More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Good grief, the Tabernacle's empty! Where has everyone gone? And just as I was about to bring you glad tidings of great joy! Polar ice has INCREASED overall and in the Antarctic it's at the highest levels since satellites first started looking in 1979. Whodathunkit?
And I know this is going to make all you 'Believers' spit blood but even the IPCC has 'fessed up: "‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’"
Yeeeees, quite, I've been saying that for years!
Still, as there's no-one here I'll just scribble it on the wall in case some wandering tourist comes by to see (and giggle) at a place where they worshipped the Faith of AGW.
Boring.
Do try to keep up at the back there. The IPCC quote is from WG1 of AR5 and dates from last year.
It's interesting how the deniers accept the IPCC conclusions that please them, but disparage the ones that don't.
Stop tazing the corpse Duff. ;-) It wouldn't surprise me if the Arctic region suffers from the same problem, ergo "low confidence in the scientific understanding" of the observed decrease of sea ice extent since 1979.
Not instinct yet, Olaus?
Sorry, sorry, sorry! I must have stepped on a squeaky floorboard and woken some of you up. Mind you, I did warn you yonks ago that you were a dwindling sect who would end up holding hands in a tiny circle and chanting "I believe! I believe!" and, lo, it has come to pass.
As dear Oscar, such a sweet boy!, said, "It would take a heart of stone not to laugh!"
Boring. Again.
Duff apparently missed the point made on the previous month's thread about the reason for the quietness.
Then again, he reliably misses every point even when they're made right in front of him...
Duff would never get what any point was for there is no point for Duff.
Apparently he also hears voices - chanting - in his head. He should probably see someone - that is, someone real and actually qualified in psychiatry - about that kind of thing.
Of course we all know the quality of media that primes Duffer's pump do we not. And yes, it could be that serial sinner David Rose in the Daily Mail which includes a large quote from Andrew Montford:
Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
Both of these jerks need a sharp dose of reality!
Both? Surely you lean all three?
Blooming autocorrect, that should be " mean" not " lean".
Duffer only seems to come here when he's repeating someone else's dodgy claims.
I'm not sure he realises how Pavlovian that looks. Or maybe he just doesn't care.
Seventy years ago, David Duff would be trolling William Joyce's newscasts, with the same smug ignorance of how far removed from reality he was.
I'll repeat it one more time:
“‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’”
Now tell me, my little Deltoids, what is it about the words "low confidence", "scientific understanding" and "observed increase" that you don't understand?
And, no, I wasn't quoting any of the people you allude to, it comes from the IPCC, or the 'Warmers' High Command' as I think of it.
Indeed your quote comes from the IPCC report from last September but we suspect that your source was not the IPCC. It would be surprising if you decide to post it here at the same time that it appears in the article mentioned above and there was no connection between the two events.
I would cite passage from the AR5 but unfortunately I am migrating computer systems and the internet connection is too iffy to download the full AR5 WG1 ATM onto the successor system. So I will point you at the WG1 The Physical Science base to trawl through using 'Antarctic sea ice extent' as a search term and note the explanations therein.
However Duffski, whilst you were sleeping, this topic has been batted around a bit but and as usual the incomplete quote you gave takes the matter out of context, the context of the proceeses that are under observation in the Antarctic. Processes such as freshening water due to glacier ice loss to the sea and of a ramp up in the hydrological system causing more precipitation.
There are also changes in the wind and ocean currents causing uneven aggregation of the sea ice forming.
Both due to a warming.
These points are brought up here:
Antarctic sea ice volume where for example Ian Forrester puts these questions to another such as yourself (hope you don't mind Ian):
Can you manage that Duffsepticsceptic?
at the above BBD offers this:
[1] [1]
[2] [2]
[3] [3]
I could point you at a number of other sources of explanation BWITFP!
BTW searching on the quote you supplied throws up The Daily Mail and GWPF at the head of the queue - go figure it is most certainly the echo chamber that you inhabit that provides you with misinformation. You are not an honest skeptic but rather more a septic sceptic.
