"-Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?"
That's the 64,000$ question. And, as i have said, its not based on the science they don't understand, but on the basis of their own warped libertarian/anti-government/deregulatory political ideology. Its simple, really. But they do everything they can to keep the truth hidden. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain why so many utter laypeople are not only AGW deniers, but actually expend the effort to set up blogs in which they expound their position - often embarrassingly, as in Poptech's case. But of course he's not the only one. The internet is full of idiot bloggers all professing to possess the wisdom that escapes climate scientists.
its not based on the science they don’t understand, but on the basis of their own warped libertarian/anti-government/deregulatory political ideology. Its simple, really. But they do everything they can to keep the truth hidden.
They do seem to have a problem ;-) with addressing the logical discontinuity inherent in their assumption that they know better than the experts despite not actually being experts themselves.
I say logical discontinuity, but you could just as easily call it laughable pretension, which better indicates the lack of self-awareness and risible arrogance of these commentators.
Of course political ideology is the mainspring driving the majority of vocal science denial. And what a powerful distortion it exerts on their perceptions. Entire fields of science blanked or actively denied; blatant misinformers revered and cited as authorities; astonishing illogicality as normative, right down to switching randomly between incompatible (and flawed) arguments as to why CO2 forcing isn't a problem.
It's the grotesque intellectual dishonesty that really irritates me, especially when it is combined with relentless posting of the same old tripe, no matter how often debunked. The leitmotifs of utter disregard for reason, logic, coherence and above all, good faith make for nasty music.
Great article and video by George Monbiot showing how the UK government has effectively subsidized the record breaking floods (worst in over 250 years, despite Delingpole's crap) through allowing farmers to till their soil in the autumn, facilitating the loss of soil via runoff into rivers. This highlights an important ecosystem service - flood prevention - which I recall was feebly ridiculed by one of our old (now thankfully banned) AGW deniers, KarenMackSunspot...
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right (see #64). The tactic is blind, mindless rote repetition of increasingly idiotic things until we all leave or until he gets banned. Case in point: #94. This is not someone who is operating in any objective form in reality.
It looks like trolling, but it isn't quite that. The guy really IS like this. He'll do this to a stranger at the supermarket. A completely warped personality. And since they essentially "win" every argument, they never really learn anything. Yes, he really is that fucking stupid without knowing it.
I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way. I aged a decade in under a year then, I am not playing with this particular brand of brainless fucking asshole ever again.
Oh, and thank you for confirming you were lying about your experience Andrew. I could really only narrow it down to two Andrews before that. Jesus that was easy to bait out of you. And don't worry, I won't tell those super duper dangerous Firefox enemies of yours. Your secret identity is safe with me because it is worthless, because you are worthless.
What a goddamned waste of space. Time for a perspective and soda.
"The word “catastrophic” wasn’t mentioned once in the AR4 WG1 report, which defines the “standard scientific position”.
"Ergo, you’ve just demonstrated you don’t know what you’re talking about. Or, you’re a liar"
From AR4:
"The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out "
Thanks for the textbook link at #45 by William Ruddiman...
Now, what do you think are the odds that Ruddiman would somehow be linked to the Earth Institute? That would be another amazing coincidence wouldn't it?
Let's see:
William Ruddiman, Graduate of Columbia University...
Worked at Columbia's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory from 1976 to 1991....
"Lamont-Doherty is a core component of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, which brings together people and tools to address some of the world’s most challenging problems from climate change and environmental degradation, to poverty, disease and the sustainable use of resources."
No surprise there, since the "Earth Institute experts work hand-in-hand with academia, corporations, government agencies, nonprofits and individuals. They advise national governments and the United Nations on issues related to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals."....
I also noticed James Hansen gave one of Ruddiman's books a great review...
" But I stand with Ruddiman: the simultaneous upward departures of CO2 and CH4 from climate indicators, unique in 420,000 years, is probably an early footprint of humankind."--James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies"
This is shocking, since The GISS is also a unit of The Earth Institute, of which Hansen is now an adjunct Professor..
So, why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG'S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?
Stu-pid, your turning to psycho-babble arguments means I broke you bad. It happens all the time with online hacks like yourself who don't know what they are talking about.
BTW, People with Aspergers Syndrome are incredibly easy to deal with (I work with one) and your inability to communicate with someone like this at work just shows your limited mental ability. But thanks for the material showing alarmists are bigoted against people with developmental disabilities!
Pure pwnage.
Oh, and thank you for confirming you were lying about your experience Andrew.
I always change the length of my experience and have on multiple occasions: 10, 15, 20, 25 years ...who knows which is true? That is the whole point, it keeps the idiots like your guessing.
I could really only narrow it down to two Andrews before that. Jesus that was easy to bait out of you. And don’t worry, I won’t tell those super duper dangerous Firefox enemies of yours. Your secret identity is safe with me because it is worthless, because you are worthless.
ROFLMAO! Please don't expose my planted information Stu-pid, I wouldn't want you to become one of my puppets as you have suffered enough humiliation as it is.
So, why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?
Yes, it must be a complete mystery to paleo right wingers.
Perhaps you're just unable to comprehend the inherent contradictory lunacy of un-sustainable development and its accompanying component risks of war and famine taken to their logical conclusion of global shortages in a nuclear armed and warming world.
BBD,
The question that Poptech asks is basically just a paraphrase of your questions. It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.
Not surprisingly, you don't like the question.
Jeff Harvey,
At the risk of sounding like BBD; you didn't answer my questions at all.
I agree that greed plays a large part in creating issues with poverty and environmental harm in the world.
My question was simply asking how does creating a centralised emissions trading market, with all the attendant regulatory and licencing regimes go anywhere towards solving those problems?
Those schemes, which is what most here at Deltoid seem to be endorsing, are quite clearly more of the same type of behaviour, peopled by those with the same type of qualifications and using the same type of economic theories and models.
Perhaps you just chose to ignore those multiple choice questions in favour of lecturing and ranting about the ills of Capitalism and America in particular?
I understand that you believe the system is 'rotten to the core'.
My question was based around what would be the PROVEN and PRACTICAL ideas about SOLVING the dilemma.
Do you believe that creating a globally centralised emissions trading market will solve such problems as overpopulation and poor farming methods in disadvantaged and developing nations?
Do you think that creating a centralised emissions trading market will stop developing economies like China and India and even developed nations like Germany from using fossil fuel energy?
The brokerage on a market in the $trillions is quite substantial.
IMHO the political and social solution that people here appear to be advocating, still has that 'greed monster' running the show.
In government NRMs, attempting to manage them like a corporation and to operate under the scientific PRETENSE that they actually have the means to produce such things as better weather and then to actively legislate to MONOPOLISE the means to produce something as pretentious and nefarious as better weather, is failing to achieve any practical or positive results for disadvantaged nations or the environment.
The grand challenge or the grand experiment is simply not delivering the desired results.
“The word “catastrophic” wasn’t mentioned once in the AR4 WG1 report, which defines the “standard scientific position”.
....
From AR4:
“The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out “
Now can we all please turn to the relevant page in our textbooks, boys and girls, and see what the difference is between WG1 and WG3. Quiet please. Now write down what you think the answer is and I'll see as I walk around. That's good, Jenny, and I see Robert's got it right as well.
I hope the rest of the class noticed. One is not the same as Three. So that means that ... yes, Charles, you're right too. WG3 is not the same thing as WG1. Well done, everyone!
The question that Poptech asks is basically just a paraphrase of your questions. It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was,
Cobblers!
I argue from the consilience of evidence. Politics doesn't come into it.
BBD,
It was nonetheless a neat paraphrase of your questions and apparently why you didn't like it.
While I agree that consilience is probably a better word, it is NOT the word that is most often used. That word is most definitely CONSENSUS. . .and is often bandied about here.
Consilience (n.): The agreement of 2 or more inductions drawn from different sets of data; concurrence. Also an E.O. Wilson book. -
consensus (kənˈsɛnsəs)
— n
general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion )
Oh yes, I did answer your question. Because there is no way on Earth we are going to deal with AGW via any means unless we can overhaul the current economic and political system completely. Certainly economic globalization under the guise of free markets and neoliberalism does not work. Markets are neither free, new or liberal. Emissions trading falls into this sphere; it deals with symptoms and appears to be aimed at ensuring that we remains addicted to fossil fuels and avoid any kind of transition to renewables.
I agree that it is going to be hard to get nations addicted to fossil fuels (and especially those beholden to the corporate state) to switch technologies. But if we don't, I think we are staring down the barrel of a gun. We are already greatly simplifying most terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems and thus reducing their capacity to support man.
Its my opinion that radical changes are necessary in the way that the global material economy works towards some form of steady-statism where we have to abandon the profit motive and its attendant economic growth. Economies cannot grow forever because resources are finite.
Birch brain: "So why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?'
He still doesn't get it. He still cannot understand the simple fact that much of our wealth in the 'rich developed nations' originates and is maintained by looting and plundering resources form the 'poor, undeveloped nations'. There's ample evidence for this just looking at the ratio of capital flows from south to north over many years. Bitchy actually appears to think our wealth is intrinsically maintained.
I've gobe over tis dozens of times - with evidence - and it still hasn't sunk in through his bark. The man is a complete was of time.
It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.
The false balance created by poptart's list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
You're succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.
It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.
The false balance created by poptart's list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
You're succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.
#3, - "I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way."
With respect, it is of course not a 'disability'. Contrary, it is a talent. To any talent belongs some drawback, but that doesn't make it a disability.
This makes the accusation of abuse far worse in my eyes and I agree wholly with the accusation.
The embedded video however is a doozy, as if NBC were trying to keep up with ABC’s right-wing nutcase John Stossel for the most Tea Party friendly interview they could come up with. Instead of focusing on the real issue that the federal flood insurance program is flat broke, actually in debt for $24 Billion, and needs to re-balance premiums with payouts, the damn NBC reporter wants to let the viewer know that the government is the bad guy, as always. Sheesh. How about for once saying that a nation that refuses to live in reality might be the real issue we need to face?
This issue strikes a chord with me in the UK as I consider the measures that will be taken to alleviate the losses of those who live along the banks of the Thames in some of the more expensive real estate from Sonning to City and the inadequate few millions being offered to those businesses and farms that went under in Somerset and elsewhere. One business alone lost a million in stock and equipment.
Read the rest of that rayduray reply for John Stossel's gain at the expense of the less well off.
The embedded video however is a doozy, as if NBC were trying to keep up with ABC’s right-wing nutcase John Stossel for the most Tea Party friendly interview they could come up with. Instead of focusing on the real issue that the federal flood insurance program is flat broke, actually in debt for $24 Billion, and needs to re-balance premiums with payouts, the damn NBC reporter wants to let the viewer know that the government is the bad guy, as always. Sheesh. How about for once saying that a nation that refuses to live in reality might be the real issue we need to face?
This issue strikes a chord with me in the UK as I consider the measures that will be taken to alleviate the losses of those who live along the banks of the Thames in some of the more expensive real estate from Sonning to City and the inadequate few millions being offered to those businesses and farms that went under in Somerset and elsewhere. One business alone lost a million in stock and equipment.
Read the rest of that rayduray reply for John Stossel's gain at the expense of the less well off.
I don't know what was going on, especially at #28 where I had backtracked using the Firefox re-load previous page arrow and carefully inspected the tags, and compared those to working ones. The odd thing is that on inspecting page source after #28 the blockquote tags had vanished from within that section. WTF!
Whatever, it seems the Arctic is in a worse shape and will warm faster than feared. Is that not a catastrophe in the making Betula?
Performance is directly related to the networking chipset and has nothing to do with MB integration Stu-pid
Sorry, darling, please comprehend engineering before making claims of others' stupidity.
MB integration will remove many of the functions of a separate card because such features are already integrated in chipsets on the motherboard, such as access to larger amounts of memory, or checksum calculations.
This means that the chipset on the motherboard will be undertaking the tasks it had before PLUS those offloaded by the PHY interface.
To reach a price point, the chip used for ethernet implementation will be the cheapest possible to reach minimum requirements. A separate board will be more expensive even if it consists of the same components, therefore the marginal difference of adding a better quality component is lower, and it will mostly be required, since only those wanting the features will have the need to buy the separate card, where the motherboard will be used even if the computer never connects to a network.
I suppose when you need to belittle someone when you have so little experience to fall back on, you'll bafflegab your way into thinking that some plausible scenario can be pretended to be a universal and all you need is hope that nobody bothers to notice your failure.
Here's something amusing for those who've been here ages.
Anyone remember Brad Keys?
He now has a blog site. Before I tell you its name, please remember all the whines from deniers about how "denier" was entirely and always about making out self-proclaimed "skeptics" to be the monstrous holocaust deniers.
So, given that, what do you think of Bray's blog site?
I love settled science. For instance: First did "thousends of scientists" settle that the atmosphere was heating faster and faster. When that wasn't the case just one or two scientists suggested that "the missing heat" was hiding in deep water, impossible to measure with any accuracy. According to Deltiods that's "robust", as robust as the settled science about an accelerating warming in the atmosphere. :-)
Another very new setteld science (behind the missing heat) ,able to clarify the findings of "thousends of scientists", is stronger trade winds:
#33 Wow - what do I think... Took a look, read two of the articles, and -
* name and design of the blog marginalizes the bradthing entirely, which is good;
* there is insanity on those pages. My gut hurts from it. Can't put my finger on it. But writings of e.g. Breivik gave me the same feeling.
The problem for you Olap is that because you rely on denier blogs as your primary sources, it all seems confusing and contradictory.
What you'll find is that climate science hasn't said that CO2 cancels out natural variability, which has short term effects, despite what your trash sources lead you to believe.
All you need to know in simple terms is that more energy is entering the Earth's system than is leaving it, and the energy has to go somewhere.
If you looked into Dr Vecchi's work you'd see that he's talking in centennial scales, not the next five minutes or five years.
But thanks for confirming your utter buffoonery yet again, although that's already well established with no further confirmation required, thank you.
chek, the problem that deniers have is that they think that CO2, if it controls temperature, means that it cannot be anything BUT CO2 doing it.
I.e. natural variability is removed if CO2 is a cause of climate change if you're ignorant of the science. Therefore there is EITHER "natural variability" OR "AGW" and they then crow when natural variability exists as if this somehow "proves" AGW wrong.
It's not even a strawman: they genuinely cannot conceive of anything other than this dichotomy.
Something either FROM or normalised from the extremely religious: monotheism insists that there is "one cause" for things (and that this cause is "God's Will"(tm)). It's no more noticed by them than water is noticed by fish.
Lilley's 'meltdown' whilst engaging Dr Shuckburgh was astonishing enough but the bumbling, thrashing questions from Graham Stringer which followed brought another element of the surreal to the proceedings. Why don't these people inform themselves more before attending such events? Yes I know, they are being paid, or otherwise coerced into not understanding the science, i.e. keep making pretences of asking awkward questions, questions to which answers have already been provided, over and over.
Stringer's questions had all the hallmarks of GWPF involvement, as did those of Lilley.
Poptart,
Late reply but when I read your response it was, "sigh...here we go again, idiot pulling out the usual denier toolbox of sophistry: avoidance, strawmen, playing with words, etc...plus delusional stupidity, for good measure." So I wasn't that motivated to have any further discussion, but since you're still hanging around like a bad smell...
Here we go. Too much nonsense to reply to so I'll split the posts to make them easier to digest. I'll give you the satisfaction of having the final word and, in that deluded head of yours, believing that you've given me a "spanking".
Let's start with the typo business. Poor Poptart, you're either extremely dishonest or so dumb that you don't know what a typo is. I'll go for both _ you're dumb AND dishonest. If we're to talk about remedial education, I would have thought that someone writing, "I shouldn't of..." would be a prime candidate for remedial education. How do you unintentionally type "of" instead of "have"?
Since you keep denying the obvious _ for the 3rd time _ I'll say it again: it's not a typo. A typo is an unintentional mistake where you either type the wrong letter or miss one. If I were picking on typos _ or even grammatical errors _ just for the sake of it, you'd be correct in your assessment that I don't "have any real arguments". But I'm not.
I didn't intend to make a big deal of it and I'd normally ignore petty things like that because besides being pointless there's also the adage, "don't do to others what you don't want done unto you." Having limited education, I'm not that confident about my English competence that I should go around correcting others' grammar. But in your case it was relevant to my central argument _ i.e., you're not educationally (and probably not intellectually) equipped to have any meaningful input into the climate science debate.
Anyone can make a grammatical mistake, even a scientist, but there are errors and there are errors. Yours is so egregious as far as grammar is concerned that I have trouble believing that someone with even 1 year of uni education can make an error like that. It's illiterate, plain and simple.
Poptart,
Re my lying about your political leanings:
You should also learn what the meaning of lying is. It reminds me of politics in Australia, where before the last election conservatives were calling Julia Gillard a liar because she broke a promise, and thereby displaying their ignorance of the difference between a broken promise and a lie. How dumb can you get.
Unless you can prove that I knew your exact ideological position _ hard to do considering how subjective such an assessment is _ and that I chose to deliberately misrepresent it, then your accusations of lying and dishonesty are unsubstantiated and hollow _ much like everything else you write. Right-wing, tea-party type idiot is definitely the impression I got from a brief visit to your blog and clicking a couple of links. But now you tell me you're not a right-winger. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you're so stupid you don't even know at which end of the political spectrum you belong to.
From my experience, somebody whose blog is littered with anti-left, anti-green attacks doesn't generally belong to the moderate middle ground.
To say there are no "denier" papers on your list is just as disingenuous as your denial of being right-wing. I mean, WTF? If the list is not a compilation of dodgy papers intended to cast doubt on the mainstream IPCC view, what is it? Sure, the word "denier" wouldn't appear on their title, but their purpose is to either deny the anthropogenic influence of global warming or cast doubt on the fact that there's any warming at all; they're papers that give intellectual succour to denier memes, ergo they're denier papers. Stop playing with words, fuckwit, because that DOES
demonstrate that you don't have any real arguments. But we already knew that anyway.
What a stupid statement to make. You think you're tasting a dish or judging a painting
here? Even there, the subjectivity has its limits. I don't know much about science but it's obvious to me that the quality of a paper depends on the quality of the evidence presented and the logic underpinning its interpretation.
Scientists might argue about what such and such finding means but when a paper has been classified as bad there's very little subjectivity in that determination. The bad leaps out at you to the extent that even a layman like myself can see it. I gave two specific examples which you totally ignored (I wonder why): one, which makes up stuff, just the latest of a long list of "denier" papers that Tamino has exposed over the years, and the other Nexus calls the worst paper he's ever seen. It purports to correlate global temperatures to solar cycles but, as Nexus says, uses just "5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!" Stop avoiding; tell us what you think of those two papers.
According to your subjective opinion, is it OK to make stuff up in a supposedly scientific paper? According to your subjective but very scientific opinion (cough...cough..), is it OK to use just 5 stations in a small area of the US to represent global temperature data?
I remember reading another one by Archibald _ can't remember on which blog, maybe someone here knows the paper I'm referring to _ where he attempts to link the rise and fall of Lake Victoria to solar cycle or sunspots (recollection is a bit vague). The purpose of that exercise, I guess, being some attempt to adduce evidence against sea level rise. Absolute, illogical nonsense. But the amazing thing is that no matter how unscientific and glaringly stupid a paper is, not only will you not find any deniers criticizing it, you'll find them approvingly nod and praise it.
"You really need to read the rebuttals section,
Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list"
followed by a long list of references telling us that E & E is peer-reviewed and how wonderful it is.
Where did I say anything about the number of papers coming from E & E, and where did I say that it wasn't peer-reviewed? What is it, dishonesty or reading comprehension failure?
I said that E & E is poorly regarded by the scientific community, which it is. And I proved that one reason for that is their lax, unsatisfactory peer-review process which let's extremely poor papers through, as the Archibald one above shows. I also never said that they only publish bad papers. Maybe there are good papers, but I can't imagine that too many reputable scientists would want their name sullied by having their papers sitting side by side with Archibald's.
“Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement
Hahahaha.....you're not a part-time comedian, are you? My god, you paste this after I've told you about the Archibald paper published by E & E and you've got the gall to mention cognitive dissonance. I might be too harsh on you; maybe you don't know what the word "rigorous" means.
You are arguing from false equivalence: political consensus is not the same thing as a scientific consensus. The latter is exclusively evidence-based and excludes political bias. You may claim otherwise, but you would have to prove it, and you will fail. The "activist scientists are cooking the books" meme is a denier lie, not to mention a conspiracy theory involving leftie scientists and world socialism etc. I repeat: cobblers.
"Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting."
Which is certainly worrying. (If you need "herding" explaining ask stu, I'm sure he said he works with cows)
I had no expectation that you would even read the letter let alone understand it. But thanks anyway, full marks for keeping the red flag flying etc.
;)
By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.
Note GSW that it talks about improving, not reconstructing because peer review is broken. Except that is for that narrow line of journals which are frequently shown up for having 'a herd mentality' , like E&E for example.
What is it with these people and context blindness?
Taking a leaf out of BBD's book: Griselda what motivates a trivial, emoticon chuffing half-wit like you and your posse to begin to imagine you have the least inkling of what climate science is telling us?
@Lionel
You missed the point Lionel. Just help you, it's not ".about improving, not reconstructing.." who said anything about that?
"we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved"
I'm happy with a "discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved"
if you're happy with
"an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting"
Which seems to be something that you lot (aka the common herd) are not able to even contemplate as being a possibility! It's a form of denial Lionel, pure and simple.
;)
p.s. As I've already stated numerous times Griselda, I don't click links from deniers which are invariably poor substitutes for the capacity to state their case, such as it me be.
Oh come on Olaus; at least give thinking a test drive:
Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions.
So if their peers are sufficiently well-informed about eg. physics and paleoclimate, then good ideas will spread because there is no contradicting scientific evidence.
What pseudo-sceptics refuse to acknowledge is that they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.
Not-biased, non-stupid scientists go by the scientific evidence.
Jeff Harvey @ # 20,
Thank you for your answer.
I am still wondering what your practical and proven methods to mitigate specific issues such as population growth and environmental harm via inappropriate land use would be?
You seem to agree that the ones on offer via a centralised emissions market and all the attendant regulatory and licencing rules is clearly not delivering worthwhile results.
What practical or proven system do you envisage could successfully replace what we have now?
BBD @ # 50,
I merely observed your questioning technique and Poptech's return question.
I am not the individual here who is being argumentative and asking aggressive rhetorical questions, whether from false equivalence or any other perspective.
The observation remains unchanged regardless of your use of semantics and direct accusations. Poptech's question was a paraphrase of your question, it was based on the idea of consensus and you therefore apparently and not surprisingly did not like the question.
jp @ # 44,
Using 'of' instead of 'have' (or more correctly the abbreviation 've) is becoming a common grammar error in many English speaking nations around the globe.
Your attempt to use that simple and common grammar error to pass judgement on someone's education level is rather silly. I have seen and heard that particular error made by many highly educated people in speech and in writing. It doesn't mean anything other than they committed an increasingly common grammar error.
Let's also remember that this is a blog and people aren't required to spell check or grammar check their comments. Poptech is far from the only commenter here who has committed basic typo and grammar errors.
Perhaps you could've (of) or should've (of) left that one alone? :-)
Your attempt to use that simple and common grammar error to pass judgement on someone’s education level is rather silly.
You either know or you don't know, StuPid.
Not recognising the faux pas implies unfamiliarity with the written word, specifically the educated written word.
As for making excuses for the plainly obvious, well......
Start where the argument begins: "sceptics" cast doubt on the mainstream scientific position but are not themselves experts.
Logic fail.
"Sceptics" maintain that the science they do not understand is wrong but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.
BBD @ # 67:
" but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW."
I note that you are now basing your position on the concept of 'coherence' of a scientific position.
Have you perhaps considered that the AGW hypothesis is 'coherent' because it studies global warming primarily connected to ONE particular influence (anthropogenic) while other studies look at a myriad of hypotheses connected to highly variable climactic behaviour and therefore, by their very nature, would not be as 'coherent' as scientific research on AGW?
Why does a lack of 'coherent' scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?
BJ @ # 68,
Here's the journalist whom you think has smacked somebody or other: http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/matt-grudnoff/4050668
Perhaps you could ask Jeff Harvey how much attention we should pay to someone like this?
I note that you are now basing your position on the concept of ‘coherence’ of a scientific position.
What else would qualify as a robust scientific position? Do you know what "coherent" means?
No internal contradictions is a good working definition.
So back to the scientific mainstream, where we have plenty of evidence that paleoclimate behaviour is incompatible with ECS <2C/2xCO2. Central estimates from paleoclimate behaviour are ~3C/2zxCO2 Rohling et al. (2012).
Remember that these estimates are for a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of CO2, so if BAU continues and we exceed ~560ppmv CO2 it is likely to get warmer still. We are at ~400ppmv now.
Yes BBD, I do know what the adjective, coherent, means.
Here is a simple dictionary definition.
PRIMARY MEANINGS OF: coherence
n
the state of cohering or sticking together
n
logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts
Now I've answered your question will you answer mine?
"Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?"
Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.
it’s obvious to me that the quality of a paper depends on the quality of the evidence presented and the logic underpinning its interpretation.
And, more importantly, how much it produces productive new work.
The mathematical proof of the uncertainty in a planetary orbit (i.e. chaos theory) was produced DECADES before it was possible to use it, but when it was used, it was HIGHLY productive.
E&E's "papers" are all dead ends, leading nowhere.
Looks like a straw man Stu2... The mainstream scientific position is that there are both natural and manmade influences on climate. However the sum of all manmade influences is to impose a rising trend on the natural variation.
You also talk about the failure of a centralised emissions trading scheme... how do you arrive at that conclusion when a) such a scheme is working well for sulphur emissions. b) there is no such centralised scheme for carbon emissions.
Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.
I hate to be the one to rain on this particular parade. But ....
You do realise that - even if what you said happened to be true - the only scientific way to show the anthropogenic effects is to work out what the results would be without that anthropogenic influence and work out the differences.
Of course it's not true in the first place. Just a reminder, the IPCC goes to a lot of trouble to present this information to their non- scientific audience by listing all possible influences and quantifying each and every one of them. Why do they do that if they are only "interested" in greenhouse gases? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
“Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”
Astonishing, particularly at the end, 'rabbet caught in the headlights' sprang to mind. Maybe he needs to run on Duracells.
Oh dear! An ex fire-fighter who cannot handle 'rapid fire questions'. There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage[1].
Abbott sure is setting fires all around him but seems to lack the wit to tackle them. Intellectually empty.
There is hope for Betula, GSW, OP and PT yet. A move to Australia could set them up for a role as PM.
Indeed I recall many years ago being on a weekend walk through a part of the Forest of Dean with my father and grandfather when we came across a sort of clearing where piles of cleared under-storey were afire. The three of us set too with the fire-beaters that were always on hand in these woods. I had by this time had quite a bit of fire fighting training in the RN. We soon had the fire under control and shortly some bods turned up and it became apparent that they were in the part-time fire crew for the area. The odd things were, the speed with which they had appeared and also we recognised one of them as being somebody we had passed on our way to the clearing.
"There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage"....
"Make of that what you will"...
Tony Abbott said "shit happens" to make more money?
“Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”
Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.
What does "coherent" mean? It means that the hypotheses are mutually compatible, even mutually re-enforcing. It means that different lines of evidence converge, in which case it is a precondition of consilience.
Everything you write is nonsense. Why do you bother?
The complete absence of a coherent "sceptical" scientific case happened because there is no evidence supporting any of the myriad "sceptical" attempts to deny the fact that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.
The fact that there is a complete absence of a coherent "sceptical" scientific case should indicate to sane people that "sceptics" are in fact deniers solely reliant on rhetoric and misrepresentation - as indeed they are.
No matter how much you blether and obfuscate on this point, it will not go away. "Sceptics" have *nothing*. All the evidence supports the mainstream scientific position which is why it is the mainstream scientific position.
You are all ridiculous. Look at you: ill-informed non-experts challenging the standard scientific position without even having a coherent and well-supported scientific argument... it is completely absurd.
BBD @ # 82
Scientists (sceptical or otherwise) do not 'deny' that CO2 plays a role in in climate.
But I question why you would imply that any of them would use the phrase " that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing." ?
Your earlier comments and questions were related to the AGW hypothesis.
Terrifying really. The consequences of this are already being seen in terms of the record rainfall in the UK this winter (already an all-time record - some places have received almost 500 mm in less than 3 months: contrast this with Delingpole's out-and-out fabrications, which some idiots gladly soak up). And against this calamity we have climate change deniers who can barely add or subtract screaming that AGW is a myth...
The fact that our species is intent on undermining our global ecological life-support systems in spite of the growing consequences is sure-fire evidence in my opinion that we are intent on heading for our own extinction.
StuPid,,instead of your endless inane 'questions' why not read a fucking book?
There's even an online and updated version available here
Read it once, then re-read it Then when you think you have another of your dumb questions, read it again. After that, you may be somewhat up to speed.
in the uk, this winter is surely going to break a record for warmth too. i think we've had just a few slight frosty nights here in the midlands. it seems spring arrived in mid February. the blackbirds certainly seem to like it. i was watching one carrying mud to make its new nest.
It was rather rhetorical. Stu Pid doesn't do answers and doesn't like questions to him. But others will see his refusal to explain himself and can draw their own conclusions.
Yep, they're losing it! Rampaging Roy Spencer has chucked the toys out the pram with the (unintentionally) funniest brain-splosion in the longest time.
Shorter Roy: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A GLOBAL WARMING NAZI!
"I have just found this rather good complaint (and rebuttal) letter addressed to Jamie Angus, Editor of Today Programme."
its no good writing to the bbc with rational or scientific arguments. the hacks employed by the institution are mostly media and politic studies graduates and threatened by knowledge, reason and science. they have been trained to only recognize capitalism and socialism. the left and right feed off each other for survival and are united in their disdain for the rational, scientific worldview which threatens them both equally.
...contrast this with Delingpole’s out-and-out fabrications...
Doesn't it just, a clear visualisation of old ice being flushed out around the top of Greenland into the Denmark Strait, that which is not reduced to melt-water that is.
Somebody recently remarked that the best use for Pickles was as a sandbag, Deler's might just find himself in use as a punt pole in flooded areas if he doesn't watch his language whilst out and about in the countryside.
As for old ice being flushed around the top of Greenland check out the NOAA-NCDC Global Analysis - January 2014 and click on the left hand red-blue map to see a larger image. Look at that dark red stain over southern Greenland and consider what that is doing to the glacier flows.
Think also about all that heat energy in the lower Atlantic from Florida-Carolina and up in an arc to the UK - the most common storm track.
Yes there is a deep blue blob over lower Eastern US but also over the northern Eurasian landmass. If we, in the UK, get north-Easterlies shortly that could spell more trouble.
Let's get something straight. What I wrote was correct. What you wrote was denial, plain and simple. Denial isn't a scientific argument - it's just a noise.
The efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing is long-established. Only the stupid, the liars and the cranks dispute this.
I suppose they think it funny and clever doing what they do and probably chortle to their intellectual piers [1] about winding us up.
