No! Because it's irrelevant! How about you wake up to the fact that you can demonstrate this by a comparison of any gridded GAT reconstruction you like to TLT satellite data? But I think this is rather beyond your fabulously limited intellectual horizon.
Even with a simple graph to help your stunted little brain along!
There are, of course, a few other indicators that the climate system is warming - OHC increase, glacial mass balance loss, Arctic sea ice volume loss, GIS and WAIS mass balance change etc.
The sure sign of a limited intellect engaging in a weak argument is hyper-focus on irrelevancies. It's where losers go when they have lost and they know it.
Mind you, at least you can spell "barbecue", which is more than many can claim. In fact your spelling is fascinating. You get many quite difficult words correct but sound like your English was learned in a Warsaw gutter. You are a puzzle, Sausage.
#97...Emoti-boy, you have demonstrated zip knowledge in this field, you are tediously abusive and have lost the right to respect,and your arguments are worse than weak, they are absolutely non-existent. NON_EXISTENT. You seem unaware of this. This is the basis for the reasonable conclusion that you are barking mad,and unable to change your behavior. So it's easy to see you should leave,and I doubt you'll volunteer to do so....
"Why do you think Tim will give in [to] your appeal to authority?" you ask... I don't 'think' Tim will 'give in', he may agree and ban you. I have no idea whether he will, and have no expectations. I have not made an 'appeal to authority', I have made a request to the blog-owner. This seems to be the right sort of person to make that sort of request to, you might agree...
Real men/women/animals/fixtures need relief from lunatics like yourself, no matter how unintentionally amusing you are. You are like a child up past bedtime,over-excited,repetitive and getting tearful.
@BBD clown, you can stop your nutter bollocks, as everybody can see your weak stance in the one and only relevant measure of your holy CAGW church:
The calculation of the mean global temperature. Everything else is irrelevant or secondary to base your ideology of CAGW. You must accept this, as all your church saints which you have to adore argue with the global temperature, you fuckwit.ä
Global temperature is not irrelevant, sausage fuckwit :evil:, but central.
And global temperature is caculated usung the values of the GHCN database, BBD sausage fuqwit :evil:!!!
Therefore your relentless rejection of basic education and accumlation of elementary knowledge about the global temperature cannot be tolerated. Therefore you must undergo basic instruction in order that you learn how idiotic your attitudes until now are, you narcistic sausage :evil:
1. question to answer: How many station data are used to calculate the global temperature?
You think you have more rights than others, you SS rightwing nutter without education and manners.
And you define, who is abusive or a real man, you nutter. And it's your priority right to offend and violare others, but when you undergo an attack than it's untolerable.
You have not participated for quite some time, come as of a sudden and complain ?
#8...priceless! What attack have you mounted? You idiot, you're boring us to death!. As for participation, you're free to start anytime you like; covering yourself with shit and piss on the sidelines must be lonely!
Provide the number, since you seem to feel that it is central to your position.
Start saying something. Develop your argument. I do it constantly here, so if unsure how to proceed, look back over some of my previous comments for pointers.
Perhaps if we all did it, twice a day? What do you think?
Not sure if he's reading the comments these days. Maybe if you find his e-mail address, or construct a comment that will get stuck in the moderation filter? He really needs to appoint a moderator if he's not going to do it himself.
Hmmmmm?
Moderator/s/Tim?
Why am I sidelined from this open thread and this Berendaneke character is not?
At the very least I am able to create more text than abuse & emoticons.
And BTW Lotharsson at comment 82 on the past comment page is still being a crashing bore.
He has completely failed to recognise that Luke of the changing avatars and Stu 2 are more likely to be his/her allies rather than his/her enemies.
About time that Lotharsson takes a peek into his own mirror.
'Politicians have to show better judgement….Jensen fails.'
Only from your perspective, from the Denialati's viewpoint, he would make an excellent candidate for Science Minister.
Abbott has given the nod for Jensen to fly a kite, to observe public reaction. If there is no criticism, apart from the watermelon brigade, its probably a done deal.
...from the Denialati’s viewpoint, he would make an excellent candidate for Science Minister.
Which superbly illustrates why he would make a very poor Science minister - about as acceptable as a Health minister who believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS and faith healing works.
#20.Bob would fail a probity test, having lied about his funding sources. He would also be rejected by the scientific community.
If Jensen was made science minister, there would be serious push back from the science community. It's more likely the Libs will go for a lawyer,rather than the loose cannon Jensen....however Australia's politics is in at an intellectual low point at the moment,so he can't be ruled out.
'Would you make Australia the laughing stock of the world?'
Everyone will be laughing, partly from embarrassment at how easily they were tricked into thinking CO2 caused global warming.
Our revolutionary leader will pull down the curtain on this sham act and the world will be shocked. He is not charismatic in the sense that Max Weber portrayed, but a refreshing new Senate will assist in destroying the carbon tax.
By a fortunate coincidence the Senate will probably deny him his Direct Action Plan DAP. Which would be good, it was always a dumb idea and a complete waste of money pandering to the brainwashed masses.
Lotharsson - "your claim to be coming here to try and resolve your list of “issues” is a distinctly sub-optimal strategy"
Well excuse moi - I simply thought a group of difficult contemporary AGW issues might have got some discussion besides a Gatling gun barrage of "done it before", "you haven't read it", "Let's discredit you (BBD fave)", " in league with deniers", "Shilling" etc.
Then there was "no references" followed by those "references are crap".
Then guilt trips by save-the-world eco-Jeff.
And probably an interesting but nonetheless off-topic "you'll be sorry" by the paleo obsessed BBD.
Not very inspiring Lothy.
Some of the sledging is very funny, but I just thought I would try the disgraceful vulgar Aussie bogan approach instead. Some say it's a natural fit and it does work down the pub.
So I guess you guys just want to sit here with pumped up chests spruiking appeal to authority and rest on that.
Anyway it's still all very helpful for my assignment on "Delusional psychosis among alpha-male climate change bloggers in temperate environments"
Anyway it’s still all very helpful for my assignment
Still away with the fairies, Walter.
As for paleoclimate, it's like history, Walter. Those who refuse to learn from it are likely to get a repeat. And please *try* to remember that argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity are logical fallacies.
I am still amazed that you deltoids did not see that Luke was actually a friend when he first appeared.
He has also retried on a few occaisions.
You deltoids really are off with the fairies.
Even the blog owner appears to have left you floundering.
Let me spell this out for you deltoids.
L.U.K.E. I.S. M.O.S.T. L.I.K.E.L.Y. Y.O.U.R. F.R.I.E.N.D! !!!!!!!!!
I can't believe how dense you are :-)
#24 "Everyone..tricked into thinking CO2 causes global warming"...sounds easier than trying to educate them! Worth a try!
I'm curious as to Abbott's personal course. Has he ever shown any curiosity about the nuts and bolts of climate? Will he seek personal briefings from the Chief Scientist? Will he keep it at arms length, leave it to the Science minister to bring to Cabinet? Whatever... more likely they will minimise interaction with the CS, they've gotten on with their collapsing and defunding of the CC admin,and they judging the negative feedback will be handled in their favor by News Ltd.
A 'refreshing new senate' featuring a guy who doesn't understand stats,and thus recommends carrying hand guns... look out!
The calculation of the mean global temperature. Everything else is irrelevant or secondary to base your ideology of CAGW.
Wrong. The prime measure of global warming is the incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere and calculating the difference to see whether there is balance or imbalance.
The global atmospheric temperature is a reasonable, but inaccurate, measure of energy accumulating in the system. It's possible, if physically incredible, that the energy imbalance could be positive and that every single joule was going into melting ice or being transferred into deep ocean a kilometre or more below the surface. In that case, there would be no atmospheric temperature change at all.
As it happens, the system does function in accordance with what we know and that the energy imbalance is showing up in melting icesheets and in melting glaciers and in warming oceans down to 2000 metres, and in surface temperatures. We don't know how much heat is accumulating in waters deeper than 2km, but it's likely there's some.
Did any others consider it rather revealing that freddy knows about the anti-psychosis drug Thioridazine. I leave it as an excersice for those that feel a need to look further to search for info on this drug but I did find these clarifying statements in one source,
On Thioridazine, my emphasis:
Therefore, it should be used only in patients who have not shown improvement with at least 2 other antipsychotic medications or who cannot tolerate other antipsychotic medications.
My, my the evidence that freddy is suffering from mental health issues mounts. I feel sorry for the poor sod but that is no reason to continue tolerating his brand of strangeness (plenty of spin and colourful posts). Now I wonder if he realises the field of science referred to obliquely there.
We don’t know how much heat is accumulating in waters deeper than 2km, but it’s likely there’s some.
Indeed we don't, but we do know energy is accumulating in the abyssal ocean. Have you come across Purkey & Johnson (2010)Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budget.? (Link is full text html).
* * *
Thank you very much for reminding us that TOA imbalance is where this starts and ends.
Everyone will be laughing, partly from embarrassment at how easily they were tricked into thinking CO2 caused global warming. Our revolutionary leader will pull down the curtain on this sham act and the world will be shocked.
Well, there it is plain as plain. Gordon's a conspiracy theorist and physics denying crank who thinks AGW is a massive hoax encompassing every National Science Academy and pretty much every university and government scientists in the field.
You can't waste time on such folk, as they're not operating in the rational world. Although they will make perfect brownshirts for some demagogue or other, as their idea of evidence is only congruent with what they want or need to believe.
God knows when they'll realise they've been taken for a ride, if ever.
There is much to be done, apart from dismantling the tax they have to stop the renewable subsidy racket and sack thousands of public servants connected to the CC fraud.
#31 Chubb's 3 year term finishes end May 2014. Seriously, if Carter is actually considered an option, his involvement with Heartland will make it impossible. The connection is poison. Coalition is more likely to choose another medical research emeritus,steering away from earth science controversy. Or an ag. science person for the Nats.
They're just words to you Gordon.
Words that mean you don't have to think any further.
You have of course got no suggestion for how such a mechanism might work, or why it should only target a very select group, or means of transmission, or indeed anything beyond your smug two-word phrase.
Most telling of all is that you and the shonky network of cranks and frauds that you rely on for your alternate universe have no answer to the climate scientists' case. Except that they're suffering from 'mass delusion' of course.
In the short term Carter could take Chubb's place on the board of the Climate Change Authority.
Quiggin, Karoly and Hamilton should also be replaced.
'The authority has a Board comprising nine members, headed by Bernie Fraser. Other members include Lynne Williams, David Karoly, Elana Rubin, Heather Ridout, John Marlay, John Quiggin, Ian Chubb and Clive Hamilton.'
I simply thought a group of difficult contemporary AGW issues might have got some discussion...
It did get some. You summarily dismissed it, despite much of it being trenchant and your justifications for dismissal frequently being transparently bogus.
But all of that is a convenient missing of my point, isn't it (which is your favourite MO)? Your strategy for your alleged goal is sub-optimal. And yet you persist with it. Not here for the hunting...
#41 Believe me,Heartland is... Carter lied about accepting money in his involvement with them...if Carter is thrust to prominence as CS, he will be a sitting duck...Abbott has better things to do with his time than try to brazen out such a political appointment of a liar in what is a marginal post by their intention...the tactic will be to go softly and make the CS invisible as possible. Carter would be the opposite.
Gordy, are you really so insulated from reality by your ideological hubris,still bristling with adrenalin? You can put down your torch and pitchfork,your party has office. In having office they are exposed to more reality than you. They have to work with the people who you can casually dismiss from your distance.
And Chubb is a well-published researcher who became an administrator...a better rounded, more publicly experienced.and better regarded person than minor academic and deposed emeritus Carter.
The Coalition have a lot to do and pissing away time on too many dodgy ideological appointments in general ,and defending an outrageously compromised one like a Carter in particular,is not necessary for them.
What you are about to witness is a revolution in ideas.
No, I'd suggest what you're about to witness is the shortfall of rhetoric which won the votes of mass delusional cretins when it hits the wall of reality.
Chubb is an academic first and a scientist second...
Er...what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
Carter is a scientist
He has one - count them, ONE - climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
#47, 'a revolution of ideas'....ideas? LOL Actually I think Tony is hosing down his more skittish warriors. He's certainly made public comments,clearly directed at his faithful,about inclusiveness and ending the campaigning. I'm hoping he's not a fibber,and a reckless fool, and holds the bottle the wrong way.
It's going to be messy enough closing down the renewable admin infrastructure without putting up a liability like Carter for CS. The new government is not all about you and your obsessions.
Tony Abbott’s climate policy: the science is still crap
By Giles Parkinson on 3 September 2013
On Thursday, the good folk at Opposition leader Tony Abbott’s favourite think tank, the ultra conservative Institute of Public Affairs, will host a function in Brisbane to launch the latest anti-climate science book by noted denier, Bob Carter.
The title of the book, “Taxing Air: Facts & fallacies about climate change”, fits neatly into Abbott’s view about carbon trading. Last month he was out dog-whistling to climate denialists such as Carter on just that theme, when he borrowed an old phrase and said that trading carbon was a “so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”
Is this book launch just a happy coincidence in timing, or does it amount to the launch
No doubt everyone remembers were were graced by the presence of political heavyweight Anthony Cox (aka cohenite), who was regularly commenting here a few weeks back, no doubt enthused by the prospect of the upcoming Federal Election in which his No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party was going to romp away with some Senate seats...
The Cox party really did they job, getting a massive 13,300 votes (0.13% of the 72% of votes counted so far), just a whisker behind those political giants in the Pirate Party (31,000) and the HEMP Party (70,600). Yep, Australians really backed your gutsy stand against those Alarmist Greenie Scum there lads.
After this excellent performance, I suspect even Anthony will abandon the Party and vote for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party (15,600) next time...
Frank, you may be relieved/pleased to hear that some of us in the outside world don't judge Australia by the procession of cranks and nutters that parade through these comments.
0.13% is about one in 600 people.
Or to put it another way, there are actually more paedophiles than Cox's Crank Party voters. "There are about 14,000 preferential paedophiles in Australia". (An Investigation into Paedophilia.- Smith and Chapman, 1999)
Make of that what you will.
Fairly intelligent representatives of the CAGW climate delusion church, e.g. James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth and only a few more, have given in the obvious fact that the global temperature has not increased in the last 16 years and admitted that all computer models have catastrophically failed and not indicated the slight decline of global temperatures since nearly two decades.
By contrast, the leper islanders here live in another parallel universe without connection to reality. Poor clowns :evil:
"But all of that is a convenient missing of my point, isn’t it (which is your favourite MO)? Your strategy for your alleged goal is sub-optimal. And yet you persist with it. Not here for the hunting…"
No that's just your own trenchant POV. And you're not here for the discussion are you? If so where is it? Leadership from the perimeter guards = 0.0
But agree the sceptics party are a bunch of wackers. Isn't there something more important?
I’m curious as to Abbott’s personal course. Has he ever shown any curiosity about the nuts and bolts of climate? Will he seek personal briefings from the Chief Scientist?
This should give you an indication of the circles of "thinking" Tony moves in when it comes to science:
Lionel from leper island: how embarrassing for you that you :evil: don't even know how to spell Rajendra's name.
Can YOU tell me (the clowns BBD and Rick cannot due to severe progressive incompetence) how many meteorological weather stations are covered by the GHCN database, the holy sanctuary of the CAGW climate scientology church.
Show that you are better than clown BBD :evil: and clown Rick :evil: !!
#75 Sausage, you have yet to explain *why* the number of stations actually matters. You haven't developed an argument. Until you do, expect no engagement. Tell us why it matters so much to you.
#76 I told you doubling down was stupid. Now you are exposed as a liar.
I admit here in all due humbleness that I am proud to have been able to provide advice to my friend Tony Abbott regarding the fight of fraudulent CAGW lies and cheatings. Tony understood immediately that Australian CO2 does not matter at all regarding air temperatures 2m above the surface. He wil kill the carbon tax in order to save Oz economy from climate leper islanders with their ideology of communist overturn.
BBD - von Storch has called it. Others have confirmed. The IPCC report has been delayed due the furore that the hiatus has become. You're in deep do do's mate.
If it's not happening why is Trenberth talking about it. Clearly the models did not predict it. AND many other things.
#70. I suppose I wonder, whoever is appointed to replace Chubb, will Abbott go through a public pantomime of consulting the Chief Scientist, or will he just delegate and ignore.
#82 'IPCC report delayed due to furore over "hiatus"'....why do need to invent this sort of claim?
Lotharsson @#49,
You have demonstrated nothing other than your own opinion.
As pointed out earlier, academia is not the only place where highly intelligent and highly competent people are found. Neither is academia the only place where ground breaking research is conducted.
Numbers of published papers is but one and only one way to judge someone's abilities and contributions.
#70....the fact that BOMs chief Greg Ayers managed to get that critical corrective testimony into Hansard may be very important in future CS considerations. As much as I'd like to think there was some rationality somewhere in the Coalition, efforts to put characters like Plimer or Carter into the position can't be utterly ruled out. Those statement from Ayers are unequivocally critical of Plimer and Pell,and cannot be disappeared.
BBD – von Storch has called it. Others have confirmed. The IPCC report has been delayed due the furore that the hiatus has become.
We've been through this. HvS has not "called it". As ever, you grossly overstate and in the process, misrepresent HvS. I only wish he were here to see you doing it.
As for the rumour that AR5 has been delayed because of crisis meetings etc, it's crap. A denier meme. Is this all you have left?
'...efforts to put characters like Plimer or Carter into the position can’t be utterly ruled out. '
There would be heaps of derision aimed at the government, but Abbott has the bottle to see it through.
Here is a bit more on Plimer from wiki, he certainly has the right credentials .
'Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.
'In 2007 Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group. In November 2009, Plimer was named as a member of the academic advisory council for Nigel Lawson's global warming skeptic group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.'
#70….the fact that BOMs chief Greg Ayers managed to get that critical corrective testimony into Hansard may be very important in future CS considerations. As much as I’d like to think there was some rationality somewhere in the Coalition, efforts to put characters like Plimer or Carter into the position can’t be utterly ruled out. Those statement from Ayers are unequivocally critical of Plimer and Pell,and cannot be disappeared.
If you can find the transcript of the Estimates hearing, it's a bloody good read - Ludlam and Wong put in their oars very successfully.
#87.. if he tried it, that wouldn't be 'bottle',it would 'stupidity'...it seems extremely unlikely. Plimer has conflicts of interest,but worst of all, he has 'Heaven and Earth' which is a documented disaster of wrong facts,invention and voodoo science...it would be a travesty, a trashing of the position of CS,should Abbott try it. I don't doubt that some of his dimmer colleagues would lobby for it. Seriously, CS positions are nominated by the national science bodies,not backbench hot-heads or the IPA.
It doesn't matter how much "bottle" Abbott has. He has to set his priorities - he'll avoid open battle on stuff where he's confident. And if we're sure of one thing, he's confident of his own opinion and majority party support on climate change policies. He wouldn't want to upset the minority of the party with realistic views on climate science, and he's got other fish to fry on the international front.
He'll want to keep his powder dry for confrontations where he hasn't already put too many caucus members offside on that issue.
"Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes."
Firstly, "not here for the hunting" doesn't exactly equate to "not here for the discussion". You might want to find the joke that it refers to. It has a hapless but strangely persistent hunters, angry bears, one of whom is remarkably perceptive, and some adult content. Once that is understood, it is clear that most of us are here for the hunting, but some clearly are not.
And - seriously? You really need to try thinking rather than trying on this mindless primary school level reflection. Commenters here have different goals. Two parties to the same sub-conversation here can differ in that one can be "here for the discussion" - perhaps the one that points out science distortion via clearly unsupported claims, the one that points out zombie denialist memes and the motivations of many of those pushing them, the one that calls out illogic and incoherent argument where it's obvious, the one that calls out bad faith discussion - and the other can claim to be motivated to participate here in their inimitable style by goals that clearly are much better met elsewhere.
So, yes, I'm very much here for the discussion. And you give every appearance of being here for some other reason.
Let me get this straight, Luke - the greenhouse effect was predicted to eliminate all variability in measured temperatures, measured temperatures still show variability, therefore climate change is crap.
Is that it? I just want to make sure I understand what passes for "thinking" in Luke-land.
Yes, El Gordo, a talkfest by a circle-jerk of anti-science kooks with no science research to back up their ideologies will definitely "blow the socks off the msm".
#92,94...Luke finds comfort [well,he actually 'rolls on the floor laughing' in typical hysterical reaction] in uncertainty on GT, while ignoring ongoing changes across the biosphere...once again,unwittingly picking one indicator as sufficiently representative of the system's state. Scientists do not have the luxury of picking cherries.
Von Storch needs to assimilate Cohen et al 2012 and Kosaka & Xie 2013 into his musing on GT [which is a coarse indicator] Divergent seasonal trends are missed in a coarse indicator. Temperature as a whole may rise only slowly compared with projections,while the actual increased interseasonal variation makes the climate less favorable for agriculture and more costly for infrastructure. Let's all ROFL with Luke!
You have demonstrated nothing other than your own opinion.
...in your opinion, which is asserted without any supporting argument or evidence.
Interesting.
But if that's your standard - unsupported opinions, even when evidence and logic is used to rebut them - there's no point in you even trying to justify criteria for accepting, rejecting or temporarily withholding judgement on scientific claims. Clearly unsupported opinion will do...even if that standard provides no way to reliably resolve mutually exclusive claims in favour of one or the other. (As demonstrated by your disagreement with what I earlier showed!)
As pointed out earlier, academia is not the only place where highly intelligent and highly competent people are found.
As pointed out earlier, this is a straw man that is not disputed - and remains so after your latest repetition.
Neither is academia the only place where ground breaking research is conducted.
Curiouser and curiouser. You keep trying to dispute a point that is not disputed. It's almost like you hope the army of straw men will distract from your lack of an effective rebuttal.
Numbers of published papers is but one and only one way to judge someone’s abilities and contributions.
Yet another straw man, although a bit more subtle than the previous ones.
a) Measuring "ability" is not the primary goal here. Measuring "successful contribution" is.
b) Even though measuring "ability" is not the primary goal, measuring "lack of demonstrated ability" is very useful, because as previously explained (and dismissed) it allows you to filter out the vast majority of those who have no ability to focus on those who have shown they do.
And measuring "lack of" ability or contribution is not a symmetric process with measuring "presence of" ability or contribution:
c) The primary criteria for measuring "successful contribution" in science are the number and success of peer-reviewed papers, where success includes how well the ideas are accepted by other competent researchers in the field.
In science, if you didn't successfully publish it you haven't contributed it. And if it wasn't peer-reviewed, then it didn't clear the quality bar so it's almost certainly not "groundbreaking", and most probably of little consequence. And if it subsequently had no influence on the other experts in the field it doesn't count for much and if, like Bob Carter's effort, it was roundly demolished, it counts for zero at best. (And when your successful peer-reviewed paper count is "one", it's unlikely you have much influence. Someone whose line of inquiry has influence rarely stops at one paper on that line - there's almost always several lines of useful research proceeding off the first.)
d) The simple COUNT of published papers (without also assessing influence/success) was NOT used to "judge [the level of] someone's abilities and contributions", but to judge the lack of them. As has been indicated more than once (and ignored or not understood by you), one has to factor in measures of influence and success to measure "contribution". Just as there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate lack of ability, there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate LACK of contributions. When the count of successful peer-reviewed papers is zero there is nothing over which to measure influence or success so by definition there is zero influence and zero success.
You appear to be vainly trying to justify "other measures of ability and contribution" as some way to push back in response to those who point out that certain claimants have zero measured influence and success, and others have almost none.
This won't wash, especially if you're trying to sell those criteria to people who lack the expert judgement to reliably assess a claim themselves. The only people who could make a decent assessment of a scientific claim made outside of the peer-reviewed literature are those who are expert researchers in the specific field - and they, regardless of whether they work in acadaemia or outside of it - CHOOSE to use the peer-reviewed literature as both the initial quality filter and the distributed discussion forum through which contributions are published and measured because it helps maintain minimum quality standards.
If you're trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you're trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
No Lotharsson. I was replying to your comment here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
Carter is a scientist
He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are lecturing me while arguing that I have misinterpreted you.
I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place.
Think food processing, pharmacy, medicine, mining, agriculture, dermatology and a host of other areas that employ top quality people and conduct top quality research yet don't require their people to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
That does not mean that I have advanced this:
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have suggested no such thing and I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are claiming otherwise.
Your over-simplicistic logic of the value of peer-reviewed publication process shows foremost your personal great distance from outside at something
a: you don't really understand
b: you have never participated in this process
c: you just copy paste what you have been told by your propaganda institution to do your disgusting partizan flaw logic to fight for the CO2 delusion.
Instead of verballing about something which you don't understand you should rather demonstrate that you are familar with elementary basics of your bad CAGW leper island faith:
How many meteorological data measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, the holy sanctuary of your climate scientology church.
I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted...
A point I already said I did not dispute, and which remains a straw man.
... and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place. Think food processing, pharmacy, medicine, mining, agriculture, dermatology and a host of other areas that employ top quality people and conduct top quality research yet don’t require their people to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
Ah, thanks. That is helpful!
Please note that I had previously specifically indicated that I was talking about the open scientific process vs claims made outside of that process, which is NOT the same as acadaemia vs non-acadaemia no matter how many times the two are conflated.
Please note further that I carefully distinguished the open scientific process from scientific research whose results are privately held in order to avoid conflating the two. I did fail to distinguish the open scientific process from non-scientific research which I presumed was not the topic. "Mining" and "food processing" are not typically considered branches of science, for example, even though there are scientific fields that can be applied to them.
I had also presumed that - given the (IIRC) context that led to this discussion was a comment by Jeff relating to the capabilities of those making allegedly scientific claims about climate change and its impacts that you disagreed with - that we are talking not only about science, but more specifically about climate science and other branches of science that study the impacts of climate science.
Since you're talking about something else, feel free to interpret my comments in the light of the context that I was operating in which doesn't address most of what you were talking about. Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don't support your disagreement with what Jeff said.
Sorry, Freddy, but just like all your other unsupported assertions (ever noticed how practically everything you claim is unsupported?) this one fails too. I have indeed participated in the open peer reviewed publication process. My participation was in the academic field of Engineering rather than Science, but the elements of the process germane to this discussion are the same.
And isn't it beautifully ironic that Freddy is arguing that because (he thinks) that I haven't participated in peer reviewed publication, that I don't have any expertise in it and accordingly my comments on it should be dismissed.
It's almost like he's channelling the argument made by Jeff and me that those who haven't demonstrated their expertise should be ignored.
I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place.
I see that Lotharsson's already touched on the subject, but still... if you so submit then where is your analysis or other evidence? You know, that breaks research down into categories such university, government, public institute, private institute, industry, private consultation, amateur and other categories, and that factors in discipline, type of knowledge being pursued, DIISRTE's HERDC areas such as field of research (yes, it's different to 'discipline') and socio-economic objectives, and not to forget the metric for the quality of the research output.
And if Carter is a good scientist then on what list of publications is this idea supported?
You know Stu2, you could just go away and not try to weasel your way around Lotharsson's patient and exemplary dissection of your bullshit. Not that you will, 'cause you are just as much a troll as Fatso, Spam, fLuke and the spectacularly psychotic (and thioridazine-familiar - well picked Lionel) Freddiot. The only good thing is that it is blindingly obvious who is the reasonable person here - and it isn't you.
Your contention that Medicine (and "Dermatology"), Pharmacology and Agricultural science are not entirely dependent on peer reviewed publishing demonstrates the facile sophistry (and stone cold uninformed delusional bullshit) of the species of human parasite known as lawyers. In fact, I suspect you may be Cox (CoxSox?), or some similar Koch-sucker.
Lotharsson
Mining and food processing also employs top quality scientists who have experience, are highly educated and who conduct research and high quality testing in a number of scientific disciplines and who perfectly understand the scientific process. In food processing in particular, our well being and health depends on it.
I repeat again, there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals. They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.
You inference or suspicion here is totally unfounded:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
------------
and so is this one:
-------------------------------
Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don’t support your disagreement with what Jeff said.
