I have to disagree BBD.
Monckton is a buffoon.
Delingpole is a buffon.
Tisdale is a buffoon.
SpamKan isn't even the dogshit under Monckton's shoe, just a mindless repeaterbot, hence the established nick.
So what 'Boris' is saying is that when the forthcoming paper on
surface temperature dependencies on global albedo changes due to changes in cloud cover and global tree shadow change
in a high-profile climatology journal - which should doubtlessly be so 'Skeptic'-friendly it'll be made sticky at Willard Tony's place, so we won't miss it - he'll be the lead author of said paper?
And identifiably a 'Senior Climatology Scientist' and project 'boss'?
Chek (aka micro-turd) shouldn't you be in school or are you wagging it?
I agree with your buffoon list no probs, but doesn't mean that little punk bedwetters such as yourself are any better.
Look we all might have been involved in land surface feedback papers but don't tug yourself that it's actually serious science. Validated by whom - your Mum probably. It's simply dog shit if the models are wrong. And with what you're likely putting in for evaporation they are. I supposed it will be published in some E&E equivalent of a soft alarmist review journal.
The score so far unrebutted: Models are wrong on global temperature evolution. We don't know why. Tropospheric hotspot missing (wind shear and stats bullshit withstanding), Evaporation in wrong direction, Antarctic sea ice not predicted to be increasing. Stratospheric temperature trend not cooperating. . Sea level not accelerating.
Tell me what you have going for you ? Go on prosecute your argument or maybe it's time for class?
But given you're a CMIP5 rocket scientist - inform us on flux adjustment s or the various paramaterisations and defend their use? Sound of crickets, choking and/or hand waving.
Well what a bunch of non comments – El Gordo why do you bother with these kids. They’re clueless mate. Listen to the smug back slapping and inability to advance and argument. Death by quips. Refer to deniers. Appeal to authority – all the usual shit from people who don’t know.
The problem is dough boys is that the CMIP5 models are FALSIFIED !
This, from the guy who used Der Spiegel and "Lucia" as his appeal to authority.
Look guys, it’s simple with climate: sun heats, clouds cool.
This repetition of an already refuted claim based on very simple evidence and logic, from the troll who just tried to claim it wasn't him allegorically hanging around the poker machine because it's "due", by projecting that onto someone else.
These allegedly "heavy duty" irony meters just don't cut it. Anyone know where I can get a full-on industrial version?
The sea surface temp hiatus is a problem for you, heat rises and this clearly is not happening,...
No, that's a problem for your "logic". "Heat rises" refers to a gas, Karen. Things are more complex in a liquid, especially a more complex one like seawater.
In seawater evaporation levels affect salinity and salinity affects density and relative density (amongst other things) affects what rises and what falls. That can lead to "heat falls" rather than "heat rises".
And, as you helpfully pointed out last week some time, although you don't seem to have understood what it means for your argument, changes in wind patterns can drive ocean mixing. So on that basis alone it's wrong to say that increasing ocean heat content MUST mean warming SSTs.
Also, the idea that Gordon is somehow, what?, a competent debater, well-versed in the issues, is comical.
Tell you what, let's sponsor him to wander over to RealClimate and give them what for! Truly a 'popcorn' notion!
I still laugh aloud - for real, SpamKan, not as some hollow ritual - every time the Maclean prediction pops up on that animated gif! And yet we're debating people who credit such spectacular and aphysical eventualities as feasible. Because the models are FALSIFIED!, people!... Will no-one think of The Children?!?!
Sorry, this is the guy who blew into town claiming others were arguing from authority? And running a bog-standard conspiracy - 'FALSIFICATION!' - theory?
And, let's be clear: you're saying that Ms. Liljegren outranks Lindzen?
Regardless of whether that's true or not it's still a blatant cherrypick. Which you then ignore. And then pretend that it's everyone else who isn't willing to have a straight discussion. Hmmm....
The desperate deep heat with massive error bars.
You raised von Storch's interview, but don't seem to have read the part where he says more heat is going into the deep ocean than previously thought. So I guess you think von Storch is full of it? Would have saved a lot of time if you'd just said that right up front ;-)
Tropospheric hotspot missing in action.
Unsubstantiated claim. Also, not tied to anthropogenic factors, so you might want to explain why you think your claim is significant in this context. Also, IIRC, derived from fairly basic climate principles (changes in lapse rate) so not predicted solely by climate models (again, explanation of the significance you attach to it is missing).
Also AFAIK not missing in action except perhaps in the tropics and even there only in the long term trends - and there (see previous sentences, amongst other analysis) it's most likely due to data quality issues (also try the Advanced tab).
Is this the poor (Nova-esque, even) quality of argument you want to be known for? Oh, wait:
Listen to the smug back slapping and inability to advance and argument.
And now you’re using Cook as an appeal to authority.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Every now and then we get someone who has learned to parrot the terms that describe what is and what is not valid scientific debate. They tend to spend most of their time characterising other people as using the invalid methods but they never demonstrate that the arguments they label as invalid are actually invalid. They give every sign of not knowing what the terms mean, but of wielding them in some kind of Cargo Cult debating style as a magic incantation that will deliver desirable goods from the sk...er, make their positions the most consistent with the evidence.
You're starting to give that kind of impression, so if you want to be taken seriously...lift your game.
The onus is on you to make a serious argument. So far you've merely made cartoon sketches, and people have responded with an appropriate level of seriousness and rigour. This isn't evidence that they have "zero ability to defend", it's evidence that you seem to prefer to project inability to make your case onto other people to actually making your case. Wake me up when that changes.
Luke, if you claim CMIP5 models are falsified, why do you refer to von Storch who *denies* they are falsified? (even though he also largely ignores the OHC data to 2000 meters)
Also, your claim "Tropospheric hotspot missing (wind shear and stats bullshit withstanding)"
sounds a lot like: "dismiss the evidence when it doesn't fit". The obvious flaw in the arguments of those who claim the satellites show there is no tropical(!) tropospheric hotspot is that basic science shows there should be one regardless of the cause of the warming of the lower troposphere. Now, I say "the warming" because those same satellites show the lower troposphere is warming.
You also ignore Johnson & Xie (2010), who have taken yet another approach to study whether there is a tropical tropospheric hotspot based on looking at precipitation and correlation with SST, and concluded that there *must* be such a hotspot.
"Well, you can cast doubt on the early parts of all records, but not on the latest ARGO data.
OHC 0 – 2000m; 2005 – 2013
"What does this *demonstrate*? "
You tell me BBd,
Howz about you demonstrate a chart graduated in celsius from the same raw data used to calculate the OHC,
the 1998 is a red herring in this instance. You can pick a slightly longer period and the answer is the same. You can make excuses about deep heat but the fact is the observed results are unexpected and not predicted by the models. What we're getting now is a but but but ..... it might be this. It might be that. You don't know.Read von Storch's paper.
von Storch offers mutliple explanations in his paper. But we really don't know. He doesn't say the models are falsified. I never said he did.
You can to contort yourself in knots to defend the trop hotspot non-existence. Johnson and Xie conclude there "must" be a hotspot. I just sigh. There must be eh? They resort to an "indirect" measurement. Sorry - hardly convincing and more squirming and wiggling.
And von Storch also says scientists should stop preaching like sermons - and you lot should consider the same. Your track record is hardly impressive.
Lotharsson this blog used to be worth attending - it is no longer. It's just another nasty spiteful little place. An anti-Nova-esque variant.
You can pick a slightly longer period and the answer is the same.
A "slightly longer period" isn't sufficient to stop it being a cherry-pick, nor does it rescue the poor quality of your argument.
...the fact is the observed results are unexpected and not predicted by the models.
Wait, wait, you mean models aren't super excellent in all possible respects? Well, blow me down with a very small feather!
You do know that models are models, right? That means they are generally expected to have areas where they don't correspond as closely as in others - and in this case, deep ocean heat appears to be one of them.
And if it is, then that explains why surface temperatures in models may look higher than recent observations - the heat energy is being distributed differently from the way the models do it, an outcome that I reckon would surprise almost no-one involved in model-making and model evaluation.
And in that case, the bleating that "the models are falsified" is foolish - or at least vastly over-simplified to the point of being misleading or leading to invalid conclusions.
It's also foolish because models aren't assessed on whether they are "right" or "wrong", "true" or "falsified", but on how useful they are - on a multitude of different metrics.
And because none of this affects the case for concern about anthropogenic climate change.
And because you can remove most of the effects of three sources of natural variability from the surface temperature record and see the underlying trend continues, even over the 15 years in question. That is pretty suggestive that natural variability is responsible for most of the phenomenon that von Storch is exploiting (and yes, it's well known that reproducing short term natural variability is not done well by the models).
Delving into the strengths and limitations of the models is interesting if you're into that kind of thing, and scientists are keen to improve the limitations where possible - but if you are actually trying to have that kind of discussion you're (a) doing it very badly by giving off all sorts of troll indicators and (b) arguably doing it in the wrong forum, given that there are places where model makers discuss that kind of thing.
You can to contort yourself in knots to defend the trop hotspot non-existence.
Au contraire.
You are asserting non-existence based on data that is inconclusive for long term trends (but demonstrates its existence over shorter time periods). That is fallacious. Your position also calls into question very basic climate science on the basis of data that isn't the highest quality - that is foolish, given that you have provided no other evidence to support your position.
And von Storch also says scientists should stop preaching like sermons – and you lot should consider the same.
Tone trolling, either from you or from von Storch is worthless. Especially dressed up in religious language, when most of the argument from "you lot" here refers back to the scientific evidence and most of your own argumentation has consisted of naked assertion.
You're really not covering yourself in glory here. I suspect that for you this place really isn't worth attending. (Anyone want to bet he doesn't stick the flounce?)
Luke, you said the CMIP5 models were falsified AND you referred to Von Storch's opinion as relevant for your opinion. The two contradict.
Did you read Johnson & Xie? *basic* physics says the tropical tropospheric hotspot must be there for their analysis to give the results they obtain. If it weren't there, any and all weather models contain a fatal flaw that would mean they could not ever work.
the fact is the observed results are unexpected and not predicted by the models.
Are you referring to the last decade having "only" 0.1C increase in atmospheric temperature instead of the average run of models showing an average 2C per century increase for the current century?
If you look carefully at those (admittedly horrible and confusing) spaghetti graphics you will find that every. single. line. - yes, I know it's hard to trace each line - shows at least one period of 10-15 years where temperature plateaus or falls. So I'm not sure what your issue is here.
Yep. I was waiting to see whether his reaction would indicate he wanted a good faith discussion or...something else. So far the smart money's on something else.
I need the exercise, my sword was getting rusty. Also, the robust environment can be intellectually stimulating, not for what this rabble says, but by stint of intuitive intellect while searching for answers.
It was only the other day, reading on our emergence from the LGM, that I realised CO2 may have played a part in warming the planet. Its the sensitivity issue we need to resolve.
'And von Storch also says scientists should stop preaching like sermons – and you lot should consider the same. Your track record is hardly impressive.'
They are a woeful lot and brainwashed in the extreme, a perfect example of arrogance and ignorance combined into a nasty piece of work... and they really should consider their future in a cooling world.
It was only the other day, reading on our emergence from the LGM, that I realised CO2 may have played a part in warming the planet.
Keeriste- the ignorance AND condescension.
but over the years I have seen him often in the warmist camp.
From the man who only just worked out something we've known for nigh-on 200 years! Frankly, the opinions of 'slayers' on who and what makes a ' Warmist' don't amount to much!
'Rabble', eh? Feel free to sod off. I notice you lost your temper above, too. And this is consistent with your believing you're winning, would you say?
Your threats are another matter: consider, Sunshine, the consequences of you being wrong.
Frankly, your hysterics aside, believing the CSIRO and NASA over the Tobacco Lobby reborn doesn't seem much of a sin to me, but then again, you've spent years cheerfully toiling for one of the most dreadful men of the modern age.
As you still are.
2C is going to a rough-enough ride: 4C, on the other hand, would give us a new planet, one on which many people are going to be deeply, deeply unhappy.
And, believe, me, even though it will largely be due to their own, or their parents', culpably complicit Stupidity, that's not how they're going to see it, unless you imagine human nature has somehow changed...
So, beware your own petard: we'll just reverse your logic, and ramp it up according to the scale of the consequences, shall we?
Considering that you have been shown up incessantly here as woefully ill-informed and incapable of conceptualising even basic energy flows [etc...] your comments are just fucking absurd.
Please try to remain anchored in the shared reality. You are in danger of disappearing up your Boris.
It was only the other day, reading on our emergence from the LGM, that I realised CO2 may have played a part in warming the planet. Its the sensitivity issue we need to resolve.
'...the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).
' New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
'This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.'
Since I know you have a horror of reading the primary literature (shared by most deniers) here's the TLDR on H&S12:
LGM and Holocene are considered two distinct, quasi-equilibrium climate states.
Global average temperature difference is estimated to be ~5C.
Radiative forcing difference between LGM and Holocene estimated as ~6.5W/m^2.
So S to a ~1W/m^2 change in forcing = ~0.75C.
S to a ~4W/m^2 change in forcing (from 2xCO2 and a dash of CH4) = 3C.
Bingo!
Hint - when S is calculated properly from fully-resolved paleoclimate change, you always end up around 3C. This applies right across the Cenozoic (65Ma - present), so best learn to live with it!
No, Gordy, not "SS gospel". All they do is quote the actual science. All you are doing is denying it without understanding what it says. Which is stupid and self-defeating in equal measure. You continue to vanish up your Boris.
Well in terms of good faith discussions - why not chain up your guard dogs here?
Love all the denier jibes - don't verbal me bedwetting alarmists with crook models.
"Now Wait, wait, you mean models aren’t super excellent in all possible respects? Well, blow me down with a very small feather!" So the topic is global warming and they don't predict the obs - jeepers ! Nor the Antarctic sea ice. Nor do we know why the models are wrong. Nor why they've got pan evap trends wrong. It's an increasing mess. Multi-model averaging means Aussie rainfall could be plus or minus 20% wetter or drier. Well that's frigging helpful isn't it? Cannot get the trend in tropical cyclones making landfall either.
Maybe the deep ocean heat is irrelevant and maybe climate sensitivity is very low. Maybe we don't understand internal variability.
So very soon you will have no models producing the hiatus in warming. 2% do now (take comfort). Soon - None - no ensemble members from no models. At what point might "you lot" start getting a tad critical?
Why do you fail to acknowledge that your central claim - that "the models are wrong" - is based on a mistaken conflation of tropospheric temperature with the climate system entire?
The measured change in OHC validates the modelled results. "Global warming" in the correct sense of "energy accumulating in the climate system" is happening exactly as expected.
I showed you this last night, and as Bernard J. observes at #39, you blanked me and carried on wittering. Yet you have entirely lost this argument.
This pattern of behaviour is known as "denialism" by the way. And I will call a spade a spade. You do not own the language, though you have tried to hijack its meaning in lieu of having any actual scientific case for your denialism.
One further point. What you mis-term "alarmism" is scientific knowledge principally derived from paleoclimate behaviour. Not models. They are adjuncts to what is already known. Deniers love to misrepresent this point, but hey, goes with the mindset, right?
You are not a sceptic. "Warmist" implies an agenda, which is conspiratorial framing. Only denier is accurate. This is exactly what I mean when I say that deniers have attempted to hijack the language. For someone claiming to have been a journalist, your parsing is astonishingly weak.
'All you are doing is denying it without understanding what it says.'
I did read the whole article before commenting and the thrust was to downplay the MWP, saying it was regional and not universal, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Models are wrong on global temperature evolution. We don’t know why.
'Models are wrong on global temperature evolution. I don’t know why.'
There fixed that for you. For it is clear from that statement that you don't understand how models are constructed and run, or why. Do you understand the concepts of 'parametrisation' and 'resolution' and how and why they vary between models and across the history of climate models.
Please write a short passage, in your own words, explaining these concepts and why there are limitations or GO AWAY.
Now on appeals to authority does not von Storch cite the works of others?
Whatever, I figure, from your misunderstanding of the issues that you have to 'appeal to in-authority' (in-authority to indicate a perverted authority which reaches conclusions to fit an agenda rather than the facts) to come to the conclusions that you do.
And you and gordolocks, kraken, mike etc., are members of the ignorati - as distinct from the denialati which latter is a term reserved for those, one time, scientists who engage in the sort of activity indicated within parenthesis in the above para'. You will find some of these listed, and activities described, at the DeSmogBlog Research Database. Go learn something.
The whole 'the sun went off yonks ago, so there is no mechanism by which you can explain the continued warming of the oceans' thing has been explained to you over and over, but you simply cannot grasp the point! The fact that you don't want to makes it more difficult, but I'm afraid this really is not the whole explanation.
You. Don't. Get. It.
A little up the page you were congratulating yourself, via your 'Warmist' buddy, for having condescended to acknowledge basic physics that's been known for centuries.
And yet you've been mouthing off on this issue for how long?
You are Dunning Kruger personified. You are the talkback blowhard who shuffles his prejudices for ten minutes and announces that he knows more than the CSIR friggin' O. You are the acme of incompetence that simply cannot recognise itself.
I did read the whole article before commenting and the thrust was to downplay the MWP, saying it was regional and not universal, which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Yes it does. See PAGES-2k as but the latest verification. You don't know what you are talking about so when you say stuff like "it doesn't stand up to scrutiny" you look like an ignorant, mouthy arsehole.
There was no global, synchronous MWP. That is a denier myth concocted to attack Mann and the IPCC. And like a buttock-thick dupe, you are brainlessly repeating it. You must have been a fucking awful journalist.
* * *
The high solar activity of late last century warmed the atmosphere and oceans, we see the lag in the oceans.
And you are still repeating this flabby rubbish despite having been unable to explain the physical mechanism for several weeks. This makes you a stupid, dishonest wanker on top of everything else.
You have become extremely boring, Gordo. Perhaps you'd like to update your schtick or just fuck off now?
I would also argue, confronted by the knowledge that the models are wrong, the Modern Climate Optimum was exactly the same as the MWP mechanisms.
You aren't in a position to argue anything of the sort because the models aren't wrong in the sense you claim. See # 51.
Why is it necessary to repeat stuff endlessly with you people? Why do you simply blank out the full explanation and keep droning the same endlessly debunked rubbish?
Stupid? Dishonest? Scum? Or just arrogant, confused, political and in denial?
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
So the topic is global warming and they don’t predict the obs...
Not over relatively short time periods, no. It's much harder to do that than it is to predict long term outcomes. A key reason for this is well known and is a feature of all models of systems with significant noise on top of a trend signal. Over the short term the noise in the system can easily overwhelm the trend (and the models are extremely unlikely to predict anywhere near the exact noise sequence realised by the system); over the long term the trend wins out over the noise (so the lack of prediction of the actual noise realised by the system has much less of an effect on the detection of the signal). This has been well known for a long time. (And that's quite apart from what I pointed out earlier about models being, well, models.)
Maybe the deep ocean heat is irrelevant and maybe climate sensitivity is very low.
That's not gonna fly. There's plenty of evidence that sensitivity isn't "very low". That's also been known for quite a long time.
You seem to be already specialising in the Fallacy of Argument From Personal Ignorance. We already have a full complement of commenters who do that - perhaps you could find some other niche to occupy?
See what I mean, Luke? While I was typing, Karen demonstrated that she - despite copious numbers of corrections on this point - is Personally Ignorant of the distinction between global and local.
... saying it was regional and not universal, which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Says el gordo, channeling the Boris style of Argument By Assertion And Incantation Of Magic Debate Terms instead of arguing from actual evidence. Not a good look.
The high solar activity of late last century warmed the atmosphere and oceans, we see the lag in the oceans.
Yes, D & K again. It's already been explained to you how this is inconsistent with the data. You simply pretend it hasn't and reiterate. That's about as convincing as Boris. D&K - or complete dishonesty are the two most plausible explanations.
See what I mean, Luke? While I was typing, Karen demonstrated that she – despite copious numbers of corrections on this point – is Personally Ignorant of the distinction between global and local.
We measure temperature at many sites across the globe - instead of at one or two sites, like your previous links - and the reconstructed global average temperature is clearly warming.
And no, this is not saying that every place is warming, so parts of Antarctica cooling is entirely consistent with "we are experience global warming". Your conclusions from Antarctica are - as ever - false.
(That won't stop you from repeating the same "argument" in a week or a month...)
Oh how we laughed Karen. 'Till the tears ran down our cheeks.
And yet you come back for more.
The recent warming is also regional nuffies, not only is it regional but also not unprecedented.
Antarctica is killing your co2 fantasy and the OHC is not proven to be unprecedented or even odd,
Modern warming is regionally varied, but the global average temperature has risen by ~0.8C over the pre-industrial average. That is a global change, nuffie!
It is unprecedented at least in the last 1400 years (#70) nuffie!
The last sentence is just unhinged raving, so I won't even attempt a response.
God you are a treat, Karen. A real gift. Bless you dear!
You still haven't got a clue, Gordy. That's a map of regional studies reconstructing regional temperatures that aren't temporally synchronous. There was no global and synchronous MWP. The site you link is deliberately constructed to deceive.
Were you uncritically accepting of absolutely everything people told you? Especially those with serious form for telling lies? Did you never learn to fact-check your sources?
How your survived in that profession is an utter mystery to me.
The MWP was universal and not regional…. I won’t apologise for the link.
The so called medieval climate optimum was fragmented in time and space, but then getting your information from a known disinformation site run by the Idsos, see under I here.
For a wider look at the propaganda problems with these guys have a look here.
Only an ignorant numpty like you gordolocks would cite sites such as CO2Science.
Gordy, please check the links Lionel A provides above. Do *not* sneer and sigh and look the other way. These sites provide useful information and they have not been sued by the persons and organisations described so we can be reasonably sure that the (referenced) info is sound. Do your background. Research. Check. Build up a confidence index and rate your sources within it. Act like a proper journalist.
Then come back and tell us how impartial and unbiased the Idsos are.
Indeed ianam, Luke nails his colours for firmly to the mast with this doubly insulting statement:
Love all the denier jibes – don’t verbal me bedwetting alarmists with crook models.
the most insulting aspect of which is the aspersion cast at the honesty of climate models and by inference the honesty of those who design, run and assess the output of climate models.
Luke is in the same league as Limbaugh and Bill '...the tide comes in, the tide goes out..' O'Reilly.
Luke's just another swaggering loudmouth who has never opened a climate textbook in his life. Instead, he gets his "information" from denier blogs on the internet. Yet, bizarrely, he thinks he knows "the science" better than the professional scientists who actually conduct it. It's hard to describe just how arrogantly stupid this behaviour actually is.
Well here is a perspective changer that Luke, and many others of similar mind should read Walking Away from Empire: A Personal Journey, check it out on Amazon too for a synopsis and reviews.
Now, I personally have not, as yet, read this book I have a number on my reading pile right now but will soon order a copy.
Ah yes, that one from Ruddiman is a bit late, but will no doubt be worth the wait.
I am waiting for copies of these to arrive, which will keep me busy for a couple of days:
'Saving Planet Earth: What is destroying the earth and what you can do to help' and 'What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees' by Tony Juniper having been reminded in the latest magazine from this organisation.
What the likes of the dissenters here don't grasp is that bad signals are emerging from not just the physical processes.
But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn't be playing a major role in any case yet.
and this, my emphasis,
So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
Sure looks like denier tactics to me for when equilibrium is considered, for one thing, then there is most certainly NO 'scientific problem'.
We are already watching human-caused climate change occur. It is not only a problem for the future. It is happening here and now. The warming is just a symptom. Climate is complex, and warming has many consequences. Melting Arctic sea ice and rising sea level are consequences. Extreme weather events today occur in a changed environment. For example, Hurricane Sandy, which killed hundreds of people and caused some 75 billion dollars in property damage in 2012, occurred in a climate with higher ocean temperatures and more water vapor in the air than only a few decades ago. The heat-trapping gases and particles that humanity has emitted into the atmosphere increase the odds of severe weather events, just as steroids taken by a baseball player can increase the odds of home runs. Today we are seeing climate change on steroids. To limit global warming to moderate or tolerable amounts, the entire world must act quickly to reduce these emissions. As the world’s only superpower, the United States needs to reduce its own emissions and must also provide leadership so that other countries will reduce their emissions too.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important heat-trapping gas that humanity emits into the atmosphere. Because some of the CO2 that we emit will stay in the atmosphere for many centuries, it is our cumulative emissions that matter. If today’s rates of emitting heat-trapping gases and particles continue without change, then after just 20 more years the world will probably be unable to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
Here's how a representative member of the "ignorati" sees it, Lionel (you won't find coverage of this point of view in DesMogBlog, by the way).
Us ignorati ("ignorati"?--what a pretentious, dorked-up, little fuck you are, Lionel!) don't need "climate models", exhortations, doom-butt-puffery, or anything else from group-think, sell-out propagandists, like yourself, Lionel, ol' buddy.
Rather, what us despised serf, coolie, helot, peasant, peon ignorati need, Lionel, my good friend, if we're to buy-in to your little "reduced-carbon-lifestyle" pitch, is LEADERSHIP!!!--LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE, BY THOSE OSTENSIBLY MOST CONVINCED OF AN IMMINENT, "CARBON-POLLUTION" PERIL!!! You know, Lionel, like, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND ALL!!!
And, Lionel, when us "little guys"--us "ignorati" rabble--see all the hive's mouth-off, flunky, public-tit-sucking, eco-scold smarty-pants and, most importantly, the hive's be-yachted and be-private-airplaned and be-bullet-proof-limousined and be-mansioned nomenklatura jettison their carbon-soaked toys, troughs, good-deals, gravy-trains, and party-time, CO2-spew eco-confabs (which could be easily video-conferenced), then us "ignorati" will be glad to make our own carbon-reduction sacrifices (the little guy is ever capable of great sacrifices--visit any military cemetery, if you don't believe me, Lionel).
In the meantime, Lionel, stuff your greenwashed, in-your-face, hypocrite-leech scams, hustles, and rip-offs along with all all the rest of your standard issue, hive-bozo, stock-in-trade bullshit, false-flags, scare-mongering hype, and bait-and-switch con-jobs.
You know, Deltoids, sometimes it's best to just step-back and consider the cumulative impression your commentary leaves with normal, productive, bona-fide human-beings operating from within the frame work of a wholesome, sound mental-health.
And, in that regard, Deltoids, as humanity views page after page of this blog's non-stop, greenshirt, Dolt-toid, hive-bozo agit-prop, the jam-packed, flim-flam welter of it all inevitably coalesces and resolves itself in mankind's mind as the distinct impression of an indelicate litter of common-pattern fecal-pellets deposited by a parasitic swarm of indistinguishable, scuttling, group-think, trough-seeking, collectivist cockroaches.
Bovine spongiform_encephalopathy is a degenerative brain disease, commonly called mad cow disease, contracted from infected beef cattle. In it's later stages it turns healthy brain tissue into a vile, rotting sponge like substance.
Which is very likely how li'll mike has managed to soak up almost every denier trope going, while - incredibly - still imagining himself to be a "normal, productive, bona-fide human-being operating from within the frame work of a wholesome, sound mental-health". When the evidence of his obsessive, rambling ravings to the contrary are spattered all over the comments section of this blog.
Has li'll mike ever contributed anything interesting or productive or factual, ever? There's no evidence for it anywhere, just the usual periodic puerile shitstain daubings, and the disease is likely way too far advanced for remission by now.
Quality sledging Mike - 10/10 for sheer abuse and funny too.
"what a pretentious, dorked-up, little fuck you are" no come on guys - this is funny you'd have to admit. Well I feel I have been ripped a new arsehole after Mike’s tirade – but he’s probably not wrong. We can’t help it Mike.
But anyway - back to it
And so many insults such little time. Some quality verballing and fitting up that could rival the NSW police force. Well done bedwetters. Now look – be fucking nice – you say denialist – I say bedwetter.
You have to get out of perimeter guard mode and start prosecuting your argument.
I had to just laugh at the Sandy hurricane comment. It’s simply an example of assets in harm’s way. No increase in frequency – and unexceptional. SSTs regionally not exceptional. Worse hurricanes historically and the trend is not your friend. Put assets and infrastructure in these environments and prepare to be periodically creamed. Don’t conflate development with AGW or you’ll have to start marching up the back on demos.
Lionel – delayers ? Water muddiers. Well matey we’re going to transform the world’s economy and spend a few trillion. Sorry – the science either stacks up or it doesn’t. Don’t shoot the messenger. But just in case - I’d be gunning the Thorium reactor research – but personal indulgence.
Lotharsson – Antarctic behaviour is NOT what is expected. Not. Don’t try and paint lipstick on the pig. We’re surprised and racing to come up with the increasing freshening surface insulation quick freeze hypothesis with the strato ozone depletion/increasing trop GHGs force field thingy, (Solomon, Gillet, Schmidt etc) and fuck a doley who knows - maybe it stacks up. But it’s all modelled schmodelled. Develop models do we boys?
But of the mainstream comes some interesting work that says we don’t know shit about internal variability. Significant centennial-length trends in the zonal SST and SLP gradients rivaling those estimated from observations and model simulations forced with increasing CO2 appear to be inherent features of the internal climate dynamics simulated by all three models – jeez !
And just another one of those inconvenient factoids on evaporation trends - unpredicted of course - damn that empiricism.
"In a globally warming climate, observed rates of atmospheric evaporative demand have declined over recent decades. Several recent studies have shown that declining rates of evaporative demand are primarily governed by trends in the aerodynamic component (primarily being the combination of the effects of wind speed (u) and atmospheric humidity) and secondarily by changes in the radiative component. A number of these studies also show that declining rates of observed near-surface u (termed ‘stilling’) is the primary factor contributing to declining rates of evaporative demand"
Quality sledging Mike – 10/10 for sheer abuse and funny too.
Nah! Mike has got a nasty buzz phrase generator, and when the spittle hits the fan that is what happens. One nasty mess. That you appreciated it tells us that you are not far behind.
Who's feeding you Luke? You ain't thinking stuff up all by yourself.
I had to just laugh at the Sandy hurricane comment. It’s simply an example of assets in harm’s way. No increase in frequency – and unexceptional
You really should learn that US denier blogs are no place to get reliable information. Check out how the numbers are actually ramping up since the 1960's here And in anywhere other than denier la-la land two major US cities hit catastrophically within the same decade would be cause for concern.