What they cannot grasp is that every time they put in an appearance they get smacked down and lurkers become aware of how vacuous they are in that numpty brigade, which includes Deler's, Nova, Cardinal Puff and the like.
[1] No, not a spelling mistake or typo, it equates them to well know inanimate objects which are slowly being ripped apart as sea levels rise and storm forces increase - rather like their nonsense talking points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-…
This would probably be an article about that 'something' we should do about a 'definitely serious problem' that Sou outlines in the piece Frank D links @ #93 ?
"Global warming isn’t all “man” made. It’s likely that more than 100% of the current warming is because of human activity. “Made” by men and women. And it’s definitely a serious problem and going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.”
BBD @# 98,
I have not seen the comment: " CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” in the AR4.
It does also appear from preliminary reports from the IPCC AR5 WG1 there will be a downgrading of the previous AR4 estimates about climate sensitivity to CO2.
This does not mean that anyone is 'denying' that CO2 plays a role. What it may mean however is that words like 'efficacious' are perhaps overstating the scientific case ? (apart from not being something that a scientist would likely say in the first place).
I have thus far refrained from calling you stupid but that may change is you keep putting up posts like the last 2. First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED... and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I add the last caveat on the insistence that, if humans are to mitigate the worst possible effects of C02, then we should have acted years ago. As it is, if we act now there will be serious consequences due to lag effects that occur in deterministic systems. Your feeble points (and they truly are that) appear to suggest that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%. That will not happen, and there will always be paid-for shills and a segment of the corporate sector who are addicted to the idea of business as usual in the desperate aim of maximizing short term profits and damn the future.
As for Lomborg, I am sick and tired of this pseudo-intellectual novice and his bullshit being paraded by the corporate media as if it has scientific value. I demolished him in our 2002 Dutch debate (he was so terrified of me that when we met for one hour afterwards he could barely squeak in the fear of giving me more rope to hang him with). He also won't appear at any venues where I do anymore, despite the massive promotion he has received from the ruling elites and their proxies in the corporate media.
Its telling that Lomborg invited a select group of right wing neoclassical economists for his 'Copenhagen Consesnus' (CC, now based in Prague as its been basically booted out of his home country) 'prioritizing investment and aid' nonsense, and that on the 2006 shindig there is a photo of him a right wing neocon fruitcake John Bolton together in from of a UN symbol - this being the same Bolton who advocates attacks on Cuba and Iran, was an architect of the Iraq war, supports endless US expansionism abroad and once said he'd like to take down the UN entirely. Either Lomborg is profoundly stupid* or naive* or both (*delete as appropriate).
The same CC debates the idea of donating a puny 75 billion dollars to the world and how it could be prioritized in solving a suite of problems when in reality the money (and many times more) is there and could be spent creating social justice when in reality the rich world is not at all interested in alleviating social problems in the south. In fact, as I have said before, maintaining poverty has been the real agenda, because if peoples in the developing world aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the north, then (1) we will need another 2 or 3 Earth-Like planets to sustain it and our ecological life support systems would be sent towards the abyss faster than they already are, and (2) these people would reinvest their own resource wealth towards internal investment and structure, which would conflict with the interests of western corporations. So our governments talk big about eradicating poverty but, as with most everything else, they are lying. The real agendas are not hard to find if one reads corporate and state planning documents. The older ones are available as declassified documents in most libraries. Sadly, most people - one like Stu2 who reads garbage in the Australian, a far right rag - spew out the crap they read in their corporate media as if it somehow represents the truth.
Fact is, I don't give a shit what Lomborg says. IMHO he's a complete brainless nincompoop who's been at least clever enough to know how to promote himself. Stu2, I have no idea why you comment on Deltoid. You appear rational on the surface but beneath it you are so deeply ignorant.
It does also appear from preliminary reports from the IPCC AR5 WG1 there will be a downgrading of the previous AR4 estimates about climate sensitivity to CO2.
Another fucking stupid lie by our new top moron. AR5 gives the same lower bound for ECS as FAR, SAR, TAR. That's all. Try reading it instead of lying about it.
What it may mean however is that words like ‘efficacious’ are perhaps overstating the scientific case ? (apart from not being something that a scientist would likely say in the first place).
No, central estimates of ECS from paleoclimate and modelling remain ~3C/2xCO2. Scientists have been classifying CO2 as an efficacious forcing for over a century you stupid, lying, ignorant moron.
I simply do not know how to deal with wilfully stupid, stubbornly mendacious denialism like yours. You are mentally ill.
The denier position has shifted in a few short years from "we're entering a cooling phase" to "it's not warming" to "yes it is warming, but it's not our fault".
Presumably denier morons like StuPid see no contradiction, let alone utter unhinged bankruptcy in that.
Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.
Anyway, as your deputy cult leader urges you on, let us all join hands and chant together: "First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED… and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT".
Aha! DD puts in an appearance with more ideological cretinallia.
Simply, too, too, er, simple.
Which is clearly still over your head to understand.
That you should cling onto the belief that our position is based on belief and not understanding is an indicator of your mental unbalance, this reinforced by your refusal to acknowledge that recent events make our understanding even stronger and coming down on the fact that dangerous anthropogenically induced warming, causing climate change is underway. That and the many recent research papers that fill in some of the gaps, but not gaps that fatally detract from the dangerous warming position.
Maybe you have missed the mention of happenings in the cryosphere, with sea level, ecological disruptions and much more.
Go look up some of the links we have provided up-thread here or slink back to Cretinistan from whence you came.
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
It has a sort of swing to it after a while, doesn't it? But if you don't mind me saying so, it sort of echoes in here, I mean, what with there being so few of you these days . . .
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
Anyway, enough of the abuse, howevewr richly deserved.
You'll note the operative word is 'calculations'.
Calculations that your consulting rag-bag gaggle of cranks, shills and blog-shamans haven't disproved. But you 'belieeeeve' in them anyway.
Which begs the question who's the greater loony - the liars whose paid-for opinions you frequent, or the dupe who 'belieeeeves' them?
Are you suggesting that Hansen and co-workers are guilty of scientific misconduct, Duff? They didn't do a very good job since their results are in line with the rest of the field. Perhaps they should have tried harder?
Or possibly you have no evidence for your claim and are simply spouting libellous bollocks for rhetorical effect?
* * *
But if you don’t mind me saying so, it sort of echoes in here, I mean, what with there being so few of you these days . . .
I love the acoustics in here. You can hear the mouse-farts perfectly.
I wonder if it ever crosses David 'mousefart' Duffer's mind that denialism is constructed by and inhabited by cretins and cranks and therefore what a cretinous crank he is for falling hook, line and bibbling ineptitude for the denier slant.
Somehow I don't think he'd understand the import or impact of Philip K. Dick's trenchantly brutal aphorism: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
But it's so pants-passingly cute when the cretins and cranks enter some misbegotten phase where they like to think they've gained some kind of "upper hand".
Look at "Mousefart" Duffer - so full of piss after his David Rose in da Mail fix.
they like to think they’ve gained some kind of “upper hand”.
The day the deniers alter the laws of physics by force of belief alone will be a landmark in the evolution of the species. At last, practical magic will have moved from myth to demonstrable reality. I can simply *wish* to be a superlative musician hard enough and shazam, there I go.
Ah yes - magickal thinking.
It's what sustains Duffer's belief that he's smarter than James Hansen et al.
And you don't get any more cretinous than that.
Jeff Harvey @ # 3,
We all have personal opinions and viewpoints.
From the beginning of this thread I was attempting to move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in.
I did not post those links above because I'm suggesting:
" that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%."
Nor did I offer a personal opinion about Lomborg.
I offered both of those as a further addition to the link that Frank D posted from Hotwhopper and I was questioning whether commenters here think these articles discuss the 'something' we should be doing.
I have asked you on a couple of occasions what you would consider are the provable, practical or workable solutions to the socio/economic/environmental issues that clearly concern you.
Despite all the accusations and name calling here, those issues do also concern me.
I offered a couple of examples earlier in the thread re overpopulation and agricultural practices.
My personal opinion and viewpoint is that the 'something' most commenters here appear to support is creating a global market out of CO2 with all the attendant regulations and licencing created by some type of independent and benevolent centralised bureaucracy.
I don't think that has been at all successful and I don't think it is returning worthwhile results for the environment, the climate or really important human issues such as poverty, overpopulation and poor land use practices.
Do you?
My personal opinion and viewpoint is that the ‘something’ most commenters here appear to support is creating a global market out of CO2 with all the attendant regulations and licencing created by some type of independent and benevolent centralised bureaucracy.
Nope. We just understand that a rapid and sustained increase in CO2 emissions will result in rapid and sustained climate change.
*You* put the politics before the science and then claim that we are doing this. It's absurd intellectual dishonesty.
"Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside."
is this why they call you duff. because things like storms, heat records, floods, melting ice and warming oceans are not happening and you think there is mounting evidence in favour of climate 'skepticism'. haha. whats up with that lol. and of course, science is a religion isn't it. ah, seen that one a few times in the youtube comments section. always the last stand of the deluded, clueless right wing political zealot, with the same deranged conservative or religious beliefs or values. its always the same type of person who says science is a religion. they have no evidence or arguments themselves, but somehow 'science is a religion'. so how does that work. isnt someone who holds magical beliefs (like physics doesnt work or 'growth can be infinite on a finite planet') the religious one? no wonder they call you duff. i cant believe anyone would be so naive not to see that inevitable insult coming.
there is no difference at all between creationists and global warming denialists. they are just born ignorant tossers. some escape the fold, but nothing changes in between birth and death with most of them because the inferior intellect that allowed them to be infected with moronic right wing or religious ideology in the first place stays with them for life. all that happens over time they become more and more twisted up and perverted as reality confronts their belief system with constant evidence they are wrong. because they are gutless, self interested, narcissistic cowards and psychopaths they end up having to invert everything. they have to believe all nature is wrong rather than admit their worldview is wrong.
"or is he doing deloid (sic) stuff, eg making stuff up?"
You actually mean "denier stuff" Olap, you're just too dishonest to admit it.
Anybody interested in this week's denier special offer should ignore Olap's invitation to go to Montford's provincial franchise version, and get the latest shock horror yawn direct from the chief picker of nits himself here and here.
The full politburo of frothing loons are showing up for this one, and Nick Stokes tries valiantly to make them, understand that a judge is not going to turn his/her sideways and squint just right while flapping a sheet of paper in front of their left eye in order to see things as deniers would wish them to be seen.
Stu2, firstly, I think you might have followed the wrong link, because my link was to Roy Spencer spitting the dummy.
However, suitable policy is a sensible line of discussion given that the opposition to the science is looking increasingly like the mumblings of Terry Pratchett's "Canting Crew".
To better understand where you come from economically, can I ask for answer to the following question (it doesn't matter if you agree with the premises, just given those, what would you answer be):
Given the premise that purchasing housing is becoming unaffordable for ordinary people in Australia, and further given the premise that this is a bad thing, governments should:
A. release more land for subdivision to ease supply side pressures
B. reduce bureaucratic costs (title search fees etc) associated with buying and selling land, trimming unncessary costs off the purchase price.
C. reduce or remove negative gearing to make property less attractive to investor-buyers, and avoiding owner-buyers being crowded out.
D. exclude foreign purchasers from buying Australian property.
E. Some or all of the above, or something different (please explain).
Answers will help avoid assumptive pitfalls down the track.
Well, apropos 'scientists' making it up, we shall soon find out because Mark Steyn has just issued a writ *against* Prof. Mann lest - perish the thought - Mann suddenly backs out of *his* writ against Steyn on the courthouse steps. Now there is no exit, everybody must and will have their day in court - probably several days and several courts knowing the American system!
You cannot get much more repugnant than Mark Steyn, which is apparently why Olaus and the old Duffer love him. That alone says a lot about two of our resident loony deniers.
We haven't heard much from the Duffer in this winter that wasn't, with few frosts, record amounts of rain and one that will be one of the mildest on record. Every time a snow flake flutters to the ground, Duffer is on it like a dog on a bone. But, as events have transpired, and exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW.
I have to admit, a few minutes of perusing through the assorted comments at BH reveals a sea of ignoramuses. Olaus is certainly at home there. Moreover, for AGW deniers to accuse anyone of anything is rich. Nobody is better at selectively doctoring quotes that AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists. They did it over and over again with Steve Schneider's double ethical bind quote and Lomborg did the same thing with a quote by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. They are masters of the art.
I am waiting for Poptech (who was given a jolly good hiding on Deltoid on just about everything he said) to also come on here defending Michael Mann with the same vigor that he defended far less qualified deniers on his blog. Mann's bonafides are light years ahead of many of the clowns whose qualifications he tries to bloat. But of course! Mann is on the 'wrong' side! So any smear is acceptable.
I still haven't seen old Poppy try and defend his comic-level book analysis of the US as a "Constitutional Republic" either. But then again, given the bilge he spewed out here, it is indeed good riddance (hint! hint! for Olaus).
"exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW."
Er, someone forgot to tell the Met Office because they were forecasting a dryer than usual winter.
Also, Dame 'Slingyerhook' who stated that the current record rainfall was due to climate change was flatly denied by, er, well, one of her top scientists!
Then, according to Geoff the Swot: "predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW".
Unfortunately the Met Office reported:
"The UK annual average rainfall has increased by a relatively small amount - around 2% - when comparing 1981-2010 with 1971-2000. This is a similar increase to that from 1961-1990 to 1971-2000."
To paraphrase Adm. Beatty, "Something wrong with our bloody forecasts today!"
Brilliant to see David 'shitferbrains' Duffer in his size 40 clownshoes tramping round the circus ring jam-packed with rakes with custard pies attached, still coming back for more.
Indeed to paraphrase Beatty who might well say, “there seems to be something wrong with our bloody deniers today” as another self-inflicted custard pie bomb blows up in Duffer's supercilious face for the third time in as many hours.
You'd think such a self-professed, amateur(ish) "historian" would appreciate the value of primary sources over trash, But you'd be wrong in Duffer's case.
Dame 'Slingyerhook' Chief 'Scientist' at the Met Office who in November forecast a 'dryer than normal winter': ""But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added. "There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."
Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."
So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along . . .
Specifc humidity is increasing as the troposphere warms. Heavier rainfall is therefore an unavoidable consequence of basic physical climatology irrespective of the argument over whether or not AGW is altering the jet streams.
I know you are fucking clueless, but this isn't actually very complicated, so try, will you.
See also Donat et al. (2013)Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset
And Westra et al. (2012)Global increasing trends in annual maximum daily precipitation
“”But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”
But what Dr Slingo actually says is: "“Of course, as yet there can be no definitive answer on the particular events that we have seen this winter, but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution.
In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it.
There is indeed as far as I can see no evidence to counter the premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.”
So, another dishonest Dufferism..
“There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.
But Julia Slingo doesn't mention the jetstream, so Duffbrains is quite right - "So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along" while still managing to be dishonest. What a Duffer.
Any more lies to come from you today Duffer? Do try to get your information from primary sources in future as you've been told many, many times in the past. You'll look less of a twat, and it saves the tediousness of dealing with your own gullibility and outright dishonesty brought on by your dismal failure to research the lies you're such an obedient little water carrier for.
Just how poor is your reading contribution? And how much is childish disingenuity. Read what I wrote again.
You are parroting dishonest journalism in the Mail on Sunday. It's just more denialist cant and is dismissed here. This sums it up:
But yesterday, Collins and the Met Office issued a joint statement dismissing the interpretation, saying "this is not the case and there is no disagreement."
You are peddling the usual lying denier misdirections and confected "arguments" inserted into the gutter press by right-wing ideologues. Nothing changes the facts, which are determined by physics and the consequent forcing efficacy of CO2.
Since Duff is having difficulty with his native tongue, I suppose I'd better repeat myself for clarity. Read closely, Duff:
Specifc humidity is increasing as the troposphere warms. Heavier rainfall is therefore an unavoidable consequence of basic physical climatology irrespective of the argument over whether or not AGW is altering the jet streams.
Since lying shitbag deniers rarely have enough good faith to click links and actually read the facts about which they are lying, here are some quotes from the article I linked. Note that they support exactly what I wrote above:
Basic physics says that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. That means when rain does fall, it tends to fall in heavier bursts. With so much rain in such a short space of time, the ground hasn't had chance to recover - leading to widespread flooding.
In the Mail on Sunday article, Collins makes the same point:
"Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water."
And in the Met office statement released yesterday, the Met Office and Collins say:
"What the Met Office report - and indeed the IPCC - does say is that there is increasing evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense … [W]hen conditions are favourable to the formation of storms there is a greater risk of intense rainfall. This is where climate change has a role to play in this year's flooding."
So on the extreme amounts of rainfall we've been seeing, Collins, Slingo and the report she authored agree the evidence points to climate change playing a role.
chek @ #43 "the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK
[citation needed]"
Duffer @ #44 "Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University"
Duffer arguing against himself @ #38 "Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.”
Now that you've cancelled yourself out, how about taking off those ridiculous clownshoes and giving a citation for your assertion.
Fascinating to see how eager Duffbrain is to belittle Slingo and Collins - professional scientists at the top of their fields, with nary a thought that he either may not understand what they say (high confidence) or they have been misrepresented by his beloved shitsources he religiously "belieeeeves" in (very high confidence).
No, I wasn't quoting the DM, I was quoting the BBC and the Exeter Echo.
And, no again, I do not disagree with your notions concerning humidity and heat but that was not germane to this *particular* bout of unusual weather in the UK which was due completely and entirely to the jet stream (JS) being stuck unusually far south. In other words, in the normal course of events all that rain would have dropped on Scotland (hoorah!) or Scandinavia but because of the JS it dropped down south.
Whatever, it had absolutely nothing to do with 'Slingyerhook' who said:
"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,"
as reported by both the BBC and the Exeter Echo.
There is no global warming link to this particular weather event and Prof. Collins said so - good for him!
What is it with your comprehension skills? Damaged by ideology.
Professor Collins did not say what you want him to have said, now why don't you go to source to find out what is really going on? Oh I know, you prefer interpretations of interpretations. And yes, you are repeating the meme in that Rose Mail headline, so stop lying.
The report by the Met Office states that “As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.” This agrees with the latest IPCC Report that states: “Substantial uncertainty and thus low confidence remains in projecting changes in Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, especially for the North Atlantic basin.”
This is the basis for Prof Collins’ comment and means that we are not sure, yet, how the features that bring storms across the Atlantic to the UK – the jet-stream and storm track – might be impacted by climate change.
That is not saying that the scientists are not sure that warming is causing climate change related changes in distribution geographically and temporally and intensity of weather events such as storms. What it is conveying is that there is, at this moment, some doubt about the strength of the various mechanisms involved.
Now look in these temperature maps at the sea surface temperature anomalies for January 2014 in the western Atlantic and along the track taken by these storms - what do you notice?
Now related stuff is found under that other denier favourite that non existent warming pause or hiatus. Visit the page in the link which follows and download and read all three parts. You may have to use some other literature to clear up points which confuse you. That is points that you are about to munge so as to make out it says something it does not.
You could look up thread here and at last months thread both being peppered with suitable links and remarks.
Now, you like to point out scientists are uncertain about some details, but as recent events have shown, uncertainty is not our friend and one thing is certain and this is that climate change related events are happening much sooner than many scientists expected, or at least were allowed to write in IPCC reports where the language was watered down by policy makers to help along the feeling that we are going to be al-right, no need to worry until 2050 or whatever.
That strategy didn't work in our favour did it and is one of the reasons why scientists want to improve on the sclerotic IPCC process so that reports have more immediacy from up to data information.
Of course there are scientists who argue (in published papers) that AGW *has* altered the jet streams but Duff doesn't know this because he is clueless.
Now watch Duff go "yesbutthatstudyisaboutsummerextremes" and ignore the actual point - which is that strange things are happening to the jet streams because of Arctic climate change - which is without doubt anthropogenically forced. Slingo is thus of course correct to suggest that there is a *link* between the UK floods and climate change - not that CC was the sole cause of the floods but then she didn't say that, did she?
There is no global warming link to this particular weather event and Prof. Collins said so – good for him!
At a fundamental level all extreme weather events are influenced by climate change because there is a huge amount more energy in the climate system now than there was several decades ago and it continues to accumulate at a staggering rate. But again, Duff either doesn't know this or is simply blanking it because he's in denial.
Will we see Duff pick up Spencer's toys and chuck em out of his pram to the tune of 'Deutschland über alles', or has he slunk away like the devious skunk he is leaving that nasty smell behind him.
Talking about extremes, there was an article over at Greg Laden's about Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines last November which revealed an astounding fact: the water temperature in the region at 100m depth was as warm as normal typhoon-forming SST's'
It should be only a few degrees above freezing down there, as I'm sure Lionel will attest.
That factoid has stayed with me and even some months later seems worth commenting on in light of our own extreme weather in the UK.
"Arctic climate change – which is without doubt anthropogenically forced"
Er, would that be the same "anthropogenically forced" effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?
Personally, I blame all those polar bears shagging like mad and increasing the temperature along with their numbers, it's called the Ursus Shagus Effect and frankly I think we should the shoot the horrible great things before we all drown in melted ice.
Meanwhile, it's 'evensong' so back to the chanting, altogether now:
You just keep on being wrong Duffer. You wouldn't want to spoil the perfect record of your spoon-fed ineptitude after all this time, would you? Is it some sort of disability that makes you such a spectacular masochist?
"Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet".
"Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America, has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice".
Er, would that be the same “anthropogenically forced” effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?
Well, ere, um, yes in a way. But what you need to consider is the very different topographical-oceanic structure of the driving systems North to South. Arctic is an ocean largely surrounded by landmasses whereas Antarctica is a continental landmass surrounded by water. Even then the Antarctic sea ice is the only real growth but then that is localised with some edges losing sea ice (as chek mentioned). But any sea ice gain is at the expense of continental ice. More continental ice going into the sea causes freshening - now what does that do to the freezing point and what is the result?
I have only touched on this, but your meme is only broadcast by the denial supporting hacks in the press who count on the ignorance of their readership to do the rest. You fall for it every time. Which is, of course who you use as interpreters. Go see a shaman about your ingrowing toe nail, have some incense burned and feel better because it smells nice, well to some anyway - a matter of opinion.
By falling for it every time that shows that you are not only ignorant but stupid with it.
It's predictable that instead of admitting error or trying to engage constructively, you simply skip to a new denialist misrepresentation of some other aspect of climate change.
For some insight into Antarctic sea ice extent changes, see Holland & Kwok (2012)Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift.
The paper is paywalled but press release is here. See also Zhang (2013)Modeling the impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume.
Duffer can't read stuff like that BBD.
He's too busy swallowing bullshit from and aping the attitudes of lo-life grifters like Nigie 'that Slingo woman' Lawson and his ilk.
Yes, I'm sure you are correct, but the links are for others, mainly, and also to demonstrate to Duff that I'm not just bullshitting in the way he does. And he knows it; make no mistake.
I wonder what Duff is going to do when we start joining up the dots that connect increased zonal windspeeds in Antarctica with increase upwelling of coastal waters and the consequent increased rate of basal melting of ice shelves and the increase in flow rate of the glaciers that produced them? Which of course increases the rate of mass loss from the WAIS and looks set to become a major driver of sea level rise over the course of this century and beyond.
Will he ask for references? I have them ready, of course...
I have some sympathy for anyone who says, look, it's supposed to be global warming, right? But there's more ice in Antarctica and on the face of it, that doesn't make sense.
Where I stop feeling benign is when the expected follow-on step does not materialise. They don't say, okay, explain how this works, I'm genuinely puzzled and genuinely curious. The next step is of course to make an effort to understand the explanation instead of reflexively denying it in bad faith.
Etc, ad nauseam.
Good conversations about this topic can and do happen - even to me. I was asked exactly this over dinner before Christmas and the explanation was treated as insightful and worth the ten minutes of conversation it involved.
As I've said many times, denial is a profound and damaging pathology.
I should tighten this up: denial is the opposite of curiosity. Curiosity is the key to understanding. Denial prevents understanding. It is the death of the mind.
Frank D @ # 29
You posted a link from Hotwhopper @ # 93 previous page.
Here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-dummy-spit-shows-his-la…
Your questions @ # 29 are related to Australia and a presumption that housing is a serious issue that needs solving.
My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to underprivileged nations and poverty, overpopulation and environmental harm due to inappropriate land use practices.
Australia is not an underprivileged nation, Australia educates females, Australia does not experience comparable levels of poverty, Australia is not comparably overpopulated and Australian farmers use world's best practice, sustainable agricultural methods.
The presumed housing shortage is primarily a problem in the Australian capital cities.
I'm guessing that Jeff Harvey would agree with me that Australia's presumed housing shortage is not the serious problem that we should be concerned about?
However; purely as an observation re you multiple choice above:
A to D have all been tried before.
A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences.
C & D did create unintended consequences.
Indeed, without becoming too Godwinesque, it's the foundation layer of feudalism and fascism.
I have no doubt (contrary to what Duffer has been fed and devoutly, slavishly believes, and in honour of him) that were the previously undiscovered element stupidium found to be responsible for what was heretofore ascribed to AGW that Mann, Hansen, Jones, Emanuel et al would alter their views in accordance with the new data.
Duffer et al have already decided that no matter how shonky and easily demolished the bedrock of their piss-poor belief system is, they will continue to support it, even as it comes crashing down around their heads.
El Duffo opened this salvo @ #11 saying " despite the horrific evidence piling up outside".. Projection, anyone?
You just have to imagine what it must be like to be too old, and more relevantly, too stupid to learn.
"despite the horrific evidence piling up outside."
You mean all the warmest and wetter winter your area has ever seen piling up outside, just as the scientists were telling you would happen from AGW 30 years ago..?
Stu2, you're being tiresome - Sou's article is about Roy Spancer throwing a grand-mal tanty and all you allude to is a single irrelevant quote-mined line? So if you want to refer to the article, how about engaging properly? Do you think its okay to call people who accept the science "Nazis"?
My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to ...
I made no reference to any questions between Jeff and yourself, I simply asked you a fairly simple question. Perhaps you can only conduct one conversation at a time? You responded with a history lesson of what (you claim) has been tried, but I asked you what you think governments should do. So...?
It is simply unproductive to carry out such a discussion without understanding the economic worldview of the other person. Therefore, an answer will allow readers (specifically me) to contextualise your comments re climate change policy wrt consistency with other economic policy. Further evasion of such a non-controversial question will just demonstrate that your claim of wanting to "move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in" is just high-toned horseshit. I'm trying to deal straight here, but your not convincing me that is being reciprocated.
Don't confuse him, Wow. The West Antarctic Ice sheet is losing ice mass. There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation). Taken together, net ice mass balance for the entire Antarctic is negative - Antarctica as a whole is losing ice mass (IMBIE 2012).
Antarctic winter sea ice extent is increasing slightly (see previous comments and links).
"There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation)."
And when you spread the butter, there's more butter where you've just moved it to.
Unless Duffer doesn't do any toast or bread-and-butter (in which case, he's faking being from the UK), the factualities should be eminently visible to him.
The key point is that if the global mean temperature is allowed to rise by 4 C or more, then our species is staring its own extinction squarely in the face. No amount of technology will be able to counter the catastrophic damage that will do to our global ecological life support systems.
Our irritants are probably as ignorant about the ecology that underpins our survival being about the same level of education as the pair of my grandchildren twins, then about five years, awhile back when going out into the fields of my brother-in-laws farm with a spade and a bucket going to get some spuds for dinner. After a few steps one asked, 'Where is the ASDA then?' Digging potatoes out off the ground was a novel idea to her. ASDA being a supermarket in the UK owned by Walmart.'
I have little doubt that things are going to be bad and I also think that those who want to wish the problems away will do everything they can to keep as much as possible from the general public.
So, watch closely where your politicians and local government officials do their shopping, and what they purchase. I suspect they will purchase in stealth before rationing is imposed on the rest of us. Rationing that will make us glad to get provisions even if contaminated.
I still remember the petrol coupons issued in early 1974. I was a bad boy in those days by having a 3-litre Wolseley 6/110 (purchased second hand) but in my defence it had better mileage than a 2-litre Ford Capri, a pal had one of those and we swapped notes and I tuned the twin SU carb's myself, but with my wife owning a Mini that would have been the vehicle for running about. The Wolseley would put in about 35-36 mpg on a run at a most economical motorway cruising speed of about 82-83 mph. with overdrive on the top gears. The petrol shortage saw a speed restriction to 60mph on motorways here which was a nonsense for cars such as that Wolseley.
The writing was on the wall though, so a step down in vehicle size and to one only was taken.
Isn't Duffer the clown who thinks local tides trump all climate change? Can I get the incoherent git to at least come water my fruit trees for me to combat the unprecedented drought here in California for me then?
@Lionel: If you were to buy a new car, why not go for a Fiesta 1.0, or Cruze Eco, or an iQ? I commute next to people sitting in F-350s or Excursions by their lonesome, and I just shake my head.
Frank D @# 80
1) You claimed I followed the wrong link.
2) No I don't think it's OK to call people derogatory names like 'Nazi' but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.
3) I reasonably assumed your questions arose from my comment to Jeff Harvey, which were also linked to your link to Hotwhopper and the 'something' we should be doing.
4) I found your multiple choice question re a presumed housing shortage in Australia somewhat irrelevant to the previous comment except that 2 of those items have demonstrated that they are PROVEN and PRACTICAL measures to help solve that particular problem but not the 'serious problem' that Sou comments on.
6) I was not attempting to be evasive.
Maybe I should ask you if you think creating a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy is the right 'something' we should be doing?
@Lionel: If you were to buy a new car, why not go for a Fiesta 1.0, or Cruze Eco, or an iQ?
I am afraid I am too physical disabled to contemplate driving these days, but then I know of people with similar problems, but maybe not the exact combination, who chance their luck but more reprehensibly chance the safety of others.
Stu 2: "somewhat irrelevant ".
Yes, unconnected with previous discussions you've had with someone who isn't me. But I've explained why I asked it, when I asked itand again later, and asked that you not continue to evade it.
6) I was not attempting to be evasive
And yet you evaded it. Just natural talent, I guess...
Perhaps I should ask you if you actually have any desire to rationally discuss policy options, or just play lame "when I grow up I want to be Brad Keyes" games.
Your continued evasion suggests to me that you are shit-scared of actually offering your own opinion on a topic on which you might be found wanting. Which is more than a bit sad, and leads me to deduce that all we can expect is tedious talking points from the same "world government, income redistribution shock-horror" songsheet Betula sings from, not engagement with the topic. Pity, because its quite a worthwhile one, and one that does not start and finish with "a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy", despite this being your preferred topic.
You claim to want to "move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in", and yet when I throw you a bone - two bones - it's duck and weave. So I call bullshit on your claim to ever-so-lofty motivations...
2) No I don’t think it’s OK to call people derogatory names like ‘Nazi’ but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.
Only when provoked by the constant lying, evasion, misrepresentation and intellectual laziness of others. Not to mention tone-trolling, which under the circumstances is truly unforgivable. Sod off.
Hey, deniers, tell you what, stop slagging off others (and whining about being called deniers when you're actually there denying is likewise slagging off others), and start policing your own counter-culture, THEN we'll stop with the insults.
