Watch this space: in 20 years, even as evidence for AGW grows by many factors, the GW deniers will still be out there trying to sow their gospel of doubt. Just as creationists will still proliferate.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

I see that # 48 is spamming from Bishop Hill.

Add that to spamming from HockeySHIT at # 47.

#48, really? Next step: carbon dioxide doesn't seem to exist at all.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

This rash of sensitivity underestimates is interesting. I suspect it is partly desperation and partly the late-dawning realisation among the more intelligent purveyors of doubt that such analyses are possible in the first place.

Paleoclimate-derived sensitivity estimates tend to centre around ~3C unless they are problematic. The problematic ones usually focus on LGM/Holocene climate change and *underestimate* LGM cooling relative to the Holocene, which leads to an underestimate of S.

The important thing about the most rigorous paleoclimate estimates is that they are essentially complete. The forcing change and response and all feedbacks have all played out. Everything is "in there", as it were.

The problem with estimates derived from modern observations is three-fold:

- the observations themselves are uncertain

- forcings and forcing change over the *relatively short* period of observation are uncertain

- the forcing is ongoing, the response is incomplete and feedbacks may not yet be fully engaged

This makes is all-too-easy to play games. It makes it possible to produce *defensible* under-estimates of S.

We are going to be stuck with this problem for a good while yet.

And talk about a small world - I've just realised that Nic Lewis (# 48) lives on the same road in Bath (UK) as my sister-in-law!

For those of you that can't read there are some pretty pictures down at the bottom


And here we have a look at the science and a bit perspective.


The continued lack of warming along with the ever increasing CO2 is going to be an historical laughing point, lol, science with never be the same.

I can see all of you guys at the climate cult meetings, hehe, all down on your knees praying for "HOT". :)

"The continued lack of warming along with the ever increasing CO2 is going to be an historical laughing point"

Only in the eyes of the scientific illiterates like you, Karen/Sunspot/Mack et al handpuppets. We have tirelessly exposed your profound ignorance with respect to temporal and spatial scales as well as cause-and-effect time lags and it just cannot sink into your skull. Like Duff, you seem to think that C02 put into the atmosphere today = a temperature rise tomorrow. This is so utterly inane and yet you and your brothers and sisters in rank stupidity continually do it, even after being corrected a million times.

Why don't you just bugger off with your ignorance?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

“The continued lack of warming"

What is the error bars of your estimation of a 0.0C per decade warming?


Instead of spamming the thread, read it.

You are a bore.

#60 should stick a thermometer in a pan of ice, set that on fire and so prove that whatever amount of heat you put into it water will never achieve values over freezing point.

Karen, you're second link is dismissed. Maybe you go to the plumber for a dental job, normal people will go to a dentist. Any clue why?

You're first link is your assessment again of the 1960's being the warmest decade globally and the 1770's the second warmest. In fact, you are stating that the 18th century was about as warm as the 20th (see fig 4, it's clear, isn't it).

Finally, the Netherlands used to be smothered in snow and ice winter and summer during the 1970's to 90's. At least for this the science is settled. You see, my father was an artist and he painted a lot of snowscapes in those years, nails it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

And Karen, pleaz do the lóóól- and stooOoopidthings again, they tickle me soooo down below :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

And Karen, Abdussamatov is a crank.

And Karen, Abdussamatov is a crank.

That's OK, so's Karen. Any crank theory going and Karen's right there.


It's always interesting to see where you get your dodgy spam from. The Abdussamatov link comes courtesy of something calling itself the Canadian Center of Science and Education which just happens to turn up on this reference list of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers.

Weird, eh?


#68 - and the adress, if any, just a post box number. Fraud publishers.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

Just got locked out of Bullshit Hill for pointing out that NL is extremely sensitive to the last six years of data.

And I mean *locked out*. IP barred!


"The only reason that solar activity is concidered, Rednose, is that it plays into the hands of the ‘business-as-usual’, ‘do nothing and maximize short-term profits’ brigade."

And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the "Tax and Spend" brigade, seeking any excuse to raise taxes and exert control. But its a political argument not a scientific one.

The IPCC4 rejection of solar activity was published in 2007.
The leaked draft in 2012 of IPCC5 had mixed views:
Chapter 7 aknowledged a significant solar influence while Chapter 8 downplayed it. Take your pick.

The work on solar activity I linked to above is more recent.

Safeguard the environment, but concreting over moors and bogs to install wind farms and access roads, "to save the world" is hardly beneficial for habitats and benefits no one except the developpers and landowners who mine the subsidies.
Has the Green movement got the right targets and the right policies???