Drat. Always one little html slip, this time a spurious character in the a hrefequals tag.
[2] [2]
If only you limited your bollocks to one repeat!
Duff appears to be having troubling understanding the very simple facts that:
1) we already knew that the IPCC report expressed low confidence of scientific understanding of the dynamics of Antarctic sea ice. Duff's belief to the contrary does not change this, nor does his "I'll repeat it one more time".
2) We also know the Arctic is losing ice volume about 10 times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so his initial claim that "Polar ice has INCREASED overall" looks both dodgy, and designed to deceive the gullible reader.
3) Accordingly, and for other reasons obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of science, Duff's claims about ice increasing are in no way "glad tidings" about climate change.
I suspect (2) is why he (and the sources he is cutting and pasting his opinions from) are trying - again, as if we haven't rejected the fallacy a hundred times before - to focus on ice area rather than volume, and within that frame are trying to direct attention to the relatively small area gains in the Antarctic and away from the obvious clusterfuck in the Arctic.
Then again, Duff routinely has problems understanding certain types of simple facts, especially the ones that rebut his "glad tidings" claims, doesn't he? It's not like he comes here for the hunting...
The other irony here is that Duff is industriously trying to give the impression that there's nothing to worry about by citing "low scientific understanding" of (sea) ice in the Antarctic, only weeks after papers came out indicating that the WAIS land ice melt is already likely to be both underway and irreversible, and not that long after other papers reported EAIS losses as well. And then there are other research efforts like the one discussed in this report today.
"Low scientific understanding" doesn't imply nothing to worry about, as it means that "oh, shit!" events can happen without even the luxury of scientific understanding foreseeing their likelihood. And low scientific understanding of Antarctic sea ice dynamics won't stop the WAIS melting.
But if Duff foreswore the "low understanding means nothing to worry about" fallacy, he'd lose half his "material"...
In other words Loth: They don't knowwell why the sea ice increased in the Antarctic and they don't know well why the sea ice decreased in the Arctic.
Sicence is, as always, settled. :-)
Indeed, I was going to chip in that uncertainty is a double-edged sword with the edge of uncertainty pointing to a good outcome becoming ever blunter.
And ever blunter should be the messages sent in Montford's direction.
I note that Skeptical Science has a timely article up which also nails the 'fiddling weather station data' oil slick that is going the rounds.
Oh and look, another 'squirrel' from Oily Prat.
What does he not get about the dots being joined on this issue!
I see that Olap refuses to go 'instinct'. Pity.
There are plenty of reasons why the Antarctic ice may increase slightly whereas the Arctic iced decreases precipitously (note the difference in scale). For one thing, even with warming its still going to be very cold in the Antarctic - well below freezing. With increased precipitation, it would fall as snow. Denier idiots like Olap think that warming emans that the Antarctic must be basking in Caribbean type temperatures. Given that the Antarctic is many degrees below freezing most of the year, it will still be very cold under a warming climate. This is hardly rocket science... except for those like Olap who has never read a scientific journal in his miserable life. Hence his hilarious misuse of the word 'instinct'......
I must be losing it. I keep on believing that, this year, every year when the Arctic melt gets going, we'll finally see from the reluctant corners of the climate debate the realisation that sea ice and ice sheets are different things.
And every single year, the same old, same old keeps plodding on. This year is just like all the other years. The Arctic looks like it's disintegrating in front of our eyes, and these loons rattle on about the Antarctic, but not the leading act of the Antarctic, only the little fringe festival on the edges.
I really don't want to live through it, but I sometimes think I'd like to get it over and done with. Let the bloody Pacific do its thing and give us a couple of cracking big El Nino years. There's enough energy in that ocean waiting for its chance to overheat a goodly part of the atmosphere. A couple of blistering summers might even be worth it if it would shut these people up on their idiotic distractions. In fact, it would be worth it if it was only my own comfort that was at stake. But it's not, more's the pity.
Where's Lambert these days. He hasn't put a foot through his own door.