I remarked in a post late on the previous page (#97) about how a recent NOAA-NCDC report had an illustration, a map, showing how large parts of the Atlantic had positive temperature anomalies during January 2014.
Instead of peddling energy industry-funded lies, why not respond to Lionel A? He specifically addressed his last comment to you, amongst others. Yet your follow-on comment was merely worthless spam. Why is that? Are you simply unable to admit that what Lionel A is trying to explain is far more closely connected with the reality of the UK flooding than some calculated mendacity issuing from the GWPF?
Is that it? I do wonder, sometimes. You lot seem so utterly incapable of any serious engagement it's almost the only possibility that makes sense.
However, it is noticeable that the industry shills haver been out in force this month since the heavy rains in some regions seem to have convinced a large number of the public that climate change is underway.
Yes, I noticed that too. It's funny how the shills get very loud and very visible whenever Joe Public shows any sign of noticing what's actually happening.
That's twice in a row you've thrown out a stinking spam-fart instead of engaging with Lionel A. So come on, you evasive little toe-rag. Respond to Lionel A's point about N Atlantic SSTs and storm tracks.
So for GSW, receiving a non-monetary, obscure award is as big a detriment to credibility as, oh, I don't know...
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from. [...] Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. [...] In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.
That Griselda et al gullibly buy whatever drips from mouth of the GWPF's Benny Piffle and think it trumps that of a data-led organisation like the Met Office is all you need to know.
Incidentally, taken as a whole for the UK the winter period Dec/Jan/Feb (not finished yet) has, despite severe rain and flooding in some areas the Met Office was right about it being drier than average. So far, anyway.
Frank D #@ 92 previous page.
My answer was that 2 of those multiple choice options (a & b) have proven to have some effect at solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) but the other 2 created unintended, third party impacts.
Come on guys, go easy of gormless (GSW) - he's got a third rate basic science diploma and is suffering from loneliness as his hero (Jonas) has his posts delayed on the basis on their vacuous content. So all he has left is the GWPF and other shills to keep him 'informed' about the state of the world.
Ah! Yes I remember Lawson as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his measures inducing the Lawson boom, and then bust.
Typical of an administration focused on economic magic rather than solid, sound practices which recognised the need for a national skills base in technology, especially of the old fashioned engineering kind. What Thatcher & Co. did to the railways was butchery, this after the earlier butchery of Ernest 'conflict of interest' Marples & Dr Richard Beeching.
Growing up in the 1950s in a city which had two of the major railways cross on the level through a very wide level crossing I have taken a keen lifetime interest in railway operations. I was fortunate to have holidays at Dawlish and Dawlish Warren where as I built sand castles I could watch ex. GWR Castles, Kings, Strars, Halls, Counties and many other types on the trains along that sea wall that has suffered so much recently.
A townie of the same era has written an excellent book describing how British Railways was plundered by successive free market economic lunatics and thieves with the latest major round being under Major's government in the 1990s. One Tory Grandee, Cecil 'had an affair' Parkinson also had a conflict of interest as his wife's family owned a construction company Jarvis. Jarvis being a name that now resonates to track fault caused fatal disaster.
See The Greatest Railway Blunder by Adrian Vaughan for the full story. It will leave you shaking your head but is typical of the way we are being sold out by those who don't give a damn about the population at large, in any country.
As for Lawson and the GWPF all they promote is a 'Load of old Blaby'. If that is the best you have got GSW & Co. then you are really desperate.
In 2011, Bob Ward claimed the GWPF was "spreading errors" and "the 'facts'" Lawson "repeats are demonstrably inaccurate"[39] Ward referred to Lawson's "many times" repeated statement that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worst case scenario predicted the rise in Third World living standards in 100 years would be limited to just nine times current levels.[39] In fact, said Ward, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimates living standard will rise by a factor of 66 but crucially makes no assessment of how it will be affected by climate change.[39] Ward also criticised Lawson for repeating in a 2010 BBC radio debate that Antarctic ice volumes were unchanged even after his error was highlighted by his opponent, Professor Kevin Anderson.[39] According to Ward, Lawson provided no evidence to back his claim which is contrary to satellite measurements and he similarly incorrectly implied that the correlation between CO2 and sea levels was uncertain as sea levels were rising more slowly since 1950 than before it.[39] The current sea level rise is accelerating. Given the Charity Commission requires that statements by campaigning charities "must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base" Ward suggested that they review the GWPF.[39] Lawson's son Dominic Lawson is also a climate change sceptic, taking a similar viewpoint as his father in his columns in the Independent on Sunday.[40][41]
Time to call 'shop' on this nefarious, unethical organisation.
Nicholas Loris claims: "It's time for calm on Climate Change". Looks like climate scientists are not rigorously trained in the disciplines of science. It is all too much pain for too little economic gain,.But, I suppose, it does depend on what questions are asked, what is known and on what basis.
The IPCC are completely wrong., They just are. So if everybody remains calm then all will be well - or even better in the short term. By the way, if you had not noticed, warming has gone into a hiatus.(meaning that the trend of surface mean temperatures have not increased.
Furthermore, modelling is completely hopeless since the models are inconsistent. Remember, the 97% of climate scientists who are not realists really means 97% of scientific literature - and this takes no account of the opinions of political scientists, or indeed the leading climate scientists who are not undertaking climate research.
Frank D @# 14
Your question was:
what should governments do : a, b, c, d.
I have answered the question.
If you want to discuss further then it's over to you.
Nothing remotely like that happened, instead part of the country drowned in a winter that was also very mild. But the facts do not matter at all.
Mediavomit like this works. Media like this know that. They are therefore also responsible for the devastation of Somerset and the 8.000 victims of Typhoon Haiyan.
BBD, we just went through another 'winter' in Holland of a kind absolutely unimaginable before 1990.
Poll in the most read newspaper in Holland, which is gutter press and gutter is generally most read, show 77% of plebs seeing nothing the matter because it snowed in the USA and +12° C is still cold even if +5° C is the fucking normal.
Nothing is changing except climate. If people's houses burn down in some AGW induced bush fire just show them some footage of Scotland from your link and they'll be quite assured again, i kid u not. I mean, that actually happened in Australia (otherwise a stooge like Abbott would never have received a vote).
To be clear - "alarmist" lies was ironic - these same "newspapers" peddle denial - it was just an inversion ;-)
Second, the point is that high altitude NH snowfall seems to be very high this winter - precipitation has stepped up - not just in the storm tracks bringing unprecedented flooding to the UK. Climate is of course the "something" that is changing - but I thought Hamish MacInnes' observations were very interesting (and noted that he's backing away from his previous "scepticism"):
The veteran mountaineer added: "This snow is not just something happening in Scotland.
"This turmoil is throughout the world. I have been in contact with people from all over the world, people in rescue teams, and they have got the same pattern - even more pronounced than us."
#21, on that note, I read Hamish' change of mind as driven by observation and like it. True skeptic : ). Above your quote:
He said he had been critical of climate change science in the past.
"I wrote an apology to the people who predicted climate change," he said.
"I thought it was just a historical pattern, it probably is to a large extent, but I did kind of poo-pooed the idea of climate change."
The veteran mountaineer added: "This snow is not just something happening in Scotland.
Et cetera.
I did kinda apology years ago. Notwithstanding university meteo- and climatology training I believed it had to be the sun until 2004, losing the Svensmark myth finally by then (as to global warming I was convinced of that by 1989). Sometimes I still feel ashamed a bit... Otoh I have in-depth knowledge of AGW denial perspectives and can recognize revisionists from those willing to learn instantly.
I might remain vulnerable to the kind of remark directed at zealous antismoking ex-smokers (revisionists, don't even think of it!).
"To be clear – “alarmist” lies was ironic – these same “newspapers” peddle denial – it was just an inversion"
Actually, they peddle alarmism like there's no tomorrow: a clam that they make is that there WILL be no tomorrow if we do anything about AGW. They'll claim that everyone's being asked to go back to the stone age. That's alarmism right there. They'll claim that it's all a scam to kill off poor people by denying them fossil fuels. Alarmism. They'll claim that it's the poor nations insisting that the rich first world give them all their money so they can live fat and happy whilst we crash and burn. This causes no mental problems with their earlier claims about poor people. And it's alarmist. They'll peddle it as a world-girdling conspiracy. Alarmist.
So much for 8 inches of snow and bitterly cold. The forecast from Friday through Tuesday is much the same - then it gets milder. Rao is full of bullshit.
Ah! Glen Coe and the Cairngorms, I have been camped out in those places for periods ranging from a weekend to fourteen days.
I may have recounted previously about my tumble down the North slope of the Buachaille Etive Mòr having climbed the East side. There was still quite a bit of snow in the saddle near the top, it being early spring, so my companion, a more experienced climber than myself, suggested glissading down the slope. Having pointed out the lack of ice picks he indicated the lack of these for braking control would be no problem as long as one stayed sliding with back to the slope so as to dig in heels as brakes. I watched as he set off and as he got about a quarter the way down pushed of myself. A few yards later I lost my balance and flipped face down but still going feet first down. I accelerated rapidly passing him very soon. Fortunately I managed to return to the correct position for braking, just as well as the snow was about to run out into scree. My companion was only about half way down at this point.
I was jarred a bit as I ran into scree but stood up, knees shaking within trousers, and as my companion came within earshot I called out, 'What kept you?'
That companion I learned whilst I was at another air base, had fallen into a crevasse on Greenland and been lost.
The Cairngorms were memorable for another event whilst camped adjacent to Ryvoan Bothy. But that is another story.
"On the other hand, Al Gore invented the Internet, as CNN's Wolf Blitzer discovered in 1999 after asking him why he should be president. Tough act to follow, but Gore became the only person to win an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for a movie — and a Grammy for the audiobook, to boot."
"Its falsities, a British court found, ranged from incorrectly blaming climate change for snowmelt on Kilimanjaro and drowned polar bears to predicting the scientifically impossible demise of the Gulf Stream."
Quite a few laughs in there for those disposed.
;)
#21, sorry, BBD, I should've mentioned I DID have to do a small calculation there but then your irony was not at all lost on me, lol!
And then, thanks for #25, 'sewage sample' - I was looking all day for a phrase like that, 'bile' and 'vomit' having been spent fubar during the 'debate' : )
So, GSW, all you've got is ancient "Al Gore is fat" irrelevancies. No response to Lionel A about N. Atlantic SST anomalies, storm tracks and recent UK flooding. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Here's a hint, old windbag: Al Gore has nothing to do with physics, and AGW is caused by physics. So guffing emptily on about Al G isn't going to have any effect on AGW.
It's just another paint-peelingly foul spam-fart. If you cannot or will not engage here, why not take a flying fuck, eh?
all you’ve got is ancient “Al Gore is fat” irrelevancies
He's the US right wing bête noire, which like 'librulls' doesn't really translate outside their good ol' boy stink-sewer in the fresh air of the real world.
But morons with all the intellectual depth of a dew-drop puddle like Griselda @ #28 can only dutifully parrot the scripted lies they're given.
Frank D @ # 23,
I would suggest you might need to be more concerned about your ability to foster a genuine discussion.
So far all you have done is focus on fostering critical comments about me or defensive comments about you.
I have tried to point out that I'm not interested in either of those but if you are interested in furthering the discussion topic, it's over to you.
Actually, they peddle alarmism like there’s no tomorrow: a clam that they make is that there WILL be no tomorrow if we do anything about AGW. They’ll claim that everyone’s being asked to go back to the stone age. That’s alarmism right there.
Are these the same people who tell us that we're hypocrites because we've done "absolutely nothing" ourselves about our own emissions unless we're living in a cave, childless, dressed in rags, gnawing on raw root vegetables? I'm pretty sure I've seen some individuals make that move from one comment to the next.
Fellas, Gav's latest says this with reagard to the missing heat:
"Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories."
Me thinks he should look more into the deep blue, like a true Deltoid scientits. What your take fellas? I thought sicence was settled? :-)
Try to understand what Schmidt et al. actually says before commenting. You think there's a conflict between this study and eg England et al. (2014) but there isn't. The increased strength of the trade winds described in England et al. has suppressed El Nino and increased the frequency of La Nina - something explicitly acknowledged in Schmidt et al.
There are several reasons for the current disparity between CMIP5 and observations, something long suspected by climate scientists. The key point is that none of them involve the fake sceptic's favourite false claim - that sensitivity to CO2 forcing has been over-estimated. From Schmidt et al. :
We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations. Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight. We see no indication, however, that transient climate response is systematically overestimated in the CMIP5 climate models as has been speculated, or that decadal variability across the ensemble of models is systematically underestimated, although at least some individual models probably fall short in this respect.
Most importantly, our analysis implies that significant warming trends are likely to resume, because the dominant long-term warming effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases continues to rise. Asian pollution levels are likely to stabilize and perhaps decrease, although lower solar activity may persist and volcanic eruptions are unpredictable. ENSO will eventually move back into a positive phase and the simultaneous coincidence of multiple cooling effects will cease. Further warming is very likely to be the result.
Read the words. Try - for once - to understand what is being said.
This stupid meme needs taking out the back and shooting in the head:
I thought sicence was settled?
The science *is* settled: GHGs are an efficacious climate forcing. Doubling CO2 will raise GAT by at least 2C and very likely ~3C or more.
You are confusing the settled science with the ongoing investigation into the mechanisms governing short term variability. It's just more evidence that you really do not understand the climate "debate" at all. Perhaps you should just sit and listen.
Okay Stu2, one last try. This was supposed to be a simple question to establish some basics before further discussion. I honestly expected a quick and clear reply, but lets be clear, it is your obfuscation that is preventing the discussion moving along. I have clarified the sticking point twice without progress, but third time counts for all...
You have said that (A) land releases and (B) cutting fees and charges have been tried and "have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences", while (c) negative gearing reform and (d) closing out foreign buyers "did create unintended consequences."
Of course, I've been round the buoys too many times to make any assumption about what you think, so I'm seeking confirmation, which might then allow this conversation to proceed beyond step one.
Given my question was "governments should...?", is it fair to say that had you answered the question I actually asked, you would have said "Governments should do A & B"?
Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. :-)
I love when settled climate science shows how the accelerating warming of the atmosphere, that was settled, robust, and detetected first hand by Jeffie Bonaparte, has become something else, but still is robust, settled, and perhaps even recognized first hand by our dear Little Napoleon. :-)
"Are these the same people who tell us that we’re hypocrites because we’ve done “absolutely nothing” ourselves about our own emissions unless we’re living in a cave..."
Indeed.
And those who do are "hairshirt loonies" and therefore want everyone as impoverished as them, therefore should not be listened to.
Deniers never listen to themselves, it would be too depressing.
Yes Frank D.
If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success in solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) then obviously those are the best 2 options.
You gotta love (or loathe) Olly's scientific illiteracy. He writes as if I am the one who has definitively concluded that the science of AGW is settled. Now I know the guy is a right wing quack, but even that takes the cake. He's trying what Michael mann refers to as 'The Serengeti Strategy' whereby individuals are singled out as making pronouncements that are not supported by the scientific community by-and-large.
Yes, the science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt. And I am not saying it on my own - every major scientific body on Earth is saying it. Every respectable scientific journal accepts it. You'll be hard pressed to find a single scientist at any major conference who disagrees. The shills don't count - they are for the most part on the academic fringe, as Poptech unintentionally showed on his wretched list.
But since I am a qualified scientist (gosh, that simple fact pains Olly, GSW and the other small band of idiots who write in here; noen of them has anything more than a comic-book level diploma is a field related to science) and I argue that there is consensus, then I am targeted. I am used to it. I have had to deal with far more challenging clowns over the past 10 years of my career than from the likes of losers like Olly and Co. Heck, Olly's not even original in his smears; he imitates the musings of Jonas, GSW et al. My guess is that he's a supine follower.
I suppose it's too much to ask some lying idiot of a denier actually to scroll up the page, so here, again, is Schmidt et al.:
Most importantly, our analysis implies that significant warming trends are likely to resume, because the dominant long-term warming effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases continues to rise. Asian pollution levels are likely to stabilize and perhaps decrease, although lower solar activity may persist and volcanic eruptions are unpredictable. ENSO will eventually move back into a positive phase and the simultaneous coincidence of multiple cooling effects will cease. Further warming is very likely to be the result.
Another something on the psychopathology of climate revisionists - tube vision. They cannot see more than one thing at a time nor hold more than one thing in memory at any time.
So these people cannot fathom the fact that different things can have relations to each other. Most particularly they cannot comprehend the concept of balance.
#42 by one 'Olaus Petri' demonstrates the pathology in multiplicity in one sentence:
... the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. (followed by the smiley of total ignorance but for some insanity awareness).
The guy can thus not understand that heat gets distributed across different elements of the climate system (air, oceans, cryosphere) because he can see only one of these at any time and must think that one element is all of the system. What bafflement, then, exemplified by ' the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden ' where 'Petri' rambles about 'missing' heat, 'hidden' heat (it can't be both) and the same heat taken to exist doubly while 'hiding' everywhere at once.
I wouldn't trust this fellow to cross a road with. Either he sees no car in his thin line of vision at the split second he looks to the other side and crosses and gets run over by all those 'hidden' cars, or he sees a car and sits down to cry because the road is uncrossable and will be so forever.
Here is the abstract to the Santer et al. paper the GWPF is lying about.
Read it:
Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.
Do you understand what this is saying? Straospheric sulphate aerosols from volcanism have acted as a negative forcing, offsetting the forcing increase from GHGs. See also #37, Schmidt et al. Huge shock, as Schmidt is a co-author of the Santer paper.
The liars at GWPF have picked a graph out of context and used it to fool you.
Now admit your error. You don't even need to remove volcanic aerosol negative forcings to falsify your claim.
I have done so right here, right in front of you so admit your error. Enough fucking evasions now.
(housing shortage in Australia)
Oh dear, Stu2, you've answered the wrong question again. Not being psychic, I don't know if you misunderstood what I wrote and all your answers are directed at a (different) question that I didn't ask.
My question was about your economic thoughts on housing affordability (for owner-occupiers, specifically), not on housing availability. These are two separate (if related) problems, and different solutions will work on them differently. Since I don't know which question you were sort-of-more-or-less-answering (that "if" could be misconstrued...), I can't usefully evaluate the merits of that answer.
If I were not assuming good faith here, I might think the confusion was deliberate. But the elephant in the room here is this: Even assuming good faith, if elicting a meaningful answer to such a simple question is so difficult, what prospect is there that this discussion can lead anywhere productive for the much more problematic question of economic levers with regard to energy and climate?
All I'm trying to do here is understand your general economic outlook, so I can factor that into my comments. And I've had these discussions run at cross-purposes for days on end too many times to be arsed jumping on to that go-round again. But you don't make it easy. If you want - as you have claimed several times - to have a productive discussion, you'll need to show you are honestly engaging with the questions put to you*. Otherwise, you're no different to the other clownshoes here - just slightly less obvious than they are about being an utter waste of space.
*as I will if the discussion ever gets off this merry-go-round.
The published peer reviewed graph is there for all to observe.
All you have to do is comment on it. How long has the trend of the TLT anomaly in Fig 1c remained fairly flat?
The nearest 5 years will do.
Rednoise, you really are a fuckwit ignoramus if you think that any hiatus in surface temperatures means that the Earth is no longer accumulating heat from incoming solar radiation that is modified and then trapped in the various Earth systems, mostly fluid.
Here, go read this three part report from the Met office:
And stop relying on The Three Monkeys – Monckton, Foster and Peiser of the GWPF, which is a totally discredited haven of ideologues which should be stripped of its charity status. It is a travesty that it has not been:
True, they invest so extremely in their statements, much as the most fundamentalist religious (the ones able to convince themselves to commit human atrocities) invest their entire being in their faith being *right*, that to be wrong in their argument is, for them, to be wrong in their humanity.
Such extreme investment is the prime motivation for many of the most spittle-flecked denier morons.
THEY ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS. End one, they believe ABSOLUTELY the other will end.
#81, rotate screen anticlockwise or head clockwise a bit. There are conventions re the orientation of graph axes you know.
BBD has given his 'opinion', that is a reading of the facts, repeatedly. It's not difficult. Um, you said that? 'It's not difficult?'
See, this is why so many don't bother to answer the petulant demands of whiny little denier crapsacks: they don't even notice when they've been answered.
There are the data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs - in which case you must show how - or you are wrong.
Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.
All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years". There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.
Its utterly amazing that in the course of the past several weeks, the GWPF has been shown to be one of the most blatantly biased climate change denial organizations around, that that its status as a charity has been heavily criticized.
And right on cue, Rednose shows up after a prolonged absence with a flagrant distortion by - you guessed it - the GWPF. Unvelieveable. In the lastes example they are distorting the conclusions of a paper by Santer and colleagues. Worst of all, Rednose thinks he's making a good point, when in reality his point is utter balderdash: a selective misinterpretation of the Santer study and certainly at odds with the views of the authors.
Over the years I have encountered a number of climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists on Deltoid, and not a single one of them has a scintilla of common sense or scientific knowledge. If the likes of Rednose, GSW. Olaus, Tim C, Pentax, Brad Keyes, Sunspot/Karen/Mack, Betula, et al ad nauseum are the best of the 'armchair brigade', then no wonder that much of the denial community are seen as laughingstocks.
Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give.
Is it 15, 20 or 25 years.
Oh FFS. I don't need 'opinions', you clown.
To answer your question I took the same data (you will see UAH TLT presented in each of the three graphs above) and two surface temperature data sets and instead of eyeballing and opinionating, as you are doing, I tested your claim empirically.
And showed it to be false.
When are you going to admit your error? You cannot seriously DENY your error - that would be the mark of a lunatic.
So how long are you going to keep this fucking nonsense up?
You asked - I demonstrated - you were making a false claim.
Your point is taken. This pathological dishonesty and flat refusal to admit an absolutely unequivocally demonstrated error is surely the hallmark of mental illness. Perhaps he really does sense that if he admits one error, the myriads of others will burst through the walls of his denial and his mind will implode under the onslaught of reality.
Your graphs not Santers.
The question concerned a specific graph from Santer showing corrections due to ENSO and 2 volcanic eruptions..
You have still not answered this original question
Your graphs not Santers.
The question concerned a specific graph from Santer showing corrections due to ENSO and 2 volcanic eruptions..
You have still not answered this original question
Yes I have. Read #95 again. It's all there. I answered your eyeballing and opinionating with an empirical test - three empirical tests actually, at your specific request.
Demolishes Rednose's arguments (and those of the GWPF which distort Santer's graphs). Note how the GWPF does not approach the authors for their opinion (they would take apart, piece by piece, the GWPFs misinterpretations). Instead, in true anti-environmental fashion, they selectively take some figures and draw their own conclusions from them. CC continues unabated. End of story.
As far as I can tell BBD, you have failed to remove the effects of ENSO, El Chichan and Pinatubo in your graphs.
Nice try but no cigar.
Now please answer the question with regard to Santers graph which does.
There are the data. One of the temperature data sets is UAH TLT, as used by Santer et al. Same data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs - in which case you must show how - or you are wrong.
Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources (including UAH TLT, as used in Santer et al.) and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.
All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years". There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.
As far as I can tell BBD, you have failed to remove the effects of ENSO, El Chichan and Pinatubo in your graphs.
El Chicon, Pinatubo and latterly ENSO (which has been predominantly in La Nina phase for the last decade) are COOLING effects, you clown.
I'm not too sure at this point that you have the remotest idea what Santer et al. demonstrates.
I *am* sure that you have been completely fooled by the liars at GWPF and I *am* sure that you are refusing to admit that your claim of no warming for "about 20 years" is false.
I'm getting a little tired of you now, Rednoise.
Admit your error. I have demonstrated it above over and over and over again. So admit that your claim is false. We can all SEE that it is false, but you need to admit it.
Too true, but what is the cause?
Is it volcanic eruptions, aerosols, solar activity, CO2, changing land use, ENSO or something else?
If only the science was settled.
Yes, that's rather the problem, isn't it, redski. You deliberately limit yourself so as to fit within the tiny sphere that fits within your philosophy.
And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?
And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?
Fuck off Rednoise. You have overstepped the mark now.
Meantime all the talk is about a miserable less than three percent of the relevant heat fluxes & budgets.
How many Hiroshima bombs to melt 600 Gt of ice per year?
R-2 45... Pfff.. Yes there are sekts behind climate revisionism where palpacts are in the 'leave the herd and decease' domain, but such pacts operate higher up than at the level of the echelon (cf list elsewhere in this thread) printing here.
"Today two major national academies have laid out what scientists know about climate change". The report is by the UK's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. The conclusion could not be any clearer. Warming continues unabated. This demolishes Rednose's GWPF distortion, as expected.
Its back to the denial blogs for Rednose, I can't wait to see what crap he spews out here next.
I doubt Redarse had had the gumption to actually read Santer's paper, which is why he's glued to having his malformed opinion as pre-loaded by the GWPF's 'interpretation' from some nonentity like Benny fucking Pizzle.
It would further help if deniers such as Redarse realised that the output of garbage that flows from think-tanks like Heartless and Pizzle's outfit are solely aimed at reactionary conservative morons and are not fit for intelligent human beings.
Otherwise they'd link directly to the source material, and not the sewage outlet version.
Something that I suspect is too subtle for the... contrarians here is the difference between ENSO itself and the longer-term cooling influence caused by wind-driven ocean mixing (see England et al. (2014) for detail on the latter).
Studies like Santer14 and Schmidt14 are correcting for ENSO peaks and troughs but *not* for the climatologically significant generalised cooling caused by enhanced wind-driven ocean mixing in the equatorial Pacific. That's still there.
Another factor not accounted for in the analysis in Santer14 are the spatial limitations of satellite data and the effects they have on trends.
UAH covers 85.0N to 85.0S and RSS covers 82.5N to 70S. Consequently:
- UAH and RSS do not pick up the strong warming in the Arctic
- UAH is cool-biased in the Antarctic because the elevation of Antarctica introduces a cool bias into the TLT product.
So *both* satellite TLT products are biased cool relative to surface temperature data sets. To compound this, it now seems that even the surface temperature products suffer from a cool bias (Cowtan & Way 2013).
Here I make a bet with the contrarians: future analyses using improved surface temperature data and accounting for the transient cooling mechanism described in England14 will show very good agreement between the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations.
So remind us again where you asked this leading question, as opposed to the one you actually asked “How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?”?
They aren't observations, Rednoise. They are *model output*. They have been *processed* to remove various bits of information. Yes - a denier is making a strong claim based on model output compared to... model output. But only because you don't know what you are doing.
You made a statement based on OBSERVATIONS which you then tried to back up with PROCESSED OUTPUT when I demonstrated that it was FALSE by using OBSERVATIONAL DATA.
I am absolutely fucking fed up with trying to get you to see this.
You are right of course BBD.
I should say
Remind me again, what is your estimate for the number of years the trend for the processed temperature observations was flat in graph 1c
I don't like eyeballing graphs and opinionating, but since that's all Rednoise has got re Santer14 panel c, here goes. I see a positive trend from 1979 - 2002, a slight downward step, then a positive trend from 2002 - 2014 (or 2013 if that is the final year shown).
Santer et al. notes that there have been 17 eruptions since 1999, over half of which occurred in the tropics, where their effect on global climate is greatest. The flattening since then is the key result, demonstrating the effects of this spate of minor volcanism on TLT (but see caveats at #34).
Please note that the effects of this volcanism have not been removed from the curves in panel c.
It is painfully clear, Rednoise, that you haven't understood Santer14 and you *have* been tricked by a misrepresentation of a single, decontextualised figure from it.
It is telling that (as Jeff Harvey remarks above) that Whitehouse has eyeballed and opinionated to his heart's content but did not contact the authors for comment.
You really should pick up on the obvious cues. The rest of us do, and it would make these interactions far less problematic.
So the GWPF has too little influence to be subject to Charity Commission investigation has it? I don't think so.
Is the population of the country aware of the GWPF using tax evasion whilst continuing to try to delay action on tackling climate change, climate change which has not only ruined the lives of many in this country but killed some here and many many more abroad.
There is are words to describe such activity.
So Rednoise are you just a simple dupe or are you complicit?
GWPF (and Scotland against Spin) has chosen an odd paper to push.
To avoid having to link to "sceptic" blogs, here's press coverage of Stauning (2014) from a neutral source.
Apparently, the conclusion of the paper states:
The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane, and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001. The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.
The problem with this is that it seems to require huge sensitivity to very small changes in solar forcing (on the order of 0.2W^m2 in an 11yr cycle that largely averages out over time).
Perhaps the easiest way to get a handle on the relative size of various forcings is to see them scaled coherently. Solar is in red. It's quite hard to see.
Your attempt at eyballing gets a Ho, Ho, Ho
Hint, try working backwards from the present showing an obvious
slight downward slope from 1998 or flattish since 1994/5
You also notice the differences emerging about 2010 between the processed temperatures referred to as observations (UAH or RSS) by Santer and the CMIP5 multi model average, which Santer then puts down to these 19 VE4 volcanoes.
Frank D,
If people can't afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
The answer remains the same. Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences.
Obviously you don't like that answer. But that is my simple answer to that question.
If it helps to make it any clearer - I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn't work.
For a different example (not housing affordability/availability) there would be different government initiatives that will or won't achieve results.
I do not believe in one particular socio-economic theory. I judge by matching stated goals and purposes against results.
I hope that assists you in moving on?
Well you might well laugh at Whitehouse's eyeballing but it seems pretty flat to me for the last 15-20 years indicating little if any temperature change when it was expected to rise due to increased CO2 concentrations.
Even Nature acknowledges a 16 year hiatus
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
So a claim of " it seems to have been going on for about 20 years" is not unreasonable.
Still missing the fundamental point: we see short term variability imposed on a long term trend. You can't use the former to estimate the latter. You need a bigger picture.
* * *
So a claim of ” it seems to have been going on for about 20 years” is not unreasonable.
But still you are refusing to do other than cherry pick statements and to look at some data in isolation rather than take in the whole abstract at your link and if you also visit the links to the three part Met' Offce report I made up-thread and also to their February 2014 report on recent storms into the UK which has a good section on climate models.
Now stop pissing about and do some wider study and stop drinking at the poisoned pools, like too much hard stuff that can also lead to red noses.
Rednoise is confused about the influence on the temeprature record of of ENSO, volcanoes and such. His confusion might (just might...) be resolved if he reads this:
See, this is why I want to be specific. If people can’t afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
That's wrong. If people can't afford to buy housing, they can rent it. Investors can buy (because their situation is different), but less well cashed wanne-be owner-occupiers cannot. That is the difference between availability and affordability.
Obviously you don’t like that answer.
I neither like nor dislike that answer, so you are just projecting. I did not like the ambiguity of your answer, because I fully expect the same ambiguity in any discussion of policy options.
I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work.
Well that is something we can agree on, regardless of whether we agree on underlying economics. The problem is that "Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences" is bullshit.