------------------------------------------------
And I repeat I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are merely advancing your own personal suspicions and inferences.
Bernard,
That comment came with a "possibly" caveat.
I have never seen a study on how many scientists are employed by which sectors.
However, because science and scientific research is very important in our modern world and because there are a myriad of industries that need to use modern scientific techniques I do indeed submit that there would be at least as many, if not "possibly" more highly qualified, talented and articulate scientists employed, working in their own businesses or conducting their own research outside of academia.
But please know that doesn't mean I think less of those who do work in academia or in government.
That was Lotharsson's presumption, not mine.
...there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals. They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.
If their qualifications and experience are appropriately relevant, certainly.
And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.
Where do you think that Carter fits in the spectrum?
you unsuccessfully tried to escape my question to you whether you know how many temperature measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, which is used to calculate the global temperatures.
unsubstantiated blah blah blah and constant appeal to authority
And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.
This is utter bullshit: Scientists should never want to be considered (as you clown :evil: do) as apostles of their truth which has to be accepted. No, no, and no again. General acceptance of the results of an investigation has nothing to do with authority, you fuckwit and real science denialist, but only with reproducibility of the observations using the described, technically flawless, methodology.
You cannot be a scientist when you excrement such utter rubbish. Shame on you, :evil: :evil: :evil:
I repeat again, there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
I repeat again that I do not dispute this, and I haven't seen anyone else doing so either. Please feel free to not repeat the aspects that everyone here seems to agree upon!
They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.
Really? How do you know?
I am pointing out that one who isn't personally competent must often attempt to determine their competence - and far more importantly determine the robustness of their claims. If your comment is meant to apply to that situation (rather than claims made to other people whose competence in the field is adequately demonstrated) then you are asserting that which needs to be demonstrated which is a well known fallacy.
Furthermore, the assertion of a claimant's competence is insufficient to assess the robustness of their claims, as should be obvious to anyone after a moment's thought. It is far more important to have a robust process for assessing the claims themselves.
So if (say) you were a government minister untrained in science and there was an important question within your portfolio about a specific scientific discipline, how would you tell which claims to accept, given that you yourself are not competent to personally assess the scientific quality of any claimant's research output? What if you were a government minister with training in one scientific field, but the question was from a different scientific field? This dilemma extends to which scientific claims and also to which claims of scientific competence to believe, but by far the most important one is which scientific claims to accept.
Fortunately, the whole scientific process is set up to test claims regardless of who is making them and regardless of their competence or lack of it so it seems like a very good idea to use it, and one would have to have very good reasons to avoid using it. This is so widely agreed upon in science that it is considered fallacious to make scientific claims by appealing to one's own authority or assert that your non-published claims should be taken seriously. That means that perhaps the only good reason to not use the scientific process for questions that matter is when the scientific process hasn't addressed the question you have, and you need to make a decision anyway.
In that light, would it be responsible execution of your ministerial power to seriously consider scientific claims that had not survived peer review (both before and after publication) and so had not been tested in the way that the scientific process is set up to do? Under what circumstances would it be/not be responsible? Would you answer change if those claims also suggest that claims that had survived peer review were wrong? Would it change if most experts in the field found the claims implausible or unlikely?
Would your answer change if the answer appealed to the authority/capability of a single claimant? Would it change if the single claimant had no evident publication record in the scientific field, or had an extensive publication record? Why or why not? Would it change if the single claimant stood by the claim, but many experts in the field thought it unlikely? What if there were two apparently equally capable claimants making opposing non-peer reviewed claims - how would you decide which one to place the greater weight on?
...you unsuccessfully tried to escape my question...
No, I declined to answer because:
a) I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don't need to demonstrate it.
b) Just like Luke, you haven't made an argument showing what import this have. Have a go at it and see if you get a response. But bear in mind that BBD has already shown a lot of evidence pointing out that you can eliminate the results of the entire GHCN record and still have a very strong case for concern about AGW - and has asked you to make an argument, and your response was, well, I think you summed it up quite well:
Try an answer, coward
(It's always projection...)
BTW:
General acceptance of the results of an investigation has nothing to do with authority...
Thank you for making my argument for me, even as you pretended you were opposing what I said. Your clown-trolling is improving - have you been taking lessons from Karen/Mack/SunSpot?
Berendaneke, unfortunately your English comprehension isn't good enough for this discussion. I'm saying I'm NOT arguing from my own authority, which has nothing to do with your interpretation of what I said.
I'm certainly not advocating authoritarianism (which is an entirely different concept from arguing from authority in science).
Lotharsson, unfortunately your English comprehension isn’t good enough to understand the nuances I wanted to convey to you. That's unfortunately the general problem with you CAGW leper islanders: your level of intelligence is so disgustingly low :evil:
You behave as if you were a genious, but you are only stupid and far far away from science (peer-review in engineering as sole experience, what a joke)
No, Berendaneke, even though your English frequently degenerates, I'm pretty sure I understood what you were trying to convey, nuances and all.
You simply aren't stitching together any kind of coherent argument, and you are flat out refusing to address the points other people make about your assertions, including requests for substantiation of your positions.
In reply to my question (#13) on the number of stations in the GHCN database you replied (#18):
"I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it"
This is utter rubbish and an outrageous lie. If you were decent, honest and intelligent you MUST have phrased your sentence like:
"I am always arguing [regarding CAGW matters] not from my own authority, so I always need to demonstrate it"
Do you dispose of enough English language comprehension to understand what I tried to explain to you in easily understandable logic, clown :evil:?
You don't even detect how quickly and stubbornly you violate what you blether as some pseudo-impeccable logic. You are a true idiot :evil: and CAGW leper islander.
Here we see an opportunity to finally settle scores. Who knew that the CO2 impact on temperatures cut off at some point? Is this Gaia working in mysterious ways?
Very sneaky graph,Gordy! 'Interesting' scaling choices,and and 'interesting' time period /ratio CO2 temp....you wouldn't think they were trying for a visual effect would you? And they obviously think that CO2 is the only climate forcing in operation...why would they think that,eh? ;)
Bernard J @#12
I usually don't bother with this site in the evenings but hey! it's a stormy cold Friday night in my part of NSW and all my family are busy.
That was a fair question of yours.
My answer is very simply that I wasn't defending Bob Carter in particular I was questioning the way Lotharsson summarily dismissed him and did not even attempt to engage in what Bob Carter may or may not have said. To dismiss people simply on the grounds of their publications or even their perceived political affiliations is rather poor form IMHO.
But anyway, I did a little bit of researching and this is what I have discovered:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Carter is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers in professional scientific journals. The great majority of these concern interpretations of ancient environments, including paleo-climatic studies. Link to full of list of publications here… http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?
#41 one deliberately flawed co-authored paper on an aspect of climate dynamics,on the back of which he made untenable claims...the rest is stratigraphy. Bob is a shill as a matter of job description. However,I don't think you're disposed towards skepticism of Bob and his actions, so carry on...
Lionel from leper island: how embarrassing for you that you :evil: don’t even know how to spell Rajendra’s name.
Dolt! Rajendra is only one name which could apply to many persons, many of same being involved with railways.
On its own it is meaningless. For example, Rajendra Prasad applies to more than one person. Now if you were to shout 'Rajendra' in a crowded room in India you are likely to be killed in the rush.
But then exactitude and precision is never a strong suit with such as you.
I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?
Nope. Once again you misinterpret me by leaving out key parts of what I said. It's becoming quite a pattern, and the bits you leave out generally seem to be (coincidentally I'm sure) the ones that are key to pointing out where your position is deficient.
Please go back and read what I said about his publication record, and report on the difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said. When you do that you'll see why the difference matters, and why citing Bob Carter's full publication record could only be relevant if one accepted your lengthy and flawed attempt to (apparently) argue from demonstrated expertise in one branch of science to some kind of authority or at least plausibility in another.
I was questioning the way Lotharsson summarily dismissed him and did not even attempt to engage in what Bob Carter may or may not have said.
(As an aside, you may not be aware that I and many others have "engaged with what Bob Carter has said" several times in the past. He has repeatedly been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong - and despite that fact he continues to make the same wrong claims. That fact is well known to anyone who's been paying attention to his activities. But that isn't strictly relevant, because...)
...it is instructive that you base your position around the example of Bob Carter. Disregarding previous evidence of his deep wrongness, my dismissal of Bob Carter on the grounds that he hasn't demonstrated any expertise in climate science - in fact, he has arguably demonstrated negative expertise based on his almost uniquely bad climate science publication record - is ALSO valid.
Since you continue to assert that it is not but can't seem to explain why you disagree with my position, how about trying to answer my questions at #17 in such a way as to demonstrate how Bob Carter's non climate science publication helps a non-scientist figure out whether Bob Carter's climate science claims have merit or not. Or failing that concede that his non-climate science publication record is not relevant to that question, and move on to trying to specify the appropriate inference for a non scientist to draw about Bob Carter's climate science claims given his appallingly deficient climate science publication record.
You've been ducking and weaving for days now and claiming (to paraphrase) that you aren't engaging in special pleading for people who don't have any demonstrated expertise in a particular field, but this example yet again shows that you are.
That would be "the paper" that did not pass peer review and was rejected?
That paper?
There seems to have been a slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake post-2000, apparently driven by a strengthening of atmospheric circulation and consequent spin-up of the subtropical gyres. The effect peaked mid-decade and has been winding down slowly. Rapid surface warming will resume in due course, as it must, in accordance with the laws of physics. S is at least 2C and most likely ~3C for 2xCO2, so absolutely nothing has changed. HvS is a contrarian, and that is valuable and necessary. You are simply a polemicist and a denier, which is neither.
Of course that is why he is involved with the GWPF for Plimer preaches the message they want to hear and care nothing for facts. That tells us much about the GWPF and their clique too.
And you can cast the net wider on Plimer too but simply by entering Plimer into this blog's search field you will come up with much more, oh so much more.
el goldilocks, you are like an Aunt Sally, a sitting duck because of your ignorance about science and also about the denial machine and its history.
Of course the issue are complex, so maybe we should not entirely blame you if your brain is not equipped to handle complex information, this was an aspect raised on the August thread.
To understand the present mismatch, we suggest four different explanations; none is pointing to a falsification of the concept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases exert a strong and likely dominant influence on the climate (statistics of weather). None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools - which are scenario simulations with climate models û for describing possible future developments.
Poor luke thinks that there has been a crisis meeting amongst the ranks of the IPCC.
Well he would wouldn't he by believing the blether from the likes of David Rose and Hayley Dixon in the UK Mail and Telegraph respectively.
Sou, at HotWhopper, has done an excellent disembowelling of the Rose-Dixon line (Ha! Cue Johnny Cash) and now SkS has provided more context for countering this silly, and mendacious given how many times Rose has been corrected, line.
bbd has gone to ask his 6 yr old how climate models work,……. lol
And he will get a more satisfactory answer from thence than if he asked you.
Now, if you stopped lolling around and started studying some science then you would become embarrassed about how pathetically ignorant you are. Maybe its the fear of self exposure that is preventing you.
Why do you think they've constrained the comparison to 20 degs either side of the equator,Kaz? And where do understand Tropical mid troposphere to be in relation to the surface layer? And please tell me the mass balance trends of the tropical icefields of Africa, irian Jaya and S. America....
None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools...
And if Luke had started out here by suggesting what he thought the import of his "issues list" was for climate science overall, or for models in particular instead of dogwhistling like mad and refusing to clarify what he thought the impact of his issues were, I would have said pretty much the same thing. And I doubt I would have been the only one.
"And in 1972, the Christian Science Monitor reported: "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." That also proved wrong."
"Why were the predictions off? The study authors list many possible reasons, from solar irradiation and incorrect assumptions about the number of volcanic eruptions to bad estimates about how CO2 effects cloud patterns."
They to restore their credibility, all they have to do is to tell the truth.
#71. You claimed the 'planet is cooling'. Show your proof. Convert your assertion into something plausible by citing real world observations,eh? Should be easy...
What are observations of tropical glaciers [which of course fits entirely into 'your' graph's 20S-20N TMT zone] showing us? They're shrinking, Quelccaya has not been this small for over six thousand years, Irian Jayas glaciers will be gone by 2030,having been seen to retreat since the early 20thC, ditto Ruwenzori and Kilamanjaro. Why do you think those widespread icefields at 4500-7000m are all dwindling? Because the planet is 'cooling'? Why is sea level rising if the ocean/atmosphere is net cooling over the last cherry-pick of your choice?
Your graph shows a discrepancy between projections and a set of TMT obs. TMT is warming but not as fast as that suite of models projects. Is the 'physics' of the models 'wrong'...or incomplete? Are the models shown TMT 20S-20N constrained,or only the obs?
As I said,you cannot explain anything at all,can you?
No Lotharsson,
I was answering Bernard's question.
It was a fair question and I answered it.
I am not interested in defending Bob Carter in particular, in fact, until I looked him up early this evening I didn't know much about Bob Carter at all.
Ironically, I uncovered that he has authored or co authored over 100 hundred peer reviewed articles in scientific publications from 1967 to the present day. Which didn't really do much to bolster the point I was making but did make your original comment look a bit odd.
My objection to your summation of your opinion of who is and who isn't qualified to comment on scientific issues whether they are specifically related to climate or not remains the same objection.
And Lotharsson. What is it that you claim I misinterpreted?
This is what you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
Carter is a scientist
He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are really becoming entirely tedious Lotharsson. I was mostly interested in asking what had happened to this once interesting blog.
At least Nick and Jeff Harvey have offered what is probably the most likely answer to that question.
Endless open threads with no input from the blog owner.
I am now partly intrigued by Luke's question to you @#45.
The model physics does work. The real problem here is the graph that you presented. We can only deal with your misconceptions by addressing the very serious issues with the graph. Please answer the question. What did Christy do to the "observational" data?
That yawn says "genuinely ignorant"... Kaz, Christy has played you by selecting a baseline period that artificially lowers the obs relative to the models...it's called dishonesty, Kaz. I believe you are an innocent dupe, given you could volunteer the claim that the planet is cooling....what do you say?
Come on, it's easy to see. You've already provided the quote from me that demonstrates it. You said "I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?"
In contrast, I pointed out that Carter has a grand total of one paper in climate science (and it fared extremely badly after publication). See the bit in bold font? That's the key bit you left out that creates a significant misinterpretation. What a difference it makes!
Which didn’t really do much to bolster the point I was making but did make your original comment look a bit odd.
Yes, it would look a bit odd if you omitted the bold text from my comment and argument, but entirely relevant if you added the bold text back in.
I'm guessing you won't answer my questions about how a scientifically non-capable person tests scientific claims, or even who one should or should not listen to, when that non-capable person wants to have a very good chance of backing the strongest scientific claims. I'm guessing all of the discussion of how competence is and is not demonstrated to someone outside the field - and even the beautiful example of Bob Carter's deep climate science incompetence despite his scientific publication record - hasn't changed your mind one little bit.
'We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.'
Can somebody help the pathetic fuckwit “Karen” out here please?
Nobody expects the Span... ... er, nobody can help Karen out on anything, BBD. You should know that by now. She doesn't even understand the concept that 2016 +/- 3 ends in 2019, and I seem to recall an even more basic arithmetic error some time ago.
BBD - of course THAT paper wouldn't make in Nature. HvS declared so himself. It's an affront. But is it wrong? And why was Trenberth surprised and why was there a travesty. Why is it being discussed.
As usual you are fucking idiot. And like your mates UNFUCKING able to give a serious answer except to divert. So for that get straight fucked.
According to the modelled laws of previous physics it shouldn't have happened. But it did like a whole bunch of other very average crap that gets through peer review.
Lotharsson,
May I suggest you read the list of publications I linked earlier?
Many of Bob Carter's peer reviewed articles are paleo-CLIMATIC studies.
Apparently, according to that list, he has over 40 years experience in paleo- CLIMATE research.
According to the modelled laws of previous physics it shouldn’t have happened.
Rubbish. As usual, you go grossly overstate. Go back and read what HvS actually said. This is why you are treated as a joke here, Luke.
To understand the present mismatch, we suggest four different explanations; none is pointing to a falsification of the concept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases exert a strong and likely dominant influence on the climate (statistics of weather). None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools - which are scenario simulations with climate models û for describing possible future developments.
One is an underestimation of the natural climate variability, which could be related to variations in the heat-uptake by the ocean and/or in internal variations of the energy balance itself (such as cloud cover). Another possibility is that the climate sensitivity of models may be too large, but a longer period of mismatch would be required to ascertain this possibility, as 15-years trends are still strongly influenced by internal climate variations. A third possibility is that the set of external forcings prescribed in the CMIP5 simulations lack a component of relevance. In particular, the CMIP ensembles assume a constant solar irradiance, due to the difficulties in predicting solar activity. However, solar irradiance displays a negative trend in the last 15 years, which could be part of the explanation of this mismatch. Finally, although the number of simulations that produce a trend as subdued as observed is small, it is still not zero. The last 15 years may have been an outlier, especially considering that the starting years - 1998 - experienced a strong ENSO event, and therefore was anomalously warm. Thus, further analyses are necessary and we intend to carry them forward.
Having once again been shown to be a polemicist, Luke will become abusive, then return later and continue to shout misrepresentations while demanding that his shite be taken seriously and whining that it is not, even though he is answered every time and always shown to be a polemicist and misrepresenter.
#100 That's a sweeping claim which can easily be refined. Carter has not been involved in global or hemispheric scale climate reconstruction work for the Holocene. He has co-authored one paper involving ENSO and GT, a paper which has been observed before as deeply flawed,and deliberately so. It was rebutted comprehensively by a number of expert authors.
All his current work directly discussing climate is non-peer previewed, facetious and polemical in nature.
He has looked at facets of sea-level, depositional and tectonic evolutions of various shelves, sediments and sea floors mainly around New Zealand and E Coast Australia, all a bit tangential to modern climate. He has no work in meteorology,atmospheric chemistry or physics,no experience of climate modelling and monitoring.
It's time the denialati recognised that they are outside the scientific pale. Once you pass through the gates of reason into the wilds, there's no coming back in again. Credibility is destroyed. Career may well suffer, and rightly so.
Carter is simply another old man who has walked out through the gates into the dark. Bye Bob!
If you had bothered to run a critical eye over that list of publications you linked to, you'd find that:
- Some of them are conference proceedings, which aren't "papers"
- I suspect you'd find a bunch more that aren't in peer reviewed journals
- Most of the ones that address modern climate science are in journals other than science (e.g. economics journals) which strongly suggests that they don't have defensible scientific content
- The vast majority of his publication list isn't relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.
So simply citing his "more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers" when almost the entire body of work doesn't relate to the area of science his claims are in is another lovely example of the perils of appeal by non-specialists to alleged evidence of specialist competence: the non-specialists are highly prone to making erroneous assessments of competence.
This is why scientists heavily emphasise claims that have been tested via peer review rather than trying to use "competence" or "ability" or "intelligence" or any other attribute of the claimant as a proxy to infer the validity of the claims. And this is why non-scientists should even more heavily emphasise the same.
And this is why almost all of Bob's claims about climate science can be immediately rejected, even by non-specialists. He could submit them to peer review - as he has done in his area of speciality over decades, so he clearly knows how to get published and can do sufficient quality work in at least one area of science - but he does not.
It's the dog that didn't bark, and you don't have to be a specialist to notice the lack of yapping...
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly in the area of stratigraphy, the study of rock layers and layering. Carter's articles on global warming have largely appeared in economics journals, rather than mainstream science journals.
How to cook a graph in three easy lessons by the author of the thorough 'Principles of Planetary Climate', now here is a quote WRT the result of one of Roy's inputs to the WST, from the above link (go look it up) that gives another big clue:
That’s not Roy’s prose, but it is Roy’s data over there in the graph on the right, which purports to show that the climate has been cooling, not warming. We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?
And by happy coincidence, hot off the press comes more about warm ocean water causing basal melt and destabilisation of West Antarctic ice shelves:
The [Pine Island Glacier] ice shelf is melting more rapidly from below for a number of reasons. The oceans are warmer than they have been in the past and water can transfer more heat than air. More importantly, the terrain beneath the ice shelf is a series of channels. The floating ice in the channel has ample room beneath it for ocean water to flow in. The water melts some of the ice beneath and cools. If the water remained in the channel, the water would eventually cool to a point where it was not melting much ice, but the channels allow the water to flow out to the open ocean and warmer water to flow in, again melting the ice shelf from beneath.
"The way the ocean water is melting the ice shelf is a deeply non-uniform way," said Anandakrishnan. "That's going to be more effective in breaking these ice shelves apart."
The breaking apart of the ice shelf in the channels is similar to removing an ice jam from a river. The shelf was plugging the channel, but once it is gone, the glacier moves more rapidly toward the sea, forming more ice shelf, but removing large amounts of ice from the glacier.
The melting of floating ice shelves does not contribute to sea level rise because once they are in the water, the ice shelves have already contributed to sea level rise. However, most of the Antarctic glaciers are on land, and rapidly adding new ice shelf material to the floating mass will increase sea level rise.
"Antarctica is relatively stable, but that won't last forever, said Anandakrishnan. "This is a harbinger of what will happen."
And the Pine Island Glacier isn't just any old glacier. Readers here to *learn* should investigate why the PIG is a focus for research!
And let's not forget the other big naughty - comparing a specific atmospheric height in the models with TMT observations which are crap.
The radiosondes were never meant for climatological monitoring of this type and the data are universally acknowledged to be unreliable.
The satellite *TMT* data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and thus biased cool. Why didn't Christy use the weighted *TLT* data that he and Spencer developed specifically to get around this problem?
Karen, with another pointer to 'howlers' this time one from Watts at his blog, in this post where after inflating his writing style Anthony goes onto describe most of the commenters, and the posters on his blog:
My writing style definitely leans to the technical side, as visitors here well know. To make it easier to read, Climate Models Fail is being proofread by someone without a technical background. Her suggestions have been great.
.
Not much self awareness over at WUWT is there.
Now I wonder who that 'she' is?
Oh! And BTW Karen
Lionel couldn’t slain why the fizziks don’t
work in models either
No the physics come first, used in creating models, and to constrain the models, along with other stuff - know about boundary conditions then? If so describe same.
The satellite *TMT* data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and thus biased cool. Why didn’t Christy use the weighted *TLT* data that he and Spencer developed specifically to get around this problem?
Indeed, that is one of the things I was trying to help her towards without giving too much away. After all the issues with satellite data biased cool by stratospheric contamination have been know about and papered on for years now. Christy and Spencer have to be, at the very least, suffering from cognitive dissonance to not acknowledge this now, others would put money on dishonesty.
Amongst others, Ruddiman explains the problems of UAH satellite data and radiosondes in his 'Earth's Climate: Past and Future (a new edition in Oct 2013 by the look of things).
Karen - answer these;
In what way was radiosonde data biased?
and
How is atmospheric temperature data obtained by satellites?
And of course we should not forget the increasing frequency and strength of extreme weather events as with the latest example in Colorado. Ironic considering where one climate change centre is located.
Yeah, yeah, yeah we all know about one weather event not being caused by a warming planet but do read my open words again any tossers who wish to make a thing out of that argument.
Bibles are for believers, for us then knowledge and wisdom is the key. Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom. What stage are you at? Oh! I see. You have not even got started at the ground floor yet.
So the models are fucked. Don't represent GAT. As bad as it gets.
Trop hotspot stolen by Santa Claus (it's there Jim - but you just can see it or measure it - just like Santa Claus)
Palaeo is full of crooks - e.g. Hockeystick dogshit - what a dreadful indictment
What a bunch of lying cunts you are sitting there on your public parasite ivory tower positions. None of you cunts have even done a decent day's work. Bludgers.
AND most importantly NOBODY can advance a value proposition for this blog's continuation.
And BBD - list your 10 ten climate text books - they'd better be here in the next 10 minutes or we'll know you don't have any. And what's the first 3 words on page 23 of each. BTW palaeo doesn't count.
Yes of course, that must be right Gordon, whereas you're a fine upstanding crank fantasist cancer on society.
I still can't get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I'd love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I'm visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I'm more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier.
Working in an educational establishment and being very aware of the general cultural esteem paedophiles are held in, I find that thought very uplifting.
BBD, I suspect The Lukes are bi-polar crank morons.
Any comment now they'll become Luke 3 and declare they're only fucking with us.
Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. Et pathetic cetera.
So at this point you're a fucking idiot BBD. Which explains why you can't answer any of my questions. A little palaeo turd parasiting his life away at some fetid university.
In the bathroom with his arm round Freddtyfrot necking all the Thioridazine they've got is my guess. The insane, Gordon twat-standard "expert" that he is.
"I still can’t get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I’d love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I’m visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I’m more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier."
How about you don't come ! We now have a new govt that doesn't want illegal aliens or fuckheads.
Lotharsson,
Until yesterday I knew very little about Carter.
I was not interested in arguing about Carter.
In an attempt to answer Bernard's question I discovered that Carter has indeed authored and co authored many peer reviewed papers and whether you like it or not, you were wrong when you claimed that Bob Carter only has ONE peer reviewed paper on (climate) science.
BBD has pointed out to Luke above @#34 that to discount paleo would be denying the science.
I would agree with BBD. Of course it is relevant to climate science.
I will further point out to you that at no stage was I dismissing peer review or academia. That is your claim about me.
My objection remains that you were dismissive of people based on your opinion of their publishing record and/or their political affiliations.
And Lotharsson. While what you say here may or may not have merit :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
– The vast majority of his publication list isn’t relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was NOT what you said originally NOR what I objected to.
I have grown tired of your incessant lecturing about this.
It would be much easier to admit that perhaps you were misinformed on this particular occasion.
Stu 2 - Carter is a player and I've seen him up close in action a number of times. Not to be recommended unless you like you bullshit fresh and steaming.
So chek-mate - what is the value proposition for the continuation of the blog. Or are you just here as there are no women, men or farm animals that enjoy your company.
So by now we have nobody who is prepared to defend the blog and answer what is the value proposition for the blog continuing.
As long as it provides a platform for highlighting the anti-intellectual bankruptcy of little would-be brownshirts like The Luke Collective and crank fantasists like Gordon and Cox, it earns it's place
So Gordy, you're keen to converse on Readfearn's questions : did you follow link one to read the two paragraphs from Monckton via SPPI pamphlet?
Monckton makes this claim: "...many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all."
How do think Monckton 'knows' this? Do you think he has run a few surveys? Do you think Jensen is aware of this Monckton view? I'd say he might be now that he's read Readfearn's article!
Luke@#47. Jeff Harvey and Nick did say that this blog has suffered from the lack of attention by the blog owner. So I don't think your assertion about no one is entirely fair.
However, I have to agree with you that it is offering very little value in its present state.
How about you don’t come ! We now have a new govt that doesn’t want illegal aliens or fuckheads
As the subtext of my recent comments have pointed out all too plainly, you deniers are a minority ranking below paedophiles in the national scheme of things. You speak for nobody except your deluded micro-minority sect.
..enough to attract Nova shills and concern trolls and a regular parade of cranks attempting to do whatever it is they think they're doing, but failing. Badly.
#58 ...lock up climate scientists for their own protection of course,very considerate of you....back to link one, is that Monckton being 'plausible'? Having the appearance of truth? 'Many scientists' are amoral according to Monckton's diligent research. Only 'the great religions,chiefly Christianity',can provide the moral framework through which a scientist can work ethically, according to the deeply Christian viscount who lied publicly about being a scientist [in transcript of Wendy Carlisle's piece] and claimed to have published peer-reviewed work. Jensen's judgement...is it ministerial material?
#63,that's state-of-the-art denialism on demand! There is now no gap detectable between the provision of demanded evidence and the shunning of it with the latest denialbot model...
Jensen is the most qualified scientist in the government, so I would be very surprised if Abbott picked anyone else. Greg Hunt should be sacked from his portfolio, he's an ijit.
Not sure about Monckton's thinking on amorality, assuming he said it. So damn hard to get real quotes, always someone's interpretation of what he said.
In the near future, as temperatures continue to slide, the Klimatariat will come under great pressure to admit their folly.