And your assertions about Antarctica, as if it's one homogenous unit, are untrue. West Antarctica is disintegrating, and single season sea ice to the east in no way counteracts that.
You want OHC converted to C temps why? So you can compare the ocean temps with atmosphere temps directly no doubt, ignoring that the mass of the oceans is considerably higher than that of the atmosphere so it will show lower temp increases. This is dishonest. The only way to compare heat increase is through OHC. Judith has done you a disservice convincing you otherwise.
The laws of physics apply now as they have always done. The climate response to radiative perturbation will be similar to the Cenozoic range of ~3C/4W/m^2.
*Nothing* you are saying here comes remotely close to addressing this. It's just blather.
Chek and you should avoid quoting Wiki-Pravda if possible
Let's take the WMO and SREX statements as something more erudite - essentially you have nothing - mulitidecadal trends, artefacts of the observing system and more infrastructure in harms way. Although I do have sympathy for Emmanuels's excellent analysis on PDI.
Indeed SREX notes "s. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain
essentially unchanged"
and "Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in
all ocean basins"
In summary, there is low confidence that any observed long-term
(i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are
robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the
incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking
tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of
tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the
attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity
to anthropogenic influences. There is low confidence in projections
of changes in tropical cyclone genesis, location, tracks, duration,
or areas of impact.
GeoCARB constrained sensitivity could be 1.5C - maybe that's where we are !?
But it's all just so much supposition isn't it - in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last
Luke: From your WMO document which incidentally dates from 2006It is well accepted by most researchers within the field of climate science that the
most likely primary cause of the observed increase of global mean surface temperature is a long term increase in greenhouse gas concentrations(IPCC, 2001;
IADAG 2005). It is likely that most tropical ocean basins have warmed significantly
due to thissame cause (Santer et al., 2006; Knutson et al., 2006b; Karoly and Wu,
2005).
Chek shits on - put your Mommies on boys - this is getting boring now - Antarctica is disintegrating - faaark it's been doing it for ages - love your pissy little short trend graph again with no error bars which are considerable.
Karen - don't listen to the boys here - they're swallowed the KoolAid and are in the last stages of expiry. But do get yourself updated on Antarctica if you want to play bumper cars with them for sport - you have more than GHG forcing going on and stratospheric ozone depletion driving SAM will be giving counter-intuitive effects. Additionally the sea ice expansion itself maybe a result of Chek bedwetting or ocean freshening from additional fresh melt and a temporary phenomenon.
Wiki-Pravda?
Deniers really are just blown out old farts still looking for commies under their beds.
Let's try NOAA instead then:
"The main conclusions are:
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
•Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center".
What is the point that you're trying to make about cyclones? The SREX says When simulating 21st-century warming under the A1B emission scenario
(or a close analog), the present models and downscaling techniques as a
whole are consistent in projecting (1) decreases or no change in tropical
cyclone frequency, (2) increases in intensity and fractional increases in
number of most intense storms, and (3) increases in tropical cyclonerelated rainfall rates.
Turbo - not very eco - but I do covet the Ford Falcon Turbo myself - but only on Sundays, in controlled conditions and appropriately offset of course -
there is so much b/s on tropical cyclones though - obs quality, decadal variability
But take Australia - despite popular opinion cyclones making landfall in eastern Australia are declining
"The linear trend in the number of severe TCs making
land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45
TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in
recent times—a 62% decline. This decline can be partially
explained by a weakening of the Walker Circulation, and
a natural shift towards a more El Nin˜o-dominated era. The
extent to which global warming might be also be partially
responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is
unknown." http://cawcr.vm.csiro.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/Callaghan_and_Power…
But it’s all just so much supposition isn’t it – in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last
Here's a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
As for Milankovitch, yes, it's there, but it didn't dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
#15 Luke could you take a deep breath and calm down, count to ten and then try to explain your point. Just squawking and putting up a bunch of links does not make a coherent argument.
Using radar information collected between 1992 and 1996, oceanographer Eric Rignot, based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), found that the Pine Island Glacier's "grounding line" -- the line between the glacier's floating section and the part of the glacier that rests on the sea floor -- had retreated rapidly towards the land. That meant that the glacier was losing mass. He attributed the retreat to the warming waters around West Antarctica
a large majority of the marine glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula were retreating, and their retreat was speeding up. This summer, a British group revisited the Pine Island Glacier finding and found that its rate of retreat had quadrupled between 1995 and 2006
...but Luke has some other ill-informed denialist blather to share with us....
Luke #21 You do realise that Tthere is so much b/s on tropical cyclones though – obs quality, decadal variability is well known and may not be news to most of us. Heck even your 2006 WTO link enumerates a lot of them.
Although it is, of course, of more than academic interest to the inhabitants, what is the relevance to AGW in general of telling us about land-falling cyclones, rather than the number in the whole of the basin?
#27 He's not done himself any favours with his earlier links, but I'm willing to give him a chance to try to make a point. I also think that since he's started posting the usual deniers have backed off. Maybe they, too, are intrigued to see where he's going?
Vince - PIG changes speed more in tune with winds than temperature. Don't get over excited. But maybe you know better than the British Antarctic Survey.
Turbo - Well land falling increasing on the eastern seaboard is the lay alarmist meme (wrong). And well illustrates the problem of ENSO/IPO modulating such things. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
Why are you lot here anyway - some sort of Venus fly-trap for wandering deniers/sceptics/those who haven';t swallowed the Kool-Aid. Do you ever actually debate anything of substance anymore? And where is Tim anyway?
And what is this denialist shit anyway? In fact is you lot were any good you'd be committed to the cause getting banned from Nova and Wattsydoodle. Do the bombers ever leave the base from here or do you take comfort in the group hand job here?
And fancy picking on a nice old codger like El Gordo - at least you could set him right instead of pissing in his tea. Poor old coot hasn't got long to go and he's just trying to find out if AGW is bunk or not.
Well land falling increasing on the eastern seaboard is the lay alarmist meme That's a new one. So what's the name of the game that you're playing? "Set up a straw man and knock him down solitaire?"
Vince – PIG changes speed more in tune with winds than temperature. Don’t get over excited. But maybe you know better than the British Antarctic Survey.
And you know better than NASA, clearly. Or imagine that you do.
So let's summarise here,
- CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40%
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- the predicted resulting radiation imbalance is measured by NASA
- this radiation imbalance means heat is accumulating within and under the atmosphere
- the accumulating heat is measured in increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean
- glaciers all over the world have massively receded
- arctic ice has massively dwindled
- Greenland has lost massive amounts of ice
... but the loss of Antarctic ice is due to "wind"? Is that what you're saying?
You seem pretty desperate to not believe in the reality of what's happening, Luke, something that would seem strongly reinforced by your apparent liking for crank blogs like Jo Nova's where the deluded congratulate each other on their delusuions.
It's an ugly business Luke, and no mistake. (As all the best East End (of London) villains say in the movies).
But the agents of power and privilege (who are, after all the ones denying AGW with its extremely historic global consequences) are there to be exposed as such. Take their side and repeat their lies at your own peril .
Needless to say many more with integrity don't.
…”Plants release small amounts of Carbon Dioxide back into the atmosphere…” …ummm yeahhh….
Just out of curiosity — do they Release any O2 (Oxygen) back into the atmosphere?
Just askin’ — and wondering if all that Biology I studied before politicization of the school system has been re-written. Not that I’m suspicious or nuthin…
Yeah NASA — spreading the truth wherever they go (just very thinly). My Chocolate ration was increased this morning too!
Report this
80
#
farmerbraun
August 17, 2013 at 5:31 am · Reply
It’s a fairly blatant fudge that most high school students would notice immediately.
It’s just amazing that plants can grow while (apparently) being net emitters of CO2 -yeah right.
You wouldn’t read about it.
I mean, what can you do with that level of stupidity? Luke's friends haven't even been to Primary School, apparently.
So based on CAGW theory winter should be hotter than summer particularly in the Northern Hemisphere because there is more CO2 in winter than summer and we all know that the sun has nothing to do with it?
Vince are you some sort of numb nuts - find out what happens at the PIG terminus and report back. Jeez.
BTW "glaciers all over the world have massively receded" not all and whoops a daisy your forget to mention Antarctic sea ice going the other way.
Chek - "But the agents of power and privilege (who are, after all the ones denying AGW with its extremely historic global consequences) are there to be exposed as such. Take their side and repeat their lies at your own peril" OR NOT
it might be a flu pandemic or massive collapse in the carbon market causing global jihad - dream on. Not to mention the perils of climate. megastorms and megadroughts we have lived through for 1000s of years. Power and privilege my foot - it's mostly independent mavericks that think you're a bunch of commie pinkos. And maybe they are right - ?
Problem is that there are no alarming trends in extreme events !
BBD gets all narky when nobody discusses his favourite topic. Boo hoo. Why don't you seriously prosecute your argument. Meanwhile the models are FALSIFIED !
BBD gets all narky when nobody discusses his favourite topic. Boo hoo. Why don’t you seriously prosecute your argument. Meanwhile the models are FALSIFIED !
El Gordo isn't "trying to find out" anything whatsoever - he refuses to read primary sources, ignores all summaries and explanations that are offered to him, and keeps returning here to vomit up the rancid nonsense he consumes at crank blogs like Joanne Codling's crank blog.
Here they are again, for your convenience bundled up into a single comment. But you will need to *scroll up* to access the links because I can't be bothered to do them again.
Luke
#18
References:
Rohling et al. (2013)
Hansen et al. (2013)
No handwaving from me. Unfamiliarity with the literature, trivia and argument from assertion by you.
* * *
#19
Since you are so certain of the stability of the WAIS, what about Eemian MSL?
~5m *at least* above Holocene but Eemian global average temperature only ~2C at most above Holocene.
Estimated contributions to the Eemian MSL highstand are ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS – indicating substantial collapse.
Or where else did the water come from?
* * *
#22
[Luke:] "But it’s all just so much supposition isn’t it – in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last."
Here’s a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
* * *
#23
As for Milankovitch, yes, it’s there, but it didn’t dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
#25
What about forcing change over the Cenozoic as a whole?
There has been a ~1W/m^2 increase in TSI as a consequence of stellar evolution.
But CO2 has fallen from an Eocene Optimum peak of ~1000ppmv or higher to an LGM minimum of ~180ppmv, yielding a ~10W/m^2 decrease in CO2 forcing.
This tectonically modulated GHG forcing explains the overall downward trend in T from the Eocene Optimum ~50Ma to the Holocene.
Luke, why would I forget about Antarctic sea ice? Antarctica is melting, of course it's spreading out, but thanks for reminding me how tightly the cranks cling to "extent", and hate to be reminded of the overall volume: http://i56.tinypic.com/2jfavdv.png
Using the two-decade long MBM observation record, we determine that ice sheet loss is accelerating by 36.3 2 Gt/yr2, or 3 times larger than from mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC). The magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century.
Rignot, E., et al. (2011): Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.
Power and privilege my foot – it’s mostly independent mavericks that think you’re a bunch of commie pinkos. And maybe they are right – ?
One of the funniest things ever was watching the New Zealand crank Richard Treadgold deny any foreign funding whatsoever whilst John Mashey was exposing his payments from Heartland on Gareth Renownden's blog.
Being a crank is a part-time hobby for the old and insane. Being a paid crank lifts you into a league that your shallow 'understanding' doesn't address.
BBD - mate nice try at diverting from original proposition to your favourite crank topic. The problem for you old son is that your models are full of shit. i.e. not working. Go back and seriously address that core issue. Unfamiliarity with MY literature is no excuse. That's your problem living in an echo chamber.
And fancy putting up Hansen as a cite when his core modelling proposition of the here and now is demonstrably wrong.
Vince go back and read my reference. Rignot has no basis for his position. It's projection.
Except the 'all things being equal' component of the null hypothesis is nullified by rising atmospheric and sea temperatures compounded by the predicted polar amplification.
The null hypothesis that a shed packed full of punctured gasoline tins with a burnt, open Zippo lighter lying in the doorway may have spontaneously combusted, is also the most unlikely scenario - given the evidence.. A concept you seem loath to embrace.
Rignot has no basis for his position. It’s projection.
And you are a scientist of equal stature to Eric Rignot? With published responses to his work that *allow* you to say things like that because you have *demonstrated error*?
No. You are not, You are a fantasist enabled by the internet. You have never opened a climate textbook in your life.
Rignot has no basis for his position. It’s projection.
And you are a scientist of equal stature to Eric Rignot? With published responses to his work that *allow* you to say things like that because you have *demonstrated error*?
No. You are not, You are a fantasist enabled by the internet. You have never opened a climate textbook in your life.
As for ARGO - well at 2000m it's statistical hokey - you're measuring temperature rises below instrument precision. And isn't it such a bummer that 0-700m isn't warming as the models predicted. Please explain.
As for sea level and CO2. Why not think Milankovitch instead. It's all about how you frame problems with palaeo. There has been 16 – 17 glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 1.3 My. Most peak interglacials have coincided with the period of greatest insolation as dictated by the Milankovich cycle. At oxygen isotope sub-stage 5 E ~125 Ky ago (the penultimate interglacial) the global sea level was 4 – 6 m higher than the present datum. Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.
In fact BBD - if you're a rootin' tootin' AGW researcher shouldn't you be off publishing something instead of playing fucktards or perhaps being involved in public outreach doing a nice web site for us with your handpicked Kool_Aid maternal.
There may be other POVs. I know it's a amazing - but the internet is just so subversive. Fuckers don't agree with you ! They even say you can stick your appeals to authority. "Listen mate Hansen said OK ...." What a shock for you !
Chek - do you think Nova and A Watts are motivated by the gold or just aggro independent mavericks ? (Don't see me standing up for them now)
I think Jo actually does gold professionally so she can argue as long as she likes with the likes of us! But like all of us - it's become tribal. You either sign up for all of it or none of it.
I think the broad tenets of global warming are likely to be there but then there's the details for which the wheels have fallen off.
So whaddya gonna do - what's compelling value proposition for the investment when we have massive disease problems with HIV, TB and malaria. Ongoing problems with food security, militarism, change of economic power to Asia etc. You want to bet everything on black or number 42 (AGW) do you?
As for ARGO – well at 2000m it’s statistical hokey – you’re measuring temperature rises below instrument precision.
Deniers are routinely claiming this, but never citing the basis of their. The Argo program specifies a 0.001 level of precision. What are your claims based on?
And isn’t it such a bummer that 0-700m isn’t warming as the models predicted. Please explain.
Certainly. In simple layman's you and your denier ilk know fuck all about fluid dynamics, yet you think that primary school axioms like '[heat rises' tells you all you need to know..
Chek - so I take it then you can't explain why the models are wrong then and would rather obfuscate.
ARGO can specify all the precision it likes but moreover the issue is that you're sampling an incredibly small proportion of the ocean and not even the same spots and you think you can pin that vast area down to 0.001 magnitude numbers? Really? Drink some more KoolAid.
If I go to Zaire, or Brazil or Malaya, I can expect an equatorial climate. If I go to Italy or Greece I'll get a Mediterranean climate, or a tropical climate in Florida and Taiwan or a maritime temperate climate in Northern Europe and Canada. It may (and has) snowed in May in Italy, but the climate is nevertheless stable
GeoCARB constrained sensitivity could be 1.5C – maybe that’s where we are.
Logic Fail dressed up as a question. You have to look at all the evidence, and that says "1.5C is very very unlikely".
Poor old coot hasn’t got long to go and he’s just trying to find out if AGW is bunk or not.
So, between that and fluffing Karen's ego I'm getting the sense you're either a poor judge of character or easily misled. Especially since you seem to avoid turning your brilliant intellect on some of their more ludicrous pronouncements.
Climate isn’t stable anyways – interannual and decadal variability is huge.
More Fail.
Interannual variability is weather. Even decadal variability is arguably weather, depending on the metric you are looking at.
I guess it's too much to ask you to back up and try and make your argument more coherent and well specified. ("Falsified, I tell you!" isn't much use, as previously explained and studiously ignored.)
Perhaps instead you (and el gordo) could take a stab at defining "stability", seeing you've galloped your way to making assertions that rely on the term?
Just squawking and putting up a bunch of links does not make a coherent argument.
It does help to obscure the memory of his ignominious entrance here though, and the rate of squawking starts to look a bit Gish-like - or perhaps BK-like if you prefer.
So huge we’re struggling to find an AGW signal peeking through.
And you claim you're not in denial?!
The AGW signal is visible in any of several different dimensions. One way to see this is to use standard engineering techniques for analysing a noisy signal - and that implies looking over long enough time periods that the noise doesn't swamp the signal. Amongst others...
And none of this is refuted by pointing to various areas where models could be improved.
The pattern of Luke so far:
1) cite one paper in support of his criticism, criticize the models in another, ignoring that the one paper he cited actually is based on a climate model
2) Personal incredulity. If ARGO claims a precision of 0.001, surely no one believes that, right? I mean, what do the people at ARGO know? It's not like they actually *work* with the system, right?
3) Dismissing evidence when it happens to contradict his opinion. So, when different scientists come with different explanations for an observation, it means none of them is right; even conceding one of them could have a point would mean he concedes that those scientists actually know what they are talking about, and that surely cannot be the case!
"Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s."
lol, sure they do, ;-)
hehe if the temperature hiatis slides into a temperature decline 97% of the worlds climate syen cyst's will be pushing broomzzzzz, :-P
Climate isn’t stable anyways – interannual and decadal variability is huge. So huge we’re struggling to find an AGW signal peeking through.
Riiight, which is why our variable climate has given us a temperature plunge back to the temperatures that were in force in 1950.
No?
Of course not - here in the real world, global warming is iccurring and we are pretty much 1 degree warmer already, with equilibium a long way off, and CO2 levels continuing to increase.
Looks like it's back to climate change 101 for Luke:
Do read up on these basics please, Luke, it is rather tedious to have to correct your repeated mistakes you've gleaned from crank blogs like that unqualified uni-drop-out ex-weatherman Anthony Watts' crank blog, WUWT.
'That CO2 has no significant effect on global climate and never has.'
While CO2 was steady at about 260 ppm during the Eemian the temperature dropped 6°C, and at the LGM transition the temperatures jumped around the same in two decades.
Now that is what I call global climate disruption. Temperatures rise and fall, with CO2 following suite.
"An IPCC draft says there is "medium confidence" that the slowing of the rise ( hahaha, that is ipcc speak for HIATUS, lol) is "due in roughly equal measure" to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight [there haven't been any recent major eruptions]; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle [after claiming in past that such variations could not affect climate]; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans [why wasn't it absorbed at the same rate in the past?]; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide"
Here's the abstract for a new paper in GRL by Fasullo et al.
'In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña.
'This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record.
'The persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed.
'The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface mass, and sea level responses.'
ipcc..... "is likely to play down some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human activities have contributed to more droughts."
Great........maybe those pricks can pay for a desal plant that will never be switched on, instead of me and all the others that knew the drought was just a part of the aussie climate cycle!
While CO2 was steady at about 260 ppm during the Eemian the temperature dropped 6°C, and at the LGM transition the temperatures jumped around the same in two decades.
Logic Fail.
Can you figure out why? Most high school students can.
This is probably of no interest to our UK readers, but bill and Luke might be interested. The new ENSO report is out and conditions remain neutral, while the IOD is still cool.
This is where the models have credibility ....
'A negative IOD during winter–spring increases the chances of above-average rainfall over southern Australia, while over parts of northern Australia it increases the chance of higher humidity. A negative IOD can also contribute to below-average mean sea level pressure (MSLP) over Darwin, which may in turn raise the value of the SOI.'
Boris writes this claptrap (two egregious gaffes in one sentence):
"the kind of argumentation you carry is purely partisan political (eco fundamentalism of Greenpeace extremists and the like) and has nothing to do with true scientific debate. No wonder since nobody of you is a scientist and has no clue what science really is".
On the one hand, he wears his own clearly partisan views on his sleeve (the 'eco-fundamenalist' barb) and then claims that others here are non scientists. Turns out Boris, you are wrong there, too. Bernard, I and several others are indeed scientists, unlike the vast majority of the AGW deniers who post here. And I am also a published scientists - 130 and counting on the Web of Science - who believes that humans are a potent global force and the primary driver behind climate change.
Your quip about Greenpeace suggests that they profoundly influence public policy whereas your posts give the infinitely better funded corporate lobby and its army of lobbyists a free pass.
"The four-month sequence of sub-surface temperature anomalies shows temperatures in the sub-surface of the equatorial Pacific were generally close to the long-term average for July. Small areas of cool anomalies remain in the far eastern equatorial Pacific between the surface and around 150 m depth. In the western equatorial sub-surface weak warm anomalies are present in much of the water column west of the Date Line. Small areas of both the cool and warm anomalies reach a magnitude of more than 1.0 °C. Sub-surface temperatures have been trending towards average during recent months, as shown by the decreased magnitude of both cool and warm anomalies. "
"The sub-surface of the equatorial Pacific has cooled in the east during the past two weeks. Anomalies across the equatorial sub-surface are generally near-average (see map for the 5 days ending 11 August). "
Why is one half of Mercury's surface 600 degrees cooler than the other, while Venus surface temperature is the same regardless of whether it's facing towards the Sun or away from it?
Any clues, Gordy?
Figure this one out and you'll be well on the way to understanding what's going on here.
Oh Bernard, are you saying you weren't aware of the "there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect, Venus is just hot because of gas pressure" bit of denialist ultra-crankery?
El Gordo doesn't want to discuss the reasons why his ideas lack coherence, he just wants to distract with the next piece of idiocy from his crank blogs.
Back on the models, the rational mind of a luke warmer Judith Curry
'While some in the blogosphere are arguing that the recent pause or stagnation is coming close to ‘falsifying’ the climate models, this is an incorrect interpretion of these results. The issue is the fitness-for-purpose of the climate models for climate change detection and attribution on decadal to multi-decadal timescales.
'In view of the climate model underestimation of natural internal variability on multi-decadal time scales and failure to simulate the recent 15+ years ‘pause’, the issue of fitness for purpose of climate models for detection and attribution on these time scales should be seriously questioned. And these deficiencies should be included in the ‘expert judgment’ on the confidence levels associated with the IPCC’s statements on attribution.'
E.G. at #86: you do understand that the paper you quote says that because Australia flooded and the water couldn't run off to the sea it contributed to a drop in SLR, don't you? So what was the point that you were trying to make?
As is now usual, you have made no substantive response to *any* of the points I raised on the entire of the previous page of comments. Data denial about ARGO (argument from ignorance; from incredulity; a dual logical fallacy) is not a substantive response. Even a *single* logical fallacy invalidates the argument. You have in effect said absolutely nothing at all.
This is a standard problem with denialist rhetoric. It is empty. So you are going to have to try a great deal harder here. At the moment, it is all cock-waving and swagger.
Have you got a reference for this btw?
Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.
No handwaving from me. Unfamiliarity with the literature, trivia and argument from assertion by you.
* * *
#19
Since you are so certain of the stability of the WAIS, what about Eemian MSL?
~5m *at least* above Holocene but Eemian global average temperature only ~2C at most above Holocene.
Estimated contributions to the Eemian MSL highstand are ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS – indicating substantial collapse.
Or where else did the water come from? [Please answer this question, Luke!]
* * *
#22
[Luke:] "But it’s all just so much supposition isn’t it – in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last."
Here’s a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
[Please acknowledge your error Luke!]
* * *
#23
As for Milankovitch, yes, it’s there, but it didn’t dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
* * *
#25
What about forcing change over the Cenozoic as a whole?
There has been a ~1W/m^2 increase in TSI as a consequence of stellar evolution.
But CO2 has fallen from an Eocene Optimum peak of ~1000ppmv or higher to an LGM minimum of ~180ppmv, yielding a ~10W/m^2 decrease in CO2 forcing.
[Luke:] "Rignot has no basis for his position. It’s projection."
And you are a scientist of equal stature to Eric Rignot? With published responses to his work that *allow* you to say things like that because you have *demonstrated error*?
No. You are not, You are a fantasist enabled by the internet. You have never opened a climate textbook in your life.
[Please admit that you are a know-nothing loudmouth on the Internet with no basis in fact for making claims like this about respected scientists Luke!]
Curry is as full of nonsense as some of you lot. <a href="http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-will-the-simulations-do-nex… carefully at the following animation of two runs of the same climate model. Look at the multi-decadal trend vs the decadal variability. That's what this silly non-argument boils down to. Denialist misdirection about a transient slow-down in the rate of tropospheric warming modulated by variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake. It won't make any difference to the centennial trend and that is what matters
Give it up, Gordo. You have nothing. Surely this must be obvious by now? Climate science *isn't* politics. That is your essential confusion. Resolve that, and you can move forward rationally.
You are a low life scum BBD and although I can't vouch for Boris, my mate Luke is a fine adversary and more knowledgable on climate science than you will ever be.
The problem for you old son is that your models are full of shit. i.e. not working.
OK Clever cloggs, explain why the models aren't working. This implies that you will have to specify which models you are complaining about.
Also explain why if we ignored all climate models, we would still know that anthropogenic climate change is under way.
Go back and seriously address that core issue. Unfamiliarity with MY literature is no excuse. That’s your problem living in an echo chamber... It’s projection.
At last some truth as you own up to projection.
It would appear that your echo chamber is very small.
Now this is a very telling comment:
So whaddya gonna do – what’s compelling value proposition for the investment when we have massive disease problems with HIV, TB and malaria. Ongoing problems with food security, militarism, change of economic power to Asia etc. You want to bet everything on black or number 42 (AGW) do you?
Aha! The Lomborg strategy.
Do you not realise that global warming and climate change will make all those problems many times worse especially as each will amplify the effects of others.
Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods.
How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts.
And I have only scratched the surface of the problems that will be caused by a warming world.
Now WRT Sandy, you denigrated the mention of that but perhaps you could describe the factors that caused it to develop in the way that it did.
If what has been displayed here is the sum of your cerebral processes then it sadly portrays a lack of joined up thinking.
You are a low life scum BBD and although I can’t vouch for Boris, my mate Luke is a fine adversary and more knowledgable on climate science than you will ever be.
More lies and delusion from our retired sports writer.
* * *
The graph isn't fantasy. It is simple two model runs. Two *instances* of something. Here in the real world we run only one instance of climate. If you were smarter than plankton, you would understand the point Ed Hawkins (a climate scientist) is making. But you choose instead to deny.
Give it up, Gordy. You are on a hiding to nothing.
"After years of struggle through the legal system, the government approved the dam construction in June 2011 as part of their goal to reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions by 40% by 2020 (The Brazilian National Government 2011)."
The Amazonwatch board has a lot of connections to Green groups you previously despised ('Greenpiss' being one of yours). Finally growing up are you, Olap?
You don't get it little Chek, what a surprise! I'm not in favour of the dam, but it's the likes of you and what you and Deltoid represent that made it possible for politicians to take this action against human carbon emissions.
But hey fellas, keep up the battle against the imaginary but very evil right wing Elders of fossil fuel obstructing climate sciene and CO2 mitigation.
Wasn't Gordy supposed to be doing some checking on the Idso Clan and their lying websites? Wasn't he supposed to be reporting back on their numerous links to vested interests? Wasn't he supposed to acknowledge that he was (yet again) utterly wrong about the MWP, which was never a synchronous, globally warm event?
Is Gordy just pretending that (as usual) he has had his clock cleaned? That would be intellectual dishonesty of the most blatant kind.
Olaus Petri inhabits an alternative reality in which people who understand physics are evil and responsible for poorly-conceived hydro projects. Meanwhile the vested interests in the energy industry warping public policy and endangering the future of billions for centuries to come are not evil.
I’m not in favour of the dam, but it’s the likes of you and what you and Deltoid represent that made it possible for politicians to take this action against human carbon emissions.
You're confused Olap. Carbon emissions are but one component. You'll find that increasing energy demand is the main driver of a complex situation beyond your simple-minded sloganeering. It's hard to tell developing nations not to develop, and even more so when that development eats into a global scale carbon sink.
Ecuador for instance attempted to raise money to NOT drill for oil in its Yasuni national park in its part of the Amazon, but the initiative hasn't worked and now the oil companies are champing at the bit
When the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, wants a law passed, it has all the resources to make that happen.
The organization is known for helping to advance corporate interests by writing and then pushing to pass conservative legislation at the state level. With funding to the tune of $500,000 from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch’s foundations from 2005-2011, and $1.4 million from Exxon Mobil this past decade, it shouldn’t be a surprise that ALEC has had many successes in its 40 years of existence. ALEC has most notably pushed “Stand Your Ground” and “Right-to-Work” legislation through state legislatures across the country. The organization has also created model legislation with intended loopholes that allow energy companies to withhold names of certain chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
All of the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee question the science behind climate change. Fueled by millions in donations from the fossil fuel industry, on Thursday, these Senators used the committee as a way to simply parrot the tired talking points of Koch funded organizations and industry leaders, denouncing what 97 percent of climate scientists have agreed on.
New internal documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveal new methods that fossil fuel companies, agrochemical interests and corporate lobbying groups will influence certain state policies in the coming months through the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
ALEC’s annual meeting is taking place in Chicago this week, just as Common Cause and CMD have filed a complaint to the IRS over ALEC’s corporate-funded “Scholarships” for state legislators–ALEC is a tax exempt non-profit despite their mission of facilitating an exchange of company-crafted laws with state legislators in closed-door meetings.
ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force is drafting new model bills on behalf of its members like Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and Peabody. ALEC’s anti-environmental agenda in Chicago is available for viewing (see E&E PM and Earthtechling). These are the new model bills ALEC and its energy, chemical and agricultural interests are finalizing this week:
.
[1]There are a number of similar parrots contributing on this thread isn't that right Luke and gordolocks.
But you're a dour lot but just like I have experienced in a few drive by shootings at Nova's. But at least if you keep the sledges down unlike at Wattsupyerbum you won't be snipped over there.
But yes - you're a sour lot that swings at everything. Loosen up.
Importantly only Vince had the guts to have a go over to Nova's and have a go and copped a fair bit - good try Vince - however KuknKat (aka kookers, Kat Krap and Kooky Kat) did him like a dinner - and where were you guys in support.
Over here huddled around your introverted little Ruddiman camp fire. It's your duty if you're true believers to get onto the big denier sites and engage. FAILURE TO ENGAGE guys. Piss weak.
"Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods."
