More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
'Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification (as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations: regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)'
Timbal
This makes me feel uneasy, what is this Autumn he speaks of?
Doltoid greenpiss activists, read part of the story of your lost souls, as you intellectual underperformers
quote
---------------------------
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.
But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.
Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.
The cornerstone of maintaining the quality of scientific papers is the peer review system. Under this, papers submitted to scientific journals are reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. Conducting reviews is seen as part of the job for academics, who are generally not paid for the work.
The papers are normally sent back to the authors for improvement and only published when the reviewers give their approval. But the system relies on trust, especially if editors send papers to reviewers whose own work is being criticised in the paper. It also relies on anonymity, so reviewers can give candid opinions.
Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.
Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the "greenhouse sceptics camp".
The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.
Here is how it worked in one case.
A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?
In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".
He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.
Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.
Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.
Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.
Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.
Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.
Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.
In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."
Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."
Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not terribly fresh in my mind."
Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.
In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.
Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.
The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"
But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.
Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.
The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Was this improper pressure? Bloggers responding to the leaking of these emails believe so. Mann denies wanting to "stifle legitimate sceptical views". He maintains that he merely wanted to uphold scientific standards. "Please understand the context of this," he told the Guardian after the scandal broke. "This was in response to a very specific, particularly egregious incident in which one editor of the journal was letting in a paper that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal."
Naturally de Freitas defends his actions during the incident. "I was never ever found to have done anything wrong, even in the rumpus over the Soon and Baliunas paper. All accusations against me were fully investigated and my performance as editor of this journal was shown to be flawless."
But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. There was a revolt. Their chief editor von Storch wrote an editorial saying the Soon paper shouldn't have appeared because of "severe methodological flaws". After their publisher Otto Kinne refused to publish the editorial, von Storch and four other board members resigned in protest. Subsequently Kinne himself admitted that publication had been an error and promised to strengthen the peer review process. Mann had won his argument.
Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.
Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."
The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.
They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.
Today, neither man attempts to deny that Jones's promise to keep the papers out was a serious error of judgment. Trenberth told the Guardian: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature … Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC."
In an additional statement agreed with Jones, he said: "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process."
Some will not be content with that. Jones had been a contributing author to IPCC assessment reports for more than a decade and should have been aware of the rules.
Climate Research is a fairly minor journal. Not so Geophysical Research Letters, published by the august American Geophysical Union (AGU). But when it began publishing what Mann, Wigley, Jones and others regarded as poor quality sceptical papers, they again responded angrily. GRL provided a home for one of a series of papers by McIntyre and McKitrick challenging the statistical methods used in the hockey stick analysis. When Mann's complaints to the journal were rebuffed, he wrote to colleagues in January 2005: "Apparently the contrarians now have an 'in' with GRL."
Mann had checked out the editor responsible for overseeing the papers, a Yale chemical engineer called James Saiers, and noted his "prior connection" with the same department at the University of Virginia, where sceptic Pat Michaels worked.
He added, "we now know" how various other sceptically tinged papers had got into GRL.
Wigley appeared to agree. "This is truly awful," he said, suggesting to Mann: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."
A year after the row erupted, in 2006, Saiers gave up the GRL post.Sceptics have claimed that this was due to pressure from Wigley, Mann and others. Saiers says his three-year term was up. "My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked," he told the Guardian. "Nor was I censured, as I have seen suggested on a blog posting written by McKitrick."
As for Mann's allegation, Saiers does not remember ever talking to Michaels "though I did attend a barbecue at his home back in the early 1990s. Wigley and Mann were too keen to conclude that I was in league with the climate-change sceptics. This kerfuffle could have been avoided if the parties involved would have done more to control their imaginations".
--------------
fuck off greenpissers on Deltoid and pray to god that he forgive you your sins.
FreddyKaiBoris troll has gone all fundy again.
He had his arse whipped over at Coby's regarding evolution and Creationism - seems that he's ready for more of the same here...
@barnturd greenpisser
My name is Berendaneke and your comment disqualified
FreddyKaiBoris troll has gone all fundy again.
He had his arse whipped over at Coby’s regarding evolution and Creationism – seems that he’s ready for more of the same here…
fuck off from here, ideology greenpisser
Berin, for the sake of humanity, give it a rest so that the sceptics can talk about the weather.
In south west eastern Australia its a normal season and well watered even with an intensified STR.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20130805.1.col.gif
Hi el :)
A few years ago we were told it was never gunna rain agaaaaain, then we got a few floods and we were told that we were to expect more of that because more heat meant more evaporation so we were now going to drown, lol
Sooooo what will be the new crapola that they are going to spew forth for the excuse that aGW is now the cause for normal rainfall :)
I know, tiz the Greenhouse Defect, :)
Barbecue sausage fuck*, Bernard! The FreddieKaiBoris troll was a completely random abusive nonsensical dickhead. Striking out everything and shouting "piss off" is pretty grounded compared to those weirdoes. He's obviously not FreddieKaiBoris.**
*Sorry, it just slipped out. :)
**Humour him, Bern, I think he might be someone else. Ooops, did I say that out loud?
FwankD,
barnturd is actually thinking that Berendaneke is KarenMackBerendanekeSunSpot :)
I don't believe you're suitably qualified to think, SpamKan.
Leave stuff like that to the professionals.
shrek, the farmers are now calling it the
Greenhouse Defect, lol
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image018.jpg
Farmers are professionals in the field shrek, lol
Heck, I figured that out myself when she first tried it on and my statistical skills are pretty basic, so that's yet another "tell" for Luke.
No, KarenMackSunSpot, I am able to separate the sock puppeteers.
For a start you choke on admitting to your Sunspot and Mack versions, whilst Berendaneke keeps admitting to Freddy, Kai and Boris even when comments pertaining to them are not specifically addressed to "Berendaneke".
Citation/reference/link?
freddy, your buzz phrase generator is broken.
I count 13 corner farts on page 35 alone
#9
#19
#37
#54
#56
#57
#79
#80
#84
#89
#94
#95
#96
the 'odour de Lukes' is getting stronger, solitary beckons.
Good evening, Karen.
What we have in south east Australia at the moment is a 'good season' for the rural industry. If the AGW signal is there I'll find it, even though the noise has temporarily overwhelmed it.
'A few years ago we were told it was never gunna rain agaaaaain…
'Citation/reference/link?'
It appears to be a red herring, but the Australian Brainwashing Corporation never misses an opportunity to push alarmist propaganda. That particular organisation is a total disgrace.
60 Minutes 2005
CHARLES WOOLEY: While many farmers believe that drought is just part of a natural cycle, scientist Dr Tim Flannery sees much broader and more sinister forces at work. We live in a new world where global warming and climate change now have Australia on the edge of permanent drought.
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We are in by far the worst position of any country that I’ve had a look at in terms of climate change.
CHARLES WOOLEY: The worst of any country?
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Yes. When you look right across the continent, what has happened is that the winter rainfall zone that has been the heart and soul of the bread basket of Australia is declining. The amount of rainfall through winter is declining. On the east coast of Australia we have a parallel effect where we are getting these El Ninos back to back. We’re getting one drought after the other and eastern Australia is suffering from that. So put together, you have the continent from Perth through to Brisbane suffering severe water deficits.
CHARLES WOOLEY: If Tim Flannery is right, the new weather regime has southern Australia drying out permanently.
More from Climate Commissioner Tom Foolery in 2007:
He predicted “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.
It was on his instigation that most state built desal plants at great expense, then the floods came and now they have been mothballed. The cost to the taxpayer is in the billions.
'IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation's most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
"Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones.
SMH 2008
The fool here is you.
Building the desalination plants was prudent risk management, given that some major population centres were something like 18 months away from severe drinking water shortages and at the time the prospects of major rains were uncertain.
Risk management means doing things based on the situation at the time, and that inevitably means doing things that you wouldn't have done if you'd known the future outcomes in detail. But you don't and can't know.
Me, I could have saved thousands and thousands on my house insurance these last 10 years, as I haven't had a single loss event! And still more on car insurance! And health insurance! What a fool I was to buy all that insurance when I haven't needed it!
'Building the desalination plants was prudent risk management...'
Bullshit, it was a scam and here's David Karoly in 2003.
'The Murray-Darling Basin… covers towns north to Toowoomba, west to Broken Hill and south to Victoria and South Australia… Drought severity in the Murray Darling is increasing with global warming… This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.'
'Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.'
Greens leader Bob Brown 2008
And in #20 you link a Flannery quote about regional Australia with desalination plants built in large cities, thereby verballing the guy.
Was that the sort of thing you did as a "journalist"?
...says the guy who is successfully bullshitted by a large number of sources. I'd laugh, but I have to spring for another irony meter.
el, the see o two nutters get all defensive about being suckers for the scare story, lol
...says Karen, who recently provided a graph claiming "no warming for 17 years" that had a selection of trend lines for carefully cherry-picked periods, not one of them as long as 17 years.
Not the most discerning tool in the shed, is Karen.
You guyz should be paying for the desal plant Lothie, not me, you and your dopey buddies are the sookie boyz with poop in your undies that wanted the insurance.
But most certainly a tool!
Like the rest of the troupe!
It's just fascinating that in addition to making stupid claims then refusing to reference them, The Lukes also refuses to critique Gordy's stupid blether.
Not once has The Lukes corrected the flow of effluent pouring from the Gordy.
There are only two conclusions - either The Lukes is very much as clueless as he appears to be, or he is lying by omission.
Stupid or dishonest! That choice, again...
:-)
The other weirdness that I can't really overlook any further is the way The Lukes and "Karen" MackSunspot are, well, cross-dressing.
It's a mite alarming, actually!
Then we have the stoooopid pommies in here, they troooly believed Mr Viner and what did they get ?
SNOWMAGEDDON :)
suckerzzzzzzzzz, lol
Oh God not that old bollocks again!
Who cares anyway? It'll be *hot* by the end of the century, Mack!
Hot, hot, hot!
I'm betting on the laws of physics so I know I'm going to win!
What's with the female impersonations, Mack?
Does it excite you?!
:-)
And Sunny, speaking of "stooooopid" - have you figured out the difference between the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Eemian yet??
LOL!
:-)
Repetition 3 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Mack was a nice guy from New Zealand, they had the NIWA temperature data debacle over there and they got caught out big time. :)
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-d…
They sure did. The judge was scathing in response to the lawsuit claiming the temperature data was rigged.
Oh, wait...you actually thought...
Freddy demonstrates Climate Clown strategy #1:
Data denial!
Nah, SpamKan doesn't 'do' thinking. The entirely tabloidised brain does Pavlovian responses in one direction only, regardless of the actual content of the stimulus.
All that sock-puppetry is strange too.
We've had Brad/Clammy, The Lukes (pretending you are someone else using the same screen name is SP, in my book!), KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke and doubtless many more besides. And that's just here.
Throw in the cross-dressing, the narcissism, the pathological mendacity and the appalling topic knowledge and you have something truly horrible!
And let's not forget the moobs!
There's probably only 2 or 3 hundred cranks and their socks keeping denialism alive on the intertubes.
Special notice for Karen:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/7634489/Climate-sceptics-fai…
Straight from the actual decision:
"The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant."
Another Karen-fail.
I have been commenting BBD. They languish in moderation. Go and look. I have been tempted to feel a tad sorry for the deltoids. Luke, who apparently likes to play with avatars, began at this open thread trying to help you. You have all deserved the hiding he has subsequently delivered. You were all too lost in your backslapping world to notice.
But the moderator/s musn't like me pointing this out. My comments stay in moderation for well over 24 hours.
Where have the Lukes gone? Here is one of thirteen items which the Lukes should study whilst stopping their your appeals to JoNova's authority, Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric.
The Lukes is most probably asleep. IIRC he's in Ql Australia which is (also IIRC) 8 hours ahead of BST (currently 17:00).
Being five impossible people before breakfast requires quality down-time!
:-)
Sleeping on his back, too I bet.
And by the way, can we PLEASE ban Freddy? Why are we still dealing with that clinically insane douche?
Interesting post at JCs on opinion and comments by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers published in Nature Climate Change on
"Overestimated Global Warming over the past 20 years"
Now didnt Von Storch or somebody come out with a similar analysis quite recently??
Thats right Shrek, they are talking about the "Hiatus" again
though not much talk about OHC and the ocean ate my global warming for their explanation for this hiatus.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the…
That's right Redarse, the dog ate the paper that was gonna be published so it was blogged instead. The arsehole element will never know the difference.
Meanwhile more good news, over at Jo Novas the Cook paper takes another shallacking from Richard Tol
Looks like the 97% consensus is from
Its no good for the academic standing of Queensland Comprehensive being associated with such crap coursework, sorry thats the University of Queensland associated with such crap published papers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidd…
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT…
Is Nature Climate Change counted as a blog now Shrek?
Oh no! Rednose found a shitty paper about consensus! Global warming is a myth!
[snirk]
Some nuggets from the Nature paper:
Eh?
Oh FFS Rednoise
From Fyfe et al.@
Get that?
- "Errors in external forcing" means underestimated negative aerosol forcing
- "Model response" - well, they will over-estimate warming if a major negative forcing is too low :-)
- "Internal climate variability" - also known as ocean heat uptake which has demonstrably *increased* in the last decade
In other words, zero comfort for deniers who are actually capable of understanding the paper.
* * *
Tol's rubbish about Cook got embarrassing weeks ago. He has nothing - he's just creating a false controversy because that's what all these GWPF denier types do when they haven't got anything substantive!
God you are naive! Grow up!
Stu#51
So there appears to be a consensus that Cook's consensus paper is shitty.
The pause in global warming seems to be a puzzle as there seems to be only a 4% chance of the temperature record for the last 20 years being in agreement with the average simulated trend.
This difference might be explained..
Or it might not.
Not very confident is it?
So Tol is now a GWPF denier type
Interesting this need to put everybody into little boxes.
Not at all. Jesus Christ, you're not very bright, are you?
Nirvana fallacy. Thank you for playing, goodbye.
By the way, Rednose, you're in favor of a carbon tax then?
You didn't know, did you?
Second from bottom.
:-)
What about #53?
Did an improved understanding of the context help?
I always like to help dispel confusion!
You lot do that by yourselves! Denial is as denial does!
:-)
Sigh!
No Rednoise, you have it arse backwards, it is people like Tol (and Curry) who put themselves in those boxes by the antics they perform.
Here, let Google be your friend, a good starter is to search on is "Rabett Run" AND "Richard Tol" where you will find similar to this:
Richard Tol’s second draft
and
Memorial Day Puzzler
and on and on and on.
You are very late to this particular party, what other old news are you going to rake up next?
Ho Chi Min greenpiss activist aka BBD
All that sock-puppetry is strange too.
We’ve had Brad/Clammy, The Lukes (pretending you are someone else using the same screen name is SP, in my book!), KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke and doubtless many more besides. And that’s just here.
Throw in the cross-dressing, the narcissism, the pathological mendacity and the appalling topic knowledge and you have something truly horrible!
Stop telling lies, you infamous greenpiss ideologist
Indeed.
We crossed with that sentiment. But then this point is so obvious unless ideology is in charge.
Shh, BBD...
According to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small" He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming".
]
Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits.
Bjørn Lomborg chose Tol to participate in his "Copenhagen Consensus" project in 2008. Lomborg awarded Tol a position on his Copenhagen Consensus panel again in 2009. According to Tol, "Lomborg successfully punches holes in climate hysteria" and "plays a useful role in the debate on climate policy"
There's more, but the box seems to fit.
Freddy, are you trying to tell us you need to go to the bathroom a lot?
Another freddy phart in the corner.
'Odour de freddy' atop of 'Odour de Likes', anybody got a strong fan and some AirWick?
Snap too Stu, another meeting of minds. These cretins just cannot help themselves.
More for Rednoise to ponder 'Tol erasion' which I jumped over first glance , there being so many to chose from.
Yes embarrassing for the Unniversity of Queensland, embarrassing for the IOP and its editor and embarrassing for Cook.
What has he got to hide? Why not publish the information required?
Seems you have to be well qualified with bags of experience to be invited in, and it seems to be getting bigger by the moment.
From Fyfe et al
Got most bases covered then, including the ones you constantly dismiss
Repetition 4 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Is anybody of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??
No, you just need to be a contrarian. How exactly is Tol - an economist - qualified to critique the physical science anyway?
You didn't know Tol was on the GWPF "academic advisory council" or (whatever grandiose tosh it is).
You are such a muppet, Rednoise!
:-)
Freddy, you are possibly the stupidest commenter on this blog.
I have shown you - repeatedly - that you can compare satellite tropospheric data (TLT) with surface temperature reconstruction and they are in extremely close agreement for interannual variability and decadal trend.