Option A simply privatises profit while socialising cost - this is the exact problem with Direct Action (in fact, its pretty much the problem with all policies that get the tick from media and business groups. If you think land releases solve the affordability problem "without creating too many third party or unintended consequences" the you are mistaken. At a minimum, housing does not exist in a vavuum - houses require water and power and sewerage and roads, and then bigger roads to carry the residents to wherever work is. Which means that tax-payers as a whole are subsidising all house buyers, whether investors or owner-occupiers. The money for this infrastructure diverts funds from other areas where it would be useful, whether ones economic mindset says that should be schools and hospitals, or back in peoples pockets. The fact that these developments are associated with minimal infrastructure support means you can forget about anything like public transport. Instead we are creating vast acreage of car-only suburban wasteland.
Nor does it do anything substantial to address the bubblicious nature of house prices, it just means people can pay a lot to live a long way from anywhere. I'll concede that increased supply exerts a modest downward pressure (modest because the rate of building is relatively small compared to oveall stocks, but without unintended consequences? Anyone who thinks that is smoking something....
Bureacratic costs are an easy mark, but a trivial proportion of the oveall price of buying a new house. It would be easy to target these at specific market sectors (eg a means-tested waiver of stamp duty). In some instances this has been tried, but in the main these sorts of trimmings, while they get good press, achieve nothing because the tide raises all boats equally. If governments reduced stamp duty by a flat $5000 all subsequent sales will be $5000 higher - all that would achieve is to make sellers $5000 richer. Doesn't achieve the desired aim in the least, and has unintented consequences - again reducing revenue that governments need elsewhere.
0 for 2.
More to follow - I have to leave now (as in my lift is waiting).
As for the malts, I tried a few out over the years whilst visiting. I had to do this slowly because of a damaged heart, but Ardbeg, an Islay peaty type, is worth it once the taste has been acquired (;like Guinness and Marmite I suppose you either love it or loath it). I was once given a bottle of Caol Ila, once again an acquired taste - good excuse to buy another bottle.
On the more gentle side is Dalwhinnie which I tasted for the first time in 2008 whilst on Ardamurchan, and got stick from SWMBO for my trouble. This one will please those with more refined tastes. But...
If on holiday up there and visiting a bar check out the Black Bottle blended variety, it's good value for money and the one I tasted very smooth, unlike Bells (Ugh!).
I had long wondered what this Dalwhinnie malt tasted like having set off from near the distillery Dalwhinnie along Loch Ericht on a long trek across the hills to Poldubh (near what used to be know as 'Thunderclap Bridge' since removed and replaced by a new bridge about 3/4 mile upstream as I discovered in 2008) in Glen Nevis.
This trek was one of a number of two week periods spent in the hills ''Venture Training' whilst doing RN FAA trade training near Arbroath over a period of about 4 years with an 18 month interruption at an Air Station on (in the) field training.
In those days the Clachaig inn in Glen Coe was a small cosy establishment with a dartboard just inside the door which let in a right hoolie when opened. Propping up the bar, and irritating some with his pipes, would often be 'The Mad Piper of Clen Coe' who turned out to be a Yorkshireman and who would walk the Glen playing his pipes, the Glen being a more lonely place then.
The point here is not that I disagree with the policies Stu2 has suggested are effective. It is that the policies are NOT effective, and have undesirable consequences. Stu has reached into the bag of economic-sound-bite flashcards and pulled out polices that are popularly thought to be effective, but are actually counterproductive.
The only way to make housing truly more affordable, without simply socialising the costs onto the whole of society is to make the investment less attractive or less accesible, to get investors out of the market and leave the field clear for owner occupiers.
Options c and d do that. Sure, c involves shafting investors with the addition of a whole host of unintended consequences (ripple effects through the economy), so balance and delivery of policy changes is very difficult to get right. d is probably racist. But regardless of these issues, they are the ones that attempt to actually solve the problem. The fact that Stu2 chose to focus on the side effects rather than the core effects is quite illuminating. Stu would favour a policy mix that does not solve the problem, spreads the costs among society as a whole, and has a number of unintended consequences, so long as it does not ruffle the feathers of people he cares about.
So why this three page multi-day discussion to get to this point?
Because - as I'm sure the more astute realised - I don't give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned). But the solutions proposed have analogues in the climate policy space. Not a one-to-one relationship, but the choices of cost-benefit, effectiveness, risk of unintended consequences etc are similar.
Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy "solutions" that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don't really want solutions to these issues.
As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we're doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure.
#66, double-took 'conucopian'. Associating narrow conal vision field with this concept-to-be. Etymologically the neologism could be superfluous. Am I interpreting the sweetness rightly?
Thanks BBD for locating that animated version. I had intended to include that as well but forgot to chase it up in the process of collecting the other links.
They all just goes to show that the pausists are all bafflegabbers and thimbleriggers. Very much like Eli's current infestation of Richards who think that the oceans aren't acidifiying...
That plonker trolled ATTP with that rubbish a couple of months ago. I saw him at Eli's but could not be bothered. Has anyone pointed out to him yet that he doesn't understand the coastal water pH ranges he's waving around? In the sense that they allow for large, dynamic *local* variability typical of coastal environments. Nobody is suggesting that these pH ranges can be applied to entire basins. He was told this at ATTP, by me, very clearly indeed, so he's being extremely intellectually dishonest peddling the same tripe elsewhere. Go and kick his arse. Again.
Has anyone pointed out to him yet that he doesn’t understand the coastal water pH ranges he’s waving around?
BBD, yes, I did exactly that a little while back after said plonker repeated for about the umpteenthth time that the range of pH in sea water is 2.5 to 8.5, as if this makes irrelevant a change of several tenths of a unit, but so far there's been no response.
It'll come though, in the form of yet another display of the triumph of recalcitrantly ignorant ideology over pure and simple fact.
" Because – as I’m sure the more astute realised – I don’t give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned)."
followed by:
" Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy “solutions” that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don’t really want solutions to these issues."
Disappointing because:
1) From the first I questioned the relevance of using a presumed shortage of affordable housing in Australia as an example.
2) I clearly stated (and you sort of agreed with this comment at 62) :
" I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work."
Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think - nowhere at all.
If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem then I would obviously suggest that Governments should cease that behaviour.
You conclude with:
"As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure."
Considering my original question was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something that we all agree we should be concerned about - those comments of yours are very disappointing as they are just basically sweeping negative comments and are not really addressing the practical concerns we all should have about really important issues such as overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm.
However, as I don't wish to be summarily dismissive, please consider these clarification questions and I will try to keep them as direct and simple as possible.
1) Is your - 'bit of a problem with that as a solution' - the fact that you're personally paying $150/t for CO2 or are you questioning something else?
2) Who in particular would the "f******s" be paying (to pollute) and for what particular purpose other than to pollute?
3) You may not have intended to but you have basically argued that because what we're doing now has unintended consequences then there is nothing wrong with creating more unintended consequences. Would you care to clarify?
Also Frank,
Considering you went into a lot of detail above - I should be fair and clarify what I observed to be the unintended consequences of option c.
I do not profess to be an expert of course - but my observation was that when negative gearing was removed as an option for property investors in Australia, while it did release some affordable housing for home owners, it created a problem with the lower end of the rental market and also revealed a chronic shortage of public housing available to compensate for the less fortunate who were at the lower end of the rental market.
Stu2 - the housing question was not irrelevant. Its purpose - as stated several times - was to establish your general economic outlook. And as called, you think it is okay to socialise costs and privatise profits. The fact that your answers served as a metaphor for your outlook on climate change policy is merely a fringe benefit.
"Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think – nowhere at all."
Ahh, yes, you did. Which is why I took such pains to clarify exactly what you meant. At page 7, #73, you said: "A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences."
So my summary of your position is exactly correct.
Later on...
Stu2 (page 8, #50): "If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success..."
I called the weasel-wording out ahead of time.
Me (page 8, #69): (that “if” could be misconstrued…)
Since you had previously stated that the evidence did indicate that, claiming you were only conditionally endorsing those positions...
""If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem ..."
... is just lame. Your "if" wasn't conditional, it was a syllogism, based on a premise which, though false, you had already asserted,
"was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something..."
Well, what is this "something" we want to tackle? So far you shown a remarkable inability to fix on a single question, whether put to you or put by you. But if you can state it the "something" unambiguously, I'll happily speak to it.
But since nobody has PROVEN and PRACTICAL solutions to such a ridiculous generalisation as "...overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm...", I can only assume this is a deliberate attempt to "poison the well", as it were. Your comments on Page 5 #11, for example:
"Which is a proven, practical way to prevent environmental harm in agriculture?
a) Educate farmers in developing nations about best practice and efficient farming methods or
b) Create a emissions trading market?"
speak to a terminal lack of good faith.
The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it.
And before you witter on about being negative again, I'm just stating a fact. That this fact makes for unpleasant reading isn't my fault.
As to your questions:
1. I am. You are. Everybody is. But there was a bit lost in editing: "That as a solution" = Continuing to emit GHG's without cost to the emitters and mitigate the consequences.
2. On the first pass, it doesn't matter. A remediation fund/governments, national/international. getting tied up on that is another dodge, a failure to understand the key point. What is absolutely critical is that the energy market no longer be allowed to continue to externalise the cost of their emissions. That makes sense from whatever your economic persepective. So the question is, do you agree that a price on carbon commensurate with the cost? Once we agree on that, debating about the best mechanism might be worthwhile.
3. Where have I argued that? Quotes please.
Stu2, whatv Frank is referring to is the fact that the environmental costs of economic activities are externalized. Society therefore picks up the costs whereas the polluters don't pay anything. Progressive economists and those advocating a steady-state approach to counter the effects of dwindling resources and environmental destruction have been arguing this point for years, only to be drowned out by the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade who appear to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. They think that consumption and waste production can forever increase due to their almost religious belief in the triage of economic efficiency, unlimited substitutability and technology.
Of course, many of these same people are pretty silent when it comes to policies in developing nations. where are corporations obtain most of their raw materials. They realize well enough that if the poor in developing nations aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the west, then we'll urgently need to find another few Earth like planets nearby in the cosmos to plunder. But, as far as I know, Earth-like planets are hard to find these days. So we have to constrain our plunder to lands of the south - meaning our politicians pay lip service to eradicating poverty (they are lying) whilst we continue to loot, steal, plunder, thieve, call it what you like, resources and capital from these countries, all at the behest of our transnational corporations to ensure that they continue to rack up big profits. Its ecocide writ large, but our supine corporate media doesn't write up much about it, because its owned by, or depends on advertising from, many of the same corporations that are reaping the rewards from the current rapaciously undemocratic system.
In Rio at the Biodiversity Summit (actually, the summit was more about who had patent rights over biodiversity than protecting it) in 1992 corporations fought tooth-and-nail against full cost pricing (e.g. internalizing the costs of corporate activities). They knew full well that a move in this direction would necessitate a massive shift away from a fossil-fuel based economy because of the massive social and environmental costs of extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels. And since the US is by-and-large a corporate state, where the citizenry has been rendered impotent. of course they got their way.
Actually the people who you refer to as "the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade" would, if they had any consistency, support a substantial price on carbon.
Externalities are by definition a market failure, and market failures by definition represent economic inefficiencies. A free-market economist of any stripe will supports the idea that market failures should be corrected to improve the efficiency of the market.
It should not matter whether you are Keynesian or Chicago-schoolian or any of the dozens of other streams of ëconomic "thought" (some of which are little better than kaffee-klatches), all implicitly or explicitly support a price on carbon.
So why is this a contentious point? Hint: the word "hypocrisy" must feature in any answer to this question.
The question of conucopianism* versus steady-state reform is also a critical one to environmental degradation generally, but also more vexed, and away from the first issue of cricing GHG emissions. One step at a time, I think.
*It amuses me to stick with that accidental neologism for now. For cRR's benefit - since it seemed to get by him at #68, "con-" as in confidence trick. Seems apt.
Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors…
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
+1 for Delwhinney
Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors…
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
+1 for Delwhinney
Thomas Jefferson wrote a famous letter to James Madison in which he questioned the right of governments to incur long term debts. WRT to debt, I think his thesis is a little lacking*, but with regard to our attitude to the environment, it is worth quoting a section:
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another...[is]... a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.
Yet future generations will look at what we had and what we left to them and recognise that we have burdened them with our intergenerational debt. The dead us will indeed be exercising power and rights over the future living them.
* Jefferson was talking about intergenerational debt, but he lived in a time when governments did not typically invest in long term capital assets, but normally only for consumptive activities like wars. Consequently he does not consider the cases where a valuable asset is developed at the cost of incurring that long term debt. Such debts are not of the kind he is discussing, since they (hopefully, at least) provide more future economic good than future economic harm.
But the intergenerational environmental debt we are passing on is out of all proportion with any long-term economic good that might come from it. Only in some conucopian fantasy where there will always be more of everything can that sort of activity be justified, What we are doing here (and with a great number of commonly-owned assets, incidentally) is more analogous asset stripping.
Pillaging for profit and leaving only debt in your wake is generally considered a bad thing. So why is this a contentious point?
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
This is just a stupid lie. You discredit only yourself by lying like this.
* * *
Fyfe and Gillett have been banging a drum for low TCR for years. They are over-invested in attempts to derive TCR estimates from recent climate behaviour and all such efforts are highly sensitive to transient variability. So they low-ball the estimate. In simple terms: wrong-o.
If you actually understood any of this, you would grasp the nuances, but since you are essentially a denier arguing from ignorance and profound prior commitment, presumably to some foul political fantasy, you always get it wrong.
* * *
Add a drop of water to your scotch if you cannot cope with it neat. You will find that it opens the palette and allows you to appreciate what you are paying for.
And wittering about preferring a particular dram because it is "more exclusive" makes you sound like a complete prat.
And don't quote selectively either. At least go and find a full version of the abstract even if you can't be bothered to read the paper you are waving around. The truncated paragraph you pasted up reads as follows:
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
If you had a clue, you would know that solar forcing has been over-estimated relative to the very low activity during SC24, volcanic aerosol negative forcing has been under-estimated, and natural variability under-accounted for (wind-driven equatorial Pacific circulation; see England et al. 2014).
Account properly for the transient influences and two things happen: you get good agreement between models and observations (Schmidt et al. 2014), and your estimates for TCR and ECS are validated.
Rednoise, perhaps this article, On mismatches between models and observations will assist you in rationalising your thoughts on this particular thorny issue with which you have spiked yourself.
Note:
But does this exposition help in any current issues related to climate science? I think it does – mainly because it forces one to think about the other ancillary hypotheses are. For three particular mismatches – sea ice loss rates being much too low in CMIP3, tropical MSU-TMT rising too fast in CMIP5, or the ensemble mean global mean temperatures diverging from HadCRUT4 – it is likely that there are multiple sources of these mismatches across all three categories described above. The sea ice loss rate seems to be very sensitive to model resolution and has improved in CMIP5 – implicating aspects of the model structure as the main source of the problem. MSU-TMT trends have a lot of structural uncertainty in the observations (note the differences in trends between the UAH and RSS products). And global mean temperature trends are quite sensitive to observational products, masking, forcings in the models, and initial condition sensitivity.
Note also the remarks on Feynman.
Now, models may have you confused, after all there are a number of them and they are aimed at different problems. For a good explanation of model limitations and what is being done to improve them then I once again refer you to the excellent Met' Office report by Julia Slingo (that got Lawson so heated hah!): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_…
Now you cannot claim ignorance of the type that leads you to make such preposterous replies here, for these have been pointed out to you time and time again.
Frank D
The thread has probably petered out but I will re iterate that I am very disappointed:
"The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it."
Firstly I am amazed that you could tag me as some type of enemy and the source of the problem? That is not a good way to foster a discussion Frank. Despite your ridiculous assertion I am concerned about caring for our planet and future generations.
That comment was in relation to a question I asked Jeff Harvey earlier in this thread and I was questioning him about how to solve the environmental harm that is occurring in third world countries.
Option a in that question is far from the cause of the problem. The harm caused by inappropriate land use is largely caused by people who do not understand how to use modern, best practice, sustainable farming methods and who therefore, out of the necessity to survive, continue to use primitive slash and burn type methods.
That question was also accompanied by another about overpopulation in third world countries.
And in answer to your question - this is the quote re 'unintended consequences:
" What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure."
Considering that my original question and hence the continuing comments was linked to that 'something' that we should all be doing about it, I do find this comment of yours disconcerting.
It appears that you're just interested in making someone else pay and wasting time on a false, negative psychoanalysis of me, rather than a discussion about what could actually solve some of the issues that Jeff Harvey raised earlier in the thread.
Problems with solar, volcanic, and ENSO
attribution using multiple linear
regression methods on temperatures
from 1979–2012
y.After adjusting the observed surface temperature record based on the natural only multi-model mean from several CMIP5 GCMs and an empirical ENSO adjustment, a significant deceleration in the surface temperature increase is found, ranging in magnitude from -0.06 to -0.12 Kdec-2 depending on model sensitivity and the temperature index used. This likely points to internal decadal variability beyond these solar, volcanic, and ENSO influences.
The sensitivity to
the form of the underlying warming highlights the danger of multiple linear regressions when other important factors may be missing...
Then there is Tung and Zhou 2012
Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records
Many people found the F&R paper to be technically weak, and its conclusions doubtful;
So, I have quoted two recent papers from Nature in support of my statement
“seems to have been going on for 20 years”
All you have offered to counter this is a 3 year old discredited paper.
By the rules of the blog which you kindly explained several months ago, I claim victory in this argument and my prize will be a small and exclusive single malt to be sipped neat without water
After adjusting the observed surface temperature record based on the natural only multi-model mean from several CMIP5 GCMs and an empirical ENSO adjustment, a significant deceleration in the surface temperature increase is found, ranging in magnitude from -0.06 to -0.12 Kdec-2 depending on model sensitivity and the temperature index used. This likely points to internal decadal variability beyond these solar, volcanic, and ENSO influences.
Yes, of course. F&R didn't compensate for the effects of wind-driven equatorial Pacific mixing (England et al. 2014). Nor does Schmidt et al. (2014) or for that matter, Santer et al. (2014).
If we took that further transient cooling influence away, the forced trend would be more evident still.
Ya gotta laugh at Rednose and his appalling attempt at vindication. Like other deniers with no scientific pedigree whatsoever (Jonas comes to mind) one has to wonder why they don't take their remarkable self-professed expertise to the broader academic sphere, such as conferences, workshops, and top scientific journals. Instead, they pound their chests like silverbacks on blogs, claiming illusory intellectual victories which, if thrown into the lions den of academia, would be quickly chewed up and spat out.
I challenged Jonas many times to take his self-righteous wisdom to the climate science community and every request was met with the same teflon like avoidance. I make the same request to Rednose. See how well your arguments stand up to real scientific scrutiny. But of course, you glean your worldviews from other denier blogs like the GWPF and on blogs you will stay with your willful ignorance.
The evidence available to the climate science community seems to move on at pace. Unfortunately JH none seems to penetrate your thick armour plate which resembles that of the dinosaurs.
And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.
Works for me, must be a problem at your end but then that is par for the course with you.
Now that SkS article uses scientific peer reviewed to correct for Tung and Zou, note this quote:
"The removal of the AMO in the determination of the anthropogenic warming trend is justified if one accepts our previous argument that this multidecadal variability is mostly natural." [Tung and Zhou 2013]
No. Removing the AMO to determine anthropogenic warming would only be justified if detrending the AMO from 1856-2011 actually removed the trend due to anthropogenic warming. But that's unphysical: basic physics show that the anthropogenic warming rate should be higher after 1950. As a result, their approach overestimates anthropogenic warming before 1950, and underestimates it after 1950.
BBD already answered one. You pretend it never happened.
Tell you what, when you acknowledge an answer and understand it, then you can ask for another answer. As it is, it appears answering your petulant queries has no effect whatsoever.
Yes of course, F&R did not compensate for….”
Which is the problem of relying entirely on a single dated paper to defend your argument.
And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.
- The problem is that you haven't backed up your lie about F&R11 being "discredited. The *facts* are straightforward: the methodology in F&R *is* robust and *nobody* has demonstrated otherwise. Their results remove much of the noise of natural variability and reveal the forced trend. What they did not do - because they did not attempt it - is to isolate and remove the cooling influence of wind-driven ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific. If they had, the forced trends they describe would have been greater.
So F&R11 stands as an excellent example of why you are full of shit. A following example of your pathetic dishonesty follows on in your lie about the SkS link being broken. It isn't. You are full of shit.
The SkS article demonstrates unequivocally that there is a serious methodological flaw in T&Z - it's junk, basically. So unsurprisingly we find it being waved around by scientifically illiterate deniers like you.
What you never seem to realise is that your endless fragmentary citation of papers you obviously haven't read, let alone understood (eg Masters13, above, which actually supports what I have been saying) makes you look like an idiot - and a mendacious idiot at that.
Enjoy your dram. I hope it was "exclusive" enough to make you happy.
Lionel
Thanks for the Bob Ward link. And being as 'ow we know each other I don't mind if you call a spade a knobhead.
"-Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?"
That's the 64,000$ question. And, as i have said, its not based on the science they don't understand, but on the basis of their own warped libertarian/anti-government/deregulatory political ideology. Its simple, really. But they do everything they can to keep the truth hidden. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain why so many utter laypeople are not only AGW deniers, but actually expend the effort to set up blogs in which they expound their position - often embarrassingly, as in Poptech's case. But of course he's not the only one. The internet is full of idiot bloggers all professing to possess the wisdom that escapes climate scientists.
Jeff
They do seem to have a problem ;-) with addressing the logical discontinuity inherent in their assumption that they know better than the experts despite not actually being experts themselves.
I say logical discontinuity, but you could just as easily call it laughable pretension, which better indicates the lack of self-awareness and risible arrogance of these commentators.
Of course political ideology is the mainspring driving the majority of vocal science denial. And what a powerful distortion it exerts on their perceptions. Entire fields of science blanked or actively denied; blatant misinformers revered and cited as authorities; astonishing illogicality as normative, right down to switching randomly between incompatible (and flawed) arguments as to why CO2 forcing isn't a problem.
It's the grotesque intellectual dishonesty that really irritates me, especially when it is combined with relentless posting of the same old tripe, no matter how often debunked. The leitmotifs of utter disregard for reason, logic, coherence and above all, good faith make for nasty music.
Great article and video by George Monbiot showing how the UK government has effectively subsidized the record breaking floods (worst in over 250 years, despite Delingpole's crap) through allowing farmers to till their soil in the autumn, facilitating the loss of soil via runoff into rivers. This highlights an important ecosystem service - flood prevention - which I recall was feebly ridiculed by one of our old (now thankfully banned) AGW deniers, KarenMackSunspot...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/farmers-uk-flood-m…
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right (see #64). The tactic is blind, mindless rote repetition of increasingly idiotic things until we all leave or until he gets banned. Case in point: #94. This is not someone who is operating in any objective form in reality.
It looks like trolling, but it isn't quite that. The guy really IS like this. He'll do this to a stranger at the supermarket. A completely warped personality. And since they essentially "win" every argument, they never really learn anything. Yes, he really is that fucking stupid without knowing it.
I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way. I aged a decade in under a year then, I am not playing with this particular brand of brainless fucking asshole ever again.
Oh, and thank you for confirming you were lying about your experience Andrew. I could really only narrow it down to two Andrews before that. Jesus that was easy to bait out of you. And don't worry, I won't tell those super duper dangerous Firefox enemies of yours. Your secret identity is safe with me because it is worthless, because you are worthless.
What a goddamned waste of space. Time for a perspective and soda.
Soda? Live a little. Vintage Macallan for your efforts.
;-)
Craig Thomas at #28, previous pg
"The word “catastrophic” wasn’t mentioned once in the AR4 WG1 report, which defines the “standard scientific position”.
"Ergo, you’ve just demonstrated you don’t know what you’re talking about. Or, you’re a liar"
From AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
Ouch.
Barney,
Thanks for the textbook link at #45 by William Ruddiman...
Now, what do you think are the odds that Ruddiman would somehow be linked to the Earth Institute? That would be another amazing coincidence wouldn't it?
Let's see:
William Ruddiman, Graduate of Columbia University...
Worked at Columbia's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory from 1976 to 1991....
"Lamont-Doherty is a core component of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, which brings together people and tools to address some of the world’s most challenging problems from climate change and environmental degradation, to poverty, disease and the sustainable use of resources."
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/about-ldeo/mission
No surprise there, since the "Earth Institute experts work hand-in-hand with academia, corporations, government agencies, nonprofits and individuals. They advise national governments and the United Nations on issues related to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals."....
I also noticed James Hansen gave one of Ruddiman's books a great review...
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780691121642
This is shocking, since The GISS is also a unit of The Earth Institute, of which Hansen is now an adjunct Professor..
So, why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG'S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?
That's actually the perspective part of the equation.
Stu-pid, your turning to psycho-babble arguments means I broke you bad. It happens all the time with online hacks like yourself who don't know what they are talking about.
BTW, People with Aspergers Syndrome are incredibly easy to deal with (I work with one) and your inability to communicate with someone like this at work just shows your limited mental ability. But thanks for the material showing alarmists are bigoted against people with developmental disabilities!
Pure pwnage.
I always change the length of my experience and have on multiple occasions: 10, 15, 20, 25 years ...who knows which is true? That is the whole point, it keeps the idiots like your guessing.
ROFLMAO! Please don't expose my planted information Stu-pid, I wouldn't want you to become one of my puppets as you have suffered enough humiliation as it is.
Yes, it must be a complete mystery to paleo right wingers.
Perhaps you're just unable to comprehend the inherent contradictory lunacy of un-sustainable development and its accompanying component risks of war and famine taken to their logical conclusion of global shortages in a nuclear armed and warming world.
Betty
I don't think Thomas Cronin has any link to the Colombia Earth Institute (a fine seat of learning) but his textbook reads much like Ruddiman.
What pisses me off about you is that you haven't bothered to read either of them yet you think you are more expert than the experts. This is absurd.
Columbia FFS. Mental block.
Dear knobhead
Answer the questions or people will assume that you are dumber than a glans.
And dishonest too.
Oh why wait for the lies and evasions.
Here are the facts:
- There is no coherent and robust scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW
- Consequently, there are no well-informed/intellectually honest "sceptics"
BBD,
The question that Poptech asks is basically just a paraphrase of your questions. It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.
Not surprisingly, you don't like the question.
Jeff Harvey,
At the risk of sounding like BBD; you didn't answer my questions at all.
I agree that greed plays a large part in creating issues with poverty and environmental harm in the world.
My question was simply asking how does creating a centralised emissions trading market, with all the attendant regulatory and licencing regimes go anywhere towards solving those problems?
Those schemes, which is what most here at Deltoid seem to be endorsing, are quite clearly more of the same type of behaviour, peopled by those with the same type of qualifications and using the same type of economic theories and models.
Perhaps you just chose to ignore those multiple choice questions in favour of lecturing and ranting about the ills of Capitalism and America in particular?
I understand that you believe the system is 'rotten to the core'.
My question was based around what would be the PROVEN and PRACTICAL ideas about SOLVING the dilemma.
Do you believe that creating a globally centralised emissions trading market will solve such problems as overpopulation and poor farming methods in disadvantaged and developing nations?
Do you think that creating a centralised emissions trading market will stop developing economies like China and India and even developed nations like Germany from using fossil fuel energy?
The brokerage on a market in the $trillions is quite substantial.
IMHO the political and social solution that people here appear to be advocating, still has that 'greed monster' running the show.
In government NRMs, attempting to manage them like a corporation and to operate under the scientific PRETENSE that they actually have the means to produce such things as better weather and then to actively legislate to MONOPOLISE the means to produce something as pretentious and nefarious as better weather, is failing to achieve any practical or positive results for disadvantaged nations or the environment.
The grand challenge or the grand experiment is simply not delivering the desired results.
Now can we all please turn to the relevant page in our textbooks, boys and girls, and see what the difference is between WG1 and WG3. Quiet please. Now write down what you think the answer is and I'll see as I walk around. That's good, Jenny, and I see Robert's got it right as well.
I hope the rest of the class noticed. One is not the same as Three. So that means that ... yes, Charles, you're right too. WG3 is not the same thing as WG1. Well done, everyone!
Ouch indeed.
2Stupid
Cobblers!
I argue from the consilience of evidence. Politics doesn't come into it.
Please stop the silly misrepresentations.
BBD,
It was nonetheless a neat paraphrase of your questions and apparently why you didn't like it.
While I agree that consilience is probably a better word, it is NOT the word that is most often used. That word is most definitely CONSENSUS. . .and is often bandied about here.
Consilience (n.): The agreement of 2 or more inductions drawn from different sets of data; concurrence. Also an E.O. Wilson book. -
consensus (kənˈsɛnsəs)
— n
general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion )
There, fixed it for you.
Stu2,
Oh yes, I did answer your question. Because there is no way on Earth we are going to deal with AGW via any means unless we can overhaul the current economic and political system completely. Certainly economic globalization under the guise of free markets and neoliberalism does not work. Markets are neither free, new or liberal. Emissions trading falls into this sphere; it deals with symptoms and appears to be aimed at ensuring that we remains addicted to fossil fuels and avoid any kind of transition to renewables.
I agree that it is going to be hard to get nations addicted to fossil fuels (and especially those beholden to the corporate state) to switch technologies. But if we don't, I think we are staring down the barrel of a gun. We are already greatly simplifying most terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems and thus reducing their capacity to support man.
Its my opinion that radical changes are necessary in the way that the global material economy works towards some form of steady-statism where we have to abandon the profit motive and its attendant economic growth. Economies cannot grow forever because resources are finite.
Birch brain: "So why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?'
He still doesn't get it. He still cannot understand the simple fact that much of our wealth in the 'rich developed nations' originates and is maintained by looting and plundering resources form the 'poor, undeveloped nations'. There's ample evidence for this just looking at the ratio of capital flows from south to north over many years. Bitchy actually appears to think our wealth is intrinsically maintained.
I've gobe over tis dozens of times - with evidence - and it still hasn't sunk in through his bark. The man is a complete was of time.
The false balance created by poptart's list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
You're succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.
The false balance created by poptart's list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
You're succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.
Sorry for the dupe. I gave the first 'unable to connect' attempt a few minutes just in case, but of course as soon as resubmitted, both appeared.
#3, - "I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way."
With respect, it is of course not a 'disability'. Contrary, it is a talent. To any talent belongs some drawback, but that doesn't make it a disability.
This makes the accusation of abuse far worse in my eyes and I agree wholly with the accusation.
rayduray in a reply at Climate Crocks </a? offers a reality check:
Sorry folks, that spade finger struck again.
rayduray in a reply at Climate Crocks offers a reality check:
Hum! This is weird. Why is the end blockquote failing after 'need to face.' in the above.
Let me cut and paste and test it here and see what happens. Did it work by returning this part to normal text?
Hum! Even more weird. The blockquote before test it here failed.
Now cutting and pasting from working tags in Page Source:
Let me cut and paste and
. Now is this bit in normal text?
I don't know what was going on, especially at #28 where I had backtracked using the Firefox re-load previous page arrow and carefully inspected the tags, and compared those to working ones. The odd thing is that on inspecting page source after #28 the blockquote tags had vanished from within that section. WTF!
Whatever, it seems the Arctic is in a worse shape and will warm faster than feared. Is that not a catastrophe in the making Betula?
Arctic Autumns On Track To Warm A Staggering 23°F, NOAA Warns
and
Melting Ice Makes The Arctic A Much Worse Heat-Magnet Than Scientists Feared.