They may be publicly humiliated and severely chastised, but as its a collective its unlikely any one individual will be imprisoned.
Those wind farms are a total waste, yet no politician will be held responsible because they were all brainwashed.
#67...."assuming he said it"...why assume when you can read the poor man's every deranged musing in the 'Monckton Collection' at the SPPI blog!! Monckton wants you to know how batty he is,mate...he's fucking crazy about himself! One of the great public romances.
If you follow Readfearn's link, you go to the 'Open Parachute' blog, read the short article in which there is a direct link to the legthy turgid absurdity "What is Science Without Religion?" at the SPPI's site. Verbatim.
#69...'as temperatures continue to slide'... all windfarms are a 'total waste' ,all politicians are 'brainwashed'.... this sort of rejection of reality shows why you are easy meat for Monckton.
The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking, so its only a matter of time before the leaders lose their political will.
The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking</blockquote?
The bigger picture Fatso is that all fossil fuels are finite, and irrespective of the damage caused to the biosphere by heating the planet, any global economy that is expanded on the basis of the proportionately high use of them will eventually crash all the harder when they run out.
The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking
The bigger picture Fatso is that all fossil fuels are finite, and irrespective of the damage caused to the biosphere by heating the planet, any global economy that is expanded on the basis of the proportionately high use of them will eventually crash all the harder when they run out.
‘Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”
‘Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.
‘They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed.’
I will further point out to you that at no stage was I dismissing peer review or academia. That is your claim about me.
Sigh. No, I'm pretty sure that's not my claim about you. (Is "tedious" the appropriate term from your idiom?)
I pointed out that you gave a very strong impression of trying to elevate non-peer reviewed claims to the same status as peer-reviewed claims. That is NOT the same as "dismissing" peer review. That is refusing to dismiss non-peer reviewed claims. The two are NOT equivalent, nor are they even "two sides of the same coin".
That was NOT what you said originally NOR what I objected to.
And that is a complete red herring with regard to the validity (or otherwise) of your objection. Your objection wasn't predicated on claiming that I had the facts wrong". Your objection was to the validity of the reasons for my rejection, not the evidence to which those reasons applied. And you have completely failed to demonstrate WHY anyone should take your objection to the reasoning seriously.
My objection remains that you were dismissive of people based on your opinion of their publishing record and/or their political affiliations.
Sigh. I haven't rejected people based purely on their political affiliations. No, really. Go find a quote. And I do mean an actual quote in context, since you keep (as Luke puts it) "verballing" me when you paraphrase me. And I do mean "purely", because that's your claim here. Find a quote where I reject someone with demonstrated competence based solely on their political affiliations. I'll wait.
Apart from that, I object to your objection of dismissal based on lack of publication records. Now, since you appear to think your objections without justification should be accepted, why are you arguing with my objection, especially since mine has ample justification?!
You STILL haven't demonstrated why someone with no climate science publication record should not be dismissed out of hand (even by unskilled people) when making contrarian claims about climate science. (And note how you once more "tediously" eliminated the critical distinction - "contrarian" - from my position in the quote above!)
You haven't shown why such a dismissal is a bad strategy for unskilled people seeking to find the most robust scientific claims. You simply assert that people shouldn't do that. Saying it doesn't make it so, and objecting doesn't make the objection valid.
Tellingly, you haven't answered my questions about how the hypothetical non-skilled government minister should evaluate competing claims, nor have you answered Bernard's questions about how one should treat Bob Carter's claims. I'm betting you won't.
It has become obvious to nearly everyone here that you're simply ducking and weaving, trying to have your objection without justifying it - and trying to focus discussion away from this key point which you haven't even attempted to rebut:
This is why scientists heavily emphasise claims that have been tested via peer review rather than trying to use “competence” or “ability” or “intelligence” or any other attribute of the claimant as a proxy to infer the validity of the claims. And this is why non-scientists should even more heavily emphasise the same.
And this is why almost all of Bob’s claims about climate science can be immediately rejected, even by non-specialists. He could submit them to peer review – as he has done in his area of speciality over decades, so he clearly knows how to get published and can do sufficient quality work in at least one area of science – but he does not.
#91, did you read back and get your ej-um-ication, Kaz? Doesn't look like it. How did Christy cook those graphs you posted? Will you ever know? Can you ever know?
I'm sure they are quite prepared to take the heat and humiliation if temperatures pick up sharply, but expressing an opinion is not an indictable offence.
#83, Watts headline: "National Academy of Sciences: models still 'decades away' from being useful"
Thanks,Kaz. Then Watts, fully aware of the dependable stupidity of his gang, is confident enough to reproduce what the NAS actually said. Nowhere in the report is it stated that models are not currently useful That's not what they said. That's what failed weather guy allowed as his own sub-editor .
And you are involved in school committees, Kaz? Excuse yourself, now...
#95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:
It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.
What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.
Their list of four main recommendations is:
“1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”
It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.
Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
“Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”
Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.
#95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:
It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.
What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.
Their list of four main recommendations is:
“1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”
It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.
Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
“Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”
Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.
Why do you think a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist would be called to give testimony on recent variability? 'Falling on their swords'? More like you stepping on a rake.
"A parliamentary inquiry into the hiatus would be fun"
perhaps but that simply assumes it goes all your way - if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics. CSIRO and BoM's best are never let off the leash. Time for management to back off, stop being polite and let them rip. (as well as saying fuck and cunt a lot)
Hey, look, an short article for Luke. Section 1 reiterates something we said to Luke that he pooh-poohed, IIRC, Section 3 reiterates a point that just flew over Karen's head, and there's even a point about the frequently cited pure Popperian view being inapplicable to most real world science.
So will Luke take his "issues" list to that thread? Inquiring minds want to know.
(And the response to the first comment points back to paleo that Luke desperately wants to dismiss...)
...if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics.
Seems entirely plausible. There was that reference to Hansard testimony a couple of pages back, and that went badly for the skeptic even without cross-examination.
"In addition, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling explains that U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate. Progress toward this goal can be made through a combination of increasing model resolution, advances in observations, improved model physics, and more complete representations of the Earth system."
Maybe climate modeling should be lumped in with the Arts.
#4 'maybe climate modelling should be lumped in with the Arts'....you're distracting yourself, just concentrate on your remedial reading course for the time being.
Yes Luke.
Although I am definitely not a fan of your style of commenting I do agree that Lotharsson et al could consider answering your value proposition. Jeff Harvey and Nick did offer what I consider is the most likely explanation.
Browbeating is certainly not providing much value and the cheap shots and abuse are only mildly entertaining.
I don't think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.
I would suggest an inquiry into the PR departments that have been responsible for some of the poor and overstated representation of climate science and for making celebrities out of unqualified people would possibly be more fruitful.
'I don’t think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.'
Its not to apportion blame to any individual, although lack of due diligence is of concern, the primary aim is to have an open conversation on climate change after AR5.
In local nooze...
'If Cathy McGowan wins the seat, it will be one of the major upsets of this federal election. Already the pundits are claiming that the reason for her success is captured in her campaign slogan of “Putting Indi first”.
'Most of the federal electorates within the Murray Darling are held by MPs from either the Liberal or National Parties. Over recent years, however, major water policies instigated by federal Coalition governments that directly impact these electorates have been to their long-term detriment. '
What is upsetting you in the PR department can actually be sheeted home to the media ,in particular News Ltd's very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work, push the voices of unqualified commentary from coal-industry-aided shills and dupes, and its malicious personal campaign against Tim Flannery executed by Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair. Make no mistake,News Ltd's mission is to wreck reasonable discourse.
So an inquiry would be best directed at analysing News Ltds behavior,and into legislating that the IPA reveal their funding.
"BJ we have enough fossil fuels to last us a century and by then we should be into more sophisticated forms of energy."
The comment of a moron. Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won't last that long. At least natural systems won't permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder.
Gordo, you really are a twit. I read some of your comments and can only shake my head at the level of simplistic drivel you constantly spew out. I've stayed away from here for a few days but read the shit you, Luke, and Karen promulgate from time to time. The three of you truly believe that the clots you cite and quote are skeptics rather than deniers and shills. Stu 2 has worn his colors on his sleeves too in this regard. But the statement I copy-pasted above from you is so utterly FATuous (pun intended) that I had to respond. You were once banned from deltoid for being an ignoramus and, thanks to the fact that Tim doesn't invest much time here anymore, you've found a way back through the filter.
Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene.
And I wan't banned from here, Tim built me a Dickensian prison because I was constantly off topic. He called it the El Gordo Thread, but naturally I absented myself before it fell into the archives.
#17,the next 'wonderful achievement' will be surviving the growth model as supercharged by the fossil-fuel bloc,and replacing it with something ecologically realistic.. The election of their puppet Abbott derails that for the moment.
'News Ltd’s very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work'
News and opinion are different things, Blair and Bolt offer opinion. Limited News has been fair and balanced on climate change, unlike Fairfax who have been a disgrace.
The Climate Commission in its present makeup should be mocked.
Fossil fuel bloc is in your head, there is no organised conspiracy and 'ecologically realistic' would be east coast black coal, CO2 is a good fertiliser.
I think it rather amusing that we are now frequently hearing statements such as this, "In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume."
The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth...... :)
#20,21 Hilarious that you should try that on at this blog: on your right is a bunch of categories that profoundly contradict your hand-waving. All referenced. Bolt and Blair do not offer opinion: they schedule weekly or bi-weekly attacks using the same dishonest techniques; it's effectively an automated dosing system. When you mock the CC,you're parrotting News' talking/stalking points...you cannot think for yourself,it is clear.
So there is no mining lobby,Gordy....? There are no lobbyists in Canberra and the world's seats of government that often exchange headquarters on changes of regime....'see you in three years or so'? These folks make no attempt to shape policy,steer outcomes,pressure governments? It's not a conspiracy,it's a system for the cashed-up to further their interests. You clearly think that your interests are faithfully considered in this best-of possible-worlds by this process? This is why science is unavoidably at war with government: it cannot guarantee the cosy outcomes that business seeks, and it reminds government of real costs all the time.
I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth...
Er, Karen, you may not realise this, having presumably never looked at one, but published scientific papers have publication dates, so anyone and everyone can go and see that you're spouting obvious bullshit.
But then you're really not here for the hunting, are you?
New paper finds glaciers may be advancing in size in Asia
"The area of the investigated glaciers, including the 18 surge-type glaciers identified, showed no significant changes during all studied periods. However, the analysis provides a hint that the overall glacier area slightly decreased until about 1989 (area 1973: 1613.6 ± 43.6 km2; area 1989: 1602.0 ± 33.6 km2) followed by an increase (area 2002: 1609.7 ± 51.5; area 2011: 1615.8 ± 35.5 km2). Although the overall change in area is insignificant, advances in glacier tongues since the end of the 1980s are clearly visible. Detailed estimations of length changes for individual glaciers since the 1970s and for Central Rimo Glacier since the 1930s confirm the irregular retreat and advance."
The world is watching and laughing at all the alarmist knobs scurrying around looking for more bullshit to shovel onto their burning prediction pyre ......... hehe
# 29, advances in part of the Karakoram are due to increased precipitation [due to CC]....in the rest of the glaciated world nearly all monitored glaciers are shrinking. Nearly all 'unmonitored' glaciers [those only monitored by remote sensing] are retreating. Sorry,Kaz.
Every study ever published about the solar cycle/sunspot activity that has been posted on this forum has been decried as deniar bullshit.
Yes. It's not hard for most of us to understand.
You said "climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth". No pretence is necessary. They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They've published many papers about it. With dates and all.
And what they did NOT find is evidence supporting the claim that the sun is responsible for any large part of the warming trend we've seen over the last few decades. The "studies" deniers post that claim that have so far have not stood up to scrutiny, or in colloquial terms have proven to be bullshit.
#32 the world is watching incredulously the profound attempts of the Karens to avoid informing themselves.
#31 such as David Archibald's divination and dowsing? Or Svensmarks personal issues? ...still laughing!
"They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They’ve published many papers about it. With dates and all."
Yes........they might even bring those guys in from the cold and give them some funding now.
I fact their papers are likely being meticulously perused now as we speak and who knows, the new papers might even get accepted into journals..........lol
#37 another example of the state of some branch of science being defined by Kaz's ignorance of it...Kaz,it's your brain is what's out in the cold,and despite lavish funding here,it keeps shrinking.
Yes……..they might even bring those guys in from the cold and give them some funding now.
You mean, unlike the funding for all the OTHER research into how the sun affects the climate? And unlike the existing funding that already supports "those guys"?
I fact their papers are likely being meticulously perused now as we speak ...
Er, no. The existing papers so favoured of denialists have been previously perused and dismissed because they are unpersuasive and inconsistent with the evidence. The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT imply that those kinds of denialist papers are correct. (If anything, it supports the mainstream position that rejects those papers.)
'The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.
'This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.'
"Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm."
"The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake."
"Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won’t last that long. At least natural systems won’t permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder."
Karen/Gordo, down to half a brain each, pool resources and find Matt Ridley, salting a few brazen guesses in amongst the factuals. Typical Ridley: get across the issues, insinuate some greater privileged insight, and spin...
"Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm."
First sentence is assertion,no evidence. Second is spin , choosing the emissions scenario that we are NOT following as yet, and inserting his distinctly unqualified opinion where it should not be..so she'll be right-maybe- until 2080s and who gives a fuck.This is the guy who crashed a bank because over over-optimism and lack of diligence: just the man to walk us through the future.
'BTW how’s Archibald’s forecasts going – aren’t we supposed to be under an ice sheet by now?'
-------------
'Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2°C colder over the coming decade than it was over the last decade.'
BBD and your page 8 #32, Gomitz is out of my price range but the Cronin may be worth a look. Is your Cronin the 2009 edition?
Whatever here is a list of books I have (luke PA) here, a few general reader books have been left off.
General Reader
Climate Change: Picturing the science – Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe
Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – Michael Mann and Lee Kump
Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert
The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson
Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach – William James Burroughs
Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Third Edition) – John Houghton
More technical
Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer
The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer
The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Richard Alley
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate – William F. Ruddiman
Earth's Climate: Past and Future – William F. Ruddiman
Quite technical
Atmosphere, Weather and Climate (1982 edition and much thumbed) – Roger G Barry and Richard J Chorley
Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert
The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (Eds.)
Policy/Politics
Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate – Stephen H. Schneider
Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future – Jeff Goodell
Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis – And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster – Ross Gelbspan
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth – Eric Pooley
The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription – Ross Gelbspan
Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do – Joseph Romm
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – James Hansen
Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions – Joe Romm
Cassell's Atlas of Evolution: The Earth, its Landscape, and Life Forms
and texts on geology and palaeontology, Physical, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Peter Atkins in particular on that latter. Also a good look at Richard Feynman in particular his three volume Lectures on Physics, recently republished as 'The New Millennium Edition' in a slip case.
The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change – Wally Broecker
which reminded me to mention books by Richard Corfield. I attended a talk given by him, based around his 'The Silent Landscape' in the dockyard a couple of years back, signed my copies.
The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…
Clang, clang, clang, wow-wow-wow-wow (the sound of alarms), strawman, strawman unless of course you can find a quote from currently respected scientists in the field (that rules out a few see below) who have actually said that or anything like it.
Now what about Christy's (and Spencer's) distortions over atmospheric temperatures? It seems that you have ducked that one, again!
Lionel, those books may keep you warm one winters day
Well here is one you should study:
The Warming Papers and from page 215 which will help you answer my questions WRT satellite and radiosonde temperature measurements put to you on the previous page.
Ruddiman 'Earth's Climate: Past & Future page 320 will also help as will Archer 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' page 132. You could do with studying this latter book in its entirety.
The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models...
Er, no. That doesn't explain "the pause". Think about it. "The pause" would still be "the pause" regardless of the sensitivity that is derived from the models. "The pause" is observations, not models. Matt Ridley is feeding his gullible readers another line of bullshit - his speciality.
#56 if we could just make those troubling books and ideas just disappear...sigh.
'The Long Thaw' is an excellent read, Archer's low key conversational style might even work for Kaz...she could suggest it at the committee as something for the school library....
Nope, evidence suggests that they're in the right ballpark. If they were significantly oversensitive a whole load of other comparisons would be a lot worse.
The most plausible explanation is that the models don't emulate some of what's currently going on in the climate system. We know they are way off on Arctic sea ice and aren't great on deep ocean heat either, and since the ocean gets the vast majority of the excess energy due to the radiation imbalance it only takes a small change in ocean absorption rates to have a fairly significant impact on atmospheric heat content.
So (roughly speaking) if we applied your simplistic logic to those data points they would suggest models have significantly underestimated climate sensitivity - and since far greater amounts of energy are involved in melting ice and deep ocean heat energy than are involved in "the pause", the "underestimated sensitivity" case would win out.
But of course you will avoid applying your logic to those data points because it reveals a Massive Fail, as you put it.
Ridley prefers his own view to that of Fyfe et al 2013, after going to the trouble of citing them...what would they know? I suppose Ridders is there to soothe the investers, they don't want any stranded assets.
Nick @#14.
I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don't believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
However, that was not what I meant @#11.
I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.
Physical, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Peter Atkins in particular on that latter.
Oops! I switched the order of the chemistry fields and missed the now incorrect reference of Atkins which should of course be to Physical Chemistry. The equilibrium diagram (phase) of water is a must study. Why would that be Karen and gordolocks?
Your comment is awaiting moderation. !!!
Sorry! I mistyped my email address again!
I apologise if appears twice.
Nick @#14.
I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don’t believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
However, that was not what I meant @#11.
I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.
So, Karen and gordolocks, Ridley (GWPF don't forget) has joined Watts in the new 'Olympic' sport of 'shark jumping'.
Now there is a surprise. Cue Morano, Milloy, Laframboius, Morohassel, Nova, Limbaugh, the Faux gang, the 'Interpreter of Interpretations' and Bolt, no not Usain Bolt.
#71 Flannery as Climate Commission chief spokesperson always made it clear that he was conveying expert advice,not originating it...and the other eminent members of the commission are quite ignored [because News Ltd bloggers had their target in Tim; didn't want to dilute the attack,and wanted to identify everything about the CC with Tim...classic framing tactics] As I told Gordy,at your right is the resource for a decade of News Ltds dirty tricks department]. Flannery had made statements in a different capacity [around the time of writing 'The Weathermakers'] and offered musings long BEFORE he was appointed to the Climate Commission,which News were happy put on high-rotation to create a false association with his new role.
Garnaut was the go-to on economic response,as an economist. He did a prodigious amount of work...er,not a 'celebrity expert'
Chubb,Chief Scientist, is not a celebrity CC expert,either....look up the CS's brief some day.
‘Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2°C colder over the coming decade than it was over the last decade.’
David Archibald 2007
And hows that forecast working out, Gordo?
No, let me save you the trouble, since it involved mathematical skills beyond those of our resident trolls, what with averages 'n' shit...
Over the 2/3rds of Archibalds coming decade we have had so far (2007 - Aug 2013) Hanover, New Hampshire has been 0.2 degrees warmer than the preceding decade. For Archibald's prediction to come in, it will need to average 6.2 degrees colder than average for the next 3.3 years.
"Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene"
Comment of a moron, Part 2. Fatso, you seem to think that the material economy is independent of the natural economy. Methinks you probably share a common philosophy with right wing economist Peter Huber, who once claimed that humans can survive and thrive in a "planet covering crypt of concrete and computers".
Your comment reflects your complete and utter ignorance of systems ecology and of the link between human welfare and ecosystem services. Point is fatso, your views would be better suited to a comic book. Luke's too, for that matter. He is similarly burdened with delusions of grandeur that camouflage profound ignorance.
Seriously, lummocks like you are clueless but do need to get a clue fast otherwise life on earth is going to see more drastic changes than in the last fifty years.
Willie Soon
Exxonsecrets
Dr. S. Fred Singer
ExxonMobil
sallie baliunas
Philip Cooney
pat michaels
global climate coalition
climate denial industry
david legates
james inhofe (R-OK)
API
Cindy Baxter
Information Council on the Environment (ICE)
and then their is ALEC
go look up at SourceWatch el goldilocks.
Wonderful fracking. This clutz is as clueless as our incumbent government over here in the UK who are trying to shut down opposition by a draconian gagging bill and targeting THE green politician. That episode was shameful, it was obvious she was targeted by the police.
I have served in the armed forces for this country but am now beginning to feel ashamed of that. It is rarely those at the sharp end who benefit from political chicanery.
I want to see the debate opened up over here and learn who benefits amongst the parliamentarians and lobbyists, I have a good idea of some of the former already but the others will stay in the shadow with this misnamed gagging bill 'The Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill'
Man, I hadn't been paying attention to Donors Trust for a while. Grown quite a bit, haven't they? God forbid the Koch brothers have to pay taxes on destroying public education, labor unions and the environment.
There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents deniers and shills from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from.
Everybody else can see it, but they seem almost selectively blind to it.
Karen – alas most of the sceptics are a lamentable bunch. Is true.
And yet by his second bottle of whisky of the night, ol' Gordon has his imaginary brownshirts out storming the 'Klimatariat' and enlightening 'the masses'.
Are you attempting to allude to some as yet unknown but different revolver-reaching culture of denialism that doesn't rely on political pointmen, disinformation and washed-up, deluded old drunks like Gordon?
There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from.
Everybody else can see it, but they seem almost selectively blind to it.
Noble cause corruption. Saving the world. Just fuck off and grow up.
Looking forward to your specious meme making it into a paper one day, some day, never The Lukes. Given your track record of wishful thinking supplanting real analysis, I'm betting on never
'Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB).
'The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune).
'This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).
The climate of a particular region depends on phenomena acting at scales ranging from global to local. Predicting future regional climates requires capturing the influence of processes across this full range of scales. While global climate models can robustly capture the large-scale effects, they are not able to resolve the regional- to local-scale effects that can significantly influence a location's climate. In order to account for these smaller-scale processes, future global climates are ‘downscaled’ using various techniques to produce more realistic regional climates. This chapter describes a number of techniques that have been used to downscale global climate simulations to the regional-scale. It explores the uncertainties in the future regional climate predictions associated with the various techniques, and examines ways to quantify the ‘most likely’ future regional climate and the related uncertainty, so that informed investigations can be made into the impact on natural and anthropogenic systems of future climate change.
Did you still think you can bluff me, Luke? You never learn!
It's always instructive to watch the deniers deny paleoclimate.
Paleoclimate behaviour sets a lower bound for fast-feedbacks sensitivity of about 2C (2xCO2 or equivalent forcing change). Even going with the lower bound S_ff / 2xCO2 = ~2C still leaves us with a serious problem requiring a globalised policy response. So no joy for deniers.
Paleoclimate behaviour is a better fit with a value for S_ff of at least ~2.5C and probably nearer ~3C.
Nick@#83 previous page.
That is a somewhat simplistic and naïve view of the way that PR works in government institutions and departments such as the Climate Commission
Tim Flannery as Climate Commissioner has, very unfortunately, often been guilty of dramatising and overstating his brief for the sake of PR along with other members of the Climate Commission.
This is but one example straight from the Climate Commission PR dept to the ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hamme…
In light of recent political events I think it is also rather interesting to note that much was done to focus this report on Western Sydney, where we know the ALP was rapidly losing support.
However I do agree with you that what many here would call 'the other side' is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd.
I'm tempted to just comment ' Oh fuck off you deluded old linkless cunt', but in the interests of fairness let's see the data not the latest oil company disinfo release via Williwatts (which let it be noted was not forthcoming in the case of similarly met requests for the alleged Minoan and Roman Hollywood-inspired 'warming periods').
"However I do agree with you that what many here would call ‘the other side’ is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd."
The other side, as Stu2 colloquially calls it, is made up primarily by a bunch of shills and liars who would never accept evidence for AGW if it stared them in the face. Many in this well-funded lobby still deny the realities of CFCs and their effects on ozone, acid rain, extinction rates the other environmental threats. Their job is simply to sow doubt on these problems in order to maintain the status quo.
Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn't appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.
"There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from"
Luke is such a gormless jerk. This statement alone is proof positive of his political affiliations. These clots cannot help but wear their agendas on their sleeves. The old watermelon canard dredged up endlessly when their scientific arguments are proven to be bankrupt.
BBD - bluff? Nope I just think you're a fuckwit. What else did you get down the uni library last night - let's see!! If you were any good you'd have coughed up yesterday - you're fooling nobody.
The Lukes and their like can turn observations around verbally as at #1, but of course that isn't the same thing by a long chalk of actually turning the meaning around.
But it serves the purposes of half-wit morons like The Lukes in fooling even more witless morons like SpamKan and Gordon as an approximation of cleverness.
While achieving nothing to anyone with more than 0.51 of a brain..
Jeff - well having denied my previous cites I'm not sure how to please
But Jeff's whiney bitch eco-end-of-the-fucking-world rantings are good entertainment value. They fulfill all the meme criteria to belong to the greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter class.
Fucking ecosystem services - the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging.
BTW don't verbal me about my political affiliations. You don't know.
#15 Chekky - you're improving old son - I've been abused by experts and you have potential. But honestly have ever thought that the lads do wank a bit? Surely you must think they are a bunch of fucktards, dour and humourless. You never get a funny joke here - it's always "saving the fucking world". Maybe they need to stop being virgins and get laid?
Lionel, I agree with you re the fracking, the unknown chemicals that are being pumped into the subsurface aquifers and water tables is disgusting!!!!
BUT, do you think that fracking would be an accepted practice now if it were not for all of the fuss the greenies and alarmists have made over a harmless trace gas (co2).
"Gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, is part of the answer to climate change, as a bridge in our transition to a green future, especially in our move away from coal," said Davey, at a speech at the Royal Society in London."
It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry, and now you all are sooking about it.
The next step, many more Fukushima scenarios on the horizon ?
Have you seen the mess that Fukushima is making?
The MSM is silent about this ongoing disaster and the greenies don't seem to give fuck either, your silence on this is telling.
So what do you think is the biggest threat to the future of Gaia and its inhabitants at this point in time, co2, fracking or Fukushima?
In the absence of all moderation this place has degenerated into an absolute zoo, plagued not only by the usual garrulous morons and sockpuppets, but utter yokel degenerates such as Luke.
Sane people, there is a considerable chance your level of happiness will increase if you avoid these eternal circular debates with those incapable of acting in good faith. While I appreciate that contending with the ceaseless disinformation spewing of online visigoths is frustrating, there's also very little chance that your not debating them will be any kind of loss to the world.
Anybody who's stupid enough to credit the likes of Luke with any sort of authority is lost to rationality anyway. Ignore him, it's what he fears the most...
Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.
Abso-fucking-lutely meaningless arse dribble posing as profundity. What can be termed 'a Gordonism'. in fact.
The incorrect application of 'organised' is potentially interesting, though obviously not in the case of Gordon, who's out of his depth even in his own specialist subject and can simply be put down to heroically sustained fuckwittedness in the face of adversity.
Does planetary gravity affect the Sun?
Yes, that's undisputed.
Does the sun warm the Earth?
Yes, that's undisputed.
Is Gordon a moron for helpfully pointing that out?
Yes, that's undisputed too.
watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters [...] whiney bitch [...] greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter [...] leftie eco-scoundrels.
Racism, misogyny, education envy, job envy, pathetic Red scare claptrap, and let's not forget about the quite Freudian bedwetting and "get laid" tripe.
Luke, I'm truly sorry you resent the world because you are single, on government assistance, uneducated, wearing Depends and living in your mother's basement. Do you have to be this boring and dense though?
do you think that fracking would be an accepted practice now if it were not for all of the fuss the greenies and alarmists have made over a harmless trace gas (co2).
Did you pat yourself on the back for slipping that in there, cupcake? The answer is no, because your question is loaded. If you take that pathetic and obvious red herring out, the answer is "of course". It has nothing to do with environmental activism, it has to do with money.
It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry, and now you all are sooking about it.
Obvious and stupid lie. Why do you think you can get away with this shit, moron? Do you really think people are as stupid as you are?
The next step, many more Fukushima scenarios on the horizon ?
Until we actually start properly regulating and maintaining aging reactors, quite likely.
Have you seen the mess that Fukushima is making?