_ WHAT - we can't engineer or cope with 0.3-0.5 m by the end of the century. Laughing !
Diseases - Reiter and malaria remember - oh the shame.
"How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts." OR NOT - all based on post modernist shit science of the worst order - take GCM that doesn't work - add to shitty species extinction model - publish in soft receptive journal. All these problems you list exist now, regardless of climate drivers and you're focussed on one "maybe" aspect of the problem based on the models THAT ARE NOW FALSIFIED.
Done any personal environmental remediation yourself lately? Of course not.
Try to remember, Luke, that being wittered at by numpties is tedious. So why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks like Nova and WTFUWT? Nobody knows what they are talking about, moderation is usually hostile, and making any headway amid all the ignorance, buffoonery and denial is impossible.
My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test - and all you can do is divert. The emperor has no clothes.
Why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks - well Jo and Davey aren't that dumb - smart enough to rate the pants off you lot and actually control the debate. Almost every day. And where are you here - on an endless open thread - WOW !
Keep on theme at Nova and the border guards won't snip you. But I suspect you're not up to it. These guys are pretty well armed to the teeth. Kooky Kat saw Vince off in a few hours.
The big problem with all the palaeo work you're in love with is that catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2. Untangle that ! It's all about framing the question.
Major extinction event - lots of detrital material - lots of H2S - lots of sulfate aerosols - where does this sit vis a vis CO2 forcing - it's a biogeochemical nightmare.
Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have fucked up.
Prediction of GMT - wrong
Improvement of models in 20 years - bugger all
Tropo hotspot - not there
Evap trend - wrong way
Antarctic sea ice - growing (what a bugger)
Deep ocean heat - statistically dodgy (IMHO of course)
Averaging multi-model ensembles - sounds skanky and so you get stuff like rainfall could be 10% greater or 20% less
Resolving extreme event behaviour needs more grunt and probably new physics at micro-scale
No real trends in droughts or floods.
Community divided on tropical cyclone behaviour
Do we understand what caused the MWP or LIA - probably not (not well).
Please address my earlier comments properly. You are being evasive. I know you cannot defend your position, but I want to see you try.
In summary:
Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.
No reference despite request. Also note that pointing to any regional change in sea level is irrelevant to the point of dishonesty. Global mean sea level has *not* fallen by 1.5m since the mid-Holocene. But global MSL was at least 5m above Holocene MSL during the Eemian which requires a substantial collapse of the WAIS. Unless you can account for ~3m MSL increase some other way. Which it so happens you can't. Your attempt to avoid acknowledging this was both clumsy and intellectually dishonest.
#18 Demonstrate error in Rohling13 and Hansen13 or accept the paleoclimate-derived estimates for S.
#19 Where did the water come from if not the WAIS? See above.
#22 Bolide impacts are *not* the primary driver of paleoclimate change. Admit your error.
#23 Familiarise yourself with Cenozoic climate change before blethering further about Milankovitch.
#25 No other forcing has changed as much as CO2 forcing during the Cenozoic. This provides an over-arching mechanism that explains the general cooling trend from ~50Ma. It demonstrates the role of CO2 forcing in climate change on a geological scale.
#64 Retract your rubbish about Rignot.
Then we can move on. Your rubbish about the models has been dealt with upthread, so repeating it is pointless.
The big problem with all the palaeo work you’re in love with is that catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2.
Incorrect statement of facts and argument by assertion. Addressed repeatedly above (#25 previous page; see above).
You are making a miserable mess of this. And you know it, hence the bully-boy aggression tactics, evasion, Gishing etc.
Now, engage substantively and I will take you apart.
Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]
catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2.
Bullshit Bunk and Dickhead - you're a flake - models are falsified and you're just sitting around with a bunch of losers on an extinct backwater blog atoll. Have a blog sook or prosecute your argument.
But really nobody gives a fuck what you think. You're a legend in your own stinky little bedroom having a Walter Mitty moment.
You're shit scared on engaging your real critics over on Nova etc. Sitting around with your criminally intense back-slappers having a circle jerk in obscurity.
TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?
Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that's not the principal basis for our concern. It's the Earth's history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they're not the primary source of our understanding.
TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?
Hansen: Oh, yeah, that's intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that's the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it's supplementary. It's not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth's history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.
And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth's history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it's misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.
Now you are becoming tedious, like many before you, by repeating crank based nonsense
My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test – and all you can do is divert.
whilst evading direct questions about any specific models you are denigrating. Look up thread.
Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have fucked up.
Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have ME (Luke) fucked up.
There fixed that for you.
As for engaging at Nova, WUWT etc,. it is best not to dive into a pig pen because you will always come out smelling of crap. And that is what you have done Luke, far from livening a place up you have dragged a nasty smell in with your persona - which doesn't seem all that pleasant at base either. I think you need med's, or a social life.
Maybe a decent thinking lady friend would do you good or are you a misogynist too.
I can honestly say that you come across as the most unpleasant person I have yet to see here, there have been other strong contenders.
BTW and yes I have completed some personal environmental re-mediation lately. And yourself?
I dutifully pottered over to the DK Corral to see the invincible (sorry) KuhnKat bring Vince up short.
I cannot speak for Vince, but it is possible that he couldn't be bothered to respond to an error-riddled Gish Gallop that ends with the unmistakable braying of Teh Stupid celebrating itself.
Here it is (link at Luke's #33):
Vince Whirlwind of disinformation taunts:
“Let me guess, in your little fantasy-data-world, the glaciers haven’t melted, Arctic ice hasn’t dwindled, sea levels aren’t rising, and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica aren’t shrinking at an accelerated rate, right?
Are your beliefs backed by any published science? Or are they more the product of your belief?”
Lemme see, published work claims that geothermal activity is partially at fault for the galloping glaciers of Greenland. Published work claims that the cental glacial area is GAINING mass while the fringes are losing. Published work shows that BOTH of those trends, galloping glaciers and mass loss, is slowing.
Published work shows that the Himalayan glaciers are NOT losing glacial mass although some are some aren’t.
Published work shows that many glaciers that were “rapidly” losing mass are slowing and some, like Mt. Kilimanjaro have actually REVERSED and are again gaining mass.
The oceans have been rising since the end of the last glaciation.
The Antarctic has been cooling and increasing its sea ice to record levels. Only the western glaciers have been thought to be losing mass. Like Greenland the heat flux from the core is slightly higher underneath the western glacier due to thinner materials below. Yeah, that is all PUBLISHED work.
So, we are left with your OLD alarmist papers that have all been superceded by RECENT observations or simply SANE interpretations of what is actually happening.
As far as the touted POLAR amplification, it has not been happening in the Antarctic for at least 30 years and now the Arctic seems to be turning on you!!
And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.
And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.
Whatever happened to your response to #93 page 16?
Gordy, please check the links Lionel A provides above. Do *not* sneer and sigh and look the other way. These sites provide useful information and they have not been sued by the persons and organisations described so we can be reasonably sure that the (referenced) info is sound. Do your background. Research. Check. Build up a confidence index and rate your sources within it. Act like a proper journalist.
Then come back and tell us how impartial and unbiased the Idsos are.
Vince @ #61
Good on you for at least making the attempt and having a go.
I must admit, I used to drop in on the whacko blogs (you know who they are) and do the same myself, but a few years ago I found that far from the stupidity cheering me up it just depressed me. As in, what a waste of human life and potential, and why put yourself in the position of witnessing it?.
And anyway, life's too short to waste on wilful wasters well over the age of consent.
life’s too short to waste on wilful wasters well over the age of consent.
Yup. I used to visit some of those sites - basically to point and laugh. But old jokes get stale, and I've not seen anything new for a year or so. Maybe losing the occasionally hilarious buffoonery of the likes of Monckton has blunted their edge or something.
otoh, I've a feeling this might be a more or less becalmed period before the storm that the next IPCC report is likely to unleash. (I pity the pre-publication text editors - they know that a typo or two will make it into several thousand pages of reports. They must dread finding out that a number or a word here and there could turn out to be fodder for the gloating and breast-beating crowd.)
'The new IPCC reports on climate change had essentially sidestepped the issue of Antarctica’s potential contribution to sea level rise. The authors pointed out, rightly, that there was just too much uncertainty to make predictions.'
Yeah - old jokes get stale, and after a while it just gets depressing.
I had previously found everything I posted at Jo Nova's got moderated out of existence, but they appear to be leaving things this weekend.
Either way, it's a waste of time - El Gordo here gives us a good indication of what's going on on the cranks blogs to save us from having to visit them: endless recycling of nonsense.
Incidentally, if anybody was wondering about Luke's "wiped the floor" you will probably be unsurprised to hear that my pointing out a few solid facts is apparently trumped by, "geothermal activity melting Greenland" and "some glaciers are melting and some are gaining mass", and "Antarctica is growing".
‘The new IPCC reports on climate change had essentially sidestepped the issue of Antarctica’s potential contribution to sea level rise. The authors pointed out, rightly, that there was just too much uncertainty to make predictions.’
Yeeees......and the implication of that is what, have a think about it...?
Luke at #39 revealed that he is not fully conversant with the models (to put it mildly!): Prediction of GMT – wrong
The models don't make predictions, they make projections . If you don't know why it's significant, then you aren't informed enough to discuss the merits of models.
Incidentally, if anybody was wondering about Luke’s “wiped the floor” you will probably be unsurprised to hear that my pointing out a few solid facts is apparently trumped by, “geothermal activity melting Greenland” and “some glaciers are melting and some are gaining mass”, and “Antarctica is growing”.
I went way over the link limit at #58 - is there a comment showing there starting:
I dutifully pottered over to the DK Corral to see the invincible (sorry) KuhnKat bring Vince up short.
It did make me smile (momentarily), before I lost patience watching Gordon transplant that denier news factoid to WAIS today. Such care with the facts! (Ed Murrow - I know, ...who?) must be spinning in his grave like a pulsar..
As a serial lurker here with no relevant scientific background (although possessing what are hopefully adequate critical faculties), I gotta say that nothing that has thus far been posted has convinced me that we should over-turn the now-hundreds of years old scientific position that increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere will increase global temperature and affect climate.
Nor has anything been said that contradicts the position that this will have a devastating impact on the kind of civilisation that humanity has developed over the past ten thousand years.
For those who promulgate the views that these accepted positions are incorrect, you may want to rethink your strategy of relying on the kinds of repetitive, threadbare, scientifically and logically absurd arguments that have to date underpinned your posts.
Either that, or I may start thinking that your point is not to convince through rational argument, but simply to attempt to browbeat, bully and bluster an inconvenient reality into submission. A process that, I fear, will have the usual results.
Well. we have Gordon thinking his mate Luke is far from being a car crash of ill-informed lunacy, and of course "Karen" who doesn't comprehend the difference between heat and temperature. Oh, and the Scandinavian Troll Collective's Olouse railing against 'Greens', except when they don't do enough.
Ic an only think they imagine consistency and knowing stuff just slows them down.
St Cyr the contrarians serve a useful purpose, but obviously neither side of the debate can claim victory at the moment.
World temperatures have stabilised, so the pressure on politicians is becoming intense. In Australia the political debate is leading to a victory for common sense.
World temperatures have stabilised, so the pressure on politicians is becoming intense. In Australia the political debate is leading to a victory for common sense.
Gordon, all that you think you 'know' is based on denier misrepresentation and disinformation. That's been demonstrated time after time, and Australians aren't all cranks and loons..
The common sense of survival will win, but it's not the one you're expecting.
El gordo @ 82
The real debate, as you know, is what to do about the increasingly evident effects of AGW, not on whether it is happening, nor whether it is caused by something other than anthropogenically released CO2.
Global surface temperature has not stabilised, but its rate of increase has slowed as the deep oceans take up additional heat. Total global temperature therefore continues to rise as scientists would predict from the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As to your predictions of a victory for common sense in the upcoming Australian election, history is fairly littered with examples of 180 degree shifts in "common sense" when reality hits home. That's because most people are not insane, and will (eventually, and sometimes painfully) change their minds to accommodate the bleedin' obvious.
As Luke and Karen have pointed out, your missing heat is a fiction.
Luke and Karen did not substantiate their claims. They did burble and bleaarrrrrrghedenuydenudengetitfuckingright*deny*atlast!thereyougoboy!youcanifyoutrybutuuurrrrggghh!. Yarp!
I was convinced, after reading their [Luke and Karen] comments, that we needn’t worry about the OHC.
That'd be the "Karen" who doesn't know the difference between heat and temperature (but then neither do you, eh Gordy?) and the Luke who ran out of substantiated argument by his second post.
You're a moron who mistakes cheap attitude and posturing (lol) for something of value, Gordon. Tsk, and at your age, too.
RAIN...HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT. AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH .....
Why bother visiting [Nova] idiot goat-fucks – well Jo and Davey aren’t that dumb...
Except that "dumb" is the wrong metric.
IIRC "Davey" makes pretty serious errors on occasion, and then clings to them in the face of the rebuttal. But Jo is still worse.
I have interacted directly with her at a number of sites where she made claims that (a) were fundamentally mistaken, and/or (b) did not require anything more than basic high school English comprehension to refute, due to the structure of the claim.
In all cases she refused to admit her error, even when the error was plainly refuted by high school level English. And many of her regular commenters last time I looked, some of whom I used to discuss things with at various sites, have been even worse. This explains why I don't bother with engaging her or her site any more. There's simply no point arguing evidence and logic with people who repudiate both when they get in the way of their position. (Especially when Ms. Nova seems to make certain inconvenient comments disappear a la Mr. Watts.)
And come to think of it, Jo and her commenter's behaviour is much like your own performance here thus far. All of which may go some way to explaining why you spend so much time big-noting your own argument like a wannabe gangsta rapper, and so little taking care to comprehensibly make it and demonstrate that it is the best conclusion from the weight of all the evidence like a wannabe scientist.
But hey, at least you impress the most gullible readers here like Karen and el gordo. That's got to be good for your self esteem or something, right?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Stabilised" implies that if nothing else changes, temperatures won't change either. We have very strong evidence to the contrary despite strong attempts to deny or obfuscate it.
Whats the BFD about Joanne Codling anyway? I don't see any reason to care what she says any more than any of the hundreds of other blogs (denier and accepter) run by non-scientists.
FFS, her "science background" consists of working for Questacon making liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets. She makes Willard Anthony look qualified...
She is, in fact, the very epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, possessing the slightest of qualifications and consequently rating her abilities far beyond actuality.
And Luke, el gordo repudiating evidence that gets in the way of his position, as he has repeatedly done and does again at #11 and #12 - is a perfect example of why it's a waste of time to "engage" at Nova's website with people who fail to actually engage with the full set of evidence.
Imagine el gordo multiplied by 20 in a forum where the owners and moderators have the same cavalier disregard for inconvenient evidence and logic...
Many of the newer posters here probably won't recognise Luke from a number of years back. Five or six years ago he was a regular poster at Marohasy's swamp in particular, and often confronted the more egregious deniers.
Like Chek and Vince, I eventually stopped continually miring myself in Teh Stupidity of the more extreme denialist sites, but Luke seemed to be (bravely?) persisting. I wondered once or twice why he did so, and on several ocassions I thought that he seemed to be slipping, including once on a Deltoid thread:
It seems now that Luke is exhibiting Stockholm syndrome. If one goes over to the swamp and looks at Luke Walker's listed postings on the side-bar, it's a pretty good indication of what happens when one lives for too long in the thrall of the Other Side. A bit like the conversion of innocents to foaming fanatics that occurred at that notorious prison in the Middle East...
Assuming it's the same guy, then unfortunately he seems to have become worse in the meantime - and he was poor on that thread, being especially fond of binary thinking/excluding the middle, strawmen, ignoring valid rebuttals and the odd falsehood claimed as fact - as well as an outright quote mine.
'While it remains difficult to explain how atmospheric heat generated by increasing atmospheric CO2 could migrate into deep oceans without corresponding increase in the heat content of upper 700 m, it is not impossible: warmer water can sink under colder (at temperatures above 4°C) if it is more saline and therefore denser.
'If this happened locally, the actual migration could be missed (e.g. more saline and therefore denser water is sinking around Greenland – though there the case is that colder (but relatively less dense) water sinks under warmer (but relatively denser), all under 4°C.
'But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.
'So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2. According to my sources, deep oceans (below 2000 m) contain about 90% of biospheres’ CO2, so any putative warming of this region should release the amount of CO2 that is at least comparable to human emissions.
'Assuming IPCC’s position that the past increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2 is predominantly due to human emissions, additional release from deep oceans should be clearly visible on the curve of changes in atmospheric concentration – yet it does not seem to be.'
Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.
Now look there at the company he is in, non other than the other qualification inflater Tim Ball, birds of a feather and all that.
So why, instead of discovering more on how the Idsos are compromised by, at the best, conflicts of interest are you presenting more waffling shit from others of similar ilk?
And, why is it you do not link to the original from which you drew that waffling piffle?
Now where has Boris gone? Boris vanished just before Luke appeared, just saying, the styles are very different but...?
You hit the nail on the head, Lionel. El Fatso's 'expert' is another pseudo-scientific crank spewing out more nonsense - such as arguing that atmospheric increases in C02 are due to plants and not the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
This argument is so utterly shallow that only the right wing blogs and usual suspects will pick up ion it. TallBloke is one of them - as expected.
Entering various strings short enough for google to run properly fails to turn up anything other that your post above. What have you changed, messed with?
So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2. According to my sources, deep oceans (below 2000 m) contain about 90% of biospheres’ CO2, so any putative warming of this region should release the amount of CO2 that is at least comparable to human emissions.
At a minimum (and quite apart from what Lionel says):
a) The evidence indicates that the oceans above 2000m are warming. He's talking about the oceans below 2000m, and I don't know if there's reasonable evidence of warming there. I don't recall seeing any.
b) For his "90%" figure, I do not know whether he is conflating CO2 dissolved in deep ocean water with CO2 stored in other forms under deep ocean waters but I wouldn't be surprised if he was. If he is, then his claims about the amount of CO2 that "should be" released are most likely suspect.
c) the conclusion ("...so...") in the quote does not follow from the rest of the quote. (No evidence, no calculations or modeling, certainly no confidence intervals, no peer reviewed publication.) Maybe he's done all that elsewhere, and maybe it wasn't promptly torn to shreds after publication in a suitable journal - but it's certainly not found in your cut and paste.
The argument presented in the link in #22 relies on a head buried very deeply where the sun don't shine. (But then most of us knew that already - the Dragon Slayers group is so cuckoo that most "skeptics" have tried to distance themselves from it.) It attacks one line of evidence out of half a dozen and acts as if the rest don't exist and therefore don't directly undermine its claim.
Aha, the Re-educators of the Masses are massing.
Has their ever been so much misplaced fucking hubris since Ozymandias first popped down to his local Statues ' Я' Us?
*Love* the way our ex-sports writer refuses to answer direct questions that would require him to admit that his preferred source turns out to be fossil-fuel industry funded liars creating and disseminating misinformation on the Internet. Doggedly refuses. Refuses even to acknowledge that the question is being asked.
The stench of dishonesty is choking, Gordy. You need to wash your little, lying soul with bleach.
‘While it remains difficult to explain how atmospheric heat generated by increasing atmospheric CO2 could migrate into deep oceans without corresponding increase in the heat content of upper 700 m, it is not impossible: warmer water can sink under colder (at temperatures above 4°C) if it is more saline and therefore denser.
Bollocks right from the off. This lying clown does not understand that wind-driven vertical transport is the mechanism. Ekman pumping down the Taylor Columns at the centres of sub-tropical gyres.
Climate stability is not a natural state, so I’m saying that global cooling will become evident in a couple of years.
Mechanism? Globally, GHG forcing is increasing and will continue to do so. Explain your proposed mechanism for planetary cooling when a globalised forcing is steadily increasing.
Saying stuff (especially idiotic, unphysical stuff) is not sufficient, Gordy. This is not the same as being a third-rate hack scribbling about football matches.
This lying clown does not understand that wind-driven vertical transport is the mechanism. Ekman pumping down the Taylor Columns at the centres of sub-tropical gyres.
Indeed. And if he had bothered to read the suggested literature he would know this. Here is another suggestion gordolocks, this time a primer in Oceanography (quite a number of oceanographers have contributed to climate science David Archer for one) Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison. Of course reading does not equate to understanding with some.
Some very interesting looking engineering tricks in there, I am going to have to keep studying this. The drive is amazing, is that why the assistants are watching anxiously, waiting for a break which would cause loss of control and a crash?
There is another aspect, hint repeated four times, that intrigues me much. What am I looking at and why?
But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.
‘So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2.
I'm not an expert, but surely that only holds true if the water is saturated with CO2 at a certain temperature and pressure.
I've been linking that paper for your and others for quite some time now. Perhaps now you have found it on your own, you should read it. Even the abstract tells you this:
Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous and implies a sensitivity in the upper part of the above range, i.e., 3-4{\deg}C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing.
* * *
Now you are off on the single-data-set fallacy with WV trends.
You can't do this. If you can be bothered to find out why, here's an excellent primer:
I'm more puzzled by the physical mechanism. How does CO2 get from the deep ocean below 2000m to the surface? Because this argument seems to require a wide-scale, near-instantaneous transport of waters from the deep ocean to the surface so that the CO2 can be released.
There's nothing sufficiently "ambiguous" about paleoclimate-derived estimates for S_ff to give deniers the slightest grounds for comfort. Read the study.
* * *
What about #31 and #33?
Are we going to pretend that these open issues don't exist just like we always do Gordy?
That would be further evidence that you are in denial.
The argument that H13 advances is that the Cenozoic sensitivity estimates *support* the previous analysis in Hansen & Sato (2012).
You blanked this earlier even though I summarised the basis for the estimate for you at the time. Here, again, is that summary:
Since I know you have a horror of reading the primary literature (shared by most deniers) here’s the TLDR on H&S12:
LGM and Holocene are considered two distinct, quasi-equilibrium climate states.
Global average temperature difference is estimated to be ~5C.
Radiative forcing difference between LGM and Holocene estimated as ~6.5W/m^2.
So S to a ~1W/m^2 change in forcing = ~0.75C.
S to a ~4W/m^2 change in forcing (from 2xCO2 and a dash of CH4) = 3C.
Bingo!
Hint – when S is calculated properly from fully-resolved paleoclimate change, you always end up around 3C. This applies right across the Cenozoic (65Ma – present), so best learn to live with it!
* * *
Shall we save ourselves the trouble of pretending that you are ever going to use the bleach?
I sense confusion but much as I would enjoy exploring this I am going to bed because it's 1:25am here in the UK and tomorrow it's my son's sixth birthday and I need to be capable of dealing with all that this entails.
Ah. Cohenite - Anthony Cox of Newcastle, NSW & well paid acolyte of Big Coal. Well, the slugs are coming out to play aren't they. How did your sponsoring of Monckton last little outing go? Oh that's right: publicly pwnd by students (again) in your home town - his Lordship was most upset (how unusual). Still, have to keep drip feeding fertiliser to the plants. I see you know Luke & Fatso - now there's a surprise.
All of you keep arguing that there is no elephant in the room - it's just an large, elephant-shaped pile of imaginary elephant dung that has the look, sound, smell, feel and taste (!) of elephant, put there to confuse the other occupants of the room (elephant-hunters all) by evil socialist scientists, and anyway if you ignore it, it will go away, and it's getting smaller if you look the other way, and even if it's not getting smaller, it's not getting bigger as fast as we said it would, which means that it isn't really there, and we are evil anti-capitalist communist, socialist, greenish-red dirty scientific hippies if we say it is, and, anyway, Daddy's friend Rupert says shut up, and....
El Gordo provides a link from "climate4you.com" which pruports to show decreasing humidity over time.
Naturally, being sceptical, I asked myself whether that secondary source was reliable. The graph seems curiously devoid of any information as to the provenance of its data.
So I thought I would try to find a primary source, and here is a link that addresses the same thing as "climate4you.com", but unlike "climate4you", it actually also provides references to reputable published work.
Amazingly (or perhaps not, given El Gordo's track record), the random blog quoted by El Gordo is apparently trying to tell us something that is 180 degrees from what the facts are telling us.
Change Over Time
While from year to year specific humidity fluctuates greatly over time, scientists have measured a significant increase in specific humidity over the Earth’s surface, which is consistent with the long-term warming trend in our planet's average surface temperature. Since 1973, it's been getting more moist by roughly 0.1 grams of water vapor per kilogram of air per decade.
graph of land and ocean humidity anomalies
Annual specific humidity since 1971 compared to the 1979-2003 average (dashed line) over land (brown line) and ocean (green line). Earth has become more humid in recent decades. Based on direct humidity observations made since the early 1970s. Graph adapted from Figure 2.10 in the 2012 BAMS State of the Climate report.
References
Willett, K. M., D. I. Berry, and A. Simmons: 2013: [Hydrological cycle] Surface humidity [in “State of the Climate in 2012”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94 (8), S11–S12.
Willett, K. M., et al. (2013). HadISDH: an updateable land surface specific humidity product for climate monitoring. Climate of the Past, 9(2), 657–677. doi:10.5194/cp-9-657-2013
Simmons, A. J., K. M. Willett, P. D. Jones, P. W. Thorne, and D. P. Dee, 2010: Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational datasets. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012442.
The thing is - despite knowing that it is safe to assume that any assertion of purported fact provided by El Gordo is incorrect, it probably takes him about 10 seconds to cut and paste his latest lie, while it takes me several minutes to find data that proves his lie as such.
This is what the denial lobby is all about: it takes them no time at all to lie, while the truth needs to be treated with far more care. And this is why reputation is so important: if an assertion is made by somebody like El Gordo who has a reputation for always telling lies, then we can save time checking his "facts" by simply assuming each new "fact" is just another lie.
'I see you know Luke & Fatso – now there’s a surprise.'
Judging by your colourful language, devoid of science, you must be part of the political wing of the warmista?
Your lot is about to get rolled by a man who will scrap the fkn tax, dismantle the Klimatariat and stop subsidising renewables, so perhaps you should consider your future.
In fact, El Gordo would do well to ignore "climate4you.com", which appears to be nothing but a crank blog full of dodgy graphs.
He should instead concentrate on reading and understanding the basics, which he doesn't appear to have done yet. With the basics under his belt, he could start writing comments that demonstrate a little understanding of the topic.
In fact, upon re-perusing El Gordo's link about water column vapour, I notice some obvious discontinuities in the data - this indicates these graphs are almost certainly the product of measurements taken at a single location.
Using a single location's data as representative of a global phenomenon is particularly dishonest.
Why are deniers so reliably caught out in this way?
Craig, climate4you is Ole Humlum's blog. Humlum is known for being serially wrong, and despite claiming to be a scientist, showing a distinct inability to remove his personal biases from his analysis. His most hilarious attempt to be "scientific" was fitting a fifth-order polynomial to the temperature data, and concluding, well, nothing out of that fitting. An example: http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif
Note that you can get a similar fit with a 4th order polynomial better fit with 6th and 7th orders, but I am afraid that in such cases the "downtick" at the end isn't quite as pronounced...
...the random blog quoted by El Gordo is apparently trying to tell us something that is 180 degrees from what the facts are telling us.
Yes, this is the same random blog that Chameleon cited very early on in her career here. She took the critique of the quality of some of the material very badly, in particular the obvious attempts to bias the interpretations drawn by the reader whilst fluffing the reader to lead them to conclude they were (a) making unbiased interpretations and (b) competent to do so - and retreated to the usual set of fallacies and incoherencies to try and pretend otherwise.
His most hilarious attempt to be “scientific” was fitting a fifth-order polynomial to the temperature data, and concluding, well, nothing out of that fitting.
IIRC Spencer, Curtin and Humlum have all done this to at least one data set. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others...
They said at this stage its not possible to tell what’s going on… so they can’t make a prediction.
I know we shouldn't expect too much from a sports writer, but that is completely abysmal.
"We don't know so we can't predict" is their statement.
The implication is rather different.
I see I'm going to have to spell it out for you, El Gordo:
Being unable to predict with any kind of certainly how the Antarctic ice mass loss is going to proceed, the results of that ice mass loss are excluded from our predictions.
Do you actually understand that implication, El Gordo?
A component of the effects of global warming having a bearing on future sea level rise and been excluded from the current predictions, the IPCC predictions will necessarily understate the extent and the risks of future sea level rise.
But thanks, El Gordo, for bringing to our attention that admission by the IPCC that the reality is worse than they state.
And - oh how amusing - that once again, it turns out that your source contradicts your quite ignorant and thoughtless belief.
As I said last night - birthday party today. But I would just like to thank rhwombat for the insight at #60 and mention that Gordy et al are lying scum.
How interesting that it all fits together. Thank you too, Gordy, for reminding us at #63 that for you, this is just about politics.
Not physics.
You dangerous, stupid, lying clown. If only you could understand what you are lying about.
Now, it all looks like science (although that axial tilt claim lacks any reference), but it isn't until the acknowledgements when the fun starts for real. Apparently, the tilting of the earth's axis upon the 2004 earthquake and tsunami........was a revelation!
No time to read, but clearly yarbles. Peak NH summer insolation was ~10ka; lagged response peak Holocene NH warmth ~6ka (precession main component). T and summer insolation falling ever since. The usual pig's breakfast. Humlum no credibility anyway, just like Dr Roy PhD. Q: Why reference these people? A: Got nothing else. Desperate.
Roy Spencer is a luke warmer and doesn’t think the heat in the deep oceans will come back to haunt us. What do you think Craig?
Dr Roy PhD believes God won't allow AGW to exist, so is effectively a religious crank as others have pointed out above and elsewhere many times.
The argument does not require the deep heat to come back to haunt us - just for the rate of ocean heat uptake to fall very slightly to the pre-2000 level and strong tropospheric warming will resume.
If the deep ocean heat never returns to the surface, how does this "lag" of yours work Gordy?
Are you so dense/dishonest that you cannot see the total contradiction here?
The Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming that Spencer endorses contains the following statements (emphasis added):
WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
[...]
WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as 'admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory'. This is Spencer's belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?
How do we know Spencer is a signatory? Follow the link and scroll down to 'scientists and medical doctors'. Spencer's is the first name listed.
There are other names of interest in the list of signatories. Two in particular stood out. They were Joseph D'Aleo and Ross McKitrick.
Everyone knows Spencer is a creationist (dog botherers are pathetic), but his comment that it 'requires too much faith for even me to muster’.... was meant as humorous self deprecation.