The satellite data validate the surface temperature reconstructions.
Nothing you repeat, however often, can get around this.
You have no argument.
Now for pity's sake, try something else.
Lionel#69
These are just links to blogs you keep posting Lionel, one ran by someone who could not even think of an original name for his blog and another ran by someone who thinks he is a rabbit.
Weird
Yes, refuse to read. Refuse to learn.
Deny! Deny! Deny!
Freddy
Before going off on another rant, go back and read what I wrote.
For example, page 35 #8:
Yes, Rednose. Change the topic! Quick! Soon everyone will forget #53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65. Nobody will remember you're a complete fool!
Anyway, honest question. Do you think one crappy paper invalidates all of AGW, yes or no?
El Gordo #6
How do you interpret this data wrt drought?
http://www.eoc.csiro.au/awap/cgi/awap_display.pl?path=/awap/Australia_2…
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20130805.2.percentages.gif
BBD#74
Cannot answer that BBD, though he has an impressive CV
http://www.populartechnology.net/search?updated-max=2013-06-04T11:30:00…
Perhaps he was advised by Professors
Robert Carter Palaeontologist
Vincent Courtillot Geophysics
Freeman Dyson Physics
William Hopper Physics
Richard Lindzen Meteorology
Dr David Whitehouse Astrophysics
Plenty of Physics background there, and as you keep repeating BBD, you canna change the laws of Physics.
There is even a palaeotologist in that line up. Isnt that your area of expertise BBD?
How are the estimates for climate sensitivity stacking up with this latest paper by Fyfe et al.
Luke page 35 #79
Once again you're just throwing out links in a "Look squirrel" manner without any attempt to provide context or insight.
So what do you make of this conclusion from your second link: That multidecadal behaviour is reminiscent of the global warming of the planet.
Apart from the multiply-debunked Lindzen, there are no climate scientists!
Carter has been multiply-debunked as well!
Happer (sp!) is peddling ideology, not physics - check out his affiliations! The chair of the George C. Marshall Institute no less. That even tops being in bed with the GWPF!
Dyson simply gets it all wrong. Physicists are notorious for coming unstuck when they venture outside their field!
This lot has no more chance of changing the laws of physics than you or I, Rednoise!
A little box is where you put your bollocks, no?
:-)
More up-to-date news from SEACI http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-2Reports/SEACI_Phase2…
Tol (the economist) is also associated with this lovely bunch:
http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/organisatie/
This one crappy paper is quoted by politicians to promote their political agenda. It makes no contribution to the scientific debate other than embarrassment that such sloppy methods passed peer review and gained publication in a supposedly respectable journal.
Rednose, do you think one crappy paper invalidates all of AGW, yes or no?
Still stubbornly refusing to go below the lower bound of ~2C imposed by paleoclimate behaviour! Given the inherent uncertainty over aerosol forcing and transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, all attempts to estimate S (TCR or ECS) from observational data are speculative. You should therefore be careful about placing any great reliance on them!
Proper scientific caution, Rednoise!
What part of "yes or no" are you having problems with?
No, Cook et al. is being attacked by ideologues pushing their political agenda! And it's interesting to see that these attacks are not gaining traction outside the denialosphere.
Remember, Tol's response to Cook was rejected by the journal! Coz it woz crap!
#84
Fraid it would have to be a slightly bigger box in my case BBD
:-)
Anyway cant stop to debate with you the Master any longer.
Got an urgent appointment down the pub
Wait, what? So you're saying if only politicians knew how bad this one paper is, they'd change their mind?
What the hell does that have to do with the science of AGW?
As the Irishman said when giving travel directions:
Well I wouldn't start from here"
And your carbon tax is like VAT, it would hit the poor more than the well off.
Enjoy the beer, but don't let it go to your head!
#32 Is this quote from Viner what you meant? Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
So why are you approvingly quoting an economist that continuously advocates for a carbon tax, Rednose?
#32 Turboblocke
Thanks for finding the Viner quote. I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered yesterday, which was lazy. My apologies.
Bonus spot-the-hypocrite fun: compare Rednose's #49 & #76.
#98 No apology necessary, there's too much crap being said to respond to every post... but that's why they do it don't they?
As some of you may remember, Tim L and I never saw eye to eye, but nevertheless many thanks to him for keeping this blog alive and hopefully (looking at the turnover) he'll make some pocket money from it.
And thanks for this link Turbo.
http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-2Reports/SEACI_Phase2…
From that link... AGW has no effect on ENSO.
'Conversely, climate models do show that climate change is projected to increase the number of positive IOD events in the future (Cai et al., 2009) predominantly through a weakened Walker circulation (the atmospheric circulation across the tropical Pacific Ocean) and an enhanced temperature contrast between the land and Indian Ocean. This is despite the models exhibiting a great diversity in their ability to simulate the intensity of the IOD (Saji et al., 2006), which arises from how they simulate dynamical and thermodynamical air-sea feedbacks in the tropical Indian Ocean (Liu et al., 2011).
'This finding has relevance to south-eastern Australia as positive IOD events are associated with drier conditions across the region, particularly in winter and spring. For this reason, most models tend to show long-term rainfall decline in spring in response to global warming.'
As global warming has stopped the cool IOD is back.... we are saved.
Oh knock it off, douchecanoe. You try this on every page, get refuted, wait until the turnover and do it again like nothing ever happened. You've been called out on this dozens of times now. Do you think lying your ass off over and over helps your case and cause?
that's some chain of reasoning that you've built there e g and you know what they say about the strength of a chain... clearly you can't see your weakest link.
How do you deal with not accepting that models show climate change happening, yet claim that "AGW has no effect on ENSO" by linking to a quote about the models?
It's transient, Gordy.
When the IPC goes positive again and augments the forced warming, the net effects cancel out.
No impact on the centennial trend!
It's not rocket science!
IPO
!!
Gordy
See Kosaka & Xie (2013) and Meehl et al. (2013).
Repetition 5 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Is anybody apart BBD - who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems - of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??
And Gordy, Stu #5 is fair comment. You have been shown, repeatedly, that nothing you argue for stands up to even blog scrutiny.
You don't know what you are talking about. Yet still you reject the evidence and the explanations. It's not a coherent stance. It makes you look ridiculous, and I have been happy to mock you for it but enough is enough.
You know as well as I do that you haven't made an inch of headway here, so why the repetitious bollocks?
We both know this is a rhetorical question.
:-)
Although http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal…
It is rocket science and perhaps there is internal variability at centennial scale. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Perhaps the IPO doesn't even exist. Might just be red noise.
#10 Freddy
:-)
@The Lukes
Get back to me when somebody explains how internal variability is causing OHC 0 - 2000m to increase in all major basins!
And why CO2 forcing doesn't exist!
Anyway cocksucker - answer the fucking questions ! You can't you cunt.
Basically it's a fucking roadwreck - nobody in policy land believes you fucktards anymore. You can't rationalise your way out of a paper bag.
BBD - it isn't - its statistical dogshit - maybe it's another 20 years before any warming says your beloved Trenberth - fuck me (and I know you'd like too).
And don't verbal me cunt - CO2 forcing exists - the whole 1C and you've now had all you're gonna get.
Hi Luke!
How was the flight back to the States?
This is interesting. You appear to be arguing that:
- The climate system is in instantaneous equilibrium with delta F (there is no lagged, transient response, aka TCR).
- The laws of physics have changed so that future increases in GHG forcing will have no effect on T.
:-)
These marginalia aside, why is OHC increasing simultaneously in all major basins?
No known ocean circulation re-distributing energy *within* the climate system could do that!
Oh noes!
#18 Don't you mean "How was the flight from Reality?"
Nope - it you've had your 50 years of TCR and now it's all over red rover. Anyway answer the published in the motha-fucka literature paper. You can't
Yes the upper ocean isn't warming but the bottom is. Get straight fucked.
Depends on what you mean by "nobody in policy land". Does this include the President of the United States Of America?
:-)
Yep including him especially
This is the problem, Luke!
Abysmal topic knowledge!
OHC 0-700m and OHC 0-2000m
Now see links at #9!
:-)
See #19!
You are either a fuckwit or a troll!
:-)
#21 Turboblocke
It's interesting that both The Lukes and Freddy cycle through barely contained insanity to foaming madness!
Also that both these nutters resort to sock-puppetry (albeit an unusual variant with The Lukes) to "deal" with their worst excesses.
Someone above mentioned watching car crashes.
:-)
Luke @ 15 - I happen to be in policy and you're right, I don't "believe" in AGW and CC.
I do, however, accept the science, which is telling anyone with half a brain that the earth is continuing to warm with the ongoing, increasing, human-driven liberation of GHGs and that this is having (and will increasingly have) significant and negative effects on the way we live.
In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours. Increasingly, however, this is changing as reality starts to bite.
So enjoy your time in the limelight, in your bitter, twisted and anti-human fashion. It will be short-lived. I just hope for the sake of the rest of us that the delay caused by the vested interests and their useful idiots (hi, el gordo) isn't so great as to mean the impacts of AGW and CC will be unmanageable.
Blimey - the Luke Collective gets a bit shirty when his unsupported assertions aren't believed. And the more unbelievable they are the shittier he gets.
Luke, sweetheart, how does that paper contradict AGW? Have you even read it?
I know! I know! I know!
It's the lag.
Your opinion appears to fly in the face of pretty much all the published literature in this area.
Do you care to share the source for your belief?
WTF are you on about?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.
"In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours."
St Cyr - more verballing - well the powers that be ask about the issues I posted 14 days ago and don't get good answers. So they no longer believe my hymn book line. Appeals to authority are now over - you have to say "The reason is ....."
Luke, like you, a lot of them get good answers -- they just don't like them. Unlike you, they don't start calling everybody cunt.
But political reps do - it's catchy !
How many times!!!!
I don't believe anything - modelled or otherwise.
Just as I lack the qualifications, skills or experience to deal with my car maintenance or my house's wiring or my family's various medical issues - and therefore rely on the expertise of those who do, so I accept the expertise of those with other expertise. Knowing how to do CPR or change a tyre is all very well for dealing with immediate problems, but you still need the back-up of a hospital or a garage to deal with the causes of the problems - whether it's a week of intensive care or a simple wheel realignment, experts are best.
Even if I were a working scientist, I couldn't do everything. Oceanography, fluid dynamics, atmospheric physics, glaciology, geology, marine biology, meteorology - none of the "climate scientists" are expert in all of the dozens of relevant fields. They rely on each other to contribute relevant expertise - and they a.c.c.e.p.t. the analysis and conclusions of those experts unless and until better science comes along. And then they work with those accepted results until/unless more and better information is forthcoming.
I'm beginning to suspect that some people feel left out of things because they're not designing and manufacturing medications rather than being like the rest of us and having to read those leaflets that are enclosed in packs of things we didn't even know we needed until someone else told us we did. We are not helpless in the face of expertise, we simply have to acknowledge that we don't have all the expertise we need to do everything for ourselves. We cannot possibly know everything ourselves, nor check nor prove - or even understand - every little detail of every single item of information that comes our way. We do our best for as much of it as we can manage - and we accept the rest. All the while knowing that we will have to change our understanding when experts tell us something newer, different, better measured, better analysed by those who know, really know, what they're doing.
It's silly to accuse others of dishonesty or blind faith just because none of us, not one single person, is capable of knowing all that we need to know to contradict the conclusions of experts.
Nope. It's the other way around. The offset provided by the government exceeds the costs imposed by the carbon tax for the poor. It's only the rich for whom the costs exceed the offset.
Is EVERYTHING you say incorrect, or just most of it?
DuKE Luke says:
Scratch a JAQer and you generally find denial or delusion (tempered with outright conspiracy theory as we previously observed).
Even Lindzen can't make the 1C part of that claim stick, and he isn't stupid enough to even try on "you've now had all you're gonna get".
'In many cases, the short term vision of our political representatives (for one of whom I work) is currently informed by views such as yours. Increasingly, however, this is changing as reality starts to bite.'
By coincidence the Shadow Ag Minister stayed at my place the other night and enjoyed himself so much he's returning tomorrow.
Obviously I can't say much, being in house, but rest assured the next Agricultural and Food Security Minister is aware of the Denialati's point of view.
Your alternative being to slavishly believe any nonsense you read on a crank blog such as uni-dropout ex-weatherman Anthony Watts' WUWT, or children's questacon presenter Joanne Codling's Jo Nova blogs?
And you wonder why you are the object of derision around here, Luke?
I do hope he takes notice of how people who know how to make a profit out of wine are shifting their growing regions as well as their picking times because they see climate change effects already.
http://www.climatechangeandwine.com/noticia-detalle.php?id=418
Or will he set up a relocation process/funding for people who'll be moving northwards when this anticipated "cooling" sets in.
'They slavishly believe their falsified models. Sigh.'
They have been severely brainwashed, mainly because of their lack of scepticism.
Its one of the main problems we will encounter in debriefing the masses, but fortunately in Australia there is a lot more scepticism about.
The French winemakers are apparently also buying up land in England.
Methinks you misunderstand scepticism. It isn't, and never has been, cynical distrust of everything you hear or see.
It's the willingness to accept that what your own eyes or ears or thoughts tell you is not necessarily what is true. More importantly, it's the willingness - or lacking that, the reluctant acceptance - to see that your understanding is wrong or inadequate in some way.
Our eyes and other senses can fool us. Our thoughts can get stuck in a rut - and might have been wrong all along. Scepticism is about choosing better alternatives. It's not about finding something more comforting or attractive or pleasing to believe in. Even if it's not as strong as blind faith, belief is anathema to scepticism.
I'd be horrified if someone so lacking in coherent case making and so unable to filter out unsupported or even bogus claims as Luke is provides allegedly evidence-based advice to policy makers - let alone someone as deeply and determinedly misguided as el gordo.
But we already know the Liberal Party are prone to seeking that kind of advice, so I've been horrified about that for some time, tempered only by their inability to implement policy over the last few years.
It was only the other day I saw something on a news service about English sparkling wines being better than many of those produced on continental Europe. Because their climate is now more suitable for those grapes that need slightly cooler growing conditions.
The French appellation system might start falling apart if those regions with the fiercely protected names can no longer grow (so much of) the grapes needed for those products. Or at least of the same high quality.
...or maybe sparkling "Sussex"/"Hampshire" will become the new must-have party wine to drink instead of Champagne?
They already have that problem in France: a previous employer once gave me a triple-pack of French sparkling wine which was head and shoulders better than any of the official "Champagne" wines.
All Deltoid greenpiss ideologists:
Even 1C CO2 sensitivity has not been measured in reality and is therefore pure speculation. You greenpissers have no clue how science works. Fuck off from this blog you greenpiss ideology idiots.
Repetition 6 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Is anybody apart BBD - who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems - of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??
There may really be some climate beginner laymen reading here.
So rather than scare the horses with a reference to Science of Doom or other extremely technical stuff, here's a short video with a clear explanation of climate sensitivity and how it's calculated. It's only 6 minutes or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk
If you've forgotten all your high school algebra and how equations work, it's still not that hard. Just save it and look at it again in a couple of days to see if those long unused circuits get reactivated.
Thanks Adelady. I'm going to shamelessly pinch that link for a numpty with whom I'm playing cat and mouse at Eli's...
Adelady the models have failed, do you have an opinion on this? The AGW faith is based upon them and their inability to show reality is of great concern to the sceptical mind.
guffaw
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
'Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.
'And what about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)? What happens to global surface temperatures when the AMO also peaks and no longer contributes to the warming?
'The climate science community skirts the common-sense questions, so no one takes them seriously.'
Bob Tisdale
Sheesh. Luke couldn't defend that claim, and didn't even defend the observation that it's a false frame and a fallacy rolled into one - and you're even more prone to being misled than he is, so I don't like your chances.
Sigh. It's always projection, as has been demonstrated time and time again on this thread by you drawing a conclusion that is ruled out by evidence, sometimes even drawing it from the evidence that rules the conclusion out. If that's not "faith" I don't know what is.
Liar or fool.
It has been pointed out time and again that the case for concern does not rely on models.
Do you read what I write? I have faith in nothing.
I'm inclined to the same view as James Hansen about what you do and don't accept as evidence relating to climate change. I can't find the piece where he says directly (as I remember it) physics first, paleoclimate second, models a distant third.
In this item from BBC radio, he restates this point less explicitly. I know he's not a wonderful speaker/ presenter, but I find his rather flat delivery reinforces rather than detracts from his argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geS6mtY0XsQ
El Gordo - funny that one can get them to swing at so many wide balls. And when they do - it's an appeal to authority answer.