I head you adelady, but even a super El Nino won't do it. The year after it wanes they'll be crowing again about how it's now cooling so there's really nothing to worry about. And it won't matter if the Arctic sea ice almost completely disappears in summer because they'll crow about how "large" the "recovery" is in winter via dividing winter maximum extent by summer minimum extent, or something similar.
Some of them are cognitively incapable of grasping why those are very stupid arguments, and the rest can grasp it but are lying about it, either to themselves or to everyone else.
Er..."I hear you adelady..."
Yep, deniers seem to walk a moving baseline dragging an eraser behind them.
Which leads me to ponder about the movers and shakers erasing the internet record which could cause them all sorts of grief err long. I am sure they are already on it for the internet has been a massive asset in ensuring the exposure and black knighting of these charlatans and mountebanks and they are smarting (as in sore, not becoming more intelligent).
The liars for hire will maybe soon crowing, 'the El Nino didn't happen so there.'
El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?.
Boy have I been wadding through the pigs**t at CP of late, things seem well contained elsewhere, the thread format is hard work ploughing through opening up thread branches. There are many deadheads there but I have been surprised by some support.
It's a curious thing watching self-oblivious idiots sneering about 'low confidence' in Antarctic sea ice increase mechanisms under AGW, when those idiots offer nothing at all. Nothing. They do no research, and avoid alternative coherent science explanations because their intention is nothing more than to reject. So we can have 'no confidence' in their 'position'.
Essentially they unwittingly argue "our rejectionism is the best explanation for Antarctic sea ice processes". What are they arguing if not this? That we don't know, don't need to know, that it doesn't matter? None of those positions is scientifically useful, or of any interest...except as another indication of delusion and misconception, the hallmarks of incoherent rejectionism.
I look forward to a response, an alternative explanation for climate south of 70S, with citations.
......
(The previous comment was meant to invoke the sound of crickets, but ScienceBlogs removed some of the text. It's almost more evocative without it ;-)
Not directly climate change related but this charge was levelled at the Daily Mail recently:
Now will Climate Scientists start taking on this ridiculous paper for what David Rose produces is full of lies?
One of the many things that never ceases to amaze me about the denialist mindset is its utter shamelessness. Catch a denier in a lie and they simply move on to something else as if nothing had happened. And like as not they will be repeating the same lie the next day or week and you go through the whole process again, to no noticeable effect.
Normal people are shamed if caught in a lie. Normal people tend in fact to avoid lying rather than make it a core part of their MO.
" self-oblivious idiots sneering about ‘low confidence’ "
Sir, I would have you know that you speak of the IPCC, the God-head of all climate science!
Comprehension fail again.
#36, true to form, more sneering from Duffy
Well, Duff hasn't got a better explanation for the climate south of 70S, and he can't admit that he's advocating a position of even less understanding than the scientists currently have, so it's not surprising that he's reduced to sneering that only convinces the ignorant and gullible.
It's a risky tactic though. It tends to draw attention to his lack of understanding. Then again, as the joke goes, he's not here for the hunting...
Nothing better to be expected from one steeped in the Daily Fail. And don't try to make out you aren't Duffer for you are even if it is by one remove such as The Torygraph or The 'Wizard of Oz' Times.
Isn't it weird that Duffer thinks Climate Science advocacy is weakening when the other side are running around like headless chickens talking to themselves. Yes they can do that headless for we all know from whence their offerings come, and eggs they ain't.
Oh, no, say it ain't so!
According to 'Meteo France' (no, me, neither) reporting from their weather station at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station, June was the coldest month EVER!!!!
Look, you lot promised me some global warming and I actually love global warming, so much better than an ice age, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only warming you lot are finding is by sticking your heads up your arses! I want my money back¬
Antarctic is in the southern hemisphere where it is currently Winter. Not allot of people know that because they have their heads buried in the sand Daily Fail.
Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station can also be viewed using Google Map.
Now instead of crowing about the colder temp's there why not provide a credible scientific explanation for why that could be. Start doing valid homework Duffer. You may need to do much groundwork as you seem out of contact with the subject.