Sorry Gordo I must have missed it. I can't be arsed going back over 1800+ comments to find some nugget though - can you provide the page and comment number/s and I'll go take a look?
Christ on a bike Gordon.
You might like to educate yourself on what the 'hockey stick' refers to.
Then you might understand why.
Or you may well not, with your underwhelming knowledge of the subject.
El Gordo will believe any pseudo-non-scientific garbage as long as it fits in with his pre-determined views on climate science. Humlum, C02 Science, Nova, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, WUWT, Junk Science, you name it, so long as it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal.
You'd think that science was being conducted through blogs alone. Most research institutes and universities don't give these cranks the time of day. And these blogs also of course don't perform scientific research - they merely selectively cite and distort published research. They overtly wear their hearts on their sleeves, and their clear bias is evidence that they are promoting hidden agendas that have little to do with the reality of AGW.
That this isn't obvious to fatso and his acolytes says a lot about them, too.
And I concede Craig appears to be right about increased humidity.
Consistent with a warming atmosphere and also a potent GHG providing most of the amplifying (aka positive) feedback required for an S/2xCO2 of about 3C.
See how it all starts to fit together Gordy?
Why only the other day you discovered that GHGs acted as positive feedbacks to orbital forcing and played an important part in the mechanism of glacial terminations.
Who knows where all this new knowledge might someday lead you?
You claimed there was a lag, but were vague on the detail other than heat going into the oceans when the sun is hot and coming out again when it's not. But when it was pointed out that this cannot be accurate because it is inconsistent with the OHC evidence you simply pretended there was no problem with your "mechanism" - and continue to do so.
Sorry for the late reply BBD [1] but I was studying those conical sort of basket weave but in reality strung like the spokes of a bicycle wheel which look to act as a combination of resting supports, drive shafts and shock-absorbers. I watched very closely at start and landing.
There are gaps in the filming, which is from a number of filmed trials by the lack of continuity in clothing, and vital details are not easy to pick out.
I am still looking. They must have tried very hard to keep static, dynamic and aerodynamic loads within tight parameters during construction of parts and assembly.
The structure of the rotors reminds me of those microfilm model aircraft a school chum of mine used to make. Made his own microfilm by IIRC pouring acetone based dope onto model aircraft engine fuel with a wire surround at surface to catch a large enough area of film for the particular surface he was covering. These aircraft were necessarily flown indoors around a pole.
Indeed chek, the drive mechanism is intriguing not being straightforward endless belt drives but spool collecting of a finite length of cord. One of the limits to endurance apart from fatigue of pilot and lateral drift. I recall seeing an earlier version where the pilot had hand cranks also, this crashed through lack of drift control which this later version overcomes by the pilot shifting his body CofG.
[1] I am in the midst of sorting out my own private computer museum, started in 1985, and all the 'puter books I have collected, I would love to find somebody who could use these books rather than tossing them in the skip.
WRT a donation, I have approached by email but heard nothing, maybe its the holiday season.
I once attended courses at Cherry Hinton, Acorn's place.
I have just found a PSU with the TANDY logo on it, probably for one of their modems. a pair of 28K8 Sportsters complete with PSUs and serial cables have just gone in the skip. Such a shame.
It *is* sad, and almost nothing remains of the "PC revolution". I remember when all the IBM PCATs were junked (a London office C1989/90, I think) - I believe they are rare and valuable things now; collectibles. Even if this is not yet the case, it will be soon. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ring the museum. Emails sometimes disappear down the cracks.
Looks like my latest response to BBD got snipped. Good to see moderation is alive. was pretty abusive but he deserved it. Nah just kidding. But you guys love to dish it out.
To Bernard J - nah it's not Stockholm syndrome at all - I'm still arguing at Marohasy and doing drive-bys on Nova, Watts and some nicer discussions on Skeptical Science.
What worries me is the quality of the debate. You have some smart guys here but on a inbred backwater. The tone is very dour - little humour, no tolerance, any serious exploration of issues like on most of the extreme partisan sites is nil. Exchange of views little.
Nova at the moment has a post on an ice sheet collapse paper. A real live paper and sole torch bearer KR is trying to hold up the fight. Where are you guys?
Cohenite dropped a scrorching tirade on sea level which you'd need a BBD bazooka to take down.
The von Storch paper is a serious wakeup call. Fine if you want to deny yourselves out of it but there are enough stress cracks to indicate the science is far from settled. That does not mean that AGW is not a long term threat but we do have to redouble our efforts in the debate.
Are you helping ? Or content in your safe little club beating up on intruders.
Cainozoic - well if you think you can compute the impact of continental positions, land ea distribution, heat transport and circumequatorial circulations; then resolve the validity of the proxy records in terms of constraining them with CO2 periodicities and get the the correct timing you're very optimistic. And ignored the entire chain of complex biogeochemical ocean processes including unknown biogenic dimethyl sulphide aerosol issues - well hunky do for you. Good luck with that.
What worries me is the quality of your debate. What the fuck do you think you are doing?
The von Storch paper is a serious wakeup call.
No, it isn't. But one wonders what the fuck HvS thinks he is doing.
Where are you guys?
Avoiding know-nothings like Cohenite, KuhnKat and the lesser denialiati.
Incidentally, you seem to have convinced yourself that I only comment here in order to create another crude strawman. You are mistaken, as usual, but thuggery is not tolerated in those venues.
I told you that it was intellectually dishonest to use a regional SL study as a proxy for global mean sea level, and here you are doing it again. Mind you, the results are unsurprising - Holocene MSL highstand reached ~6ka. So what? Eemian MSL highstands were, as stated, at least 5m higher, demonstrating WAIS collapse and ~2m contribution from the GIS.
Etc.
This is why we cannot be bothered with you, Luke. You are full of shit and you will not learn.
Cainozoic – well if you think you can compute the impact of continental positions, land ea distribution, heat transport and circumequatorial circulations; then resolve the validity of the proxy records in terms of constraining them with CO2 periodicities and get the the correct timing you’re very optimistic. And ignored the entire chain of complex biogeochemical ocean processes including unknown biogenic dimethyl sulphide aerosol issues – well hunky do for you. Good luck with that.
Is to miss the point entirely. Please RTFR: Hansen et al. 2013 and Rohling et al. 2013. Links upthread. Blue text. You click on them to open the document.
You aren't even remotely close to scepticism, Luke. Time to wake up to that fact.
Luke, deniers love to debate. Just look at Gordon - "debating" away with fuck all informing him except buzzwords, a political objective and a stunning depth of ignorance, with no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.
The 'debate' takes place in the literature, not in the oh-so-cheap, fossil fuelled blogosphere where the organ grinders would like it to be. Which is why Curry's an even bigger fool than she's exposed herself as if that's what she truly believes (her 'true' beliefs being dubious at best).
However one thing that the denialosphere's relentless campaigning has cleared up for good. Electronic democracy can never work. Too many technical holes to be exploited, and too many fuckwits who will never realise they are
Look Gordy, if you are interested enough in climate to "debate" it here, why not read a textbook and improve your topic knowledge? Again, I recommend Ruddiman, 2nd edition. Yes, I know it's not cheap, but academic textbooks are pricey. They are also invaluable.
If you get a basic framwork under your belt you will no longer be gazing uncomprehendingly at the primary literature and misrepresentations thereof. You will have a clue.
Knowledge is power. Buy a textbook or get one out of the library.
I’m sure they said somewhere that most LGM terminations were negative feedback, but I take your point.
No they didn't and good.
* * *
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by explaining a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
BBD - who are you - some irrelevance on a backwater. Really mate - your influence is ZERO?
Unless you are forming policy you're just having a big old tug.
You have failed to address any of my points like a big sook run off to the scroundrels' defence of dodgy palaeo with one of your references brought to you by the school of failed modellers. Hardly reassuring.
Your debating style is simply to make pronouncements and like all big heads make the mistake that you're controlling the flow. You're not - I'm just dragging you all around the pond my friend. You're playing chase the rabbit.
I challenge you - get over to Nova's and defend the ground. But you're too gutless. Do something useful ! What are you achieving here.
In fact you have contributed by you insularity to the deniers winning the debate with some of the crappiest science ever.
Any climate scientists sacked from Abbott are partially your fault for not holding your end up !
Turbo'sy 1998 is irrelevant - pick another period - same answer. You're in your own denial. A few more years and you'll be a laughing stock. Why is Trenberth trying to explain the pause if there is no pause? There is a pause - we don't know why and you're kidding yourself if you're convinced you really do.
Talk to some of the establishment privately and ask the question?
I challenge you – get over to Nova’s and defend the ground.
But there's no point: only cranks read those sort of sites. There's no way that rational discussion with them is possible and anyone who is unconvinced would probably not hang around except from a sort of slow motion train wreck fascination. The best use of resources is posting on sites where lurkers could be misinformed by the deniers.
Turbo - not game eh? Probably coz you won't be up to it. Your traffic here is stuffed old son ! Wakey wakey.
BTW I did pull the other one - you ignored it. And pls explain why Trenberth is explaining the pause if there is no pause. You can't.
If you guys were any good you'd have them on toast at Nova on every point - you're not that good I suggest. can't even get it up to take on Aussie's best denier site. Deltoids hiding from a hiding on endless open threads.
BBD - you don't even have a handle on internal variability - multi-decadal - you don't even know what's red noise ! Statistical left over La Nina debris perhaps?
Even your internal mathematics and computational precision is rooted.
Hong, S., Koo, M., Jang, J., Kim, J.E., Park, H., Joh, M., Kang, J., and Oh, T. (2013) An Evaluation of the Software System Dependency of a Global Atmospheric Model, Monthly Weather Review 2013 ; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00352.1
This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting.
BTW I did pull the other one – you ignored it. And pls explain why Trenberth is explaining the pause if there is no pause. You can’t.
Strawman, again. Slowdown in the rate of tropospheric warming is not disputed. Ongoing increase in the rate of OHC increase is observed. Except, of course, by data deniers.
At the moment one GHG is going gang busters, yet temperatures have remained flat, so with our star on the blink I’m looking at the null hypothesis.
As the IPCC acknowledges: there are natural and man made influences on global surface temperature. Some natural influences make the temperature rise, some make it fall. The net effect of the man made influence is to make the temperature rise. However at the moment the magnitude of the man made effect is of the same order as some of the natural influences, so when they all act together to lower the surface temperature, the man made effect is overwhelmed.
The denier POV is that there used to be natural climate change, but now it's stopped so only man made climate change can affect the surface temperature. So temperatures should rise linearly with increasing GHG.
What kind of a numpty could possibly call von Storch's pathetic bit of trash, "a serous wakeup call"?
Oh, this kind of "quality of the debate":
Sheri
August 20, 2013 at 1:57 am · Reply
The Neanderthals extinction is not 100% certain. Some think there was inbreeding with Homo Sapiens. Reading some of the comments, I am leaning toward that theory.
Report this
20
#
blackadderthe4th
August 20, 2013 at 3:08 am · Reply
‘Reading some of the comments, I am leaning toward that theory’, well you would know all about your family history! So I can’t argue that point.
Report this
02
#
Sheri
August 20, 2013 at 3:17 am · Reply
Are you really so stupid as to think “comments on this blog” are including my own. Seriously, I don’t think I’ve seen many people as utterly stupid as you are–congratulations. Have a nice day–somewhere else. Please wish me the same. Please, please, please.
Report this
20
#
Heywood
August 20, 2013 at 7:56 am · Reply
“Are you really so stupid “
Yes. Yes he is.
BlackTurdthe4th is still attempting to spam us with links to his channel in some vain attempt to achieve the highest view count of the year. He gets off on it.
“well you would know all about your family history”
Coming from the idiot that had a sook to the mods about personal attacks. Perhaps he should find a YouTube video that defines hypocrisy.
Now to throw! in some random! exclamation marks! in! inappropriate! places!
Report this
00
#
blackadderthe4th
August 20, 2013 at 12:15 am · Reply
‘maybe there’s a brain-damaged idiot’ and that’s the group I put you in!
Real quality there from the Jo Novians.
I wonder why Luke is over here trying to recruit people for Jo Nova's blog?
Could it be that the endless repetition of idiotic conspiracy theories and mindless crankery has become so boring that her hit count has plummeted?
BTW I did pull the other one – you ignored it. And pls explain why Trenberth is explaining the pause if there is no pause. You can’t. There is no pause in the increase in the heat content of the Earth system. You're cherry picking a metric that fits your narrative, whilst ignoring the ones that prove it wrong.
I challenge you – get over to Nova’s and defend the ground. But you’re too gutless. Do something useful ! What are you achieving here.
There is no point. They are all like you. Ill-informed and profoundly in denial. Dealing with nonsense in a hostile environment is hard work. Dealing with it here is a handy way of keeping up with the roiling of the denialosphere without actually having to swim in the sewage.
BBD - excuses excuses - have a look at KR having a go. Keep the insults down (no fun I know) and content high (esp. citations) and you won't get snipped.
You've got him on the hook El Gordo - now reel him in. Interesting - the dumber they are the harder they bite. You're dragging him all over the pond. The trick is to show leadership - sadly missing.
'The denier POV is that there used to be natural climate change, but now it’s stopped so only man made climate change can affect the surface temperature.'
this is what we call a rout.
A bit early to declare yourself the winner, since all you've done is post links without explaining what your point is and how they support it.
I'm not here to defend German energy policy Gordy.
You haven't answered the question I asked you above:
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by describing a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
EG at #39 Isn't that your POV? In #20 you said At the moment one GHG is going gang busters, yet temperatures have remained flat, so with our star on the blink I’m looking at the null hypothesis.
So you're clearly expecting temperature to go up in line with GHG.
#43 Germany is building six new coal fired power stations this year
Doh, when do you think the projects started? Over 2 dozen projects have been cancelled or put on hold over the last few years. The ones that are being finished ( BTW I'm not sure that it is 6) were planned years ago to replace old fashioned highly polluting plant mainly in the East. And as my link shows, they're not going to be profitable.
Hey I'm a bit slow: Luke's changed his avatar. What's odd is that it looks like it's just a cropped version of his old one. How come you've only got one image of yourself?
Yeah, only a hypothesis TB. But what's the odds that Luke is a 70-ish ex-middle manager who wishes someone had had the guts he would have had - yessiree Bob! - to nuke Moscow back in the day which would have stopped this eco-foolishness in its tracks decades ago. Or variation thereof.
Nope. Increase in GHG forcing is *much larger* than putative decrease in solar forcing even if we get a Maunder minimum.
Energy balance. Try to understand.
* * *
Now, what about answering at least one of the multitude of questions you have ignored so far?
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by describing a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
'Increase in GHG forcing is *much larger* than putative decrease in solar forcing even if we get a Maunder minimum.'
The temperature hiatus is of concern and there appears to be a parallel with the Dalton.
Over the next couple of years I expect we'll see a general cooling and drying, with this warmer wetter clime a thing of the past, but thank dog we have CO2 in abundance.
chek: Luke & Fatso are bitter middle-aged ex-working-class-hero thickwits who hang around Oz sites arguing with pot-plants in the hope of being mistaken for intellectual-giants-of the-prolatariat, just like their real idols Col Pot & Andrew Blot. And, just like their idols, they have accepted that it's OK to snuggle up to Gina's enormous nipples, suck Koch, and swallow Kindly Uncle Rupert's propaganda, 'cause predicted reality scares them, and that brings sideways looks from their thug mates in the virtual pub.
BTW Fatso @p18#63 - I'm a specialist physician with a PhD and a research interest in lung disease, working in public hospitals in a regional city with the world's worst coal addiction. Does that make me part of the political wing of the warmista? Project much, you ex-tabloid hack? "My lot are about to get rolled" - by "fkn" Tory Rabbott, are they Fatso? Bwaahaahaa. Well at least we know where you & your "mate" fall on the spectra of stupidity and self-interest. Paul Keating was right about a lot of things - including you.
It looks bad, but humanity has been here before so we should survive.
Whenever humans have fouled their nest the civilisation involved has collapsed. Some remnants may have survived, but often not or only as a shadow of their former selves.
And the damage that humans are inflicting on the plane this time dwarfs the damage that has occurred before the Industrial Revolution. Climate change is as profound as mainstream scientists warm, regardless of the denialism of the ostrich* tribes, and it's piling on top of pollution, habitat destruction, the spread of exotic diseases and plants and animals, and the overuse of many biological resources.
We might "survive", but if we persist with our current trajectory it will be a pitiful survival. You seem to be happy with that - I am not.
I like BBD's arguing style - a list of numbers and such a demanding style. Maybe I should copy that ... but nah .... ram raiding is more fun.
What does my picture convey - a highly conflicted but sensitive individual reaching out to communicate with the Deltoids in their insulated microcosmic atoll. A diversion? Perhaps a statement of the debate?
It could be spring and things are thawing - early this year? - but I think the August thread count has increased due to my presence. I will accept Bitcoins if gratitude is required but a simple thank you is enough too.
But I thought I might be able to persuade yo'all to do some serious debate with your nemeses (not me I'm on your side - you just haven't worked that out yet). But alas you're content at home beside the fire entertaining your house guest El Gordo.
Of course it could be for the best as BBD may not be housetrained.
'I’m a specialist physician with a PhD and a research interest in lung disease, working in public hospitals in a regional city with the world’s worst coal addiction.'
Any climate scientists sacked from Abbott are partially your fault for not holding your end up !
You're living in fantasy land and projecting like a lighthouse. "Holding your end up" at a denier site, based on a considerable amount of evidence, changes practically zero minds - about climate science, let alone about who to vote for on the basis of their climate policies.
And this is all quite amusing coming from someone who relies on a misguided concept of validity to dismiss climate models.
This is our blog now. We’re moving in.
Shades of the same delusion as BK. That didn't end well for him.
I think I’m going to have to engage you as they’re not up to it.
I sincerely hope that was a lame attempt at humour. If not, you are so far out of touch with reality that you may need professional help.
And I see several La Ninas and ENSO neutral years with a glaring lack of el Nino years - none in the last 5 years, only one in the last decade. What do you think might happen to the NOAA graph if the numbers of La Nina/el Nino years were to change places in the next decade? http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/
Craig - why are you letting them get away with it? Compare your ratings here with Nova.
And I find the contest actually sharpens the argument.
Lotharsson #91 - no I didn't say that. I wryly commented that I'd have to attack La Gordo for sport out of boredom. But don't swing at it. You guys need to stop swinging at everything. Show some leadership and whip out an exposition. Don't tailgate rabbits. Shouldn't have told you that I guess.
Maybe you're not capable of an exposition any more.
Looks like a massive amount of recent warming to me (and seeing as I understand the effects of CO2 and am aware of the resulting energy imbalance that exists right now, it all makes sense to me), however, I wouldn't want to mislead anybody with my own unqualified opinions, let's see what the NCDC are getting out of it:
Earth’s average annual surface temperature is higher today than it was when record keeping began in the mid- to late 1800s, an indicator of long-term, global-scale climate warming. All of the top ten warmest years in the record have occurred since the last major El Niño event, in 1998.
Earth’s average annual surface temperature is higher today than it was when record keeping began more than a century ago...Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average... the rate of warming is 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970, ...
Agreed, Craig.
Luke & Fatso (& cohenite) are just domestic versions of contrarian denialists like Spam, Olouse, coproemetic mike, Redarse the Tory mandrill and Boris-the-Fred - sad never-weres, roaming the webs, looking for some way to validate their addiction to Rupert farts & Doubt Merchant chum.
The old standbys of Monckton gleet, WTFUWT farts, Heartland bribes, Bishopshill preaching, Coddling crap, Marohasy swamp and fossilised Carter coproliths are all losing their power to sooth the proctalgia, so they go looking for the unmoderated shell of a once potent blog to try their luck...with predictable results. Still, it is occasionally illuminating when one of them digs up some unexploded intellectual ordinance and throws it into the fire, if only for the schadenfreude. Bit post-apocalyptic really.
'What do you think might happen to the NOAA graph if the numbers of La Nina/el Nino years were to change places in the next decade?'
Good question, we are in a cool PDO so there will probably be a continuation of neutral or La Nina ENSO, with only one modest El Nino in the coming decade.
"GHGs amplify the effects of changes in orbital forcing. They are a positive feedback."
Oh yes, that Great meteorologist and climate scientist Shelley would disagree:
"I am the daughter of Earth and Water,
And the nursling of the Sky;
I pass through the pores of the ocean and shores;
I change, but I cannot die.
For after the rain when with never a stain
The pavilion of Heaven is bare,
And the winds and sunbeams with their convex gleams
Build up the blue dome of air,
I silently laugh at my own cenotaph,
And out of the caverns of rain,
Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb,
I arise and unbuild it again."
Clouds aren't a +ve feedback, unless of course your indoors with your indoors and quoting poetry.
Then:
"Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales"
So, you're saying nature is in perpetual stasis?
rhwombat, I relate to your anger; please continue.
SpamKan:
The most likely explanation was self-preservation, given the progeny on display here.
But why is it not "good enough"?
- Do you have better data?
- Do you think the scientists are trying to trick us?
Why do you have a problem here?
Pick one or both options.
Bears repeating on the new page:
Karen, wake up. You are some buffoon on the internet. You quote other buffoons on the internet. This is not the road to truth.
I want to see the historical ocean temperature data BBD, not your buffoonery.
How and why do you post those alarmist OHC cartoons without ACCURATE HISTORICAL DATA to evaluate current temperatures against ?
lol, you r a nuffie :)
BBD - put some errors bars around that material - do your due diligence and lineage and you won't be so cock sure.
As for "buffoons on the internet" remember you're here too. So prosecute your argument and stow that leftie by-wash.
Oh for crying out loud...
This gem from "Karen" can go right next to "Boris"'s
Obviously, anything with more than two variables would make their puny little heads explode.
Pathetic.
I have to disagree BBD.
Monckton is a buffoon.
Delingpole is a buffon.
Tisdale is a buffoon.
SpamKan isn't even the dogshit under Monckton's shoe, just a mindless repeaterbot, hence the established nick.
@Luke: "put some errors bars around that material "
It's right there in the linked sources, moron. You have three options here:
1) Admit you have no clue what "error bars" mean
2) Admit you're too stupid to read source material
3) You're a lying douche
Pick.
Off you go, moron. You tell the NOAA their data needs 'error bars'. Be sure to cc all correspondence to here.l
With error bars. Note that the decadal slope exceeds the decadal error margin.
Luke, you have no evidence, so why are you so cocksure about your position?
So what 'Boris' is saying is that when the forthcoming paper on
in a high-profile climatology journal - which should doubtlessly be so 'Skeptic'-friendly it'll be made sticky at Willard Tony's place, so we won't miss it - he'll be the lead author of said paper?
And identifiably a 'Senior Climatology Scientist' and project 'boss'?
I assume you're keeping your ...erm ... more 'intelligent' mates in reserve, eh Gordon?
Looks like BBD still gets to be pretty damn cocksure to me. How come you thought he wouldn't be, 'Luke'?
And are you just r ld frnd 'mke' sckppptng?
Well, you can cast doubt on the early parts of all records, but not on the latest ARGO data.
OHC 0 - 2000m; 2005 - 2013
What does this *demonstrate*?
It *demonstrates* that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system, as expected.
Luke isn't mike.
Familiar from elsewhere?
Dunno. The drone of denial buggers with my short-term memory. It all sound the same these days.
Chek (aka micro-turd) shouldn't you be in school or are you wagging it?
I agree with your buffoon list no probs, but doesn't mean that little punk bedwetters such as yourself are any better.
Look we all might have been involved in land surface feedback papers but don't tug yourself that it's actually serious science. Validated by whom - your Mum probably. It's simply dog shit if the models are wrong. And with what you're likely putting in for evaporation they are. I supposed it will be published in some E&E equivalent of a soft alarmist review journal.
The score so far unrebutted: Models are wrong on global temperature evolution. We don't know why. Tropospheric hotspot missing (wind shear and stats bullshit withstanding), Evaporation in wrong direction, Antarctic sea ice not predicted to be increasing. Stratospheric temperature trend not cooperating. . Sea level not accelerating.
Tell me what you have going for you ? Go on prosecute your argument or maybe it's time for class?
But given you're a CMIP5 rocket scientist - inform us on flux adjustment s or the various paramaterisations and defend their use? Sound of crickets, choking and/or hand waving.
"Temperature evolution"?
"Sea level not accelerationg"?
Luke, you are a moron.
"Luke, you are a *hand waving* moron *with no data, and therefore no argument*"
Corrected that for you, Stu.
This is precisely the kind of 'windbag regurgitating multiply-debunked zombie memes' that should just be blocked or removed straight-off to a sandpit.
And, are we really sure it's not mike? There's the coprolalia and he's brought his mum into it already!
True enough, bill. There's enough sexual repression bleeding through in that one comment alone that probably warrants at least a decade of therapy.
And pre-emptive registration as a sex offender. Holy hakalela that was creepy.
Luke is amusing:
This, from the guy who used Der Spiegel and "Lucia" as his appeal to authority.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
As for models, Lindzens' are completely wrong, Easterbrook's are utterly wrong, and the rest of the deniers' are even worse.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif
So far, the IPCC appears to have the best info, while Luke's sources are incorrigibly dishonest, misleading, and obviously wrong.
This repetition of an already refuted claim based on very simple evidence and logic, from the troll who just tried to claim it wasn't him allegorically hanging around the poker machine because it's "due", by projecting that onto someone else.
These allegedly "heavy duty" irony meters just don't cut it. Anyone know where I can get a full-on industrial version?
No, that's a problem for your "logic". "Heat rises" refers to a gas, Karen. Things are more complex in a liquid, especially a more complex one like seawater.
In seawater evaporation levels affect salinity and salinity affects density and relative density (amongst other things) affects what rises and what falls. That can lead to "heat falls" rather than "heat rises".
And, as you helpfully pointed out last week some time, although you don't seem to have understood what it means for your argument, changes in wind patterns can drive ocean mixing. So on that basis alone it's wrong to say that increasing ocean heat content MUST mean warming SSTs.
Yes but we're not talking about Lindzen or Easterbrook are we. So the ability to defend your arguments is zero.
And you would not put Lucia or von Storch as contrarians?.Surely?
Essentially you have no rebuttal except abuse. And now you're using Cook as an appeal to authority. How rich?
So I assume you're all unable to prosecute your argument.
Also, the idea that Gordon is somehow, what?, a competent debater, well-versed in the issues, is comical.
Tell you what, let's sponsor him to wander over to RealClimate and give them what for! Truly a 'popcorn' notion!
I still laugh aloud - for real, SpamKan, not as some hollow ritual - every time the Maclean prediction pops up on that animated gif! And yet we're debating people who credit such spectacular and aphysical eventualities as feasible. Because the models are FALSIFIED!, people!... Will no-one think of The Children?!?!
Sorry, this is the guy who blew into town claiming others were arguing from authority? And running a bog-standard conspiracy - 'FALSIFICATION!' - theory?
And, let's be clear: you're saying that Ms. Liljegren outranks Lindzen?
Apparently you don't know what the term means.
Regardless of whether that's true or not it's still a blatant cherrypick. Which you then ignore. And then pretend that it's everyone else who isn't willing to have a straight discussion. Hmmm....
You raised von Storch's interview, but don't seem to have read the part where he says more heat is going into the deep ocean than previously thought. So I guess you think von Storch is full of it? Would have saved a lot of time if you'd just said that right up front ;-)
Unsubstantiated claim. Also, not tied to anthropogenic factors, so you might want to explain why you think your claim is significant in this context. Also, IIRC, derived from fairly basic climate principles (changes in lapse rate) so not predicted solely by climate models (again, explanation of the significance you attach to it is missing).
Also AFAIK not missing in action except perhaps in the tropics and even there only in the long term trends - and there (see previous sentences, amongst other analysis) it's most likely due to data quality issues (also try the Advanced tab).
Is this the poor (Nova-esque, even) quality of argument you want to be known for? Oh, wait:
Sigh. It's always...
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Every now and then we get someone who has learned to parrot the terms that describe what is and what is not valid scientific debate. They tend to spend most of their time characterising other people as using the invalid methods but they never demonstrate that the arguments they label as invalid are actually invalid. They give every sign of not knowing what the terms mean, but of wielding them in some kind of Cargo Cult debating style as a magic incantation that will deliver desirable goods from the sk...er, make their positions the most consistent with the evidence.
You're starting to give that kind of impression, so if you want to be taken seriously...lift your game.
Logic Fail.
The onus is on you to make a serious argument. So far you've merely made cartoon sketches, and people have responded with an appropriate level of seriousness and rigour. This isn't evidence that they have "zero ability to defend", it's evidence that you seem to prefer to project inability to make your case onto other people to actually making your case. Wake me up when that changes.
(And all together now! It's always...)
Luke, if you claim CMIP5 models are falsified, why do you refer to von Storch who *denies* they are falsified? (even though he also largely ignores the OHC data to 2000 meters)
Also, your claim "Tropospheric hotspot missing (wind shear and stats bullshit withstanding)"
sounds a lot like: "dismiss the evidence when it doesn't fit". The obvious flaw in the arguments of those who claim the satellites show there is no tropical(!) tropospheric hotspot is that basic science shows there should be one regardless of the cause of the warming of the lower troposphere. Now, I say "the warming" because those same satellites show the lower troposphere is warming.
You also ignore Johnson & Xie (2010), who have taken yet another approach to study whether there is a tropical tropospheric hotspot based on looking at precipitation and correlation with SST, and concluded that there *must* be such a hotspot.
#15 BBD
"Well, you can cast doubt on the early parts of all records, but not on the latest ARGO data.
OHC 0 – 2000m; 2005 – 2013
"What does this *demonstrate*? "
You tell me BBd,
Howz about you demonstrate a chart graduated in celsius from the same raw data used to calculate the OHC,
the 1998 is a red herring in this instance. You can pick a slightly longer period and the answer is the same. You can make excuses about deep heat but the fact is the observed results are unexpected and not predicted by the models. What we're getting now is a but but but ..... it might be this. It might be that. You don't know.Read von Storch's paper.
von Storch offers mutliple explanations in his paper. But we really don't know. He doesn't say the models are falsified. I never said he did.
You can to contort yourself in knots to defend the trop hotspot non-existence. Johnson and Xie conclude there "must" be a hotspot. I just sigh. There must be eh? They resort to an "indirect" measurement. Sorry - hardly convincing and more squirming and wiggling.