So if the models haven't failed refute von Storch's paper.
You'll do so with the OHC ruse or appeals to authority.
So we have an incrementally adaptive story.
So original thinking wasn't correct. How much else is there? Is it knowable?
I listed about 10 or so issues a fortnight ago - the oblique answers one would derive is palaeo says climate sensitivity is correct and OHC explains right now. So "don't you worry about all that".
hmmmmmm - could be - or maybe not? An incrementally adaptive story doesn't look good. My lords that rule over me aren't convinced.
Should we appeal to Anthony Watts, instead?
He still doesn't get it.
So long as you continue to confuse natural variation and human forcing, your ridiculous questions will remain inspiration for amusement and mockery.
Funny, you never seem to demonstrate this to be true. You don't even cite which answers you are talking about. As with most of what you write, at best it's argument by unsupported or poorly supported assertion.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're one of those contrarians one encounters every now and then who know how to name some terms describing errors in an argument, but don't actually know what they mean and cannot demonstrate that they apply. Readers generally pick this up after a few exchanges.
And it's fascinating that you stroke el gordo's ego and encourage his agnotology (and do much the same with cohenite). They're not even "wide balls" - so many free hits on offer and you decline all of them. It's almost like you're not here for the hunting...
Several of the previous responses did neither of those things, but you simply pretend they never happened. I guess it's easier to avoid the actual debate and go Underpants Gnome Style instead:
1. Make claim, typically unsubstantiated.
2. Ignore all evidence to the contrary.
3. ...
4. Profit! Declare victory!
You either suffer from some cognitive issues similar to the impression el gordo gives, or you are mendacious, or both. My money's on both.
Sorry I'm a bit late on, but El Gordo's lame attempt at defending Karen's bullshit simply shows that Flannery did not say what Karen claims. What he did say, in 2005, was:
So when we look at the evidence (cycle with the earlier/later buttons), what do we see in the main grain-growing areas?
2005 - Average
2006 - Very Dry
2007 - Dry
2008 - Average in SW, Dry in SE.
2009 - Dry
2010 - Very Dry in SW, Very Wet in SE
2011 - Average
2012 - Very Dry
2013 (so far) - Extremely Dry.
So, for the nearly 9 years since that comment was made we've seen 6 years of dry to extremely dry conditions, 2 years were average and one was dry in some parts but mainly very wet. The data shows that Flannerys projection was right.
Tim 1, Karen and Gordo 0. News at 11:00.
If they're asking you, they're obviously asking the wrong person. You indulge in far too many conclusions that rely on fallacies, think in eminently unscientific terms, engage in rank conspiratorial ideation and appear to have a poor understanding of the breadth of the evidence preferring instead to focus on little pieces here and there - and worse still, seem to have a very selective and unidirectional ability to detect poorly substantiated claims.
Tell them to ask someone who actually knows what they're talking about with respect to their questions.
Well they're clearly asking the wrong person. But I have let them down and offered your answers up. FAIL ! Answer the questions was the response. You guys simply don't get it.
And Lotharsson - really just more philosophy from you. #66 - just generalist waffle really. Nobody has provided any serious answers to me.
But hey here's hope for you all.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
FrankD - Flannery's comments were WRONG - Australian capital cities did not run out of water (albeit going close) - it rained! and the MDB flooded. What he said was explicit and clear. He was foolish to do so. I know what motivated him to so do. He experienced his once in a lifetime mega-drought and started projecting. IF he was more preceptive he would have targeted in to smaller regional changes which perhaps are style AGW-ish and underlying - SAM and STRi.
'So we have an incrementally adaptive story.'
AGW is seemingly non-falsifiable.
The abstract of the Nature paper concludes:
Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
I'm sure the authors of this paper won't like the denial community using it as another way of downplaying AGW.
And Luke is certainly one who loves to appeal to authority - at least by cherry picking when it suits his narrative. Deniers have used Lindzen for years as an example of 'authority' - now Judith Curry is there heroine of the hour.
He's a complete hypocrite. Moreover, I'd trust statured authorities any day over self-taught hacks like Nova and bumblers like Bob Tisdale. On Deltoid alone I have encountered a number of self-educated intellectual wannabes who think they know everything there is to know about climate related effects on biodiversity. But when I challenge them with established theories and hypotheses in the field - from Hubbell's Neutral Models of Biodiversity to MaCarthur/Wilson's theory of Island Biogeography, to functional responses, k-factor analyses, stable limit cycles, Nicholson-Bailey models, Neutral models etc, they get all uppity and accuse me of being arrogant. Instead, I am merely showing that they don't know diddly squat about fields of research I have studied for more than 20 years and in which I did my BSc and PhD degrees. Armchair experts for the most part don't exist - except in their own minds.
'IF he was more preceptive he would have targeted in to smaller regional changes which perhaps are style AGW-ish and underlying – SAM and STRi.'
That would have been a safer bet, but he's a fkn dill and should be sacked as Climate Commissioner.
You double down on your poor thinking: if they're asking me or most other people here they are asking the wrong person.
(Not that I believe you on that point anyway.)
Lame deflection, Luke. Deeply deeply lame.
My comments reiterate previous observations to the same effect that were substantiated at the time, and were not rebutted. And your claim that "nobody has provided any answers to me" is obviously and patently false, as anyone who reads up-thread can see.
There are some questions - mostly poorly framed and often semi-coherently posed at best, IIRC - that I don't think were answered. But once more you're not seeking the answers in anywhere near the best forum which suggests you have very poor scientific judgement - or are being mendacious.
As I said, my money's on both - there's enough evidence on this thread now to make that a rather plausible inference.
That's a massive free hit on offer, Luke. Over to you!
And don't worry if el gordo rejects your rebuttal and reiterates the same claim in a few days. He is impervious to new information.
'Moreover, I’d trust statured authorities any day over self-taught hacks like Nova and bumblers like Bob Tisdale.'
Appeal to authority and shoot all messengers, might work for the short term but is unsustainable in the long run.
'He is impervious to new information.'
I respect Luke's opinion and if he points out an error in my thinking .... I'll accept his viewpoint.
As I've asked before, on what basis? Because you like the cut of his trousers? In the buffoonery stakes, he's only half a head behind you.
But then again you dare not consult anyone actually qualified, for obvious reasons.
'But then again you dare not consult anyone actually qualified, for obvious reasons.'
Appeal to authority has no appeal for me, much better to find an honest broker who is only interested in finding the truth.
Which is why so many quacks make a good living.
You (and I) are not educated enough to know 'the truth', which is why we would normally trust someone who is conversant with the relevant facts consistent with the current body of knowledge.
Except when like you, you'd prefer NOT to know, again for obvious reasons .
I trust Judith Curry ....
'....the same natural internal variability (primarily PDO) that is responsible for the pause is a major and likely dominant cause (at least at the 50% level) of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century.'
Of course you do. She's not qualified to pronounce on the things she does, which is why she blogs them rather than publishes them.
And she's also a paranoid conspiracy nutter, which makes her doubly attractive for you.
chek have you anything to say about this new paper?
Here's the authors explaining what they mean.
https://theconversation.com/warming-slowed-by-cooling-pacific-ocean-175…
In that Conversation piece you can see them appealing for more funding.
Which new paper would that be?
If it's the Nature one, then it's the classic down-the-up-escalator fallacy that deniers flock to like flies around shit the period is too short to separate noise (natural variability) from signal (AGW).
The authors explicitly state this conclusion. If it ain't that one, you need to clarify your point.
"But once more you’re not seeking the answers in anywhere near the best forum which suggests you have very poor scientific judgement – or are being mendacious."
True probably - but why are yo'all here? And I was told you guys were the shit ! (that's "the" shit not shit). So I thought I'd come on over and say "hi".
Why are yo'll so upset about the Nature paper. It's amazing how quickly the discussion turns to a Nova, Curry, Tisdale hate-fest. Why not discuss it yourselves. Oh I forgot - you're unable.....
So Curry is a conspiracy-nutter now. WOW ! I thought she was down the middle myself. More Kool Aid guzzling.
Hey Jeff I also left you a large response umpty ump pages back - when you last posted. Jeff - again all very well done on the ecology but drive all that with a dodgy GCM output and all you have is crap.
"And your claim that “nobody has provided any answers to me” is obviously and patently false, as anyone who reads up-thread can see."
We've had - appeal to authority; OHC no questions asked; and palaeo explains all so STFU
hmmmmm
Which is perilously close to appeal to authority, because you won't respect the fact that others here have pointed out errors in your thinking, even though the errors remain errors no matter who points them out.
So, not Luke then on the evidence found in this thread.
And given that you are incompetent to decide these kinds of matters, how do you reliably find an "honest broker"? You can't use the positions they take to decide, because you don't have the skills to determine whether they are accurate or not. You can't personally assess whether they are "only interested in finding the truth" because you don't have the skills to determine whether they are engaged in deception as to what the truth is, or not. And "only interested in finding the truth" is an insufficient criterion unless coupled with "...and have the competence to do so". But again, you don't have the competence to determine whether they have the competence.
Hmmmm....methinks you haven't thought this through, which is no great surprise.
Perhaps you should have tried to find out before barrelling in?
Still denying the answers you were actually provided?
Is it possible that you have vastly overestimated your own competence, and didn't even comprehend that certain answers were in fact answers? Or is this super lame defence the best you can do given the inconvenient facts?
(Meanwhile, feel free to demonstrate you understand at least something by setting el gordo straight on the falsifiability of AGW. There's a good chap.)
You mean you're not aware of her self-pitying view that only IPCC approved and unfairly promoted pretty boy hotshots carry any weight? What rock (or bridge) have you been hiding under all this time?
Doh! To use a bit of naval idiom you are nothing but a 'crap artist'.
Are you are aware how many different forms climate models take. If the answer is yes then elucidate.
Are you are ware of the variety of data and fields of science used to create an evaluate models. If the answer is yes then elucidate.
Are you aware of how climate models differ from the models used to forecast weather. If the answer is yes then elucidate.
Now explain which models you consider deficient and why. Provide references to honest and competent works that back up your assertions.
All you have done so far is hand wave and witter. Stop stalling and do something concrete.
Remember that understanding of how humans are altering the climate does not rely upon models so try to break out of your tunnel vision.
Otherwise you will continue to be treated as a 'crap artist'.
'You can’t personally assess whether they are “only interested in finding the truth” because you don’t have the skills to determine whether they are engaged in deception as to what the truth is, or not.'
Right.
Here's the Guardian on the big new story.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-damp…
This isn't saying what I suspect you think it is saying. Assuming it to be correct for the sake of argument - and I haven't looked myself, but I've seen some skepticism about the methods Curry used to come up with the "50%" figure - if you subtract its effect out from the surface temperature signal, you're still going to need to invoke AGW to explain the long term warming trend. And that underlying trend is continuing unabated.
And I'm waiting for the penny to drop - this paper is reporting on a model. Do you agree with the results of some models now? How do you decide which ones?
(Maybe Luke can tell us whether this one comes under his "falsified model" banner or not? After he describes how AGW can be falsified, of course.)
BTW, el gordo, you appear to simultaneously believe:
a) The conclusion that warming is anthropogenic relies on climate models.
b) Climate models have been falsified.
c) The conclusion that warming is anthropogenic cannot be falsified.
If so, how do you reconcile the contradiction?
'Are you aware of how climate models differ from the models used to forecast weather. If the answer is yes then elucidate.'
They are different but I'm not sure of the technicalities, Luke knows the answer to that.
'If so, how do you reconcile the contradiction?'
a) Yes
b) Yes
c) As long as they keep moving the goalposts it might take some time.
Bob Tisdale again.....
'If La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.'
Gordon, two things: firstly as already explained, the authors of the Nature paper explicitly state "Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase". Note that 'very likely' means 'greater than 90% probability'.
Secondly, they're explicitly referring to surface temperatures when Levitus et al have already shown where the heat is going and you've been here long enough to have seen the months long troll assault on that paper.
I strongly suspect you're trying to make something that isn't there of this, which is of course standard denier procedure.
OK, so you don't reconcile the contradiction.
(And still haven't understood that your answer to (a) is simply wrong.)
'I strongly suspect you’re trying to make something that isn’t there of this'
I would be greatly surprised if it isn't in AR5.
Loth you can stick the contradiction up your arse, if it makes you feel better.
Do you think this hiatus will last another 20 years?
British Brainwashing Corporation's slant....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904
Fatty's example of winning the battle but losing the war. The lead author of the Nature paper states,
"We don't know precisely when we're going to come out of [the hiatus] but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
In other words, the acknowledge the potent effects of C02 as a greenhouse gas that drives climate change. Poor Gordo - I am sure that part went over his head.
Essentially, Fatso's shot himself in the foot with this one - except that he clearly intends on airbrushing out the important caveat. I am sure the deniers will be doing the same all over the internet.
Not gonna stick anything you pulled out of your arse anywhere about my person. Not even if you dub it a suppository of [faux] wisdom.
More from the lead author:
But the researchers warn that the impact of this multi-decadal cool trend will come to an end and will be replaced by a warming one. Global temperatures will rise once again.
"We're pretty confident that the swing up will come some time in the future, but the current science can't predict when that will be"
So what Xie is saying is that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations will ultimately, in the longer term, drive a warming climate. In fact, the authors state that the so-called hiatus may lead to an even greater rise in temperatures due to compensatory effects.
Thus the prognosis remains very worrying, and humans should not be tampering with the atmosphere. End of story.
But not for Fatso. He'll argue that we should not do anything ever to change course so long as we are not 100% sure. Of course, if he is wrong, we are all seriously screwed, but he thinks that gambling on natural systems that sustain us is worth it.
And to reiterate: the deniers are now crowing about a hiatus in warming. Fifteen years ago they crowed that there was no warming. And then they said it was warming but it was due to natural variation. Now they appear to accept the human fingerprint but its, oh, it ain't so bad. It may even be good! And they must be admitting it through their hiatus spin.
They are a vile bunch of liars.
'they said it was warming but it was due to natural variation.'
True.
Adelady, your comment is not valid
There may really be some climate beginner laymen reading here.
So rather than scare the horses with a reference to Science of Doom or other extremely technical stuff, here’s a short video with a clear explanation of climate sensitivity and how it’s calculated. It’s only 6 minutes or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk
If you’ve forgotten all your high school algebra and how equations work, it’s still not that hard. Just save it and look at it again in a couple of days to see if those long unused circuits get reactivated.
I have written "... CO2 sensitivity MEASURED ..."
and not YOUR VIRTUAL REALITY CALCULATED
Do you greenpiss ideologist and non-scientist know the difference between "measurement" and "calculation"
Fuck off from here you moron troll,
@Lotharsson
a) No
b) No
c) No
d) No
e) No, idiotic
f) No
g) No
h) Never
i) No
j) No
k) No
a) Yes
b) Yes
c) As long as they keep moving the goalposts it might take some time.
OK, so you don’t reconcile the contradiction.
(And still haven’t understood that your answer to (a) is simply wrong.)
Piss off from this blog
Measuring CO2 sensitivity?
1. Would that be the value for transient or equilibrium sensitivity you're after.
2. Exactly w.h.e.n. do you propose we take a measurement of equilibrium sensitivity.
3. Precisely how do you suggest we determine that the moment to measure climate equilibrium has occurred.
4. Last for this topic but definitely not least, what equipment, process, technique or combination of these do you suggest we can or should or would use to take such a "measurement".
5. How and why would "measuring" transient sensitivity differ from the equilibrium value. What intervals do you think we should use. How often should we do this. Do we need different techniques or equipment for this.
"Do you greenpiss ideologist and non-scientist".....
Not only is Freddy and arrogant, ignorant jerk, he's also functionally illiterate. Clearly doesn't know the difference between singular and plural or how to phrase a sentence properly.
Moreover, he readily talks about 'non-scientists'- as if he was one. Which he clearly is NOT. Nowhere close. More like an escapee from a psychiatric ward.
Tim really needs to step up to the plate and screen for sock puppets like Freddy - the only place he belongs is in a padded cell. .
....ooops... an arrogant. Now I am becoming like him....
Just for Luke and his infatuated sidekick Fatso:
http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/8663
A profoundly important study - but don't expect the cherry picking deniers to touch it. Wrong story. Wrong conclusions.
Adelady troll, you mean your crap really seriously?
Measuring CO2 sensitivity?
1. Would that be the value for transient or equilibrium sensitivity you’re after.
2. Exactly w.h.e.n. do you propose we take a measurement of equilibrium sensitivity.
3. Precisely how do you suggest we determine that the moment to measure climate equilibrium has occurred.
4. Last for this topic but definitely not least, what equipment, process, technique or combination of these do you suggest we can or should or would use to take such a “measurement”.