Must be your endearing personality.

#70, must be one of those advocates of free speech, again. You can see what would happen if that sort really came to power. Dachau 2.0 and I godwin u not. Facts? They are taboo.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

#71, what should be abundantly clear is that solar activity HAS an influence on global temperature, but that this influence has gone down to a fifth or less of that of the change in CO2-concentration. Solar variation has become a negligable driver for climate change. Even a second Maunder minimum will mean no more than a ten, twenty years of halt in temp increase.
Even given any effect of such a minimum at all... Maunder and Dalton do not coincide neatly with the deepest parts of the LIA. Vulcanism is problably paramount for that kind of small climate changes.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

"Finally, the Netherlands used to be smothered in snow and ice winter and summer during the 1970′s to 90′s. At least for this the science is settled. You see, my father was an artist and he painted a lot of snowscapes in those years, nails it"

From this anecdotal evidence, overlayed with artistic expression, are we supposed to deduce that the "old cold weather" was caused by cold, but this "new modern cold weather" is caused by heat?

From this anecdotal evidence, overlayed with artistic expression, are we supposed to deduce that the “old cold weather” was caused by cold, but this “new modern cold weather” is caused by heat?

OK Rudolf, one for you: Jennifer Francis - Understanding the Jetstream - m..., with more comment here. But will you understand?

Not 'till hell freezes over is my guess.

"You have not been paying attention. Its the solar geomagnetic activity."

Tell us, duffer, do you know what "geo" means? Or what "helio" means?

" Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?"

Betteridge's Law applies.


"Lower winter temperatures were common in Europe during the second half of the 17th century,"

Yeah, can you get into the steam age at least, duffer?

PS correlation is not causation.

CT #82

Invoking JH's cause and effect time lag would account for that.

Invoking JH’s cause and effect time lag would account for that.

As would covering one eye and squinting the other while doing a backward flip. So, a not at all the ' fantastic correlation' you were claiming at #47 until you got caught out by pesky facts

Desperate, desperate grasping at straws. It's a tough, thankless life being a crank.

Yes but OHC! And I *have* mentioned this before, oh at least a couple of times...

Rednoise fail!

# 72 GFY!


"And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the “Tax and Spend”

Good grief, where to begin dismantling this ludicrous remark? Tax and spend? On what? Since when are scientists part of some vast movement to 'tax and spend'? The link between the fossil fuel lobby and climate change denial makes sense in the light of short-term profit maximization. These industries see any action aimed at curbing the use of fossil fuels as a threat to the way they do business - hence why they pour so much money into think tanks, public relations firms and astroturf groups to downplay the threat.

Now, Rednose (should be Redarse), where is the intractable link between many in the scientific community and 'tax and spend' policies? How does 'taxing and spending' directly benefit me???? The connection is non-existant. Illusory. But the deniers have to grasp at some invisible straw claiming the climate science community is also involved in some sort of political conspiracy.

Its not about taxing you moron; its about regulating a human activity that has potentially serious repercussions for the planet's climate control system and thus for the functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere. As I said earlier, we live in the Anthropocene: humans are a global force that is seriously affecting and altering the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle, co-opting more than 40 percent of net primary production, driving extinction rates some 100 to 1000 times higher than natural background rates, and, underpinning all of this, consuming natural capital as if there was no tomorrow. And yes, we have the capacity to alter regional (and down the road) global climate patterns. You'll be hard pressed to find a single environmental scientist who would disagree with any of this.

So are we all driven by the urge to 'tax and spend'? My golly, what a myopic statement. You really are dumb.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

# 71, Rednose said,"And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the “Tax and Spend” brigade, seeking any excuse to raise taxes and exert control."

Why seek an excuse to raise taxes? It's done in the Budget all the time without the need for a hoax.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 17 Apr 2013 #permalink

From the 'tax and spend' comment we can tell that Redarse is picking up memes from the US Tea Party, most likely via the GWPF's Atlantic Bridge connections.

'Tax and spend'? Thanks for reinforcing that your objections to reality are purely political.

"And it could also be argued that the CO2 mantra is espoused by the “Tax and Spend"

"But its a political argument not a scientific one."

"its about regulating a human activity that has potentially serious repercussions for the planet’s climate control system"

Meanwhile the climate ploughs on regardless.
Are we looking at the right control knob?



Have you given up trying to deny the MWP?

Bill #92

I was trying to avoid politics.
It does you no good arguing about politics, or religion.

Yeah, yeah, you just brought it up out of interest and then played the 'no-one here, certainly' card. That's how all the best 'good faith' arguments play out.