Yes. The owning company influenced the government (well, is the government in Japan, depending on your definitions) to allow them to get away with absolutely disgusting practices, and the country is well and fucked because of it.
The MSM is silent about this ongoing disaster
Yes they are, sweetheart. Why do you think that is? Go on, guess.
and the greenies don’t seem to give fuck either, your silence on this is telling.
Our silence on the topic that YOU brought up? JUST NOW? Seriously? And you wonder why people don't like you?
So what do you think is the biggest threat to the future of Gaia and its inhabitants at this point in time, co2, fracking or Fukushima?
Knock the Gaia shit off, troll.
They both suck. They both kill people. They both destroy the environment. Plus for Fukushima: it's fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor. Plus for fracking: kills much slower and by the time people figure out how much damage is being done at any one site, it's dirt-cheap to just move on. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to live near the Keystone XL either.
So hey! We've established that non-renewable energy sources all suck! You're all for solar, wind and hydro then, KarenMackSunspot? Right? You're fighting for tougher fuel standards, carbon taxes and lowering electricity usage, right?
"organised by large gas giants"..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?...anythings possible
#20 "greenies and CO2 alarmists help establish the fracking industry"... except that its been around for sixty years at scale , developed in response to declining yields from oil fields. Fracking is the last option for defunct prospects like Karen.
Jeff Harvey @#11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn’t appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask how you have drawn that conclusion from my post @#8 ?
I was merely pointing out in a reply to Nick's earlier comment that the ALP and the PR departments in places such as the Climate Commission via our Climate Commissioners have not done themselves any favours by putting out media releases such as the one I posted above.
That was because Nick seemed unaware that Government and departmental PR and reporting is guilty of overstating and overdramatising too and that it appears our Government spokespersons have quite probably been ill advised by their PR people.
As far as I know, that has no bearing on the quota of intelligence re AGW. I don't think the PR effort I posted above demonstrates intelligence no matter which side it comes from.
Wait, you're equating overzealous press releases with the fossil fuel industry spending tens of millions of dollars every year spreading willful misinformation?
#38, found the piece,Stu2. Now, note the headline is the ABC's work. None of the interviewees use the phrase "will hammer NSW" or the word "hammer"....Flannery and Hughes just talk numbers: more days above 35C,etc. This is mundane stuff,it's what the projections indicate. Flannery states the obvious about prolonged heat affecting the young and elderly. Is that alarmist? Any heatwave prompts that warning from BOM and health departments.
I think you are making it up. There is no hyperbole,no loaded language from Profs Hughes and Flannery.
Some gratuitous 'false balance' padder is thrown in in the second half of the piece, with Stuart Franks saying we don't know how ENSO will roll over the coming decades, as if that affects the probabilities significantly.
At the end of the piece soon-to-be minister Greg Hunt repeats News Ltd's lie re: " the dams were predicted to be empty by now " You should know the background to that by now.
New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce warming during the Holocene Climate Optimum
"A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that climate models are unable to reproduce the warming in East Asia during the Holocene Climate Optimum. According to the authors, "Much effort has been devoted to reconstructing the mid-Holocene climate over East Asia using a variety of proxy data, suggesting that China experienced warmer and wetter than present climate conditions as a whole during that time," however climate model "results are contrary to the warming reconstructed from multiple proxy data for the mid-Holocene." The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that climate models are unable to reproduce the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods, all of which were warmer than the present. Climate models are unable to reproduce the known climate of the past, much less the future. " http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-climate-mo…
Gordon was never a journalist, which requires at the very least a basic proficiency in English, even for sports (especially so in sport, some might say).
That was just another lie.
Confusing a verb with a phonetically similar preposition demonstrates gross unfamiliarity with the written word.
demonstrating that climate models are unable to reproduce the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods, all of which were warmer than the present.
Marcott et al's observational research didn't find most of those fictional periods so why should the models?
Where's your data for them?
You greenies are negligent to let them get away with Fukushima
"You greenies"? You're a fucking child. I've already said that I have never been and am not a member of any environmental association. I don't necessarily agree with most of their proposed policies. I've already stated that I have never voted for any political party that identifies as "Green", nor do I plan on doing so. You know this. So again, not just a lie but a supremely stupid attempt at othering.
Anyway.
It might shock you to learn this, troll, but I am neither a member of the UN, the Japanese government or a major media outlet. If you have any thoughts on how I can stop TEPCO from "getting away with it", I'm all ears.
Of course, you're not even remotely interested in any of that. You really thought you had something there, didn't you? Well, you did cupcake -- it's right up there with "AL GORE LIVES IN A BIG HOUSE LOLOLOL".
You guys are only green when it suits you
...and that's enough of this red herring. Me and every contributor to the IPCC AR5 could get together in my back yard. We could club some baby seals. We could drop some plutonium down our well. We could burn a million car tires. We could do all of these things and climate change would still be real, you fucking idiot.
how many of you are financially leeching off the green revolution ?
Personally? Me? Not at all. I work on modelling software for the energy industry, and let me tell you first-hand: they're interested in smart meters, a better grid, more renewables (with batteries and/or pumped storage), and how to do less maintenance (in no particular order).
You know why? They know damned well what the energy industry will look like in 30 years. So fuck you and the uninformed horse you rode in on, clown.
Hmm. I guess I just outed my daytime job. Have at it, guys.
Stu - which is why you motor on over to Novas (ignore the sundry fuckers) and engage with TonyFromOz about some serious energy chat. Good call on a job unlike BBD festering in some uni dorm.
Loth I was too shy to go to RC and didn't want to contaminate a quality site.
“organised by large gas giants”..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?…anythings possible'
That's quite funny, certainly funnier than anything Stu attempts.
Acting in good faith …
‘Making explicit concessions also shows good faith. Often in the course of arguments we encounter valid counterarguments. Rather than be antagonistic or adversarial, concede what is valid to such counterarguments.
‘This shows not only good faith, and civility, but that you are oriented toward achieving consensus, and in fact it makes your argument stronger if you can respond effectively to every such counterargument. Naturally there will be cases in which you find a counterargument to be superior to your own, and such counterarguments may in fact change your own thinking.
‘Rather than simply walk away, give concession to your opponent(s) by stating clearly that they have won the argument through logic, reason, and clarity of concept.’
Wiki
#51. Actually, Kaz, your new paper does not support the ambitious claims [ paraphrasable as ' model/data disagreements means we knows nothin' '] of the eagerly ignorant Hockeyschtickers.
It's about a new suite of models being tested against paleo observations in China. There is a mismatch...wow. We can all go home now.
But, you know how it is with agnotologist chest-beaters, if there is no material support in the paper for claims like the MWP or RWP were warmer than present, it doesn't matter. Pride in ignorance and disinformation takes precedence.
Stu - I'm not envious - good on ya and kudos - I'm just fucking with you and becoming what BBD and Jeff want me to be. Helps their world view and confirmation bias.
' A third possibility is that the set of external forcings prescribed in the CMIP5 simulations lack a component of relevance. In particular, the CMIP ensembles assume a constant solar irradiance, due to the difficulties in predicting solar activity. However, solar irradiance displays a negative trend in the last 15 years, which could be part of the explanation of this mismatch.'
Well - yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova's. Lots of pause curiosity at RC - you may think he's winning and maybe he his (just) but lots of Gavin bites - he's annoyed (again). It's telling. And a sign of the times. The dreaded unwashed voters are NOT convinced. Your problem guys.
#65...so,did ya read Zorita's piece? The 'stagnation' is just a reference to a global-scale all-season temperature number. Z refers to the papers that BBD has often introduced here that note the recent inter-seasonal divergence hidden behind that bland metric. It's a 'pause' only in the sense that GAT is SEEN to be pretty static when it's graphed. Summers,autumns and springs keep getting hotter,offset by winter cooling [which is not enough to hinder glacier loss,which is ongoing and serious].
In the practical sense of experiencing [and adapting to] climate change, nastier winters and hotter summers in northern North America, Europe and parts of Asia are not helpful. Anyone who argues that the 'pause' buys time of some kind is not paying attention.
'It looks to us rather like the effect of the North Atlantic Oscillation on surface temperatures with some additional global contribution. The NAO has shown up in its negative phase in the recent Northern Hemisphere winters, favouring a more meridional circulation and causing polar air intrusions in Eurasia.'
El Gordo - my mate reckons it's the aerosols or OHC after rapping with Trenberth and Meehl at the August 2013 Clivar Extremes Workshop. If so you should be worried. If not you'll be laughing. We'll find out won't we.
Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s.
False Equivalence fallacy.
Been there, done that in the past.
But even more importantly, there's little evidence of expertise at Nova's so it doesn't meet my aims. Whereas there's clear evidence of expertise at RC which meets your self-proclaimed goals.
We can only conclude that your self-proclaimed goals were lies, but we all knew that, right?
...which doesn't make him "under siege" any more than Karen or el gordo's annoying bullshit makes science "under siege" here, and no more than a commenter or two over there equals the population of "dreaded unwashed voters".
You really ought to try and think some time. Preferably before you type.
In 40 comments, a couple of commenters at RC are determined to miss the point re models,usually because they ignore the caveats and are unaware of the many facets in inputs and outputs. No, handling their comments patiently does not scan as 'Gavin Schmidt under siege'...quite_the_opposite.
'If not you’ll be laughing. We’ll find out won’t we.'
Indeed, I just took a glimpse at the NAO Index and it appears normal for this time of year. At this stage the aerosol and OHC call is a little late, so I remain a sun worshipper until further evidence shows up.
'One intriguing aspect of the stagnation is that it has not been equally distribution across all 12 months of the annual cycle. It has mainly occurred during the months of December, January and February, with the trends in June, July and August over the last 15 years being more similar to the corresponding trends in the period 1980 to 1997.
'This means that temperature trends have decelerated much more during the boreal winter months. Actually the trend over the last 15 years in these months is remarkably negative ...'
Stu
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm · Reply
Sorry, I might be a little confused here — at what point did science become decided by popular vote?
Oh fuck off, Gordo. You lie. Over and over and over. You talking about good faith is like... I don't know. Like the Koch brothers talking about democracy.
@Luke:
Yes Loth – I’m just a scum bag.
Yes you are. Racist, misogynist, MRA. We've established all of that already. You are a scumfuck, Luke. That discussion is over. Was there a point you were trying to make here?
Luke. When are you going to castigate "Karen" for talking about paleoclimate?
Who wants to do the over-under on this making it out of moderation over at Nova's dungeon of idiocy?
Stu
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 15, 2013 at 2:32 pm · Reply It is not a matter of not believing we can use a tax to change the climate.
Nick @#43,
How does the fact that the ABC coined the headline make any difference to the point of my reply to your earlier comment?
Also, don't you think that the comments about cranky drivers in traffic jams is just a tad hyperbolic and certainly not based on any scientific evidence?
What do you think I made up? I was not the one who wrote that media release and staged the interview at Sydney Harbour. That was most definitely the PR people working for the Climate Commission.
And Stu @#39. I guess overzealous is sort of synonymous with overstate and overdramatise but it appears that both you and Nick are attempting to argue either only one side or only News Ltd is guilty of overzealous reporting or even more worrying that it's OK if the ABC and Tim Flannery do it because everyone else does it anyway?
#88 ,Well, you suggested that the CC was responsible for that sort of PR. They did not 'write that media release' . You described your link as a "PR piece". The link was to an ABC article about the release of the Climate Commissions 'Critical Decade' report. The CC are not responsible for the headline or content of the article, they were the subject of it; they had no control of the ABC's application of hyperbole in the headline which was the sole piece of hyperbole in the article...and,no, pointing out that drivers get cranky in heat does not need further peer-review,nor is it damaging hyperbole.
I ,and many others,do argue that News Ltd is responsible for a campaign of misinformation...again I direct you to the columns at right such as 'The Australian's War On Science'. These are rather thorough analyses. Fairfax are not particularly competent, but they have not produced the bullshit that News does.
Did you know that Australian scientists will not consent to interviews with News Ltd journalists now, because of serial misrepresentation,and failure to acknowledge complaints?
Nick @#88. I did not mean to suggest that the CC was responsible for the PR. I apologise if that looked to be the case. I do believe that he was ill advised by the PR people and I found the focus on Western Sydney odd. I was criticising the actual PR/media releases which you will find that all the MSM including the ABC use.
The video interview was most definitely staged. I don't think the CCs thought of doing that themselves do you?
#88...and because The Australian does not get to talk to local experts anymore, they continue to commission bullshit from agenda-driven non-scientist bloggers like Andrew Montford as a substitute for real content. Montford attacks Cook et al 2013 on climate publication consensus,by purporting to discredit the methodology...which is in fact explicit and unambiguous,and which produces a result entirely consistent with its details.
Montford writes,in the process of trying to discredit the Cook methodology: "...there is widespread agreement, including among sceptics, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that humankind is therefore capable of warming the planet, so the main focus of debate is over how much warming may take place."
Amazingly, Montford attacks Cook's methodology, by asserting without evidence what he 'believes' is a 'widespread agreement' amongst the far-flung and mottley collective called 'skeptics'...Montford has plucked his rough 'figure' from his arse.
Again Montford asserts without quantification or evidence that:
"That consensus is therefore virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the present state of scientific opinion, beyond the trivial observation that almost everybody in the climate debate agrees carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities have warmed the planet to some extent."
This 'almost everybody' is presented again without substantiation, while a paper which by design successfully avoids such hand-waving 'calculation' is trivialised and misrepresented..
Another of his WTFs: he suggests that Cook et al made its impact "only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used"... funny that, any fool even Montford can access all the methodology! That was part of the deal: transparency! The guy is a shameless liar.
It's difficult to believe News Ltd subs lack the will or ability to fact check this content, given Cook et al is free access ... it's only possible to conclude they set out to mislead.
"Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s"
There's a better reason. Its because she's a hack with gumbified kindergarten level views on science that are contaminated by her right wing political views. Being 'chicken' has got nix to do with it.
#98 Dumbfuck ,you are helpless against Montford's dishonesty because you don't know the Cook paper or its methodology...Montford relies on passive uninformed numpties like yourself who are motivated to reject stuff you don't want to know. You spend all your time inadvertently reminding us that you don't read the stuff you link to, so you make my case.
Stu2, Governments and their respective agencies get - or should get - their information on climate science from universities and research institutions, and most certainly NOT from blogs, corporate funded think tanks or astroturf lobbying groups. In the US, of course, the influence of private money on policy is immense, as illustrated by many examples.
If you truly believe the denial lobby has put up good scientific reasoning for questioning the validity of AGW, then you are dumber than I think. Moreover, if you think that scientists working in universities and research labs are involved in some big PR effort as well, then I double that sentiment. Sure, there is a massive amount of propaganda as it relates to a range of environmental issues that have policy and profit -linked implications. But 99.99999% of that is Corporate PR. As I've said a zillion times, a number of corporations have a vested interest in denial. They don't give a shit about the scientific truth, as elusive as that is anyway. Their simple, singular aim is to sow doubt. It always has been. That you don't apparently realize this or seem to think that both sides are acting in equally good (or bad) faith says a lot about you. As I said above, you are naive in the extreme.
#92 Nick
Sometimes I wish TL would! I'd waste less time with certifiable window-lickers like FreddyBerendanekeBorisKaiSockpuppetMaster...
Sausage, what you think of as a "helpless appeal to authority" is what non-loons classify as "referenced and supported argument".
What *you* do is generally regarded as "unhinged ravings", sometimes described in clinical terms as "symptoms".
@96, no you loonies appeal to authority because
- you are weak in character, intellect, argument etc.
- you are utterly impolite
- you have no knowledge in meteorology
Why do you think that Tim may give in your appeal to authority?
Because you idiot think
- you have more rights here?
- that this page is green leftie territory?
Take your meds and behave like a real man, not as a whining child
BBD clown :evil:
How many stations are covered by the GHCN database, your holy sanctuary of your CAGW church?
Answer this, clown :evil: !!!!!!!
Um, you still don't seem to have achieved self-awareness, Sausage!
And, Sausage, I've been accused of many things in my time, but weakness of character and intellect and poor argumentative skills - never!
:-)
No! Because it's irrelevant! How about you wake up to the fact that you can demonstrate this by a comparison of any gridded GAT reconstruction you like to TLT satellite data? But I think this is rather beyond your fabulously limited intellectual horizon.
Even with a simple graph to help your stunted little brain along!
@99 undescribable narcist, you stinking sausage :evil:
There are, of course, a few other indicators that the climate system is warming - OHC increase, glacial mass balance loss, Arctic sea ice volume loss, GIS and WAIS mass balance change etc.
The sure sign of a limited intellect engaging in a weak argument is hyper-focus on irrelevancies. It's where losers go when they have lost and they know it.
:-)
That's "narcissist", Sausage!
Mind you, at least you can spell "barbecue", which is more than many can claim. In fact your spelling is fascinating. You get many quite difficult words correct but sound like your English was learned in a Warsaw gutter. You are a puzzle, Sausage.
I agree, it's well past time Berendaneke was honoured with his own thread.
#97...Emoti-boy, you have demonstrated zip knowledge in this field, you are tediously abusive and have lost the right to respect,and your arguments are worse than weak, they are absolutely non-existent. NON_EXISTENT. You seem unaware of this. This is the basis for the reasonable conclusion that you are barking mad,and unable to change your behavior. So it's easy to see you should leave,and I doubt you'll volunteer to do so....
"Why do you think Tim will give in [to] your appeal to authority?" you ask... I don't 'think' Tim will 'give in', he may agree and ban you. I have no idea whether he will, and have no expectations. I have not made an 'appeal to authority', I have made a request to the blog-owner. This seems to be the right sort of person to make that sort of request to, you might agree...
Real men/women/animals/fixtures need relief from lunatics like yourself, no matter how unintentionally amusing you are. You are like a child up past bedtime,over-excited,repetitive and getting tearful.
Are you brave enough to leave?
@BBD clown, you can stop your nutter bollocks, as everybody can see your weak stance in the one and only relevant measure of your holy CAGW church:
The calculation of the mean global temperature. Everything else is irrelevant or secondary to base your ideology of CAGW. You must accept this, as all your church saints which you have to adore argue with the global temperature, you fuckwit.ä
Global temperature is not irrelevant, sausage fuckwit :evil:, but central.
And global temperature is caculated usung the values of the GHCN database, BBD sausage fuqwit :evil:!!!
Therefore your relentless rejection of basic education and accumlation of elementary knowledge about the global temperature cannot be tolerated. Therefore you must undergo basic instruction in order that you learn how idiotic your attitudes until now are, you narcistic sausage :evil:
1. question to answer: How many station data are used to calculate the global temperature?
Answer this, clown :evil:!!!!!!
@6 arrogant arselick
You think you have more rights than others, you SS rightwing nutter without education and manners.
And you define, who is abusive or a real man, you nutter. And it's your priority right to offend and violare others, but when you undergo an attack than it's untolerable.
You have not participated for quite some time, come as of a sudden and complain ?
Piss of you loonie, nobody misses you here
#8...priceless! What attack have you mounted? You idiot, you're boring us to death!. As for participation, you're free to start anytime you like; covering yourself with shit and piss on the sidelines must be lonely!
#5 Lotharsson
I have gone so far as to ask TL in comments *several times* now, but he is deaf to our pleas!
Perhaps if we all did it, twice a day? What do you think?
@9 you clown appear to consider yourself intelligent, but you are not!
How many stations are covered by the GHCN database, you bigmouth without basis?
Answer, moron!
Fuck, I am getting fed up with this shit, Freddy:
Can somebody else try to explain to this swivel-eyed loon why the number of stations in GHCN is irrelevant?
Keyword: "STRAWMAN", Freddy.
Leper islanders plea to daddy for relief from the devil sausage
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Why for God's sake shoud Tim listen to YOU leper islanders??
To provide peace to leper island against foreign intruders.
My recommendation to you as a recipee:
1. Learn decent behavior
2. Abstain from constant claims to authority
3. Learn what objective thinking means
4. Learn tolerance
5. Learn that scientific consensus is of zero value
#11 ...why don't you tell me, if it helps you move on to the point you're dying to make?
BBD clown :evil:
Why the hell are you so unwilling to provide a simple figure??
It's not this difficult as you imagine. And it IS relevant, believe me, moron!
Because we are not insane, Freddy. Nor are we serially violating the rules here by using an array of socks.
I know the answer, Sausage. I also know a strawman argument when I see one!
If you think it is relevant, then develop your argument properly.
Explain why the number of stations is relevant.
Go on.
And answer #14 Nick.
Provide the number, since you seem to feel that it is central to your position.
Start saying something. Develop your argument. I do it constantly here, so if unsure how to proceed, look back over some of my previous comments for pointers.
Not sure if he's reading the comments these days. Maybe if you find his e-mail address, or construct a comment that will get stuck in the moderation filter? He really needs to appoint a moderator if he's not going to do it himself.
Hmmmmm?
Moderator/s/Tim?
Why am I sidelined from this open thread and this Berendaneke character is not?
At the very least I am able to create more text than abuse & emoticons.
And BTW Lotharsson at comment 82 on the past comment page is still being a crashing bore.
He has completely failed to recognise that Luke of the changing avatars and Stu 2 are more likely to be his/her allies rather than his/her enemies.
About time that Lotharsson takes a peek into his own mirror.
'Politicians have to show better judgement….Jensen fails.'
Only from your perspective, from the Denialati's viewpoint, he would make an excellent candidate for Science Minister.
Abbott has given the nod for Jensen to fly a kite, to observe public reaction. If there is no criticism, apart from the watermelon brigade, its probably a done deal.
Bob Carter could then become Chief Scientist.
Would you make Australia the laughing stock of the world? Is that what you want, Gordy?
Do you hate your country so much?
Which superbly illustrates why he would make a very poor Science minister - about as acceptable as a Health minister who believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS and faith healing works.
#20.Bob would fail a probity test, having lied about his funding sources. He would also be rejected by the scientific community.
If Jensen was made science minister, there would be serious push back from the science community. It's more likely the Libs will go for a lawyer,rather than the loose cannon Jensen....however Australia's politics is in at an intellectual low point at the moment,so he can't be ruled out.
'Would you make Australia the laughing stock of the world?'
Everyone will be laughing, partly from embarrassment at how easily they were tricked into thinking CO2 caused global warming.
Our revolutionary leader will pull down the curtain on this sham act and the world will be shocked. He is not charismatic in the sense that Max Weber portrayed, but a refreshing new Senate will assist in destroying the carbon tax.
By a fortunate coincidence the Senate will probably deny him his Direct Action Plan DAP. Which would be good, it was always a dumb idea and a complete waste of money pandering to the brainwashed masses.
Lotharsson - "your claim to be coming here to try and resolve your list of “issues” is a distinctly sub-optimal strategy"
Well excuse moi - I simply thought a group of difficult contemporary AGW issues might have got some discussion besides a Gatling gun barrage of "done it before", "you haven't read it", "Let's discredit you (BBD fave)", " in league with deniers", "Shilling" etc.
Then there was "no references" followed by those "references are crap".
Then guilt trips by save-the-world eco-Jeff.
And probably an interesting but nonetheless off-topic "you'll be sorry" by the paleo obsessed BBD.
Not very inspiring Lothy.
Some of the sledging is very funny, but I just thought I would try the disgraceful vulgar Aussie bogan approach instead. Some say it's a natural fit and it does work down the pub.
So I guess you guys just want to sit here with pumped up chests spruiking appeal to authority and rest on that.
Anyway it's still all very helpful for my assignment on "Delusional psychosis among alpha-male climate change bloggers in temperate environments"
#25
Still away with the fairies, Walter.
As for paleoclimate, it's like history, Walter. Those who refuse to learn from it are likely to get a repeat. And please *try* to remember that argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity are logical fallacies.
As usual, you are saying nothing.
I am still amazed that you deltoids did not see that Luke was actually a friend when he first appeared.
He has also retried on a few occaisions.
You deltoids really are off with the fairies.
Even the blog owner appears to have left you floundering.
Let me spell this out for you deltoids.
L.U.K.E. I.S. M.O.S.T. L.I.K.E.L.Y. Y.O.U.R. F.R.I.E.N.D! !!!!!!!!!
I can't believe how dense you are :-)
#24 "Everyone..tricked into thinking CO2 causes global warming"...sounds easier than trying to educate them! Worth a try!
I'm curious as to Abbott's personal course. Has he ever shown any curiosity about the nuts and bolts of climate? Will he seek personal briefings from the Chief Scientist? Will he keep it at arms length, leave it to the Science minister to bring to Cabinet? Whatever... more likely they will minimise interaction with the CS, they've gotten on with their collapsing and defunding of the CC admin,and they judging the negative feedback will be handled in their favor by News Ltd.
A 'refreshing new senate' featuring a guy who doesn't understand stats,and thus recommends carrying hand guns... look out!
Wrong. The prime measure of global warming is the incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere and calculating the difference to see whether there is balance or imbalance.
The global atmospheric temperature is a reasonable, but inaccurate, measure of energy accumulating in the system. It's possible, if physically incredible, that the energy imbalance could be positive and that every single joule was going into melting ice or being transferred into deep ocean a kilometre or more below the surface. In that case, there would be no atmospheric temperature change at all.
As it happens, the system does function in accordance with what we know and that the energy imbalance is showing up in melting icesheets and in melting glaciers and in warming oceans down to 2000 metres, and in surface temperatures. We don't know how much heat is accumulating in waters deeper than 2km, but it's likely there's some.
Did any others consider it rather revealing that freddy knows about the anti-psychosis drug Thioridazine. I leave it as an excersice for those that feel a need to look further to search for info on this drug but I did find these clarifying statements in one source,
On Thioridazine, my emphasis:
My, my the evidence that freddy is suffering from mental health issues mounts. I feel sorry for the poor sod but that is no reason to continue tolerating his brand of strangeness (plenty of spin and colourful posts). Now I wonder if he realises the field of science referred to obliquely there.
Indeed we don't, but we do know energy is accumulating in the abyssal ocean. Have you come across Purkey & Johnson (2010) Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budget.? (Link is full text html).
* * *
Thank you very much for reminding us that TOA imbalance is where this starts and ends.
:-)
'Will he seek personal briefings from the Chief Scientist?'
I think he will replace Chubb with Jensen as soon as possible, because Chubb is also on the Climate Change Authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Authority
'replace Chubb with Jensen'
I mean replace Chubb with someone like Carter.
'Will he keep it at arms length, leave it to the Science minister to bring to Cabinet?'
If Jensen is the new Minister he will.
Well, there it is plain as plain. Gordon's a conspiracy theorist and physics denying crank who thinks AGW is a massive hoax encompassing every National Science Academy and pretty much every university and government scientists in the field.
You can't waste time on such folk, as they're not operating in the rational world. Although they will make perfect brownshirts for some demagogue or other, as their idea of evidence is only congruent with what they want or need to believe.
God knows when they'll realise they've been taken for a ride, if ever.
There is much to be done, apart from dismantling the tax they have to stop the renewable subsidy racket and sack thousands of public servants connected to the CC fraud.
'AGW is a massive hoax encompassing every National Science Academy and pretty much every university and government scientists in the field.'
Mass delusion.
What a pity you can only make grand, bogus and unfounded claims about the fantasy world you live in Gordon.
But that isn't the world the rest of us live in, where hard reality is the result of physical processes occuring in the physical world.
#31 Chubb's 3 year term finishes end May 2014. Seriously, if Carter is actually considered an option, his involvement with Heartland will make it impossible. The connection is poison. Coalition is more likely to choose another medical research emeritus,steering away from earth science controversy. Or an ag. science person for the Nats.
They're just words to you Gordon.
Words that mean you don't have to think any further.
You have of course got no suggestion for how such a mechanism might work, or why it should only target a very select group, or means of transmission, or indeed anything beyond your smug two-word phrase.
Most telling of all is that you and the shonky network of cranks and frauds that you rely on for your alternate universe have no answer to the climate scientists' case. Except that they're suffering from 'mass delusion' of course.
It's cretinous.
In the short term Carter could take Chubb's place on the board of the Climate Change Authority.
Quiggin, Karoly and Hamilton should also be replaced.