5. How and why would “measuring” transient sensitivity differ from the equilibrium value. What intervals do you think we should use. How often should we do this. Do we need different techniques or equipment for this.
Equlibrium blah blah, hahaha, you moron
NNNOOOOOOOO
Temperature measurement with thermometers: YYYYYYEEEEEESSSSSS
Climate sensitivity of CO2 (= warming by doubling CO2 in the air in degrees Celsius) AS MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOT YOUR INSANE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC EQUImasturbation blablablabla.
Fuck off this blog you greenpisser ideolgist
...and from the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1982…
Harvey eco fundamentalist troll
I cannot accept your unspeakable violation of good manners with your insane offence against my estimated colleague Freddy, who does not write at the moment here. Therefore I have to invalidate your crap:
Not only is Freddy and arrogant, ignorant jerk, he’s also functionally illiterate. Clearly doesn’t know the difference between singular and plural or how to phrase a sentence properly.
Moreover, he readily talks about ‘non-scientists’- as if he was one. Which he clearly is NOT. Nowhere close. More like an escapee from a psychiatric ward.
Tim really needs to step up to the plate and screen for sock puppets like Freddy – the only place he belongs is in a padded cell.
Fuck off you monger bollcks moron
Australia undergoes at the moment a significant cooling trend, as friends in Wagga-Wagga have honestly informed me.
Freddyfred @ #4
To calculate speed, what do you need to measure Freddyfred?
My friends in Wagga-Wagga confirmed that there is a unanimous consensus in the community there that we have at the moment a cooling trend in Australia. In addition, they expect a better government that eradicates all CO2 insanities from public life in Australia.
I will propose to the next Australn government that CO2 worshipping will be tolerated only in closed rooms at a minimum temperature of 36C and a CO2 concentration of 800ppm.
Berendaneke, take your meds. Or get Freddy to take his.
Freddy, having estimated your 'colleague' freddy what do you make of him/her/it?
One does not often come across such twaddle as in your #10 on this page.
Just what do you think one of the yardsticks for having reached ECS, if we ever do but not likely in our time scale, will be?
That's like suggesting that winter can "stop" global warming.
In any given place the temperatures vary each year according to the seasons. For the whole globe, ENSO variations can cool or warm the whole planet. And just as many of us can find a comfy spot out of the rain/wind when it's cold in our area (or find a cool shady spot when it's boiling hot), so there are spots on the planet where the inhabitants are shielded or protected from the hotter/ colder conditions generally.
Neither seasons nor ENSO variations say anything at all about a trend in temperatures over a score or a century of years.
When is Freddy going to be banned?
Yes, about that acidification:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1981…
By the way, Freddy, are you seriously saying that AGW is falsified because your anonymous friends in Wagga-Wagga say so?
Question: what does the "G" stand for? And what does that word mean?
I am serious (always was). This ranting, abusive, multiple-sock puppet fuckwit goes too far, every time.
Enough, Tim. Enough now.
The Lukes says:
Let's fillet this:
- There is no evidence that "proves" that the models are "falsified". This is a false claim and can be dismissed
- HvS isn't saying anything, he is making a noise, and so he can be ignored
- Ah! The "OHC ruse" - a direct accusation that climate scientists are collaborating to deceive the public and policy makers! A crank conspiracy theory!
[At this point, everything Luke says can be ignored because he has, once again, revealed that he is nothing more than a crank, but we will carry on.]
- What The Lukes ridiculously calls "appeals to authority" every sane person recognises as scientific knowledge - as distinct from blog crankery and denialist pseudo-science. The profundity of The Lukes' confusion may be seen every time he references anything in an attempt to shore up his ridiculous arguments :-)
- "An incrementally adaptive story" - Oh FFS! Scientific knowledge is not complete and perfect!!! It's all and incrementally adaptive story you fucking bufoon!
Summary:
More dishonest but otherwise content-free rhetoric from The Lukes!
BTW Is this "von Storch paper" that The Lukes keeps prating about the one that was rejected by the journal?
Even more from the lead author of that paper:
I don't know the basis for this quote but we'd all better hope the author is wrong.
Repetition 7 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Is anybody apart BBD - who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems - of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??
When will the first AGW Deltoid greenpisser be able to tell me that he has learned lesson 1.
Freddy, seriously, DIAFF. You're stupid, boring and pathetic.
Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now... the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.
Is Berendaneke an anagram of Brendan Keene?
Just saying.
My friends in Wagga-Wagga expect that northwest cloudbands will increase in density in the immediate future and provide more cooling in Australia.
A northwest cloudband is an extensive layer of cloud which can stretch from northwest to southeast Australia.
Northwest cloudbands are formed when warm, moist tropical air originating over the Indian Ocean moves poleward (generally southeastward), and is forced to rise over colder air in the mid-latitudes. This typically occurs when tropical air to the northwest of Australia moves poleward on the western flank of a high pressure system over eastern Australia.
Northwest cloudbands can also interact with cold fronts and cut-off lows over southeastern Australia to produce very heavy rainfall.
More rainfall in the future in Australia will the Deltoid AGW greenpissers calm down in their anxiety.
Northwest cloudbands may have links with the Indian Ocean Dipole. When Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures to the northwest of Australia are warmer than average, northwest cloudbands may become more frequent and produce heavier rainfall.
This sounds great for Australia. AGW is over and we can happily expect the next climate catastrophe, maybe then some nice cooling,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534
Summarized at http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/recent-slowdown-in-atmospheric-w…
It adds up to a pretty coherent picture pointing to a cluster of La Niñas as the cause of the slowdown in atmospheric warming. But why all the La Niñas? The researchers chalk it up to natural variability—a lot of coin flips have simply come up La Niña lately. If that’s the case, the researchers write, “the hiatus [in atmospheric warming] is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state.”
Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the "G" in AGW stand for?
The next Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in 2009
that he thought the science of climate change was "highly contentious" and that he thought that the economics of an ETS was "a bit dodgy"
He was only partly right as climate change is an unethical fraud by greenpissers to harm the world. Tony will do a good job in protecting the Australian economy and confine the greenpissers in Oz
Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the “G” in AGW stand for?
Another question which the devoid Deltoid CAGW illusionists cannot answer:
What is the explanation of the CAGW religion addicted Dumbtoid retards on the fact that
1: there are least 59 times more CAGW condemning climate realism internet blogs than insane CAGW worshipping blogs with only a few annoyed readers
2: that CAGW contrarians and climate realists are on overage considerably more intelligent and better educated than the monomanic CO2 greenpissers with their gaia religion of back to stoneage
Why is it so difficult for Dumbtoids to answer such easy questions?
Answer:
Because AGW Dumbtoid illusionists are dull and dumb
hahahaha, dull and dumb
Stu, wrong
Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now… the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.
pure speculation without scientific evidence, therefore discarded.
...and so he advocated a straight carbon tax. In 2009. The very year you're talking about.
And then when the minority coalition government passed a temporary carbon price on the way to an ETS he demonised it for three years as "a carbon tax" with completely over the top bullshit about the horrendous negative impact the scheme would have on the economy. He was for it before he was against it.
And now that he's been proven comprehensively wrong on the economic scare campaign, never mind proven to be a complete hypocrite on the carbon tax itself, he's not changed his mind in the slightest.
Where have I seen that kind of opinion maintenance in the face of contrary evidence before? And what does it say about his unsuitability to lead?
Freddy, my dear mentally challenged friend, what does the “G” in AGW stand for?
Also,
That you think this matters at all straddles between pathetic, sad and hilarious. Someone could pay me to create 20,000 blogs before the weekend that confirm AGW. Then what, Freddy?
[Citation seriously fucking needed, you moron]
When the fuck is Freddy going in the shitcan?
Seriously?
The Lukes has entertainment value, as do others, but Freddy is just a slavering nutter who has even less of an idea than KarenMacSunspot and Gordy.
Yes. Even less.
And people, please note that Freddy's prose has tightened up remarkably in recent comments.
Starting to think that this fucker is just another sock being puppetted by one of our regular fake sceptics!
BBD, it's borisfreddykaitroll's fourth moniker.
It all started here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/02/11/the-strange-case-of-the-denial…
Although berendanekeborisfreddykaitroll is both a nuisance and a source of hilarity, I am also a bit worried. The comments are so unhinged that I am getting more and more certain that he has a serious psychological disorder which is apparently insufficiently controlled by proper medication.
Good one Marco and BBD must have noticed that too. freddykai indeed. You need to wash out that ol' sock bbfk it stinks.
I like Hank Roberts' use of the term 'word salad' at #53 over there.
#41 Marco
Yes, I've followed the whole miserable spectacle all the way to the present (I read, but rarely comment at Stoat). And I'm proud to say I called BFBKT first here on "Boris" and "Bere". It's a knack I have!
There is something odd going on above. Look at the sentence structure, vocabulary and spelling in recent comments. Either there are two posters using the Bere handle, or Bere is faking his own Danish/MittelEuropan tone.
Damnation - that should be Dutch/MittelEuropan tone...
Cough MittelEuropean
#45 Oops! Thank you.
Still, at least I know the difference between Greenland and the Eemian!
Could be worse!
:-)
I think we might be a little hasty with our puppetry deductions here. Until blogs take the magical step of providing a nice, fat, expensive one-way hash of the poster's IP address (something that would take just about ten minutes of arduous coding), we're all still guessing. Heck, just from the Napoleonic lunacy I had Boris pegged as a Jonas puppet for a while.
Then again, I might just not be as good at this as BBD is.
My name is Berendaneke and I have no idea what the last "comments" of the poor AGW greenpissers here have in common with climate science: nothing, of course. These AGW nutters here should fucked off immediately by Tim, as they represent a big shame for IPCC climatology. These greenpiss IPCC socketeers are just mean underperformers which are unable to digest climate lesson 1:
Repetition 8 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Is anybody apart BBD - who has convincingly demonstrated his reading comprehension problems - of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??
Perhaps it is. The problem here is the sock-puppetry, BorisFreddyKai!
:-)
Indeed you are correct. Which is why all the GAT reconstructions, including satellite TLT, have error bars indicating the range of uncertainty!
What you are having trouble grasping is that the entirely different instruments and methodology used to produce the satellite TLT reconstructions *validate* the surface gridded temperature datasets.
If the surface T reconstructions were borked, it would show up in the comparison with the satellite reconstructions of TLT.
And it doesn't.
They are in very close agreement.
Try to understand!
:-)
"My name is Berendaneke and I have no idea"
You've got that right.
'I will propose to the next Australn government that CO2 worshipping will be tolerated only in closed rooms at a minimum temperature of 36C and a CO2 concentration of 800ppm.'
That's quite funny Beren, keep up the good work.
Berendumbo, quite apart from your fantasy 'argument' being repeatedly completely skewered, most recently by BBD @ # 49 above, the World Meteorological Organization agreed standard for the height of the thermometers is between 1.25 m (4 ft 1 in) and 2 m (6 ft 7 in) above the ground. So what's your blethering about 2m all about, and precisely how many are at your incorrectly specified height?
My bet is you're just another two-bit, ten-a penny, gormless denier buffoon without a clue as to why you spout the shite you feel compelled to.
Gordy, why?
:-(
A new low.
'That’s like suggesting that winter can “stop” global warming.'
No dear lady, Tisdale is suggesting that a positive IPO may have caused the jump in temperatures late last century, its certainly fits the facts.
You would think that Gordon, your motto presumably being "The enemy of education is my friend".
You utter plank.
BBD #23 "Well gee I disagree" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No, it doesn't.
But please do continue and tell which selected facts make it the AGW killing argument you so desperately want to believe in. Try not to leave anything out. This is your chance to lay out your stall. (No laughing at the back, please)
Oh do elaborate. Tisdale said this in 2008. Did you or did you not read the more current study I linked to earlier?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534
Come on precious, be honest.
(retreats quickly before check notices the SNIRK)
@Luke, 56: Thank you for admitting you have no argument. Kind of odd though, from a practicing scientist.
[snirk]
#56
Good morning Luke!
What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?
You never said.
I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system by causing the global ocean to warm in this way.
So I'm once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain what is happening. Which is an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!
:-)
This dilemma gets much worse if we've "had the 1C and that's it".
A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!
Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!
;-)
Oh by the way, chek....
[Obligatory] [Can't help it]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVNEJQfl46M
@The Lukes
Just in case you have forgotten what #61 is about, see page 37 #19:
[The Lukes:]
This is interesting. You appear to be arguing that:
- The climate system is in instantaneous equilibrium with delta F (there is no lagged, transient response, aka TCR).
- The laws of physics have changed so that future increases in GHG forcing will have no effect on T.
:-)
'Lotharsson: the implication is that the variability is essentially spring-loading temperature rise now… the next El Nino is likely to be a doozy.'
Wow, just when everything was looking bad, we now have a new scary story. Problem is there won't be many El Nino over the next 20 years because of a cool IPO.
Besides, my tipping point is expected within a couple of years so you might as well exploit the fear of boiling oceans while you still have a chance.
You cannot possibly be serious.
Yes.
Anyway, since the deniers seem to be worried about Australia only (who cares about Africa, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the US or South America south of Brazil anyway, AMIRITE?)....
Did Australia have its hottest summer on record in 2012, yes or no?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the…
Well yo'all are fucked - IPCC authors now saying the models are wrong and suggesting why they MIGHT be wrong and they MIGHT be fixed and how we'll just have to WAIT and SEE.
Sorry was that models overestimating? In Nature? By IPCC authors. Do my eyes deceive me? Does this mean Von Storch and Lucia are dead right and on the money.
You fucking amateur shitfaced clowns. DOLTOIDS here on the island. The leper colony of nihilism, Kool Aid injecting and denial.
Dickheads !
#66 Gordy
ENSO isn't flipped into an "LN-only" mode by the postulated IPO. It's suggested that the frequency of LNs increases, not that ENs disappear!
So your "yes" is nothing short of comic!
If you disagree, please provide some evidence (published literature only!) that what you argue has occurred before. I'd love to see it!
While searching the intertubes, do enjoy Stu's link at #62. A touch whimsical in style for me, but apposite!
BB it's well known that during a warm IPO there are more El Nino and cool IPO supplies more La Nina.
Luke
You shouldn't run ahead so fast!
Let's wait for AR5.
And as I have said once or twice before, the "observationally"-derived estimates of S are extremely sensitive to assumptions about negative aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variability in OHC. So, it is unwise (not sceptical) to use this literature as "evidence" that S is lower than paleoclimate behaviour suggests.
All this is written up above. I get the impression that you haven't understood any of it. Start with what Meehl (2013) is saying.
Nope, you're being played with interpretations based on short time periods. Last I heard the arctic amplification effect was severely underestimated. But as we know, models aren't perfect, just useful to varying degrees.
It seems only idiot deniers impute magical powers to them.
#70
So.
We've got energy accumulating in the climate system (mainly the world ocean)
We've got the largest ocean -> atmosphere energy transfer event of the lot in ENSO
Why won't future ENs be *predominantly* strong, high magnitude events?
Physical mechanism?
:-)
Luke: "You fucking amateur shitfaced clowns. DOLTOIDS here on the island. The leper colony of nihilism, Kool Aid injecting and denial"
Well said, I couldn't agree more to this realistic description of the CAGW greenpiss nutter island.
Published in Nature Climate Change by top flight IPCC authors - hahahahahahahahahaha
AR5 is already out of date ! hhahahahahahahaha
#71 Edit
Careless writing there!
Should be:
Sorry folks!
Stu, cute video. But I hope it hasn't caused Gordon Dieback.
Surely Deltoid's own Aussie No Carbon Czar, crank extraordinaire and host of Oz politicos wouldn't be unduly affected by such a harmless video and be too chickenshit to lay out the case he was most surely just about to do?
I fear he might well turn tail and clam up. Or he might conceivably have grown a pair, but we'll never know now.
Trying to keep my Tourettes under control. Really want to say that word. Really do !
And then a Pacific Centennial Oscillation
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00421.1?journalCo…
"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. Unforced variability and trends on the centennial time scale therefore need to be addressed in estimated uncertainties, beyond more traditional signal-to-noise estimates that do not account for natural variability on the centennial time scale."
hahahahahahahahaha .... cunt ....
Luke hasn't understood any of this. And despite his gentle joshing, I have tried to explain.
But in the end:
:-(
* * *
Luke has not answered yet another question. Luke needs to go back to #61 and #63 where presumably he left his handbag containing his stash of good faith!
Happy hunting, Luke!
:-)
BB I didn't say El Nino disappeared during cool IPO, only that there is less of them. We know this from an Australian perspective, a land of drought and flood.