And von Storch also says scientists should stop preaching like sermons - and you lot should consider the same. Your track record is hardly impressive.
Lotharsson this blog used to be worth attending - it is no longer. It's just another nasty spiteful little place. An anti-Nova-esque variant.
A "slightly longer period" isn't sufficient to stop it being a cherry-pick, nor does it rescue the poor quality of your argument.
Wait, wait, you mean models aren't super excellent in all possible respects? Well, blow me down with a very small feather!
You do know that models are models, right? That means they are generally expected to have areas where they don't correspond as closely as in others - and in this case, deep ocean heat appears to be one of them.
And if it is, then that explains why surface temperatures in models may look higher than recent observations - the heat energy is being distributed differently from the way the models do it, an outcome that I reckon would surprise almost no-one involved in model-making and model evaluation.
And in that case, the bleating that "the models are falsified" is foolish - or at least vastly over-simplified to the point of being misleading or leading to invalid conclusions.
It's also foolish because models aren't assessed on whether they are "right" or "wrong", "true" or "falsified", but on how useful they are - on a multitude of different metrics.
And because none of this affects the case for concern about anthropogenic climate change.
And because you can remove most of the effects of three sources of natural variability from the surface temperature record and see the underlying trend continues, even over the 15 years in question. That is pretty suggestive that natural variability is responsible for most of the phenomenon that von Storch is exploiting (and yes, it's well known that reproducing short term natural variability is not done well by the models).
Delving into the strengths and limitations of the models is interesting if you're into that kind of thing, and scientists are keen to improve the limitations where possible - but if you are actually trying to have that kind of discussion you're (a) doing it very badly by giving off all sorts of troll indicators and (b) arguably doing it in the wrong forum, given that there are places where model makers discuss that kind of thing.
Au contraire.
You are asserting non-existence based on data that is inconclusive for long term trends (but demonstrates its existence over shorter time periods). That is fallacious. Your position also calls into question very basic climate science on the basis of data that isn't the highest quality - that is foolish, given that you have provided no other evidence to support your position.
Tone trolling, either from you or from von Storch is worthless. Especially dressed up in religious language, when most of the argument from "you lot" here refers back to the scientific evidence and most of your own argumentation has consisted of naked assertion.
You're really not covering yourself in glory here. I suspect that for you this place really isn't worth attending. (Anyone want to bet he doesn't stick the flounce?)
Luke, you said the CMIP5 models were falsified AND you referred to Von Storch's opinion as relevant for your opinion. The two contradict.
Did you read Johnson & Xie? *basic* physics says the tropical tropospheric hotspot must be there for their analysis to give the results they obtain. If it weren't there, any and all weather models contain a fatal flaw that would mean they could not ever work.
Are you referring to the last decade having "only" 0.1C increase in atmospheric temperature instead of the average run of models showing an average 2C per century increase for the current century?
If you look carefully at those (admittedly horrible and confusing) spaghetti graphics you will find that every. single. line. - yes, I know it's hard to trace each line - shows at least one period of 10-15 years where temperature plateaus or falls. So I'm not sure what your issue is here.
BBD 1: Luke pwned.
And notice how Luke pretends nothing happened? Classic denial of error from a classic denialist.
Yep. I was waiting to see whether his reaction would indicate he wanted a good faith discussion or...something else. So far the smart money's on something else.
'El Gordo why do you bother with these kids.'
I need the exercise, my sword was getting rusty. Also, the robust environment can be intellectually stimulating, not for what this rabble says, but by stint of intuitive intellect while searching for answers.
It was only the other day, reading on our emergence from the LGM, that I realised CO2 may have played a part in warming the planet. Its the sensitivity issue we need to resolve.
'Classic denial of error from a classic denialist.'
I know for a fact that Luke is not a member of the Denialati, but over the years I have seen him often in the warmist camp.
'And von Storch also says scientists should stop preaching like sermons – and you lot should consider the same. Your track record is hardly impressive.'
They are a woeful lot and brainwashed in the extreme, a perfect example of arrogance and ignorance combined into a nasty piece of work... and they really should consider their future in a cooling world.
Keeriste- the ignorance AND condescension.
From the man who only just worked out something we've known for nigh-on 200 years! Frankly, the opinions of 'slayers' on who and what makes a ' Warmist' don't amount to much!
'Rabble', eh? Feel free to sod off. I notice you lost your temper above, too. And this is consistent with your believing you're winning, would you say?
Your threats are another matter: consider, Sunshine, the consequences of you being wrong.
Frankly, your hysterics aside, believing the CSIRO and NASA over the Tobacco Lobby reborn doesn't seem much of a sin to me, but then again, you've spent years cheerfully toiling for one of the most dreadful men of the modern age.
As you still are.
2C is going to a rough-enough ride: 4C, on the other hand, would give us a new planet, one on which many people are going to be deeply, deeply unhappy.
And, believe, me, even though it will largely be due to their own, or their parents', culpably complicit Stupidity, that's not how they're going to see it, unless you imagine human nature has somehow changed...
So, beware your own petard: we'll just reverse your logic, and ramp it up according to the scale of the consequences, shall we?
Gordy
Considering that you have been shown up incessantly here as woefully ill-informed and incapable of conceptualising even basic energy flows [etc...] your comments are just fucking absurd.
Please try to remain anchored in the shared reality. You are in danger of disappearing up your Boris.
3C +/- 1C
Hansen & Sato (2012).
Straight from the LGM-Holocene transition. Do read it. It's a good primer on empirical estimates of S from paleoclimate behaviour.
'...the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).
' New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
'This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.'
SS Gospel
Since I know you have a horror of reading the primary literature (shared by most deniers) here's the TLDR on H&S12:
LGM and Holocene are considered two distinct, quasi-equilibrium climate states.
Global average temperature difference is estimated to be ~5C.
Radiative forcing difference between LGM and Holocene estimated as ~6.5W/m^2.
So S to a ~1W/m^2 change in forcing = ~0.75C.
S to a ~4W/m^2 change in forcing (from 2xCO2 and a dash of CH4) = 3C.
Bingo!
Hint - when S is calculated properly from fully-resolved paleoclimate change, you always end up around 3C. This applies right across the Cenozoic (65Ma - present), so best learn to live with it!
No, Gordy, not "SS gospel". All they do is quote the actual science. All you are doing is denying it without understanding what it says. Which is stupid and self-defeating in equal measure. You continue to vanish up your Boris.
Well in terms of good faith discussions - why not chain up your guard dogs here?
Love all the denier jibes - don't verbal me bedwetting alarmists with crook models.
"Now Wait, wait, you mean models aren’t super excellent in all possible respects? Well, blow me down with a very small feather!" So the topic is global warming and they don't predict the obs - jeepers ! Nor the Antarctic sea ice. Nor do we know why the models are wrong. Nor why they've got pan evap trends wrong. It's an increasing mess. Multi-model averaging means Aussie rainfall could be plus or minus 20% wetter or drier. Well that's frigging helpful isn't it? Cannot get the trend in tropical cyclones making landfall either.
Maybe the deep ocean heat is irrelevant and maybe climate sensitivity is very low. Maybe we don't understand internal variability.
So very soon you will have no models producing the hiatus in warming. 2% do now (take comfort). Soon - None - no ensemble members from no models. At what point might "you lot" start getting a tad critical?
Why do you fail to acknowledge that your central claim - that "the models are wrong" - is based on a mistaken conflation of tropospheric temperature with the climate system entire?
The measured change in OHC validates the modelled results. "Global warming" in the correct sense of "energy accumulating in the climate system" is happening exactly as expected.
I showed you this last night, and as Bernard J. observes at #39, you blanked me and carried on wittering. Yet you have entirely lost this argument.
This pattern of behaviour is known as "denialism" by the way. And I will call a spade a spade. You do not own the language, though you have tried to hijack its meaning in lieu of having any actual scientific case for your denialism.
One further point. What you mis-term "alarmism" is scientific knowledge principally derived from paleoclimate behaviour. Not models. They are adjuncts to what is already known. Deniers love to misrepresent this point, but hey, goes with the mindset, right?
No, no and yes we do.
'You do not own the language'
There are three distinct camps... warmists, sceptics and denialati, the latter believing in global cooling.
David Archibald is a leading member of the Denialati.
But uncertainty cuts 2 ways.
Hence your 'do-nothingism' is predicated on Pollyannaish, and faulty, reasoning.
Whereas your do-nothingism is predicated on precious little indeed, Gordon.
'The CSIRO is corrupt'! From a guy who worked for Murdoch!
It's new irony meters all 'round, then
You are not a sceptic. "Warmist" implies an agenda, which is conspiratorial framing. Only denier is accurate. This is exactly what I mean when I say that deniers have attempted to hijack the language. For someone claiming to have been a journalist, your parsing is astonishingly weak.
'All you are doing is denying it without understanding what it says.'
I did read the whole article before commenting and the thrust was to downplay the MWP, saying it was regional and not universal, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I would also argue, confronted by the knowledge that the models are wrong, the Modern Climate Optimum was exactly the same as the MWP mechanisms.
High solar activity late last century is a dead give away.
Riiiiiiight. So explain your remarkable 'lag' then, Gordon.
Or just duck the question for the 25th time.
Oh, the latter; what a surprise!
All you're demonstrating is how right Dunning and Kruger were
D&K again?
The high solar activity of late last century warmed the atmosphere and oceans, we see the lag in the oceans.
Luke
'Models are wrong on global temperature evolution. I don’t know why.'
There fixed that for you. For it is clear from that statement that you don't understand how models are constructed and run, or why. Do you understand the concepts of 'parametrisation' and 'resolution' and how and why they vary between models and across the history of climate models.
Please write a short passage, in your own words, explaining these concepts and why there are limitations or GO AWAY.
Now on appeals to authority does not von Storch cite the works of others?
Whatever, I figure, from your misunderstanding of the issues that you have to 'appeal to in-authority' (in-authority to indicate a perverted authority which reaches conclusions to fit an agenda rather than the facts) to come to the conclusions that you do.
And you and gordolocks, kraken, mike etc., are members of the ignorati - as distinct from the denialati which latter is a term reserved for those, one time, scientists who engage in the sort of activity indicated within parenthesis in the above para'. You will find some of these listed, and activities described, at the DeSmogBlog Research Database. Go learn something.
'DeSmogBlog Research Database. Go learn something.'
**sigh**
Gordon, you just make it up as you go along.
The whole 'the sun went off yonks ago, so there is no mechanism by which you can explain the continued warming of the oceans' thing has been explained to you over and over, but you simply cannot grasp the point! The fact that you don't want to makes it more difficult, but I'm afraid this really is not the whole explanation.
You. Don't. Get. It.
A little up the page you were congratulating yourself, via your 'Warmist' buddy, for having condescended to acknowledge basic physics that's been known for centuries.
And yet you've been mouthing off on this issue for how long?
You are Dunning Kruger personified. You are the talkback blowhard who shuffles his prejudices for ten minutes and announces that he knows more than the CSIR friggin' O. You are the acme of incompetence that simply cannot recognise itself.
Which, for you, is a blessing.
Gordy
Yes it does. See PAGES-2k as but the latest verification. You don't know what you are talking about so when you say stuff like "it doesn't stand up to scrutiny" you look like an ignorant, mouthy arsehole.
There was no global, synchronous MWP. That is a denier myth concocted to attack Mann and the IPCC. And like a buttock-thick dupe, you are brainlessly repeating it. You must have been a fucking awful journalist.
* * *
And you are still repeating this flabby rubbish despite having been unable to explain the physical mechanism for several weeks. This makes you a stupid, dishonest wanker on top of everything else.
You have become extremely boring, Gordo. Perhaps you'd like to update your schtick or just fuck off now?
'for having condescended to acknowledge basic physics that’s been known for centuries.'
Can we discuss the sensitivity issue?
You aren't in a position to argue anything of the sort because the models aren't wrong in the sense you claim. See # 51.
Why is it necessary to repeat stuff endlessly with you people? Why do you simply blank out the full explanation and keep droning the same endlessly debunked rubbish?
Stupid? Dishonest? Scum? Or just arrogant, confused, political and in denial?
We just did. Are you fucking blind?
#46
#48
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
As the person who coined the term "denialati" I can state very firmly that your definition is not correct.
UTFSE and figure it out - if you're able.
"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age,"
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/IMAGESGISP2/Bender-NSF.GIF
:) :)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
"There are three distinct camps"
1/ barnturd
2/ BBD
3/ chek
Not over relatively short time periods, no. It's much harder to do that than it is to predict long term outcomes. A key reason for this is well known and is a feature of all models of systems with significant noise on top of a trend signal. Over the short term the noise in the system can easily overwhelm the trend (and the models are extremely unlikely to predict anywhere near the exact noise sequence realised by the system); over the long term the trend wins out over the noise (so the lack of prediction of the actual noise realised by the system has much less of an effect on the detection of the signal). This has been well known for a long time. (And that's quite apart from what I pointed out earlier about models being, well, models.)
That's not gonna fly. There's plenty of evidence that sensitivity isn't "very low". That's also been known for quite a long time.
You seem to be already specialising in the Fallacy of Argument From Personal Ignorance. We already have a full complement of commenters who do that - perhaps you could find some other niche to occupy?
See what I mean, Luke? While I was typing, Karen demonstrated that she - despite copious numbers of corrections on this point - is Personally Ignorant of the distinction between global and local.
By 'eck you're clueless karen. Those cores show T back to the Eemian (GISP2) and T back through several entire glacial cycles to MIS11 400ka (Vostok).
The MWP doesn't resolve even as a blip. You have yet again proved yourself hopelessly, wonderfully, hilariously clueless.
Lol! As you would burble.
I can't believe the stupid muppet posted those links.
Karen - how many times have I warned you not to dabble in paleoclimate?
And what *always* happens when you do? Something hilarious!
Have you sorted out the difference between Greenland and the Eemian yet by the way?
Says el gordo, channeling the Boris style of Argument By Assertion And Incantation Of Magic Debate Terms instead of arguing from actual evidence. Not a good look.
Yes, D & K again. It's already been explained to you how this is inconsistent with the data. You simply pretend it hasn't and reiterate. That's about as convincing as Boris. D&K - or complete dishonesty are the two most plausible explanations.
Oh it is so much worse than that.
It's a full spatio-temporal confusion doctor!
Nurse! The screens! Quickly now!
The recent warming is also regional nuffies, not only is it regional but also not unprecedented.
Antarctica is killing your co2 fantasy and the OHC is not proven to be unprecedented or even odd,
lol
Karen, care to tell us where the MWP and LIA are shown to be synchronous in the Vostok and GISP2 ice core? It's not in that link you provided!
I was just picking the first piece of low hanging fruit ;-)
Good grief, you are deeply deeply incompetent!
We measure temperature at many sites across the globe - instead of at one or two sites, like your previous links - and the reconstructed global average temperature is clearly warming.
And no, this is not saying that every place is warming, so parts of Antarctica cooling is entirely consistent with "we are experience global warming". Your conclusions from Antarctica are - as ever - false.
(That won't stop you from repeating the same "argument" in a week or a month...)
Oh how we laughed Karen. 'Till the tears ran down our cheeks.
And yet you come back for more.
Modern warming is regionally varied, but the global average temperature has risen by ~0.8C over the pre-industrial average. That is a global change, nuffie!
It is unprecedented at least in the last 1400 years (#70) nuffie!
The last sentence is just unhinged raving, so I won't even attempt a response.
God you are a treat, Karen. A real gift. Bless you dear!
The MWP was universal and not regional.... I won't apologise for the link.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
You still haven't got a clue, Gordy. That's a map of regional studies reconstructing regional temperatures that aren't temporally synchronous. There was no global and synchronous MWP. The site you link is deliberately constructed to deceive.
Stay away from denier sites. They lie to you.
I had to go off and find this, but there is an excellent debunk of that site here.
You must have been a dreadful journalist.
Were you uncritically accepting of absolutely everything people told you? Especially those with serious form for telling lies? Did you never learn to fact-check your sources?
How your survived in that profession is an utter mystery to me.
Luke mistakes himself for someone who isn't an imbecile.
gordolocks
The so called medieval climate optimum was fragmented in time and space, but then getting your information from a known disinformation site run by the Idsos, see under I here.
For a wider look at the propaganda problems with these guys have a look here.
Only an ignorant numpty like you gordolocks would cite sites such as CO2Science.
Gordy, please check the links Lionel A provides above. Do *not* sneer and sigh and look the other way. These sites provide useful information and they have not been sued by the persons and organisations described so we can be reasonably sure that the (referenced) info is sound. Do your background. Research. Check. Build up a confidence index and rate your sources within it. Act like a proper journalist.
Then come back and tell us how impartial and unbiased the Idsos are.
Indeed ianam, Luke nails his colours for firmly to the mast with this doubly insulting statement:
the most insulting aspect of which is the aspersion cast at the honesty of climate models and by inference the honesty of those who design, run and assess the output of climate models.
Luke is in the same league as Limbaugh and Bill '...the tide comes in, the tide goes out..' O'Reilly.
Luke's just another swaggering loudmouth who has never opened a climate textbook in his life. Instead, he gets his "information" from denier blogs on the internet. Yet, bizarrely, he thinks he knows "the science" better than the professional scientists who actually conduct it. It's hard to describe just how arrogantly stupid this behaviour actually is.
Well here is a perspective changer that Luke, and many others of similar mind should read Walking Away from Empire: A Personal Journey, check it out on Amazon too for a synopsis and reviews.
Now, I personally have not, as yet, read this book I have a number on my reading pile right now but will soon order a copy.
That does look interesting, but first there's this and this - when it eventually appears.
Ah yes, that one from Ruddiman is a bit late, but will no doubt be worth the wait.
I am waiting for copies of these to arrive, which will keep me busy for a couple of days:
'Saving Planet Earth: What is destroying the earth and what you can do to help' and 'What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees' by Tony Juniper having been reminded in the latest magazine from this organisation.
What the likes of the dissenters here don't grasp is that bad signals are emerging from not just the physical processes.
Cynthia Hopkins 2013
In an epistle from Luke we find this:
Well their views seem typical of the delayers and water muddiers for example in a DER SPIEGEL we find Storch saying this:
and this, my emphasis,
Sure looks like denier tactics to me for when equilibrium is considered, for one thing, then there is most certainly NO 'scientific problem'.
Now OTOH from a SCRIPPS based climate scientist we have this:
Hey Lionel--you ridiculous little shit!
Yr. no. 63 (page 16)
Here's how a representative member of the "ignorati" sees it, Lionel (you won't find coverage of this point of view in DesMogBlog, by the way).
Us ignorati ("ignorati"?--what a pretentious, dorked-up, little fuck you are, Lionel!) don't need "climate models", exhortations, doom-butt-puffery, or anything else from group-think, sell-out propagandists, like yourself, Lionel, ol' buddy.
Rather, what us despised serf, coolie, helot, peasant, peon ignorati need, Lionel, my good friend, if we're to buy-in to your little "reduced-carbon-lifestyle" pitch, is LEADERSHIP!!!--LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE, BY THOSE OSTENSIBLY MOST CONVINCED OF AN IMMINENT, "CARBON-POLLUTION" PERIL!!! You know, Lionel, like, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND ALL!!!
And, Lionel, when us "little guys"--us "ignorati" rabble--see all the hive's mouth-off, flunky, public-tit-sucking, eco-scold smarty-pants and, most importantly, the hive's be-yachted and be-private-airplaned and be-bullet-proof-limousined and be-mansioned nomenklatura jettison their carbon-soaked toys, troughs, good-deals, gravy-trains, and party-time, CO2-spew eco-confabs (which could be easily video-conferenced), then us "ignorati" will be glad to make our own carbon-reduction sacrifices (the little guy is ever capable of great sacrifices--visit any military cemetery, if you don't believe me, Lionel).
In the meantime, Lionel, stuff your greenwashed, in-your-face, hypocrite-leech scams, hustles, and rip-offs along with all all the rest of your standard issue, hive-bozo, stock-in-trade bullshit, false-flags, scare-mongering hype, and bait-and-switch con-jobs.
Fair enough, Lionel, ol' sport?
Hey Deltoids!
You know, Deltoids, sometimes it's best to just step-back and consider the cumulative impression your commentary leaves with normal, productive, bona-fide human-beings operating from within the frame work of a wholesome, sound mental-health.
And, in that regard, Deltoids, as humanity views page after page of this blog's non-stop, greenshirt, Dolt-toid, hive-bozo agit-prop, the jam-packed, flim-flam welter of it all inevitably coalesces and resolves itself in mankind's mind as the distinct impression of an indelicate litter of common-pattern fecal-pellets deposited by a parasitic swarm of indistinguishable, scuttling, group-think, trough-seeking, collectivist cockroaches.
You know what I mean, Deltoids?
Bovine spongiform_encephalopathy is a degenerative brain disease, commonly called mad cow disease, contracted from infected beef cattle. In it's later stages it turns healthy brain tissue into a vile, rotting sponge like substance.
Which is very likely how li'll mike has managed to soak up almost every denier trope going, while - incredibly - still imagining himself to be a "normal, productive, bona-fide human-being operating from within the frame work of a wholesome, sound mental-health". When the evidence of his obsessive, rambling ravings to the contrary are spattered all over the comments section of this blog.
Has li'll mike ever contributed anything interesting or productive or factual, ever? There's no evidence for it anywhere, just the usual periodic puerile shitstain daubings, and the disease is likely way too far advanced for remission by now.
Quality sledging Mike - 10/10 for sheer abuse and funny too.
"what a pretentious, dorked-up, little fuck you are" no come on guys - this is funny you'd have to admit. Well I feel I have been ripped a new arsehole after Mike’s tirade – but he’s probably not wrong. We can’t help it Mike.
But anyway - back to it
And so many insults such little time. Some quality verballing and fitting up that could rival the NSW police force. Well done bedwetters. Now look – be fucking nice – you say denialist – I say bedwetter.
You have to get out of perimeter guard mode and start prosecuting your argument.
I had to just laugh at the Sandy hurricane comment. It’s simply an example of assets in harm’s way. No increase in frequency – and unexceptional. SSTs regionally not exceptional. Worse hurricanes historically and the trend is not your friend. Put assets and infrastructure in these environments and prepare to be periodically creamed. Don’t conflate development with AGW or you’ll have to start marching up the back on demos.
Lionel – delayers ? Water muddiers. Well matey we’re going to transform the world’s economy and spend a few trillion. Sorry – the science either stacks up or it doesn’t. Don’t shoot the messenger. But just in case - I’d be gunning the Thorium reactor research – but personal indulgence.
Lotharsson – Antarctic behaviour is NOT what is expected. Not. Don’t try and paint lipstick on the pig. We’re surprised and racing to come up with the increasing freshening surface insulation quick freeze hypothesis with the strato ozone depletion/increasing trop GHGs force field thingy, (Solomon, Gillet, Schmidt etc) and fuck a doley who knows - maybe it stacks up. But it’s all modelled schmodelled. Develop models do we boys?
But of the mainstream comes some interesting work that says we don’t know shit about internal variability. Significant centennial-length trends in the zonal SST and SLP gradients rivaling those estimated from observations and model simulations forced with increasing CO2 appear to be inherent features of the internal climate dynamics simulated by all three models – jeez !
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal…
And just another one of those inconvenient factoids on evaporation trends - unpredicted of course - damn that empiricism.
"In a globally warming climate, observed rates of atmospheric evaporative demand have declined over recent decades. Several recent studies have shown that declining rates of evaporative demand are primarily governed by trends in the aerodynamic component (primarily being the combination of the effects of wind speed (u) and atmospheric humidity) and secondarily by changes in the radiative component. A number of these studies also show that declining rates of observed near-surface u (termed ‘stilling’) is the primary factor contributing to declining rates of evaporative demand"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487
Nah! Mike has got a nasty buzz phrase generator, and when the spittle hits the fan that is what happens. One nasty mess. That you appreciated it tells us that you are not far behind.
Who's feeding you Luke? You ain't thinking stuff up all by yourself.
You really should learn that US denier blogs are no place to get reliable information. Check out how the numbers are actually ramping up since the 1960's here And in anywhere other than denier la-la land two major US cities hit catastrophically within the same decade would be cause for concern.
And your assertions about Antarctica, as if it's one homogenous unit, are untrue. West Antarctica is disintegrating, and single season sea ice to the east in no way counteracts that.
West Antarctica is disintegrating,
Correction to borked link in #7
Karen #34
You want OHC converted to C temps why? So you can compare the ocean temps with atmosphere temps directly no doubt, ignoring that the mass of the oceans is considerably higher than that of the atmosphere so it will show lower temp increases. This is dishonest. The only way to compare heat increase is through OHC. Judith has done you a disservice convincing you otherwise.
More divertissements from Luke.
The laws of physics apply now as they have always done. The climate response to radiative perturbation will be similar to the Cenozoic range of ~3C/4W/m^2.
*Nothing* you are saying here comes remotely close to addressing this. It's just blather.
Mike
Love you though I do because you are smarter than you pretend to be and you get your Italian gender agreement right, you are being boring. Again.
Chek and you should avoid quoting Wiki-Pravda if possible
Let's take the WMO and SREX statements as something more erudite - essentially you have nothing - mulitidecadal trends, artefacts of the observing system and more infrastructure in harms way. Although I do have sympathy for Emmanuels's excellent analysis on PDI.
Indeed SREX notes "s. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain
essentially unchanged"
and "Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in
all ocean basins"
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IWTC_Summary.pdf
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/tmrp/documents/iwtc_statement.pdf
"as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observed
trends and attribution of changes to human influence is low."
That's LOW ! http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
In summary, there is low confidence that any observed long-term
(i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are
robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the
incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking
tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of
tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the
attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity
to anthropogenic influences. There is low confidence in projections
of changes in tropical cyclone genesis, location, tracks, duration,
or areas of impact.
More handwaving unreferenced bum burping from our resident border patrol guard BBD - what's that stand for Bullying Bullshit and Diversions?
All your evidence are based on error bars as big as a barn - take Royer 2007 for example http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
GeoCARB constrained sensitivity could be 1.5C - maybe that's where we are !?
But it's all just so much supposition isn't it - in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last
Luke: From your WMO document which incidentally dates from 2006It is well accepted by most researchers within the field of climate science that the
most likely primary cause of the observed increase of global mean surface temperature is a long term increase in greenhouse gas concentrations(IPCC, 2001;
IADAG 2005). It is likely that most tropical ocean basins have warmed significantly
due to thissame cause (Santer et al., 2006; Knutson et al., 2006b; Karoly and Wu,
2005).
So at least you're not a GHG denier.
Chek shits on - put your Mommies on boys - this is getting boring now - Antarctica is disintegrating - faaark it's been doing it for ages - love your pissy little short trend graph again with no error bars which are considerable.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/abs/ngeo1874.html explains why you have nothing !
Karen - don't listen to the boys here - they're swallowed the KoolAid and are in the last stages of expiry. But do get yourself updated on Antarctica if you want to play bumper cars with them for sport - you have more than GHG forcing going on and stratospheric ozone depletion driving SAM will be giving counter-intuitive effects. Additionally the sea ice expansion itself maybe a result of Chek bedwetting or ocean freshening from additional fresh melt and a temporary phenomenon.
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/Thompson_et_al_Nature_Geo1296.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/barnes+barnes+polvani-JCLIM-2013-revi…
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/attachments/112945/ngeo1767.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Wiki-Pravda?
Deniers really are just blown out old farts still looking for commies under their beds.
Let's try NOAA instead then:
"The main conclusions are:
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
•Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center".
Do be sure to read and digest carefully.
What is the point that you're trying to make about cyclones? The SREX says When simulating 21st-century warming under the A1B emission scenario
(or a close analog), the present models and downscaling techniques as a
whole are consistent in projecting (1) decreases or no change in tropical
cyclone frequency, (2) increases in intensity and fractional increases in
number of most intense storms, and (3) increases in tropical cyclonerelated rainfall rates.
References:
Rohling et al. (2013)
Hansen et al. (2013)
No handwaving from me. Unfamiliarity with the literature, trivia and argument from assertion by you.
Since you are so certain of the stability of the WAIS, what about Eemian MSL?
~5m *at least* above Holocene but Eemian global average temperature only ~2C at most above Holocene.
Estimated contributions to the Eemian MSL highstand are ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS - indicating substantial collapse.
Or where else did the water come from?
Indeed - though without positive feedings back, which is of course an impossible situation.
Turbo - not very eco - but I do covet the Ford Falcon Turbo myself - but only on Sundays, in controlled conditions and appropriately offset of course -
there is so much b/s on tropical cyclones though - obs quality, decadal variability
But take Australia - despite popular opinion cyclones making landfall in eastern Australia are declining
"The linear trend in the number of severe TCs making
land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45
TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in
recent times—a 62% decline. This decline can be partially
explained by a weakening of the Walker Circulation, and
a natural shift towards a more El Nin˜o-dominated era. The
extent to which global warming might be also be partially
responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is
unknown." http://cawcr.vm.csiro.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/Callaghan_and_Power…
and the Grand-Daddy of them all was 1899 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Mahina sorry for Wiki-Pravda quote
The record is littered with episodic super-cyclones http://www.tesag.jcu.edu.au/staff/jnott/abstracts/Naturearticle.pdf
Here's a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
As for Milankovitch, yes, it's there, but it didn't dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
#15 Luke could you take a deep breath and calm down, count to ten and then try to explain your point. Just squawking and putting up a bunch of links does not make a coherent argument.
What about forcing change over the Cenozoic as a whole?
There has been a ~1W/m^2 increase in TSI as a consequence of stellar evolution.
But CO2 has fallen from an Eocene Optimum peak of ~1000ppmv or higher to an LGM minimum of ~180ppmv, yielding a ~10W/m^2 decrease in CO2 forcing.
This tectonically modulated GHG forcing explains the overall downward trend in T from the Eocene Optimum ~50Ma to the Holocene.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Meltin…
...but Luke has some other ill-informed denialist blather to share with us....
#24
I think that's his limit.
Luke #21 You do realise that Tthere is so much b/s on tropical cyclones though – obs quality, decadal variability is well known and may not be news to most of us. Heck even your 2006 WTO link enumerates a lot of them.
Although it is, of course, of more than academic interest to the inhabitants, what is the relevance to AGW in general of telling us about land-falling cyclones, rather than the number in the whole of the basin?