Hence your 'avoiding politics' claim is Bullshit. You're just another dreary Daily Mail angry reactionary who's terrified the future may no longer privilege the institutions and individuals you see as deserving... You lot are just basically otherwise-useless ballast that deliberately fouls the chances of our making any progress.


# 87



You lost the MWP argument just as you have lost every single other argument you have ever attempted to have with me. We can go back and get quotes if you lie about this.

OHC contradicts your solar rubbish. You lost that argument a good while back.

Now you are trolling.



"I was trying to avoid politics. It does you no good arguing about politics, or religion"

Nonsense. It is highly relevant here because science is being abused by those intent on denying one major anthropogenic stress. And those doing so are well funded and well organized and are not concerned with mid- to loong term scenarios but about short-term profit maximization. That;s why the same sordid cast of characters often pop up denying a range of threats to human health or to the environment: acid rain, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity,wetland loss and eutrophication, invasive species, the use of tobacco and others. Many of these characters have links to industries with an axe to grind.

So of course it is relevant, Rednose. As Chek said, many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing, including some of those who write in here. There views and those of the crackpots in the Tea Party are interchangeable. If there is one additional 'inconvenient truth', it is this.

I have read comments on climate change denial blogs from people like you and Brad and others who cliam that people like Ross McKitrick are 'indepenent analysts', ignoring the fact that McKitrick is affiliated with one of the most right wing free-market advocating think tanks in North Amercia: The Fraser Institute. I don't know how people like you can be so utterly naive and/or gullible, there you go.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2013 #permalink

"It is highly relevant here because science is being abused"

Seems both sides are shouting this out.

"many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing"

And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW seem to come from far end of the political left wing, "bring on world government and control." "Down with democracy and freedom of speech."

Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy.

Voted Lib-Dem myself.

"...science is being abused"

Seems both sides are shouting this out

One side does no science and abuses scientists.

He's at it again: 'It has been argued', which is a gutless way of saying 'and I think'.

Again: bullshit. Crediting the science crosses the political spectrum, as it should, and climate scientists come from all persuasions.

Bet then there's the Leninists of Capitalism, the actual other side of this debate: the Libuurtarian Loons, Free Market™ Fanatics and anti-environmentalist, 'we hate the future' hyper-curmudgeons, who are locked in a perpetual struggle with both science and reality, because neither will ever support their insane world-view. Some of them appear to imagine they're Solomon - 'I voted for the Lib-Dems': Gordon Bennet! - but you're probably the only person you're fooling.

What's the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment on the one atmosphere we possess, incidentally?


Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy.

You have no scientific case to discuss (see our entire previous exchange history, which I will be delighted to revisit, with generous and relevant illustrative quotation). You are clearly engaged in political advocacy *masquerading* as "scientific discussion".

That you think others here might be fooled is, frankly, risible.

... Was it something I said?


"And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW seem to come from far end of the political left wing, “bring on world government and control.” “Down with democracy and freedom of speech.”

The more you say, the deeper the pit of shit you sink into Rednose. Defend your statement. Name those at the 'far end of the political left wing' who are supporters of (C)AGW. I bracket the 'C' because that is a corporate funded think tank invention. Certainly it is likely that AGW will have serious effects on certain ecosystems across the biosphere, but the C has been added for some kind of political effect.

But back to my point: who is advocating 'world government control, whilst eliminating democracy and free speech'? This is a Tea Party-type narrative. Or it comes from Wise Use, or some other right wing crackpot source. There's absolutely no evidence for it at all. To be honest, its a form of insanity. Seems like you are afflicted, Rednose. Seek medical help.

On the other hand, I could provide reams of support of corporate-funded PR groups, think tanks and the like actively lobbying to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in the pursuit of privater profit.

I like where we are headed here, because Rednose comes up will swill that he cannot defend with any kind of evidence. It shows that he couldn't debate his way out of a sodden wet paper bag.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2013 #permalink

Climate sensitivity misunderestimates :-) seem to be in vogue at the moment.

I'm sure many here are familiar with Christopher Monckton's much-touted "American Physical Society paper" Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, which was indeed a submission to the APS.

I have to admit that I didn't know why the APS will accept absolutely anything, no matter how crazy.

It is a genuinely sad story.

#9 Sad indeed. Monckton took advantage of the APS' collegial discussion space to follow an audacious PR strategy that APS shouldn't be expected to anticipate. They didn't know who Monckton was,and what he'd try on. The editor[s] involved were certainly pretty annoyed at his antics.

It is a genuinely sad story.