I love it when they do this. After a lifetime of denying the utility of models, deniers use a single modelling study as "evidence" that all known paleoclimate behaviour is bollocks!
Keep on rockin' Luke!
:-)
BBD no excuse necessary
And as I have said once or twice before, the “observationally”-derived estimates of S are extremely sensitive to assumptions about negative aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variability in ocean heat uptake.
Nobody - except maybe your peer CAGW nutters on your leper island of nihilism - would assume that you work diligently and with accuracy. Therefore nobody cares whether you say ocean heat contempt, ice age peak denial, fragrance ill disaster, or similar bullshit of yours. All your crap is totally inconsistent and logically worthless. Fuck off from this blog, greenpiss nutter.
So the Luke Collective includes Berendork?
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
More shocked than an electric eel nailed to a Van der Graaf generator in a mad scientist movie scene.
Is no blog sacred anymore?
Must be hurting bad !
Time to leave the island guys. It's over.
#84
There you go again! Running ahead!
Patience, Luke, patience.
You need to become a humble student of the long game!
Now, students of text, here's more fun!
This is a rapid evolution of syntax, vocabulary and coherence!
Whatever can be going on!
:-)
Okay, I'm sorry, it's obvious that they're not getting the baiting.
Sweethearts. If there is a centennial oscillation, and temperatures have gone up sharply during the previous century, this means...
Freddy,
I don't even know where to put the [sic]s in there. It's such an epic sequence of fail.
This coming from someone who is congenitally unable to spell, tell the truth or read. Hey, Freddy, nobody's laughing with you.
Will the real Berendaneke please stand up!
Will there be a Spartacus moment?!
Because if there isn't, we might begin to wonder why!
I think Berendaneke is Freddy's Tyler Durden.
'If there is a centennial oscillation, and temperatures have gone up sharply during the previous century, this means…'
The warmists say AGW intensified the warm IPO late last century, while the Denialati say an over active sun had a more profound effect on the IPO.
Here is a paper using tree rings.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-06/uoha-enu062813.php
For fuck's sake, Gordo, do I really have to beat you over the head with it?
One more try. Let's take that centennial oscillation, and see what it did in prior centuries. You can figure this out by taking any global temperature measurement you like and going back before 1900.
Go on, precious. Go look. Let us know what you find.
So reffing #78 Gordon didn't, and hasn't.
Fucking opportunistic Aussie deniers.
Chickenshit coward cranks with nothing to say when pressed.
Chek, I could live with the generic "fuck the darkies" sentiment that's patently obvious. They don't give a shit about Africa, Bangladesh, et cetera. As long as fictional farmer friends in Wakka Wakka (I probably got that wrong, sorry, I can't be bothered) say AGW is not happening, thousands of scientists must be wrong. Because fuck you, that's why.
Fine. That's just standard NIMBY Libertarian bigoted claptrap. It's pathetic that they're in denial about it, but what can you do?
It's when denialists try to support their argument by posting a link that says RIGHT THERE, FIRST PAGE, NO PAYWALL
That's where it becomes hard not to simply give up. The sheer mendacity and stupidity is almost too much to bear.
Almost. Because that, really, is the entire object of the exercise: yell stupid shit loudly enough, often enough and long enough that sensible people just give up. Hey, it worked for artificially shifting the Overton window in the US, and it is working again now. Enough money and enough useful idiots and people JUST. GIVE. UP.
I'm not giving up. They are either paid liars or idiot stooges, and at this point the difference is academic.
To put it another way. Freddy, KarenMackSunWhatever and Gordo: I hope you're being paid to do this. If you are, you're a despicable liar who at least tries to put food on the table and can rationalize fucking up the planet for your children by at least feeding them for now. If not, you're a despicable liar, period.
zzzzzzzzzzzz - meanwhile back at the Nature paper IPCC authors confirm what has been denied here........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz yourself, Luke!
You are the one not quite getting the big picture!
Try harder, Luke!
...or so it seemed in the child-like minds of dipshit deniers, whose untroubled minds knew not the meaning of words, as evidenced by the inability to state anything of substance.
zzzzzzzzz Meanwhile clownshoe deniers read a denialist blog commentary on a scientific paper and go along with the lies and misrepresentations because they are too stupid and lazy to read the source material...
Really weird for a "practicing scientist" though. Wait. Am I getting the trolls confused now? Has Luke claimed to be a superduperawesomebetterthanyall scientist yet?
Stu I make a practice of reading between the lines.
I do believe the Luke Collective did claim to be a 'practising scientist'. Though obviously not yet perfected and without a practice.
If there are any lurkers left in this cesspool, please read (and please follow the links, and verify for yourself):
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/recent-slowdown-in-atmospheric-w…
'There is a noticeable correlation ( |r| = 0.38) between PDO and ENSO. So it seems conceivable that the state of the inter-decadal PDO constrains the envelope of the inter-annual ENSO variability (Mantua et al., 1997).
'Different periodicities with different underlying processes could be involved. Minobe (1997) has shown that the PDO fluctuations in the 20th century concentrate most of their energy on two different ranges of periodicities from 15 to 25 years and from 50 to 70 years. The first range includes the 22-year cycle of solar activity.
'So I hypothesize that this cycle is associated with ENSO events such that emerging patterns, covering decades, reflect the rhythm of the 22-year solar cycle.'
Landscheidt
Knock it the fuck off, you lying sack of shit. You adore a proven liar, repeat proven lies and ignore every single piece of evidence pointed out to you. You're pathetic.
Gordo, no matter how hard you dance, correlation is not causation. And why the flying fuck are you quoting a scientist that has been dead for a decade? What the hell is wrong with you?
'a lot of coin flips have simply come up La Niña lately.'
That's wrong for a start, a cool PDO produces more La Nina.
And let me repeat this AGAIN, clownshoe. You've now trotted out 60-year solar cycles, 100-year Pacific equatorial heat cycles, and others I cannot even remember and cannot be bothered to even look up.
Go and grab any temperature graph that extends back more than two of the alleged cycles. Start with Akasofu's 60 year solar cycle claptrap first, it's the funniest one. Extend the alleged trend back a few hundred years.
IIRC, you'll arrive at Snowball Earth around 500CE.
It's bullshit, Gordo. Willful, bought-and-paid for bullshit. Your "ooh, I am a skeptic, wait and see, split down the middle" claptrap is high-five-mission-accomplished for the fossil fuel industry, Gordo. All they need to do is distract you for a few more decades while they milk us for another $2,000,000,000,000. After that, they don't care. And after that, I'm sure you'll be right there, saying "nobody could have foreseen" and "well, nothing we can do about it now". Meanwhile, let's pretend there AREN'T thousands of households that can literally set their well water on fire. Let's pretend there is NO dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
You're a useful tool. You're too stupid to be paid to do this.
Oh do tell, Gordo. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
PREEMPTIVE DENIALIST "but there's more money in confirming AGW than there is in denialism" --
2013 NSF Budget request: $7.3B. Let's for now assume they get all of that (snirk) and that all of that goes to climate change research (guffaw).
Projected fossil fuel reserves that will cause great harm to the environment (as in even more than current extraction methods, causing more emissions, less efficient) (shale, oblique, frack); at least $4T.
That's, what, 550 times as much? Assuming the NSF does no other research, ever? Tell you what, let's spread out that $4T over 50 years, and let's assume the NSF spends 10% on climate research (they don't now, not even close, but hey, let's party!).
Hmm. $80B vs. $0.7B a year. I have to say, that's nowhere near that 550 factor. No wonder all of the best climate scientists are flocking to Heartland! It HAS to be all about the money, right?
[snirk]
Comparing climate research to Exxon PROFITS (the gross is too gross) is left as an exercise for the reader. (Bonus points if you figure the percentages Exxon spends on actual climate research and climate "research").
And since our denier friends like to pick short periods, let's look at, oh, the past decade and see if we can find that hiatus. Shouldn't be hard, right?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/
'How did you arrive at this conclusion?'
'The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) exerts a long-term influence over the ENSO cycle, bringing 20-30 year periods of strong and frequent El Niño events, or periods of weak El Niño and stronger La Niña conditions.
'The IPO does this by changing the background conditions in the Pacific Ocean, the canvas upon which ENSO events play out. During the positive IPO (for example, late 1970s to late 1990s), frequent El Niño events are common. In the negative IPO (as in the late 1940s to mid 1970s), La Niña events are more common, and generally mild and less windy conditions prevail over New Zealand.'
NIWA
Very good! Now what does that tell you about what is going to happen in a decade or so?
Berandeneke's writing became a lot more coherent after I suggested it might be good for Freddy to take his meds - just sayin' ;-)
He mellowed out when Unreal Tournament finally loaded...
Or the other perspective - value of currently claimed conventional reserves that will have to stay unburnt to give us some sort of chance of avoiding 2C+ rise: somewhere around $20 Trillion.
Luke and el gordo and cohenite never got around to explaining why the CEOs facing that kind of potential writedown haven't tossed a few million bucks in loose change at some "honest broker" research types to produce unimpeachable research showing that the mainstream position - which people like el gordo and cohenite assert they know is bollocks - is actually bollocks and there will be no problem burning all $20 Trillion worth. (And they haven't explained why the shareholders haven't turfed them out in protest for (a) knowing it is bollocks but (b) negligently failing to mitigate the risk that the bollocks will be taken seriously.)
It's the dog that didn't bark, and I've never seen an answer that wasn't a conspiracy theory.
'Very good! Now what does that tell you about what is going to happen in a decade or so?'
There might be one or two modest El Nino events over the next couple of decades. So you won't get your bounce in temperatures that you are hanging out for.
Alas IPO not predictable - a hindsight thing.
Forecast for next decade - on the land - make money in 3 years, break even on 4years, big lose on 3 years
Really, Gordo? We're talking about a paper that found an oscillation. A cycle, if you will.
Are you now saying that cycle has stopped?
'Alas IPO not predictable – a hindsight thing.'
Agree.
'Are you now saying that cycle has stopped?'
All the cycles around the planet are operating normally.
So is your contention that the tropical Pacific will never warm up to, say, late 1990s levels? What do you base this on?
While we are at it, lets talk about the AMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
If this NH winter turns out to be another shocker ... there will be political consequences.
'So is your contention that the tropical Pacific will never warm up to, say, late 1990s levels?'
The 1998 El Nino was out of the box, so I don't expect to see that again for at least two decades.
The modest El Nino we get won't make a significant difference to temperatures.
I'm looking back to the mid 1940s thru 1976 in an attempt to forecast climate change.
ENSO has been operating throughout the Holocene, presumably.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.
If ENSO patterns are driven by Pacific ocean temperatures, what makes you confident that these temperatures will never rise?
- Talking about political consequences: red herring.
- Talking about past El Nino events: red herring. We're talking about the DRIVER here.
- Talking about the Holocene: red herring. We're talking about the temperatures that have been rising faster than ever before.
Answer.
'Answer'
Lets go with what we know.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Forget 1998 for a moment. Have a look at the 1995 el Nino year on this graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
What you notice is that the only La Nina years cooler than that since then were 1996 & 2000. All the more recent La Nina years were warmer than that el Nino year.
And 1998 isn't an orphan or an isolated outlier. The anomaly for 2010 was much the same, as was 2005 which wasn't an el Nino year anyway, (though it probably didn't miss the classification by very much).
JUst think about what you are saying - El Ninos in the 20th century got progressively hotter, Since then, the La Ninas we have been having have been hotter than 20th Century El Ninos.
SO - where is the cycle? Everyone else is seeing a trend.
Good graph adelady and good question Craig, hopefully I'll have an answer before BB wakes up or I'm dead meat.
Oh for fuck's sake guys, you're giving it away.
Fine.
So for the past few years, ENSO trends: down. Sunspots: down. 100 year cycles: down. 60 year cycles: down.
At the same time, temperatures are up. OHC is up. Arctic ice: down. Antarctic ice: down. Number of storms: up.
So even with all cycles known being down at the moment, temperatures are going up, sea level is rising, summer ice levels are almost non-existent (oh hai, did you hear the one about Chinese container ships being able to take the Northern route now?), the climate is changing, the food chain is affected and extreme weather events are becoming more common.
Tipping point? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Gordo.
If Gordo stops lying (for example, claiming "the warming has stopped" as soon as the page flips), I think I will have an aneurysm out of sheer joy.
I see Luke declined to step up to the "AGW isn't falsifiable" free hit. Nor did he bother to swing at the "the AGW conclusion is dependent on climate models".
Hands up if you're surprised?
@Lotharsson, I think we're due for another visit from Luke #1 again soon (I think that's the one who cannot go two sentences without saying "cunt"). Overbearing Jonas-like douchebaggery has failed, so my money is on a nice run of nothing but cuntity-cunt-cunt-cunt.
(For lurkers, if this doesn't make sense or sounds crude, go back a few pages)
Nah - didn't work. But you guys really aren't very nice to newcomers, like to assume lots of things about visitors which goes to the heart of your objectivity.
The pause is a serious issue, as is the absence of the trop hotspot, as i growth in Antarctic sea ice extent. Simply denying it and providing a wall of deference to authority isn''t a good enough answer (IMHO opinion of course). And incremental numbers of papers and debates by serious IPCC involved people (cited today on the pause) simply show how isolated and uninvolved you are.
You could provide some quality referenced debate here. But it's just a bullies club that needs breaking up.
Oh hai Luke! Let's count lies, shall we?
Obvious blockquote fails are obvious. Time to call it a night.
Sheesh. *too, *cupcake, et cetera. Nite.
Luke, that's a nice dodge for you, but (a) you've demonstrated that your own objectivity is deeply flawed so I won't take your claim on trust, and (b) from what I see most of the assumptions made about you were based on what you wrote which is a reasonable way to make inferences.
And you've done your damnedest since then to validate those early observations.
Oh, and you're a flaming hypocrite if you're going to try on some tone trolling.
'But it’s just a bullies club that needs breaking up.'
I tend to agree, for Tim's sake.
'Pause? What pause? You mean the deceleration ...'
That's a great line Stu.
Look at em swing. Unable to contain themselves. So angry.
(and lack of any answers well noted AGAIN)
And fancy calling you a 'tone troll'.
Sigh. This is why people call you out and say things that you claim are "not nice", resorting to tone trolling because you lack any reasoned defence of your position.
Specifically, the data do not demonstrate the absence of a trop hotspot. You're promoting the binary thinking fallacy again, despite having been corrected on it numerous times.
You're not obviously missing your meds like some of our regulars, and on the evidence you're not yet clearly constitutionally incapable of understanding basic scientific information like some of the others, so it's fair to conclude that you're most probably being mendacious. Either that, or you DO have a large blind spot where you avoid applying your alleged scientific skills which leads to denial. Feel free to distinguish yourself from our usual cast of deniers and liars any time you care to...
So, presuming (rather generously) that you are actually willing and able to correct your fallacious frames, perhaps you could correct them and then go beyond the cartoon like claim of "serious issues" and explain in more detail what you see "the issues" to be and what implications you think they have? There are 19 different ways that something can be "a serious issue" and the implications vary widely in scope and severity.
If you do that honestly you might find that many people here are objecting to the dog-whistling (and out loud) implications of these "issues" that you appear to be trying to assert, or that they have misread the implications you intended to assert. (Or you might avoid doing that because it would validate those observations that you are more interested in advancing dodgy implications than actual understanding. Given your deployment of various classic pre-debunked denialist memes and your apparent congenital inability to point out any of the numerous false claims made by el gordo or cohenite, my money's on the latter. Feel free to prove me wrong.)
ROFL! Mind-reading now?!
You really are doing your damnedest to validate the stereotype, aren't you?
"A tone troll is an internet troll that will effectively disrupt an internet discussion, because they feel that some of the participants are being too harsh, condescending, or use foul language. They often complain loudly and target specific subjects, even though they may actually agree with their subjects's point of view"
Well golly there's something in that for everyone isn't there. Have a look in the mirror guys.
Troll = anyone against the blog meme.
" the data do not demonstrate the absence of a trop hotspot. "
yes they just don't show it ! game playing 101
" classic pre-debunked denialist memes"
well sorry they haven't been debunked - just because John Cook says so doesn't count.
And today you have IPCC authors in published literature.
You're increasingly out of touch.
A tone troll as I'm using it (and others use it) is someone that uses complaints about the tone used by critics as a distraction from the criticisms themselves.
So, in your best scientific manner, please be more precise because those two claims have very different implications.
Or didn't you know that? Or did you know that, but hope that some of your readers didn't?
Have we reached the point where you're asserting on your own authority now?