#27 He's not done himself any favours with his earlier links, but I'm willing to give him a chance to try to make a point. I also think that since he's started posting the usual deniers have backed off. Maybe they, too, are intrigued to see where he's going?
No offence intended Luke.
#29
If this man has ever opened a climate textbook, I'm the King of Old Siam.
Sawasdee Krab BBD ;-)
The question then is - would Gordon be mates with someone who'd ever read a book?
Vince - PIG changes speed more in tune with winds than temperature. Don't get over excited. But maybe you know better than the British Antarctic Survey.
Turbo - Well land falling increasing on the eastern seaboard is the lay alarmist meme (wrong). And well illustrates the problem of ENSO/IPO modulating such things. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844/F3.large.jpg
Why are you lot here anyway - some sort of Venus fly-trap for wandering deniers/sceptics/those who haven';t swallowed the Kool-Aid. Do you ever actually debate anything of substance anymore? And where is Tim anyway?
And what is this denialist shit anyway? In fact is you lot were any good you'd be committed to the cause getting banned from Nova and Wattsydoodle. Do the bombers ever leave the base from here or do you take comfort in the group hand job here?
And fancy picking on a nice old codger like El Gordo - at least you could set him right instead of pissing in his tea. Poor old coot hasn't got long to go and he's just trying to find out if AGW is bunk or not.
There is is! Proof! Proof I tell you! One commenter on a blog recognises my Kingship of Old Siam and says "hello" in the language of my kingdom.
IT PROFS IT ENTIRE ALL YOUR SIAMS ARE BE BARBECUE SAUSAGE LOVE.
Luke
#18
#19
#22
#23
#25
And I'm the King of Old Siam.
Well land falling increasing on the eastern seaboard is the lay alarmist meme That's a new one. So what's the name of the game that you're playing? "Set up a straw man and knock him down solitaire?"
And you know better than NASA, clearly. Or imagine that you do.
So let's summarise here,
- CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40%
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- the predicted resulting radiation imbalance is measured by NASA
- this radiation imbalance means heat is accumulating within and under the atmosphere
- the accumulating heat is measured in increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean
- glaciers all over the world have massively receded
- arctic ice has massively dwindled
- Greenland has lost massive amounts of ice
... but the loss of Antarctic ice is due to "wind"? Is that what you're saying?
You seem pretty desperate to not believe in the reality of what's happening, Luke, something that would seem strongly reinforced by your apparent liking for crank blogs like Jo Nova's where the deluded congratulate each other on their delusuions.
It's an ugly business Luke, and no mistake. (As all the best East End (of London) villains say in the movies).
But the agents of power and privilege (who are, after all the ones denying AGW with its extremely historic global consequences) are there to be exposed as such. Take their side and repeat their lies at your own peril .
Needless to say many more with integrity don't.
'And where is Tim anyway?'
Heard on the grapevine that he lost his job with UNSW.
Following Luke's suggestion that we visit crank blogs, I went over to Jo Nova's crank blog, and this is the gibberish that passes for thinking over there:
(They're talking about NASA's AIRS website)
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2012-06-29-co2-and-vegetation/
I mean, what can you do with that level of stupidity? Luke's friends haven't even been to Primary School, apparently.
'Poor old coot hasn’t got long to go and he’s just trying to find out if AGW is bunk or not.'
Thanx comrade, I'll take that as a complement.
* compliment **
Then there's Scott-the-Moron:
Uh, duh.
And weirdly, my comments are appearing - normally the Nova moderators delete any facts that make their way in amongst all that crankery.
Luke
#18
#19
#22
#23
#25
Vince are you some sort of numb nuts - find out what happens at the PIG terminus and report back. Jeez.
BTW "glaciers all over the world have massively receded" not all and whoops a daisy your forget to mention Antarctic sea ice going the other way.
Chek - "But the agents of power and privilege (who are, after all the ones denying AGW with its extremely historic global consequences) are there to be exposed as such. Take their side and repeat their lies at your own peril" OR NOT
it might be a flu pandemic or massive collapse in the carbon market causing global jihad - dream on. Not to mention the perils of climate. megastorms and megadroughts we have lived through for 1000s of years. Power and privilege my foot - it's mostly independent mavericks that think you're a bunch of commie pinkos. And maybe they are right - ?
Problem is that there are no alarming trends in extreme events !
BBD gets all narky when nobody discusses his favourite topic. Boo hoo. Why don't you seriously prosecute your argument. Meanwhile the models are FALSIFIED !
Good on Vince - ripping it through them at Nova's. Just don't go the crude ad hom (like here) and you'll stay in the game.
That isn't a substantive response, Luke.
#18
#19
#22
#23
#25
Come on.
El Gordo isn't "trying to find out" anything whatsoever - he refuses to read primary sources, ignores all summaries and explanations that are offered to him, and keeps returning here to vomit up the rancid nonsense he consumes at crank blogs like Joanne Codling's crank blog.
Here they are again, for your convenience bundled up into a single comment. But you will need to *scroll up* to access the links because I can't be bothered to do them again.
Luke
#18
References:
Rohling et al. (2013)
Hansen et al. (2013)
No handwaving from me. Unfamiliarity with the literature, trivia and argument from assertion by you.
* * *
#19
Since you are so certain of the stability of the WAIS, what about Eemian MSL?
~5m *at least* above Holocene but Eemian global average temperature only ~2C at most above Holocene.
Estimated contributions to the Eemian MSL highstand are ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS – indicating substantial collapse.
Or where else did the water come from?
* * *
#22
[Luke:] "But it’s all just so much supposition isn’t it – in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last."
Here’s a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
* * *
#23
As for Milankovitch, yes, it’s there, but it didn’t dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
#25
What about forcing change over the Cenozoic as a whole?
There has been a ~1W/m^2 increase in TSI as a consequence of stellar evolution.
But CO2 has fallen from an Eocene Optimum peak of ~1000ppmv or higher to an LGM minimum of ~180ppmv, yielding a ~10W/m^2 decrease in CO2 forcing.
This tectonically modulated GHG forcing explains the overall downward trend in T from the Eocene Optimum ~50Ma to the Holocene.
That CO2 has no significant effect on global climate and never has.
'Meanwhile the models are FALSIFIED !'
Hear! Hear!
Luke, why would I forget about Antarctic sea ice? Antarctica is melting, of course it's spreading out, but thanks for reminding me how tightly the cranks cling to "extent", and hate to be reminded of the overall volume:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2jfavdv.png
Rignot, E., et al. (2011): Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.
One of the funniest things ever was watching the New Zealand crank Richard Treadgold deny any foreign funding whatsoever whilst John Mashey was exposing his payments from Heartland on Gareth Renownden's blog.
Being a crank is a part-time hobby for the old and insane. Being a paid crank lifts you into a league that your shallow 'understanding' doesn't address.
So what about OHC? Why does ARGO, the best-ever system for measuring how much energy is in the ocean show this?
Why is energy accumulating in the ocean?
Why?
Reading up on the Pine Island glacier, the null hypothesis suggests that it has nothing to do with AGW.
That is... the rapid melt and carving of recent years.
BBD - mate nice try at diverting from original proposition to your favourite crank topic. The problem for you old son is that your models are full of shit. i.e. not working. Go back and seriously address that core issue. Unfamiliarity with MY literature is no excuse. That's your problem living in an echo chamber.
And fancy putting up Hansen as a cite when his core modelling proposition of the here and now is demonstrably wrong.
Vince go back and read my reference. Rignot has no basis for his position. It's projection.
No substantive response to #50 and #56.
Except the 'all things being equal' component of the null hypothesis is nullified by rising atmospheric and sea temperatures compounded by the predicted polar amplification.
The null hypothesis that a shed packed full of punctured gasoline tins with a burnt, open Zippo lighter lying in the doorway may have spontaneously combusted, is also the most unlikely scenario - given the evidence.. A concept you seem loath to embrace.
Paleoclimate behaviour isn't a "crank topic" in the real world.
And you are a scientist of equal stature to Eric Rignot? With published responses to his work that *allow* you to say things like that because you have *demonstrated error*?
No. You are not, You are a fantasist enabled by the internet. You have never opened a climate textbook in your life.
BBD - do you ever take a toilet break.
As for ARGO - well at 2000m it's statistical hokey - you're measuring temperature rises below instrument precision. And isn't it such a bummer that 0-700m isn't warming as the models predicted. Please explain.
As for sea level and CO2. Why not think Milankovitch instead. It's all about how you frame problems with palaeo. There has been 16 – 17 glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 1.3 My. Most peak interglacials have coincided with the period of greatest insolation as dictated by the Milankovich cycle. At oxygen isotope sub-stage 5 E ~125 Ky ago (the penultimate interglacial) the global sea level was 4 – 6 m higher than the present datum. Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.
Chek I'm pointing to the fact that there is geothermal heating of seawater in the area.
BBD - and who are you perchance? Some leftover net creep hanging around on a dead poet's web site. Hand off snakey my man.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/abs/ngeo1874.html
In fact BBD - if you're a rootin' tootin' AGW researcher shouldn't you be off publishing something instead of playing fucktards or perhaps being involved in public outreach doing a nice web site for us with your handpicked Kool_Aid maternal.
There may be other POVs. I know it's a amazing - but the internet is just so subversive. Fuckers don't agree with you ! They even say you can stick your appeals to authority. "Listen mate Hansen said OK ...." What a shock for you !
Chek - do you think Nova and A Watts are motivated by the gold or just aggro independent mavericks ? (Don't see me standing up for them now)
I think Jo actually does gold professionally so she can argue as long as she likes with the likes of us! But like all of us - it's become tribal. You either sign up for all of it or none of it.
I think the broad tenets of global warming are likely to be there but then there's the details for which the wheels have fallen off.
So whaddya gonna do - what's compelling value proposition for the investment when we have massive disease problems with HIV, TB and malaria. Ongoing problems with food security, militarism, change of economic power to Asia etc. You want to bet everything on black or number 42 (AGW) do you?
Deniers are routinely claiming this, but never citing the basis of their. The Argo program specifies a 0.001 level of precision. What are your claims based on?
Certainly. In simple layman's you and your denier ilk know fuck all about fluid dynamics, yet you think that primary school axioms like '[heat rises' tells you all you need to know..
Luke, there are a whole train wreck of problems looming ahead for humanity. But losing a stable climate undermines it all.
Chek - so I take it then you can't explain why the models are wrong then and would rather obfuscate.
ARGO can specify all the precision it likes but moreover the issue is that you're sampling an incredibly small proportion of the ocean and not even the same spots and you think you can pin that vast area down to 0.001 magnitude numbers? Really? Drink some more KoolAid.
Climate isn't stable anyways - interannual and decadal variability is huge. So huge we're struggling to find an AGW signal peeking through.
'But losing a stable climate undermines it all.'
Its naturally unstable.
Yes it very much is.
If I go to Zaire, or Brazil or Malaya, I can expect an equatorial climate. If I go to Italy or Greece I'll get a Mediterranean climate, or a tropical climate in Florida and Taiwan or a maritime temperate climate in Northern Europe and Canada. It may (and has) snowed in May in Italy, but the climate is nevertheless stable
You're talking unsupported bollocks. Again.
Logic Fail dressed up as a question. You have to look at all the evidence, and that says "1.5C is very very unlikely".
So, between that and fluffing Karen's ego I'm getting the sense you're either a poor judge of character or easily misled. Especially since you seem to avoid turning your brilliant intellect on some of their more ludicrous pronouncements.
More Fail.
Interannual variability is weather. Even decadal variability is arguably weather, depending on the metric you are looking at.
I guess it's too much to ask you to back up and try and make your argument more coherent and well specified. ("Falsified, I tell you!" isn't much use, as previously explained and studiously ignored.)
Perhaps instead you (and el gordo) could take a stab at defining "stability", seeing you've galloped your way to making assertions that rely on the term?
It does help to obscure the memory of his ignominious entrance here though, and the rate of squawking starts to look a bit Gish-like - or perhaps BK-like if you prefer.
And you claim you're not in denial?!
The AGW signal is visible in any of several different dimensions. One way to see this is to use standard engineering techniques for analysing a noisy signal - and that implies looking over long enough time periods that the noise doesn't swamp the signal. Amongst others...
And none of this is refuted by pointing to various areas where models could be improved.
The pattern of Luke so far:
1) cite one paper in support of his criticism, criticize the models in another, ignoring that the one paper he cited actually is based on a climate model
2) Personal incredulity. If ARGO claims a precision of 0.001, surely no one believes that, right? I mean, what do the people at ARGO know? It's not like they actually *work* with the system, right?
3) Dismissing evidence when it happens to contradict his opinion. So, when different scientists come with different explanations for an observation, it means none of them is right; even conceding one of them could have a point would mean he concedes that those scientists actually know what they are talking about, and that surely cannot be the case!
"Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s."
lol, sure they do, ;-)
hehe if the temperature hiatis slides into a temperature decline 97% of the worlds climate syen cyst's will be pushing broomzzzzz, :-P
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-2…
lol
#9 GaryB
What is the temperature difference from the start of the ARGO data to now at 2000 mtrs depth ?
Tiz a qwestyon that BBD can't answer, lol
I see Karen has fallen for the "RCP8.5 only" anti-science propaganda.
Ask yourself, Karen, why aren't you more sceptical of the crud you read on the crank blogs?
Riiight, which is why our variable climate has given us a temperature plunge back to the temperatures that were in force in 1950.
No?
Of course not - here in the real world, global warming is iccurring and we are pretty much 1 degree warmer already, with equilibium a long way off, and CO2 levels continuing to increase.
Looks like it's back to climate change 101 for Luke:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Do read up on these basics please, Luke, it is rather tedious to have to correct your repeated mistakes you've gleaned from crank blogs like that unqualified uni-drop-out ex-weatherman Anthony Watts' crank blog, WUWT.
Twirlybird,
Ask yourself, are you only here, at dumbtiod, to garner support from other nuffies who suffer from the same co2 psychosis as yourself ?
'That CO2 has no significant effect on global climate and never has.'
While CO2 was steady at about 260 ppm during the Eemian the temperature dropped 6°C, and at the LGM transition the temperatures jumped around the same in two decades.
Now that is what I call global climate disruption. Temperatures rise and fall, with CO2 following suite.
So it appears your comment is probably correct.
"An IPCC draft says there is "medium confidence" that the slowing of the rise ( hahaha, that is ipcc speak for HIATUS, lol) is "due in roughly equal measure" to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight [there haven't been any recent major eruptions]; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle [after claiming in past that such variations could not affect climate]; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans [why wasn't it absorbed at the same rate in the past?]; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide"
I can smell the fear :)
BBD thinks he is gunna punch his way out of this, lol
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
Pity he is such a wimp and has a glass jaw, ;-)
Here's the abstract for a new paper in GRL by Fasullo et al.
'In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña.
'This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record.
'The persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed.
'The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface mass, and sea level responses.'
ipcc..... "is likely to play down some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human activities have contributed to more droughts."
Great........maybe those pricks can pay for a desal plant that will never be switched on, instead of me and all the others that knew the drought was just a part of the aussie climate cycle!
sheeeeeezzzz.............bloody co2 nuffies
hi el :)
Logic Fail.
Can you figure out why? Most high school students can.
Tedious and mediocre lies.
Since you keep resorting to lies, it seems apt to conclude that "I can smell the fear from here", no?
Here you go Lothy http://www.trust.org/item/20130816133815-ao2wt/?source=hptop you can read all about it yourself sweety :)
Good afternoon to you Karen.
;-)
'Can you figure out why?'
Educate me.
This is probably of no interest to our UK readers, but bill and Luke might be interested. The new ENSO report is out and conditions remain neutral, while the IOD is still cool.
This is where the models have credibility ....
'A negative IOD during winter–spring increases the chances of above-average rainfall over southern Australia, while over parts of northern Australia it increases the chance of higher humidity. A negative IOD can also contribute to below-average mean sea level pressure (MSLP) over Darwin, which may in turn raise the value of the SOI.'
Boris writes this claptrap (two egregious gaffes in one sentence):
"the kind of argumentation you carry is purely partisan political (eco fundamentalism of Greenpeace extremists and the like) and has nothing to do with true scientific debate. No wonder since nobody of you is a scientist and has no clue what science really is".
On the one hand, he wears his own clearly partisan views on his sleeve (the 'eco-fundamenalist' barb) and then claims that others here are non scientists. Turns out Boris, you are wrong there, too. Bernard, I and several others are indeed scientists, unlike the vast majority of the AGW deniers who post here. And I am also a published scientists - 130 and counting on the Web of Science - who believes that humans are a potent global force and the primary driver behind climate change.
Your quip about Greenpeace suggests that they profoundly influence public policy whereas your posts give the infinitely better funded corporate lobby and its army of lobbyists a free pass.
Methinks you are in over your head.
"The four-month sequence of sub-surface temperature anomalies shows temperatures in the sub-surface of the equatorial Pacific were generally close to the long-term average for July. Small areas of cool anomalies remain in the far eastern equatorial Pacific between the surface and around 150 m depth. In the western equatorial sub-surface weak warm anomalies are present in much of the water column west of the Date Line. Small areas of both the cool and warm anomalies reach a magnitude of more than 1.0 °C. Sub-surface temperatures have been trending towards average during recent months, as shown by the decreased magnitude of both cool and warm anomalies. "
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_tao.gif
common theme these dayz :)
Hi jEfFerY, it's nice to have back again honey :)
Did you get frost bite while you were away ?
'who believes that humans are a potent global force and the primary driver behind climate change.'
That's hubris old chap, our star is the main driver.
hey...psst...el,
this guy (jeff) thinks he is the 4 star general of the climate commando's, lol
Weekly sub-surface:
"The sub-surface of the equatorial Pacific has cooled in the east during the past two weeks. Anomalies across the equatorial sub-surface are generally near-average (see map for the 5 days ending 11 August). "
lol.........OHC.........lol
Yeah, he's a wasted talent.
So why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury?
Why is one half of Mercury's surface 600 degrees cooler than the other, while Venus surface temperature is the same regardless of whether it's facing towards the Sun or away from it?
Any clues, Gordy?
Figure this one out and you'll be well on the way to understanding what's going on here.
'Any clues, Gordy?'
Gas pressure?
So it's not the sun?
Please say that you're not referring to the phenomenon that occurs when one pumps a bicyce tire...
Oh Bernard, are you saying you weren't aware of the "there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect, Venus is just hot because of gas pressure" bit of denialist ultra-crankery?
El Gordo doesn't want to discuss the reasons why his ideas lack coherence, he just wants to distract with the next piece of idiocy from his crank blogs.
What is that smell ?
Oh.........it's you barnturd!
Back on the models, the rational mind of a luke warmer Judith Curry
'While some in the blogosphere are arguing that the recent pause or stagnation is coming close to ‘falsifying’ the climate models, this is an incorrect interpretion of these results. The issue is the fitness-for-purpose of the climate models for climate change detection and attribution on decadal to multi-decadal timescales.
'In view of the climate model underestimation of natural internal variability on multi-decadal time scales and failure to simulate the recent 15+ years ‘pause’, the issue of fitness for purpose of climate models for detection and attribution on these time scales should be seriously questioned. And these deficiencies should be included in the ‘expert judgment’ on the confidence levels associated with the IPCC’s statements on attribution.'
The bottom line is, after saying "it's the sun" he immediately contradicted himself by asserting some other mechanism is the main driver of climate.
That one took no effort at all - he's just demonstrated once again what a waste of space he is.
Changing the subject, Gordy?
Not man enough to admit your "main driver" assertion is nonsense?
E.G. at #86: you do understand that the paper you quote says that because Australia flooded and the water couldn't run off to the sea it contributed to a drop in SLR, don't you? So what was the point that you were trying to make?
I see Luke, having been shown up for a blowhard, abandons argument in favour of more blather.
Fuck off, Luke!
;-)
Luke
As is now usual, you have made no substantive response to *any* of the points I raised on the entire of the previous page of comments. Data denial about ARGO (argument from ignorance; from incredulity; a dual logical fallacy) is not a substantive response. Even a *single* logical fallacy invalidates the argument. You have in effect said absolutely nothing at all.
This is a standard problem with denialist rhetoric. It is empty. So you are going to have to try a great deal harder here. At the moment, it is all cock-waving and swagger.
Have you got a reference for this btw?
* * *
#18
References:
Rohling et al. (2013)
Hansen et al. (2013)
No handwaving from me. Unfamiliarity with the literature, trivia and argument from assertion by you.
* * *
#19
Since you are so certain of the stability of the WAIS, what about Eemian MSL?
~5m *at least* above Holocene but Eemian global average temperature only ~2C at most above Holocene.
Estimated contributions to the Eemian MSL highstand are ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS – indicating substantial collapse.
Or where else did the water come from? [Please answer this question, Luke!]
* * *
#22
[Luke:] "But it’s all just so much supposition isn’t it – in order palaeo climate forcings (1) catastrophic impacts (3) Milankovitch (3) solar out (4) CO2 CH4 etc last."
Here’s a man who knows not of what he speaks. Catastrophic impacts? The main paleo forcing?
Reference that if you can.
Look at mass extinctions. Google up on volcanism, ocean anoxic events, ocean transgression/regression. Get a clue.
[Please acknowledge your error Luke!]
* * *
#23
As for Milankovitch, yes, it’s there, but it didn’t dominate until the late Pliocene. It needs a cool enough climate system for a large NH ice sheet to form. Hello ice age.
* * *
#25
What about forcing change over the Cenozoic as a whole?
There has been a ~1W/m^2 increase in TSI as a consequence of stellar evolution.
But CO2 has fallen from an Eocene Optimum peak of ~1000ppmv or higher to an LGM minimum of ~180ppmv, yielding a ~10W/m^2 decrease in CO2 forcing.
This tectonically modulated GHG forcing explains the overall downward trend in T from the Eocene Optimum ~50Ma to the Holocene.
* * *
#64
[Luke:] "Rignot has no basis for his position. It’s projection."
And you are a scientist of equal stature to Eric Rignot? With published responses to his work that *allow* you to say things like that because you have *demonstrated error*?
No. You are not, You are a fantasist enabled by the internet. You have never opened a climate textbook in your life.
[Please admit that you are a know-nothing loudmouth on the Internet with no basis in fact for making claims like this about respected scientists Luke!]
#8 Gordy
Curry is as full of nonsense as some of you lot. <a href="http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-will-the-simulations-do-nex… carefully at the following animation of two runs of the same climate model. Look at the multi-decadal trend vs the decadal variability. That's what this silly non-argument boils down to. Denialist misdirection about a transient slow-down in the rate of tropospheric warming modulated by variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake. It won't make any difference to the centennial trend and that is what matters
Fixed link:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-will-the-simulations-do-nex…
'So what was the point that you were trying to make?'
The story has been around for a couple of years, its good to see the data and the science looks solid.
Give it up, Gordo. You have nothing. Surely this must be obvious by now? Climate science *isn't* politics. That is your essential confusion. Resolve that, and you can move forward rationally.
'Not man enough to admit your “main driver” assertion is nonsense?'
Our star is still the main driver, but I'm sure you can appreciate that while earth has a magnetic field, Venus does not.
So I cannot see a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Earth, magnetic field, alive. Venus, none, dead.
The alternative is that you grow into a fully-fledged climate buffoon like Luke. Look at the man. Objectively. Do you want to end up like that?
Take Lionel A's excellent advice and read. He recommends Ruddiman. This is a good choice. Be sure to get the second edition.
Congratulations! A solid gold Teh Stupid Of Teh Week! Award is on its way to you as we speak.
Have you *any* idea how absurd you are? Any idea at all?
Shorter Karen, EG, Luke:
BleurrrghDenyDenyDenyBlaaahBurbleBletherBollocksDenyyaargh! Yarp!
With a scatter of irrelevent references.
You are a low life scum BBD and although I can't vouch for Boris, my mate Luke is a fine adversary and more knowledgable on climate science than you will ever be.
And that graph is fantasy.
Luke
OK Clever cloggs, explain why the models aren't working. This implies that you will have to specify which models you are complaining about.
Also explain why if we ignored all climate models, we would still know that anthropogenic climate change is under way.
At last some truth as you own up to projection.
It would appear that your echo chamber is very small.
Now this is a very telling comment:
Aha! The Lomborg strategy.
Do you not realise that global warming and climate change will make all those problems many times worse especially as each will amplify the effects of others.
Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods.
How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts.
And I have only scratched the surface of the problems that will be caused by a warming world.
Now WRT Sandy, you denigrated the mention of that but perhaps you could describe the factors that caused it to develop in the way that it did.
If what has been displayed here is the sum of your cerebral processes then it sadly portrays a lack of joined up thinking.
More lies and delusion from our retired sports writer.
* * *
The graph isn't fantasy. It is simple two model runs. Two *instances* of something. Here in the real world we run only one instance of climate. If you were smarter than plankton, you would understand the point Ed Hawkins (a climate scientist) is making. But you choose instead to deny.
Give it up, Gordy. You are on a hiding to nothing.
Everything for the cause: The BelMonte Dam.
"After years of struggle through the legal system, the government approved the dam construction in June 2011 as part of their goal to reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions by 40% by 2020 (The Brazilian National Government 2011)."
http://amazonwatch.org/take-action/stop-the-belo-monte-monster-dam
The Amazonwatch board has a lot of connections to Green groups you previously despised ('Greenpiss' being one of yours). Finally growing up are you, Olap?
You don't get it little Chek, what a surprise! I'm not in favour of the dam, but it's the likes of you and what you and Deltoid represent that made it possible for politicians to take this action against human carbon emissions.
But hey fellas, keep up the battle against the imaginary but very evil right wing Elders of fossil fuel obstructing climate sciene and CO2 mitigation.
Wasn't Gordy supposed to be doing some checking on the Idso Clan and their lying websites? Wasn't he supposed to be reporting back on their numerous links to vested interests? Wasn't he supposed to acknowledge that he was (yet again) utterly wrong about the MWP, which was never a synchronous, globally warm event?
Is Gordy just pretending that (as usual) he has had his clock cleaned? That would be intellectual dishonesty of the most blatant kind.
Olaus Petri inhabits an alternative reality in which people who understand physics are evil and responsible for poorly-conceived hydro projects. Meanwhile the vested interests in the energy industry warping public policy and endangering the future of billions for centuries to come are not evil.
You're confused Olap. Carbon emissions are but one component. You'll find that increasing energy demand is the main driver of a complex situation beyond your simple-minded sloganeering. It's hard to tell developing nations not to develop, and even more so when that development eats into a global scale carbon sink.
Ecuador for instance attempted to raise money to NOT drill for oil in its Yasuni national park in its part of the Amazon, but the initiative hasn't worked and now the oil companies are champing at the bit
Cripes, we are back to pinning the tail on the ignoramus OilyPetrol
Oh no you don't.
How A Powerful Group Of Corporations Quietly Tried To Roll Back Clean Energy Standards, And Failed Miserably
GOP Senators Parrot [1] Anti-Science Talking Points At Climate Hearing
and
many more similar to chose from with from the top link at that above:
.
[1]There are a number of similar parrots contributing on this thread isn't that right Luke and gordolocks.
Well that's livened the place up a bit hasn't it.
But you're a dour lot but just like I have experienced in a few drive by shootings at Nova's. But at least if you keep the sledges down unlike at Wattsupyerbum you won't be snipped over there.
But yes - you're a sour lot that swings at everything. Loosen up.
Importantly only Vince had the guts to have a go over to Nova's and have a go and copped a fair bit - good try Vince - however KuknKat (aka kookers, Kat Krap and Kooky Kat) did him like a dinner - and where were you guys in support.
Over here huddled around your introverted little Ruddiman camp fire. It's your duty if you're true believers to get onto the big denier sites and engage. FAILURE TO ENGAGE guys. Piss weak.
KuhnKat at http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/watch-as-co2-rises-and-falls-over-the-… shot poor old Vince down - crashed and burned.
Take your Mums with you.
"Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods."
_ WHAT - we can't engineer or cope with 0.3-0.5 m by the end of the century. Laughing !
Diseases - Reiter and malaria remember - oh the shame.
"How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts." OR NOT - all based on post modernist shit science of the worst order - take GCM that doesn't work - add to shitty species extinction model - publish in soft receptive journal. All these problems you list exist now, regardless of climate drivers and you're focussed on one "maybe" aspect of the problem based on the models THAT ARE NOW FALSIFIED.
Done any personal environmental remediation yourself lately? Of course not.
Amusing, coming from an opinionated but ill-informed bully who refuses to engage substantively when challenged *repeatedly* to do so.
Try to remember, Luke, that being wittered at by numpties is tedious. So why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks like Nova and WTFUWT? Nobody knows what they are talking about, moderation is usually hostile, and making any headway amid all the ignorance, buffoonery and denial is impossible.
Please also recall that being WRONG IN CAPS because you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about achieves nothing at all.
You are using the term "falsified" incorrectly and you don't seem capable of understanding that the troposphere ≠ the climate system.
BBD - Do you ever take a toilet break or sleep?
My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test - and all you can do is divert. The emperor has no clothes.
Why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks - well Jo and Davey aren't that dumb - smart enough to rate the pants off you lot and actually control the debate. Almost every day. And where are you here - on an endless open thread - WOW !
Keep on theme at Nova and the border guards won't snip you. But I suspect you're not up to it. These guys are pretty well armed to the teeth. Kooky Kat saw Vince off in a few hours.
The big problem with all the palaeo work you're in love with is that catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2. Untangle that ! It's all about framing the question.
Major extinction event - lots of detrital material - lots of H2S - lots of sulfate aerosols - where does this sit vis a vis CO2 forcing - it's a biogeochemical nightmare.
Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have fucked up.
Prediction of GMT - wrong
Improvement of models in 20 years - bugger all
Tropo hotspot - not there
Evap trend - wrong way
Antarctic sea ice - growing (what a bugger)
Deep ocean heat - statistically dodgy (IMHO of course)
Averaging multi-model ensembles - sounds skanky and so you get stuff like rainfall could be 10% greater or 20% less
Resolving extreme event behaviour needs more grunt and probably new physics at micro-scale
No real trends in droughts or floods.
Community divided on tropical cyclone behaviour
Do we understand what caused the MWP or LIA - probably not (not well).
What worries me more though is http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio209.fa11/Johanson2009.pdf fate of the sub-tropics is a big gig
Interestingly on the reduced evap story and that appearing to be due to more stilling of winds you do find funky stuff like http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4198.1 WTF !!! what would we know really
Luke
Please address my earlier comments properly. You are being evasive. I know you cannot defend your position, but I want to see you try.