Another victim of the US gun culture. The land where crackpots have easy access to guns.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Apr 2013 #permalink

Speaking of deniers. Anthony's telling fibs again and calling on Happer to do some sums. The science is beyond both of them.


And Monckton who claims to be a math wiz writes:
A characteristically elegant and beautifully simple analysis by Will Happer.

I suppose he got the "characteristically" part right - though the rest is a pile of hogwash.

I hear Monckton is quitting the entertainment business. Or at least giving up his tours. Hope so.

And for all those who don't understand how downright perverse, devious and dishonest, not to mention behaving like sovereign rogue states the oil companies are, here is some news from Arkansas .

What are they trying to hide. Standard procedure now as noted with the Deep Water business is to cordon off from those who might ask legitimate but awkward questions.

There is a ' War of the Worlds' with the fossil fuel oligarchs playing the role of the Martians.

Not only that having wriggled out of responsibility for cleaning up THEIR mess whilst making inane claims about impacts whilst Exxon et. al. hang on to fossil fuel subsides and tax breaks by buying 'Democracy',

Once again, analysis has discovered that Big Oil has paid to secure their yea votes on Keystone, with members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who voted to approve H.R.3 having received eight times more in career contributions from the oil and gas industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, members voting to approve the pipeline received $8,686,427 while members voting against received only $1,020,631.

So all you who deny that oil and coal are buying influence to perpetuate their filthy ways take note - and that includes you Keyes.

Continuing on a theme from my above well some GOP idiot had to come out with something inane as seen here Oklahoma Congressman: ExxonMobil ‘Should Be Patted On The Back’ For Arkansas Oil Spill. Such are the socio-paths that have been put in authority above their educated capacity Put there by the funds from other socio-paths in fossil industries

These industries and their placemen do not care about the future of biosphere or that many are going to be adversely affected whilst the profits go to the already rich and those at the extraction sites and along transport route are hit with the 'externalities' as is clearly illustrated by mountain top removal. The conversion of ever larger areas of the planet into a version of Mordor is not the future I want for my grandchildren.

Whilst idiots like the above belong to that group who are trying hard to avoid public understanding of Wind Vs. Oil Tax Credits.

Those who are trying to argue against the science of climate change as currently understood should wake up and realise that they are being duped many times over, unless they are a part of that evil cabal, and being slapped with the costs of clean up whilst tax exemption for the fossil industries means that YOU are also paying more tax to compensate all whilst paying inflated energy costs.

So are you the dupes or are you amongst the evil. Time to call.

Mordor isn't what they want for their children either. But by making a shitload of cash turning earth into Mordor will ensure that their children can buy the nice bits to live in.

Inheritance tax of 100% would solve this problem and so many more.

They'd find a way to cheat. As in fact they do now, here in the UK. They buy vast tracts of agricultural land and pass that on to their heirs. It is exempt from IHT.

Severely diminishing returns, though. There's only so much land and if you put £1Bn into it but can't make more than £10Mil per year off it, it's not going to be worth it.

What the bastards managed to achieve in the UK was huge land price inflation for agricultural land. Their cheating actually increased the value of the asset they can bequeath - tax-free - to their heirs.

It still has to be farmed, and that can still only bring in so much money. If it gives the same monthly return as an investment in a bank at a value 1/10th the "list price", it isn't giving you an investment worth the list price.

Property already is taxed and there are several responsibilities in it (though these are being killed off by the toffs both in the labour party as well as the traditional tory one). If they don't keep the land useful, they can lose it entirely.

And climate change will f-k up the land in most places too.

APS and Monckton:
This happened in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, APS FPS.
The editors, neither climate knowledgeable, wanted to have an issue with best arguments from both sides, as there is a tiny fraction of physicists, mostly angry old guys, who reject AGW.
They asked friends and participants in APS FOS for suggestions. Gerald Marsh (whose views turn out to be strong) gave them a list that included Freeman Dyson, other physicists and Monckton. All asked declined, except Monckton.
The editors just assumed he was done Brit physicist, addressed him as Dr Monckton, an error that did not get corrected.

When I saw the article, I alerted a Nobel physicist of acquaintance,who raised the issue, strongly, within half an hour. At least one of the editors was horrified, as was the APS leadership. Editors were replaced.

However, this goes in all the time: learned societies like APS have special interest groups and local chapters.
Sometimes junk filters through by accident, as happened here, but occasionally somebody gets in control in a volunteer job.
Laurence Gould, at U of Hartford, got Monckton invited to speak, was involved in 2009 APS petition and spoke at Heartland conference. For years, until the latest issue, he was coeditor of the APS New England Section newsletter, often featuring Fred Singer, etc.