I know where it is, Lionel, but do tell me what it is about the word "ever", as in the coldest month ever, that you do not understand?
Look, it is you and your Tabernacle choir that has been promising and promising global warming and there's no sign of it and hasn't been for over a dozen years. And yet . . . and yet . . . the CO2 keeps belching out all over Asia. So where is it? I want it!
Duff, still uncomprehending of a thousand previous explanations, confuses the local data with the global average and still pretends there "has been no warming for over a dozen years".
He's totally not here for the hunting, folks.
Are you plain ignorant, a liar or an ignorant liar.
What do you think this shows ?
And for a bonus why I have I used that PARTICULAR period and those data sets?
Common, common one of your pundits skated around this.
Of course that illustration alone is only one element of a WARMING SIGNAL, what are the others?
Of course at this juncture you'll do your usual '...toodle-pip must go and feed the dogs' sort of stunt. Why? Because you are a total 'rhymes with stunt'. Duffers cupid stunts! Go play with your marbles.
Now Duffer maybe you will see the picture emerging if you read these two articles:
If these are the early stages...
Wrong Track
with the message of that latter being relevant to the UK and most other nations with a supposed democracy.
Duffer has passed over the fact that May was the warmest ever globally..... Now how much does that smash his silly argument to smithereens?
But remember all, this is the same guy who once called Obama a Marxist. No kidding. Obama, a corporate bought-and-paid for plutocrat through and through, and Duffer suggests he's far to the left. This should say everything about Duffer's credibility, which by now is in negative figures.
Look, it's no good you lot beating up the messenger! You all predicted global warming - I love global warming - I want global warming - but I'm not getting it!
The satellite survey of lower troposphere temperatures SHOWS NO SIGN OF WARMING FOR JUST UNDER 18 YEARS, the longest period of nil warming since satellites began measuring.
And still the CO2 gushes forth in ever increasing amounts - and on that basis you promised me global warming! I used to flog second-hand cars and I would have had my arse sued off if I had made that sort of promise and failed to live up to it!
So where is it?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/trend
Can't you see the trend?
OMG, it looks like Duff is basing his claim on something written by TVMOB. What a loser.
Except that you are. But you simply refuse to understand what the term "global warming" means, perhaps because that's the only way you can cling to your denial of reality.
That's why I keep saying that, as in the joke, you're not here for the hunting...
"I used to flog second-hand cars"
Now you are flogging second hand stupidity.... good grief, you are a simpleton...
Oh, I see, as 'Lottie' tells me:
"Except that you are [getting global warming]. But you simply refuse to understand what the term “global warming” means".
You mean cold and rainy winters and virtually no significant change in temperatures is the NEW global warming!
Lottie, could I interest you in a very low mileage, 1985, one elderly lady owner, full service history (I printed it myself) Ford Escort?
@ # 45.
Yes, pretty wft graph that shows a .045 deg rise of global average temp since 1995.
Plot the last 10 years on the same graph (ie from 2004 rather than 1995) & the trend is cooling .02 deg .
But neither figure is particularly significant or alarming.
As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds.
As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds.
Fool.
Pass your fingers through a candle flame - no problems.
Hold a finger in the flame - now what?
Now some more context you ignorant twerp:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=trophic+webs+climate+change&hl=en…
A sudden outbreak of rank stupidity, ignorance is excusable - first time around but continued ignorance in the face of supplied information is not. How many times have these goons been shown where they are wrong?
"As far as I am aware, most locations on the globe can
experience and survive similar shifts in temp in the space of a few seconds"
Therein lies the rub. As far as a complete layman is aware... the truth is that none of the deniers who write into Deltoid are remotely aware of anything other than their own profound ignorance when it comes to science. Duffer claims to want warming, ignoring the fact that complex adaptive systems that serve as life support for humanity certainly don't, not at the time scales Duffer suggests.
Is it warming? Yes, it most certainly is. And natural systems are responding. Dopes like Duffer and Stu2 cannot counter examples that proliferate from natural systems. They rely on spewing b* about instrumental trends, distorting this to serve their own agendas.