Hmmm, "IPCC authors" looks an awful lot like an appeal to authority, right? What implications do you think the paper has, and can you defend them given the rest of the evidence that might bear on the issue? (And you might also care to demonstrate some of that characteristic scientific precision by giving readers a hint as to which paper you mean.)
And what are you saying about my thoughts about whatever paper it is, and on what basis? Do you have any quotes showing me saying anything about whichever paper you're referring to?
And, like your other assertions about "this is a serious issue", exactly what kind of issue do you think it is?
You speak far too often in glittering generalities, even after you've been asked for specifics.
BTW, this is precious:
Luke throws up a strawman in the hope that no-one will notice various of his claims that have been debunked via reference to evidence (and in other cases challenges for evidence have been unfulfilled by Luke), which are not examples of asserting justification by "John Cook said so".
'SO – where is the cycle? Everyone else is seeing a trend.'
Remember the Escalator, they are small cycles, while the IPO cycles are 30 years.
There was a warming trend at the end of last century, but temperatures are now flatlining because we are 15 years into a cool IPO.
You may dispute this reality at your leisure.
Adelady, your graph shows a typical El Nino under a cool IPO, they are modest.
'The 2009–10 El Niño commenced in May 2009, reaching its peak in late December 2009 before breaking down in the first quarter of 2010. The Pacific Ocean returned to neutral by late April 2010, but continued to cool rapidly during autumn.'
BoM
Modest? The temperature anomaly was much the same for 2005 and 2010 as for 1998.
So "out of the box" became "modest" in less than 10 years?
But we've already seen similar annual temperature anomalies. Twice. No need to wait 20 years.
Adelady
Temperatures have been high, we are on a plateau, so it stands to reason ENSO is a major forcing. The 2009 El Nino hadn't crossed my mind because of its insignificance.
Climate change is a slow game, but its great that we can see it all happening in real time.
Fabulous weather in Australia at the moment, a balmy winter in the south-east and now record breaking early spring warmth. This regional warming has everyone talking and its being put down to global warming.
Solar Max ... Are we there yet?
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIF.jpg
Well look at that!
Luke "nobody answers my questions" (even though we do, Luke!) has yet again failed to answer a question!!!
What an absolute monster hypocrite this boy is!!
In fact I don't think Luke even *acknowledged* this *repeated* question even though he's had 48 hours at least since it was first asked:
* * *
What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?
You never said.
I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system and simultaneously warm the entire global ocean.
So I’m once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain the observed change. This being an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!
:-)
This dilemma gets much worse if we’ve “had the 1C and that’s it”.
A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!
Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!
;-)
* * *
Crickets!!!
I think our Luke is a windbag! A blowhard! A poseur!
And of course, a liar! Remember "working scientist"?
Dear God, these people.
Gordy
The 2009/2010 EN was a major event, you tool! ENSO shows up best in the tropospheric reconstructions, so here is UAH TLT. See for yourself. Look at those anomalies go! Only the 1998 EN tops it.
* * *
Why do I *always* have to tell you everything at least a dozen times?
I gave you a link for solar data weeks ago. Why not use it to answer your own question?
You are so utterly, hopelessly lost it's actually funny.
Good morning BB.
The waters are pretty warm around Oz, from Perth to Sydney.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/
'Look at those anomalies go! Only the 1998 EN tops it.'
Yeah, but on the ground in Australia it was insignificant.
Wut? Droughts and floods only matter if they happen right here on Australian soil, I presume. http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/besieged-city-of-khabar…
The Siberian floods have nothing to do with ENSO.
'Although extreme ENSO events are seen throughout the 478-year ENSO reconstruction, approximately 43% of extreme and 28% of all protracted ENSO events (i.e. both El Niño and La Niña phase) occur in the 20th century. The post-1940 period alone accounts for 30% of extreme ENSO years observed since A.D. 1525.
'These results suggest that ENSO may operate differently under natural (pre-industrial) and anthropogenic background states. As evidence of stresses on water supply, agriculture and natural ecosystems caused by climate change strengthens, studies into how ENSO will operate under global warming should be a global research priority.'
Gergis et al
BBD you're a bit of silly cunt aren't you. You're like a dog returning to its vomit. Can't and won't stop it.
Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay.Rewind tape - replay. Accuse and rant - don't argue or cite.
Answer the question, you evasive and posturing twit!
Another blatant lie from The Lukes!
I referenced (cited) extensively with relevant quotations during the early part of our long conversation here.
I stopped when it became apparent that:
- You weren't reading the references properly
- You didn't understand the bits you glanced at
- You were acting in bad faith and wasting my time!
You are a liar Luke! And you never answer questions Luke! You are a hypocrite too Luke! And you are stuffed, Luke!
Physical mechanism for OHC increase in all major basins Luke?!
:-)
Fatso said:
Yeah, yeah, I know - no warming for [15/17/insert favourite number here] years.
I'll tell you what Fatso. For your same I'll put 10 ounces of 24K gold down that says that the 1998 GISSTemp mean global (= land + sea) temperature will be exceeded at least once by the end of 2018.
How about it? You say there's no warming, that temperature is plateauing, that cooling is imminent - let's test your conviction in your claims, starting with the beginning of your claim of plateau and looking ahead for the next five years.
What could be a simpler demonstration of the trust we have in our stances?
hmmm..............currently $13945
So you want 5 cracks at it barnturd, weak as piss barnturd.
Why don't you bet that the temp will be higher in 2018 and give odd's of 10:1 you sooky boy
I really don't know why anybody would have anything to do with you barnturd, your a pervert that has a sick fascination for feces.
"U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.
They’re requesting that more details on the so-called “hiatus” be included in a key document set to be debated at a UN conference next month that will summarize the latest scientific conclusions on climate change.
Including more information on the hiatus will help officials counter arguments that the slowing pace of global warming in recent years is a sign that the long-term trend may be discounted..................."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-data-s…
Have you figured out the difference between the Eemian and the GIS yet, you utterly charming and fluffy sock?
Jah Love
BBD
All together now... IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
Projection was never more so than in SpamKan's loopily un-self aware case, a stupendous, galaxy-grade stupid that gives morons and amoeba parasites someone to look down on.
Really?! This is how you interpret the five year period into the future?!
This has to take the cake as one of the most statistically-ignorant comments I've ever read on the internet, and there have been some corkers.
There is an exquisite irony though. I'm waiting to see which of the denialists can spot it...
Don't hold your breath, Bernard J!
Anoxia can kill!
:-)
The usual bullshit from the Doltoid greenpiss ideologists
All together now… IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
WRONG, as it must read "IT'S ALWAYS INJECTION"
Only idiotic greenpissers mix up the difference between projetion and masturbation.
Greenpiss socketeer BBD Ho Chin Minh
WRONG
Have you figured out the difference between the Eemian and the GIS yet, you utterly charming and fluffy sock?
Any difference between eemian and giss is totally irrelevant regarding speculative CO2 sensitivity. Try again you greenpiss ideologist
check greenpisser: default
Projection was never more so than in SpamKan’s loopily un-self aware case, a stupendous, galaxy-grade stupid that gives morons and amoeba parasites someone to look down on.
Cause: no relevance regarding faked global waming. Try again and do better, you poor inhabitant of leper island of nihilism.
BBD, fuck off here
Answer the question, you evasive and posturing twit!
Unqualified comment by an awful underperformer from the leper island of nihilism.
YOU fuck off here.
All together now:
Barbecue sausage fuck!
:-) :-) :-)
LOLWUT? Meds, Freddy. Take them.
**A plea to Tim Lambert**
See this Berendaneke buffoon above? Previously Boris, Freddy and Kai?
Please block this idiot. He isn't even funny.
Stu from leper island of nihilism
Only idiotic greenpissers mix up the difference between projetion and masturbation.
LOLWUT? Meds, Freddy. Take them.
So Stu from leper island, you think somebody who mocks your holy Loathsome from leper island must be on meds?
How silly are you really?
@BBD, AGW greenpiss ideologist and disabled inhabitant of the leper island of nihilism. Your nasty request must be rejected
**A plea to Tim Lambert**
See this Berendaneke buffoon above? Previously Boris, Freddy and Kai?
Please block this idiot. He isn’t even funny.
On the contrary, Tim should ban you, as you repeatedly engaged in miserably foul language ("barbecue ...")
Fuck off you idiot from here.
#85
Your own words!
Lies, hypocrisy and sock-puppetry!
:-)
BBD greenpisser and liar from leper island of nihilism
Your own words!
Lies, hypocrisy and sock-puppetry!
Not my words, but YOUR words, you liar. Everybody knows that are a chronic liar.
Get off from this blog
Freddy
I wish I understood how and why your command of English syntax and vocabulary is so fascinatingly variable!
:-)
"Everybody [inside my head] knows that [we] are a chronic liar".
Modified to be much closer to reality.
Just to liven up the usual exchange of insults.
Seems a load of yachts, jet skiers and even a cruise ship have become stuck attempting the NW passage on account of the Arctic freezing early. Probably misled by that webcam showing it all melted.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Meanwhile they seem to be having something of a snow event in South America. More global warming I expect.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3729/20130829/snow-blanketing-s…
Still we shall sleep safe in the UK this winter. All this Arctic ice will ensure we have a mild wet winter according to CAGW doctrine.
Toodle pip.
So we bleep one out:
And make the next sentence
My God you're a moron, Freddy.
Thanks for the weather report, Rednose. Do you have an argument?
#91
:-)
There is a troubling lack of consistency at several levels!
@ Rednoise
What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?
I'm confident in stating when, not if, because of the laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour.
~3C per doubling of CO2.
There's just no way of getting around it except denial.
:-)
Redarse is just a water carrier boy for the conspiracy idiot Montford, and he wouldn't understand your question as his blather about 'CAGW doctrine' demonstrates clearly.
Looking flat at the moment.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/07-comparison-2001-start…
Yawn, Gordy. Yawn.
Gordon, why not make your own graph covering the period say, midday to midnight and really blow AGW out of the water.
Fucking moron.
They appear to have over estimated global warming over the past 20 years.
guffaw
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-damp…
Do you still feel the Pacific decadal oscillation has magically stopped now on your say-so, Gordo?
Gordy, previous page:
Not at all. Global warming includes OHC. Global warming continues as expected. Tropospheric warming has slowed down.
Tropospheric warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake, itself determined by zonal wind field speeds and ocean circulation.
As I keep trying to explain, short-term variability in ocean heat uptake won't make any difference to the centennial-scale warming trend.
I am past trying to understand why you cannot grasp this.
The cool PDO has at least a decade or more to run its course.
North-West Passage blocked by summer ice.
http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice—yachts-caught/113788
'I am past trying to understand why you cannot grasp this.'
I grasp what you are saying, but it all seems unnatural and farfetched so I don't take you too seriously.
Just to counter Gordo's latest crap:
http://www.nature.com/news/summer-storms-bolster-arctic-ice-1.13605
*sigh* is it 15, 17 or 20 years. You guys keep changing your story every day or so. The one thing we DO know for goddam sure - it'll never be the 30 year period which qualifies as 'climate'.
Do you ever wonder why that is? Or do you prefer not to 'over-think' when 'surface temperatures' are mentioned and the similarly mentioned ocean heat disappears into a black hole. One in your thinking processes, and another in the centre of the Earth, never to be seen again.
Are you even beginning to understand why the 'mental processes' (for want of a better term) of deniers are not just worthy of contempt in their superficiality, but dangerous in their over-0eager, corporately-sponsored writing off of reality.
Gordy
That's denial. Or more formally, it is argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity, which as we hopefully both know, are logical fallacies.
When your argument contains one or more logical fallacies, it is invalid.
Which brings us round to denial!
:-)
Same question for you as for Rednoise:
What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?
I’m confident in stating when, not if, because of the laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour.
~3C per doubling of CO2.
There’s just no way of getting around it except denial.
:-)
They can do that.
They're proud of it.
It keeps the New World Order at bay, and maintains the purity of their precious bodily fluids..
A few days ago, my son, who turned six last week, was pottering around in my study and asked me why all the wiggly lines go up.
I lied to him by omission. I told him that the world was slowly getting a bit warmer then asked him to head off to the playroom and let daddy finish what he was writing.
Quite when and how I will try to explain to him what is happening is becoming an albatross.
You should explain to him: it's good practice for dealing with the deniers. ;-)
'it’ll never be the 30 year period which qualifies as ‘climate’.
If we can agree the hiatus began 13 years ago, its within the realm of possibility that temperatures will remain flat for another 17 years.
BINGO
Gordo, pop-quiz: what does "decadal" mean?
Christ you're a moron. Stop lying.
'What *are* you going to do when tropospheric warming resumes?'
I don't expect that to happen for at least 17 years.
If tropospheric warming starts up again it might indicate that our modern climate optimum has someway to run.
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU BASE THAT 17 YEARS ON GORDO.
Did you or did you not just go "I need 30, I have 13 [you don't, but whatever], so... 17 it is!"
Translation: I have no idea what drives AGW but I pray to baby Jesus '(or equivalent) that I'm right based on nothing whatsoever but wishful thinking. I don't even wanna know what the inevitability of increased CO2 means because I've been told to discount it.
Well, 13 years + 17 years = 30 years..... climate change.
Chek I disagree with you and Luke about the cause of global warming late last century. It really had nothing to do with CO2, so your children and grandchildren are safe.
Y'know Gordon, the scary thing is that you very likely believe your assurance is adequate.
Unfortunately you have a whole mess of science going back around 150 years to overturn before your blandishments even enter the realm of being remotely credible.
I understand that you're old and washed up and think you've seen it all before, but you haven't. You're out of your depth, ill-informed and under-educated and being played by people with a lot to lose.
Your own vanity is all that's keeping you afloat. Your ability (and Luke's and Cox's and Watt's and Tisdale's and the whole clown circus to make a case that could possibly set my mind at rest regarding my children and grandchildren, given your displays here over the past months relies on abysmal, second-hand garbage that doesn't withstand scrutiny by a layman like me, let alone the best available scientific brains.
I seriously doubt you fully understand the gravity of what's going on.
Well of course you're confident of the warming resuming based on physics. You've signed on and have years supply of Kool Aid.
But based on physics you never expected the pause, the lack of trop hotspot, evap trends, Antarctica gaining ice either.
So any pretension at NOW knowing the reasons for this is after the fact. "oh it the fucking OHC and even if the surface isn't warming well it's gettin' down there somehow" - well fuck my diapycnal and isopycnal mixing eh?)
The powers that be are UNCERTAIN and UNIMPRESSED. They want to take your funding and spend it on middle-class welfare.
The slavish appeal to authority is losing momentum. Now maybe you're right - but let's face it - your bedside manner, fucking ugliness, smarmy attitude, being a bunch of fucking cunts and generally being up yourselves isn't helping.
Sack yourselves and put your Mums on.
I'd love to put you lot on diminished performance. Fucking little creeps - you all need an enema.
The Luke Collective has nothing but memes and bluster.
And misguided bluster memes at that.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-dat…
Can't you imagine the response from DOLTOIDS ... ring ring ring .... "Hello we're from the Deltoid Blog - and we're not mental or anything - but we'd like to assure you that there is nothing to worry about with the pause thingy and if you don't keep going with CAGW we're going to call you deniers and fuck you up" love the Deltoid bedwetters.
Yeah, yeah so you say.
But this week they want a Syrian war, and who knows what the week after? My money's on the never-ending torture of Middle East geo-politics hastening the death of the fossil fuel lobby.
The Luke Collective and the Oz denier contingent et al are too invested in them to imagine any alternative.
... and the Lukes respond with weekend journalism about already debunked memes.
What a fucking joke.
Obvious and stupid lie. There is no pause.
Obvious and stupid lie. There is no such thing.
Oh do tell cupcake. You have no idea what that even means.
Obvious and stupid lie. Antarctica has been doing no such thing.
Luke, sweetheart, You're better off just playing stupid full-time like Gordo does. These attempts at actually arguing the points are getting really, really pathetic.
Oh lookee here - The Lukes have picked up a Visicunt Monckey meme. I think silly old inbred Chris is too vain and stupid to realise what he's projecting with his would-be 'killer argument'.
Chek - so you don't think the system isn't asking what the fuck is going on with pause. Wake up !
Stu you stupid dick
There is no pause - so why is Von Storch publishing on it and Trenberth trying to explain it away - why Nature Climate papers on it?
Glad you agree the trop hotspot doesn't exist. Don't point handguns at your foot.
- you've been given a peer reviewed paper on reducing pan evap multiple times - learn to read dick nuts http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487
And I'm sorry slip of the keyboard - I meant Antarctic sea ice extent too. But Antarctica is gaining http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf
Stu how long have you been a fuckwit now?