Which brought me a reminder of this article, which should scare the bejeezus out of anyone:
Arctic ice melt 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'.
Sorry, darling, please comprehend engineering before making claims of others' stupidity.
MB integration will remove many of the functions of a separate card because such features are already integrated in chipsets on the motherboard, such as access to larger amounts of memory, or checksum calculations.
This means that the chipset on the motherboard will be undertaking the tasks it had before PLUS those offloaded by the PHY interface.
To reach a price point, the chip used for ethernet implementation will be the cheapest possible to reach minimum requirements. A separate board will be more expensive even if it consists of the same components, therefore the marginal difference of adding a better quality component is lower, and it will mostly be required, since only those wanting the features will have the need to buy the separate card, where the motherboard will be used even if the computer never connects to a network.
I suppose when you need to belittle someone when you have so little experience to fall back on, you'll bafflegab your way into thinking that some plausible scenario can be pretended to be a universal and all you need is hope that nobody bothers to notice your failure.
Yes, a more commonly used word is often used, despite being less accurate, when committing information to the mainstream.
You do not expect newspaper headlines to be grammatically correct, and will not expect absolute accuracy in the body written for the general public.
Yet when the newspaper is talking about climate change, you whine and bitch and moan that a less useful name is used.
But the CONSENSUS is brought about BY the CONSILIENCE.
So here you're not even wrong.
Here's something amusing for those who've been here ages.
Anyone remember Brad Keys?
He now has a blog site. Before I tell you its name, please remember all the whines from deniers about how "denier" was entirely and always about making out self-proclaimed "skeptics" to be the monstrous holocaust deniers.
So, given that, what do you think of Bray's blog site?
climatenuremberg
ROFLcopter alert!
I love settled science. For instance: First did "thousends of scientists" settle that the atmosphere was heating faster and faster. When that wasn't the case just one or two scientists suggested that "the missing heat" was hiding in deep water, impossible to measure with any accuracy. According to Deltiods that's "robust", as robust as the settled science about an accelerating warming in the atmosphere. :-)
Another very new setteld science (behind the missing heat) ,able to clarify the findings of "thousends of scientists", is stronger trade winds:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/scienceshot-pacific-ocean-ke…
And this is of course also consisted with that trade winds should "weaken" due to global warming, which the settled scince also has found:
http://www.livescience.com/729-global-warming-weakens-trade-winds.html
:-)
What do I think. Well the design put me off within seconds and the tile is hardly original:
Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!
but then never mind, it looks like Delers has met his Waterloo:
James Delingpole leads Telegraph into vicious climate over email
downhill all the way now, it was a good start in that direction with the move to Breitfart.
"I love settled science"
Woof woof woof.
Seems you find you need another email address, lappers. ISP kicked you off again?
#33 Wow - what do I think... Took a look, read two of the articles, and -
* name and design of the blog marginalizes the bradthing entirely, which is good;
* there is insanity on those pages. My gut hurts from it. Can't put my finger on it. But writings of e.g. Breivik gave me the same feeling.
The problem for you Olap is that because you rely on denier blogs as your primary sources, it all seems confusing and contradictory.
What you'll find is that climate science hasn't said that CO2 cancels out natural variability, which has short term effects, despite what your trash sources lead you to believe.
All you need to know in simple terms is that more energy is entering the Earth's system than is leaving it, and the energy has to go somewhere.
If you looked into Dr Vecchi's work you'd see that he's talking in centennial scales, not the next five minutes or five years.
But thanks for confirming your utter buffoonery yet again, although that's already well established with no further confirmation required, thank you.
chek, the problem that deniers have is that they think that CO2, if it controls temperature, means that it cannot be anything BUT CO2 doing it.
I.e. natural variability is removed if CO2 is a cause of climate change if you're ignorant of the science. Therefore there is EITHER "natural variability" OR "AGW" and they then crow when natural variability exists as if this somehow "proves" AGW wrong.
It's not even a strawman: they genuinely cannot conceive of anything other than this dichotomy.
Something either FROM or normalised from the extremely religious: monotheism insists that there is "one cause" for things (and that this cause is "God's Will"(tm)). It's no more noticed by them than water is noticed by fish.
cRR, I didn't bother reading anything on it.
With all the victimisation from deniers about the holocaust, the name of the blog was the only thing I got from it and all that I needed.
The content was completely irrelevant.
Thanks Adelady (#16), I did notice that, but I was too busy picking up my pencil to raise my hand.
Your Joyce Grenfell is uncanny, BTW.
""George, don't do that...
Which is more or less what Dr Emily Shuckburgh was inviting Peter Lilley to do during that MPs on the Energy and Climate took evidence on the IPCC's 5th Assessment Review on 11 February 2014 that I cited above.
Lilley's 'meltdown' whilst engaging Dr Shuckburgh was astonishing enough but the bumbling, thrashing questions from Graham Stringer which followed brought another element of the surreal to the proceedings. Why don't these people inform themselves more before attending such events? Yes I know, they are being paid, or otherwise coerced into not understanding the science, i.e. keep making pretences of asking awkward questions, questions to which answers have already been provided, over and over.
Stringer's questions had all the hallmarks of GWPF involvement, as did those of Lilley.
#40, for me a must to take some time to check things like that, from the 'know your enemy' motive. Once is quite enough.
When Watts did what he did with the d-word I instantly coined 'climate revisionism' and we know what I really mean.
Poptart,
Late reply but when I read your response it was, "sigh...here we go again, idiot pulling out the usual denier toolbox of sophistry: avoidance, strawmen, playing with words, etc...plus delusional stupidity, for good measure." So I wasn't that motivated to have any further discussion, but since you're still hanging around like a bad smell...
Here we go. Too much nonsense to reply to so I'll split the posts to make them easier to digest. I'll give you the satisfaction of having the final word and, in that deluded head of yours, believing that you've given me a "spanking".
Let's start with the typo business. Poor Poptart, you're either extremely dishonest or so dumb that you don't know what a typo is. I'll go for both _ you're dumb AND dishonest. If we're to talk about remedial education, I would have thought that someone writing, "I shouldn't of..." would be a prime candidate for remedial education. How do you unintentionally type "of" instead of "have"?
Since you keep denying the obvious _ for the 3rd time _ I'll say it again: it's not a typo. A typo is an unintentional mistake where you either type the wrong letter or miss one. If I were picking on typos _ or even grammatical errors _ just for the sake of it, you'd be correct in your assessment that I don't "have any real arguments". But I'm not.
I didn't intend to make a big deal of it and I'd normally ignore petty things like that because besides being pointless there's also the adage, "don't do to others what you don't want done unto you." Having limited education, I'm not that confident about my English competence that I should go around correcting others' grammar. But in your case it was relevant to my central argument _ i.e., you're not educationally (and probably not intellectually) equipped to have any meaningful input into the climate science debate.
Anyone can make a grammatical mistake, even a scientist, but there are errors and there are errors. Yours is so egregious as far as grammar is concerned that I have trouble believing that someone with even 1 year of uni education can make an error like that. It's illiterate, plain and simple.
Poptart,
Re my lying about your political leanings:
You should also learn what the meaning of lying is. It reminds me of politics in Australia, where before the last election conservatives were calling Julia Gillard a liar because she broke a promise, and thereby displaying their ignorance of the difference between a broken promise and a lie. How dumb can you get.
Unless you can prove that I knew your exact ideological position _ hard to do considering how subjective such an assessment is _ and that I chose to deliberately misrepresent it, then your accusations of lying and dishonesty are unsubstantiated and hollow _ much like everything else you write. Right-wing, tea-party type idiot is definitely the impression I got from a brief visit to your blog and clicking a couple of links. But now you tell me you're not a right-winger. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you're so stupid you don't even know at which end of the political spectrum you belong to.
From my experience, somebody whose blog is littered with anti-left, anti-green attacks doesn't generally belong to the moderate middle ground.
To say there are no "denier" papers on your list is just as disingenuous as your denial of being right-wing. I mean, WTF? If the list is not a compilation of dodgy papers intended to cast doubt on the mainstream IPCC view, what is it? Sure, the word "denier" wouldn't appear on their title, but their purpose is to either deny the anthropogenic influence of global warming or cast doubt on the fact that there's any warming at all; they're papers that give intellectual succour to denier memes, ergo they're denier papers. Stop playing with words, fuckwit, because that DOES
demonstrate that you don't have any real arguments. But we already knew that anyway.
Poptart,
"Quality is purely subjective."
What a stupid statement to make. You think you're tasting a dish or judging a painting
here? Even there, the subjectivity has its limits. I don't know much about science but it's obvious to me that the quality of a paper depends on the quality of the evidence presented and the logic underpinning its interpretation.
Scientists might argue about what such and such finding means but when a paper has been classified as bad there's very little subjectivity in that determination. The bad leaps out at you to the extent that even a layman like myself can see it. I gave two specific examples which you totally ignored (I wonder why): one, which makes up stuff, just the latest of a long list of "denier" papers that Tamino has exposed over the years, and the other Nexus calls the worst paper he's ever seen. It purports to correlate global temperatures to solar cycles but, as Nexus says, uses just "5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!" Stop avoiding; tell us what you think of those two papers.
According to your subjective opinion, is it OK to make stuff up in a supposedly scientific paper? According to your subjective but very scientific opinion (cough...cough..), is it OK to use just 5 stations in a small area of the US to represent global temperature data?
I remember reading another one by Archibald _ can't remember on which blog, maybe someone here knows the paper I'm referring to _ where he attempts to link the rise and fall of Lake Victoria to solar cycle or sunspots (recollection is a bit vague). The purpose of that exercise, I guess, being some attempt to adduce evidence against sea level rise. Absolute, illogical nonsense. But the amazing thing is that no matter how unscientific and glaringly stupid a paper is, not only will you not find any deniers criticizing it, you'll find them approvingly nod and praise it.
Poptart,
Now we come to the strawmen:
"You really need to read the rebuttals section,
Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list"
followed by a long list of references telling us that E & E is peer-reviewed and how wonderful it is.
Where did I say anything about the number of papers coming from E & E, and where did I say that it wasn't peer-reviewed? What is it, dishonesty or reading comprehension failure?
I said that E & E is poorly regarded by the scientific community, which it is. And I proved that one reason for that is their lax, unsatisfactory peer-review process which let's extremely poor papers through, as the Archibald one above shows. I also never said that they only publish bad papers. Maybe there are good papers, but I can't imagine that too many reputable scientists would want their name sullied by having their papers sitting side by side with Archibald's.
“Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement
Hahahaha.....you're not a part-time comedian, are you? My god, you paste this after I've told you about the Archibald paper published by E & E and you've got the gall to mention cognitive dissonance. I might be too harsh on you; maybe you don't know what the word "rigorous" means.
jp: "Rigorous?" For fuck's sake, he doesn't understand even "ratio".
Man, to let myself be trolled so hard by that clown... *bows head in shame*
Stu
Don't be hard on yourself. You saw an arse that needed kicking and you did the right thing. With commendable gusto and elan, if I may say so.
2Stupid
You are arguing from false equivalence: political consensus is not the same thing as a scientific consensus. The latter is exclusively evidence-based and excludes political bias. You may claim otherwise, but you would have to prove it, and you will fail. The "activist scientists are cooking the books" meme is a denier lie, not to mention a conspiracy theory involving leftie scientists and world socialism etc. I repeat: cobblers.
@BBD
"..as a scientific consensus. The latter is exclusively evidence-based.."
Funnily enough BBD, there's a letter in nature that touches on that very point and questions how objective it all is.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7486/full/nature12786.html
"Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting."
Which is certainly worrying. (If you need "herding" explaining ask stu, I'm sure he said he works with cows)
How objective it all is, Griselda? The letter writer (ffs) doesn't say that. That's your own sneaky invention.
I think you'll find historically that data beats "behaviour", and "personal dispositions". Just ask Galileo Galilei, Watson & Crick or Barry Marshall.
@chek
I had no expectation that you would even read the letter let alone understand it. But thanks anyway, full marks for keeping the red flag flying etc.
;)
No sweat, Griselda.
Say hello to intellectual oblivion and the rest of the fuckwits when you get back there again..
And now for the bit GSW did not quote:
Note GSW that it talks about improving, not reconstructing because peer review is broken. Except that is for that narrow line of journals which are frequently shown up for having 'a herd mentality' , like E&E for example.
What is it with these people and context blindness?
Taking a leaf out of BBD's book: Griselda what motivates a trivial, emoticon chuffing half-wit like you and your posse to begin to imagine you have the least inkling of what climate science is telling us?
@chek
Eh.. thanks chek and say hello to your comrades when you see them next.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXOjm95WWo
;)
@Lionel
You missed the point Lionel. Just help you, it's not ".about improving, not reconstructing.." who said anything about that?
"we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved"
I'm happy with a "discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved"
if you're happy with
"an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting"
Which seems to be something that you lot (aka the common herd) are not able to even contemplate as being a possibility! It's a form of denial Lionel, pure and simple.
;)
As stated earlier, data fucks your attempted context-free smear.
p.s. As I've already stated numerous times Griselda, I don't click links from deniers which are invariably poor substitutes for the capacity to state their case, such as it me be.
should be: such as it may be.
Nothing new there: Feynman mentioned it many times in his speeches/interviews. It's a bug in science, whereas it's a feature for deniers.
Oh come on Olaus; at least give thinking a test drive:
So if their peers are sufficiently well-informed about eg. physics and paleoclimate, then good ideas will spread because there is no contradicting scientific evidence.
What pseudo-sceptics refuse to acknowledge is that they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.
Not-biased, non-stupid scientists go by the scientific evidence.
Result: a strong scientific consensus.
This is sloppy and ambiguous:
<blockquote<there is no contradicting scientific evidence.
I should have written:
"then good ideas will spread because there is no scientific evidence that contradicts them."
Jeff Harvey @ # 20,
Thank you for your answer.
I am still wondering what your practical and proven methods to mitigate specific issues such as population growth and environmental harm via inappropriate land use would be?
You seem to agree that the ones on offer via a centralised emissions market and all the attendant regulatory and licencing rules is clearly not delivering worthwhile results.
What practical or proven system do you envisage could successfully replace what we have now?
BBD @ # 50,
I merely observed your questioning technique and Poptech's return question.
I am not the individual here who is being argumentative and asking aggressive rhetorical questions, whether from false equivalence or any other perspective.
The observation remains unchanged regardless of your use of semantics and direct accusations. Poptech's question was a paraphrase of your question, it was based on the idea of consensus and you therefore apparently and not surprisingly did not like the question.
jp @ # 44,
Using 'of' instead of 'have' (or more correctly the abbreviation 've) is becoming a common grammar error in many English speaking nations around the globe.
Your attempt to use that simple and common grammar error to pass judgement on someone's education level is rather silly. I have seen and heard that particular error made by many highly educated people in speech and in writing. It doesn't mean anything other than they committed an increasingly common grammar error.
Let's also remember that this is a blog and people aren't required to spell check or grammar check their comments. Poptech is far from the only commenter here who has committed basic typo and grammar errors.
Perhaps you could've (of) or should've (of) left that one alone? :-)
You either know or you don't know, StuPid.
Not recognising the faux pas implies unfamiliarity with the written word, specifically the educated written word.
As for making excuses for the plainly obvious, well......
Interesting article in Smithsonian about ecosystem collapse:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-1…
2Stupid
You are living down to your name.
Start where the argument begins: "sceptics" cast doubt on the mainstream scientific position but are not themselves experts.
Logic fail.
"Sceptics" maintain that the science they do not understand is wrong but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.
Logic fail.
Do I really have to go on?
Smack.
BBD @ # 67:
" but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW."
I note that you are now basing your position on the concept of 'coherence' of a scientific position.
Have you perhaps considered that the AGW hypothesis is 'coherent' because it studies global warming primarily connected to ONE particular influence (anthropogenic) while other studies look at a myriad of hypotheses connected to highly variable climactic behaviour and therefore, by their very nature, would not be as 'coherent' as scientific research on AGW?
Why does a lack of 'coherent' scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?
BJ @ # 68,
Here's the journalist whom you think has smacked somebody or other:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/matt-grudnoff/4050668
Perhaps you could ask Jeff Harvey how much attention we should pay to someone like this?
2Stupid
What else would qualify as a robust scientific position? Do you know what "coherent" means?
No internal contradictions is a good working definition.
So back to the scientific mainstream, where we have plenty of evidence that paleoclimate behaviour is incompatible with ECS <2C/2xCO2. Central estimates from paleoclimate behaviour are ~3C/2zxCO2 Rohling et al. (2012).
Remember that these estimates are for a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of CO2, so if BAU continues and we exceed ~560ppmv CO2 it is likely to get warmer still. We are at ~400ppmv now.
Yes BBD, I do know what the adjective, coherent, means.
Here is a simple dictionary definition.
PRIMARY MEANINGS OF: coherence
n
the state of cohering or sticking together
n
logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts
Now I've answered your question will you answer mine?
"Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?"
Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.
Watch out BBD, both Stupid's IQ points are likely doing mid-air heel clicks at that zinger!
And, more importantly, how much it produces productive new work.
The mathematical proof of the uncertainty in a planetary orbit (i.e. chaos theory) was produced DECADES before it was possible to use it, but when it was used, it was HIGHLY productive.
E&E's "papers" are all dead ends, leading nowhere.
Looks like a straw man Stu2... The mainstream scientific position is that there are both natural and manmade influences on climate. However the sum of all manmade influences is to impose a rising trend on the natural variation.
You also talk about the failure of a centralised emissions trading scheme... how do you arrive at that conclusion when a) such a scheme is working well for sulphur emissions. b) there is no such centralised scheme for carbon emissions.
I hate to be the one to rain on this particular parade. But ....
You do realise that - even if what you said happened to be true - the only scientific way to show the anthropogenic effects is to work out what the results would be without that anthropogenic influence and work out the differences.
Of course it's not true in the first place. Just a reminder, the IPCC goes to a lot of trouble to present this information to their non- scientific audience by listing all possible influences and quantifying each and every one of them. Why do they do that if they are only "interested" in greenhouse gases?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
# 71 our chaotic climate systems
*sigh*
just....
*sigh*
“Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”
It doesn't because it isn't.
This is the leader of Australia - watch it through to the end:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=553915951305937
Astonishing, particularly at the end, 'rabbet caught in the headlights' sprang to mind. Maybe he needs to run on Duracells.
Oh dear! An ex fire-fighter who cannot handle 'rapid fire questions'. There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage[1].
Abbott sure is setting fires all around him but seems to lack the wit to tackle them. Intellectually empty.
There is hope for Betula, GSW, OP and PT yet. A move to Australia could set them up for a role as PM.
Indeed I recall many years ago being on a weekend walk through a part of the Forest of Dean with my father and grandfather when we came across a sort of clearing where piles of cleared under-storey were afire. The three of us set too with the fire-beaters that were always on hand in these woods. I had by this time had quite a bit of fire fighting training in the RN. We soon had the fire under control and shortly some bods turned up and it became apparent that they were in the part-time fire crew for the area. The odd things were, the speed with which they had appeared and also we recognised one of them as being somebody we had passed on our way to the clearing.
Make of that what you will.
Argh! Replacement hand urgently required.
Indeed I recall many years ago being on a weekend walk through a part of the Forest of Dean with my father and grandfather when we came across a sort of clearing where piles of cleared under-storey were afire. The three of us set too with the fire-beaters that were always on hand in these woods. I had by this time had quite a bit of fire fighting training in the RN. We soon had the fire under control and shortly some bods turned up and it became apparent that they were in the part-time fire crew for the area. The odd things were, the speed with which they had appeared and also we recognised one of them as being somebody we had passed on our way to the clearing.
Make of that what you will.
"There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage"....
"Make of that what you will"...
Tony Abbott said "shit happens" to make more money?
After NOAA judge 2013 to be the fourth warmist on record there are signs that El Niño may make 2014 the hottest year on record.
2Stupid
What does "coherent" mean? It means that the hypotheses are mutually compatible, even mutually re-enforcing. It means that different lines of evidence converge, in which case it is a precondition of consilience.
Everything you write is nonsense. Why do you bother?
The complete absence of a coherent "sceptical" scientific case happened because there is no evidence supporting any of the myriad "sceptical" attempts to deny the fact that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.
The fact that there is a complete absence of a coherent "sceptical" scientific case should indicate to sane people that "sceptics" are in fact deniers solely reliant on rhetoric and misrepresentation - as indeed they are.
No matter how much you blether and obfuscate on this point, it will not go away. "Sceptics" have *nothing*. All the evidence supports the mainstream scientific position which is why it is the mainstream scientific position.
You are all ridiculous. Look at you: ill-informed non-experts challenging the standard scientific position without even having a coherent and well-supported scientific argument... it is completely absurd.
BBD @ # 82
Scientists (sceptical or otherwise) do not 'deny' that CO2 plays a role in in climate.
But I question why you would imply that any of them would use the phrase " that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing." ?
Your earlier comments and questions were related to the AGW hypothesis.
Another devastating video showing how the oldest Arctic ice is disappearing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BbPBg3vj8
Terrifying really. The consequences of this are already being seen in terms of the record rainfall in the UK this winter (already an all-time record - some places have received almost 500 mm in less than 3 months: contrast this with Delingpole's out-and-out fabrications, which some idiots gladly soak up). And against this calamity we have climate change deniers who can barely add or subtract screaming that AGW is a myth...
The fact that our species is intent on undermining our global ecological life-support systems in spite of the growing consequences is sure-fire evidence in my opinion that we are intent on heading for our own extinction.
Stu Pid, your query has been answered. So why do you continue to act as if it hadn't?
StuPid,,instead of your endless inane 'questions' why not read a fucking book?
There's even an online and updated version available here
Read it once, then re-read it Then when you think you have another of your dumb questions, read it again. After that, you may be somewhat up to speed.
in the uk, this winter is surely going to break a record for warmth too. i think we've had just a few slight frosty nights here in the midlands. it seems spring arrived in mid February. the blackbirds certainly seem to like it. i was watching one carrying mud to make its new nest.
Jeff,
Absolutely. And here is one denier Lawson engaged in obfuscation, listen and weep.
Andy, yes I have been surprised at the early blackbird activity this year, but then if the snows come in late could be a problem for them.
If temperatures stay as the are then last years bumper apple crop is unlikely to be repeated this year.
Now 2Stuid, can you explain why that would be?
That is easy, it is because he has the intellectual capacity of a nematode.
I have just found this rather good complaint (and rebuttal) letter addressed to Jamie Angus, Editor of Today Programme.
An Open Letter to the BBC on Lord Lawson's Today Programme appearance.
Pay attention at the back there for this is a lesson for you laggards who refuse to learn about the climate system.
"That is easy,"
It was rather rhetorical. Stu Pid doesn't do answers and doesn't like questions to him. But others will see his refusal to explain himself and can draw their own conclusions.
Yours is the front runner.
Yep, they're losing it! Rampaging Roy Spencer has chucked the toys out the pram with the (unintentionally) funniest brain-splosion in the longest time.
Shorter Roy: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A GLOBAL WARMING NAZI!
Sou has the story.
Quick, call the whaaaaaambulance!
"I have just found this rather good complaint (and rebuttal) letter addressed to Jamie Angus, Editor of Today Programme."
its no good writing to the bbc with rational or scientific arguments. the hacks employed by the institution are mostly media and politic studies graduates and threatened by knowledge, reason and science. they have been trained to only recognize capitalism and socialism. the left and right feed off each other for survival and are united in their disdain for the rational, scientific worldview which threatens them both equally.
Doesn't it just, a clear visualisation of old ice being flushed out around the top of Greenland into the Denmark Strait, that which is not reduced to melt-water that is.
Somebody recently remarked that the best use for Pickles was as a sandbag, Deler's might just find himself in use as a punt pole in flooded areas if he doesn't watch his language whilst out and about in the countryside.
Having seen the Spencer meltdown reported at Sou's I figure his pal Christy isn't doing much better:
McNider and Christy Style Themselves Revolutionary But Defend Inertia
and I note that David Rose farted again recently:
Climate change deniers – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?.
As for old ice being flushed around the top of Greenland check out the NOAA-NCDC Global Analysis - January 2014 and click on the left hand red-blue map to see a larger image. Look at that dark red stain over southern Greenland and consider what that is doing to the glacier flows.
Think also about all that heat energy in the lower Atlantic from Florida-Carolina and up in an arc to the UK - the most common storm track.
Yes there is a deep blue blob over lower Eastern US but also over the northern Eurasian landmass. If we, in the UK, get north-Easterlies shortly that could spell more trouble.
2Stupid
Why not? It is exactly correct. Oh look, here's a whole section on the topic in AR4.
Let's get something straight. What I wrote was correct. What you wrote was denial, plain and simple. Denial isn't a scientific argument - it's just a noise.
The efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing is long-established. Only the stupid, the liars and the cranks dispute this.
Lionel
Interesting stuff about David Rose. Thanks.
What is it with these drive by wind-up merchants?
I suppose they think it funny and clever doing what they do and probably chortle to their intellectual piers [1] about winding us up.
What they cannot grasp is that every time they put in an appearance they get smacked down and lurkers become aware of how vacuous they are in that numpty brigade, which includes Deler's, Nova, Cardinal Puff and the like.
[1] No, not a spelling mistake or typo, it equates them to well know inanimate objects which are slowly being ripped apart as sea levels rise and storm forces increase - rather like their nonsense talking points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-…
This would probably be an article about that 'something' we should do about a 'definitely serious problem' that Sou outlines in the piece Frank D links @ #93 ?
"Global warming isn’t all “man” made. It’s likely that more than 100% of the current warming is because of human activity. “Made” by men and women. And it’s definitely a serious problem and going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.”
BBD @# 98,
I have not seen the comment: " CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” in the AR4.
It does also appear from preliminary reports from the IPCC AR5 WG1 there will be a downgrading of the previous AR4 estimates about climate sensitivity to CO2.
This does not mean that anyone is 'denying' that CO2 plays a role. What it may mean however is that words like 'efficacious' are perhaps overstating the scientific case ? (apart from not being something that a scientist would likely say in the first place).
This was in the Australian today but also found here (and no need to subscribe) :
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-criticizes-gl…
I guess it's more commentary on that 'something' we have to do about that 'definitely a serious problem'?
Stu2:
I have thus far refrained from calling you stupid but that may change is you keep putting up posts like the last 2. First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED... and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I add the last caveat on the insistence that, if humans are to mitigate the worst possible effects of C02, then we should have acted years ago. As it is, if we act now there will be serious consequences due to lag effects that occur in deterministic systems. Your feeble points (and they truly are that) appear to suggest that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%. That will not happen, and there will always be paid-for shills and a segment of the corporate sector who are addicted to the idea of business as usual in the desperate aim of maximizing short term profits and damn the future.
As for Lomborg, I am sick and tired of this pseudo-intellectual novice and his bullshit being paraded by the corporate media as if it has scientific value. I demolished him in our 2002 Dutch debate (he was so terrified of me that when we met for one hour afterwards he could barely squeak in the fear of giving me more rope to hang him with). He also won't appear at any venues where I do anymore, despite the massive promotion he has received from the ruling elites and their proxies in the corporate media.
Its telling that Lomborg invited a select group of right wing neoclassical economists for his 'Copenhagen Consesnus' (CC, now based in Prague as its been basically booted out of his home country) 'prioritizing investment and aid' nonsense, and that on the 2006 shindig there is a photo of him a right wing neocon fruitcake John Bolton together in from of a UN symbol - this being the same Bolton who advocates attacks on Cuba and Iran, was an architect of the Iraq war, supports endless US expansionism abroad and once said he'd like to take down the UN entirely. Either Lomborg is profoundly stupid* or naive* or both (*delete as appropriate).
The same CC debates the idea of donating a puny 75 billion dollars to the world and how it could be prioritized in solving a suite of problems when in reality the money (and many times more) is there and could be spent creating social justice when in reality the rich world is not at all interested in alleviating social problems in the south. In fact, as I have said before, maintaining poverty has been the real agenda, because if peoples in the developing world aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the north, then (1) we will need another 2 or 3 Earth-Like planets to sustain it and our ecological life support systems would be sent towards the abyss faster than they already are, and (2) these people would reinvest their own resource wealth towards internal investment and structure, which would conflict with the interests of western corporations. So our governments talk big about eradicating poverty but, as with most everything else, they are lying. The real agendas are not hard to find if one reads corporate and state planning documents. The older ones are available as declassified documents in most libraries. Sadly, most people - one like Stu2 who reads garbage in the Australian, a far right rag - spew out the crap they read in their corporate media as if it somehow represents the truth.
Fact is, I don't give a shit what Lomborg says. IMHO he's a complete brainless nincompoop who's been at least clever enough to know how to promote himself. Stu2, I have no idea why you comment on Deltoid. You appear rational on the surface but beneath it you are so deeply ignorant.
Another fucking stupid lie by our new top moron. AR5 gives the same lower bound for ECS as FAR, SAR, TAR. That's all. Try reading it instead of lying about it.
CO2 is an efficacious forcing and no amount of denialist lying will change that fact.
You are a fucking moron. There is just no choice; no alternative. At this point, saying this is simply unavoidable. You give me no alternative.
No, central estimates of ECS from paleoclimate and modelling remain ~3C/2xCO2. Scientists have been classifying CO2 as an efficacious forcing for over a century you stupid, lying, ignorant moron.
I simply do not know how to deal with wilfully stupid, stubbornly mendacious denialism like yours. You are mentally ill.
Why, Jeff? Why?
Are you 2Stupid to recognise the efficacious warming effect shown here:
Watch 63 Years of Global Warming in 14 Seconds.
If it runs too quick for your brain 2Stupid then watch it again, and again!
The denier position has shifted in a few short years from "we're entering a cooling phase" to "it's not warming" to "yes it is warming, but it's not our fault".
Presumably denier morons like StuPid see no contradiction, let alone utter unhinged bankruptcy in that.
Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside.
Anyway, as your deputy cult leader urges you on, let us all join hands and chant together: "First I will say the magic words: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED… and add BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT".
Simply, too, too, er, simple.
... which you aren't able to present. What a maroon.
Aha! DD puts in an appearance with more ideological cretinallia.
Which is clearly still over your head to understand.
That you should cling onto the belief that our position is based on belief and not understanding is an indicator of your mental unbalance, this reinforced by your refusal to acknowledge that recent events make our understanding even stronger and coming down on the fact that dangerous anthropogenically induced warming, causing climate change is underway. That and the many recent research papers that fill in some of the gaps, but not gaps that fatally detract from the dangerous warming position.
Maybe you have missed the mention of happenings in the cryosphere, with sea level, ecological disruptions and much more.
Go look up some of the links we have provided up-thread here or slink back to Cretinistan from whence you came.
Duff
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al. (2005): Efficacy of climate forcings.
Look 'em up yourself.
* * *
2Stupid liar - note the TITLE of the Hansen paper.
Oh, yeah, right, I geddit . . .
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
Forcing efficacy calculations from Hansen et al
I belieeeeve
It has a sort of swing to it after a while, doesn't it? But if you don't mind me saying so, it sort of echoes in here, I mean, what with there being so few of you these days . . .