'The authority has a Board comprising nine members, headed by Bernie Fraser. Other members include Lynne Williams, David Karoly, Elana Rubin, Heather Ridout, John Marlay, John Quiggin, Ian Chubb and Clive Hamilton.'
'if Carter is actually considered an option, his involvement with Heartland will make it impossible.'
Heartland is a not a problem for Abbott.
It did get some. You summarily dismissed it, despite much of it being trenchant and your justifications for dismissal frequently being transparently bogus.
But all of that is a convenient missing of my point, isn't it (which is your favourite MO)? Your strategy for your alleged goal is sub-optimal. And yet you persist with it. Not here for the hunting...
Ah, just like replacing your dermatologist with your beauty consultant because "they both know about skin".
There are already incredulous articles appearing in the overseas press about Abbott's election. That would be fodder for even more.
Chubb is an academic first and a scientist second, Carter is a scientist. Anyway, at this stage its pure speculation.
More on the PMs scepticism.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11599-climate-scepticism-and-the-t…
#41 Believe me,Heartland is... Carter lied about accepting money in his involvement with them...if Carter is thrust to prominence as CS, he will be a sitting duck...Abbott has better things to do with his time than try to brazen out such a political appointment of a liar in what is a marginal post by their intention...the tactic will be to go softly and make the CS invisible as possible. Carter would be the opposite.
Gordy, are you really so insulated from reality by your ideological hubris,still bristling with adrenalin? You can put down your torch and pitchfork,your party has office. In having office they are exposed to more reality than you. They have to work with the people who you can casually dismiss from your distance.
And Chubb is a well-published researcher who became an administrator...a better rounded, more publicly experienced.and better regarded person than minor academic and deposed emeritus Carter.
The Coalition have a lot to do and pissing away time on too many dodgy ideological appointments in general ,and defending an outrageously compromised one like a Carter in particular,is not necessary for them.
You do not understand Abbott, he has the bottle. What you are about to witness is a revolution in ideas.
No, I'd suggest what you're about to witness is the shortfall of rhetoric which won the votes of mass delusional cretins when it hits the wall of reality.
Er...what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
He has one - count them, ONE - climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
Somehow, I doubt it, Gordy.
#47, 'a revolution of ideas'....ideas? LOL Actually I think Tony is hosing down his more skittish warriors. He's certainly made public comments,clearly directed at his faithful,about inclusiveness and ending the campaigning. I'm hoping he's not a fibber,and a reckless fool, and holds the bottle the wrong way.
It's going to be messy enough closing down the renewable admin infrastructure without putting up a liability like Carter for CS. The new government is not all about you and your obsessions.
Nick, as you said earlier, Chubb's contract is up in May so its pure speculation on my part.
Tony Abbott’s climate policy: the science is still crap
By Giles Parkinson on 3 September 2013
On Thursday, the good folk at Opposition leader Tony Abbott’s favourite think tank, the ultra conservative Institute of Public Affairs, will host a function in Brisbane to launch the latest anti-climate science book by noted denier, Bob Carter.
The title of the book, “Taxing Air: Facts & fallacies about climate change”, fits neatly into Abbott’s view about carbon trading. Last month he was out dog-whistling to climate denialists such as Carter on just that theme, when he borrowed an old phrase and said that trading carbon was a “so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”
Is this book launch just a happy coincidence in timing, or does it amount to the launch
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/tony-abbotts-climate-policy-the-science…
No doubt everyone remembers were were graced by the presence of political heavyweight Anthony Cox (aka cohenite), who was regularly commenting here a few weeks back, no doubt enthused by the prospect of the upcoming Federal Election in which his No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party was going to romp away with some Senate seats...
The Cox party really did they job, getting a massive 13,300 votes (0.13% of the 72% of votes counted so far), just a whisker behind those political giants in the Pirate Party (31,000) and the HEMP Party (70,600). Yep, Australians really backed your gutsy stand against those Alarmist Greenie Scum there lads.
After this excellent performance, I suspect even Anthony will abandon the Party and vote for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party (15,600) next time...
:)
Frank, you may be relieved/pleased to hear that some of us in the outside world don't judge Australia by the procession of cranks and nutters that parade through these comments.
#55
+ 1
No, leper islanders :evil:
"revolution in ideas"?
Thanks for the laugh, Gordo. That was absolutely hilarious.
0.13% is about one in 600 people.
Or to put it another way, there are actually more paedophiles than Cox's Crank Party voters. "There are about 14,000 preferential paedophiles in Australia". (An Investigation into Paedophilia.- Smith and Chapman, 1999)
Make of that what you will.
How in the heck did freddy escape from Norfolk Island?
#55
+1
Must... resist... obvious... joke...
Fairly intelligent representatives of the CAGW climate delusion church, e.g. James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth and only a few more, have given in the obvious fact that the global temperature has not increased in the last 16 years and admitted that all computer models have catastrophically failed and not indicated the slight decline of global temperatures since nearly two decades.
By contrast, the leper islanders here live in another parallel universe without connection to reality. Poor clowns :evil:
Regurgitation of outlandish, soundly debumked, denialist memes will not get you out of jail freddy #62.
You can of course supply cited quotes to back up that hogwash of yours.
Oh! Dear! Another failure for our resident twit.
It would seem that you have only just got off Norfolk Island, and been sent back, seeing as you are a few years late with this tosh.
Citation needed!
@64, no, boring, irrelevant
search yourself, moron :evil:
Sorry Stu, I'm not as strong as you....
Norfolking idea.
Well...in for a penny, in for a pound, I reckon: Abbott appointing Carter as Chief Scientist would fit nicely in the currently unfolding narrative.
What does Pell get, though?
"But all of that is a convenient missing of my point, isn’t it (which is your favourite MO)? Your strategy for your alleged goal is sub-optimal. And yet you persist with it. Not here for the hunting…"
No that's just your own trenchant POV. And you're not here for the discussion are you? If so where is it? Leadership from the perimeter guards = 0.0
But agree the sceptics party are a bunch of wackers. Isn't there something more important?
#65
This is not good enough:
I am competent at web searches but I can find no statement where *any* of the scientists you name admits that:
I think you are mistaken. If you disagree, provide linked quotations by the scientists you name that explicitly support your claim.
If you cannot do this, I will of course accept your admission that you misspoke.
This should give you an indication of the circles of "thinking" Tony moves in when it comes to science:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44454.html
More polemic from Luke, who still appears unaware that he is a polemicist, not Galileo's PR.
@69, learn better searching the internet, clown :evil:
Advice: look also at Rajendra's (the Indian railway ingeneer and your IPCC pope) testimonies and admissions.
Don't be lazy, sausage!
Advice, get the names right you clown.
Better trolls please.
#72
Not the response requested, Sausage!
Where are the linked quotes from Hansen, Trenberth, or Jones explicitly stating that:
Either back it up, or get branded as a liar!
Tip: doubling down isn't terribly smart at this point, Sausage.
Lionel from leper island: how embarrassing for you that you :evil: don't even know how to spell Rajendra's name.
Can YOU tell me (the clowns BBD and Rick cannot due to severe progressive incompetence) how many meteorological weather stations are covered by the GHCN database, the holy sanctuary of the CAGW climate scientology church.
Show that you are better than clown BBD :evil: and clown Rick :evil: !!
@74 loafer :mrgreen: :evil:
Search yourself: consider it an order by me, the superior and boss, to you, the repentent underdog who has to undergo education!
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
#75 Sausage, you have yet to explain *why* the number of stations actually matters. You haven't developed an argument. Until you do, expect no engagement. Tell us why it matters so much to you.
#76 I told you doubling down was stupid. Now you are exposed as a liar.
I admit here in all due humbleness that I am proud to have been able to provide advice to my friend Tony Abbott regarding the fight of fraudulent CAGW lies and cheatings. Tony understood immediately that Australian CO2 does not matter at all regarding air temperatures 2m above the surface. He wil kill the carbon tax in order to save Oz economy from climate leper islanders with their ideology of communist overturn.
And another one off to fantasy island.
Say hi to your imaginary friends.
The Sceptics Party will probably disband now that the thrust of their ideas have been taken onboard by the incoming government.
So it was always politics, never physics.
I'm shocked to the core.
BBD - von Storch has called it. Others have confirmed. The IPCC report has been delayed due the furore that the hiatus has become. You're in deep do do's mate.
If it's not happening why is Trenberth talking about it. Clearly the models did not predict it. AND many other things.
So fuck off. (now await BBD's normal tactics)
#70. I suppose I wonder, whoever is appointed to replace Chubb, will Abbott go through a public pantomime of consulting the Chief Scientist, or will he just delegate and ignore.
#82 'IPCC report delayed due to furore over "hiatus"'....why do need to invent this sort of claim?
Lotharsson @#49,
You have demonstrated nothing other than your own opinion.
As pointed out earlier, academia is not the only place where highly intelligent and highly competent people are found. Neither is academia the only place where ground breaking research is conducted.
Numbers of published papers is but one and only one way to judge someone's abilities and contributions.
#70....the fact that BOMs chief Greg Ayers managed to get that critical corrective testimony into Hansard may be very important in future CS considerations. As much as I'd like to think there was some rationality somewhere in the Coalition, efforts to put characters like Plimer or Carter into the position can't be utterly ruled out. Those statement from Ayers are unequivocally critical of Plimer and Pell,and cannot be disappeared.
#82
We've been through this. HvS has not "called it". As ever, you grossly overstate and in the process, misrepresent HvS. I only wish he were here to see you doing it.
As for the rumour that AR5 has been delayed because of crisis meetings etc, it's crap. A denier meme. Is this all you have left?
'...efforts to put characters like Plimer or Carter into the position can’t be utterly ruled out. '
There would be heaps of derision aimed at the government, but Abbott has the bottle to see it through.
Here is a bit more on Plimer from wiki, he certainly has the right credentials .
'Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.
'In 2007 Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group. In November 2009, Plimer was named as a member of the academic advisory council for Nigel Lawson's global warming skeptic group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.'
If you can find the transcript of the Estimates hearing, it's a bloody good read - Ludlam and Wong put in their oars very successfully.
To put it into context, not every Liberal is a science-denying gumby:
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/pollies-ranked-climate…
#87.. if he tried it, that wouldn't be 'bottle',it would 'stupidity'...it seems extremely unlikely. Plimer has conflicts of interest,but worst of all, he has 'Heaven and Earth' which is a documented disaster of wrong facts,invention and voodoo science...it would be a travesty, a trashing of the position of CS,should Abbott try it. I don't doubt that some of his dimmer colleagues would lobby for it. Seriously, CS positions are nominated by the national science bodies,not backbench hot-heads or the IPA.
It doesn't matter how much "bottle" Abbott has. He has to set his priorities - he'll avoid open battle on stuff where he's confident. And if we're sure of one thing, he's confident of his own opinion and majority party support on climate change policies. He wouldn't want to upset the minority of the party with realistic views on climate science, and he's got other fish to fry on the international front.
He'll want to keep his powder dry for confrontations where he hasn't already put too many caucus members offside on that issue.
ROFL !!!
"Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-…
Which brings us back to go ! clowns
Luke's considered opinion on science is informed by...
...an interview in Der Spiegel.
Go ! CLoWns!
And the paper too
Is he wrong? No !
He gets to run the inquiry into child sexual abuse - or rather, to have it conveniently nobbled.
'...he’s confident of his own opinion and majority party support on climate change policies.'
John Howard is giving the annual speech at the GWPF in November and the elder statesman has been primed to blow the socks off the msm.
This should galvanise the party behind Abbott on the question of AGW.
Firstly, "not here for the hunting" doesn't exactly equate to "not here for the discussion". You might want to find the joke that it refers to. It has a hapless but strangely persistent hunters, angry bears, one of whom is remarkably perceptive, and some adult content. Once that is understood, it is clear that most of us are here for the hunting, but some clearly are not.
And - seriously? You really need to try thinking rather than trying on this mindless primary school level reflection. Commenters here have different goals. Two parties to the same sub-conversation here can differ in that one can be "here for the discussion" - perhaps the one that points out science distortion via clearly unsupported claims, the one that points out zombie denialist memes and the motivations of many of those pushing them, the one that calls out illogic and incoherent argument where it's obvious, the one that calls out bad faith discussion - and the other can claim to be motivated to participate here in their inimitable style by goals that clearly are much better met elsewhere.
So, yes, I'm very much here for the discussion. And you give every appearance of being here for some other reason.
Let me get this straight, Luke - the greenhouse effect was predicted to eliminate all variability in measured temperatures, measured temperatures still show variability, therefore climate change is crap.
Is that it? I just want to make sure I understand what passes for "thinking" in Luke-land.
Yes, El Gordo, a talkfest by a circle-jerk of anti-science kooks with no science research to back up their ideologies will definitely "blow the socks off the msm".
#92,94...Luke finds comfort [well,he actually 'rolls on the floor laughing' in typical hysterical reaction] in uncertainty on GT, while ignoring ongoing changes across the biosphere...once again,unwittingly picking one indicator as sufficiently representative of the system's state. Scientists do not have the luxury of picking cherries.
Von Storch needs to assimilate Cohen et al 2012 and Kosaka & Xie 2013 into his musing on GT [which is a coarse indicator] Divergent seasonal trends are missed in a coarse indicator. Temperature as a whole may rise only slowly compared with projections,while the actual increased interseasonal variation makes the climate less favorable for agriculture and more costly for infrastructure. Let's all ROFL with Luke!
He's bound to mention the hiatus and question the validity of the models, normal stuff.
...in your opinion, which is asserted without any supporting argument or evidence.
Interesting.
But if that's your standard - unsupported opinions, even when evidence and logic is used to rebut them - there's no point in you even trying to justify criteria for accepting, rejecting or temporarily withholding judgement on scientific claims. Clearly unsupported opinion will do...even if that standard provides no way to reliably resolve mutually exclusive claims in favour of one or the other. (As demonstrated by your disagreement with what I earlier showed!)
As pointed out earlier, this is a straw man that is not disputed - and remains so after your latest repetition.
Curiouser and curiouser. You keep trying to dispute a point that is not disputed. It's almost like you hope the army of straw men will distract from your lack of an effective rebuttal.
Yet another straw man, although a bit more subtle than the previous ones.
a) Measuring "ability" is not the primary goal here. Measuring "successful contribution" is.
b) Even though measuring "ability" is not the primary goal, measuring "lack of demonstrated ability" is very useful, because as previously explained (and dismissed) it allows you to filter out the vast majority of those who have no ability to focus on those who have shown they do.
And measuring "lack of" ability or contribution is not a symmetric process with measuring "presence of" ability or contribution:
c) The primary criteria for measuring "successful contribution" in science are the number and success of peer-reviewed papers, where success includes how well the ideas are accepted by other competent researchers in the field.
In science, if you didn't successfully publish it you haven't contributed it. And if it wasn't peer-reviewed, then it didn't clear the quality bar so it's almost certainly not "groundbreaking", and most probably of little consequence. And if it subsequently had no influence on the other experts in the field it doesn't count for much and if, like Bob Carter's effort, it was roundly demolished, it counts for zero at best. (And when your successful peer-reviewed paper count is "one", it's unlikely you have much influence. Someone whose line of inquiry has influence rarely stops at one paper on that line - there's almost always several lines of useful research proceeding off the first.)
d) The simple COUNT of published papers (without also assessing influence/success) was NOT used to "judge [the level of] someone's abilities and contributions", but to judge the lack of them. As has been indicated more than once (and ignored or not understood by you), one has to factor in measures of influence and success to measure "contribution". Just as there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate lack of ability, there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate LACK of contributions. When the count of successful peer-reviewed papers is zero there is nothing over which to measure influence or success so by definition there is zero influence and zero success.
You appear to be vainly trying to justify "other measures of ability and contribution" as some way to push back in response to those who point out that certain claimants have zero measured influence and success, and others have almost none.
This won't wash, especially if you're trying to sell those criteria to people who lack the expert judgement to reliably assess a claim themselves. The only people who could make a decent assessment of a scientific claim made outside of the peer-reviewed literature are those who are expert researchers in the specific field - and they, regardless of whether they work in acadaemia or outside of it - CHOOSE to use the peer-reviewed literature as both the initial quality filter and the distributed discussion forum through which contributions are published and measured because it helps maintain minimum quality standards.
If you're trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you're trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
No Lotharsson. I was replying to your comment here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
Carter is a scientist
He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are lecturing me while arguing that I have misinterpreted you.
I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place.
Think food processing, pharmacy, medicine, mining, agriculture, dermatology and a host of other areas that employ top quality people and conduct top quality research yet don't require their people to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
That does not mean that I have advanced this:
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have suggested no such thing and I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are claiming otherwise.
@2 Lotharsson :evil:
Your over-simplicistic logic of the value of peer-reviewed publication process shows foremost your personal great distance from outside at something
a: you don't really understand
b: you have never participated in this process
c: you just copy paste what you have been told by your propaganda institution to do your disgusting partizan flaw logic to fight for the CO2 delusion.
Instead of verballing about something which you don't understand you should rather demonstrate that you are familar with elementary basics of your bad CAGW leper island faith:
How many meteorological data measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, the holy sanctuary of your climate scientology church.
Answer it, clown :evil:
A point I already said I did not dispute, and which remains a straw man.
Ah, thanks. That is helpful!
Please note that I had previously specifically indicated that I was talking about the open scientific process vs claims made outside of that process, which is NOT the same as acadaemia vs non-acadaemia no matter how many times the two are conflated.
Please note further that I carefully distinguished the open scientific process from scientific research whose results are privately held in order to avoid conflating the two. I did fail to distinguish the open scientific process from non-scientific research which I presumed was not the topic. "Mining" and "food processing" are not typically considered branches of science, for example, even though there are scientific fields that can be applied to them.
I had also presumed that - given the (IIRC) context that led to this discussion was a comment by Jeff relating to the capabilities of those making allegedly scientific claims about climate change and its impacts that you disagreed with - that we are talking not only about science, but more specifically about climate science and other branches of science that study the impacts of climate science.
Since you're talking about something else, feel free to interpret my comments in the light of the context that I was operating in which doesn't address most of what you were talking about. Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don't support your disagreement with what Jeff said.
Sorry, Freddy, but just like all your other unsupported assertions (ever noticed how practically everything you claim is unsupported?) this one fails too. I have indeed participated in the open peer reviewed publication process. My participation was in the academic field of Engineering rather than Science, but the elements of the process germane to this discussion are the same.
And isn't it beautifully ironic that Freddy is arguing that because (he thinks) that I haven't participated in peer reviewed publication, that I don't have any expertise in it and accordingly my comments on it should be dismissed.
It's almost like he's channelling the argument made by Jeff and me that those who haven't demonstrated their expertise should be ignored.
Excellent clown-trolling! ;-)
I see that Lotharsson's already touched on the subject, but still... if you so submit then where is your analysis or other evidence? You know, that breaks research down into categories such university, government, public institute, private institute, industry, private consultation, amateur and other categories, and that factors in discipline, type of knowledge being pursued, DIISRTE's HERDC areas such as field of research (yes, it's different to 'discipline') and socio-economic objectives, and not to forget the metric for the quality of the research output.
And if Carter is a good scientist then on what list of publications is this idea supported?
You know Stu2, you could just go away and not try to weasel your way around Lotharsson's patient and exemplary dissection of your bullshit. Not that you will, 'cause you are just as much a troll as Fatso, Spam, fLuke and the spectacularly psychotic (and thioridazine-familiar - well picked Lionel) Freddiot. The only good thing is that it is blindingly obvious who is the reasonable person here - and it isn't you.
Your contention that Medicine (and "Dermatology"), Pharmacology and Agricultural science are not entirely dependent on peer reviewed publishing demonstrates the facile sophistry (and stone cold uninformed delusional bullshit) of the species of human parasite known as lawyers. In fact, I suspect you may be Cox (CoxSox?), or some similar Koch-sucker.
Lotharsson
Mining and food processing also employs top quality scientists who have experience, are highly educated and who conduct research and high quality testing in a number of scientific disciplines and who perfectly understand the scientific process. In food processing in particular, our well being and health depends on it.
I repeat again, there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals. They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.
You inference or suspicion here is totally unfounded:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
------------
and so is this one:
-------------------------------
Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don’t support your disagreement with what Jeff said.
------------------------------------------------
And I repeat I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are merely advancing your own personal suspicions and inferences.
Bernard,
That comment came with a "possibly" caveat.
I have never seen a study on how many scientists are employed by which sectors.
However, because science and scientific research is very important in our modern world and because there are a myriad of industries that need to use modern scientific techniques I do indeed submit that there would be at least as many, if not "possibly" more highly qualified, talented and articulate scientists employed, working in their own businesses or conducting their own research outside of academia.
But please know that doesn't mean I think less of those who do work in academia or in government.
That was Lotharsson's presumption, not mine.
If their qualifications and experience are appropriately relevant, certainly.
And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.
Where do you think that Carter fits in the spectrum?
Lotharsson clown :evil:
you unsuccessfully tried to escape my question to you whether you know how many temperature measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, which is used to calculate the global temperatures.
Try an answer, coward :evil:
#13, as previously noted,devil sausage...if you have a point to make, give us your number, and then make your point: shit,or get off the pot,eh?.
Bernard clown :evil:
unsubstantiated blah blah blah and constant appeal to authority
And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.
This is utter bullshit: Scientists should never want to be considered (as you clown :evil: do) as apostles of their truth which has to be accepted. No, no, and no again. General acceptance of the results of an investigation has nothing to do with authority, you fuckwit and real science denialist, but only with reproducibility of the observations using the described, technically flawless, methodology.
You cannot be a scientist when you excrement such utter rubbish. Shame on you, :evil: :evil: :evil:
@14 Who the fuck has asked you clown :evil:, or are you an ugly sock of the addressed Lotharsson clown :evil:
I have asked Lotharsson and not you, clown :evil:, hence shut up and fuck off
I repeat again that I do not dispute this, and I haven't seen anyone else doing so either. Please feel free to not repeat the aspects that everyone here seems to agree upon!
Really? How do you know?
I am pointing out that one who isn't personally competent must often attempt to determine their competence - and far more importantly determine the robustness of their claims. If your comment is meant to apply to that situation (rather than claims made to other people whose competence in the field is adequately demonstrated) then you are asserting that which needs to be demonstrated which is a well known fallacy.
Furthermore, the assertion of a claimant's competence is insufficient to assess the robustness of their claims, as should be obvious to anyone after a moment's thought. It is far more important to have a robust process for assessing the claims themselves.
So if (say) you were a government minister untrained in science and there was an important question within your portfolio about a specific scientific discipline, how would you tell which claims to accept, given that you yourself are not competent to personally assess the scientific quality of any claimant's research output? What if you were a government minister with training in one scientific field, but the question was from a different scientific field? This dilemma extends to which scientific claims and also to which claims of scientific competence to believe, but by far the most important one is which scientific claims to accept.
Fortunately, the whole scientific process is set up to test claims regardless of who is making them and regardless of their competence or lack of it so it seems like a very good idea to use it, and one would have to have very good reasons to avoid using it. This is so widely agreed upon in science that it is considered fallacious to make scientific claims by appealing to one's own authority or assert that your non-published claims should be taken seriously. That means that perhaps the only good reason to not use the scientific process for questions that matter is when the scientific process hasn't addressed the question you have, and you need to make a decision anyway.
In that light, would it be responsible execution of your ministerial power to seriously consider scientific claims that had not survived peer review (both before and after publication) and so had not been tested in the way that the scientific process is set up to do? Under what circumstances would it be/not be responsible? Would you answer change if those claims also suggest that claims that had survived peer review were wrong? Would it change if most experts in the field found the claims implausible or unlikely?
Would your answer change if the answer appealed to the authority/capability of a single claimant? Would it change if the single claimant had no evident publication record in the scientific field, or had an extensive publication record? Why or why not? Would it change if the single claimant stood by the claim, but many experts in the field thought it unlikely? What if there were two apparently equally capable claimants making opposing non-peer reviewed claims - how would you decide which one to place the greater weight on?
No, I declined to answer because:
a) I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don't need to demonstrate it.
b) Just like Luke, you haven't made an argument showing what import this have. Have a go at it and see if you get a response. But bear in mind that BBD has already shown a lot of evidence pointing out that you can eliminate the results of the entire GHCN record and still have a very strong case for concern about AGW - and has asked you to make an argument, and your response was, well, I think you summed it up quite well:
(It's always projection...)
BTW:
Thank you for making my argument for me, even as you pretended you were opposing what I said. Your clown-trolling is improving - have you been taking lessons from Karen/Mack/SunSpot?
@17 Lotharsson clown :evil:
YOU COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE BETTER HOW NOTHING YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT SCIENCE.
Read my reply to clown Bernard :evil: #15 and learn, learn, learn despite your brain of concrete
@18 authoritarian
"a) I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it."
You like authority, authority, authority?
Without authority life is nothing to you?
Getting back to the science, SLR attached to 60 year PDO cycle.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N10/EDIT.php
Berendaneke, unfortunately your English comprehension isn't good enough for this discussion. I'm saying I'm NOT arguing from my own authority, which has nothing to do with your interpretation of what I said.
I'm certainly not advocating authoritarianism (which is an entirely different concept from arguing from authority in science).
#21,no ,the hired-hand Idsos hand-waving.
Lotharsson, unfortunately your English comprehension isn’t good enough to understand the nuances I wanted to convey to you. That's unfortunately the general problem with you CAGW leper islanders: your level of intelligence is so disgustingly low :evil:
You behave as if you were a genious, but you are only stupid and far far away from science (peer-review in engineering as sole experience, what a joke)
No, Berendaneke, even though your English frequently degenerates, I'm pretty sure I understood what you were trying to convey, nuances and all.
You simply aren't stitching together any kind of coherent argument, and you are flat out refusing to address the points other people make about your assertions, including requests for substantiation of your positions.
Hoping for a soft landing.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019aff4fe90c970c-pi
Lotharsson clown :evil:
In reply to my question (#13) on the number of stations in the GHCN database you replied (#18):
"I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it"
This is utter rubbish and an outrageous lie. If you were decent, honest and intelligent you MUST have phrased your sentence like:
"I am always arguing [regarding CAGW matters] not from my own authority, so I always need to demonstrate it"
Do you dispose of enough English language comprehension to understand what I tried to explain to you in easily understandable logic, clown :evil:?
You don't even detect how quickly and stubbornly you violate what you blether as some pseudo-impeccable logic. You are a true idiot :evil: and CAGW leper islander.
The graph is hard to understand on its own, so here is the link.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/09/those-stubborn-facts-as-atmospheric-…
Here we see an opportunity to finally settle scores. Who knew that the CO2 impact on temperatures cut off at some point? Is this Gaia working in mysterious ways?
A Video Preview of “Climate Models Fail”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/a-video-preview-of-climate-models…
The Maslowski Countdown
Ice Free Arctic 2013September 22nd, 2013
10 days to go.
Overestimated global warming
over the past 20 years
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results…
The slippery slope.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HadCrut4_WFT2005_201…
Good evening Karen.
Howdy doody el :)
Wasn't cow flatulence supposed to cause runaway global warming ?
Very sneaky graph,Gordy! 'Interesting' scaling choices,and and 'interesting' time period /ratio CO2 temp....you wouldn't think they were trying for a visual effect would you? And they obviously think that CO2 is the only climate forcing in operation...why would they think that,eh? ;)
Or was that only if someone lit the farts ?
Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-i…
lol........... the planet is cooling actually :)
I suppose we will get to see if global temps mimic the CET
#37 still wrong Kaz, glacial mass balance falling,sea level rising.
#39 Nick................ lol
pull the other one luvie :)
Bernard J @#12
I usually don't bother with this site in the evenings but hey! it's a stormy cold Friday night in my part of NSW and all my family are busy.
That was a fair question of yours.
My answer is very simply that I wasn't defending Bob Carter in particular I was questioning the way Lotharsson summarily dismissed him and did not even attempt to engage in what Bob Carter may or may not have said. To dismiss people simply on the grounds of their publications or even their perceived political affiliations is rather poor form IMHO.