But the APS FPS fiasco was an accident.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Apr 2013 #permalink

John Mashey

Thank you for the insight and apologies for any potential misrepresentation in my # 9.

The facts matter, as we all know.

"as there is a tiny fraction of physicists, mostly angry old guys, who reject AGW"

Don't I know it. There are several of these old fossils here in Holland who fir the bill...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2013 #permalink

Sou, those like Ollier deserve to be loudly wrist-slapped for they should know better and probably do.

There really is no longer any excuse for such behaviour, behaviour that helps feed propagandists like Watts and Delingpole.

As for Denmor's

"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

Now who does that remind us of? For Huxley exchange Feynman.

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I just came across this rather interesting half-hour presentation on the dynamics of sea level rise (from ice sheets melting), by Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard University:

Readers who followed Spangles the Clown's "sea level aggressively seeking equilibrium" twaddle from a few months back will also find it amusing, in that this illustrates the extent to which the gravitational geoid evolves over time.

While he covers several seperate factors, I think the presentation misses that SLR will tend to be greater at the equator due to inertia (I don't know by how much), but in other respects is quite illuminating.

Thanks, Frank. Looks good.

On another note (my update!), I don't normally bother with Bob "ENSO" Tisdale, but his little post about models made it too easy. Interesting comparisons, if they are accurate (I don't know). But his 'analysis' of differences leaves much to be desired.


Lionel #28, I agree. I sent a letter to the Head of School yesterday. I should have sent it to the Dean - will do that later today.

re: Ollier
Unless you can catch someone on clear academic fraud (and maybe that's possible), just complaining to administrators doesn't get very far.

If somebody cares, they might just:
a) Contact the journal, and point out that they have destroyed their own reputation for peer review. Journals without competence in a topic should not publish works on it. Copy de Gruyter. OR
b) Do a blog post showing that.
That is, they are free to publish what they like, even to thje point of damaging their reputation, i.e., this is not asking for a retraction.

I think it's basically incompetence on the part of a Polish geography journal run by one university:
The E-i-C, 2 Managing Editors, and 2 Executive Editors are all from Adam Mickiewwicz U in Poland.

They may be eager to get papers, and not overly competent about climate science, of which they publish little.
I have seen this before: climate anti-science paper slipped through weak peer review/editorial process at a marginal journal.
The paper is actually labeled a "Polemic Paper," a curious category.

"Quaestiones Geographicae was established in 1974 as an annual journal of the Institute of Geography, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland. Its founder and first editor was Professor Stefan Kozarski. Initially the scope of the journal covered issues in both physical and socio-economic geography; since 1982, exclusively physical geography. In 2006 there appeared the idea of a return to the original conception of the journal, although in a somewhat modified organisational form.
Quaestiones Geographicae publishes research results of wide interest in the following fields:
physical geography,
economic and human geography,
spatial management and planning,
sustainable development (including regional and local development),
environmental science,
GIS and geoinformation, and
tourism and recreation.

Aims and Scope

Why subscribe and read

premier source of high quality geographical research;
source of the latest news, achievements and research inspirations from full scope of physical and human geography;
international forum for the dissemination of research data from various areas of geography;
designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas between researchers from different countries;
excellent articles authored by researchers from all over the world, who appreciate our fast, fair and constructive peer review provided by experts in all fields of geography;

Why submit

transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review,
language assistance for authors from non-English speaking regions,
efficient route to fast-track publication.

Rejection Rate

20% - 30%""

By John Mashey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2013 #permalink

This is what I wrote:

I am writing to draw your attention to a recent "polemic paper" by one of your honorary adjunct professors, Cliff Ollier. The paper is a gish gallop of climate science denial - which does unfortunately occur from time to time in little known 'journals'. However it is being circulated on various popular anti-science blogs and there is a (faint) risk it will bring your University into disrepute. I do not believe that 'academic freedom' covers promoting disinformation.

The paper lists UWA under Ollier's name, implying endorsement - though I'm sure that's not the case. And I notice that on the UWA website, the author has listed another paper in the same journal as being "peer reviewed". If the journal does any peer review it is obviously not by any 'peers' in climate science.

Ollier's paper is:Global warming and climate change: Science and Politics, pp. 61-66, of Volume 32, Issue 1 of Quaestiones Geographicae

@John Mashey,
All true re the complaint, but being able to call oneself an "Honorary Research Fellow" is at the discretion of the University and of fixed term. Perhaps alerting the faculty will persuade them to not give him another term. Or not :(

Another nail in the deniers coffin at RC,

"In a major step forward in proxy data synthesis, the PAst Global Changes (PAGES) 2k Consortium has just published a suite of continental scale reconstructions of temperature for the past two millennia in Nature Geoscience...