In summary:
No reference despite request. Also note that pointing to any regional change in sea level is irrelevant to the point of dishonesty. Global mean sea level has *not* fallen by 1.5m since the mid-Holocene. But global MSL was at least 5m above Holocene MSL during the Eemian which requires a substantial collapse of the WAIS. Unless you can account for ~3m MSL increase some other way. Which it so happens you can't. Your attempt to avoid acknowledging this was both clumsy and intellectually dishonest.
#18 Demonstrate error in Rohling13 and Hansen13 or accept the paleoclimate-derived estimates for S.
#19 Where did the water come from if not the WAIS? See above.
#22 Bolide impacts are *not* the primary driver of paleoclimate change. Admit your error.
#23 Familiarise yourself with Cenozoic climate change before blethering further about Milankovitch.
#25 No other forcing has changed as much as CO2 forcing during the Cenozoic. This provides an over-arching mechanism that explains the general cooling trend from ~50Ma. It demonstrates the role of CO2 forcing in climate change on a geological scale.
#64 Retract your rubbish about Rignot.
Then we can move on. Your rubbish about the models has been dealt with upthread, so repeating it is pointless.
Incorrect statement of facts and argument by assertion. Addressed repeatedly above (#25 previous page; see above).
You are making a miserable mess of this. And you know it, hence the bully-boy aggression tactics, evasion, Gishing etc.
Now, engage substantively and I will take you apart.
Dr Roy Spencer:
Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]
*guffaw*
[Citation needed]
By the way, Luke, is that an actual picture of you? That would explain so much.
Yes, Roy really is a *true believer*. Not to mention in bed with the shills. The Cornwall Alliance is not quite what it seems.
As always, ignore the posturing by the front men and follow the money.
Bullshit Bunk and Dickhead - you're a flake - models are falsified and you're just sitting around with a bunch of losers on an extinct backwater blog atoll. Have a blog sook or prosecute your argument.
But really nobody gives a fuck what you think. You're a legend in your own stinky little bedroom having a Walter Mitty moment.
You're shit scared on engaging your real critics over on Nova etc. Sitting around with your criminally intense back-slappers having a circle jerk in obscurity.
Get a job you turd.
Stu - seems like you need a good head butting. Don't pick on my looks - I'm very sensitive. Cunt don't take liberties.
With apologies to those who have seen this before...
Luke, were you aware that none other than James Hansen himself is profoundly sceptical of "the models"? Did you know this?
* * *
You look like a bullying prat to me. Are you going to call me a cunt too?
Bully, MRA most likely, dare I guess libertarian, and UNABLE TO PROVIDE A CITE FOR A SINGLE THING.
*Yawn* 2/10, need smarter trolls.
#46 I thought you'd refuse to engage with me. You lose the argument by default and are revealed as a bluffer. To nobody's great surprise, I imagine.
* * *
I don't *need* a job, bully-boy. I made my money and retired early. Hence the free time to engage at length with arseholes like you.
Projecting like a poisoned dog...
:-)
But BBD, he has a beany and cool shades. That he's posing in his mom's basement has nothing to do with it!
Just FYI, Luke, your physical threat and mysogyny are duly noted.
Now you are becoming tedious, like many before you, by repeating crank based nonsense
whilst evading direct questions about any specific models you are denigrating. Look up thread.
Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have ME (Luke) fucked up.
There fixed that for you.
As for engaging at Nova, WUWT etc,. it is best not to dive into a pig pen because you will always come out smelling of crap. And that is what you have done Luke, far from livening a place up you have dragged a nasty smell in with your persona - which doesn't seem all that pleasant at base either. I think you need med's, or a social life.
Maybe a decent thinking lady friend would do you good or are you a misogynist too.
I can honestly say that you come across as the most unpleasant person I have yet to see here, there have been other strong contenders.
BTW and yes I have completed some personal environmental re-mediation lately. And yourself?
'and where were you guys in support.'
Deltoidians don't travel well and they wear girlie blouses, definitely not a flash mob.
Like anybody would choose to waste their time at a shill's blog, throwing pearls before a shill's blog inane commenters.
Get real.
I dutifully pottered over to the DK Corral to see the invincible (sorry) KuhnKat bring Vince up short.
I cannot speak for Vince, but it is possible that he couldn't be bothered to respond to an error-riddled Gish Gallop that ends with the unmistakable braying of Teh Stupid celebrating itself.
Here it is (link at Luke's #33):
* * *
Let's look at the data:
GIS mass balance change and Antarctic ice mass balance change
World glacier mass balance change
Global sea ice area
Holocene sea level change
* * *
And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.
It's all crap, and Luke uncritically endorsed it.
And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.
It’s all crap, and Luke uncritically endorsed it.
'geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all.'
Keeping in mind the Circumpolar Vortex, it does seem more likely that geothermal energy is responsible for the WAIS loss of mass balance and not AGW.
There is no hope for the drooling halfwits at Jo Nova.
They are irredeemably lost in their ignorant fantasy-world and persistently refuse to engage with the facts.
Gordy, your homophobia is duly noted.
No it doesn't you blithering imbecile, for reasons already addressed and forgotten by your goldfish-class mind.
Gordy
Whatever happened to your response to #93 page 16?
Those links Lionel A posted were:
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio…
I've got a feeling you haven't got a clue about this, either.
Please read this. Don't comment further on this topic until you have. It will lead to a more productive conversation. My thanks in advance.
Vince @ #61
Good on you for at least making the attempt and having a go.
I must admit, I used to drop in on the whacko blogs (you know who they are) and do the same myself, but a few years ago I found that far from the stupidity cheering me up it just depressed me. As in, what a waste of human life and potential, and why put yourself in the position of witnessing it?.
And anyway, life's too short to waste on wilful wasters well over the age of consent.
Yup. I used to visit some of those sites - basically to point and laugh. But old jokes get stale, and I've not seen anything new for a year or so. Maybe losing the occasionally hilarious buffoonery of the likes of Monckton has blunted their edge or something.
otoh, I've a feeling this might be a more or less becalmed period before the storm that the next IPCC report is likely to unleash. (I pity the pre-publication text editors - they know that a typo or two will make it into several thousand pages of reports. They must dread finding out that a number or a word here and there could turn out to be fodder for the gloating and breast-beating crowd.)
This is from your link...
'The new IPCC reports on climate change had essentially sidestepped the issue of Antarctica’s potential contribution to sea level rise. The authors pointed out, rightly, that there was just too much uncertainty to make predictions.'
Yeah - old jokes get stale, and after a while it just gets depressing.
I had previously found everything I posted at Jo Nova's got moderated out of existence, but they appear to be leaving things this weekend.
Either way, it's a waste of time - El Gordo here gives us a good indication of what's going on on the cranks blogs to save us from having to visit them: endless recycling of nonsense.
Incidentally, if anybody was wondering about Luke's "wiped the floor" you will probably be unsurprised to hear that my pointing out a few solid facts is apparently trumped by, "geothermal activity melting Greenland" and "some glaciers are melting and some are gaining mass", and "Antarctica is growing".
That's the sort of fantasy world they live in.
I rarely comment at Wattsy because they are too bright. Once upon a time Anthony threatened to ban me .....
Yeeees......and the implication of that is what, have a think about it...?
Luke at #39 revealed that he is not fully conversant with the models (to put it mildly!): Prediction of GMT – wrong
The models don't make predictions, they make projections . If you don't know why it's significant, then you aren't informed enough to discuss the merits of models.
Gordy
If a physical disability makes it impossible for you to scroll up, please say so. Otherwise I am mystified.
#64
And:
#65
Tested. The links work for me, so presumably will for you.
Vince
I went way over the link limit at #58 - is there a comment showing there starting:
It did make me smile (momentarily), before I lost patience watching Gordon transplant that denier news factoid to WAIS today. Such care with the facts! (Ed Murrow - I know, ...who?) must be spinning in his grave like a pulsar..
As a serial lurker here with no relevant scientific background (although possessing what are hopefully adequate critical faculties), I gotta say that nothing that has thus far been posted has convinced me that we should over-turn the now-hundreds of years old scientific position that increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere will increase global temperature and affect climate.
Nor has anything been said that contradicts the position that this will have a devastating impact on the kind of civilisation that humanity has developed over the past ten thousand years.
For those who promulgate the views that these accepted positions are incorrect, you may want to rethink your strategy of relying on the kinds of repetitive, threadbare, scientifically and logically absurd arguments that have to date underpinned your posts.
Either that, or I may start thinking that your point is not to convince through rational argument, but simply to attempt to browbeat, bully and bluster an inconvenient reality into submission. A process that, I fear, will have the usual results.
Just sayin'.
Well. we have Gordon thinking his mate Luke is far from being a car crash of ill-informed lunacy, and of course "Karen" who doesn't comprehend the difference between heat and temperature. Oh, and the Scandinavian Troll Collective's Olouse railing against 'Greens', except when they don't do enough.
Ic an only think they imagine consistency and knowing stuff just slows them down.
'have a think about it…?'
They said at this stage its not possible to tell what's going on... so they can't make a prediction.
Obvious and stupid lie, Gordo. Please keep in mind that other people are actually capable of reading a sentence and comprehending it.
"Oh, and the Scandinavian Troll Collective’s Olouse railing against ‘Greens’, except and even more when they don’t do enough"
Correcting that. Teh stupidity and contradictions just get to be too much.
St Cyr the contrarians serve a useful purpose, but obviously neither side of the debate can claim victory at the moment.
World temperatures have stabilised, so the pressure on politicians is becoming intense. In Australia the political debate is leading to a victory for common sense.
So Stu what is your interpretation of that sentence?
Gordy, how you can ask someone else about reading comprehension *without* responding to #73 is puzzling, to say the least.
And for the nth time, physics doesn't vote.
Please *try* to separate your politics from your odyssey into science.
Try, Gordy.
Gordon, all that you think you 'know' is based on denier misrepresentation and disinformation. That's been demonstrated time after time, and Australians aren't all cranks and loons..
The common sense of survival will win, but it's not the one you're expecting.
El gordo @ 82
The real debate, as you know, is what to do about the increasingly evident effects of AGW, not on whether it is happening, nor whether it is caused by something other than anthropogenically released CO2.
Global surface temperature has not stabilised, but its rate of increase has slowed as the deep oceans take up additional heat. Total global temperature therefore continues to rise as scientists would predict from the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As to your predictions of a victory for common sense in the upcoming Australian election, history is fairly littered with examples of 180 degree shifts in "common sense" when reality hits home. That's because most people are not insane, and will (eventually, and sometimes painfully) change their minds to accommodate the bleedin' obvious.
'Total global temperature therefore continues to rise as scientists would predict from the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.'
Observation suggests otherwise.
Observation of what, exactly, Gordon?
Gordy
You have had time to read the links at #64 and #65. Please respond.
And stop the stupid shit.
'Observation of what, exactly, Gordon?'
CO2 continues to rise at a phenomenal rate, while temperatures remain subdued.
OHC again?
As Luke and Karen have pointed out, your missing heat is a fiction.
I did mention "stupid shit" above, Gordy.
And
#64
#65
?
Luke and Karen did not substantiate their claims. They did burble and bleaarrrrrrghedenuydenudengetitfuckingright*deny*atlast!thereyougoboy!youcanifyoutrybutuuurrrrggghh!. Yarp!
Or something along those lines anyway.
I was convinced, after reading their comments, that we needn't worry about the OHC.
Well you are a plonker then. Can't be helped; should not be paraded in public.
#64
#65
Come on, Gordy.
Play the game!
;-)
St CYr #77:
What now? Mr Failure-to-Engage's choice to use an avatar of him pwning his webcam did not convince you? Shocked, I tells ya.
BTW, I was glancing at UrbanDictionary last night and was amused by the aptness of the first example here.
St Cyr
What do you think Gordy will do next?
Thanks, FrankD
:-)
'cheap attitude and posturing (lol) for something of value'
The irony burns.
That's not the irony burning Gordon, That's the embarrassment of your self recognition
This NH winter is where the action is going to be, at the moment the upper Arctic temperatures are plummeting well below normal.
It appears to be negative feedback.
Early snow in Alaska, caused by a CAO.
RAIN...HEAVY AT TIMES WILL DEVELOP IN WESTERN ALASKA SUNDAY NIGHT. AN UNSEASONABLY COLD AIR MASS MOVING ON TO THE NORTH SLOPE BEHIND THIS SYSTEM WILL CHANGE RAIN TO SNOW IN AREAS FROM THE BROOKS RANGE NORTH .....
NOAA
Argument by naked - and blatantly incorrect - assertions. ("The most basic test?" Seriously?)
You really haven't got a clue how to go about logical evidence-based argumentation, have you?
As Hitchens says, your unsubstantiated crap can be dismissed without evidence - but has been treated far more kindly than that thus far.
Except that "dumb" is the wrong metric.
IIRC "Davey" makes pretty serious errors on occasion, and then clings to them in the face of the rebuttal. But Jo is still worse.
I have interacted directly with her at a number of sites where she made claims that (a) were fundamentally mistaken, and/or (b) did not require anything more than basic high school English comprehension to refute, due to the structure of the claim.
In all cases she refused to admit her error, even when the error was plainly refuted by high school level English. And many of her regular commenters last time I looked, some of whom I used to discuss things with at various sites, have been even worse. This explains why I don't bother with engaging her or her site any more. There's simply no point arguing evidence and logic with people who repudiate both when they get in the way of their position. (Especially when Ms. Nova seems to make certain inconvenient comments disappear a la Mr. Watts.)
And come to think of it, Jo and her commenter's behaviour is much like your own performance here thus far. All of which may go some way to explaining why you spend so much time big-noting your own argument like a wannabe gangsta rapper, and so little taking care to comprehensibly make it and demonstrate that it is the best conclusion from the weight of all the evidence like a wannabe scientist.
But hey, at least you impress the most gullible readers here like Karen and el gordo. That's got to be good for your self esteem or something, right?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Stabilised" implies that if nothing else changes, temperatures won't change either. We have very strong evidence to the contrary despite strong attempts to deny or obfuscate it.
Whats the BFD about Joanne Codling anyway? I don't see any reason to care what she says any more than any of the hundreds of other blogs (denier and accepter) run by non-scientists.
FFS, her "science background" consists of working for Questacon making liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets. She makes Willard Anthony look qualified...
She is, in fact, the very epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect, possessing the slightest of qualifications and consequently rating her abilities far beyond actuality.
“Stabilised” implies that if nothing else changes, temperatures won’t change either.'
Climate stability is not a natural state, so I'm saying that global cooling will become evident in a couple of years.
Whereas the warmist tipping point has come and gone.
The plateau before the tipping point.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-ano…
So you're now saying that temperatures haven't stabilised.
Who wins when el gordo debates el gordo?
Stabilised in the sense that temps are not going up or down, but obviously it cannot last forever.
And Luke, el gordo repudiating evidence that gets in the way of his position, as he has repeatedly done and does again at #11 and #12 - is a perfect example of why it's a waste of time to "engage" at Nova's website with people who fail to actually engage with the full set of evidence.
Imagine el gordo multiplied by 20 in a forum where the owners and moderators have the same cavalier disregard for inconvenient evidence and logic...
Many of the newer posters here probably won't recognise Luke from a number of years back. Five or six years ago he was a regular poster at Marohasy's swamp in particular, and often confronted the more egregious deniers.
Like Chek and Vince, I eventually stopped continually miring myself in Teh Stupidity of the more extreme denialist sites, but Luke seemed to be (bravely?) persisting. I wondered once or twice why he did so, and on several ocassions I thought that he seemed to be slipping, including once on a Deltoid thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/28/andrew-bolt-column-flooded-w…
It seems now that Luke is exhibiting Stockholm syndrome. If one goes over to the swamp and looks at Luke Walker's listed postings on the side-bar, it's a pretty good indication of what happens when one lives for too long in the thrall of the Other Side. A bit like the conversion of innocents to foaming fanatics that occurred at that notorious prison in the Middle East...
You really are a clown BJ.
Assuming it's the same guy, then unfortunately he seems to have become worse in the meantime - and he was poor on that thread, being especially fond of binary thinking/excluding the middle, strawmen, ignoring valid rebuttals and the odd falsehood claimed as fact - as well as an outright quote mine.
Is that all you have Fatso?
I'm underwhelmed.
Luke has worked long and hard for the warmist cause and his quest at contrarian blogs has been time well spent.
And I'll being passing his name on to Denialati HQ as a candidate for debriefing the masses... after the tipping point.
What do you make of this?
'While it remains difficult to explain how atmospheric heat generated by increasing atmospheric CO2 could migrate into deep oceans without corresponding increase in the heat content of upper 700 m, it is not impossible: warmer water can sink under colder (at temperatures above 4°C) if it is more saline and therefore denser.
'If this happened locally, the actual migration could be missed (e.g. more saline and therefore denser water is sinking around Greenland – though there the case is that colder (but relatively less dense) water sinks under warmer (but relatively denser), all under 4°C.
'But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.
'So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2. According to my sources, deep oceans (below 2000 m) contain about 90% of biospheres’ CO2, so any putative warming of this region should release the amount of CO2 that is at least comparable to human emissions.
'Assuming IPCC’s position that the past increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2 is predominantly due to human emissions, additional release from deep oceans should be clearly visible on the curve of changes in atmospheric concentration – yet it does not seem to be.'
Mišo Alkalaj
In a word, bullshit. In two words 'waffling bullshit'.
Considering Alkalaj's promotion and quote here:
Posts Tagged ‘Miso Alkalaj’
Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud
Now look who is pushing this story none other than the O' Sullivan who has compromised himself as seen here.
Now look there at the company he is in, non other than the other qualification inflater Tim Ball, birds of a feather and all that.
So why, instead of discovering more on how the Idsos are compromised by, at the best, conflicts of interest are you presenting more waffling shit from others of similar ilk?
And, why is it you do not link to the original from which you drew that waffling piffle?
Now where has Boris gone? Boris vanished just before Luke appeared, just saying, the styles are very different but...?
You hit the nail on the head, Lionel. El Fatso's 'expert' is another pseudo-scientific crank spewing out more nonsense - such as arguing that atmospheric increases in C02 are due to plants and not the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
This argument is so utterly shallow that only the right wing blogs and usual suspects will pick up ion it. TallBloke is one of them - as expected.
gordolocks, from where did you get that quote?
Entering various strings short enough for google to run properly fails to turn up anything other that your post above. What have you changed, messed with?
At a minimum (and quite apart from what Lionel says):
a) The evidence indicates that the oceans above 2000m are warming. He's talking about the oceans below 2000m, and I don't know if there's reasonable evidence of warming there. I don't recall seeing any.
b) For his "90%" figure, I do not know whether he is conflating CO2 dissolved in deep ocean water with CO2 stored in other forms under deep ocean waters but I wouldn't be surprised if he was. If he is, then his claims about the amount of CO2 that "should be" released are most likely suspect.
c) the conclusion ("...so...") in the quote does not follow from the rest of the quote. (No evidence, no calculations or modeling, certainly no confidence intervals, no peer reviewed publication.) Maybe he's done all that elsewhere, and maybe it wasn't promptly torn to shreds after publication in a suitable journal - but it's certainly not found in your cut and paste.
The argument presented in the link in #22 relies on a head buried very deeply where the sun don't shine. (But then most of us knew that already - the Dragon Slayers group is so cuckoo that most "skeptics" have tried to distance themselves from it.) It attacks one line of evidence out of half a dozen and acts as if the rest don't exist and therefore don't directly undermine its claim.
I wondered where you'd gone luke. And EG. Very amusing.
Hi cohenite, welcome.
Aha, the Re-educators of the Masses are massing.
Has their ever been so much misplaced fucking hubris since Ozymandias first popped down to his local Statues ' Я' Us?
That should of course be 'there', not 'their', .
*Love* the way our ex-sports writer refuses to answer direct questions that would require him to admit that his preferred source turns out to be fossil-fuel industry funded liars creating and disseminating misinformation on the Internet. Doggedly refuses. Refuses even to acknowledge that the question is being asked.
The stench of dishonesty is choking, Gordy. You need to wash your little, lying soul with bleach.
Bollocks right from the off. This lying clown does not understand that wind-driven vertical transport is the mechanism. Ekman pumping down the Taylor Columns at the centres of sub-tropical gyres.
Another stupid, ignorant clown.
Mechanism? Globally, GHG forcing is increasing and will continue to do so. Explain your proposed mechanism for planetary cooling when a globalised forcing is steadily increasing.
Saying stuff (especially idiotic, unphysical stuff) is not sufficient, Gordy. This is not the same as being a third-rate hack scribbling about football matches.
Bernard J #16.
Dear God, what happened to the man's mind?
Motorcycle accident? Drugs?
Indeed. And if he had bothered to read the suggested literature he would know this. Here is another suggestion gordolocks, this time a primer in Oceanography (quite a number of oceanographers have contributed to climate science David Archer for one) Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison. Of course reading does not equate to understanding with some.
And now for something a little different, for those interested in flying machines.
Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter - AHS Sikorsky Prize Flight .
Some very interesting looking engineering tricks in there, I am going to have to keep studying this. The drive is amazing, is that why the assistants are watching anxiously, waiting for a break which would cause loss of control and a crash?
There is another aspect, hint repeated four times, that intrigues me much. What am I looking at and why?
Speaking of amazing engineering, I can't help but plug Theo Jansen's Strandbeests:
http://www.ted.com/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html
The distributed drive mechanism under the pedals maybe?
Rigging that to synchronise the contra-rotating rotor pairs looks like a nightmare.
Bernard J.
Astonishing! And I had no idea. Wonderful.
Need to watch the helicopter vid next quiete minute.
Nope, too stupid to pass the Lionel Test!
I'm more interested in the latest, here's Hansen et al on sensitivity and reference to the Eemian.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4846
A major greenhouse gas (water vapour) is in decline and I'm curious as to where it went?
http://climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesO…
A cooler world should be dryer .... just sayin'
But if “missing heat” would indeed migrate to deep oceans by such a putative mechanism, it is inescapable that the water in deep oceans would heat up, and therefore release some of its dissolved CO2 which would have no other way to go but all the way to the surface.
‘So heating up deep oceans should release more CO2.
I'm not an expert, but surely that only holds true if the water is saturated with CO2 at a certain temperature and pressure.
#41 EG
I've been linking that paper for your and others for quite some time now. Perhaps now you have found it on your own, you should read it. Even the abstract tells you this:
* * *
Now you are off on the single-data-set fallacy with WV trends.
You can't do this. If you can be bothered to find out why, here's an excellent primer:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/02/water-vapor-trends/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/
* * *
Now, back to #31 and #33.
#43
I'm more puzzled by the physical mechanism. How does CO2 get from the deep ocean below 2000m to the surface? Because this argument seems to require a wide-scale, near-instantaneous transport of waters from the deep ocean to the surface so that the CO2 can be released.
Could this hypothesis be horse's willy?
AND AGAIN, Gordo, simple question: what was the world population in the Eemian?
FFS.
Its nice to compare and contrast the influences before humanity because its unambiguous.
'Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous...'
It is unambiguously irrelevant with what to do about climate change right now.
Or are you saying you are perfectly fine with 4-6 billion people dying off due to climate change, as long as you can maintain your precious ideology?
There's nothing sufficiently "ambiguous" about paleoclimate-derived estimates for S_ff to give deniers the slightest grounds for comfort. Read the study.
* * *
What about #31 and #33?
Are we going to pretend that these open issues don't exist just like we always do Gordy?
That would be further evidence that you are in denial.
Stu you are being highly alarmist with your global warming theories.
Gordy
The argument that H13 advances is that the Cenozoic sensitivity estimates *support* the previous analysis in Hansen & Sato (2012).
You blanked this earlier even though I summarised the basis for the estimate for you at the time. Here, again, is that summary:
Since I know you have a horror of reading the primary literature (shared by most deniers) here’s the TLDR on H&S12:
LGM and Holocene are considered two distinct, quasi-equilibrium climate states.
Global average temperature difference is estimated to be ~5C.
Radiative forcing difference between LGM and Holocene estimated as ~6.5W/m^2.
So S to a ~1W/m^2 change in forcing = ~0.75C.
S to a ~4W/m^2 change in forcing (from 2xCO2 and a dash of CH4) = 3C.
Bingo!
Hint – when S is calculated properly from fully-resolved paleoclimate change, you always end up around 3C. This applies right across the Cenozoic (65Ma – present), so best learn to live with it!
* * *
Shall we save ourselves the trouble of pretending that you are ever going to use the bleach?
"Ekman pumping".
That requires an increase in wind variability and an increase in the ocean skin temperature. Neither are happening.
It requires an increase in zonal wind speed and has nothing to do with skin temperature.
Not according to RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-ga…
You are confusing two different things.
1/ The rate at which the ocean cools is inhibited by the reduction of the thermal gradient across the skin layer. Yes.
2/ The mechanisms by which the retained energy is mixed downwards.
cohenite
I sense confusion but much as I would enjoy exploring this I am going to bed because it's 1:25am here in the UK and tomorrow it's my son's sixth birthday and I need to be capable of dealing with all that this entails.
TBC by all means, but signing off for now.
Gordy
What about #31 and #33?
The issue is interesting. Trenberth's paper got the ball rolling:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
Spencer does an interesting analysis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
Roy Spencer, the creationist, "does an interesting analysis"?
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA - did a gust of wind just blow your sceptical hat off?
Ah. Cohenite - Anthony Cox of Newcastle, NSW & well paid acolyte of Big Coal. Well, the slugs are coming out to play aren't they. How did your sponsoring of Monckton last little outing go? Oh that's right: publicly pwnd by students (again) in your home town - his Lordship was most upset (how unusual). Still, have to keep drip feeding fertiliser to the plants. I see you know Luke & Fatso - now there's a surprise.
All of you keep arguing that there is no elephant in the room - it's just an large, elephant-shaped pile of imaginary elephant dung that has the look, sound, smell, feel and taste (!) of elephant, put there to confuse the other occupants of the room (elephant-hunters all) by evil socialist scientists, and anyway if you ignore it, it will go away, and it's getting smaller if you look the other way, and even if it's not getting smaller, it's not getting bigger as fast as we said it would, which means that it isn't really there, and we are evil anti-capitalist communist, socialist, greenish-red dirty scientific hippies if we say it is, and, anyway, Daddy's friend Rupert says shut up, and....
El Gordo provides a link from "climate4you.com" which pruports to show decreasing humidity over time.
Naturally, being sceptical, I asked myself whether that secondary source was reliable. The graph seems curiously devoid of any information as to the provenance of its data.
So I thought I would try to find a primary source, and here is a link that addresses the same thing as "climate4you.com", but unlike "climate4you", it actually also provides references to reputable published work.
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-c…
Amazingly (or perhaps not, given El Gordo's track record), the random blog quoted by El Gordo is apparently trying to tell us something that is 180 degrees from what the facts are telling us.
The thing is - despite knowing that it is safe to assume that any assertion of purported fact provided by El Gordo is incorrect, it probably takes him about 10 seconds to cut and paste his latest lie, while it takes me several minutes to find data that proves his lie as such.
This is what the denial lobby is all about: it takes them no time at all to lie, while the truth needs to be treated with far more care. And this is why reputation is so important: if an assertion is made by somebody like El Gordo who has a reputation for always telling lies, then we can save time checking his "facts" by simply assuming each new "fact" is just another lie.
That is good news Craig, nothing to worry about then.
More importantly, south east Oz is experiencing a 'big weather event'.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/satellite/
'I see you know Luke & Fatso – now there’s a surprise.'
Judging by your colourful language, devoid of science, you must be part of the political wing of the warmista?
Your lot is about to get rolled by a man who will scrap the fkn tax, dismantle the Klimatariat and stop subsidising renewables, so perhaps you should consider your future.
In fact, El Gordo would do well to ignore "climate4you.com", which appears to be nothing but a crank blog full of dodgy graphs.
He should instead concentrate on reading and understanding the basics, which he doesn't appear to have done yet. With the basics under his belt, he could start writing comments that demonstrate a little understanding of the topic.
In fact, upon re-perusing El Gordo's link about water column vapour, I notice some obvious discontinuities in the data - this indicates these graphs are almost certainly the product of measurements taken at a single location.
Using a single location's data as representative of a global phenomenon is particularly dishonest.
Why are deniers so reliably caught out in this way?
From cohenite's link...
'To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith for even me to muster.'
Roy Spencer is a luke warmer and doesn't think the heat in the deep oceans will come back to haunt us. What do you think Craig?
'....this indicates these graphs are almost certainly the product of measurements taken at a single location.'
Maybe, it would be a good catch if you are right.
Craig, climate4you is Ole Humlum's blog. Humlum is known for being serially wrong, and despite claiming to be a scientist, showing a distinct inability to remove his personal biases from his analysis. His most hilarious attempt to be "scientific" was fitting a fifth-order polynomial to the temperature data, and concluding, well, nothing out of that fitting. An example:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif
Note that you can get a similar fit with a 4th order polynomial better fit with 6th and 7th orders, but I am afraid that in such cases the "downtick" at the end isn't quite as pronounced...
Yes, this is the same random blog that Chameleon cited very early on in her career here. She took the critique of the quality of some of the material very badly, in particular the obvious attempts to bias the interpretations drawn by the reader whilst fluffing the reader to lead them to conclude they were (a) making unbiased interpretations and (b) competent to do so - and retreated to the usual set of fallacies and incoherencies to try and pretend otherwise.
IIRC Spencer, Curtin and Humlum have all done this to at least one data set. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others...
I know we shouldn't expect too much from a sports writer, but that is completely abysmal.
"We don't know so we can't predict" is their statement.
The implication is rather different.
I see I'm going to have to spell it out for you, El Gordo:
Being unable to predict with any kind of certainly how the Antarctic ice mass loss is going to proceed, the results of that ice mass loss are excluded from our predictions.
Do you actually understand that implication, El Gordo?
A component of the effects of global warming having a bearing on future sea level rise and been excluded from the current predictions, the IPCC predictions will necessarily understate the extent and the risks of future sea level rise.
But thanks, El Gordo, for bringing to our attention that admission by the IPCC that the reality is worse than they state.
And - oh how amusing - that once again, it turns out that your source contradicts your quite ignorant and thoughtless belief.