No bedwetters was from Neville
Guys I've got money on getting the comments to 4000. 4000 comments baiting lying green-wee piss-weak doltoid fools - so you've either got two choices - let me piss on you from a great commenting height or ultimate intellect or help me win the $$. Faustian bargain.
... and the poor ol' Lukes have been busy trying to imply ... something ... anything .... but without success. Good to see you exposing what a moron The Lukes are. But Gordon still loves ya, baby.
Unconditionally, and you know what that means.
You think there's only the two choices?
You and The Lukes just keep puckering up, as you're wont to do.
"Government envoys from around the world will debate the final wording of the summary at an IPCC meeting that starts in Stockholm on Sept. 23. That document, formally the Summary for Policymakers, is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change."
lol.....I am busting at the seams to read how real clymat syense explains the mysterious fizzic'sss of the miniscule deep ocean warming.
IPCC........der.....ummm..........quick, gimmie another toke on that joint man......
ok man...........the miniscule deep ocean warming is caused by the proliferation of reverse cycle air conditioners.......mannn.......gimme another toke man.......so as you can see, we are really fucked in the head mann..........we haven't a faaaarken clue mann............I mean, the deep ocean warming is pure bullshit anyway mann.........hahaha just don't tell anyone mann............fuck thats gooood shit mann.........hahahaha....yeah mannn...we'll tell em it's the air conditioners, ahahaha, BBD and Scepical Sooense will get on board wiff that, hahahaha.....gimme anudder toke mann.........
lol
'No bedwetters was from Neville'
Caught that, tah.
Fatso, here:
and here:
If you're so sure that warming has stopped why are you avoiding my challenge? It's easy money for you, pas?
...pas mal...
Dropped a tag over the last...
And still no answers to pertinent questions! It's not surprising that the comment count rises, Luke!
;-)
What is it that is causing OHC to increase simultaneously in all major basins?
You never said.
I only ask again as there is no known ocean circulation that could redistribute energy within the climate system and simultaneously warm the entire global ocean.
So I’m once again puzzled and still waiting for a physical mechanism that might explain the observed change. This being an ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system, which is mainly the world ocean!
:-)
This dilemma gets much worse if we’ve “had the 1C and that’s it”.
A very low climate sensitivity is incompatible with the observed increase in OHC since, say, 1980. Not to mention all known paleoclimate behaviour!
Which is a headache for deniers!
Add in the required abrupt change in the laws of physics sometime in the last decade and things get really very strange indeed!
;-)
Windbag! Blowhard! Poseur!
Hypocrite! Liar!
Gosh, where will it end?
barnturds medication has done little for her/his/it's coprophagous disposition.......
SpamKan's self-unaware fantasy world continues to implode.
News at 11.
Chek #29 = squatted to piss - no answer
BBD #35 also squats to piss - surface isn't warming - how does the heat increase at depth - its fucking desperate bullshit !
The science that you fucks hero worship did not predict any of my list of issues What a bunch of clowns.
IPCC..OHC ????????? bu..bu..buttttttttt it's not even measurable mann........
IPCC…um..hiatus??…..der…..ummm……der…, gimmie another toke on that joint man……????????????
Only to ignorant morons and data deniers like The Lukes.
The answer is given and referenced in this thread, and you've only yourself to blame for the amount of shit you'll have to wade through to find it.
Stu said earlier "[t]hat's where it becomes hard not to simply give up. The sheer mendacity and stupidity [of the deniers] is almost too much to bear.
Almost. Because that, really, is the entire object of the exercise: yell stupid shit loudly enough, often enough and long enough that sensible people just give up. Hey, it worked for artificially shifting the Overton window in the US, and it is working again now. Enough money and enough useful idiots and people JUST. GIVE. UP.
I’m not giving up. They are either paid liars or idiot stooges, and at this point the difference is academic."
Exactly right - and thanks again to you and others, here and elsewhere, for not giving up.
Unfortunately, reality is on our side (or to put it more accurately, we are on the side of reality!) and it is only a matter of time until popular opinion swings to demanding governments do much, much more about AGW and CC than they currently are. I just hope we have the time...
The prediction............Ice Free Arctic, 2013 September 22nd, 2013
23 days to go........................
oooops a daisy.......................lol
"and TOOLUKA (NED) retreated to the east towards Greenland/Newfoundland away from Bellot Strait on 20130822
''''''''''''''''''''' with the opinion that the Arctic ice was finished melting''''''''''''''''''''''''
and freeze-up would prevent them from reaching the Northwest Passage finish line at the Arctic Circle in the Bering Strait. "
lol
St. Cry...................whaaa wah wah
Have you had a look at all of the ridiculous alarmist failed predictions ?
The list is substantial and growing sweetie :)
Open admittance of trolling. Can this asshat please be banned now?
For those who brought up the issue of Australian denial above, having been born and raised in one of the big mining states here, I put it down to fear, mainly.
So even though most surveys show majority support for government intervention in managing CC, the polls have shown for some time that Australians will probably elect to government a group of people who largely deny the actuality or least the extent of AGW and its expected impacts.
The usual suspects here crow that this is a victory for "common sense", while ignoring what is currently happening electorally for the US Republican Party, in significant part because of its denial of AGW.
The future is not bright for any political group that continues to flee from reality, particularly not while in the service of vested interests like mining companies, power generators and conservative media owners - not entities known for their prioritisation of human welfare.
So whoop it up while you can, those hanging your collective hats on the election of the "right-thinking" Abbott government. You'll have to forgive me if I indulge in a little pre-emptive gloating about the (unlamented) demise of the neo-con movement - I and the other adults in the room will no doubt be busy dealing with the inevitable results of following these policies for the last 40 years when the nutters finally implode.
I want to entertain myself a bit with you Doltoid AGW greenpiss clowns. So can anybody can tell me when CO2 back radiation
a) heats the air
b) does not heat the air but the ocean
c) neither heats the air or the ocean
d) cools the air or the ocean
e) heats the space
I try your best you greenpissers on leper island of nihilism. I will forward the best answer to the next Australian Prime Minister, my friend Tony Abbott. Go on, greenpissers.
'it is only a matter of time until popular opinion swings to demanding governments do much, much more about AGW and CC than they currently are. I just hope we have the time…'
Thanks to the hiatus we have plenty of time to ponder how this AGW scam was so successful. In Australia we are turning our backs on the whole shoddy mess and the next PM is on record as saying 'the science of global warming is crap'.
And as certain parties said a few decades ago - even after they had strong evidence to the contrary and privately acknowledged it to be strong - all of these lung cancers and emphysemas really had nothing to do with tobacco use, so your children and grandchildren are safe to continue smoking.
Saying it doesn't change the real world consequences.
el gordo @ 47 - way ahead of you, sunshine. See my post @ 45.
It's unsporting of me, I know, but I occasionally amuse myself by imagining the looks on your faces when the chickens come home to roost - until I remember that the rest of us will also be paying the price of your idiocy for a long time.
DuKE Luke is reduced to verballing another commenter. I seem to remember he ended up at that point on the last thread a few years ago. Signs of desperation - never mind the obvious bad faith?
'the polls have shown for some time that Australians will probably elect to government a group of people who largely deny the actuality or least the extent of AGW and its expected impacts.'
That's true and its because they are more sceptical. The warmists overplayed the catastrophe angle, which seemed like a good idea at he time.
The 'Methane Bomb' turned people off.
@BBD clymax clown
Your answer to the 8th repetition of my first climatology lesson for Doltoid CAGW leper island of nihilism inhabitants:
"Repetition 8 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured."
was partly correctly answered by you when you said:
"the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Indeed you are correct."
Bravo, of course I am correct you fool and poor pupil. Why did it take 8 repetitions that you admitted to have understood such self-evident implicity? Explain, Doltoid morons?
Why is BBD greenpiss the only Doltoid leper island inhabitant who HAS understood my climatology lesson 1 for you? Explain, Doltoid AGW clowns!
But after BBD's "Indeed you are correct" follows an incredible dirt of his crap ideology logical fail delusion:
Which is why all the GAT reconstructions, including satellite TLT, have error bars indicating the range of uncertainty!
What you are having trouble grasping is that the entirely different instruments and methodology used to produce the satellite TLT reconstructions *validate* the surface gridded temperature datasets.
If the surface T reconstructions were borked, it would show up in the comparison with the satellite reconstructions of TLT.
And it doesn’t.
They are in very close agreement.
BBD idiot: why on Earth do you assume that temperature readings anywhere on the planet reflect CO2 warming? TEMPERATURE READINGS REFLECT THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUN ON EARTH, YOU IDIOT.
BUT YOUR ASSERTION THAT IT IS IN PART DUE TO CO2 HAS TO BE SHOWN BY YOUR CRAP LEPER SCIENCE, WHICH IS UNABLE TO DO SO. Fuck off from this blog. Enough is enough, you moron.
Kevin Trenberth, your crap science pope, stated in an e-mail:
"Where the heck is global warming?"
I have given him the answer: "Nowhere, stupid, it was never there."
'I occasionally amuse myself by imagining the looks on your faces when the chickens come home to roost '
I take global cooling much more seriously.... there is nothing amusing about a tipping point.
My friends in Wagga Wagga in Australia have forwarded to me an interesting local weather observation:
During and after rainfalls the air temperatures decreased in Wagga Wagga, as compared to temperature readings during spells of sunshine. This temperature difference in Wagga Wagga is obviously not due to anthropogenic CO2.
Is anybody of the CAGW Doltoids in the position to confirm
a: that the observations of my friends in Wagga Wagga are correct?
b: that the Doktoids have understood that anthro CO2 has no role in the observed temperature differences?
Now, Doltoid AGW clowns, show that you are a little bit better than to just only write leper sciencoid crap.
This is a bit rich coming from the one who confused GIS with GISS on the previous page of comments.
(Yeah, yeah, I know it was probably a typo, but it was hilarious.)
My Mum already called you out and you had nothing to say.
Sigh. All together now...
And you're apparently denying basic physics...good luck with that long term.
It would be astonishing, except that we already know you are here to disseminate crap "thinking" and dodgy "facts".
The "lack of trop hotspot" which you insist on framing in misleading terms after correction, thereby revealing that you are intent on misleading, simply isn't established as even you recently acknowledged. Because it isn't established, it's a category error to argue that it "wasn't expected". You call yourself a scientist? It is to laugh. Are you like Jo Nova's partner David Evans bignoting himself as a "rocket scientist" because he did Electrical Engineering and claimed it was a hard science?
"The pause" is exactly the kind of thing that's expected in a noisy system with an underlying warming trend. That expectation is driven by a straightforward engineering understanding of signal analysis completely independent of climate science. And it's clear that the climate system is "noisy" with respect to the anthropogenic forcing signal. So you don't even need "physics" for that expectation to arise. Again your logic is fallacious. Bit of a habit with you, isn't it?
Furthermore, the debate in the climate science literature is about the specific causes of this specific "pause", and if you're complaining that this specific "pause" wasn't expected and that this means ... well, something you haven't quite got around to clearly elucidating but seems to be pretty much to correspond with the desires of various schools of climate science denialism, then you're an even greater fool and even less of a scientist than you have made yourself out to be thus far. Predictions over those kinds of timescales are (a) much much harder than longer term predictions (see: noisy signal, above) and (b) known to be far more likely to be inaccurate based on our current level of understanding for very good reasons, and hence are not evidence that the case for concern is ill-founded.
And "Antarctica gaining ice"? Really, you have legendary scientific understanding (in your own mind) but you're that sloppy, and sloppy in ways that just happen to echo common denialist memes? Did you mean land ice or sea ice? Volume/mass or area or extent? Over what kind of timeframe? I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume this time you're referring to commonly accepted evidence which shows that land ice volume is decreasing and sea ice area is increasing over the last few decades. I'm pretty sure I've seen expectations - ironically based in part on models - that the sea ice increase might occur during some periods of a long term global warming event. And once more you've taken a complex phenomenon, pointed to something you allege "wasn't expected", ignored what level of understanding we have of the factors that contributed to it (e.g. the discussion of the papers over the last 10 years at the bottom of this page) and tried to use it to imply that it means the case for concern is unwarranted.
But you have even more fundamental issues than all of those. You're apparently trying to pretend there's uncertainty about the basics of the climate system by pointing to less basic areas where the understanding is less solid. I shouldn't have to point out that this is (a) not a scientific mindset, hence more evidence suggesting that you misrepresented yourself as a scientist, (b) fallacious, and (c) precisely how paid propagandists try to mislead the public into thinking that the case for concern and action is dodgy.
And it's even worse than that! Most tellingly, on ice you focused on the splinter and missed the log. The dramatic Arctic sea ice volume decline was almost entirely unexpected, just as you assert the Antarctic [sea] ice increase was. And the decline in the Arctic is far larger than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. What on earth would motivate you to focus on the relatively small ice increase at one pole - where it's been known for quite some time that the dynamics are reasonably complex - and miss the dramatic decrease at the other? Is it entirely a coincidence that everything you choose to focus on can be spun (at least to less informed readers) to suggest that the case for concern is overblown, and the things that you dismiss or attempt to distract from reinforce the case for concern? It is purely chance that leads you to highlight uncertainties over the specific path of evolution of the climate system, but fail to point out the clear and basic errors (and their implications) promulgated by people like el gordo and cohenite?
Methinks not.
And this is really what it's about, one suspects. For all of your squawking about "issues" over the course of several thousand comments, you have steadfastly refused to demonstrate what impact your "issues" have on the case for concern, and have done your damnedest to be unscientific about it by trying to focus away from what (and how much) we know. If we use car safety as an analogy, your squawking is like claiming that because we can't predict accurately enough just which boulder will finally stop the car that drives off the road down a steep rock strewn incline will end up, that we should probably not bother spending money on a guardrail or on improving the safety standards required of car manufacturers...
So, given that you clearly aren't a scientist and you're just not here for the hunting, anyone wanna bet that your squawking level will show a dramatic decline right after the election? Or is the timing of your one-eyed barrage a coincidence too?
Freddy, you're not even coherent anymore.
More thorazine.
Lotharsson greenpiss ideologist and CAGW leper island inhabitant, your unscientific "comment" of crap which you repeat every day as your personal crap prayer, must be discarded due to: it's all infection ...
#58
Lotharsson
August 31, 2013
Well of course you’re confident of the warming resuming based on physics.
And you’re apparently denying basic physics…good luck with that long term.
But based on physics you never expected the pause, the lack of trop hotspot, evap trends, Antarctica gaining ice either.
It would be astonishing, except that we already know you are here to disseminate crap “thinking” and dodgy “facts”.
The “lack of trop hotspot” which you insist on framing in misleading terms after correction, thereby revealing that you are intent on misleading, simply isn’t established as even you recently acknowledged. Because it isn’t established, it’s a category error to argue that it “wasn’t expected”. You call yourself a scientist? It is to laugh. Are you like Jo Nova’s partner David Evans bignoting himself as a “rocket scientist” because he did Electrical Engineering and claimed it was a hard science?
“The pause” is exactly the kind of thing that’s expected in a noisy system with an underlying warming trend. That expectation is driven by a straightforward engineering understanding of signal analysis completely independent of climate science. And it’s clear that the climate system is “noisy” with respect to the anthropogenic forcing signal. So you don’t even need “physics” for that expectation to arise. Again your logic is fallacious. Bit of a habit with you, isn’t it?
Furthermore, the debate in the climate science literature is about the specific causes of this specific “pause”, and if you’re complaining that this specific “pause” wasn’t expected and that this means … well, something you haven’t quite got around to clearly elucidating but seems to be pretty much to correspond with the desires of various schools of climate science denialism, then you’re an even greater fool and even less of a scientist than you have made yourself out to be thus far. Predictions over those kinds of timescales are (a) much much harder than longer term predictions (see: noisy signal, above) and (b) known to be far more likely to be inaccurate based on our current level of understanding for very good reasons, and hence are not evidence that the case for concern is ill-founded.
And “Antarctica gaining ice”? Really, you have legendary scientific understanding (in your own mind) but you’re that sloppy, and sloppy in ways that just happen to echo common denialist memes? Did you mean land ice or sea ice? Volume/mass or area or extent? Over what kind of timeframe? I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume this time you’re referring to commonly accepted evidence which shows that land ice volume is decreasing and sea ice area is increasing over the last few decades. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen expectations – ironically based in part on models – that the sea ice increase might occur during some periods of a long term global warming event. And once more you’ve taken a complex phenomenon, pointed to something you allege “wasn’t expected”, ignored what level of understanding we have of the factors that contributed to it (e.g. the discussion of the papers over the last 10 years at the bottom of this page) and tried to use it to imply that it means the case for concern is unwarranted.