...The main conclusion of the study is that the most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the 19th century, and which was followed by a warming trend in the 20th C. The 20th century in the reconstructions ranks as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in at least ~1400 years. Interestingly, temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Cool 30-year periods between the years 830 and 1910 CE were particularly pronounced during times of weak solar activity and strong tropical volcanic eruptions and especially if both phenomena often occurred simultaneously.

The key takeway is:
"For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age."


So, what you're saying is, Mike Mann didn't 'disappear' the MWP? ;-)

Golly; that's one of the Core Articles of the Faith for the Church of Denial.

A church that has been whittled down until only the most fervent - and often incoherent - zealots are left to propagate their (that's the third-person plural possessive pronoun, SpamKan) Holy Truth; see above.

So, I think we can safely anticipate a trebling-down; more claims of conspiracy, nuancing that would bring a blush to the cheek of a Creationist, and general Bad Faith.

Still, should be fun, in a train-wrecky sort of way...

Bill, rather than heads exploding en masse amongst denialists we'll simply see an expansion of the conspiracy to include some fig leaf that allows them to dismiss the new study as well. An interesting case study might be those people whose websites or books embed the allusion that the "hockey stick" is/was broken/fraudulent in their titles (never mind the content). I very much doubt you're going to see websites being renamed and books recalled...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Apr 2013 #permalink

It is highly relevant here because science is being abused

"Seems both sides are shouting this out."

Shouting things out has nothing to do with whether they are true. It is true that deniers are abusing science.

many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing

"And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW"

It has been argued that humans haven't landed on the moon; whether something has been argued is only relevant to fools; intelligent people care about whether the arguments are valid.

And "CAGW" is denier language; rational people don't use it.

"Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy."

Oh dear, yes, we must not advocate for rational evidence-based policies that might mean a better chance of future generations having a livable planet ... that would be an awful thing to do.

"Voted Lib-Dem myself."

It doesn't mean you're not a dolt.

Popping my head in here and I see the same quite intelligent people still arguing with some of the stupidest cretins on the planet. Olaus? Karen? They are so beneath you folks.

Here's another challenge for those who hold sacred the Central Tenets of the Church of Denial.

See if you can spot the malevolent ideologues and totalitarian political apparatchiks in this movie.

Truly, you are caricatures that live in a cartoon.

The key takeway is:
“For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

So much for any flack from the usual suspect here that has its roots in the Soon, Baliunas and Idso, Idso, Idso camp.

Here are some pointers for them to start with, for neophyte Keyes too,:

Sallie Baliunas, pick up on the others mentioned by following links therein.

Now here is some on the Idso Family The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial - No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family) - & CO2 Science.


Your link to a blog from 2009 managed to get 5 comments.
This one caught my attention:

"Boy, is this boring---
I ask again---what's the point? Do you think you can will global warming into existence based on who opposes it?

The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade. Why don't you try arguing with Mr. Mercury?

This is the same mistake Hadley CRU made---politics is not science and science cannot be politics. When it is, we default to superstition and abuse.

I am sure that the Aztec priests claimed a direct correlation between the number of virgins and warriors sacrificed and the amount of rainfall in any given year."


And what of Pages 2k, Mr. Lib-Dem voter?

Also, watch the film I provided the link to. By which I mean actually watch it, don't just claim to (we get a lot of that here). Then tell us who's playing politics...

But, of course, to assess the validity of the science, you have to have some capacity to discern science from, say, tendentious narrative, which I don't believe you, or any other fellow-member of your benighted congregation, possesses.

Projection is what it's called - you see your own ugly souls in the mirror...

"Do you think you can will global warming into existence based on who opposes it? "


Then again, since CO2 increases will do that just fine, why is "will" involved?

The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

Oh goody - another tripe repeater. So Redarse, given that you claim the Earth has been 'cooling' - where did the heat come from that accelerated the decline in Arctic sea ice from a then record low in summer 2007 to an even greater record low in summer 2012?
Oh and p.s., before you trot out the usual crap, storms don't melt ice.

"The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade."

It's warmed 0.06C from 2011-2012.

# 43

Sigh. For the nth time:


"Global warming" is not just surface air temperature.

Can you understand nothing at all?

Try this: take a ten year temperature time series. Include a powerful "double-dip" La Nina at the end. What do you think happens to the linear trend? Now try for the intellectual leap: try to understand that this short linear trend is uninformative because it is short and because of the LNs at the end.