Roy Spencer is a creationist.
Anybody relying on what he thinks would have to be completely stupid.
As I said last night - birthday party today. But I would just like to thank rhwombat for the insight at #60 and mention that Gordy et al are lying scum.
How interesting that it all fits together. Thank you too, Gordy, for reminding us at #63 that for you, this is just about politics.
Not physics.
You dangerous, stupid, lying clown. If only you could understand what you are lying about.
And please - no more Spencer "analyses".
For those who want to have some fun, I found a paper that references one of Humlum's here:
http://www.lifescienceglobal.com/images/Journal_articles/JBASV8N1A10-Ri…
which claims it ain't CO2, it's all the obliquity!
Now, it all looks like science (although that axial tilt claim lacks any reference), but it isn't until the acknowledgements when the fun starts for real. Apparently, the tilting of the earth's axis upon the 2004 earthquake and tsunami........was a revelation!
No time to read, but clearly yarbles. Peak NH summer insolation was ~10ka; lagged response peak Holocene NH warmth ~6ka (precession main component). T and summer insolation falling ever since. The usual pig's breakfast. Humlum no credibility anyway, just like Dr Roy PhD. Q: Why reference these people? A: Got nothing else. Desperate.
Dr Roy PhD believes God won't allow AGW to exist, so is effectively a religious crank as others have pointed out above and elsewhere many times.
The argument does not require the deep heat to come back to haunt us - just for the rate of ocean heat uptake to fall very slightly to the pre-2000 level and strong tropospheric warming will resume.
If the deep ocean heat never returns to the surface, how does this "lag" of yours work Gordy?
Are you so dense/dishonest that you cannot see the total contradiction here?
Are you?
* * *
#31
#33
Open issues.
Dr Roy PhD:
* * *
Spencer is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
He also sits on the Cornwall Alliance’s Board of Advisors.
The Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming that Spencer endorses contains the following statements (emphasis added):
There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as 'admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory'. This is Spencer's belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?
How do we know Spencer is a signatory? Follow the link and scroll down to 'scientists and medical doctors'. Spencer's is the first name listed.
There are other names of interest in the list of signatories. Two in particular stood out. They were Joseph D'Aleo and Ross McKitrick.
Note use of the word "deny".
;-)
Spencer isn't a scientist any more, Gordy.
Everyone knows Spencer is a creationist (dog botherers are pathetic), but his comment that it 'requires too much faith for even me to muster’.... was meant as humorous self deprecation.
'Humlum is known for being serially wrong,'
Here's another example .... no hockey stick.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1…
Your lag el Gordo. How does your freakin' LAG work??
Stop your one-man circle jerk and answer BBD's question. Us lurkers want to know.
I explained my lag a number of times but nobody understood the mechanism, so I gave up.
While we are on the subject, notice how the increase in humidity mimics SST.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-23.png
And I concede Craig appears to be right about increased humidity.
Sorry Gordo I must have missed it. I can't be arsed going back over 1800+ comments to find some nugget though - can you provide the page and comment number/s and I'll go take a look?
You did NOT provide a physical mechanism you lying sack of shit. You have NEVER done so.
Your dishonesty is an insult to other commenters.
You have dug your own grave by wittering about the lag AND claiming that heat once in the oceans never re-emerges.
Deal with your own shit.
And #31 and #33.
Christ on a bike Gordon.
You might like to educate yourself on what the 'hockey stick' refers to.
Then you might understand why.
Or you may well not, with your underwhelming knowledge of the subject.
El Gordo will believe any pseudo-non-scientific garbage as long as it fits in with his pre-determined views on climate science. Humlum, C02 Science, Nova, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, WUWT, Junk Science, you name it, so long as it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal.
You'd think that science was being conducted through blogs alone. Most research institutes and universities don't give these cranks the time of day. And these blogs also of course don't perform scientific research - they merely selectively cite and distort published research. They overtly wear their hearts on their sleeves, and their clear bias is evidence that they are promoting hidden agendas that have little to do with the reality of AGW.
That this isn't obvious to fatso and his acolytes says a lot about them, too.
Consistent with a warming atmosphere and also a potent GHG providing most of the amplifying (aka positive) feedback required for an S/2xCO2 of about 3C.
See how it all starts to fit together Gordy?
Why only the other day you discovered that GHGs acted as positive feedbacks to orbital forcing and played an important part in the mechanism of glacial terminations.
Who knows where all this new knowledge might someday lead you?
Hello Jeff.
I hope the epic bike ride went off okay?
...for very good reason.
You claimed there was a lag, but were vague on the detail other than heat going into the oceans when the sun is hot and coming out again when it's not. But when it was pointed out that this cannot be accurate because it is inconsistent with the OHC evidence you simply pretended there was no problem with your "mechanism" - and continue to do so.
This is dishonest or incompetent - or both.
Both.
If you don't know about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) then here is a good place to start", note the links at bottom of that page.
Why is this important? That's easy for it pays the organisations from which the numpty, or plain dishonest, brigade get their misinformation.
H/T Climate Denial Crock of the Week and respondent Tatiana Makovkin. Notice the dead hand of omnologos playing the 'conspiracy theory' card.
Sorry for the late reply BBD [1] but I was studying those conical sort of basket weave but in reality strung like the spokes of a bicycle wheel which look to act as a combination of resting supports, drive shafts and shock-absorbers. I watched very closely at start and landing.
There are gaps in the filming, which is from a number of filmed trials by the lack of continuity in clothing, and vital details are not easy to pick out.
I am still looking. They must have tried very hard to keep static, dynamic and aerodynamic loads within tight parameters during construction of parts and assembly.
The structure of the rotors reminds me of those microfilm model aircraft a school chum of mine used to make. Made his own microfilm by IIRC pouring acetone based dope onto model aircraft engine fuel with a wire surround at surface to catch a large enough area of film for the particular surface he was covering. These aircraft were necessarily flown indoors around a pole.
Indeed chek, the drive mechanism is intriguing not being straightforward endless belt drives but spool collecting of a finite length of cord. One of the limits to endurance apart from fatigue of pilot and lateral drift. I recall seeing an earlier version where the pilot had hand cranks also, this crashed through lack of drift control which this later version overcomes by the pilot shifting his body CofG.
[1] I am in the midst of sorting out my own private computer museum, started in 1985, and all the 'puter books I have collected, I would love to find somebody who could use these books rather than tossing them in the skip.
BBD
Indeed it does and he admits he is one of the deniers, probably bought (see my ALEC post), with this:
What tipping point would that be now gordolocks?
WRT the magic levitating bicycle video - aahh, I see now. Thanks for ending the mystery.
* * *
I have a suspicion (based on #60 and the familiarity with which Gordo greeted Cohenite) that Denialati HQ might perhaps be here.
Perhaps a donation?
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/
BBD
WRT a donation, I have approached by email but heard nothing, maybe its the holiday season.
I once attended courses at Cherry Hinton, Acorn's place.
I have just found a PSU with the TANDY logo on it, probably for one of their modems. a pair of 28K8 Sportsters complete with PSUs and serial cables have just gone in the skip. Such a shame.
It *is* sad, and almost nothing remains of the "PC revolution". I remember when all the IBM PCATs were junked (a London office C1989/90, I think) - I believe they are rare and valuable things now; collectibles. Even if this is not yet the case, it will be soon. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ring the museum. Emails sometimes disappear down the cracks.
Looks like my latest response to BBD got snipped. Good to see moderation is alive. was pretty abusive but he deserved it. Nah just kidding. But you guys love to dish it out.
To Bernard J - nah it's not Stockholm syndrome at all - I'm still arguing at Marohasy and doing drive-bys on Nova, Watts and some nicer discussions on Skeptical Science.
What worries me is the quality of the debate. You have some smart guys here but on a inbred backwater. The tone is very dour - little humour, no tolerance, any serious exploration of issues like on most of the extreme partisan sites is nil. Exchange of views little.
Nova at the moment has a post on an ice sheet collapse paper. A real live paper and sole torch bearer KR is trying to hold up the fight. Where are you guys?
Cohenite dropped a scrorching tirade on sea level which you'd need a BBD bazooka to take down.
The von Storch paper is a serious wakeup call. Fine if you want to deny yourselves out of it but there are enough stress cracks to indicate the science is far from settled. That does not mean that AGW is not a long term threat but we do have to redouble our efforts in the debate.
Are you helping ? Or content in your safe little club beating up on intruders.
But just tidying up on BBD screechy demands
NSW sea level http://hol.sagepub.com/content/17/7/999.abstract
Appropriateness of the Eemian as a model for current day
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051800/abstract;jsessi…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120716214457.htm
WAIS risk http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514153032.htm
Cainozoic - well if you think you can compute the impact of continental positions, land ea distribution, heat transport and circumequatorial circulations; then resolve the validity of the proxy records in terms of constraining them with CO2 periodicities and get the the correct timing you're very optimistic. And ignored the entire chain of complex biogeochemical ocean processes including unknown biogenic dimethyl sulphide aerosol issues - well hunky do for you. Good luck with that.
Luke
What worries me is the quality of your debate. What the fuck do you think you are doing?
No, it isn't. But one wonders what the fuck HvS thinks he is doing.
Avoiding know-nothings like Cohenite, KuhnKat and the lesser denialiati.
Incidentally, you seem to have convinced yourself that I only comment here in order to create another crude strawman. You are mistaken, as usual, but thuggery is not tolerated in those venues.
I told you that it was intellectually dishonest to use a regional SL study as a proxy for global mean sea level, and here you are doing it again. Mind you, the results are unsurprising - Holocene MSL highstand reached ~6ka. So what? Eemian MSL highstands were, as stated, at least 5m higher, demonstrating WAIS collapse and ~2m contribution from the GIS.
Etc.
This is why we cannot be bothered with you, Luke. You are full of shit and you will not learn.
Can't you even be bothered to read your own references and compare them to what I originally wrote?
Go back and read my original comment again: ~2m from the GIS and ~3m from the WAIS.
Do you think I am as fucking clueless as you are?
Is to miss the point entirely. Please RTFR: Hansen et al. 2013 and Rohling et al. 2013. Links upthread. Blue text. You click on them to open the document.
You aren't even remotely close to scepticism, Luke. Time to wake up to that fact.
Luke, deniers love to debate. Just look at Gordon - "debating" away with fuck all informing him except buzzwords, a political objective and a stunning depth of ignorance, with no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.
The 'debate' takes place in the literature, not in the oh-so-cheap, fossil fuelled blogosphere where the organ grinders would like it to be. Which is why Curry's an even bigger fool than she's exposed herself as if that's what she truly believes (her 'true' beliefs being dubious at best).
However one thing that the denialosphere's relentless campaigning has cleared up for good. Electronic democracy can never work. Too many technical holes to be exploited, and too many fuckwits who will never realise they are
The CLAW hypothesis was laid to rest a while back.
#7 link:
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/icas/atmospheric-chemistry-and-aero…
chek #6
+1
Luke: do you know why van Storch choose 1998?
German fossil fuel plants now uneconomic.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/18/fossil-fuel-power-plants-to-be-sh…
The writing's on the wall for the deniers: renewables reduce wholesale electricity prices... so why oppose them unless you're a fossil fuel shill?
'GHGs acted as positive feedbacks to orbital forcing and played an important part in the mechanism of glacial terminations.'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it was a negative feedback.
Gordy
You are wrong and you *still* don't understand positive and negative feedbacks. Which is dismaying, at this point.
Positive feedback amplifies the effect of a change in forcing.
Negative feedback suppresses the effect of a change in forcing.
GHGs amplify the effects of changes in orbital forcing. They are a positive feedback.
Look Gordy, if you are interested enough in climate to "debate" it here, why not read a textbook and improve your topic knowledge? Again, I recommend Ruddiman, 2nd edition. Yes, I know it's not cheap, but academic textbooks are pricey. They are also invaluable.
I'm sure they said somewhere that most LGM terminations were negative feedback, but I take your point.
'What tipping point would that be now gordolocks?'
Global cooling.
If you get a basic framwork under your belt you will no longer be gazing uncomprehendingly at the primary literature and misrepresentations thereof. You will have a clue.
Knowledge is power. Buy a textbook or get one out of the library.
Consider it an investment in the future.
No they didn't and good.
* * *
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by explaining a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
BBD - who are you - some irrelevance on a backwater. Really mate - your influence is ZERO?
Unless you are forming policy you're just having a big old tug.
You have failed to address any of my points like a big sook run off to the scroundrels' defence of dodgy palaeo with one of your references brought to you by the school of failed modellers. Hardly reassuring.
Your debating style is simply to make pronouncements and like all big heads make the mistake that you're controlling the flow. You're not - I'm just dragging you all around the pond my friend. You're playing chase the rabbit.
I challenge you - get over to Nova's and defend the ground. But you're too gutless. Do something useful ! What are you achieving here.
In fact you have contributed by you insularity to the deniers winning the debate with some of the crappiest science ever.
Any climate scientists sacked from Abbott are partially your fault for not holding your end up !
Turbo'sy 1998 is irrelevant - pick another period - same answer. You're in your own denial. A few more years and you'll be a laughing stock. Why is Trenberth trying to explain the pause if there is no pause? There is a pause - we don't know why and you're kidding yourself if you're convinced you really do.
Talk to some of the establishment privately and ask the question?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend trend significance zero.
Turbo’sy 1998 is irrelevant – pick another period – same answer. Pull the other one: it's a cherry pick of an outlier max.
'How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?'
At the moment one GHG is going gang busters, yet temperatures have remained flat, so with our star on the blink I'm looking at the null hypothesis.
Global cooling in a couple of years.
I challenge you – get over to Nova’s and defend the ground.
But there's no point: only cranks read those sort of sites. There's no way that rational discussion with them is possible and anyone who is unconvinced would probably not hang around except from a sort of slow motion train wreck fascination. The best use of resources is posting on sites where lurkers could be misinformed by the deniers.
'A few more years and you’ll be a laughing stock.'
Strongly disagree, this small group of ratbags has already arrived.
Turbo - not game eh? Probably coz you won't be up to it. Your traffic here is stuffed old son ! Wakey wakey.
BTW I did pull the other one - you ignored it. And pls explain why Trenberth is explaining the pause if there is no pause. You can't.
If you guys were any good you'd have them on toast at Nova on every point - you're not that good I suggest. can't even get it up to take on Aussie's best denier site. Deltoids hiding from a hiding on endless open threads.
BBD - you don't even have a handle on internal variability - multi-decadal - you don't even know what's red noise ! Statistical left over La Nina debris perhaps?
But on the centennial scale even the GCMs fail you with centennial variation http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal…
Even your internal mathematics and computational precision is rooted.
Hong, S., Koo, M., Jang, J., Kim, J.E., Park, H., Joh, M., Kang, J., and Oh, T. (2013) An Evaluation of the Software System Dependency of a Global Atmospheric Model, Monthly Weather Review 2013 ; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00352.1
This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting.
Several commenters here explained that you haven't understood the reasons why the models aren't "falsified" and therefore have no *point*.
Retreating into evidence denial underlines how weak your position actually is.
Refusing to answer questions illustrates your essential weakness even further:
Page 18 #13.
Page 18 #40.
Should be:
"Several commenters here explained that you haven’t understood the reasons why the models aren’t “falsified” and therefore that you have no *point*."
'The best use of resources is posting on sites where lurkers could be misinformed by the deniers.'
Yeah, stay around this sandpit you big sook. Admit you don't have the bottle to do battle on a contrarian blog.
Why not start at Morohasy's blog, where there is little traffic and people will treat you kindly.
Strawman, again. Slowdown in the rate of tropospheric warming is not disputed. Ongoing increase in the rate of OHC increase is observed. Except, of course, by data deniers.
I'm fed up with you, Luke.
At the moment one GHG is going gang busters, yet temperatures have remained flat, so with our star on the blink I’m looking at the null hypothesis.
As the IPCC acknowledges: there are natural and man made influences on global surface temperature. Some natural influences make the temperature rise, some make it fall. The net effect of the man made influence is to make the temperature rise. However at the moment the magnitude of the man made effect is of the same order as some of the natural influences, so when they all act together to lower the surface temperature, the man made effect is overwhelmed.
The denier POV is that there used to be natural climate change, but now it's stopped so only man made climate change can affect the surface temperature. So temperatures should rise linearly with increasing GHG.
Spot the error.
What kind of a numpty could possibly call von Storch's pathetic bit of trash, "a serous wakeup call"?
Oh, this kind of "quality of the debate":
Real quality there from the Jo Novians.
I wonder why Luke is over here trying to recruit people for Jo Nova's blog?
Could it be that the endless repetition of idiotic conspiracy theories and mindless crankery has become so boring that her hit count has plummeted?
BTW I did pull the other one – you ignored it. And pls explain why Trenberth is explaining the pause if there is no pause. You can’t. There is no pause in the increase in the heat content of the Earth system. You're cherry picking a metric that fits your narrative, whilst ignoring the ones that prove it wrong.
There is no point. They are all like you. Ill-informed and profoundly in denial. Dealing with nonsense in a hostile environment is hard work. Dealing with it here is a handy way of keeping up with the roiling of the denialosphere without actually having to swim in the sewage.
BBD - you're fed up coz you're losing. Demoted from blog king pin. This is our blog now. We're moving in. You're through.
But look on the bright side you can get some sleep and stop blogging on the toilet.
El Gordo - this is what we call a rout. I think I'm going to have to engage you as they're not up to it.
Admit you don’t have the bottle to do battle on a contrarian blog.
Why not start at Morohasy’s blog, where there is little traffic and people will treat you kindly.
Kind of proves my point doesn't it? Why waste my time on a marginal site that only attracts the limited number of cranks left?
BBD - excuses excuses - have a look at KR having a go. Keep the insults down (no fun I know) and content high (esp. citations) and you won't get snipped.
Gordy
Yap! Yap! Yap!
Why don't you admit the depth of your intellectual dishonesty and your ignorance?
The stench is intolerable, Gordy. Reach for the bleach.
#34
Evasions, evasions, Luke.
Page 18 #13.
Page 18 #40.
You've got him on the hook El Gordo - now reel him in. Interesting - the dumber they are the harder they bite. You're dragging him all over the pond. The trick is to show leadership - sadly missing.
This is Tim Lambert's blog, Luke. You are getting confused in your hubris.
Sir, sir.... I spotted the error.
'The denier POV is that there used to be natural climate change, but now it’s stopped so only man made climate change can affect the surface temperature.'
#37
A big dog yapping?
Argument by barking yapping, no, sorry, assertion is a logical fallacy, Luke.
this is what we call a rout.
A bit early to declare yourself the winner, since all you've done is post links without explaining what your point is and how they support it.
@ Luke
Further evasions:
#3
#4
#5
This page. The list gets longer.
'The writing’s on the wall for the deniers: renewables reduce wholesale electricity prices… so why oppose them unless you’re a fossil fuel shill?'
Germany is building six new coal fired power stations this year.
Luke you could play devil's advocate.
I'm not here to defend German energy policy Gordy.
You haven't answered the question I asked you above:
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by describing a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
It's like talking to the cat.
EG at #39 Isn't that your POV? In #20 you said At the moment one GHG is going gang busters, yet temperatures have remained flat, so with our star on the blink I’m looking at the null hypothesis.
So you're clearly expecting temperature to go up in line with GHG.
#44
So a dishonest idiot calls for support from a dishonest bully. Gosh, it's just like the real world in here.
You know that they used to call the fairground guys doing Luke's job 'barkers' right?
It rather looks like you've tipped your hand and you're the one that's through. Two-faced arsehole.
What the breaking strain on your line El Gordo - BBD's trying to wrest control back. Pull up pull up pull up.
"centennial timescales." El Gordo - brainless bully can't even keep up with the literature - wrong !
He actually believes that the GHG "forcing" is what his mommy told him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
#43 Germany is building six new coal fired power stations this year
Doh, when do you think the projects started? Over 2 dozen projects have been cancelled or put on hold over the last few years. The ones that are being finished ( BTW I'm not sure that it is 6) were planned years ago to replace old fashioned highly polluting plant mainly in the East. And as my link shows, they're not going to be profitable.
Here's another one showing the same effect: http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2012/11/13/9613704/power/edem/eon-pu…
Chek #48 - mate don't swing at wides.
Hey I'm a bit slow: Luke's changed his avatar. What's odd is that it looks like it's just a cropped version of his old one. How come you've only got one image of yourself?
Luke
You have still not responded substantively to:
Page 18 #13.
Page 18 #40.
And:
#3
#4
#5
On this page. Instead, you have started yapping.
Please either get a grip or go to the pub.
He thinks he's hard, but I was born in Macclesfield.
:-)
Sorry, that was in response to #52
Chortling too hard.
Probably because it's a stolen image for just another toothless Gina- zombie bred in denier slime pits.
Luke
What do you think your picture conveys to others?
What do you think this comment conveys to others, prefaced as it is, by your pretty picture:
?
#56 interesting hypothesis. One which only Luke can falsify. Come on Luke: show us another image.
Yeah, only a hypothesis TB. But what's the odds that Luke is a 70-ish ex-middle manager who wishes someone had had the guts he would have had - yessiree Bob! - to nuke Moscow back in the day which would have stopped this eco-foolishness in its tracks decades ago. Or variation thereof.
LOL.
Luke: Its all gone quiet over there. Yes its all gone quiet over there yes its all gone quiet all gone quiet all gone quiet over there
If he weren't born in Macc he's not as 'ard as me. Simple as that.
It's a wonderful thing, the Internet.
'How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?'
A cool sun should do the trick, in light of the fact that temperatures remain flat as CO2 continues to rise.
So you're saying that a cool sun is compensating for the GHG warming are you?
Which temperatures Gordon?
Do be specific.
Nope. Increase in GHG forcing is *much larger* than putative decrease in solar forcing even if we get a Maunder minimum.
Energy balance. Try to understand.
* * *
Now, what about answering at least one of the multitude of questions you have ignored so far?
How does the climate system cool when subjected to a sustained and increasing forcing?
I have already asked you this question. Please now answer it by describing a physical mechanism by which cooling can occur as GHG forcing increases. Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales and this discussion is about centennial and millennial timescales.
'This is our blog now. We’re moving in. You’re through.'
We are still outnumbered bro.
But not actually saying anything.
'Increase in GHG forcing is *much larger* than putative decrease in solar forcing even if we get a Maunder minimum.'
The temperature hiatus is of concern and there appears to be a parallel with the Dalton.
Over the next couple of years I expect we'll see a general cooling and drying, with this warmer wetter clime a thing of the past, but thank dog we have CO2 in abundance.
Expect whatever you like. Physics doesn't care.
Explain the parallel.
Explain how, with the current greenhouse gas forcing, observed energy imbalance and observed temperature rises, you could expect any cooling.
Explain who is concerned by your imaginary "hiatus".
I'm concerned by the sight of a tipping point directly in front, based on the fact that temperatures have remained flat for more than a decade.
Your CO2 forcing has no legs, otherwise temps would have picked up by now.
This is hopeless.
It looks bad, but humanity has been here before so we should survive.
Is this a tipping point sign? US tornado activity well down on average.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ptorngraph1.png
chek: Luke & Fatso are bitter middle-aged ex-working-class-hero thickwits who hang around Oz sites arguing with pot-plants in the hope of being mistaken for intellectual-giants-of the-prolatariat, just like their real idols Col Pot & Andrew Blot. And, just like their idols, they have accepted that it's OK to snuggle up to Gina's enormous nipples, suck Koch, and swallow Kindly Uncle Rupert's propaganda, 'cause predicted reality scares them, and that brings sideways looks from their thug mates in the virtual pub.
BTW Fatso @p18#63 - I'm a specialist physician with a PhD and a research interest in lung disease, working in public hospitals in a regional city with the world's worst coal addiction. Does that make me part of the political wing of the warmista? Project much, you ex-tabloid hack? "My lot are about to get rolled" - by "fkn" Tory Rabbott, are they Fatso? Bwaahaahaa. Well at least we know where you & your "mate" fall on the spectra of stupidity and self-interest. Paul Keating was right about a lot of things - including you.
Whenever humans have fouled their nest the civilisation involved has collapsed. Some remnants may have survived, but often not or only as a shadow of their former selves.
And the damage that humans are inflicting on the plane this time dwarfs the damage that has occurred before the Industrial Revolution. Climate change is as profound as mainstream scientists warm, regardless of the denialism of the ostrich* tribes, and it's piling on top of pollution, habitat destruction, the spread of exotic diseases and plants and animals, and the overuse of many biological resources.
We might "survive", but if we persist with our current trajectory it will be a pitiful survival. You seem to be happy with that - I am not.
[*Apologies to members of the genus Struthio]
...mainstream scientists warn...
I like BBD's arguing style - a list of numbers and such a demanding style. Maybe I should copy that ... but nah .... ram raiding is more fun.
What does my picture convey - a highly conflicted but sensitive individual reaching out to communicate with the Deltoids in their insulated microcosmic atoll. A diversion? Perhaps a statement of the debate?
It could be spring and things are thawing - early this year? - but I think the August thread count has increased due to my presence. I will accept Bitcoins if gratitude is required but a simple thank you is enough too.
But I thought I might be able to persuade yo'all to do some serious debate with your nemeses (not me I'm on your side - you just haven't worked that out yet). But alas you're content at home beside the fire entertaining your house guest El Gordo.
Of course it could be for the best as BBD may not be housetrained.
rhwombat - nice sledging - I kacked
#79: not hard - you're full of it.
'I’m a specialist physician with a PhD and a research interest in lung disease, working in public hospitals in a regional city with the world’s worst coal addiction.'
You live down the road from me.
rhwombat - thanks - but did you have a compelling proposition to put or are you just the comic relief. Looks like BBD has gone to the loo finally.
Many of the old warmist regulars live on the other side of the planet.
Should we invite Neville to join us, his paper boy antics will go down well.
El Gordo, you say exceptionally silly things.
This graphic demonstrates your silliness for all to see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
You're living in fantasy land and projecting like a lighthouse. "Holding your end up" at a denier site, based on a considerable amount of evidence, changes practically zero minds - about climate science, let alone about who to vote for on the basis of their climate policies.
And this is all quite amusing coming from someone who relies on a misguided concept of validity to dismiss climate models.
Shades of the same delusion as BK. That didn't end well for him.
I sincerely hope that was a lame attempt at humour. If not, you are so far out of touch with reality that you may need professional help.
Luke, are you able to explain what it is precisely you think needs debating?
All we see is a politically-motivated wallowing in nonsense gleaned from crank sites.
That's old hat Craig ... I see a tipping point.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-ano…
'...are you able to explain what it is precisely you think needs debating?'
As we are not going to persuade each other to change sides, I hoped we might do a little projecting.
Will temperatures increase, fall or remain flat over the coming decade?
Just read a four part series at SS on the Eemian warmth, but was disappointed there was nothing on the final days of the last interglacial.
And I see several La Ninas and ENSO neutral years with a glaring lack of el Nino years - none in the last 5 years, only one in the last decade. What do you think might happen to the NOAA graph if the numbers of La Nina/el Nino years were to change places in the next decade?
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/
So, you still don't see the fallacy in that argument...despite having it explained several times. Why am I not surprised?
(And Luke claims that no-one here is "up to engaging with you", which says more about his competence than our ability.)
Craig - why are you letting them get away with it? Compare your ratings here with Nova.
And I find the contest actually sharpens the argument.
Lotharsson #91 - no I didn't say that. I wryly commented that I'd have to attack La Gordo for sport out of boredom. But don't swing at it. You guys need to stop swinging at everything. Show some leadership and whip out an exposition. Don't tailgate rabbits. Shouldn't have told you that I guess.
Maybe you're not capable of an exposition any more.
Looks like a massive amount of recent warming to me (and seeing as I understand the effects of CO2 and am aware of the resulting energy imbalance that exists right now, it all makes sense to me), however, I wouldn't want to mislead anybody with my own unqualified opinions, let's see what the NCDC are getting out of it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php
Oops, looks like El Gordo's uneducated beliefs are mistaken - the experts say something quite different.
Shorter Luke:
Yadda yadda yadda, Look! A rabbit!
Agreed, Craig.
Luke & Fatso (& cohenite) are just domestic versions of contrarian denialists like Spam, Olouse, coproemetic mike, Redarse the Tory mandrill and Boris-the-Fred - sad never-weres, roaming the webs, looking for some way to validate their addiction to Rupert farts & Doubt Merchant chum.
The old standbys of Monckton gleet, WTFUWT farts, Heartland bribes, Bishopshill preaching, Coddling crap, Marohasy swamp and fossilised Carter coproliths are all losing their power to sooth the proctalgia, so they go looking for the unmoderated shell of a once potent blog to try their luck...with predictable results. Still, it is occasionally illuminating when one of them digs up some unexploded intellectual ordinance and throws it into the fire, if only for the schadenfreude. Bit post-apocalyptic really.
'What do you think might happen to the NOAA graph if the numbers of La Nina/el Nino years were to change places in the next decade?'
Good question, we are in a cool PDO so there will probably be a continuation of neutral or La Nina ENSO, with only one modest El Nino in the coming decade.
In the bush these times are the 'good seasons'.
'...the experts say something quite different.'
I'm sure I mentioned plateau, hiatus and pause, that's where its at. Where's your gorebull worming tipping point?
Whatever you're on doc, I wouldn't mind a bit.
This BBD chap is a goldmine:
"GHGs amplify the effects of changes in orbital forcing. They are a positive feedback."
Oh yes, that Great meteorologist and climate scientist Shelley would disagree:
"I am the daughter of Earth and Water,
And the nursling of the Sky;
I pass through the pores of the ocean and shores;
I change, but I cannot die.
For after the rain when with never a stain
The pavilion of Heaven is bare,
And the winds and sunbeams with their convex gleams
Build up the blue dome of air,
I silently laugh at my own cenotaph,
And out of the caverns of rain,
Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb,
I arise and unbuild it again."
Clouds aren't a +ve feedback, unless of course your indoors with your indoors and quoting poetry.
Then:
"Remember that internal variability cancels out over multi-decadal timescales"
So, you're saying nature is in perpetual stasis?
rhwombat, I relate to your anger; please continue.
adelady... from your link.
'La Niña years tend to be globally cold years and El Niño years tend to be globally warm, with a global lag of three months'
So, all things being equal, there will be no warmth coming from the Pacific and the NOAA graph should remain flat, but ENSO is only part of the story.