Primary school level denial is your usual MO, Duffer. If ignorance is bliss, you must be permanently fucking off-your-tits ecstatic.
Anyway, enough of the abuse, howevewr richly deserved.
You'll note the operative word is 'calculations'.
Calculations that your consulting rag-bag gaggle of cranks, shills and blog-shamans haven't disproved. But you 'belieeeeve' in them anyway.
Which begs the question who's the greater loony - the liars whose paid-for opinions you frequent, or the dupe who 'belieeeeves' them?
Are you suggesting that Hansen and co-workers are guilty of scientific misconduct, Duff? They didn't do a very good job since their results are in line with the rest of the field. Perhaps they should have tried harder?
Or possibly you have no evidence for your claim and are simply spouting libellous bollocks for rhetorical effect?
* * *
I love the acoustics in here. You can hear the mouse-farts perfectly.
I wonder if it ever crosses David 'mousefart' Duffer's mind that denialism is constructed by and inhabited by cretins and cranks and therefore what a cretinous crank he is for falling hook, line and bibbling ineptitude for the denier slant.
Somehow I don't think he'd understand the import or impact of Philip K. Dick's trenchantly brutal aphorism: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
Or to paraphrase: "The truth abides, dude."
But it's so pants-passingly cute when the cretins and cranks enter some misbegotten phase where they like to think they've gained some kind of "upper hand".
Look at "Mousefart" Duffer - so full of piss after his David Rose in da Mail fix.
The day the deniers alter the laws of physics by force of belief alone will be a landmark in the evolution of the species. At last, practical magic will have moved from myth to demonstrable reality. I can simply *wish* to be a superlative musician hard enough and shazam, there I go.
Sadly, the dude truth abides.
Ah yes - magickal thinking.
It's what sustains Duffer's belief that he's smarter than James Hansen et al.
And you don't get any more cretinous than that.
Jeff Harvey @ # 3,
We all have personal opinions and viewpoints.
From the beginning of this thread I was attempting to move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in.
I did not post those links above because I'm suggesting:
" that we sit around and wait another 10, 20, 30 or who knows how long until the scientific evidence is 100%."
Nor did I offer a personal opinion about Lomborg.
I offered both of those as a further addition to the link that Frank D posted from Hotwhopper and I was questioning whether commenters here think these articles discuss the 'something' we should be doing.
I have asked you on a couple of occasions what you would consider are the provable, practical or workable solutions to the socio/economic/environmental issues that clearly concern you.
Despite all the accusations and name calling here, those issues do also concern me.
I offered a couple of examples earlier in the thread re overpopulation and agricultural practices.
My personal opinion and viewpoint is that the 'something' most commenters here appear to support is creating a global market out of CO2 with all the attendant regulations and licencing created by some type of independent and benevolent centralised bureaucracy.
I don't think that has been at all successful and I don't think it is returning worthwhile results for the environment, the climate or really important human issues such as poverty, overpopulation and poor land use practices.
Do you?
Nope. We just understand that a rapid and sustained increase in CO2 emissions will result in rapid and sustained climate change.
*You* put the politics before the science and then claim that we are doing this. It's absurd intellectual dishonesty.
"Thank goodness for that! Despite the numbers dwindling it is so heartening to see that the Unified Church of Deltoids is still, just about, clinging on, despite the horrific evidence piling up outside."
is this why they call you duff. because things like storms, heat records, floods, melting ice and warming oceans are not happening and you think there is mounting evidence in favour of climate 'skepticism'. haha. whats up with that lol. and of course, science is a religion isn't it. ah, seen that one a few times in the youtube comments section. always the last stand of the deluded, clueless right wing political zealot, with the same deranged conservative or religious beliefs or values. its always the same type of person who says science is a religion. they have no evidence or arguments themselves, but somehow 'science is a religion'. so how does that work. isnt someone who holds magical beliefs (like physics doesnt work or 'growth can be infinite on a finite planet') the religious one? no wonder they call you duff. i cant believe anyone would be so naive not to see that inevitable insult coming.
there is no difference at all between creationists and global warming denialists. they are just born ignorant tossers. some escape the fold, but nothing changes in between birth and death with most of them because the inferior intellect that allowed them to be infected with moronic right wing or religious ideology in the first place stays with them for life. all that happens over time they become more and more twisted up and perverted as reality confronts their belief system with constant evidence they are wrong. because they are gutless, self interested, narcissistic cowards and psychopaths they end up having to invert everything. they have to believe all nature is wrong rather than admit their worldview is wrong.
What's the take on "Rigo(rgate", fellas? Is the Mann on track or is he doing deloid stuff, eg making stuff up?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/22/doctor-mann-i-presume.html
"or is he doing deloid (sic) stuff, eg making stuff up?"
You actually mean "denier stuff" Olap, you're just too dishonest to admit it.
Anybody interested in this week's denier special offer should ignore Olap's invitation to go to Montford's provincial franchise version, and get the latest shock horror yawn direct from the chief picker of nits himself here and here.
The full politburo of frothing loons are showing up for this one, and Nick Stokes tries valiantly to make them, understand that a judge is not going to turn his/her sideways and squint just right while flapping a sheet of paper in front of their left eye in order to see things as deniers would wish them to be seen.
Stu2, firstly, I think you might have followed the wrong link, because my link was to Roy Spencer spitting the dummy.
However, suitable policy is a sensible line of discussion given that the opposition to the science is looking increasingly like the mumblings of Terry Pratchett's "Canting Crew".
To better understand where you come from economically, can I ask for answer to the following question (it doesn't matter if you agree with the premises, just given those, what would you answer be):
Given the premise that purchasing housing is becoming unaffordable for ordinary people in Australia, and further given the premise that this is a bad thing, governments should:
A. release more land for subdivision to ease supply side pressures
B. reduce bureaucratic costs (title search fees etc) associated with buying and selling land, trimming unncessary costs off the purchase price.
C. reduce or remove negative gearing to make property less attractive to investor-buyers, and avoiding owner-buyers being crowded out.
D. exclude foreign purchasers from buying Australian property.
E. Some or all of the above, or something different (please explain).
Answers will help avoid assumptive pitfalls down the track.
Well, apropos 'scientists' making it up, we shall soon find out because Mark Steyn has just issued a writ *against* Prof. Mann lest - perish the thought - Mann suddenly backs out of *his* writ against Steyn on the courthouse steps. Now there is no exit, everybody must and will have their day in court - probably several days and several courts knowing the American system!
Such fun - now, get back to your chanting . . .
Yes Duffer, in fact so confident of victory is Steyn's legal team, that they dropped Steyn like a hot, raw plutonium, shit-covered brick last month.
But as we already well know, fuckheaded deniers like you aren't equipped to deal with reality.
Anyone who wants details on the current state of the Mann-Steyn kerfuffle can go here. http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/unclear-on-concept.html
And for a light touch when referring to the anti-science crowd you might do well to emulate Rep Markey in the US Congress. Check the video in this post.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/juan-cole-on-denial.html
You cannot get much more repugnant than Mark Steyn, which is apparently why Olaus and the old Duffer love him. That alone says a lot about two of our resident loony deniers.
We haven't heard much from the Duffer in this winter that wasn't, with few frosts, record amounts of rain and one that will be one of the mildest on record. Every time a snow flake flutters to the ground, Duffer is on it like a dog on a bone. But, as events have transpired, and exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW.
I have to admit, a few minutes of perusing through the assorted comments at BH reveals a sea of ignoramuses. Olaus is certainly at home there. Moreover, for AGW deniers to accuse anyone of anything is rich. Nobody is better at selectively doctoring quotes that AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists. They did it over and over again with Steve Schneider's double ethical bind quote and Lomborg did the same thing with a quote by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. They are masters of the art.
I am waiting for Poptech (who was given a jolly good hiding on Deltoid on just about everything he said) to also come on here defending Michael Mann with the same vigor that he defended far less qualified deniers on his blog. Mann's bonafides are light years ahead of many of the clowns whose qualifications he tries to bloat. But of course! Mann is on the 'wrong' side! So any smear is acceptable.
I still haven't seen old Poppy try and defend his comic-level book analysis of the US as a "Constitutional Republic" either. But then again, given the bilge he spewed out here, it is indeed good riddance (hint! hint! for Olaus).
"exactly according to predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW."
Er, someone forgot to tell the Met Office because they were forecasting a dryer than usual winter.
Also, Dame 'Slingyerhook' who stated that the current record rainfall was due to climate change was flatly denied by, er, well, one of her top scientists!
Then, according to Geoff the Swot: "predictions levied by the climate science community more than 10 years ago, the intensity and frequency of winter storms in the UK is further evidence of AGW".
Unfortunately the Met Office reported:
"The UK annual average rainfall has increased by a relatively small amount - around 2% - when comparing 1981-2010 with 1971-2000. This is a similar increase to that from 1961-1990 to 1971-2000."
To paraphrase Adm. Beatty, "Something wrong with our bloody forecasts today!"
Dufferbrains, you really need to stop believing the shysters and liars you so desperately want to believe in.
The Met Office ripped Rose a new arsehole over his article here
But I guess your information sewers, just like you, don't admit their lies.
Brilliant to see David 'shitferbrains' Duffer in his size 40 clownshoes tramping round the circus ring jam-packed with rakes with custard pies attached, still coming back for more.
Indeed to paraphrase Beatty who might well say, “there seems to be something wrong with our bloody deniers today” as another self-inflicted custard pie bomb blows up in Duffer's supercilious face for the third time in as many hours.
You'd think such a self-professed, amateur(ish) "historian" would appreciate the value of primary sources over trash, But you'd be wrong in Duffer's case.
Ok, you read and you judge:
Dame 'Slingyerhook' Chief 'Scientist' at the Met Office who in November forecast a 'dryer than normal winter': ""But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added. "There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."
Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."
So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along . . .
Duff
Specifc humidity is increasing as the troposphere warms. Heavier rainfall is therefore an unavoidable consequence of basic physical climatology irrespective of the argument over whether or not AGW is altering the jet streams.
I know you are fucking clueless, but this isn't actually very complicated, so try, will you.
See also Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset
And Westra et al. (2012) Global increasing trends in annual maximum daily precipitation
"I know you are fucking clueless, but this isn’t actually very complicated, so try, will you"
Er, sorry, are you asking me or Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University?
Right on cue after Jeff's post, Duffer tries it on with selectively quoting from his beloved shitsources.
For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation.” , bearing in mind February is not yet through.
But what Dr Slingo actually says is: "“Of course, as yet there can be no definitive answer on the particular events that we have seen this winter, but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution.
In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it.
There is indeed as far as I can see no evidence to counter the premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.”
So, another dishonest Dufferism..
But Julia Slingo doesn't mention the jetstream, so Duffbrains is quite right - "So, no disagreement there, then, nothing to see, move along" while still managing to be dishonest. What a Duffer.
Jennifer Francis is researching the impact of a warming arctic on the Jetstream but even she isn't claiming her findings so far are definitive, although they are compelling.
Any more lies to come from you today Duffer? Do try to get your information from primary sources in future as you've been told many, many times in the past. You'll look less of a twat, and it saves the tediousness of dealing with your own gullibility and outright dishonesty brought on by your dismal failure to research the lies you're such an obedient little water carrier for.
Does anyone (apart from 'Slingyerhook') *disagree* that the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK?
[citation needed]
Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University
And just about every other expert I have seen interviewed on the TV.
Duff
Just how poor is your reading contribution? And how much is childish disingenuity. Read what I wrote again.
You are parroting dishonest journalism in the Mail on Sunday. It's just more denialist cant and is dismissed here. This sums it up:
You are peddling the usual lying denier misdirections and confected "arguments" inserted into the gutter press by right-wing ideologues. Nothing changes the facts, which are determined by physics and the consequent forcing efficacy of CO2.
Christ. "reading comprehension"
Since Duff is having difficulty with his native tongue, I suppose I'd better repeat myself for clarity. Read closely, Duff:
Did we grasp it this time?
Since lying shitbag deniers rarely have enough good faith to click links and actually read the facts about which they are lying, here are some quotes from the article I linked. Note that they support exactly what I wrote above:
And - silence.
So quiet you could hear a mouse fart.
chek @ #43 "the jet stream being stuck so far south is the main factor in the record rainfall in the UK
[citation needed]"
Duffer @ #44 "Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University"
Duffer arguing against himself @ #38 "Prof. Mat Collins, Professor in Climate Systems, Exeter University: “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.”
Now that you've cancelled yourself out, how about taking off those ridiculous clownshoes and giving a citation for your assertion.
Fascinating to see how eager Duffbrain is to belittle Slingo and Collins - professional scientists at the top of their fields, with nary a thought that he either may not understand what they say (high confidence) or they have been misrepresented by his beloved shitsources he religiously "belieeeeves" in (very high confidence).
No, I wasn't quoting the DM, I was quoting the BBC and the Exeter Echo.
And, no again, I do not disagree with your notions concerning humidity and heat but that was not germane to this *particular* bout of unusual weather in the UK which was due completely and entirely to the jet stream (JS) being stuck unusually far south. In other words, in the normal course of events all that rain would have dropped on Scotland (hoorah!) or Scandinavia but because of the JS it dropped down south.
Whatever, it had absolutely nothing to do with 'Slingyerhook' who said:
"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,"
as reported by both the BBC and the Exeter Echo.
There is no global warming link to this particular weather event and Prof. Collins said so - good for him!
Duff.
What is it with your comprehension skills? Damaged by ideology.
Professor Collins did not say what you want him to have said, now why don't you go to source to find out what is really going on? Oh I know, you prefer interpretations of interpretations. And yes, you are repeating the meme in that Rose Mail headline, so stop lying.
Read this:
Met Office in the Media: 16 February 2014, response by Professor Mat Collins and the Met Office
That is not saying that the scientists are not sure that warming is causing climate change related changes in distribution geographically and temporally and intensity of weather events such as storms. What it is conveying is that there is, at this moment, some doubt about the strength of the various mechanisms involved.
Now look in these temperature maps at the sea surface temperature anomalies for January 2014 in the western Atlantic and along the track taken by these storms - what do you notice?
Now go read, take it slowly, the Met Office Report The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK for what Julia Slingo said to give full context.
See also my next post.
Now related stuff is found under that other denier favourite that non existent warming pause or hiatus. Visit the page in the link which follows and download and read all three parts. You may have to use some other literature to clear up points which confuse you. That is points that you are about to munge so as to make out it says something it does not.
The recent pause in warming.
You could look up thread here and at last months thread both being peppered with suitable links and remarks.
Now, you like to point out scientists are uncertain about some details, but as recent events have shown, uncertainty is not our friend and one thing is certain and this is that climate change related events are happening much sooner than many scientists expected, or at least were allowed to write in IPCC reports where the language was watered down by policy makers to help along the feeling that we are going to be al-right, no need to worry until 2050 or whatever.
That strategy didn't work in our favour did it and is one of the reasons why scientists want to improve on the sclerotic IPCC process so that reports have more immediacy from up to data information.
Amazing, isn't it? They just keep on lying.
Of course there are scientists who argue (in published papers) that AGW *has* altered the jet streams but Duff doesn't know this because he is clueless.
Now watch Duff go "yesbutthatstudyisaboutsummerextremes" and ignore the actual point - which is that strange things are happening to the jet streams because of Arctic climate change - which is without doubt anthropogenically forced. Slingo is thus of course correct to suggest that there is a *link* between the UK floods and climate change - not that CC was the sole cause of the floods but then she didn't say that, did she?
Cue more denier misrepresentations in 3, 2, 1...
This is a lie:
At a fundamental level all extreme weather events are influenced by climate change because there is a huge amount more energy in the climate system now than there was several decades ago and it continues to accumulate at a staggering rate. But again, Duff either doesn't know this or is simply blanking it because he's in denial.
Will we see Duff pick up Spencer's toys and chuck em out of his pram to the tune of 'Deutschland über alles', or has he slunk away like the devious skunk he is leaving that nasty smell behind him.
Maybe Duff would prefer the Japanese accent on heat accumulation.
Lionel
Yes - I should have thought of using that but unlike you, I didn't know where the freestanding app could be viewed ;-)
Useful to know. Thanks.
Talking about extremes, there was an article over at Greg Laden's about Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines last November which revealed an astounding fact: the water temperature in the region at 100m depth was as warm as normal typhoon-forming SST's'
It should be only a few degrees above freezing down there, as I'm sure Lionel will attest.
That factoid has stayed with me and even some months later seems worth commenting on in light of our own extreme weather in the UK.
"Arctic climate change – which is without doubt anthropogenically forced"
Er, would that be the same "anthropogenically forced" effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?
Personally, I blame all those polar bears shagging like mad and increasing the temperature along with their numbers, it's called the Ursus Shagus Effect and frankly I think we should the shoot the horrible great things before we all drown in melted ice.
Meanwhile, it's 'evensong' so back to the chanting, altogether now:
'Slingo is oh, oh, so right'
You just keep on being wrong Duffer. You wouldn't want to spoil the perfect record of your spoon-fed ineptitude after all this time, would you? Is it some sort of disability that makes you such a spectacular masochist?
"Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet".
"Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America, has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice".
Duffer puffed:
Well, ere, um, yes in a way. But what you need to consider is the very different topographical-oceanic structure of the driving systems North to South. Arctic is an ocean largely surrounded by landmasses whereas Antarctica is a continental landmass surrounded by water. Even then the Antarctic sea ice is the only real growth but then that is localised with some edges losing sea ice (as chek mentioned). But any sea ice gain is at the expense of continental ice. More continental ice going into the sea causes freshening - now what does that do to the freezing point and what is the result?
I have only touched on this, but your meme is only broadcast by the denial supporting hacks in the press who count on the ignorance of their readership to do the rest. You fall for it every time. Which is, of course who you use as interpreters. Go see a shaman about your ingrowing toe nail, have some incense burned and feel better because it smells nice, well to some anyway - a matter of opinion.
By falling for it every time that shows that you are not only ignorant but stupid with it.
Better trolls please.
Have just been reminded of this:
Roy Spencer says that if you don’t admit that environmentalists are guilty of genocide then you are like a Holocaust denier
H/T Kilby @ Sou's on the recent Spencer thread.
Duff # 62
What chek and Lionel A said.
It's predictable that instead of admitting error or trying to engage constructively, you simply skip to a new denialist misrepresentation of some other aspect of climate change.
For some insight into Antarctic sea ice extent changes, see Holland & Kwok (2012) Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift.
The paper is paywalled but press release is here. See also Zhang (2013) Modeling the impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume.
Sorry, wrong Zhang13 link.
Full text here.
A little more looking and we also have a full PDF of Holland & Kwok (2012).
Duffer can't read stuff like that BBD.
He's too busy swallowing bullshit from and aping the attitudes of lo-life grifters like Nigie 'that Slingo woman' Lawson and his ilk.
chek
Yes, I'm sure you are correct, but the links are for others, mainly, and also to demonstrate to Duff that I'm not just bullshitting in the way he does. And he knows it; make no mistake.
I wonder what Duff is going to do when we start joining up the dots that connect increased zonal windspeeds in Antarctica with increase upwelling of coastal waters and the consequent increased rate of basal melting of ice shelves and the increase in flow rate of the glaciers that produced them? Which of course increases the rate of mass loss from the WAIS and looks set to become a major driver of sea level rise over the course of this century and beyond.
Will he ask for references? I have them ready, of course...
;-)
I have some sympathy for anyone who says, look, it's supposed to be global warming, right? But there's more ice in Antarctica and on the face of it, that doesn't make sense.
Where I stop feeling benign is when the expected follow-on step does not materialise. They don't say, okay, explain how this works, I'm genuinely puzzled and genuinely curious. The next step is of course to make an effort to understand the explanation instead of reflexively denying it in bad faith.
Etc, ad nauseam.
Good conversations about this topic can and do happen - even to me. I was asked exactly this over dinner before Christmas and the explanation was treated as insightful and worth the ten minutes of conversation it involved.
As I've said many times, denial is a profound and damaging pathology.
I should tighten this up: denial is the opposite of curiosity. Curiosity is the key to understanding. Denial prevents understanding. It is the death of the mind.
Frank D @ # 29
You posted a link from Hotwhopper @ # 93 previous page.
Here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-dummy-spit-shows-his-la…
Your questions @ # 29 are related to Australia and a presumption that housing is a serious issue that needs solving.
My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to underprivileged nations and poverty, overpopulation and environmental harm due to inappropriate land use practices.
Australia is not an underprivileged nation, Australia educates females, Australia does not experience comparable levels of poverty, Australia is not comparably overpopulated and Australian farmers use world's best practice, sustainable agricultural methods.
The presumed housing shortage is primarily a problem in the Australian capital cities.
I'm guessing that Jeff Harvey would agree with me that Australia's presumed housing shortage is not the serious problem that we should be concerned about?
However; purely as an observation re you multiple choice above:
A to D have all been tried before.
A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences.
C & D did create unintended consequences.
Indeed, without becoming too Godwinesque, it's the foundation layer of feudalism and fascism.
I have no doubt (contrary to what Duffer has been fed and devoutly, slavishly believes, and in honour of him) that were the previously undiscovered element stupidium found to be responsible for what was heretofore ascribed to AGW that Mann, Hansen, Jones, Emanuel et al would alter their views in accordance with the new data.
Duffer et al have already decided that no matter how shonky and easily demolished the bedrock of their piss-poor belief system is, they will continue to support it, even as it comes crashing down around their heads.
El Duffo opened this salvo @ #11 saying " despite the horrific evidence piling up outside".. Projection, anyone?
You just have to imagine what it must be like to be too old, and more relevantly, too stupid to learn.
"despite the horrific evidence piling up outside."
You mean all the warmest and wetter winter your area has ever seen piling up outside, just as the scientists were telling you would happen from AGW 30 years ago..?
"we shall soon find out because Mark Steyn has just issued a writ *against* Prof. Mann "
For what?
Oh, that's right: for bringing up a libel case and pursuing it despite Steyn et al laughing that Mann would drop it.
"Dame ‘Slingyerhook’ Chief ‘Scientist’ at the Met Office who in November forecast a ‘dryer than normal winter’:"
But climatologically expecting wetter and warmer winters than normal.
Seems like you're taking actual AGW as proof that Dame Slingo is wrong... Somehow...
"At a fundamental level all extreme weather events are influenced by climate change "
At a fundamental level all weather events are influenced by climate change.
You'd have to show that the weather event would have happened anyway if there had been no climate change.
"Er, would that be the same “anthropogenically forced” effects that are *increasing* the ice in the Antarctic?"
What increase, duffski? Spreading your butter over your toast doesn't make more butter, dearie.
Stu2, you're being tiresome - Sou's article is about Roy Spancer throwing a grand-mal tanty and all you allude to is a single irrelevant quote-mined line? So if you want to refer to the article, how about engaging properly? Do you think its okay to call people who accept the science "Nazis"?
My questions to Jeff Harvey were related to ...
I made no reference to any questions between Jeff and yourself, I simply asked you a fairly simple question. Perhaps you can only conduct one conversation at a time? You responded with a history lesson of what (you claim) has been tried, but I asked you what you think governments should do. So...?
It is simply unproductive to carry out such a discussion without understanding the economic worldview of the other person. Therefore, an answer will allow readers (specifically me) to contextualise your comments re climate change policy wrt consistency with other economic policy. Further evasion of such a non-controversial question will just demonstrate that your claim of wanting to "move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in" is just high-toned horseshit. I'm trying to deal straight here, but your not convincing me that is being reciprocated.
Don't confuse him, Wow. The West Antarctic Ice sheet is losing ice mass. There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation). Taken together, net ice mass balance for the entire Antarctic is negative - Antarctica as a whole is losing ice mass (IMBIE 2012).
Antarctic winter sea ice extent is increasing slightly (see previous comments and links).
"There is a very slight mass balance gain for Eastern Antarctica (increased precipitation)."
And when you spread the butter, there's more butter where you've just moved it to.
Unless Duffer doesn't do any toast or bread-and-butter (in which case, he's faking being from the UK), the factualities should be eminently visible to him.
More evidence of the massive corporate funding of the climate change denial community in this excellent new study by Robert J. Brulle:
http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-…
An excellent commentary on this by Media Lens (UK):
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/756-the-fa…
The key point is that if the global mean temperature is allowed to rise by 4 C or more, then our species is staring its own extinction squarely in the face. No amount of technology will be able to counter the catastrophic damage that will do to our global ecological life support systems.
Some may miss the full text of that Independent article linked with that second reference in Jeff's reply (after all our crowd of deniers are not renowned or following through such) so here is a direct link: UK weather: Floods could have devastating environmental impact – as animals drown or die from lack of food.
Our irritants are probably as ignorant about the ecology that underpins our survival being about the same level of education as the pair of my grandchildren twins, then about five years, awhile back when going out into the fields of my brother-in-laws farm with a spade and a bucket going to get some spuds for dinner. After a few steps one asked, 'Where is the ASDA then?' Digging potatoes out off the ground was a novel idea to her. ASDA being a supermarket in the UK owned by Walmart.'
I have little doubt that things are going to be bad and I also think that those who want to wish the problems away will do everything they can to keep as much as possible from the general public.
So, watch closely where your politicians and local government officials do their shopping, and what they purchase. I suspect they will purchase in stealth before rationing is imposed on the rest of us. Rationing that will make us glad to get provisions even if contaminated.
I still remember the petrol coupons issued in early 1974. I was a bad boy in those days by having a 3-litre Wolseley 6/110 (purchased second hand) but in my defence it had better mileage than a 2-litre Ford Capri, a pal had one of those and we swapped notes and I tuned the twin SU carb's myself, but with my wife owning a Mini that would have been the vehicle for running about. The Wolseley would put in about 35-36 mpg on a run at a most economical motorway cruising speed of about 82-83 mph. with overdrive on the top gears. The petrol shortage saw a speed restriction to 60mph on motorways here which was a nonsense for cars such as that Wolseley.
The writing was on the wall though, so a step down in vehicle size and to one only was taken.
As in California, water shortages and drought threaten Brazil, how much for a cup of coffee? Drought Could Drain More Than Brazil's Coffee Crop
Isn't Duffer the clown who thinks local tides trump all climate change? Can I get the incoherent git to at least come water my fruit trees for me to combat the unprecedented drought here in California for me then?
@Lionel: If you were to buy a new car, why not go for a Fiesta 1.0, or Cruze Eco, or an iQ? I commute next to people sitting in F-350s or Excursions by their lonesome, and I just shake my head.
Frank D @# 80
1) You claimed I followed the wrong link.
2) No I don't think it's OK to call people derogatory names like 'Nazi' but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site.
3) I reasonably assumed your questions arose from my comment to Jeff Harvey, which were also linked to your link to Hotwhopper and the 'something' we should be doing.
4) I found your multiple choice question re a presumed housing shortage in Australia somewhat irrelevant to the previous comment except that 2 of those items have demonstrated that they are PROVEN and PRACTICAL measures to help solve that particular problem but not the 'serious problem' that Sou comments on.
6) I was not attempting to be evasive.
Maybe I should ask you if you think creating a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy is the right 'something' we should be doing?
"Isn’t Duffer the clown who thinks local tides trump all climate change?"
Not, apparently, if the local weather is warmer than usual, in which case, it doesn't.
"2) No I don’t think it’s OK to call people derogatory names like ‘Nazi’ but would add that name calling seems to be popular at this site."
I take it you've never been to WTFUWT or other blogrolls you quote from then, StuPid?
And note that if you're accepting rude names, then you're accepting rude names, so shut the fuck up about them you whining little shit.
I am afraid I am too physical disabled to contemplate driving these days, but then I know of people with similar problems, but maybe not the exact combination, who chance their luck but more reprehensibly chance the safety of others.
Stu 2: "somewhat irrelevant ".
Yes, unconnected with previous discussions you've had with someone who isn't me. But I've explained why I asked it, when I asked itand again later, and asked that you not continue to evade it.
6) I was not attempting to be evasive
And yet you evaded it. Just natural talent, I guess...
Perhaps I should ask you if you actually have any desire to rationally discuss policy options, or just play lame "when I grow up I want to be Brad Keyes" games.
Your continued evasion suggests to me that you are shit-scared of actually offering your own opinion on a topic on which you might be found wanting. Which is more than a bit sad, and leads me to deduce that all we can expect is tedious talking points from the same "world government, income redistribution shock-horror" songsheet Betula sings from, not engagement with the topic. Pity, because its quite a worthwhile one, and one that does not start and finish with "a global emmissions market run by a centralised bureaucracy", despite this being your preferred topic.
You claim to want to "move discussions out of the rut that this blog has found itself in", and yet when I throw you a bone - two bones - it's duck and weave. So I call bullshit on your claim to ever-so-lofty motivations...
Be fair. It's the M.O. of Olap Dog, Duffer, Betty, Bray, Grima, Joan and the entire "tedious toad, squatting slug" denier squad.
Only when provoked by the constant lying, evasion, misrepresentation and intellectual laziness of others. Not to mention tone-trolling, which under the circumstances is truly unforgivable. Sod off.
Hey, deniers, tell you what, stop slagging off others (and whining about being called deniers when you're actually there denying is likewise slagging off others), and start policing your own counter-culture, THEN we'll stop with the insults.
Deal?
Yeah, the selective blind spot of deniers for their other fellow travelling deniers is just one of their giveaways.
Now, this post is for Duff, GSW, Betula etc,.
I remarked in a post late on the previous page (#97) about how a recent NOAA-NCDC report had an illustration, a map, showing how large parts of the Atlantic had positive temperature anomalies during January 2014.
Now watch this video and note the opening sequence as storms track across the Atlantic H/T Climate Crocks, see the route that they took. Get it now all you people at the back?
GWPF piece on the UK floods and the Met office's "New Norm".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVZXw7e1A
(H/T Bishop Hill)
;)
The GWPF are industry shills, you numpty. Why are you linking to paid liars?
How is it possible to be that stupid and still use a computer?
Instead of peddling energy industry-funded lies, why not respond to Lionel A? He specifically addressed his last comment to you, amongst others. Yet your follow-on comment was merely worthless spam. Why is that? Are you simply unable to admit that what Lionel A is trying to explain is far more closely connected with the reality of the UK flooding than some calculated mendacity issuing from the GWPF?
Is that it? I do wonder, sometimes. You lot seem so utterly incapable of any serious engagement it's almost the only possibility that makes sense.
@BBD
"The GWPF are industry shills, you numpty."
As opposed to Peter Sinclair the "award winning environmental activist", you dipstick.
http://www.ecocenter.org/newsletters/ecolink/peter-sinclair-will-receiv…
Some more on his background,
"He isn't a scientist, but he frequently interviews people who are."
That makse him even more sciency than joffrey then!
;)
GSW, the equivalence isn't with Peter Sinclair, it's with the Met Office. But thanks for confirming your stupidity.
However, it is noticeable that the industry shills haver been out in force this month since the heavy rains in some regions seem to have convinced a large number of the public that climate change is underway.
chek
Yes, I noticed that too. It's funny how the shills get very loud and very visible whenever Joe Public shows any sign of noticing what's actually happening.
GSW
That's twice in a row you've thrown out a stinking spam-fart instead of engaging with Lionel A. So come on, you evasive little toe-rag. Respond to Lionel A's point about N Atlantic SSTs and storm tracks.