Try to *think*.

To be clear: PAGES2K is the end of the road for the denialist lies and framing about "getting rid of the MWP".

That dog is now dead.

There never was a global *and* synchronous "MWP" to "get rid of" in the first place. Teh Stupid has been conned blind by the climate liars.

I don't suppose there's the remotest chance that an enraged and ashamed Teh Stupid will now rise up and tear the professional liars to shreds. But it's a lovely thought, all the same.

I'm laughing long and loud at Bradders though. Silly bugger.

Maybe duffer should say why the temperature graph goes up and down all the time. The basic problem seems to be he has absolutely no idea what is going.

Duffer, here's something you need to know: the air temperature record depends on much more than just the CO2 levels.

Here's a second thing you need to know: just because something is not the only cause of something else doesn't mean it has no effect on that thing.

Boy is this boring.

Well looks like I was not the only one thinking that.
Traffic seems to have picked up.

Monckton meets people with even more 'interesting' ideas than his own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9HTyasopo

The comments on the video show quite clearly that some people are even further down the rabbit hole than climate deniers.

What is interesting is the fact that Monckton will happily endorse several flavours of climate denialism, occasionally hinting at a global conspiracy (Agenda 21 etc.), but will not accept such wacky theories as chemtrails. It must make him uncomfortable to be lauded by the conspiracy theorists that believe such things. It's clear, in fact, that he understands the value of peer review and the scientific method. It's just that when applied to climate change he is very, very selective in the papers he accepts - at least publicly.

The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade. Why don’t you try arguing with Mr. Mercury?

Apart from anything else thermometers only inform on sensible heat.

Do you know why that matters?


Time you learned to blockquote.

Start with one of these

then enter your text string followed by
one of these

Simple. Yes.

Not sure what "one of these" is.
But thanks for trying

HTML tag for "blockquote":

(blockquote)Text in quotation.(/blockquote)

*Replace* standard brackets with the chevron type.

TEST Testing, testing, testing.

The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

You're lying or stupid. Oh, wait ... you're both.

The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

There is no statistically significant cooling over any measured period ending now.

By denialist logic (/irony), this means there is no cooling over any period ending now.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Apr 2013 #permalink

TEST Testing, testing, testing

Which is what I was doing and saw it had failed was but taken ill before I could fix (well I am ill all the time but then there are bad spells). Thanks BBD..

Rudolf re' thermometers and sensible heat why it matters.

Here is one reason, from which others cascade:

Arctic Ice Mass Loss Visualized

Another reason for why Keyes' deluges of words in Gish-gallops of faux-arguments are totally irrelevant.

# 61 No problem, Lionel. Sorry to hear you were off colour.

Thanks again for that Lionel, BBD also. Hope you are feeling a bit better now.
I was trying to show off and put a heading in as well but it didn't quite come off.

Sou: ahh, honorary research fellow, we'll, let's hope.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 23 Apr 2013 #permalink

Those of us who've figured young Dana is going places should check here...

(Along with Boncker's best mate!)

bill @ #67

As expected CP has picked up on this In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms.

Oh look. Dana Nuccitelli a science literate colleague of that other scientific literate John Cook have raised awareness that the myth of a slowdown in global warming is just that a myth. No wonder Keyes has to keep trying to shoot the messenger particularly if allied to SkS.

Facts, cannot have those buzzing about when we can make up perfectly good Gish-gallops of faux-arguments and spread them here, there and everywhere which makes me [Keyes] feel good therefore I [Keyes] must look good.

Notably the SkS post on the new Graun blog suggests Graham Readfearn is also about to be given a guernsey; 'Planet Oz' being the working title...

It's always good to see talented pro-science communicators like DN, JA and GR achieving greater visibility. I only wish the editors of the right-wing press would recall that little thing about journalistic balance.

We hear much about this when it is used as the justification for placing the views of a lying crank/contrarian outlier alongside expositions of the state of scientific understanding of climate change - creating the misleading impression that the views of the lying crank/contrarian outlier are of equal weight to those of the scientist.

Yet no gig for Nuccitelli, Abraham or Readfearn at the Telegraph, providing journalistic balance to Delingpole and Booker.

How... unbalanced.

Don't forget BBD that the Torygraph (and the Daily Hatemail) are actually aimed at the unbalanced, if not downright insane.

Karen comes back with some typical bullshit from about the most anti-scientific blog out there. This is her/ihis/its 'refuge' for ignorance. Nothing new there, though, for old Karen.

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

And we should think that Tony has it right this time (despite a terrible track record) why, spots?