But anyway, I did a little bit of researching and this is what I have discovered:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Carter is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers in professional scientific journals. The great majority of these concern interpretations of ancient environments, including paleo-climatic studies. Link to full of list of publications here… http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?
'And they obviously think that CO2 is the only climate forcing in operation…why would they think that,eh?'
Dunno.... our star has been very quiet over the past four days, increasing low cloud cover courtesy of a cosmic ray bombardment from exploding stars.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIF.jpg
#40...of course, Kaz, it's all in your head.
"but hey! it’s a stormy cold Friday night in my part"
barnturd would call that a first hand observation of climate change, wave his spastic little arms around and scream HOT makes COLD... lol
Lotharsson et al - may I ask what do you think the value proposition is for the continuation of this blog. Just asking.
#42 el gordo
apparently my socks were made there :)
#41 one deliberately flawed co-authored paper on an aspect of climate dynamics,on the back of which he made untenable claims...the rest is stratigraphy. Bob is a shill as a matter of job description. However,I don't think you're disposed towards skepticism of Bob and his actions, so carry on...
#42, 'Dunno'...that'd be right.
Dolt! Rajendra is only one name which could apply to many persons, many of same being involved with railways.
On its own it is meaningless. For example, Rajendra Prasad applies to more than one person. Now if you were to shout 'Rajendra' in a crowded room in India you are likely to be killed in the rush.
But then exactitude and precision is never a strong suit with such as you.
Nope. Once again you misinterpret me by leaving out key parts of what I said. It's becoming quite a pattern, and the bits you leave out generally seem to be (coincidentally I'm sure) the ones that are key to pointing out where your position is deficient.
Please go back and read what I said about his publication record, and report on the difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said. When you do that you'll see why the difference matters, and why citing Bob Carter's full publication record could only be relevant if one accepted your lengthy and flawed attempt to (apparently) argue from demonstrated expertise in one branch of science to some kind of authority or at least plausibility in another.
(As an aside, you may not be aware that I and many others have "engaged with what Bob Carter has said" several times in the past. He has repeatedly been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong - and despite that fact he continues to make the same wrong claims. That fact is well known to anyone who's been paying attention to his activities. But that isn't strictly relevant, because...)
...it is instructive that you base your position around the example of Bob Carter. Disregarding previous evidence of his deep wrongness, my dismissal of Bob Carter on the grounds that he hasn't demonstrated any expertise in climate science - in fact, he has arguably demonstrated negative expertise based on his almost uniquely bad climate science publication record - is ALSO valid.
Since you continue to assert that it is not but can't seem to explain why you disagree with my position, how about trying to answer my questions at #17 in such a way as to demonstrate how Bob Carter's non climate science publication helps a non-scientist figure out whether Bob Carter's climate science claims have merit or not. Or failing that concede that his non-climate science publication record is not relevant to that question, and move on to trying to specify the appropriate inference for a non scientist to draw about Bob Carter's climate science claims given his appallingly deficient climate science publication record.
You've been ducking and weaving for days now and claiming (to paraphrase) that you aren't engaging in special pleading for people who don't have any demonstrated expertise in a particular field, but this example yet again shows that you are.
Plus 6 years.
But then basic arithmetic is quite a challenge for you, isn't it?
What on earth has four days to do with climate?
(Unless of course we're talking about the first four days of a massive tropical volcano eruption which might affect climate for years.)
Luke #94 previous page
That would be "the paper" that did not pass peer review and was rejected?
That paper?
There seems to have been a slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake post-2000, apparently driven by a strengthening of atmospheric circulation and consequent spin-up of the subtropical gyres. The effect peaked mid-decade and has been winding down slowly. Rapid surface warming will resume in due course, as it must, in accordance with the laws of physics. S is at least 2C and most likely ~3C for 2xCO2, so absolutely nothing has changed. HvS is a contrarian, and that is valuable and necessary. You are simply a polemicist and a denier, which is neither.
On page 6 at #87 el goldilocks, goes on about Plimer considering that Plimer has the right credentials.
Well yes to be with team Abbot he does, after all this qualifies him: Plimer exposed as a fraud and Plimer busted by Media Watch.
Of course that is why he is involved with the GWPF for Plimer preaches the message they want to hear and care nothing for facts. That tells us much about the GWPF and their clique too.
And you can cast the net wider on Plimer too but simply by entering Plimer into this blog's search field you will come up with much more, oh so much more.
el goldilocks, you are like an Aunt Sally, a sitting duck because of your ignorance about science and also about the denial machine and its history.
Of course the issue are complex, so maybe we should not entirely blame you if your brain is not equipped to handle complex information, this was an aspect raised on the August thread.
"Rapid surface warming will resume in due course, as it must, in accordance with the laws of physics."
twoooly wooolie :)
Luke
You have grossly misrepresented HvS.
Here, in his own words:
You are a polemicist. And a liar.
#55 Karen
So you deny the laws of physics. Good luck with that.
Tell sumpfin ?
How many fizzics went into this http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-mo…
So you have run away bbd?
Are not models built on fizzics ?
'What on earth has four days to do with climate?'
It supposed to be solar max.
bbd has gone to ask his 6 yr old how climate models work,....... lol
Poor luke thinks that there has been a crisis meeting amongst the ranks of the IPCC.
Well he would wouldn't he by believing the blether from the likes of David Rose and Hayley Dixon in the UK Mail and Telegraph respectively.
Sou, at HotWhopper, has done an excellent disembowelling of the Rose-Dixon line (Ha! Cue Johnny Cash) and now SkS has provided more context for countering this silly, and mendacious given how many times Rose has been corrected, line.
bbd, so the kid don't know either?
And he will get a more satisfactory answer from thence than if he asked you.
Now, if you stopped lolling around and started studying some science then you would become embarrassed about how pathetically ignorant you are. Maybe its the fear of self exposure that is preventing you.
nup.......... Lionel couldn't slain why the fizziks don't
work in models either.............lol
Why do you think they've constrained the comparison to 20 degs either side of the equator,Kaz? And where do understand Tropical mid troposphere to be in relation to the surface layer? And please tell me the mass balance trends of the tropical icefields of Africa, irian Jaya and S. America....
nup………. Nickie couldn’t splain why the fizziks don’t
work in models either………….lol
And if Luke had started out here by suggesting what he thought the import of his "issues list" was for climate science overall, or for models in particular instead of dogwhistling like mad and refusing to clarify what he thought the impact of his issues were, I would have said pretty much the same thing. And I doubt I would have been the only one.
fizzzzziks http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overest…
#67, Kaz can't explain anything at all...again.
splain why nickie
"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010."
10 x lol
"And in 1972, the Christian Science Monitor reported: "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." That also proved wrong."
hahahahahaha........Bernt Balchen......hahahahaha
wotta warmer name hahahaha :)
Karen has joined the ranks of those *conned* by Christy's graph.
Let's have fun with Karen!
What are those dots and squares at the bottom, Karen?
"Why were the predictions off? The study authors list many possible reasons, from solar irradiation and incorrect assumptions about the number of volcanic eruptions to bad estimates about how CO2 effects cloud patterns."
They to restore their credibility, all they have to do is to tell the truth.
Climate Scientist: ........errr.........dunno
fuck orf bbd, why don't the fizzzziks work ?
Answer the question, Karen. What did Christy do to the "observational" data represented as dots and squares on the graph?
fuck orf bbd, why don’t the fizzzziks work ?
#71. You claimed the 'planet is cooling'. Show your proof. Convert your assertion into something plausible by citing real world observations,eh? Should be easy...
What are observations of tropical glaciers [which of course fits entirely into 'your' graph's 20S-20N TMT zone] showing us? They're shrinking, Quelccaya has not been this small for over six thousand years, Irian Jayas glaciers will be gone by 2030,having been seen to retreat since the early 20thC, ditto Ruwenzori and Kilamanjaro. Why do you think those widespread icefields at 4500-7000m are all dwindling? Because the planet is 'cooling'? Why is sea level rising if the ocean/atmosphere is net cooling over the last cherry-pick of your choice?
Your graph shows a discrepancy between projections and a set of TMT obs. TMT is warming but not as fast as that suite of models projects. Is the 'physics' of the models 'wrong'...or incomplete? Are the models shown TMT 20S-20N constrained,or only the obs?
As I said,you cannot explain anything at all,can you?
No Lotharsson,
I was answering Bernard's question.
It was a fair question and I answered it.
I am not interested in defending Bob Carter in particular, in fact, until I looked him up early this evening I didn't know much about Bob Carter at all.
Ironically, I uncovered that he has authored or co authored over 100 hundred peer reviewed articles in scientific publications from 1967 to the present day. Which didn't really do much to bolster the point I was making but did make your original comment look a bit odd.
My objection to your summation of your opinion of who is and who isn't qualified to comment on scientific issues whether they are specifically related to climate or not remains the same objection.
And Lotharsson. What is it that you claim I misinterpreted?
This is what you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?
Carter is a scientist
He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.
You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are really becoming entirely tedious Lotharsson. I was mostly interested in asking what had happened to this once interesting blog.
At least Nick and Jeff Harvey have offered what is probably the most likely answer to that question.
Endless open threads with no input from the blog owner.
I am now partly intrigued by Luke's question to you @#45.
#79 Nick
"#71. You claimed the ‘planet is cooling’. "
no I didn't
Karen
Answer the question please, then we will continue with our discussion of Christy's graph.
What did Christy do with the "observational" data represented as dots and squares?
What did he do to it, Karen?
Come on, answer the simple, straightforward question.
fuck orf bbd, I asked first.
why don’t the fizzzziks work ?
#81 Yes, you did Kaz at #37... you claimed "the planet is cooling actually" with a nice smiley.
Memory problem?
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-19-USA-mo…
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models…
Karen
The model physics does work. The real problem here is the graph that you presented. We can only deal with your misconceptions by addressing the very serious issues with the graph. Please answer the question. What did Christy do to the "observational" data?
SpamKan understands nothing whatsoever Nick.
But they're like, totally sure that's enough.
Exactly the same problem because exactly the same TRICK has been used in all graphs!
Answer the question, Karen. What did Christy do to the "observational" data in all three graphs?
Can somebody help the pathetic fuckwit "Karen" out here please?
YAAaaaaawwwwnnn
going to bed now
Does the Karen know the answer and play dumb, or is it just genuinely ignorant?
That yawn says "genuinely ignorant"... Kaz, Christy has played you by selecting a baseline period that artificially lowers the obs relative to the models...it's called dishonesty, Kaz. I believe you are an innocent dupe, given you could volunteer the claim that the planet is cooling....what do you say?
"Karen" is running away because it knows the hammer is about to fall. We've been thought this painful process many times before!
Night night dear!
Come on, it's easy to see. You've already provided the quote from me that demonstrates it. You said "I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?"
In contrast, I pointed out that Carter has a grand total of one paper in climate science (and it fared extremely badly after publication). See the bit in bold font? That's the key bit you left out that creates a significant misinterpretation. What a difference it makes!
Yes, it would look a bit odd if you omitted the bold text from my comment and argument, but entirely relevant if you added the bold text back in.
I'm guessing you won't answer my questions about how a scientifically non-capable person tests scientific claims, or even who one should or should not listen to, when that non-capable person wants to have a very good chance of backing the strongest scientific claims. I'm guessing all of the discussion of how competence is and is not demonstrated to someone outside the field - and even the beautiful example of Bob Carter's deep climate science incompetence despite his scientific publication record - hasn't changed your mind one little bit.
Am I right?
'We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.'
Hathaway / NASA
Nobody expects the Span... ... er, nobody can help Karen out on anything, BBD. You should know that by now. She doesn't even understand the concept that 2016 +/- 3 ends in 2019, and I seem to recall an even more basic arithmetic error some time ago.
BBD - of course THAT paper wouldn't make in Nature. HvS declared so himself. It's an affront. But is it wrong? And why was Trenberth surprised and why was there a travesty. Why is it being discussed.
As usual you are fucking idiot. And like your mates UNFUCKING able to give a serious answer except to divert. So for that get straight fucked.
According to the modelled laws of previous physics it shouldn't have happened. But it did like a whole bunch of other very average crap that gets through peer review.
ANYWAY
May I ask any of the public parasite academics here ask what do you think the value proposition is for the continuation of this blog.
Just asking.
I suggest there isn't one.
Lotharsson,
May I suggest you read the list of publications I linked earlier?
Many of Bob Carter's peer reviewed articles are paleo-CLIMATIC studies.
Apparently, according to that list, he has over 40 years experience in paleo- CLIMATE research.
As I said, very tedious.
Rubbish. As usual, you go grossly overstate. Go back and read what HvS actually said. This is why you are treated as a joke here, Luke.
Luke
Trying to shut down the debate! Gosh!
Who gives a stuff what you think.
Here's a prediction.
Having once again been shown to be a polemicist, Luke will become abusive, then return later and continue to shout misrepresentations while demanding that his shite be taken seriously and whining that it is not, even though he is answered every time and always shown to be a polemicist and misrepresenter.
#100 That's a sweeping claim which can easily be refined. Carter has not been involved in global or hemispheric scale climate reconstruction work for the Holocene. He has co-authored one paper involving ENSO and GT, a paper which has been observed before as deeply flawed,and deliberately so. It was rebutted comprehensively by a number of expert authors.
All his current work directly discussing climate is non-peer previewed, facetious and polemical in nature.
He has looked at facets of sea-level, depositional and tectonic evolutions of various shelves, sediments and sea floors mainly around New Zealand and E Coast Australia, all a bit tangential to modern climate. He has no work in meteorology,atmospheric chemistry or physics,no experience of climate modelling and monitoring.
It's time the denialati recognised that they are outside the scientific pale. Once you pass through the gates of reason into the wilds, there's no coming back in again. Credibility is destroyed. Career may well suffer, and rightly so.
Carter is simply another old man who has walked out through the gates into the dark. Bye Bob!
Stu 2, what Nick said.
If you had bothered to run a critical eye over that list of publications you linked to, you'd find that:
- Some of them are conference proceedings, which aren't "papers"
- I suspect you'd find a bunch more that aren't in peer reviewed journals
- Most of the ones that address modern climate science are in journals other than science (e.g. economics journals) which strongly suggests that they don't have defensible scientific content
- The vast majority of his publication list isn't relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.
So simply citing his "more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers" when almost the entire body of work doesn't relate to the area of science his claims are in is another lovely example of the perils of appeal by non-specialists to alleged evidence of specialist competence: the non-specialists are highly prone to making erroneous assessments of competence.
This is why scientists heavily emphasise claims that have been tested via peer review rather than trying to use "competence" or "ability" or "intelligence" or any other attribute of the claimant as a proxy to infer the validity of the claims. And this is why non-scientists should even more heavily emphasise the same.
And this is why almost all of Bob's claims about climate science can be immediately rejected, even by non-specialists. He could submit them to peer review - as he has done in his area of speciality over decades, so he clearly knows how to get published and can do sufficient quality work in at least one area of science - but he does not.
It's the dog that didn't bark, and you don't have to be a specialist to notice the lack of yapping...
Ehm, no.
PDF with Some help for Karen and her trouble with correctly assessing those charts by Christy.
Note another issue has been indicated by others.
Here is another, from a history lesson:
How to cook a graph in three easy lessons by the author of the thorough 'Principles of Planetary Climate', now here is a quote WRT the result of one of Roy's inputs to the WST, from the above link (go look it up) that gives another big clue:
I can hear the 'roaches scuttling from here.
And here is a paper (PDF) to go with the pretty slides in #8 above.
Getting the picture yet Karen?
Tell her about the averaging Lionel. Or shall I keep the best bit for last?
;-)
And by happy coincidence, hot off the press comes more about warm ocean water causing basal melt and destabilisation of West Antarctic ice shelves:
And the Pine Island Glacier isn't just any old glacier. Readers here to *learn* should investigate why the PIG is a focus for research!
:-)
@ Lionel
And let's not forget the other big naughty - comparing a specific atmospheric height in the models with TMT observations which are crap.
The radiosondes were never meant for climatological monitoring of this type and the data are universally acknowledged to be unreliable.
The satellite *TMT* data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and thus biased cool. Why didn't Christy use the weighted *TLT* data that he and Spencer developed specifically to get around this problem?
Bizarre!
Then there's the averaging thing...!
:-)
Karen, with another pointer to 'howlers' this time one from Watts at his blog, in this post where after inflating his writing style Anthony goes onto describe most of the commenters, and the posters on his blog:
.
Not much self awareness over at WUWT is there.
Now I wonder who that 'she' is?
Oh! And BTW Karen
No the physics come first, used in creating models, and to constrain the models, along with other stuff - know about boundary conditions then? If so describe same.
As BBD says - the averaging?
BBD.
Indeed, that is one of the things I was trying to help her towards without giving too much away. After all the issues with satellite data biased cool by stratospheric contamination have been know about and papered on for years now. Christy and Spencer have to be, at the very least, suffering from cognitive dissonance to not acknowledge this now, others would put money on dishonesty.
Amongst others, Ruddiman explains the problems of UAH satellite data and radiosondes in his 'Earth's Climate: Past and Future (a new edition in Oct 2013 by the look of things).
Karen - answer these;
In what way was radiosonde data biased?
and
How is atmospheric temperature data obtained by satellites?
It's always troubled me that "sceptics" who claim that "climate science" is profoundly problematic never seem to read any textbooks.
Why not? As a sceptic, I had no choice *but* to examine the standard scientific position, which one finds set out in textbooks.
But of course it does require work. One has to read.
The Internet, wonderful though it is, does not and cannot replace the structured and referenced exposition found in textbooks.
WTFUWT etc ≠ textbooks!
:-)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/josh-ar5-get-ready.j…
We only call you names when you deserve it!
;-)
And of course we should not forget the increasing frequency and strength of extreme weather events as with the latest example in Colorado. Ironic considering where one climate change centre is located.
Yeah, yeah, yeah we all know about one weather event not being caused by a warming planet but do read my open words again any tossers who wish to make a thing out of that argument.
gordolocks,
Bibles are for believers, for us then knowledge and wisdom is the key. Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom. What stage are you at? Oh! I see. You have not even got started at the ground floor yet.
Yeah, whatever.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/13/climate-ch…
Um, Gordy, why did you link to that Readfearn article? At first blush, it doesn't really do you any favours.
What's that supposed to be, Gordo? Proof that people make fun of denialists?
So the models are fucked. Don't represent GAT. As bad as it gets.
Trop hotspot stolen by Santa Claus (it's there Jim - but you just can see it or measure it - just like Santa Claus)
Palaeo is full of crooks - e.g. Hockeystick dogshit - what a dreadful indictment
What a bunch of lying cunts you are sitting there on your public parasite ivory tower positions. None of you cunts have even done a decent day's work. Bludgers.
AND most importantly NOBODY can advance a value proposition for this blog's continuation.
It's just a cess pit for university dickheads.
And BBD - list your 10 ten climate text books - they'd better be here in the next 10 minutes or we'll know you don't have any. And what's the first 3 words on page 23 of each. BTW palaeo doesn't count.
Full of shit loon that you are.
Nope. Stupid again. And HvS says so.
Read the words Luke.
Argument from assertion, Luke. Logical fallacy.
You sound bitter, Luke. Had a shit week?
Is that a chip on your shoulder, Luke, or are you just displeased to see me?!
So BBD is a university dickhead who hasn't got any real climate text books nor read any.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A child neglecting, stay up all night, climate change bed wetter who has never had a real job.
This was rather fun: ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI&feature=share
The Lukes are back on the meths and making up shit again, I see. The hysteric bray is all that's left in their appropriately titled arsenal.
Oh, and Olap, I don't click on links without a comprehensive description of what the point of them is. Your shitsplat, even less so.
'...why did you link to that Readfearn article?'
Graham is an idiot.
Braying again, Luke!
Okay, we'll compare libraries.
Go to your bookshelves and get down:
Ruddiman
Cronin
Gornitz
Pick pages! Any text!
Off we go!
#31 Gordy
On the evidence, I'd say you were! Why link to GR's Guardian piece?
Bizarre!
;-)
Why not? Are you denying the science Luke? I thought you were objective.
Apparently you don't understand what that word means.
P.23 Ruddiman:
Yes, bonus extra words!
Coming up... Cronin!
:-)
Yes of course, that must be right Gordon, whereas you're a fine upstanding crank fantasist cancer on society.
I still can't get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I'd love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I'm visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I'm more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier.
Working in an educational establishment and being very aware of the general cultural esteem paedophiles are held in, I find that thought very uplifting.
BBD, I suspect The Lukes are bi-polar crank morons.
Any comment now they'll become Luke 3 and declare they're only fucking with us.
Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. Et pathetic cetera.
'Why link to GR’s Guardian piece?'
I had discussions with Graham when he worked at the Courier Mail, naturally we didn't agree. We can converse on his questions, I'm game.
But you know *nothing* except denier fantasies Gordon. How to converse at your level?
It can't be done.
#36 chek
Just for you, here are the first few words in Cronin, page 23:
Perhaps Luke is on holiday again and away from his shelves.
And since I would hate to be accused of bluffing or lying, let's turn to Gornitz, p. 23:
:-)
Now where was that blog debate between you and Kellow again, Luke?
You never did say!
:-)
Where the fuck are you, Luke?
:-)
Listen cunt are you deaf - I said palaeo doesn't count. Climate science for the impoverished.
How about The Future of the World's Climate Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie p 250 last two words - "associated uncertainty" 650pp
So at this point you're a fucking idiot BBD. Which explains why you can't answer any of my questions. A little palaeo turd parasiting his life away at some fetid university.
I assume you do know who AHS is?
In the bathroom with his arm round Freddtyfrot necking all the Thioridazine they've got is my guess. The insane, Gordon twat-standard "expert" that he is.
"I still can’t get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I’d love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I’m visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I’m more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier."
How about you don't come ! We now have a new govt that doesn't want illegal aliens or fuckheads.
Lotharsson,
Until yesterday I knew very little about Carter.
I was not interested in arguing about Carter.
In an attempt to answer Bernard's question I discovered that Carter has indeed authored and co authored many peer reviewed papers and whether you like it or not, you were wrong when you claimed that Bob Carter only has ONE peer reviewed paper on (climate) science.
BBD has pointed out to Luke above @#34 that to discount paleo would be denying the science.
I would agree with BBD. Of course it is relevant to climate science.
I will further point out to you that at no stage was I dismissing peer review or academia. That is your claim about me.
My objection remains that you were dismissive of people based on your opinion of their publishing record and/or their political affiliations.
And Lotharsson. While what you say here may or may not have merit :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
– The vast majority of his publication list isn’t relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was NOT what you said originally NOR what I objected to.
I have grown tired of your incessant lecturing about this.
It would be much easier to admit that perhaps you were misinformed on this particular occasion.
So by now we have nobody who is prepared to defend the blog and answer what is the value proposition for the blog continuing.
So we conclude you all squat to piss.
Stu 2 - Carter is a player and I've seen him up close in action a number of times. Not to be recommended unless you like you bullshit fresh and steaming.
So now Gordon's twat mates The Lukes Collective pretend not to understand the point of history and paleo data.
The Year Zero Collective is here now!
He may have some knowledge of matters palaeo but he has no demonstrated useful experience to quote on modern meteorology.
So chek-mate - what is the value proposition for the continuation of the blog. Or are you just here as there are no women, men or farm animals that enjoy your company.
As long as it provides a platform for highlighting the anti-intellectual bankruptcy of little would-be brownshirts like The Luke Collective and crank fantasists like Gordon and Cox, it earns it's place
So Gordy, you're keen to converse on Readfearn's questions : did you follow link one to read the two paragraphs from Monckton via SPPI pamphlet?
Monckton makes this claim: "...many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all."
How do think Monckton 'knows' this? Do you think he has run a few surveys? Do you think Jensen is aware of this Monckton view? I'd say he might be now that he's read Readfearn's article!
Luke@#47. Jeff Harvey and Nick did say that this blog has suffered from the lack of attention by the blog owner. So I don't think your assertion about no one is entirely fair.
However, I have to agree with you that it is offering very little value in its present state.
This is stupid, Luke.
It is evidence denial. Science denial. Physics denial.
Stop bluffing, posturing and denying and start being objective!
Examine the evidence. We both know you haven't.
The Lukes have a 'position'.
Evidence doesn't enter into it.
Being realistic, what is to be expected from a clownshoe Nova shill? Objectivity?
Monckton is a showman, surrounded by controversy, but as Jensen said, a lot of what he says is plausible.
Lets move down to question 15...
'Climate change scientists should be prosecuted and locked up - yes or no?'
Not sure he even said it, but it makes sense when you consider the wrath of the masses when global cooling begins to bite.
As the subtext of my recent comments have pointed out all too plainly, you deniers are a minority ranking below paedophiles in the national scheme of things. You speak for nobody except your deluded micro-minority sect.
... or when the Sun goes out. Whichever happens sooner.
#52, Stu, in our present state Lionel has posted a link at #8 which is of great value..
Well thank heavens I'm a brown shirt and not a crank fantasist.
So looks like BBD is empty on the climate texts.AS WE SUSPECTED.
Stu2 - my question was serious - would be good for Loth, Chek-machine or BBD to say "the value proposition for this blog is ....."
Er, are we reading the same thread?
..enough to attract Nova shills and concern trolls and a regular parade of cranks attempting to do whatever it is they think they're doing, but failing. Badly.
#58 ...lock up climate scientists for their own protection of course,very considerate of you....back to link one, is that Monckton being 'plausible'? Having the appearance of truth? 'Many scientists' are amoral according to Monckton's diligent research. Only 'the great religions,chiefly Christianity',can provide the moral framework through which a scientist can work ethically, according to the deeply Christian viscount who lied publicly about being a scientist [in transcript of Wendy Carlisle's piece] and claimed to have published peer-reviewed work. Jensen's judgement...is it ministerial material?
#63,that's state-of-the-art denialism on demand! There is now no gap detectable between the provision of demanded evidence and the shunning of it with the latest denialbot model...
'is it ministerial material?'
Jensen is the most qualified scientist in the government, so I would be very surprised if Abbott picked anyone else. Greg Hunt should be sacked from his portfolio, he's an ijit.
Not sure about Monckton's thinking on amorality, assuming he said it. So damn hard to get real quotes, always someone's interpretation of what he said.
What does the opinion of a diseased degenerate like Monckton have to do with anything?
Back to question 15 ....
In the near future, as temperatures continue to slide, the Klimatariat will come under great pressure to admit their folly.
They may be publicly humiliated and severely chastised, but as its a collective its unlikely any one individual will be imprisoned.
Those wind farms are a total waste, yet no politician will be held responsible because they were all brainwashed.
#67...."assuming he said it"...why assume when you can read the poor man's every deranged musing in the 'Monckton Collection' at the SPPI blog!! Monckton wants you to know how batty he is,mate...he's fucking crazy about himself! One of the great public romances.
If you follow Readfearn's link, you go to the 'Open Parachute' blog, read the short article in which there is a direct link to the legthy turgid absurdity "What is Science Without Religion?" at the SPPI's site. Verbatim.
#69...'as temperatures continue to slide'... all windfarms are a 'total waste' ,all politicians are 'brainwashed'.... this sort of rejection of reality shows why you are easy meat for Monckton.
How much of a fuckwitted luddite crank do you have to be to write off a resource that currently provides 17% of power to an economy the size of Germany's?
The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking, so its only a matter of time before the leaders lose their political will.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/uk-renewables-eu-idUKBRE97P0FS…
Or El Gordo - if the temperature again starts to rise it will be open season on sceptics
So 50:50 or phone a friend?
The bigger picture Fatso is that all fossil fuels are finite, and irrespective of the damage caused to the biosphere by heating the planet, any global economy that is expanded on the basis of the proportionately high use of them will eventually crash all the harder when they run out.
lol....barnturd........... stuttering again through his cleft palette and hair lip
'if the temperature again starts to rise it will be open season on sceptics'
Freedom of speech on the blogosphere is not quite the same, hasn't cost a penny.
Luke its unlikely sceptics will be punished for discussing climate on the blogosphere.
Bloody DoS attack.
‘Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”
‘Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.
‘They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed.’