But you have even more fundamental issues than all of those. You’re apparently trying to pretend there’s uncertainty about the basics of the climate system by pointing to less basic areas where the understanding is less solid. I shouldn’t have to point out that this is (a) not a scientific mindset, hence more evidence suggesting that you misrepresented yourself as a scientist, (b) fallacious, and (c) precisely how paid propagandists try to mislead the public into thinking that the case for concern and action is dodgy.
And it’s even worse than that! Most tellingly, on ice you focused on the splinter and missed the log. The dramatic Arctic sea ice volume decline was almost entirely unexpected, just as you assert the Antarctic [sea] ice increase was. And the decline in the Arctic is far larger than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. What on earth would motivate you to focus on the relatively small ice increase at one pole – where it’s been known for quite some time that the dynamics are reasonably complex – and miss the dramatic decrease at the other? Is it entirely a coincidence that everything you choose to focus on can be spun (at least to less informed readers) to suggest that the case for concern is overblown, and the things that you dismiss or attempt to distract from reinforce the case for concern? It is purely chance that leads you to highlight uncertainties over the specific path of evolution of the climate system, but fail to point out the clear and basic errors (and their implications) promulgated by people like el gordo and cohenite?
Methinks not.
And this is really what it’s about, one suspects. For all of your squawking about “issues” over the course of several thousand comments, you have steadfastly refused to demonstrate what impact your “issues” have on the case for concern, and have done your damnedest to be unscientific about it by trying to focus away from what (and how much) we know. If we use car safety as an analogy, your squawking is like claiming that because we can’t predict accurately enough just which boulder will finally stop the car that drives off the road down a steep rock strewn incline will end up, that we should probably not bother spending money on a guardrail or on improving the safety standards required of car manufacturers…
So, given that you clearly aren’t a scientist and you’re just not here for the hunting, anyone wanna bet that your squawking level will show a dramatic decline right after the election? Or is the timing of your one-eyed barrage a coincidence too?
When will you stop to write such insane rubbish crap? Piss off from this blog!
Meds, Freddy. Take them. Berendaneke implores you.
Some interesting points Loth.
No Atlantic hurricanes, quietest its been in 11 years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-30/no-atlantic-hurricane-by-augus…
This is not what we expected in a warmer world.
Here is what the EPA says about UHI:
Heat island refers to urban air and surface temperatures that are higher than nearby rural areas. Many cities and suburbs have air temperatures that are 2 to 10 Fahrenheit (1 to 6 Celsius) warmer than the surrounding natural land cover.
Figure 1 shows a city’s heat island profile. It demonstrates how urban temperatures are typically lower at the urban-rural border than in dense downtown areas. The graphic also show how parks, open land, and bodies of water can create cooler areas].
The remotely sensed image of Sacramento, California in Figure 2 illustrates the heat island phenomenon. In the aerial photo (left), the white areas, mostly rooftops, are about 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius) and the dark areas, primarily vegetative areas or water, are approximately 85-96 degrees Fahrenheit (29-36 degrees Celsius).
Figure 2. Thermally-sensed image of Sacramento. (Source: U.S EPA) Enlarged
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_a…
I carefully scanned Lotharsson's long and well written post. Alas no answers and more verballing.
So I post peer reviewed mainstream journal literature, IPCC authors and it's a denialist meme. Faarkkk !
It's a sceptic trick - wreally?
Could also be that there's a mutha-fucka load of information we don't have and theory is wrong.
Do you think we'll get to 4000 comments !
And then you retreated to "argument by handwaving failure to rebut", which has been one of your mainstays.
Which, in a massive coincidence I'm sure, you were unable to demonstrate.
Berendaneke appears to think he is the new moderator at Deltoid. How many times has thus fruitcake ordered people to stop writing here? I hope Tim cottons on to this and finally bans this creep. But in the meantime, he's a bit of comic relief really. His constant referral to a 'CAGW leper colony' reflects some sort of morbidly sick humor. Still, someone is as plainly bonkers are Berendaneke does add a bit entertainment value here. I loved it when he described his 'friend' Freddy - in all likelihood his alter ego - as 'estimated' (he meant esteemed). That one had me on the floor.
It was well written, Loth, although it might be improved with some dot points and a sprinkling of humour.
No! (And that's based on making allowances for your usual horribly unscientific sloppiness of expression).
We have sufficient bounds from the evidence at hand to say that "the theory" is almost certainly roughly right over climate scale periods of time, and this consists of multiple consilient lines of evidence. It is extremely unlikely - almost to the point of head in the sand wishful thinking - to think that we've missed something big enough to make a massive difference, or that the multiple lines of evidence all happen to point us in the wrong direction.
There are certainly a whole bunch of areas of climate science where the current opinion hasn't solidified into a consensus, or where the consensus that exists is based on fairly thin evidence. In these areas more evidence is rather likely to change the picture. But this doesn't seem to be what you're talking about in the quote above.
Furthermore, if we're talking about policy you always have to make policy with the evidence you have (even as you decide that more information would be even better). And when the evidence is enough to show a serious case for concern you would be extremely dumb (Hi Mr. Abbott!) to delay action on the basis that "despite intensive efforts over many decades, we might have missed something enormous" - and even more so when we already know enough to know that acting sooner rather than later is both cheaper and more effective.
Not really. What's to rebut. You believe in predictions which don't seem to be working out and are happy to get significant anomalies persist without explanation. Unlike El Gordo I see AGW as a significant risk. But how much? How does one play that off against many other deserving needs for research and investment.
When the temperatures stopped rising they made up the hotspot theory, but they failed to find it.
They then suggested the missing heat was in the deep oceans and one day it will come back to haunt us, but that was taking too long to manifest.
Just in time they discovered that ENSO is a major driver in dampening down temperatures and probably (even though they didn't mention it) produced most of the warming of late last century.
So that sufficient bounds is 1.5c to 5.8C - faaaarrrkkk !
" you always have to make policy with the evidence you have"
they have - it ain't good ENOUGH. So team cancelled.
The science sloppiness is the inability to frame a science discussion from you fucktards - and all we get is "deniers", verballing, appeals to authority. Doesn't work anymore.
Really? Which ones do I believe in?
You haven't been precise enough in your discussion to elucidate this, and in particular you haven't shown any understanding of the timescales over which predictions are and are not valid, or the confidence intervals associated with them. Instead you have firmly placed your foot in your mouth with crude simplifications like "the models are FALSIFIED!1!!!!1!!!", and a tendency to ignore all of the other evidence behind the case for concern. And these behaviours are essentially what caused objections to your first few comments here, so you've apparently picked up precisely nothing from all the feedback you've had.
As far as I can see none of your "issues" have a strong bearing on the risk assessment over climatic time scales, and you have assiduously and strenuously avoided tackling the linkage between the full set of evidence and the case for concern whilst playing up areas of uncertainty - but only in one direction.
That's a good way to get a really poor answer to your question. Surely you can do better than that?
Yes, a thousand times, yes.
Because we're talking about risk management. In risk management you don't get to cross your fingers and hope that you get the best case when you roll the dice. And risk management says that you have to deal with the possibility of even one of the worst cases turning up.
The fact that you can't rule out a 5.8C ECS with any reasonable confidence - after many decades of trying to narrow the bounds - is horrifying because the consequences of business per usual with that kind of sensitivity are almost unimaginably bad. Even if we restrict ourselves to the most likely range of 2-4.5C, the fact that we can't rule out 4.5C is still horrendous.
And risk management best practices also say that when a particular hazard are too severe to bear - as they are at 4.5C - that you do everything in your power to ensure that they never occur.
By way of analogy, imagine someone creates a really tasty new foodstuff and seeks permission from regulators to sell it. As part of their evidence they submit research showing that the range of outcomes in the 95% confidence interval of eating a portion of their food once a day for five years goes from relatively trivial health concerns such as the occasional feeling of bloating up to and including a long and painful death.
Is the appropriate regulatory response along the lines of "we don't have enough information to form a policy because the range of outcomes is so wide, so you can sell it with impunity until such times as we do" or something like "we can't rule out unacceptable outcomes with sufficient confidence, so there's no way in hell you're allowed to sell it"?
Lothie, what will an Australian carbon tax will do?
What if the hiatus continues for another decade, will you still hold firm to the idea that CO2 causes global warming?
Someone asked me if I felt guilty about jetting around Australia every few weeks.
I told them, not at all, there is a carbon tax on the jet fuel so that will make the world colder.
Yes but it's not an optional food stuff - it's human society's current energy generation system, plus agriculture plus ..... and multiple nation states who don'r agree and are in competition. and maybe there are winners - North American/Canada wheat belt and losers Australian sub-tropics?? (maybe)
And maybe we should have put it all on black e.g. influenza (high risk pandemic) or AIDS or TB or malaria? Or rogue asteroid detection. Why just bed wet over this issue?
"Why just bed wet over this issue?"
co2 extortion = money
co2cextortion = power
co2 extortion = control
extortion
Yes, unless the evidence indicates otherwise. (The evidence for CO2 causing global warming is NOT simply "no hiatuses beyond a certain length".)
Heck, you yourself are arguing for 60 year cycles saying they're about to cause cooling for a decade or more, so another decade is entirely consistent with global warming according to your own model. Do you realise you appear to be arguing against yourself?
...which isn't germane to the analogy, and which you seem to be using as an excuse to dismiss it rather than deal with it.
Noted.
Yep, and that makes it worse. It's more likely that human-usable agricultural output will suffer than improve under climate change. It's foolishness to say that "energy generation is necessary, therefore we must keep generating it the way we historically did even if it kills us". History is replete with examples of wising up and figuring out a better way to do things that are considered essential.
I also seem to remember the Canadian soil is crap for wheat - and for an awful lot of human agriculture. The idea that it will become an massive industrial agricultural powerhouse seems to be more wishful thinking than anything. When climatic zones shift geographically, they don't take the soils and environment with them, so things that used to grow in the climatic zone when it was "over here" don't necessarily grow as well in the zone now that it's "over there".
The argument that "maybe there will be more winners than losers", again, is rank stupidity from a risk management perspective, because the range of likely outcomes also includes "there may be very few wins and an awful lot of loss".
You simply can't make the risk go away by pretending that only one end of the risk distribution exists.
Nope. That's a failure of risk management too, and I don't see anyone advocating that.
Disregarding your attempting framing, I don't know anyone who is doing that. We have to deal with multiple issues at once. None of the other issues make this one go away. Never mind that this one potentially makes some other issues way more risky than they currently are.
And yes!
Luke STILL hasn't answered the question about OHC increase!!!
Instead he retreats into denial! It's all crap, he yells.
Because he is pig-ignorant.
Google Ekman pumping, subtropical gyres, Taylor columns!
Fuckwit!
:-)
'Do you realise you appear to be arguing against yourself?'
No.
CO2 continues to rise and temperatures remain flat for 30 years, its a fair indication that the carbon dioxide signal is lost amongst the noise.
BTW the blog is still behaving as though somebody (Freddy!) is mounting periodic DOS attacks on it. Runs like cold treacle then 505s or "Service unavailable" message from SB.
Why am I not surprised that our resident nutter is a script kiddie with a baby botnet?
It all fits the bill.
We are experiencing the same in Oz... new fred tomorrow and all will be well.
Which does NOT say that the signal has gone away, nor does it say that the signal won't inexorably rise above the noise longer term.
Which is precisely why I said you were arguing against yourself.
But we don't talk about any other issues do we? Let's bedwet about killer asteroids.
"there may be very few wins and an awful lot of loss" - why? that's simply framing? Perhaps there will vast areas of the northern hemisphere made available for agriculture.
Why adopt an alarmist meme - WHY coz some fucktard like Jeff has put his shitty GM output plus or minus a barn into his shitty ecology models and produced some .... shit !
Ekman pumping, subtropical gyres, Taylor columns - and just when we thought BBD was a stupid cunt. Speak up more BBD. How long did it take to get that out of you. And where's the papers that link that to OHC you fuck-knuckle.
Lotharsson - for Aussies the interannual and decadal climate variation is massive. Threaten us with droughts and floods. We've had 10000s of years of it? Can you find me a climate change signal in there?
gordolocks may like to also take in what 'diurnal' means and go look out what is happening there.
Karen @ 76 asks "what will an Australian carbon tax will do?".
Apparently, what it has done is grown the Australian economy by 2.5% and reduced carbon emissions from electricity generation by approximately 7% since its introduction.
Note that the tax is designed to work over the long term in changing investment patterns, so should not be expected to change emissions immediately, and a significant proportion of the reduction thus far has been due to reduction in demand for electricity.
Even so, the tax is pretty obviously doing its job, and without "driving a wrecking ball through the economy" as our Prime Minister-in-waiting has claimed it would.
So, have you not noticed what has been happening in the NA 'Grain Belt'? Hint, droughts in particular.
Also the terrain north of the current grain belt is not suitable for equally large scale grain production due to the fact that most of the productive soil was scrapped off by glaciation during successive ice ages being deposited further south where the grain belt now is. This is why it WAS so productive.
It takes thousands of years for the weathering action of ice and carbonic acid in rain, combined with the work of lichens, and then other vegetation to work their magic on exposed rock surfaces to produce fresh arable soil. It takes a long time for the soil structure to become populated with the various organisms which give the soil its 'life'. A teaspoon-full of good soil can harbour thousands single celled organisms from hundreds of species, all this forming a mini ecosystem of its own. This is why intensive agriculture is so destructive and second growth forest being a poor substitute for the primary that it replaced with the ecosystem at ground level severely impacted by industrial scale deforestation.
Here? (Er...do you know what this blog is about yet?)
Or do you mean in general? They are most certainly discussed, and policy for most of them is evident. They don't get as much attention in the public arena because for most of them there's not a large semi-coordinated propaganda campaign by vested interests trying to turn them into contentious issues (although you can find some earlier discussion on this blog of much smaller scale attempts to do so with DDT on the malaria issue). The asteroid threat is much smaller likelihood than the others, and arguably it tends to get less attention - but even that one is not completely ignored in the public arena.
Citation needed.
You're presuming again, and based on the evidence you're going Dunning-Kruger on it by stepping way outside of your scope of expertise. It's most fascinating behaviour, and one is tempted to speculate on your motivation, but it certainly isn't persuasive. Why do you think your say so outweighs a whole bunch of science and scientists who don't base their entire opinions purely on your cartoon sketch of how they work?
Sure. So's the diurnal variation.
And...?
You seem smarter than the average somewhat-contrarian, but you belie it via a habit of citing a random observation and trying to draw some kind of implication without actually joining the dots.
No, it threatens us with a lot more than that. It threatens to change both the expected climate norms, AND the volatility around those norms, AND the frequency of what are now considered rare extreme events. When most of your country is already crap for agriculture and is not liberally endowed with usable excess water (just for starters, never mind the widespread water table draw down and creeping salinity in various places), that is more likely to be expensive or harmful than positive.
Why? Do you seriously doubt that humans are forcing the climate?
Or are you one of those who is foolish enough to cite massive interannual and decadal variations as implying that a forced climate won't have any impact on us? A pair of 20-sided dice have massive throw-to-throw variation too, but if you bias them by switching to 24-sided dice the average and volatility still go up - and the frequency of results "39 and above" rises from a 1 in ~133 year event to almost a 1 in 10 year event.
Maaaatttteeee !
"creeping salinity in various places" in general over-stated
"widespread water table draw down " more bullshit and conflicts with salinity - oh fuck didn't think of that....
Water table follows the IPO with lag
The whole Australian rainfall record is a rare event. The average year does not exist. Average = drought + flood divide by 2.
Meanwhile back on point with our mate Judy
"It looks to me like the national and international policy makers are expecting a serious treatment of the pause issue, I have shown them one way to approach the issue of the pause in an integrated way. In spite of Michael Mann’s tweeted response to my testimony ‘typical denier talking points,’ the issues I raise are not easily dismissed, and my ideas are out there in the public domain and at least some politicians are paying attention to my arguments. And the recent Nature article on the central Pacific control on global climate adds fuel to my arguments. If anyone can refute my arguments, I would be most interested in seeing this."
It's on - the horses are spooked.
Is someone launching a DOS attack on this lovely blog. Wish they'd stop it. Fucking annoying.
@Lotharsson greenpss activist:
You seem smarter than the average somewhat-contrarian, but you belie it via a habit of citing a random observation and trying to draw some kind of implication without actually joining the dots.
Discarded due to missed topic and incompetence
I do not attack SB, but maybe BBD
3999
4000
Victory