I'm unable to read the WTFWT post (crank and hate sites are blocked on this educational network) but ... Williwatts complaining of someone misleading and misinforming?
There goes yet another industrial strength irony meter.

One point, it's a Watts-Tisdale tagteam, world championship stupid.

Karen is like a fly; whenever she's buzzing enthusiastically you always know what she's found is a nice fresh steaming pile of shit!

Endorsement form the likes of you, SpamKan, is the kiss of death.

Meanwhile the SkS kids steam ahead again.

WTFIT crank Bob Tisdale claims that global warming is caused by ENSO.

ENSO works as a recharge-discharge oscillator (with La Niña as the recharge mode and El Niño as the discharge mode)

Given that ENSO has been around for 130,000 years or more, the fact that the warming (after a long cooling) only started in the 20th century is not explained by sideshow Bob.

Our knowledge of ENSO in the paleoclimate record has expanded rapidly within the last 5 years. The ENSO cycle is present in all relevant records,
going back 130 kyr.

The evolution of El Niño, past and future,Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164 (2004) 1-10

I noticed that Deltoid regular Olaus Petri had his mouth wide open in the presence of Bob.
Olaus - "A Climate scare Bob exposed by Climate scientist Bob. Well done Dr. Tisdale!"
Tisdale - "Thanks for the kind words and the degree…but I do not have a doctorate."

I wondeed why there was a suddenly influx of cranks into the comments appended to Dana's article. Revenge of the Wattards.

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

@John Mashey #66.

Seems there's room for it :)

Well, things are looking as bleak as ever, if not worse.

We've got Curry speaking yarbles to power in Washington, various misunderestimates (sic) of climate sensitivity in the journals and the press and blogosphere full of rubbish about same.

Not good.

hmmm.........seems like you boyz are struggling to keep a lid on your lie box :)

and,,, um...hahaha Sou, you really can tell a whopper lol

It's quite obvious that you have never had a bushfire come at you hehe,

no wonder no one comments at your bog.

"seems like you boyz are struggling to keep a lid on your lie box"

Yes, spots, however, we're not *trying* to put a lid on you, so failing to do so is hardly "struggling".

hey woW, here some tantalizing tidbits for you honey :)

The (US) tally to present for the last 6 weeks

High temperature records: 1214

Low temperature records: 3464

High minimum temperature records: 1957

Low maximum temperature records: 4323

Snowfall records: 2000

There is no corresponding anti-snowfall record.

h/t to Robert W. Felix at iceagenow.com


Glaciations do not begin with the non-linear melt of the Arctic ice cap, Karen.

A disrupted polar vortex during the winter *does* lead to spells of cold weather in the NH mid-latitudes.

I think you need to think about this ;-)

Glaciations do not begin with global OHC increasing all the way down to 2000m either...

Nor with the majority of the world's glaciers in recession...

This "ice age is coming" meme is beyond stupid. It is deep in the Land Of Crank.

How can you deal in such rubbish? Have you no shred of intellectual integrity at all?

BBd, does that mean that the cute little polar bears are moving south ? They are breeding like flies I hear.

Anyway, since you are waving temperature records around, let's look at the bigger picture. The contiguous US is less that 2% of the Earth's surface area. This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 - 2011.

This is not what the beginning of a glaciation looks like, Karen.


Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy (2012)

“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.

# 87

Blather. Respond like an adult or fuck off.

Disrupted polar vortex. Read the words.

# 85

I've had more than one bushfire "coming at me", Karen. I don't know what you think is "obvious" otherwise.

I've also got climate change "coming at me". Difference between you and me is that I'm not paralysed by fear into denying the fact.

"I’ve also got climate change “coming at me”. Difference between you and me is that I’m not paralysed by fear into denying the fact."

Poor baby, I see that your a trader, lol

How did you much did you lose on renewables ?

lol...are you trying to prop up the carbon markets...hehehe, good luck luv :)

"The (US) tally to present for the last 6 weeks"


Seriously, weakest posting tirade from you ever, spots.

woW I seem to recall that the few times there has been a slightly warm spring and the cherry picking trees have started to blossom one hour early barnturd would wave his puny little hands (with his gloveywuvvies on) and scream to us all that global warming is going burn us all to hell.....WAH WAH WAH WAH, hehehe WAAAAHHHHHHH
its coming qwickkker than weeeee THOUGHT AAAHHHhhhhhhhh.

Well now its colder woW :)

Are you blind as well as a cretin, Karen?

# 89

# 85 repeated at # 89

Polar vortex
Polar vortex
Polar vortex

Read the words, Karen.