Tim Ball
BJ we have enough fossil fuels to last us a century and by then we should be into more sophisticated forms of energy.
El Gordo - but all the blog owners will be.
Sooo guyzz, why don’t the fizzzziks work ?
National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-clim…
Have you guyzz got a climate model of some sort that has worked and will work into the future?
short answer........NUP........... fizziks problemo...lol
Sigh. No, I'm pretty sure that's not my claim about you. (Is "tedious" the appropriate term from your idiom?)
I pointed out that you gave a very strong impression of trying to elevate non-peer reviewed claims to the same status as peer-reviewed claims. That is NOT the same as "dismissing" peer review. That is refusing to dismiss non-peer reviewed claims. The two are NOT equivalent, nor are they even "two sides of the same coin".
And that is a complete red herring with regard to the validity (or otherwise) of your objection. Your objection wasn't predicated on claiming that I had the facts wrong". Your objection was to the validity of the reasons for my rejection, not the evidence to which those reasons applied. And you have completely failed to demonstrate WHY anyone should take your objection to the reasoning seriously.
Sigh. I haven't rejected people based purely on their political affiliations. No, really. Go find a quote. And I do mean an actual quote in context, since you keep (as Luke puts it) "verballing" me when you paraphrase me. And I do mean "purely", because that's your claim here. Find a quote where I reject someone with demonstrated competence based solely on their political affiliations. I'll wait.
Apart from that, I object to your objection of dismissal based on lack of publication records. Now, since you appear to think your objections without justification should be accepted, why are you arguing with my objection, especially since mine has ample justification?!
You STILL haven't demonstrated why someone with no climate science publication record should not be dismissed out of hand (even by unskilled people) when making contrarian claims about climate science. (And note how you once more "tediously" eliminated the critical distinction - "contrarian" - from my position in the quote above!)
You haven't shown why such a dismissal is a bad strategy for unskilled people seeking to find the most robust scientific claims. You simply assert that people shouldn't do that. Saying it doesn't make it so, and objecting doesn't make the objection valid.
Tellingly, you haven't answered my questions about how the hypothetical non-skilled government minister should evaluate competing claims, nor have you answered Bernard's questions about how one should treat Bob Carter's claims. I'm betting you won't.
It has become obvious to nearly everyone here that you're simply ducking and weaving, trying to have your objection without justifying it - and trying to focus discussion away from this key point which you haven't even attempted to rebut:
Can anyone tell me how money has been wasted on climate models?
Lothie...........
I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........I said..........you said........
SHUT THE FUCK UP Lothie, you sound like the stooopid moles I have to put up with at the school council meetings !!!!
Surely bingo balls would be a better and cheeeper way to forecast the climate :)
Impressive. Karen still can't manage to emulate a five year old's ability to scroll past something she doesn't find interesting.
(And she seems to have a distinct lack of self-awareness to go with her innumeracy and illogic. Altogether now...)
.you said……..I said……….you said……..I said………
Lothie, is your perm purple ?
Lothie, do you wear incontinence pads ?
lol........sorry Lothie :)
I really do luv u ...........
#91, did you read back and get your ej-um-ication, Kaz? Doesn't look like it. How did Christy cook those graphs you posted? Will you ever know? Can you ever know?
'but all the blog owners will be.'
I'm sure they are quite prepared to take the heat and humiliation if temperatures pick up sharply, but expressing an opinion is not an indictable offence.
#83, Watts headline: "National Academy of Sciences: models still 'decades away' from being useful"
Thanks,Kaz. Then Watts, fully aware of the dependable stupidity of his gang, is confident enough to reproduce what the NAS actually said. Nowhere in the report is it stated that models are not currently useful That's not what they said. That's what failed weather guy allowed as his own sub-editor .
And you are involved in school committees, Kaz? Excuse yourself, now...
#95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:
It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.
What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.
Their list of four main recommendations is:
“1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”
It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.
Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
“Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”
Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.
#95 re Watts latest brainfart: Nick Stokes of course is the only adult in the room over there. After a few dozen dittohead dribblings he offers [Kaz] this:
It’s an interesting report. They aren’t of course saying the models are “decades away from being useful”; the quote was ” meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades”.
What they are saying is that a whole lot more people should be using them and need to be able to use them. Their big proposal is for a common software interface so that they could become like consumer products. They also contemplate a network of trained model interpreters. These are not the recommendations of people who think models are useless.
Their list of four main recommendations is:
“1. Evolve to a common national software infrastructure that supports a diverse hierarchy of different models…
2. Convene an annual climate modeling forum that promotes tighter coordination…
3. Nurture a unified weather-climate modeling effort that better exploits the synergies between weather forecasting, data assimilation, and climate modeling;
4. Develop training, accreditation, and continuing education for “climate interpreters”…”
It’s not saying the models are useless – it’s about how to get them more used.
Here’s a quote from the report that you might like:
“Over the next several decades climate change and its myriad consequences will be further unfolding and likely accelerating (NRC, 2011a). Probable impacts from climate change, including sea-level rise, a seasonally ice-free Arctic, large-scale ecosystem changes, regional droughts, and intense flooding events, will increase demand for climate information. The value of this climate information is large. One of the more prominent places to see this is through the impacts of extreme climate and weather events; extreme climate and weather events are one of the leading causes of economic and human losses, with total losses between 1980 and 2009 exceeding $700 billion (NCDC, 2010) and damages from more than 14 weather- and climate-related disasters totaling more than $50 billion in 2011 alone.1 Climate change is affecting the occurrence of and impacts from extreme events, such that the past is not necessarily a reliable guide for the future, which further underscores the value of climate information in the future.”
Get away from those school committees,you lunatic.
Twice is twice too many for dead-loss Kaz, I know.
ROFLMAO!
Your delusion knows no bounds. Not gonna happen, as all of the attempts to drop their past Epic Fails down the memory hole illustrate.
'Your delusion knows no bounds.'
Counterintuitive.
A parliamentary inquiry into the hiatus would be fun, especially watching Flannery, Garnaut and Chubb fall on their swords.
Why do you think a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist would be called to give testimony on recent variability? 'Falling on their swords'? More like you stepping on a rake.
"A parliamentary inquiry into the hiatus would be fun"
perhaps but that simply assumes it goes all your way - if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics. CSIRO and BoM's best are never let off the leash. Time for management to back off, stop being polite and let them rip. (as well as saying fuck and cunt a lot)
Hey, look, an short article for Luke. Section 1 reiterates something we said to Luke that he pooh-poohed, IIRC, Section 3 reiterates a point that just flew over Karen's head, and there's even a point about the frequently cited pure Popperian view being inapplicable to most real world science.
So will Luke take his "issues" list to that thread? Inquiring minds want to know.
(And the response to the first comment points back to paleo that Luke desperately wants to dismiss...)
Seems entirely plausible. There was that reference to Hansard testimony a couple of pages back, and that went badly for the skeptic even without cross-examination.
"In addition, A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling explains that U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate. Progress toward this goal can be made through a combination of increasing model resolution, advances in observations, improved model physics, and more complete representations of the Earth system."
Maybe climate modeling should be lumped in with the Arts.
Link http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430
#4 'maybe climate modelling should be lumped in with the Arts'....you're distracting yourself, just concentrate on your remedial reading course for the time being.
Where is a climate model, of some sort, that has matched observations and will work into the future?
'...if you allow serious cross-examination it will become a blood bath for sceptics. '
If the hiatus remains in place the sceptics will have a strong case.
'CSIRO and BoM’s best are never let off the leash.'
Unless you can furnish me with a couple of names, I'll assume you are just making shit up. ;-)
#7 Kaz,what is the point in telling you? Really!
Climate modeling is actually.................
Visual art
Performing art
Conceptual art
Theatre
& singing a tune
The climate Modeling Arts :)
Yes Luke.
Although I am definitely not a fan of your style of commenting I do agree that Lotharsson et al could consider answering your value proposition. Jeff Harvey and Nick did offer what I consider is the most likely explanation.
Browbeating is certainly not providing much value and the cheap shots and abuse are only mildly entertaining.
I don't think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.
I would suggest an inquiry into the PR departments that have been responsible for some of the poor and overstated representation of climate science and for making celebrities out of unqualified people would possibly be more fruitful.
#10 Can you think of something new-ish to say in response?
'I don’t think there is anything to gain by a parliamentary inquiry. Most people at BOM CSIRO etc are decent people attempting to do their job.'
Its not to apportion blame to any individual, although lack of due diligence is of concern, the primary aim is to have an open conversation on climate change after AR5.
In local nooze...
'If Cathy McGowan wins the seat, it will be one of the major upsets of this federal election. Already the pundits are claiming that the reason for her success is captured in her campaign slogan of “Putting Indi first”.
'Most of the federal electorates within the Murray Darling are held by MPs from either the Liberal or National Parties. Over recent years, however, major water policies instigated by federal Coalition governments that directly impact these electorates have been to their long-term detriment. '
Jennifer Marohasy
#11.., I agree re BOM/CSIRO workers.
What is upsetting you in the PR department can actually be sheeted home to the media ,in particular News Ltd's very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work, push the voices of unqualified commentary from coal-industry-aided shills and dupes, and its malicious personal campaign against Tim Flannery executed by Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair. Make no mistake,News Ltd's mission is to wreck reasonable discourse.
So an inquiry would be best directed at analysing News Ltds behavior,and into legislating that the IPA reveal their funding.
"BJ we have enough fossil fuels to last us a century and by then we should be into more sophisticated forms of energy."
The comment of a moron. Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won't last that long. At least natural systems won't permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder.
Gordo, you really are a twit. I read some of your comments and can only shake my head at the level of simplistic drivel you constantly spew out. I've stayed away from here for a few days but read the shit you, Luke, and Karen promulgate from time to time. The three of you truly believe that the clots you cite and quote are skeptics rather than deniers and shills. Stu 2 has worn his colors on his sleeves too in this regard. But the statement I copy-pasted above from you is so utterly FATuous (pun intended) that I had to respond. You were once banned from deltoid for being an ignoramus and, thanks to the fact that Tim doesn't invest much time here anymore, you've found a way back through the filter.
How unfortunate.
Is there a climate model, of some sort, that has matched observations and will work into the future?
If not, why waste money on them ?
Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene.
And I wan't banned from here, Tim built me a Dickensian prison because I was constantly off topic. He called it the El Gordo Thread, but naturally I absented myself before it fell into the archives.
# 16, ignoring link at #12? Comparison of CMIP5 ensemble with observations therein
#17,the next 'wonderful achievement' will be surviving the growth model as supercharged by the fossil-fuel bloc,and replacing it with something ecologically realistic.. The election of their puppet Abbott derails that for the moment.
'News Ltd’s very persistent campaign to distort the Climate Commissions media work'
News and opinion are different things, Blair and Bolt offer opinion. Limited News has been fair and balanced on climate change, unlike Fairfax who have been a disgrace.
The Climate Commission in its present makeup should be mocked.
Fossil fuel bloc is in your head, there is no organised conspiracy and 'ecologically realistic' would be east coast black coal, CO2 is a good fertiliser.
I think it rather amusing that we are now frequently hearing statements such as this, "In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume."
The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth...... :)
Good grief!
Are you a bare-faced liar or a complete ignoramus? I'm afraid I can't see many other plausible options.
It's impressive how little you actually know about fields that you confidently dismiss - and how easy it would be to avoid your most egregious errors.
#20,21 Hilarious that you should try that on at this blog: on your right is a bunch of categories that profoundly contradict your hand-waving. All referenced. Bolt and Blair do not offer opinion: they schedule weekly or bi-weekly attacks using the same dishonest techniques; it's effectively an automated dosing system. When you mock the CC,you're parrotting News' talking/stalking points...you cannot think for yourself,it is clear.
So there is no mining lobby,Gordy....? There are no lobbyists in Canberra and the world's seats of government that often exchange headquarters on changes of regime....'see you in three years or so'? These folks make no attempt to shape policy,steer outcomes,pressure governments? It's not a conspiracy,it's a system for the cashed-up to further their interests. You clearly think that your interests are faithfully considered in this best-of possible-worlds by this process? This is why science is unavoidably at war with government: it cannot guarantee the cosy outcomes that business seeks, and it reminds government of real costs all the time.
#22...never cracked an attribution study or an IPCC report in her life,our Kaz. At least she followed the link.
I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the
solar variation effects on planet earth...........lol
Obsessive rants
You Deltoids spout
All motor-mouth
Day in, day out
A feckless grind
Of geek-ball fluff
And group-think gales
Of huff-n'-puff
As if a rage
Of hive flim-flam
Might save what's left
Of your bust scam
But sorry guys
Your agit-prop
Is glaringly
A big-time flop
Regardless how
It might be spun
The cruel truth's out--
The good-guys won!
Now as one of
Those champ good-guys
A good-sport word
Here to the wise:
As disappear
Your eco-troughs
Why not give up
On all rip-offs?
And say "Hell!" with
The lefty crowd
And get a life
That'll do you proud!
Er, Karen, you may not realise this, having presumably never looked at one, but published scientific papers have publication dates, so anyone and everyone can go and see that you're spouting obvious bullshit.
But then you're really not here for the hunting, are you?
New paper finds glaciers may be advancing in size in Asia
"The area of the investigated glaciers, including the 18 surge-type glaciers identified, showed no significant changes during all studied periods. However, the analysis provides a hint that the overall glacier area slightly decreased until about 1989 (area 1973: 1613.6 ± 43.6 km2; area 1989: 1602.0 ± 33.6 km2) followed by an increase (area 2002: 1609.7 ± 51.5; area 2011: 1615.8 ± 35.5 km2). Although the overall change in area is insignificant, advances in glacier tongues since the end of the 1980s are clearly visible. Detailed estimations of length changes for individual glaciers since the 1970s and for Central Rimo Glacier since the 1930s confirm the irregular retreat and advance."
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1385/2013/tc-7-1385-2013.html
I foresee the climate matrix unraveling..... lol
#26, please read an SPM in a an IPCC report
#27
rhyming delusion,
a cheerful dupe
projects the illusions
of Uncle Rupe
#28 err Lotharsson
Every study ever published about the solar cycle/sunspot activity that has been posted on this forum has been decried as deniar bullshit.
So now you believe.............. LOL
The world is watching and laughing at all the alarmist knobs scurrying around looking for more bullshit to shovel onto their burning prediction pyre ......... hehe
# 29, advances in part of the Karakoram are due to increased precipitation [due to CC]....in the rest of the glaciated world nearly all monitored glaciers are shrinking. Nearly all 'unmonitored' glaciers [those only monitored by remote sensing] are retreating. Sorry,Kaz.
'The alarmists ALWAYS maintained that sunspot activity had nothing to do with the temperature of the earth…'
Its extraordinary.
'I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth………..lol'
It was a mere underestimation, a trifling oversight, but coupled with the CO2 sensitivity issue its a huge story.
Yes. It's not hard for most of us to understand.
You said "climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth". No pretence is necessary. They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They've published many papers about it. With dates and all.
And what they did NOT find is evidence supporting the claim that the sun is responsible for any large part of the warming trend we've seen over the last few decades. The "studies" deniers post that claim that have so far have not stood up to scrutiny, or in colloquial terms have proven to be bullshit.
#32 the world is watching incredulously the profound attempts of the Karens to avoid informing themselves.
#31 such as David Archibald's divination and dowsing? Or Svensmarks personal issues? ...still laughing!
"They have known about all sorts of solar variation effects on planet Earth. They’ve published many papers about it. With dates and all."
Yes........they might even bring those guys in from the cold and give them some funding now.
I fact their papers are likely being meticulously perused now as we speak and who knows, the new papers might even get accepted into journals..........lol
#37 another example of the state of some branch of science being defined by Kaz's ignorance of it...Kaz,it's your brain is what's out in the cold,and despite lavish funding here,it keeps shrinking.
You mean, unlike the funding for all the OTHER research into how the sun affects the climate? And unlike the existing funding that already supports "those guys"?
Er, no. The existing papers so favoured of denialists have been previously perused and dismissed because they are unpersuasive and inconsistent with the evidence. The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT imply that those kinds of denialist papers are correct. (If anything, it supports the mainstream position that rejects those papers.)
You are impressively and consistently clueless.
'The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.
'This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.'
Matt Ridley / WSJ
AR5 Shocking Reality
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/josh-ar5-get-ready.j…
"Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm."
"The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873245490045790675324857124…
"The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT imply "
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430
#39 Lotharsson "The unsourced quote you provided at #22 DOES NOT" have anything to do with what you dribbling on about here numbnuts.
"You are impressively and consistently clueless." :)
BTW how's Archibald's forecasts going - aren't we supposed to be under an ice sheet by now?
Luke, your slipping!
"Given that rate at which humans are eating up natural capital and pushing natural systems towards and beyond critical tipping points, our species won’t last that long. At least natural systems won’t permit the current rapacious over consumptive rate of plunder."
or not
Karen - are you seeing anyone at the moment? I find your gravatar most enchanting.
Karen - alas most of the sceptics are a lamentable bunch. Is true.
Karen/Gordo, down to half a brain each, pool resources and find Matt Ridley, salting a few brazen guesses in amongst the factuals. Typical Ridley: get across the issues, insinuate some greater privileged insight, and spin...
"Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm."
First sentence is assertion,no evidence. Second is spin , choosing the emissions scenario that we are NOT following as yet, and inserting his distinctly unqualified opinion where it should not be..so she'll be right-maybe- until 2080s and who gives a fuck.This is the guy who crashed a bank because over over-optimism and lack of diligence: just the man to walk us through the future.
#48 Luke,
" I find your gravatar most enchanting."
lol......... tuck yer dick back in, I've seen where it's been
'BTW how’s Archibald’s forecasts going – aren’t we supposed to be under an ice sheet by now?'
-------------
'Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2°C colder over the coming decade than it was over the last decade.'
David Archibald 2007
Nigel Farage offers Barroso some cooling news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aylLhPHI1TI
hahaha..........lol...........hahaha
BBD and your page 8 #32, Gomitz is out of my price range but the Cronin may be worth a look. Is your Cronin the 2009 edition?
Whatever here is a list of books I have (luke PA) here, a few general reader books have been left off.
General Reader
Climate Change: Picturing the science – Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe
Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – Michael Mann and Lee Kump
Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert
The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson
Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach – William James Burroughs
Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Third Edition) – John Houghton
More technical
Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer
The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer
The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Richard Alley
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate – William F. Ruddiman
Earth's Climate: Past and Future – William F. Ruddiman
Quite technical
Atmosphere, Weather and Climate (1982 edition and much thumbed) – Roger G Barry and Richard J Chorley
Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert
The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (Eds.)
Policy/Politics
Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate – Stephen H. Schneider
Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future – Jeff Goodell
Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis – And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster – Ross Gelbspan
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth – Eric Pooley
The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription – Ross Gelbspan
Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do – Joseph Romm
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – James Hansen
Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions – Joe Romm
Another's can be found here
Also I can recommend:
Cassell's Atlas of Evolution: The Earth, its Landscape, and Life Forms
and texts on geology and palaeontology, Physical, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, Peter Atkins in particular on that latter. Also a good look at Richard Feynman in particular his three volume Lectures on Physics, recently republished as 'The New Millennium Edition' in a slip case.
I forgot
The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change – Wally Broecker
which reminded me to mention books by Richard Corfield. I attended a talk given by him, based around his 'The Silent Landscape' in the dockyard a couple of years back, signed my copies.
Lionel, those books may keep you warm one winters day :)
Clang, clang, clang, wow-wow-wow-wow (the sound of alarms), strawman, strawman unless of course you can find a quote from currently respected scientists in the field (that rules out a few see below) who have actually said that or anything like it.
Now what about Christy's (and Spencer's) distortions over atmospheric temperatures? It seems that you have ducked that one, again!
Lionel, those books may keep you warm one winters day
Well here is one you should study:
The Warming Papers and from page 215 which will help you answer my questions WRT satellite and radiosonde temperature measurements put to you on the previous page.
Ruddiman 'Earth's Climate: Past & Future page 320 will also help as will Archer 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' page 132. You could do with studying this latter book in its entirety.
Er, no. That doesn't explain "the pause". Think about it. "The pause" would still be "the pause" regardless of the sensitivity that is derived from the models. "The pause" is observations, not models. Matt Ridley is feeding his gullible readers another line of bullshit - his speciality.
#56 if we could just make those troubling books and ideas just disappear...sigh.
'The Long Thaw' is an excellent read, Archer's low key conversational style might even work for Kaz...she could suggest it at the committee as something for the school library....
"signed my copies."
that was sweet Lionel, :)
Well Nick, I suppose we could describe Monckton as something of a rake, except he isn't making much progress.
“The pause” is observations, not models.'
The models overestimated sensitivity, massiver fail.
You have something correct at last, that is your opening clause above is a massive fail.
Please explain why. It has to do with a concept that you had difficulty with previously, negatives and positives and all that.
Mostly, the scientists overestimated the models
Never mind that oh tricksey one. Now sort out Christy and Spencer's cookery. If you are up to it yet that is. Plenty of pointers have been put up.
Nope, evidence suggests that they're in the right ballpark. If they were significantly oversensitive a whole load of other comparisons would be a lot worse.
The most plausible explanation is that the models don't emulate some of what's currently going on in the climate system. We know they are way off on Arctic sea ice and aren't great on deep ocean heat either, and since the ocean gets the vast majority of the excess energy due to the radiation imbalance it only takes a small change in ocean absorption rates to have a fairly significant impact on atmospheric heat content.
So (roughly speaking) if we applied your simplistic logic to those data points they would suggest models have significantly underestimated climate sensitivity - and since far greater amounts of energy are involved in melting ice and deep ocean heat energy than are involved in "the pause", the "underestimated sensitivity" case would win out.
But of course you will avoid applying your logic to those data points because it reveals a Massive Fail, as you put it.
Deeper and deeper into the slurry you fall as evidenced by your continued inane spluttering.
Ridley prefers his own view to that of Fyfe et al 2013, after going to the trouble of citing them...what would they know? I suppose Ridders is there to soothe the investers, they don't want any stranded assets.
Nick @#14.
I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don't believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
However, that was not what I meant @#11.
I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.
Oops! I switched the order of the chemistry fields and missed the now incorrect reference of Atkins which should of course be to Physical Chemistry. The equilibrium diagram (phase) of water is a must study. Why would that be Karen and gordolocks?
Your comment is awaiting moderation. !!!
Sorry! I mistyped my email address again!
I apologise if appears twice.
Nick @#14.
I do agree that our media are more inclined to sensationalise and try to make up stories out of not much. I don’t believe that News Ltd are the only guilty party in that regard.
However, that was not what I meant @#11.
I was actually referring to the PR departments of government institutions who put out press releases that overstate and/or sensationalise issues and also put up, as you pointed out earlier, people such as a mammologist, an economist and a neuroscientist as the celebrity experts of climate.
Some of the information that has emerged today via the Julia Gillard opinion piece and the subsequent interviews and her scathing comments about leadership and behaviour in the ALP caucus has quite probably also influenced the mixed messaging in the media.
So, Karen and gordolocks, Ridley (GWPF don't forget) has joined Watts in the new 'Olympic' sport of 'shark jumping'.
Now there is a surprise. Cue Morano, Milloy, Laframboius, Morohassel, Nova, Limbaugh, the Faux gang, the 'Interpreter of Interpretations' and Bolt, no not Usain Bolt.
#71 Flannery as Climate Commission chief spokesperson always made it clear that he was conveying expert advice,not originating it...and the other eminent members of the commission are quite ignored [because News Ltd bloggers had their target in Tim; didn't want to dilute the attack,and wanted to identify everything about the CC with Tim...classic framing tactics] As I told Gordy,at your right is the resource for a decade of News Ltds dirty tricks department]. Flannery had made statements in a different capacity [around the time of writing 'The Weathermakers'] and offered musings long BEFORE he was appointed to the Climate Commission,which News were happy put on high-rotation to create a false association with his new role.
Garnaut was the go-to on economic response,as an economist. He did a prodigious amount of work...er,not a 'celebrity expert'
Chubb,Chief Scientist, is not a celebrity CC expert,either....look up the CS's brief some day.
And hows that forecast working out, Gordo?
No, let me save you the trouble, since it involved mathematical skills beyond those of our resident trolls, what with averages 'n' shit...
Over the 2/3rds of Archibalds coming decade we have had so far (2007 - Aug 2013) Hanover, New Hampshire has been 0.2 degrees warmer than the preceding decade. For Archibald's prediction to come in, it will need to average 6.2 degrees colder than average for the next 3.3 years.
Data here.
To quote Clay Boone on Eli "Kid" Shaleen: "He did it! He missed the barn!"
Sod it.
Dome nuts for Karen, but will she use them and answer the outstanding questions swilling around that Christy/Spencer cookery?
"CO2 is a good fertiliser"
Epic fail. Try again, fatso.
"Jeff think of the technological progress we have made over 200 years, its been a wonderful achievement by humanity at the end of the Holocene"
Comment of a moron, Part 2. Fatso, you seem to think that the material economy is independent of the natural economy. Methinks you probably share a common philosophy with right wing economist Peter Huber, who once claimed that humans can survive and thrive in a "planet covering crypt of concrete and computers".
Your comment reflects your complete and utter ignorance of systems ecology and of the link between human welfare and ecosystem services. Point is fatso, your views would be better suited to a comic book. Luke's too, for that matter. He is similarly burdened with delusions of grandeur that camouflage profound ignorance.
el gordolocks, go find a copy of this book What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees, note the reviews, read it and then report back how sanguine you now are.
Seriously, lummocks like you are clueless but do need to get a clue fast otherwise life on earth is going to see more drastic changes than in the last fifty years.
#63 Lionel A
Cronin is the first (2009) edition - I'm not aware of any second edition to date. An excellent book, worth the money, highly recommended.
Man, are you saying I am imagining the entire Heartland Institute?
And the Donors Trust?
By the way, Gordo...
Ah yes, lovely fracking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturi…
There's more to "cost" than what's on your energy bill.
I think a fossil fuel block is his head - el gordolocks.
Donors Tust
Yes
and all these re4vealed here:
Dealing in Doubt The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science
and the earlier version described here:
Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry and note amongst the tags at foot of article:
Willie Soon
Exxonsecrets
Dr. S. Fred Singer
ExxonMobil
sallie baliunas
Philip Cooney
pat michaels
global climate coalition
climate denial industry
david legates
james inhofe (R-OK)
API
Cindy Baxter
Information Council on the Environment (ICE)
and then their is ALEC
go look up at SourceWatch el goldilocks.
and not forgetting the result of all the work hereJohn Mashey's blog.
Seriously el gordolocks, what planet have you been on, probably looking at Neptune from 'seventh rock from the sun'.
Was this jerk gordo really a journalist? Almost makes the 'interpreter of interpretations' look competent and honest.
Ah! Yes. Fracking!
Charged With Illegally Dumping Polluted Fracking Fluid, Exxon Claims ‘No Lasting Environmental Impact’
More Than Flaming Water: New Report Tracks Health Impacts of Fracking on Pennsylvania Residents’ Health
Fracking Vs. The Drought: They Call It Texas Tea, But You Can’t Drink Oil
Wonderful fracking. This clutz is as clueless as our incumbent government over here in the UK who are trying to shut down opposition by a draconian gagging bill and targeting THE green politician. That episode was shameful, it was obvious she was targeted by the police.
I have served in the armed forces for this country but am now beginning to feel ashamed of that. It is rarely those at the sharp end who benefit from political chicanery.
I want to see the debate opened up over here and learn who benefits amongst the parliamentarians and lobbyists, I have a good idea of some of the former already but the others will stay in the shadow with this misnamed gagging bill 'The Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill'
The new Tory authoritarians are trying to gag debate. The fact that this bill was introduced sneaked in the day before parliament rose for the recess should have raised a big warning flag straight off.
Lionel, look no further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
Man, I hadn't been paying attention to Donors Trust for a while. Grown quite a bit, haven't they? God forbid the Koch brothers have to pay taxes on destroying public education, labor unions and the environment.