So for GSW, receiving a non-monetary, obscure award is as big a detriment to credibility as, oh, I don't know...
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from. [...] Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. [...] In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.
[SourceWatch]
That Griselda et al gullibly buy whatever drips from mouth of the GWPF's Benny Piffle and think it trumps that of a data-led organisation like the Met Office is all you need to know.
Incidentally, taken as a whole for the UK the winter period Dec/Jan/Feb (not finished yet) has, despite severe rain and flooding in some areas the Met Office was right about it being drier than average. So far, anyway.
The GWPF is running outside of the rules for a charity on at least two counts,
1) They are not Restoring Balance and Trust to the climate debate they are promulgating pure propaganda.
2) They are not forthcoming on who is providing their funding, even by refusing to full FOI requests.
Here is their statement in full - THE GWPF: HISTORY AND MISSION
How many untruths can one spot in that document?
Wiki's take.
much more at DeSmogBlog.
"The GWPF: Who We Are"
Heh!
Shouldn't that be "Who We Purport To Be"?
Trades Descriptions Act and all that...
Frank D #@ 92 previous page.
My answer was that 2 of those multiple choice options (a & b) have proven to have some effect at solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) but the other 2 created unintended, third party impacts.
Come on guys, go easy of gormless (GSW) - he's got a third rate basic science diploma and is suffering from loneliness as his hero (Jonas) has his posts delayed on the basis on their vacuous content. So all he has left is the GWPF and other shills to keep him 'informed' about the state of the world.
"GWPF piece on the UK floods and the Met office’s “New Norm”."
Given their incompetence at science (or economy, Lawsom, remember) why should their take on the floods be of any interest to anyone?
Ah! Yes I remember Lawson as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his measures inducing the Lawson boom, and then bust.
Typical of an administration focused on economic magic rather than solid, sound practices which recognised the need for a national skills base in technology, especially of the old fashioned engineering kind. What Thatcher & Co. did to the railways was butchery, this after the earlier butchery of Ernest 'conflict of interest' Marples & Dr Richard Beeching.
Growing up in the 1950s in a city which had two of the major railways cross on the level through a very wide level crossing I have taken a keen lifetime interest in railway operations. I was fortunate to have holidays at Dawlish and Dawlish Warren where as I built sand castles I could watch ex. GWR Castles, Kings, Strars, Halls, Counties and many other types on the trains along that sea wall that has suffered so much recently.
A townie of the same era has written an excellent book describing how British Railways was plundered by successive free market economic lunatics and thieves with the latest major round being under Major's government in the 1990s. One Tory Grandee, Cecil 'had an affair' Parkinson also had a conflict of interest as his wife's family owned a construction company Jarvis. Jarvis being a name that now resonates to track fault caused fatal disaster.
See The Greatest Railway Blunder by Adrian Vaughan for the full story. It will leave you shaking your head but is typical of the way we are being sold out by those who don't give a damn about the population at large, in any country.
As for Lawson and the GWPF all they promote is a 'Load of old Blaby'. If that is the best you have got GSW & Co. then you are really desperate.
Wiki has a reasonable run downNigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby.
Time to call 'shop' on this nefarious, unethical organisation.
Good answer, Stu2 #10.
It's just that its not an answer to any question I asked. Quell suprise!
Duck and weave, Stu, duck and weave...
Nicholas Loris claims: "It's time for calm on Climate Change". Looks like climate scientists are not rigorously trained in the disciplines of science. It is all too much pain for too little economic gain,.But, I suppose, it does depend on what questions are asked, what is known and on what basis.
The IPCC are completely wrong., They just are. So if everybody remains calm then all will be well - or even better in the short term. By the way, if you had not noticed, warming has gone into a hiatus.(meaning that the trend of surface mean temperatures have not increased.
Furthermore, modelling is completely hopeless since the models are inconsistent. Remember, the 97% of climate scientists who are not realists really means 97% of scientific literature - and this takes no account of the opinions of political scientists, or indeed the leading climate scientists who are not undertaking climate research.
Been away for a bit. That was epic. Bonus points for the hunting joke reference.
Frank D @# 14
Your question was:
what should governments do : a, b, c, d.
I have answered the question.
If you want to discuss further then it's over to you.
Tim Flannery doing an online Q&A:
https://www.facebook.com/events/525492887570419/
For most people a thought of snow translates into a concrete memory of a blizzard some short time later, even if weather remained balmy.
Agitprop like this works for that reason: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/462046/Winter-is-NOT-OVER-Eight-in… .
Never mind there is nothing on the charts to suggest this. Just a couple days return to normality after which temps go crescendo again.
In November these bastards came with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442873/Coldest-winter-in-modern-times-… .
Nothing remotely like that happened, instead part of the country drowned in a winter that was also very mild. But the facts do not matter at all.
Mediavomit like this works. Media like this know that. They are therefore also responsible for the devastation of Somerset and the 8.000 victims of Typhoon Haiyan.
cRR
The *real* story of winter snow in the UK is much more interesting than alarmist lies in the gutter press. Something is changing.
BBD, we just went through another 'winter' in Holland of a kind absolutely unimaginable before 1990.
Poll in the most read newspaper in Holland, which is gutter press and gutter is generally most read, show 77% of plebs seeing nothing the matter because it snowed in the USA and +12° C is still cold even if +5° C is the fucking normal.
Nothing is changing except climate. If people's houses burn down in some AGW induced bush fire just show them some footage of Scotland from your link and they'll be quite assured again, i kid u not. I mean, that actually happened in Australia (otherwise a stooge like Abbott would never have received a vote).
cRR
To be clear - "alarmist" lies was ironic - these same "newspapers" peddle denial - it was just an inversion ;-)
Second, the point is that high altitude NH snowfall seems to be very high this winter - precipitation has stepped up - not just in the storm tracks bringing unprecedented flooding to the UK. Climate is of course the "something" that is changing - but I thought Hamish MacInnes' observations were very interesting (and noted that he's backing away from his previous "scepticism"):
#21, on that note, I read Hamish' change of mind as driven by observation and like it. True skeptic : ). Above your quote:
He said he had been critical of climate change science in the past.
"I wrote an apology to the people who predicted climate change," he said.
"I thought it was just a historical pattern, it probably is to a large extent, but I did kind of poo-pooed the idea of climate change."
The veteran mountaineer added: "This snow is not just something happening in Scotland.
Et cetera.
I did kinda apology years ago. Notwithstanding university meteo- and climatology training I believed it had to be the sun until 2004, losing the Svensmark myth finally by then (as to global warming I was convinced of that by 1989). Sometimes I still feel ashamed a bit... Otoh I have in-depth knowledge of AGW denial perspectives and can recognize revisionists from those willing to learn instantly.
I might remain vulnerable to the kind of remark directed at zealous antismoking ex-smokers (revisionists, don't even think of it!).
Stu2, your inability to distinguish between factual statements and normative statements is both revealing and tragic.
"To be clear – “alarmist” lies was ironic – these same “newspapers” peddle denial – it was just an inversion"
Actually, they peddle alarmism like there's no tomorrow: a clam that they make is that there WILL be no tomorrow if we do anything about AGW. They'll claim that everyone's being asked to go back to the stone age. That's alarmism right there. They'll claim that it's all a scam to kill off poor people by denying them fossil fuels. Alarmism. They'll claim that it's the poor nations insisting that the rich first world give them all their money so they can live fat and happy whilst we crash and burn. This causes no mental problems with their earlier claims about poor people. And it's alarmist. They'll peddle it as a world-girdling conspiracy. Alarmist.
And so on.
Wow
Yes, I agree - that's what I meant, but I expressed it with all the clarity of a sewage sample.
Nathan Rao is a typical gutter journalist. Here is Wetteronline's forecast for the UK on Saturday:
http://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/grossbritannien
So much for 8 inches of snow and bitterly cold. The forecast from Friday through Tuesday is much the same - then it gets milder. Rao is full of bullshit.
Ah! Glen Coe and the Cairngorms, I have been camped out in those places for periods ranging from a weekend to fourteen days.
I may have recounted previously about my tumble down the North slope of the Buachaille Etive Mòr having climbed the East side. There was still quite a bit of snow in the saddle near the top, it being early spring, so my companion, a more experienced climber than myself, suggested glissading down the slope. Having pointed out the lack of ice picks he indicated the lack of these for braking control would be no problem as long as one stayed sliding with back to the slope so as to dig in heels as brakes. I watched as he set off and as he got about a quarter the way down pushed of myself. A few yards later I lost my balance and flipped face down but still going feet first down. I accelerated rapidly passing him very soon. Fortunately I managed to return to the correct position for braking, just as well as the snow was about to run out into scree. My companion was only about half way down at this point.
I was jarred a bit as I ran into scree but stood up, knees shaking within trousers, and as my companion came within earshot I called out, 'What kept you?'
That companion I learned whilst I was at another air base, had fallen into a crevasse on Greenland and been lost.
The Cairngorms were memorable for another event whilst camped adjacent to Ryvoan Bothy. But that is another story.
Entertaining piece from investors.com
"If Democrats Believed In Warming,They'd Nominate Gore"
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022614-691397-climate-fanatic-…
"On the other hand, Al Gore invented the Internet, as CNN's Wolf Blitzer discovered in 1999 after asking him why he should be president. Tough act to follow, but Gore became the only person to win an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for a movie — and a Grammy for the audiobook, to boot."
"Its falsities, a British court found, ranged from incorrectly blaming climate change for snowmelt on Kilimanjaro and drowned polar bears to predicting the scientifically impossible demise of the Gulf Stream."
Quite a few laughs in there for those disposed.
;)
#21, sorry, BBD, I should've mentioned I DID have to do a small calculation there but then your irony was not at all lost on me, lol!
And then, thanks for #25, 'sewage sample' - I was looking all day for a phrase like that, 'bile' and 'vomit' having been spent fubar during the 'debate' : )
#28, quite a laugh indeed for us disposed :)
'Incorrect' is not the same thing as incorrect. You really need to take that rainy Sunday afternoon to read Deltoid mate.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/11/an-error-is-not-the-same-thi…
So, GSW, all you've got is ancient "Al Gore is fat" irrelevancies. No response to Lionel A about N. Atlantic SST anomalies, storm tracks and recent UK flooding. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Here's a hint, old windbag: Al Gore has nothing to do with physics, and AGW is caused by physics. So guffing emptily on about Al G isn't going to have any effect on AGW.
It's just another paint-peelingly foul spam-fart. If you cannot or will not engage here, why not take a flying fuck, eh?
He's the US right wing bête noire, which like 'librulls' doesn't really translate outside their good ol' boy stink-sewer in the fresh air of the real world.
But morons with all the intellectual depth of a dew-drop puddle like Griselda @ #28 can only dutifully parrot the scripted lies they're given.
#17, Craig, well, indeed. There were targets and some were taken methinx.
Frank D @ # 23,
I would suggest you might need to be more concerned about your ability to foster a genuine discussion.
So far all you have done is focus on fostering critical comments about me or defensive comments about you.
I have tried to point out that I'm not interested in either of those but if you are interested in furthering the discussion topic, it's over to you.
Wow
Are these the same people who tell us that we're hypocrites because we've done "absolutely nothing" ourselves about our own emissions unless we're living in a cave, childless, dressed in rags, gnawing on raw root vegetables? I'm pretty sure I've seen some individuals make that move from one comment to the next.
Fellas, Gav's latest says this with reagard to the missing heat:
"Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories."
Me thinks he should look more into the deep blue, like a true Deltoid scientits. What your take fellas? I thought sicence was settled? :-)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
Olaus
Try to understand what Schmidt et al. actually says before commenting. You think there's a conflict between this study and eg England et al. (2014) but there isn't. The increased strength of the trade winds described in England et al. has suppressed El Nino and increased the frequency of La Nina - something explicitly acknowledged in Schmidt et al.
There are several reasons for the current disparity between CMIP5 and observations, something long suspected by climate scientists. The key point is that none of them involve the fake sceptic's favourite false claim - that sensitivity to CO2 forcing has been over-estimated. From Schmidt et al. :
Read the words. Try - for once - to understand what is being said.
This stupid meme needs taking out the back and shooting in the head:
The science *is* settled: GHGs are an efficacious climate forcing. Doubling CO2 will raise GAT by at least 2C and very likely ~3C or more.
You are confusing the settled science with the ongoing investigation into the mechanisms governing short term variability. It's just more evidence that you really do not understand the climate "debate" at all. Perhaps you should just sit and listen.
So volcanoes, aerosols, the Sun and El Nino all conspired to work together to dampen the warming trend.
What a coincedence
Okay Stu2, one last try. This was supposed to be a simple question to establish some basics before further discussion. I honestly expected a quick and clear reply, but lets be clear, it is your obfuscation that is preventing the discussion moving along. I have clarified the sticking point twice without progress, but third time counts for all...
You have said that (A) land releases and (B) cutting fees and charges have been tried and "have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences", while (c) negative gearing reform and (d) closing out foreign buyers "did create unintended consequences."
Of course, I've been round the buoys too many times to make any assumption about what you think, so I'm seeking confirmation, which might then allow this conversation to proceed beyond step one.
Given my question was "governments should...?", is it fair to say that had you answered the question I actually asked, you would have said "Governments should do A & B"?
Yes. But much more likely than a conspiracy, which is what you are clearly implying.
You need to learn to weigh probabilities like a sane adult.
Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. :-)
I love when settled climate science shows how the accelerating warming of the atmosphere, that was settled, robust, and detetected first hand by Jeffie Bonaparte, has become something else, but still is robust, settled, and perhaps even recognized first hand by our dear Little Napoleon. :-)
Oh you mean like "hiatus"
But I thought the CMIP5 were all based on Physics.
Surely the observations must be wrong and need correction.
"Oh you mean like “hiatus”"
Or as realists call it "cherry picking nonsense.
Olaus
No, it doesn't. You haven't understood what is being said at all. Try again.
"Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun"
Indeed it would read as that from the ignorant deniers. This is not unexpected.
Rednoise
Are you being purposefully imbecilic?
The slowdown in the rate of surface warming is the consequence of several factors (see #37) but not of an over-estimation of S.
Try harder.
"Are these the same people who tell us that we’re hypocrites because we’ve done “absolutely nothing” ourselves about our own emissions unless we’re living in a cave..."
Indeed.
And those who do are "hairshirt loonies" and therefore want everyone as impoverished as them, therefore should not be listened to.
Deniers never listen to themselves, it would be too depressing.
Why do deniers revel in stupidity like kids in a fountain?
Yes Frank D.
If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success in solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) then obviously those are the best 2 options.
You gotta love (or loathe) Olly's scientific illiteracy. He writes as if I am the one who has definitively concluded that the science of AGW is settled. Now I know the guy is a right wing quack, but even that takes the cake. He's trying what Michael mann refers to as 'The Serengeti Strategy' whereby individuals are singled out as making pronouncements that are not supported by the scientific community by-and-large.
Yes, the science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt. And I am not saying it on my own - every major scientific body on Earth is saying it. Every respectable scientific journal accepts it. You'll be hard pressed to find a single scientist at any major conference who disagrees. The shills don't count - they are for the most part on the academic fringe, as Poptech unintentionally showed on his wretched list.
But since I am a qualified scientist (gosh, that simple fact pains Olly, GSW and the other small band of idiots who write in here; noen of them has anything more than a comic-book level diploma is a field related to science) and I argue that there is consensus, then I am targeted. I am used to it. I have had to deal with far more challenging clowns over the past 10 years of my career than from the likes of losers like Olly and Co. Heck, Olly's not even original in his smears; he imitates the musings of Jonas, GSW et al. My guess is that he's a supine follower.
" then obviously those are the best 2 options."
WRONG.
Logic fail FTW!
No, those two options have evidence they work.
Fuck all about whether they are the best.
Rednoise
Can't you understand the meaning of words like "transient" and "temporary"?
You clearly haven't read #37, so off you go and try again. Note especially the final sentence of the quote from Schmidt et al.
* * *
Like kids in a fountain.
I suppose it's too much to ask some lying idiot of a denier actually to scroll up the page, so here, again, is Schmidt et al.:
Read the words, Clown.
Try again
But we are told the warming is accelerating
is the consequence of several factors
All conspiring to work together to cancel out any warming,
Do they have secret meetings as it seems to have been going on for about 20 years
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg
Cherry pick your own start date.
You're quoting the GWPF's spin, Redarse?
What's the smart money over at The Beano saying?
Stupid fucking lies don't cut it with me, Clown.
Data for you. Try looking at it for once.
I used one of the usual climate-liars' choices. Your claim is falsified.
How about you admit it now? Right now. Next response.
There are the data. So come on, let's see some fucking intellectual integrity from you then.
Admit your error. Now.
I'm waiting, Clown.
How about you use Santer 2014 Fig 1c
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg
or the original
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html
Pick your own start date
How about you admit your error, Rednoise?
The data are right in front of you - fully updated, no tricks. Wood for Trees. Absolutely open.
Your claim is falsified, so admit your error. Now please.
What does Santer show, after eliminating ENSO and volcanoes?
Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?
Another something on the psychopathology of climate revisionists - tube vision. They cannot see more than one thing at a time nor hold more than one thing in memory at any time.
http://horses.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/placeholder-menhoofdstel-oo…
So these people cannot fathom the fact that different things can have relations to each other. Most particularly they cannot comprehend the concept of balance.
#42 by one 'Olaus Petri' demonstrates the pathology in multiplicity in one sentence:
... the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. (followed by the smiley of total ignorance but for some insanity awareness).
The guy can thus not understand that heat gets distributed across different elements of the climate system (air, oceans, cryosphere) because he can see only one of these at any time and must think that one element is all of the system. What bafflement, then, exemplified by ' the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden ' where 'Petri' rambles about 'missing' heat, 'hidden' heat (it can't be both) and the same heat taken to exist doubly while 'hiding' everywhere at once.
I wouldn't trust this fellow to cross a road with. Either he sees no car in his thin line of vision at the split second he looks to the other side and crosses and gets run over by all those 'hidden' cars, or he sees a car and sits down to cry because the road is uncrossable and will be so forever.
Clown
Here is the abstract to the Santer et al. paper the GWPF is lying about.
Read it:
Do you understand what this is saying? Straospheric sulphate aerosols from volcanism have acted as a negative forcing, offsetting the forcing increase from GHGs. See also #37, Schmidt et al. Huge shock, as Schmidt is a co-author of the Santer paper.
The liars at GWPF have picked a graph out of context and used it to fool you.
Now admit your error. You don't even need to remove volcanic aerosol negative forcings to falsify your claim.
I have done so right here, right in front of you so admit your error. Enough fucking evasions now.
Admit your error.
Can't be more than 18 years.
Admit your error.
Now.
#63 reddy, dada, ceci n'est pas une pipe :D :D
Not even 15 years
Admit your error.
Now.
(housing shortage in Australia)
Oh dear, Stu2, you've answered the wrong question again. Not being psychic, I don't know if you misunderstood what I wrote and all your answers are directed at a (different) question that I didn't ask.
My question was about your economic thoughts on housing affordability (for owner-occupiers, specifically), not on housing availability. These are two separate (if related) problems, and different solutions will work on them differently. Since I don't know which question you were sort-of-more-or-less-answering (that "if" could be misconstrued...), I can't usefully evaluate the merits of that answer.
If I were not assuming good faith here, I might think the confusion was deliberate. But the elephant in the room here is this: Even assuming good faith, if elicting a meaningful answer to such a simple question is so difficult, what prospect is there that this discussion can lead anywhere productive for the much more problematic question of economic levers with regard to energy and climate?
All I'm trying to do here is understand your general economic outlook, so I can factor that into my comments. And I've had these discussions run at cross-purposes for days on end too many times to be arsed jumping on to that go-round again. But you don't make it easy. If you want - as you have claimed several times - to have a productive discussion, you'll need to show you are honestly engaging with the questions put to you*. Otherwise, you're no different to the other clownshoes here - just slightly less obvious than they are about being an utter waste of space.
*as I will if the discussion ever gets off this merry-go-round.
Whoah! Certainly not 25 years.
You have been lied to. Fooled. Conned. Had over. Made a monkey of.
Admit your error.
Now.
The published peer reviewed graph is there for all to observe.
All you have to do is comment on it. How long has the trend of the TLT anomaly in Fig 1c remained fairly flat?
The nearest 5 years will do.
Rednoise, you really are a fuckwit ignoramus if you think that any hiatus in surface temperatures means that the Earth is no longer accumulating heat from incoming solar radiation that is modified and then trapped in the various Earth systems, mostly fluid.
Here, go read this three part report from the Met office:
The recent pause in warming, this report may need you to put on a thinking head.
And stop relying on The Three Monkeys – Monckton, Foster and Peiser of the GWPF, which is a totally discredited haven of ideologues which should be stripped of its charity status. It is a travesty that it has not been:
Clown, I've just shown you using graphs even a fuckwit like you can understand that your claim is false for 15, 18 and 25 years.
Santer et al. does not make the claim you make, nor does it say what you think it does (hint: read the abstract).
Now why have you not yet admitted your error?
Stop misdirecting to evade.
Look at the graphs at #66, #68 and #70.
There is NO GETTING OUT OF THIS NOW.
Admit your error.
I have to say this display of black-is-white dishonesty is staggering, even by Clown's standards.
"Now why have you not yet admitted your error?"
Because once a denier admits to error, they've admitted that they *can* be wrong, therefore they would have to *check* their facts.
And this is devastating to their case.
(I realise it was a rhetorical question, but the answer is still valid)
"Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?"
None of the above.
No haitus.
"http://www.thegwpf.org"
Not a science paper, is it.
"Santer-pause-2.jpg"
The name of a file is not proof of a pause or haitus.
How can you quote someone telling you there is a slowdown then claim you're told it's accelerating?
Do you change what you see in your own head?
#75 Wow "And this is devastating to their case." - they respond as if it is devastating to their very existence. System I jolted out of comfort zone.
True, they invest so extremely in their statements, much as the most fundamentalist religious (the ones able to convince themselves to commit human atrocities) invest their entire being in their faith being *right*, that to be wrong in their argument is, for them, to be wrong in their humanity.
Such extreme investment is the prime motivation for many of the most spittle-flecked denier morons.
THEY ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS. End one, they believe ABSOLUTELY the other will end.
BBD#73
Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give.
Is it 15, 20 or 25 years.
Go on its not difficult.
Here is the link again.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg
"Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give."
He did give his opinion on it: NWOR.
#81, rotate screen anticlockwise or head clockwise a bit. There are conventions re the orientation of graph axes you know.
BBD has given his 'opinion', that is a reading of the facts, repeatedly. It's not difficult. Um, you said that? 'It's not difficult?'
No he has huffed and puffed but not answered the question
Punched Nose imagines himself O'Brien ('1984') - "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."
"Well I asked you for YOUR opinion"
He gave it.
See, this is why so many don't bother to answer the petulant demands of whiny little denier crapsacks: they don't even notice when they've been answered.
#84, he's not giving you your 2 + 2 + 5? Tee, hee, now what are you going to do about it?
"No he has huffed and puffed"
1) He hasn't literally huffed and puffed
2) A figurative huff and puff IS A RESPONSE.
Seems you don't even know what your native tongue is...
#80 Wow, exactly, which is why climate revisionism is very scary indeed. 'Fascism, anyone?' - to quote a recent essay's title.
Rednoise, Foxtrot Oscar with your links to the lying liars and the lies they tell under the umbrella of the GWPF, they cannot be trusted. EOS!
He has answered your malformed question you dunce, you are clearly too thick to understand his message.
I wonder if you are GWPF?
To falsify the claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years" let's look at three periods.
There has been no "hiatus" over the last:
15 years
Nor over the last:
18 years
Nor over the last:
25 years
There are the data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs - in which case you must show how - or you are wrong.
Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.
All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years". There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.
You are wrong. So admit your error.
Now.
You have no choice. Can't you see that?
Admit your error.
"Admit your error."
He can't: he'd die!
Its utterly amazing that in the course of the past several weeks, the GWPF has been shown to be one of the most blatantly biased climate change denial organizations around, that that its status as a charity has been heavily criticized.
And right on cue, Rednose shows up after a prolonged absence with a flagrant distortion by - you guessed it - the GWPF. Unvelieveable. In the lastes example they are distorting the conclusions of a paper by Santer and colleagues. Worst of all, Rednose thinks he's making a good point, when in reality his point is utter balderdash: a selective misinterpretation of the Santer study and certainly at odds with the views of the authors.
Over the years I have encountered a number of climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists on Deltoid, and not a single one of them has a scintilla of common sense or scientific knowledge. If the likes of Rednose, GSW. Olaus, Tim C, Pentax, Brad Keyes, Sunspot/Karen/Mack, Betula, et al ad nauseum are the best of the 'armchair brigade', then no wonder that much of the denial community are seen as laughingstocks.
Oh FFS. I don't need 'opinions', you clown.
To answer your question I took the same data (you will see UAH TLT presented in each of the three graphs above) and two surface temperature data sets and instead of eyeballing and opinionating, as you are doing, I tested your claim empirically.
And showed it to be false.
When are you going to admit your error? You cannot seriously DENY your error - that would be the mark of a lunatic.
So how long are you going to keep this fucking nonsense up?
You asked - I demonstrated - you were making a false claim.
Admit your error.
Now.
Your point is taken. This pathological dishonesty and flat refusal to admit an absolutely unequivocally demonstrated error is surely the hallmark of mental illness. Perhaps he really does sense that if he admits one error, the myriads of others will burst through the walls of his denial and his mind will implode under the onslaught of reality.
BBD#92
Your graphs not Santers.
The question concerned a specific graph from Santer showing corrections due to ENSO and 2 volcanic eruptions..
You have still not answered this original question
"Your graphs not Santers."
Nope, Santer's graphs.
"You have still not answered this original question"
Yes he has. Just not to the answer you've been led to believe MUST be there.
Yes I have. Read #95 again. It's all there. I answered your eyeballing and opinionating with an empirical test - three empirical tests actually, at your specific request.
But you won't accept the results.
You are wrong, Rednoise. Admit your error now.
Maybe the problem is that deniers have a death pact: if anyone leaves the herd, like scientology, they will use the R-2 45 exception.
As I was saying:
http://www.nature.com/news/scientist-versus-activist-debates-mislead-th…
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2116.html
Demolishes Rednose's arguments (and those of the GWPF which distort Santer's graphs). Note how the GWPF does not approach the authors for their opinion (they would take apart, piece by piece, the GWPFs misinterpretations). Instead, in true anti-environmental fashion, they selectively take some figures and draw their own conclusions from them. CC continues unabated. End of story.
Ha, so 'admit your error' is like 'go kill urself' : )
Or "If I admit error, my "pals" will kill me".
BBD#99
As far as I can tell BBD, you have failed to remove the effects of ENSO, El Chichan and Pinatubo in your graphs.
Nice try but no cigar.
Now please answer the question with regard to Santers graph which does.
Apologies for the repetition, but I'd like to keep this comment front and centre:
To falsify the claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years" let's look at three periods.
There has been no "hiatus" over the last:
15 years
Nor over the last:
18 years
Nor over the last:
25 years
There are the data. One of the temperature data sets is UAH TLT, as used by Santer et al. Same data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs - in which case you must show how - or you are wrong.
Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources (including UAH TLT, as used in Santer et al.) and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.
All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years". There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.
You are wrong. So admit your error.
Now.
You have no choice. Can't you see that?
Admit your error.
El Chicon, Pinatubo and latterly ENSO (which has been predominantly in La Nina phase for the last decade) are COOLING effects, you clown.
I'm not too sure at this point that you have the remotest idea what Santer et al. demonstrates.
I *am* sure that you have been completely fooled by the liars at GWPF and I *am* sure that you are refusing to admit that your claim of no warming for "about 20 years" is false.
I'm getting a little tired of you now, Rednoise.
Admit your error. I have demonstrated it above over and over and over again. So admit that your claim is false. We can all SEE that it is false, but you need to admit it.
Now.
Too true, but what is the cause?
Is it volcanic eruptions, aerosols, solar activity, CO2, changing land use, ENSO or something else?
If only the science was settled.
Rednoise: As far as I can tell BBD
Yes, that's rather the problem, isn't it, redski. You deliberately limit yourself so as to fit within the tiny sphere that fits within your philosophy.
"Too true, but what is the cause?"
Human activities, mainly CO2 over-production.
"If only the science was settled."
It is.
Rednoise
You made a false claim that there has been no warming for "about 20 years".
Admit your error.
Now.
Warming over the last:
15 years
And over the last:
18 years
And over the last:
25 years
I am now calling you a fucking liar.
If you won't admit your error, Rednoise, then just go. Stop commenting. Disappear.
At this point I will settle for your absence. I expect everybody else will too.
#6
And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?
O a glimmer of paradise by #13.
"Pals", lol : )
"And if you bothered to look at the graph in question"
He did.
And, unlike you, he didn't take the claims made by deniers at face value.
Nullus in verba. That's what Mad Lord Monkfish keeps saying, isn't it?
And on verifying the claims by using the evidence provided FOR that claim, found the claims wrong.
You, meanwhile, have not the wit nor intelligence to manage anything other than the expected reality you were programmed to attend to.
#6
And if you bothered to look at the graph in question you would see also the warming effect of ENSO from roughly 1990 to 2000.
Removing this and the cooling caused by the two volcanoes leaves a relatively flat part in graph c which you were asked to comment on.
How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?
Fuck off Rednoise. You have overstepped the mark now.
"How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?"
None of the above.
As BBD showed you.
CO2 forcing. Still visible even in panel C. Wrong again. Lying again. Evading again.
Just admit your errors or fuck off Rednoise.
Meantime all the talk is about a miserable less than three percent of the relevant heat fluxes & budgets.
How many Hiroshima bombs to melt 600 Gt of ice per year?
WTF has chewed up all my links???
Test
Warming over the last:
15 years
Bizzar-o
Warming over the last:
15 years
And over the last:
18 years
And over the last:
25 years
#19 BBD
CO2 forcing in the CIMP 5 Multi modal average but not in the observations.
Seems to be a discrepancy which you ignore and Santer tries to explain.
Fuck off yourself.
R-2 45... Pfff.. Yes there are sekts behind climate revisionism where palpacts are in the 'leave the herd and decease' domain, but such pacts operate higher up than at the level of the echelon (cf list elsewhere in this thread) printing here.
#23 Redrum, ice. How many Hiroshima bombs?
"CO2 forcing in the CIMP 5 Multi modal average but not in the observations."
CO2 forcings ARE in the observations.
The latest from Carbon Brief, including comments from Santer:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/02/big-picture-science-new-report-…
"Today two major national academies have laid out what scientists know about climate change". The report is by the UK's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. The conclusion could not be any clearer. Warming continues unabated. This demolishes Rednose's GWPF distortion, as expected.
Its back to the denial blogs for Rednose, I can't wait to see what crap he spews out here next.
#26
He hasn't got a fucking clue.
But the fear of a colt mouthwash is making him assert otherwise, BBD.
:-)
Although at least that would be quick and painless. Unlike his visits here.