Anyone interested in detail on Donors Trust may find these articles useful:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-chang…
* * *
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-…
* * *
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/10/11819/meet-network-hiding-koch-mone…
There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents deniers and shills from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from.
Everybody else can see it, but they seem almost selectively blind to it.
And yet by his second bottle of whisky of the night, ol' Gordon has his imaginary brownshirts out storming the 'Klimatariat' and enlightening 'the masses'.
Are you attempting to allude to some as yet unknown but different revolver-reaching culture of denialism that doesn't rely on political pointmen, disinformation and washed-up, deluded old drunks like Gordon?
#98
The condition is well-known, chek!
It is called "denial".
There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from.
Everybody else can see it, but they seem almost selectively blind to it.
Noble cause corruption. Saving the world. Just fuck off and grow up.
OK BBD fucker - where's your non-palaeo serious text book list. Obviously isn't one. Don't bother - you're tedious.
Looking forward to your specious meme making it into a paper one day, some day, never The Lukes. Given your track record of wishful thinking supplanting real analysis, I'm betting on never
'Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB).
'The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune).
'This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).
Geoff Sharp
Translation: "I know fuck-all history, and you're being unfair. But I'm sure I'm right. Donor's Trust surely didn't spend all that money for nothing".
Yes they did The Lukes, and counted on fuckwits like you to carry it forward for them./
From Luke's "library" :-)
It's always instructive to watch the deniers deny paleoclimate.
Paleoclimate behaviour sets a lower bound for fast-feedbacks sensitivity of about 2C (2xCO2 or equivalent forcing change). Even going with the lower bound S_ff / 2xCO2 = ~2C still leaves us with a serious problem requiring a globalised policy response. So no joy for deniers.
Paleoclimate behaviour is a better fit with a value for S_ff of at least ~2.5C and probably nearer ~3C.
So it must be denied.
Oh yes.
Nick@#83 previous page.
That is a somewhat simplistic and naïve view of the way that PR works in government institutions and departments such as the Climate Commission
Tim Flannery as Climate Commissioner has, very unfortunately, often been guilty of dramatising and overstating his brief for the sake of PR along with other members of the Climate Commission.
This is but one example straight from the Climate Commission PR dept to the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hamme…
In light of recent political events I think it is also rather interesting to note that much was done to focus this report on Western Sydney, where we know the ALP was rapidly losing support.
However I do agree with you that what many here would call 'the other side' is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd.
I'm tempted to just comment ' Oh fuck off you deluded old linkless cunt', but in the interests of fairness let's see the data not the latest oil company disinfo release via Williwatts (which let it be noted was not forthcoming in the case of similarly met requests for the alleged Minoan and Roman Hollywood-inspired 'warming periods').
But to sum up for you Gordon, you and your fellow solar crank obsessionalists: "The warming that occurred during the latter half of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar influences".
Gordy
It's not the sun.
"However I do agree with you that what many here would call ‘the other side’ is just as guilty of overstating and dramatising, including News Ltd."
The other side, as Stu2 colloquially calls it, is made up primarily by a bunch of shills and liars who would never accept evidence for AGW if it stared them in the face. Many in this well-funded lobby still deny the realities of CFCs and their effects on ozone, acid rain, extinction rates the other environmental threats. Their job is simply to sow doubt on these problems in order to maintain the status quo.
Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn't appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.
"There surely must be some as yet unrecognised medical condition that apparently prevents watermelons, university layabouts, greenies, do-gooders and bedwetters from seeing how and from where their endless mountain of mutated drivel and disinformation originates from"
Luke is such a gormless jerk. This statement alone is proof positive of his political affiliations. These clots cannot help but wear their agendas on their sleeves. The old watermelon canard dredged up endlessly when their scientific arguments are proven to be bankrupt.
This clown is really a hoot. Hilarious.
BBD - bluff? Nope I just think you're a fuckwit. What else did you get down the uni library last night - let's see!! If you were any good you'd have coughed up yesterday - you're fooling nobody.
"Oh fuck off you deluded old linkless cunt’" - that's the spirit Chekky !
The Lukes and their like can turn observations around verbally as at #1, but of course that isn't the same thing by a long chalk of actually turning the meaning around.
But it serves the purposes of half-wit morons like The Lukes in fooling even more witless morons like SpamKan and Gordon as an approximation of cleverness.
While achieving nothing to anyone with more than 0.51 of a brain..
Jeff - well having denied my previous cites I'm not sure how to please
But Jeff's whiney bitch eco-end-of-the-fucking-world rantings are good entertainment value. They fulfill all the meme criteria to belong to the greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter class.
Fucking ecosystem services - the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging.
BTW don't verbal me about my political affiliations. You don't know.
#15 Chekky - you're improving old son - I've been abused by experts and you have potential. But honestly have ever thought that the lads do wank a bit? Surely you must think they are a bunch of fucktards, dour and humourless. You never get a funny joke here - it's always "saving the fucking world". Maybe they need to stop being virgins and get laid?
Luke, you fool nobody.
Blether on. Who cares?
How the text book list BBD - what did you get from the uni library. Pretty think that AHS book eh? Do you know who AHS is?
Lionel, I agree with you re the fracking, the unknown chemicals that are being pumped into the subsurface aquifers and water tables is disgusting!!!!
BUT, do you think that fracking would be an accepted practice now if it were not for all of the fuss the greenies and alarmists have made over a harmless trace gas (co2).
"Gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, is part of the answer to climate change, as a bridge in our transition to a green future, especially in our move away from coal," said Davey, at a speech at the Royal Society in London."
It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry, and now you all are sooking about it.
The next step, many more Fukushima scenarios on the horizon ?
Have you seen the mess that Fukushima is making?
The MSM is silent about this ongoing disaster and the greenies don't seem to give fuck either, your silence on this is telling.
So what do you think is the biggest threat to the future of Gaia and its inhabitants at this point in time, co2, fracking or Fukushima?
Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.
"It actually looks as though the greenies and co2 alarmists helped to establish the fracking industry,"
Well not in Aussie -- greens are in an alliance with the farmers (unlikely I know) in the "Shut the Gate" campaign.
http://www.lockthegate.org.au/groups
Some real greenies - not your Deltoid bludger uni type greenies. We're talking front line committed not pussies.
In the absence of all moderation this place has degenerated into an absolute zoo, plagued not only by the usual garrulous morons and sockpuppets, but utter yokel degenerates such as Luke.
Sane people, there is a considerable chance your level of happiness will increase if you avoid these eternal circular debates with those incapable of acting in good faith. While I appreciate that contending with the ceaseless disinformation spewing of online visigoths is frustrating, there's also very little chance that your not debating them will be any kind of loss to the world.
Anybody who's stupid enough to credit the likes of Luke with any sort of authority is lost to rationality anyway. Ignore him, it's what he fears the most...
Wait, what? That's not even coherent, Gordo.
Oh lookie, Billie is back :)
I hope your lobotomy went well ?
Abso-fucking-lutely meaningless arse dribble posing as profundity. What can be termed 'a Gordonism'. in fact.
The incorrect application of 'organised' is potentially interesting, though obviously not in the case of Gordon, who's out of his depth even in his own specialist subject and can simply be put down to heroically sustained fuckwittedness in the face of adversity.
Does planetary gravity affect the Sun?
Yes, that's undisputed.
Does the sun warm the Earth?
Yes, that's undisputed.
Is Gordon a moron for helpfully pointing that out?
Yes, that's undisputed too.
Oh Luke, sweetheart...
Racism, misogyny, education envy, job envy, pathetic Red scare claptrap, and let's not forget about the quite Freudian bedwetting and "get laid" tripe.
Luke, I'm truly sorry you resent the world because you are single, on government assistance, uneducated, wearing Depends and living in your mother's basement. Do you have to be this boring and dense though?
I get that Bill and hear you loud and clear. @#23
But the machine pumping out the shit can't be allowed to fill every available space unchallenged.
Try Q1 and loaded ! http://www.q1.com.au Thanks heavens for Clive Palmer and coal and oil shale shares. Plus my waste disposal business.
" plagued not only by the usual garrulous morons and sockpuppets, but utter yokel degenerates such as Luke."
It's true I am a yokel degenerate - my shrink tells me that all the time. She's hot too - which is why i attend.
"Well not in Aussie — greens are in an alliance with the farmers (unlikely I know) in the “Shut the Gate” campaign."
Luke, the fracking was approved and set in motion by a government being hounded to reduce co2.
Who did the hounding ?
That and Santos and Arrow wanting to make a shit-load. I got my shares.
Let's not get ludicrously above ourselves eh, The :Lukes?
Did you pat yourself on the back for slipping that in there, cupcake? The answer is no, because your question is loaded. If you take that pathetic and obvious red herring out, the answer is "of course". It has nothing to do with environmental activism, it has to do with money.
Obvious and stupid lie. Why do you think you can get away with this shit, moron? Do you really think people are as stupid as you are?
Until we actually start properly regulating and maintaining aging reactors, quite likely.
Yes. The owning company influenced the government (well, is the government in Japan, depending on your definitions) to allow them to get away with absolutely disgusting practices, and the country is well and fucked because of it.
Yes they are, sweetheart. Why do you think that is? Go on, guess.
Our silence on the topic that YOU brought up? JUST NOW? Seriously? And you wonder why people don't like you?
Knock the Gaia shit off, troll.
They both suck. They both kill people. They both destroy the environment. Plus for Fukushima: it's fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor. Plus for fracking: kills much slower and by the time people figure out how much damage is being done at any one site, it's dirt-cheap to just move on. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to live near the Keystone XL either.
So hey! We've established that non-renewable energy sources all suck! You're all for solar, wind and hydro then, KarenMackSunspot? Right? You're fighting for tougher fuel standards, carbon taxes and lowering electricity usage, right?
Right?
Or are you just a fucking hypocrite?
And you wonder why every woman reaches for her rape whistle when you walk into the room, you troglodyte?
By the way, called MRA pretty early on Luke... guess I was merely being too kind.
"organised by large gas giants"..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?...anythings possible
#20 "greenies and CO2 alarmists help establish the fracking industry"... except that its been around for sixty years at scale , developed in response to declining yields from oil fields. Fracking is the last option for defunct prospects like Karen.
Jeff Harvey @#11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, Stu2 is so utterly naive that he thinks both sides have equal intellectual merit in their approach to climate science. He doesn’t appear to consider for a second that powerful, vested interests drive AGW denial on behalf of a clear profit-driven agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask how you have drawn that conclusion from my post @#8 ?
I was merely pointing out in a reply to Nick's earlier comment that the ALP and the PR departments in places such as the Climate Commission via our Climate Commissioners have not done themselves any favours by putting out media releases such as the one I posted above.
That was because Nick seemed unaware that Government and departmental PR and reporting is guilty of overstating and overdramatising too and that it appears our Government spokespersons have quite probably been ill advised by their PR people.
As far as I know, that has no bearing on the quota of intelligence re AGW. I don't think the PR effort I posted above demonstrates intelligence no matter which side it comes from.
Wait, you're equating overzealous press releases with the fossil fuel industry spending tens of millions of dollars every year spreading willful misinformation?
Dude, you should work at Fox News.
#38,that link was dead,Stu2.
'Wait, what? That’s not even coherent, Gordo.'
Yeah, must have been thinking aloud, its ok I'm back on my meds now.
Following up on Archibald's prediction of a 2.2 drop at New Hampshire, now seems to be wildly optimistic.
He has a lot of credibility riding on his Dalton revival and a sharp decline in temperatures.
Gordo, stop posting drunk. You're so incoherent that it's not even clear whether you're merely being stupid or lying again.
#38, found the piece,Stu2. Now, note the headline is the ABC's work. None of the interviewees use the phrase "will hammer NSW" or the word "hammer"....Flannery and Hughes just talk numbers: more days above 35C,etc. This is mundane stuff,it's what the projections indicate. Flannery states the obvious about prolonged heat affecting the young and elderly. Is that alarmist? Any heatwave prompts that warning from BOM and health departments.
I think you are making it up. There is no hyperbole,no loaded language from Profs Hughes and Flannery.
Some gratuitous 'false balance' padder is thrown in in the second half of the piece, with Stuart Franks saying we don't know how ENSO will roll over the coming decades, as if that affects the probabilities significantly.
At the end of the piece soon-to-be minister Greg Hunt repeats News Ltd's lie re: " the dams were predicted to be empty by now " You should know the background to that by now.
#41,it's accurate to say that Archibald never had any credibility. He's a self-published amateur, whose methods are trivially dismissed.
#34 Stu
"Plus for Fukushima: it’s fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/RADIATION%20conccol_Xe-133…
lol.. 'An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre is bringing Japanese radiation to the West Coast of North America:' http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/west-coast-of-north-america-to-b…
You greenies are negligent to let them get away with Fukushima
#34 Stu
“Plus for Fukushima: it’s fairly localized and therefore easy to monitor.”
fukushima radiation map noaa https://www.google.com.au/search?q=fukushima+radiation+map&tbm=isch&tbo…
You guys are only green when it suits you, how many of you are financially leeching off the green revolution ?
If a catastrophic Dalton fails to turn up in a couple of years then Archibald will wonder how he could of got it so wrong.
So Luke has time for projective sprays, but no time to head over to that RealClimate post with his list of "issues".
Hmmmm...he seems to be not interesting in hunting either here or there. Hands up if that surprised you?
Thought so.
Oh, my, that may just about set a new standard in irrationality, which is pretty impressive as we've had a number of very strong candidates here.
hi el :)
New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce warming during the Holocene Climate Optimum
"A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that climate models are unable to reproduce the warming in East Asia during the Holocene Climate Optimum. According to the authors, "Much effort has been devoted to reconstructing the mid-Holocene climate over East Asia using a variety of proxy data, suggesting that China experienced warmer and wetter than present climate conditions as a whole during that time," however climate model "results are contrary to the warming reconstructed from multiple proxy data for the mid-Holocene." The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that climate models are unable to reproduce the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods, all of which were warmer than the present. Climate models are unable to reproduce the known climate of the past, much less the future. "
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-climate-mo…
Gordon was never a journalist, which requires at the very least a basic proficiency in English, even for sports (especially so in sport, some might say).
That was just another lie.
Confusing a verb with a phonetically similar preposition demonstrates gross unfamiliarity with the written word.
guffaw
Marcott et al's observational research didn't find most of those fictional periods so why should the models?
Where's your data for them?
Hi Karen.
So the models can't read backward, this doesn't look good.
"You greenies"? You're a fucking child. I've already said that I have never been and am not a member of any environmental association. I don't necessarily agree with most of their proposed policies. I've already stated that I have never voted for any political party that identifies as "Green", nor do I plan on doing so. You know this. So again, not just a lie but a supremely stupid attempt at othering.
Anyway.
It might shock you to learn this, troll, but I am neither a member of the UN, the Japanese government or a major media outlet. If you have any thoughts on how I can stop TEPCO from "getting away with it", I'm all ears.
Of course, you're not even remotely interested in any of that. You really thought you had something there, didn't you? Well, you did cupcake -- it's right up there with "AL GORE LIVES IN A BIG HOUSE LOLOLOL".
...and that's enough of this red herring. Me and every contributor to the IPCC AR5 could get together in my back yard. We could club some baby seals. We could drop some plutonium down our well. We could burn a million car tires. We could do all of these things and climate change would still be real, you fucking idiot.
Personally? Me? Not at all. I work on modelling software for the energy industry, and let me tell you first-hand: they're interested in smart meters, a better grid, more renewables (with batteries and/or pumped storage), and how to do less maintenance (in no particular order).
You know why? They know damned well what the energy industry will look like in 30 years. So fuck you and the uninformed horse you rode in on, clown.
Hmm. I guess I just outed my daytime job. Have at it, guys.
Wait, did Karen just talk about, you know, the past and stuff?
I await Luke slapping "her" down with bated breath. Luke, please explain to "Karen" why all of that stuff is completely irrelevant.
*grabs popcorn*
If he actually was one, can you imagine the collective sighs from the editors when one of his high school football reports came in?
Stu - which is why you motor on over to Novas (ignore the sundry fuckers) and engage with TonyFromOz about some serious energy chat. Good call on a job unlike BBD festering in some uni dorm.
Loth I was too shy to go to RC and didn't want to contaminate a quality site.
“organised by large gas giants”..what BP, Shell, Chevron and Woodside?…anythings possible'
That's quite funny, certainly funnier than anything Stu attempts.
Acting in good faith …
‘Making explicit concessions also shows good faith. Often in the course of arguments we encounter valid counterarguments. Rather than be antagonistic or adversarial, concede what is valid to such counterarguments.
‘This shows not only good faith, and civility, but that you are oriented toward achieving consensus, and in fact it makes your argument stronger if you can respond effectively to every such counterargument. Naturally there will be cases in which you find a counterargument to be superior to your own, and such counterarguments may in fact change your own thinking.
‘Rather than simply walk away, give concession to your opponent(s) by stating clearly that they have won the argument through logic, reason, and clarity of concept.’
Wiki
#51. Actually, Kaz, your new paper does not support the ambitious claims [ paraphrasable as ' model/data disagreements means we knows nothin' '] of the eagerly ignorant Hockeyschtickers.
It's about a new suite of models being tested against paleo observations in China. There is a mismatch...wow. We can all go home now.
But, you know how it is with agnotologist chest-beaters, if there is no material support in the paper for claims like the MWP or RWP were warmer than present, it doesn't matter. Pride in ignorance and disinformation takes precedence.
"Personally? Me? Not at all. I work on modelling software"
Stu how about pumping out a climate model for us ?
"So fuck you and the uninformed horse you rode in on, clown."
lol..... well leave me out Stu, I don't have a horse but you are welcome to my goat...........
'I don’t have a horse but you are welcome to my goat……'
That's classic.
Sure, Luke. Can you get over your education envy in the meantime?
Anyway El Gordo - enough dicking around - back on topic - http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/hans-von-storch-and-eduardo…
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/the-intriguing-stagnation.h…
Interesting to watch Gavin defend the ground at RC - how times have changed - he's almost under siege. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-bet…
Stu - I'm not envious - good on ya and kudos - I'm just fucking with you and becoming what BBD and Jeff want me to be. Helps their world view and confirmation bias.
...says the guy who's too shy chicken to take his "issues" over there.
This "under siege" thing must have happened in the last hour or so after I finished reading the comments. Hang on, let me check.
Hmmmm, not seeing it. Maybe the term means something different to Luke, as several other terms apparently do?
' A third possibility is that the set of external forcings prescribed in the CMIP5 simulations lack a component of relevance. In particular, the CMIP ensembles assume a constant solar irradiance, due to the difficulties in predicting solar activity. However, solar irradiance displays a negative trend in the last 15 years, which could be part of the explanation of this mismatch.'
Hear Hear
Well - yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova's. Lots of pause curiosity at RC - you may think he's winning and maybe he his (just) but lots of Gavin bites - he's annoyed (again). It's telling. And a sign of the times. The dreaded unwashed voters are NOT convinced. Your problem guys.
#65...so,did ya read Zorita's piece? The 'stagnation' is just a reference to a global-scale all-season temperature number. Z refers to the papers that BBD has often introduced here that note the recent inter-seasonal divergence hidden behind that bland metric. It's a 'pause' only in the sense that GAT is SEEN to be pretty static when it's graphed. Summers,autumns and springs keep getting hotter,offset by winter cooling [which is not enough to hinder glacier loss,which is ongoing and serious].
In the practical sense of experiencing [and adapting to] climate change, nastier winters and hotter summers in northern North America, Europe and parts of Asia are not helpful. Anyone who argues that the 'pause' buys time of some kind is not paying attention.
From Luke's second link...
'It looks to us rather like the effect of the North Atlantic Oscillation on surface temperatures with some additional global contribution. The NAO has shown up in its negative phase in the recent Northern Hemisphere winters, favouring a more meridional circulation and causing polar air intrusions in Eurasia.'
El Gordo - my mate reckons it's the aerosols or OHC after rapping with Trenberth and Meehl at the August 2013 Clivar Extremes Workshop. If so you should be worried. If not you'll be laughing. We'll find out won't we.
False Equivalence fallacy.
Been there, done that in the past.
But even more importantly, there's little evidence of expertise at Nova's so it doesn't meet my aims. Whereas there's clear evidence of expertise at RC which meets your self-proclaimed goals.
We can only conclude that your self-proclaimed goals were lies, but we all knew that, right?
Good grief - almost a discussion like I tried a few weeks ago. I'd better go.
Yes Loth - I'm just a scum bag. You're right as always.
Your aims being to hand around a leper colony and play bumper cars with lay folks ?
...which doesn't make him "under siege" any more than Karen or el gordo's annoying bullshit makes science "under siege" here, and no more than a commenter or two over there equals the population of "dreaded unwashed voters".
You really ought to try and think some time. Preferably before you type.
In 40 comments, a couple of commenters at RC are determined to miss the point re models,usually because they ignore the caveats and are unaware of the many facets in inputs and outputs. No, handling their comments patiently does not scan as 'Gavin Schmidt under siege'...quite_the_opposite.
'If not you’ll be laughing. We’ll find out won’t we.'
Indeed, I just took a glimpse at the NAO Index and it appears normal for this time of year. At this stage the aerosol and OHC call is a little late, so I remain a sun worshipper until further evidence shows up.
Good links by the way.
Coincidence? I think not.
'One intriguing aspect of the stagnation is that it has not been equally distribution across all 12 months of the annual cycle. It has mainly occurred during the months of December, January and February, with the trends in June, July and August over the last 15 years being more similar to the corresponding trends in the period 1980 to 1997.
'This means that temperature trends have decelerated much more during the boreal winter months. Actually the trend over the last 15 years in these months is remarkably negative ...'
Stu
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm · Reply
Sorry, I might be a little confused here — at what point did science become decided by popular vote?
Isn't this post normal science?
@Gordo:
Oh fuck off, Gordo. You lie. Over and over and over. You talking about good faith is like... I don't know. Like the Koch brothers talking about democracy.
@Luke:
Yes you are. Racist, misogynist, MRA. We've established all of that already. You are a scumfuck, Luke. That discussion is over. Was there a point you were trying to make here?
Luke. When are you going to castigate "Karen" for talking about paleoclimate?
How would you know?
Who wants to do the over-under on this making it out of moderation over at Nova's dungeon of idiocy?
Stu
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 15, 2013 at 2:32 pm · Reply
It is not a matter of not believing we can use a tax to change the climate.
Still, that’s what you’re arguing against. I’m sure you’ll clarify though.
We know we can’t change the climate or temp just by using simple kindy maths.
That’s not even a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent argument.
Hasn’t anyone looked at the non OECD’s co2 emissions lately? Geeeezzzzz.
Nirvana fallacy.
So we reduce our 1.2% of the planet’s emissions by 5% by 2020 and reduce the temp by how much?
[Citation needed]
Nirvana fallacy.
Give me strength and yet the idiot Labor and Green parties still believe in taxing co2.
Incoherent. Again. Is this what passes for cogent argumentation around here?
Hot off the BoM press...its been unusually warm down under.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs46.pdf
Regional Warming Human Induced
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
Nick @#43,
How does the fact that the ABC coined the headline make any difference to the point of my reply to your earlier comment?
Also, don't you think that the comments about cranky drivers in traffic jams is just a tad hyperbolic and certainly not based on any scientific evidence?
What do you think I made up? I was not the one who wrote that media release and staged the interview at Sydney Harbour. That was most definitely the PR people working for the Climate Commission.
And Stu @#39. I guess overzealous is sort of synonymous with overstate and overdramatise but it appears that both you and Nick are attempting to argue either only one side or only News Ltd is guilty of overzealous reporting or even more worrying that it's OK if the ABC and Tim Flannery do it because everyone else does it anyway?
#88 ,Well, you suggested that the CC was responsible for that sort of PR. They did not 'write that media release' . You described your link as a "PR piece". The link was to an ABC article about the release of the Climate Commissions 'Critical Decade' report. The CC are not responsible for the headline or content of the article, they were the subject of it; they had no control of the ABC's application of hyperbole in the headline which was the sole piece of hyperbole in the article...and,no, pointing out that drivers get cranky in heat does not need further peer-review,nor is it damaging hyperbole.
I ,and many others,do argue that News Ltd is responsible for a campaign of misinformation...again I direct you to the columns at right such as 'The Australian's War On Science'. These are rather thorough analyses. Fairfax are not particularly competent, but they have not produced the bullshit that News does.
Did you know that Australian scientists will not consent to interviews with News Ltd journalists now, because of serial misrepresentation,and failure to acknowledge complaints?
Will Aunty report this amazing good news? Doubtful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu…
I'll drop it off at the Bolters blog, where it may get traction.
Nick @#88. I did not mean to suggest that the CC was responsible for the PR. I apologise if that looked to be the case. I do believe that he was ill advised by the PR people and I found the focus on Western Sydney odd. I was criticising the actual PR/media releases which you will find that all the MSM including the ABC use.
The video interview was most definitely staged. I don't think the CCs thought of doing that themselves do you?
Sorry! @#89 not #88. 88 was my comment!
"Racist, misogynist, MRA" - wot's an MRA - Motorcycle Riders' Australia?
Quality verballing though. That's the spirit.
The point I was trying to make was how about answering my original questions.
#88...and because The Australian does not get to talk to local experts anymore, they continue to commission bullshit from agenda-driven non-scientist bloggers like Andrew Montford as a substitute for real content. Montford attacks Cook et al 2013 on climate publication consensus,by purporting to discredit the methodology...which is in fact explicit and unambiguous,and which produces a result entirely consistent with its details.
Montford writes,in the process of trying to discredit the Cook methodology: "...there is widespread agreement, including among sceptics, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that humankind is therefore capable of warming the planet, so the main focus of debate is over how much warming may take place."
Amazingly, Montford attacks Cook's methodology, by asserting without evidence what he 'believes' is a 'widespread agreement' amongst the far-flung and mottley collective called 'skeptics'...Montford has plucked his rough 'figure' from his arse.
Again Montford asserts without quantification or evidence that:
"That consensus is therefore virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the present state of scientific opinion, beyond the trivial observation that almost everybody in the climate debate agrees carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities have warmed the planet to some extent."
This 'almost everybody' is presented again without substantiation, while a paper which by design successfully avoids such hand-waving 'calculation' is trivialised and misrepresented..
Montford waffle here
Another of his WTFs: he suggests that Cook et al made its impact "only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used"... funny that, any fool even Montford can access all the methodology! That was part of the deal: transparency! The guy is a shameless liar.
It's difficult to believe News Ltd subs lack the will or ability to fact check this content, given Cook et al is free access ... it's only possible to conclude they set out to mislead.
"Well – yep chick chick chicken just like you lot are to wander over to Nova’s"
There's a better reason. Its because she's a hack with gumbified kindergarten level views on science that are contaminated by her right wing political views. Being 'chicken' has got nix to do with it.
Cook et al
lol........ sure :)
#98 Dumbfuck ,you are helpless against Montford's dishonesty because you don't know the Cook paper or its methodology...Montford relies on passive uninformed numpties like yourself who are motivated to reject stuff you don't want to know. You spend all your time inadvertently reminding us that you don't read the stuff you link to, so you make my case.
Stu2, Governments and their respective agencies get - or should get - their information on climate science from universities and research institutions, and most certainly NOT from blogs, corporate funded think tanks or astroturf lobbying groups. In the US, of course, the influence of private money on policy is immense, as illustrated by many examples.
If you truly believe the denial lobby has put up good scientific reasoning for questioning the validity of AGW, then you are dumber than I think. Moreover, if you think that scientists working in universities and research labs are involved in some big PR effort as well, then I double that sentiment. Sure, there is a massive amount of propaganda as it relates to a range of environmental issues that have policy and profit -linked implications. But 99.99999% of that is Corporate PR. As I've said a zillion times, a number of corporations have a vested interest in denial. They don't give a shit about the scientific truth, as elusive as that is anyway. Their simple, singular aim is to sow doubt. It always has been. That you don't apparently realize this or seem to think that both sides are acting in equally good (or bad) faith says a lot about you. As I said above, you are naive in the extreme.
#98 Nick
September 15, 2013
"#98 Dumbfuck ,you are"
talking to yourself........................... :)