I doubt Redarse had had the gumption to actually read Santer's paper, which is why he's glued to having his malformed opinion as pre-loaded by the GWPF's 'interpretation' from some nonentity like Benny fucking Pizzle.
It would further help if deniers such as Redarse realised that the output of garbage that flows from think-tanks like Heartless and Pizzle's outfit are solely aimed at reactionary conservative morons and are not fit for intelligent human beings.
Otherwise they'd link directly to the source material, and not the sewage outlet version.
Probably a similar gremlin to that which chewed up my blockquote tags a page or so ago. On inspecting Page Source they had vanished completely.
Now Rednoise you little scamp check this out, and that does not mean just read the article look behind, drill down through links:
National Academy Of Sciences [and Royal Society] Delivers Highly Readable Climate Change Warning.
You are either a clueless chump Rednoise or a member of GWPF, is your real name Benny?
Something that I suspect is too subtle for the... contrarians here is the difference between ENSO itself and the longer-term cooling influence caused by wind-driven ocean mixing (see England et al. (2014) for detail on the latter).
Studies like Santer14 and Schmidt14 are correcting for ENSO peaks and troughs but *not* for the climatologically significant generalised cooling caused by enhanced wind-driven ocean mixing in the equatorial Pacific. That's still there.
Another factor not accounted for in the analysis in Santer14 are the spatial limitations of satellite data and the effects they have on trends.
UAH covers 85.0N to 85.0S and RSS covers 82.5N to 70S. Consequently:
- UAH and RSS do not pick up the strong warming in the Arctic
- UAH is cool-biased in the Antarctic because the elevation of Antarctica introduces a cool bias into the TLT product.
So *both* satellite TLT products are biased cool relative to surface temperature data sets. To compound this, it now seems that even the surface temperature products suffer from a cool bias (Cowtan & Way 2013).
Here I make a bet with the contrarians: future analyses using improved surface temperature data and accounting for the transient cooling mechanism described in England14 will show very good agreement between the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations.
"UAH covers 85.0N to 85.0S and RSS covers 82.5N to 70S. Consequently:"
It's not the entire globe.
So relying it on as the sole arbiter of global warming or not (as deniers try to do) is inherently wrong.
So remind me again, what was your estimate for the number of years the trend for temperature observations was flat on the Santer graph fig 1c
"So remind me again"
So remind us again where you asked this leading question, as opposed to the one you actually asked “How long is this flat period on his graph to the present day?
15, 20, or 25 years?”?
PS don't ask everyone else to prove your assertion just because you can't.
Rednose,
Get lost. Read the new report from the Royal Society and National Academy of Science and learn something, instead of parroting crap from shills.
They aren't observations, Rednoise. They are *model output*. They have been *processed* to remove various bits of information. Yes - a denier is making a strong claim based on model output compared to... model output. But only because you don't know what you are doing.
You made a statement based on OBSERVATIONS which you then tried to back up with PROCESSED OUTPUT when I demonstrated that it was FALSE by using OBSERVATIONAL DATA.
I am absolutely fucking fed up with trying to get you to see this.
Your claim was FALSE.
Rednoise
Now read #34 again. Perhaps at last it will all start to make sense.
Or perhaps not.
You are right of course BBD.
I should say
Remind me again, what is your estimate for the number of years the trend for the processed temperature observations was flat in graph 1c
#37 wow
Well an answer to either will do. Why don't you take a stab at it.
:-)
I don't like eyeballing graphs and opinionating, but since that's all Rednoise has got re Santer14 panel c, here goes. I see a positive trend from 1979 - 2002, a slight downward step, then a positive trend from 2002 - 2014 (or 2013 if that is the final year shown).
Santer et al. notes that there have been 17 eruptions since 1999, over half of which occurred in the tropics, where their effect on global climate is greatest. The flattening since then is the key result, demonstrating the effects of this spate of minor volcanism on TLT (but see caveats at #34).
Please note that the effects of this volcanism have not been removed from the curves in panel c.
It is painfully clear, Rednoise, that you haven't understood Santer14 and you *have* been tricked by a misrepresentation of a single, decontextualised figure from it.
It is telling that (as Jeff Harvey remarks above) that Whitehouse has eyeballed and opinionated to his heart's content but did not contact the authors for comment.
You really should pick up on the obvious cues. The rest of us do, and it would make these interactions far less problematic.
Now, I've been reduced to opinionating, albeit in an attempt to get you to understand Santer14.
When are you going to admit that your claim - initially based on OBSERVATIONAL DATA was falsified using OBSERVATIONAL DATA?
When are you going to do that?
Rednoise claims: no warming for "about 20 years".
Observational data falsifying this claim here
This is an entirely separate issue from the processed data presented in Santer14. Any attempt by you to pretend otherwise is dishonest evasion.
Your claim was false. Please admit your error now.
I have just discovered another blog pushing GWPF propaganda:
Scotland Against Spin with
New Paper Says Sun Is Causing Global Warming Pause/GWPF.
So the GWPF has too little influence to be subject to Charity Commission investigation has it? I don't think so.
Is the population of the country aware of the GWPF using tax evasion whilst continuing to try to delay action on tackling climate change, climate change which has not only ruined the lives of many in this country but killed some here and many many more abroad.
There is are words to describe such activity.
So Rednoise are you just a simple dupe or are you complicit?
Related to the Koch's by any chance?
Lionel A
Arf, arf.
* * *
GWPF (and Scotland against Spin) has chosen an odd paper to push.
To avoid having to link to "sceptic" blogs, here's press coverage of Stauning (2014) from a neutral source.
Apparently, the conclusion of the paper states:
The problem with this is that it seems to require huge sensitivity to very small changes in solar forcing (on the order of 0.2W^m2 in an 11yr cycle that largely averages out over time).
Perhaps the easiest way to get a handle on the relative size of various forcings is to see them scaled coherently. Solar is in red. It's quite hard to see.
#44
Apologies, delay while cooking tea.
Your attempt at eyballing gets a Ho, Ho, Ho
Hint, try working backwards from the present showing an obvious
slight downward slope from 1998 or flattish since 1994/5
You also notice the differences emerging about 2010 between the processed temperatures referred to as observations (UAH or RSS) by Santer and the CMIP5 multi model average, which Santer then puts down to these 19 VE4 volcanoes.
Which is why I don't like doing it. But I can just as easily laugh at Whitehouse's eyeballing. I hope you can see that.
Everything else has been explained above. You still seem to misunderstand Santer14. You still haven't conceded that your original claim was incorrect.
We aren't going anywhere and it's not my fault. I have tried. You have not.
Frank D,
If people can't afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
The answer remains the same. Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences.
Obviously you don't like that answer. But that is my simple answer to that question.
If it helps to make it any clearer - I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn't work.
For a different example (not housing affordability/availability) there would be different government initiatives that will or won't achieve results.
I do not believe in one particular socio-economic theory. I judge by matching stated goals and purposes against results.
I hope that assists you in moving on?
Well you might well laugh at Whitehouse's eyeballing but it seems pretty flat to me for the last 15-20 years indicating little if any temperature change when it was expected to rise due to increased CO2 concentrations.
Even Nature acknowledges a 16 year hiatus
So a claim of " it seems to have been going on for about 20 years" is not unreasonable.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-…
An interesting article
Rednoise
Still missing the fundamental point: we see short term variability imposed on a long term trend. You can't use the former to estimate the latter. You need a bigger picture.
* * *
It is incorrect. See for yourself:
GAT/TLT 1994 - 2014 twenty year trends
Those are not flat trends. They are positive.
Decadal trends 1994 - 2014:
HadCRUT4 = 0.1C
GISTEMP = 0.11C
UAH TLT = 0.12C
Rednoise @ #54
But still you are refusing to do other than cherry pick statements and to look at some data in isolation rather than take in the whole abstract at your link and if you also visit the links to the three part Met' Offce report I made up-thread and also to their February 2014 report on recent storms into the UK which has a good section on climate models.
Now stop pissing about and do some wider study and stop drinking at the poisoned pools, like too much hard stuff that can also lead to red noses.
Uisgebeatha it ain't.
I prefer an Edradour myself. More exclusive
Laphroaig for me, but Edradour is nice. Almost chocolatey.
Rednoise is confused about the influence on the temeprature record of of ENSO, volcanoes and such. His confusion might (just might...) be resolved if he reads this:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
On the matter of the statistics of detecting significance in the data, Rednumpty might follow the links starting here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/breaking-news-bbc-gets-science-from…
or take it from someone who knows:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/uncertain-t/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gone-with-the-wind/
Stu2
See, this is why I want to be specific.
If people can’t afford to buy then it is unavailable to them.
That's wrong. If people can't afford to buy housing, they can rent it. Investors can buy (because their situation is different), but less well cashed wanne-be owner-occupiers cannot. That is the difference between availability and affordability.
Obviously you don’t like that answer.
I neither like nor dislike that answer, so you are just projecting. I did not like the ambiguity of your answer, because I fully expect the same ambiguity in any discussion of policy options.
I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work.
Well that is something we can agree on, regardless of whether we agree on underlying economics. The problem is that "Options a & b have proved to have had some positive effect. Options c & d have proved to create unintended consequences" is bullshit.
Option A simply privatises profit while socialising cost - this is the exact problem with Direct Action (in fact, its pretty much the problem with all policies that get the tick from media and business groups. If you think land releases solve the affordability problem "without creating too many third party or unintended consequences" the you are mistaken. At a minimum, housing does not exist in a vavuum - houses require water and power and sewerage and roads, and then bigger roads to carry the residents to wherever work is. Which means that tax-payers as a whole are subsidising all house buyers, whether investors or owner-occupiers. The money for this infrastructure diverts funds from other areas where it would be useful, whether ones economic mindset says that should be schools and hospitals, or back in peoples pockets. The fact that these developments are associated with minimal infrastructure support means you can forget about anything like public transport. Instead we are creating vast acreage of car-only suburban wasteland.
Nor does it do anything substantial to address the bubblicious nature of house prices, it just means people can pay a lot to live a long way from anywhere. I'll concede that increased supply exerts a modest downward pressure (modest because the rate of building is relatively small compared to oveall stocks, but without unintended consequences? Anyone who thinks that is smoking something....
Bureacratic costs are an easy mark, but a trivial proportion of the oveall price of buying a new house. It would be easy to target these at specific market sectors (eg a means-tested waiver of stamp duty). In some instances this has been tried, but in the main these sorts of trimmings, while they get good press, achieve nothing because the tide raises all boats equally. If governments reduced stamp duty by a flat $5000 all subsequent sales will be $5000 higher - all that would achieve is to make sellers $5000 richer. Doesn't achieve the desired aim in the least, and has unintented consequences - again reducing revenue that governments need elsewhere.
0 for 2.
More to follow - I have to leave now (as in my lift is waiting).
The following has a certain ring to it:
Benny Peiser the Koch's teaser.
As for the malts, I tried a few out over the years whilst visiting. I had to do this slowly because of a damaged heart, but Ardbeg, an Islay peaty type, is worth it once the taste has been acquired (;like Guinness and Marmite I suppose you either love it or loath it). I was once given a bottle of Caol Ila, once again an acquired taste - good excuse to buy another bottle.
On the more gentle side is Dalwhinnie which I tasted for the first time in 2008 whilst on Ardamurchan, and got stick from SWMBO for my trouble. This one will please those with more refined tastes. But...
If on holiday up there and visiting a bar check out the Black Bottle blended variety, it's good value for money and the one I tasted very smooth, unlike Bells (Ugh!).
I had long wondered what this Dalwhinnie malt tasted like having set off from near the distillery Dalwhinnie along Loch Ericht on a long trek across the hills to Poldubh (near what used to be know as 'Thunderclap Bridge' since removed and replaced by a new bridge about 3/4 mile upstream as I discovered in 2008) in Glen Nevis.
This trek was one of a number of two week periods spent in the hills ''Venture Training' whilst doing RN FAA trade training near Arbroath over a period of about 4 years with an 18 month interruption at an Air Station on (in the) field training.
In those days the Clachaig inn in Glen Coe was a small cosy establishment with a dartboard just inside the door which let in a right hoolie when opened. Propping up the bar, and irritating some with his pipes, would often be 'The Mad Piper of Clen Coe' who turned out to be a Yorkshireman and who would walk the Glen playing his pipes, the Glen being a more lonely place then.
So, back now...
The point here is not that I disagree with the policies Stu2 has suggested are effective. It is that the policies are NOT effective, and have undesirable consequences. Stu has reached into the bag of economic-sound-bite flashcards and pulled out polices that are popularly thought to be effective, but are actually counterproductive.
The only way to make housing truly more affordable, without simply socialising the costs onto the whole of society is to make the investment less attractive or less accesible, to get investors out of the market and leave the field clear for owner occupiers.
Options c and d do that. Sure, c involves shafting investors with the addition of a whole host of unintended consequences (ripple effects through the economy), so balance and delivery of policy changes is very difficult to get right. d is probably racist. But regardless of these issues, they are the ones that attempt to actually solve the problem. The fact that Stu2 chose to focus on the side effects rather than the core effects is quite illuminating. Stu would favour a policy mix that does not solve the problem, spreads the costs among society as a whole, and has a number of unintended consequences, so long as it does not ruffle the feathers of people he cares about.
So why this three page multi-day discussion to get to this point?
Because - as I'm sure the more astute realised - I don't give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned). But the solutions proposed have analogues in the climate policy space. Not a one-to-one relationship, but the choices of cost-benefit, effectiveness, risk of unintended consequences etc are similar.
Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy "solutions" that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don't really want solutions to these issues.
As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we're doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure.
For conucopian read cornucopian.
Although its kind of a sweet neologism...
A virgin thread can be taken.
#66, double-took 'conucopian'. Associating narrow conal vision field with this concept-to-be. Etymologically the neologism could be superfluous. Am I interpreting the sweetness rightly?
Five temperature data sets with solar variability, ENSO and volcanic aerosols removed by linear regression to reveal the underlying anthropogenically forced trend. From Foster & Rahmstorf (2011).
* * *
Thanks to Bernard J for reminding me that this should have been posted much earlier in the "discussion" above.
Thanks BBD for locating that animated version. I had intended to include that as well but forgot to chase it up in the process of collecting the other links.
They all just goes to show that the pausists are all bafflegabbers and thimbleriggers. Very much like Eli's current infestation of Richards who think that the oceans aren't acidifiying...
That plonker trolled ATTP with that rubbish a couple of months ago. I saw him at Eli's but could not be bothered. Has anyone pointed out to him yet that he doesn't understand the coastal water pH ranges he's waving around? In the sense that they allow for large, dynamic *local* variability typical of coastal environments. Nobody is suggesting that these pH ranges can be applied to entire basins. He was told this at ATTP, by me, very clearly indeed, so he's being extremely intellectually dishonest peddling the same tripe elsewhere. Go and kick his arse. Again.
;-)
BBD, yes, I did exactly that a little while back after said plonker repeated for about the umpteenthth time that the range of pH in sea water is 2.5 to 8.5, as if this makes irrelevant a change of several tenths of a unit, but so far there's been no response.
It'll come though, in the form of yet another display of the triumph of recalcitrantly ignorant ideology over pure and simple fact.
...after said plonker repeated for about the umpteenthth time that the range of pH in sea water is 2.5 to 8.5...
Frank D @ # 62, 64 & 65.
Sigh
How disappointing.
" Because – as I’m sure the more astute realised – I don’t give a fig about housing affordability (at least as far as this discussion is concerned)."
followed by:
" Stu2 has said he thinks its okay for people to make private profit while socialising the costs underpinning that profit, deploy “solutions” that dont solve the problem as long as they cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to investors. As an aside, I suspect based on his notion that releasing more land on the urban fringe solves this problem, that Stu2 suffers from the same conucopian fantasies shared by so many who don’t really want solutions to these issues."
Disappointing because:
1) From the first I questioned the relevance of using a presumed shortage of affordable housing in Australia as an example.
2) I clearly stated (and you sort of agreed with this comment at 62) :
" I think governments should continue doing what works and cease doing what doesn’t work."
Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think - nowhere at all.
If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem then I would obviously suggest that Governments should cease that behaviour.
You conclude with:
"As one of the people who are paying ~$150 for every tonne of CO2 fossil fuel emitters egt to dump into our atmosphere for free, i have a bit of a problem with that as a solution. If they want to keep polluting, let the fuckers pay for it themselves. What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure."
Considering my original question was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something that we all agree we should be concerned about - those comments of yours are very disappointing as they are just basically sweeping negative comments and are not really addressing the practical concerns we all should have about really important issues such as overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm.
However, as I don't wish to be summarily dismissive, please consider these clarification questions and I will try to keep them as direct and simple as possible.
1) Is your - 'bit of a problem with that as a solution' - the fact that you're personally paying $150/t for CO2 or are you questioning something else?
2) Who in particular would the "f******s" be paying (to pollute) and for what particular purpose other than to pollute?
3) You may not have intended to but you have basically argued that because what we're doing now has unintended consequences then there is nothing wrong with creating more unintended consequences. Would you care to clarify?
Also Frank,
Considering you went into a lot of detail above - I should be fair and clarify what I observed to be the unintended consequences of option c.
I do not profess to be an expert of course - but my observation was that when negative gearing was removed as an option for property investors in Australia, while it did release some affordable housing for home owners, it created a problem with the lower end of the rental market and also revealed a chronic shortage of public housing available to compensate for the less fortunate who were at the lower end of the rental market.
Stu2 - the housing question was not irrelevant. Its purpose - as stated several times - was to establish your general economic outlook. And as called, you think it is okay to socialise costs and privatise profits. The fact that your answers served as a metaphor for your outlook on climate change policy is merely a fringe benefit.
"Nowhere have I said I think what you claim I said I think – nowhere at all."
Ahh, yes, you did. Which is why I took such pains to clarify exactly what you meant. At page 7, #73, you said: "A & B have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences."
So my summary of your position is exactly correct.
Later on...
Stu2 (page 8, #50): "If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success..."
I called the weasel-wording out ahead of time.
Me (page 8, #69): (that “if” could be misconstrued…)
Since you had previously stated that the evidence did indicate that, claiming you were only conditionally endorsing those positions...
""If you are correct and options a & b have not proved to solve the stated problem ..."
... is just lame. Your "if" wasn't conditional, it was a syllogism, based on a premise which, though false, you had already asserted,
"was about the PROVEN and PRACTICAL methods for tackling something..."
Well, what is this "something" we want to tackle? So far you shown a remarkable inability to fix on a single question, whether put to you or put by you. But if you can state it the "something" unambiguously, I'll happily speak to it.
But since nobody has PROVEN and PRACTICAL solutions to such a ridiculous generalisation as "...overpopulation, poverty, inequity and environmental harm...", I can only assume this is a deliberate attempt to "poison the well", as it were. Your comments on Page 5 #11, for example:
speak to a terminal lack of good faith.
The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it.
And before you witter on about being negative again, I'm just stating a fact. That this fact makes for unpleasant reading isn't my fault.
As to your questions:
1. I am. You are. Everybody is. But there was a bit lost in editing: "That as a solution" = Continuing to emit GHG's without cost to the emitters and mitigate the consequences.
2. On the first pass, it doesn't matter. A remediation fund/governments, national/international. getting tied up on that is another dodge, a failure to understand the key point. What is absolutely critical is that the energy market no longer be allowed to continue to externalise the cost of their emissions. That makes sense from whatever your economic persepective. So the question is, do you agree that a price on carbon commensurate with the cost? Once we agree on that, debating about the best mechanism might be worthwhile.
3. Where have I argued that? Quotes please.
Stu2, whatv Frank is referring to is the fact that the environmental costs of economic activities are externalized. Society therefore picks up the costs whereas the polluters don't pay anything. Progressive economists and those advocating a steady-state approach to counter the effects of dwindling resources and environmental destruction have been arguing this point for years, only to be drowned out by the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade who appear to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. They think that consumption and waste production can forever increase due to their almost religious belief in the triage of economic efficiency, unlimited substitutability and technology.
Of course, many of these same people are pretty silent when it comes to policies in developing nations. where are corporations obtain most of their raw materials. They realize well enough that if the poor in developing nations aspire to the same standards of living that we enjoy in the west, then we'll urgently need to find another few Earth like planets nearby in the cosmos to plunder. But, as far as I know, Earth-like planets are hard to find these days. So we have to constrain our plunder to lands of the south - meaning our politicians pay lip service to eradicating poverty (they are lying) whilst we continue to loot, steal, plunder, thieve, call it what you like, resources and capital from these countries, all at the behest of our transnational corporations to ensure that they continue to rack up big profits. Its ecocide writ large, but our supine corporate media doesn't write up much about it, because its owned by, or depends on advertising from, many of the same corporations that are reaping the rewards from the current rapaciously undemocratic system.
In Rio at the Biodiversity Summit (actually, the summit was more about who had patent rights over biodiversity than protecting it) in 1992 corporations fought tooth-and-nail against full cost pricing (e.g. internalizing the costs of corporate activities). They knew full well that a move in this direction would necessitate a massive shift away from a fossil-fuel based economy because of the massive social and environmental costs of extracting, refining and burning fossil fuels. And since the US is by-and-large a corporate state, where the citizenry has been rendered impotent. of course they got their way.
Something we have long suspected:
Study suggests internet trolls may not be mentally healthy in real life. H/T caerbannog666 in a reply at Climate Crocks on the Holdren v Pielke article.
Note this story in a thumbnail at the head of that 'Raw Story' page:
where a media shill and a crank give vent to their spleens no doubt. Some other items of interest up there too.
Jeff #77,
Actually the people who you refer to as "the dinosaurian neo-classical brigade" would, if they had any consistency, support a substantial price on carbon.
Externalities are by definition a market failure, and market failures by definition represent economic inefficiencies. A free-market economist of any stripe will supports the idea that market failures should be corrected to improve the efficiency of the market.
It should not matter whether you are Keynesian or Chicago-schoolian or any of the dozens of other streams of ëconomic "thought" (some of which are little better than kaffee-klatches), all implicitly or explicitly support a price on carbon.
So why is this a contentious point? Hint: the word "hypocrisy" must feature in any answer to this question.
The question of conucopianism* versus steady-state reform is also a critical one to environmental degradation generally, but also more vexed, and away from the first issue of cricing GHG emissions. One step at a time, I think.
*It amuses me to stick with that accidental neologism for now. For cRR's benefit - since it seemed to get by him at #68, "con-" as in confidence trick. Seems apt.
BBD#55
Another one from Nature concerning "seems to have been going on for 20 years" meme
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
+1 for Delwhinney
March 2, 2014
BBD#55
Another one from Nature concerning the “seems to have been going on for 20 years” meme
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html
Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors…
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
Laphroaig too harsh for my sensitive palette.
+1 for Delwhinney
Thomas Jefferson wrote a famous letter to James Madison in which he questioned the right of governments to incur long term debts. WRT to debt, I think his thesis is a little lacking*, but with regard to our attitude to the environment, it is worth quoting a section:
Yet future generations will look at what we had and what we left to them and recognise that we have burdened them with our intergenerational debt. The dead us will indeed be exercising power and rights over the future living them.
* Jefferson was talking about intergenerational debt, but he lived in a time when governments did not typically invest in long term capital assets, but normally only for consumptive activities like wars. Consequently he does not consider the cases where a valuable asset is developed at the cost of incurring that long term debt. Such debts are not of the kind he is discussing, since they (hopefully, at least) provide more future economic good than future economic harm.
But the intergenerational environmental debt we are passing on is out of all proportion with any long-term economic good that might come from it. Only in some conucopian fantasy where there will always be more of everything can that sort of activity be justified, What we are doing here (and with a great number of commonly-owned assets, incidentally) is more analogous asset stripping.
Pillaging for profit and leaving only debt in your wake is generally considered a bad thing. So why is this a contentious point?
I wrote in #78 above:
And look what turns up to start the March thread.
And Rednoise:
Who says? CATO institute? You too belong in that study through #78 above.
Do you not grasp what is going on around the world and how devastating this is an from only around one degree Celsius increase in temps since C1900?
This is all your sort can do quibble and wibble. The big picture does not change. Despicable!
Try not painting the town red with it.
And try to get your scientific facts right while you're at it.
This is just a stupid lie. You discredit only yourself by lying like this.
* * *
Fyfe and Gillett have been banging a drum for low TCR for years. They are over-invested in attempts to derive TCR estimates from recent climate behaviour and all such efforts are highly sensitive to transient variability. So they low-ball the estimate. In simple terms: wrong-o.
If you actually understood any of this, you would grasp the nuances, but since you are essentially a denier arguing from ignorance and profound prior commitment, presumably to some foul political fantasy, you always get it wrong.
* * *
Add a drop of water to your scotch if you cannot cope with it neat. You will find that it opens the palette and allows you to appreciate what you are paying for.
And wittering about preferring a particular dram because it is "more exclusive" makes you sound like a complete prat.
And don't quote selectively either. At least go and find a full version of the abstract even if you can't be bothered to read the paper you are waving around. The truncated paragraph you pasted up reads as follows:
If you had a clue, you would know that solar forcing has been over-estimated relative to the very low activity during SC24, volcanic aerosol negative forcing has been under-estimated, and natural variability under-accounted for (wind-driven equatorial Pacific circulation; see England et al. 2014).
Account properly for the transient influences and two things happen: you get good agreement between models and observations (Schmidt et al. 2014), and your estimates for TCR and ECS are validated.
Bad news for deniers.
And you can't even spell "Dalwhinnie."
Rednoise, perhaps this article, On mismatches between models and observations will assist you in rationalising your thoughts on this particular thorny issue with which you have spiked yourself.
Note:
Note also the remarks on Feynman.
Now, models may have you confused, after all there are a number of them and they are aimed at different problems. For a good explanation of model limitations and what is being done to improve them then I once again refer you to the excellent Met' Office report by Julia Slingo (that got Lawson so heated hah!): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_…
and the earlier three parter on The recent pause in warming.
Now you cannot claim ignorance of the type that leads you to make such preposterous replies here, for these have been pointed out to you time and time again.
Now stop being a prat.
So having been comprehensively shredded once again, "Rednoise" morphs into "David Duff" and starts posting shite on the next thread.
I think I let this go too easily.
Which journal was the rebuttal published in, when was it published and who were the authors. Please link to the paper(s) you refer to.
If you can't then you can acknowledge your error like this:
Foster and Grant 2011 discredited for its failure to account properly for transient responses.
I asked that in #82 but he has not replied as yet. I'll not hold my breath.
He can't spell 'palate' either...
Frank D
The thread has probably petered out but I will re iterate that I am very disappointed:
"The economic position you have espoused is to a large extent the cause of the problems you claim to want to solve. Anyone who thinks you can solve a problem by doing the same things that caused it is insane. So Stu2, you are the problem. Own it."
Firstly I am amazed that you could tag me as some type of enemy and the source of the problem? That is not a good way to foster a discussion Frank. Despite your ridiculous assertion I am concerned about caring for our planet and future generations.
That comment was in relation to a question I asked Jeff Harvey earlier in this thread and I was questioning him about how to solve the environmental harm that is occurring in third world countries.
Option a in that question is far from the cause of the problem. The harm caused by inappropriate land use is largely caused by people who do not understand how to use modern, best practice, sustainable farming methods and who therefore, out of the necessity to survive, continue to use primitive slash and burn type methods.
That question was also accompanied by another about overpopulation in third world countries.
And in answer to your question - this is the quote re 'unintended consequences:
" What, that will have unintended consequences? Well what we’re doing now will have unintended consequences, thats for damn sure."
Considering that my original question and hence the continuing comments was linked to that 'something' that we should all be doing about it, I do find this comment of yours disconcerting.
It appears that you're just interested in making someone else pay and wasting time on a false, negative psychoanalysis of me, rather than a discussion about what could actually solve some of the issues that Jeff Harvey raised earlier in the thread.
#89
Its Foster and Rahmsdorf. I thinkFoster Grant used to make sunglasses
A by no means exhaustive search produced the following:
Masters 2013
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/1065/2013/esdd-4-1065-2013.pdf
Then there is Tung and Zhou 2012
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.full
Then there is an article by Stevef on The Blackboard
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/estimating-the-underlying-trend-in…
So, I have quoted two recent papers from Nature in support of my statement
All you have offered to counter this is a 3 year old discredited paper.
By the rules of the blog which you kindly explained several months ago, I claim victory in this argument and my prize will be a small and exclusive single malt to be sipped neat without water
Rednoise
Yes, of course. F&R didn't compensate for the effects of wind-driven equatorial Pacific mixing (England et al. 2014). Nor does Schmidt et al. (2014) or for that matter, Santer et al. (2014).
If we took that further transient cooling influence away, the forced trend would be more evident still.
* * *
If you don't know where Tung & Zhou (2012) went wrong yet, this will be useful.
* * *
But none of them has published a rebuttal demonstrating error in the methodology in F&R11.
And until someone does, this claim remains false:
Yes of course, F&R did not compensate for...."
Which is the problem of relying entirely on a single dated paper to defend your argument.
And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.
As I have already drank the prize you cant have it back
"single dated paper"
Ya gotta laugh at Rednose and his appalling attempt at vindication. Like other deniers with no scientific pedigree whatsoever (Jonas comes to mind) one has to wonder why they don't take their remarkable self-professed expertise to the broader academic sphere, such as conferences, workshops, and top scientific journals. Instead, they pound their chests like silverbacks on blogs, claiming illusory intellectual victories which, if thrown into the lions den of academia, would be quickly chewed up and spat out.
I challenged Jonas many times to take his self-righteous wisdom to the climate science community and every request was met with the same teflon like avoidance. I make the same request to Rednose. See how well your arguments stand up to real scientific scrutiny. But of course, you glean your worldviews from other denier blogs like the GWPF and on blogs you will stay with your willful ignorance.
The evidence available to the climate science community seems to move on at pace. Unfortunately JH none seems to penetrate your thick armour plate which resembles that of the dinosaurs.
Works for me, must be a problem at your end but then that is par for the course with you.
Now that SkS article uses scientific peer reviewed to correct for Tung and Zou, note this quote:
.
Clearer now?
"#37 wow
Well an answer to either will do. "
BBD already answered one. You pretend it never happened.
Tell you what, when you acknowledge an answer and understand it, then you can ask for another answer. As it is, it appears answering your petulant queries has no effect whatsoever.
- The problem is that you haven't backed up your lie about F&R11 being "discredited. The *facts* are straightforward: the methodology in F&R *is* robust and *nobody* has demonstrated otherwise. Their results remove much of the noise of natural variability and reveal the forced trend. What they did not do - because they did not attempt it - is to isolate and remove the cooling influence of wind-driven ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific. If they had, the forced trends they describe would have been greater.
So F&R11 stands as an excellent example of why you are full of shit. A following example of your pathetic dishonesty follows on in your lie about the SkS link being broken. It isn't. You are full of shit.
The SkS article demonstrates unequivocally that there is a serious methodological flaw in T&Z - it's junk, basically. So unsurprisingly we find it being waved around by scientifically illiterate deniers like you.
What you never seem to realise is that your endless fragmentary citation of papers you obviously haven't read, let alone understood (eg Masters13, above, which actually supports what I have been saying) makes you look like an idiot - and a mendacious idiot at that.
Enjoy your dram. I hope it was "exclusive" enough to make you happy.