You are being deliberately obtuse - not a good attribute, if before you wrote your #48 you had paid attention to my #45 you should get the picture.
Here is a reminder:
But we are wasting our time for anybody who gives Rod Liddle a pat on the back has to be a few sandwiches short of a 'balanced world view' diet. I wouldn't be surprise if he also gives a chuck up for Melanie Phillips (I just chuck up hearing her speak). Oh wait! Whilst scanning down his blog of bigotry and finding this:
I noticed an image of the harridan from Fleet Street. I came across truly dreadful articles from Phillips and Liddle Rod back when the Sunday Times was around the place - I liked to see how the others tick.
This guy Duff is beyond our help, dyed in the wool like the sheep he doesn't recognise he is.
Nope, I don't mean that, so thanks for further illustrating my point. (You're not here for the hunting, yada yada...)
I mean global warming, which means assessing temperatures across the globe (including surface, ocean subsurface and atmospheric temperatures), or if you want to be really rigorous starting at the top of atmosphere and measuring the radiation energy imbalance. It also means assessing them across the entire year, not just winter wherever you happen to be.
Your local conditions are no measure of global temperature trends, and your winter conditions are no measure of annual conditions - as you either well know or abjectly deny (rather than admit you've been spouting stupidity for several years now).
It's a "good" used car salesmen trick to pretend that a word that other people understand to mean something means something different to yourself, therefore you can claim you weren't outright lying when you used it the unusual way you had in mind even though you knew or ought to have known that it would be interpreted differently. It doesn't work when you're talking about science though, and it paints you as the intellectual equivalent of a shonky used car salesman.
Me? No. See, I happen to have exactly one of those sitting here right now surplus to requirements and I simply don't have time myself to get around to finding a buyer. I will let you have it cheap, seeing you're so good at flogging that kind of thing which will make it a win/win. Deal?
(They say that salespeople are the easiest people to sell to, because they tend to fall for the very techniques they apply to others. I suspect that often extends to intellectual bullshit as well as sales bullshit.)
So when my accountant tells me I should be worried and take action because I'm spending $1000 more per month than I earn and that's going to be a real problem as my savings are increasingly depleted, the appropriate response is "those figures are not particularly significant or alarming, because my bank account can normally survive shifts in balance of $1000 up and down per day", right?
Or does your "logic" only work when it's applied to climate?
Well, this is an Aussie site so why don't you go tell all those shivering Aussies in Brisbane who are experiencing the coldest winter in 103 years!
As for scientific, er, 'expertise', I think if I had been forecasting horrendous global warming because of CO2 emissions for the past 30 years, I would keep very, very quiet on the subject of my, er, learning!
David Duff
You are lying by omission.
GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1996 - present; annual means, linear fit
So the deniers cherry-pick the outlier, RSS:
RSS, 1996 - present, annual means, linear fit
RSS TLT is borked. Even Dr Roy knows that:
You've been conned by liars, Duff.
Duff #60
Warming induced climate change is a global concern so pack it in with your Liddle Englander stance it makes you look well, er small.
I'll bet that the dinner parties between Lawson, Ridley, Liddle, Delers and Phillips are curious affairs as they ritually slice and eat water-melons, this must come as a relief to Phillips who always appears to be sucking lemons.
Nigel's opening sermon followed by Liddle special roast mole for starters, grilled Ridley turtle for mains, dribbled with lemon juice then the palette freshened by water melon all consumed around a centrepiece of dressed Rose. Why don't you join them Duff after all they are clearly your kinda of people.
Their flies on the wall would surely have nothing to tell for their message is empty of all sensible and rational discourse.
But Monkytunes still uses it as the basis for the header at his con site. Hence my question, repeated, which Duffer boy avoids answering, as they always do.
Let's be fair:
You are lying by omission.
You have been misled by people who are lying by omission.
@#55 8 #59
We are talking about +0.045 deg over 20 years or -0.02 deg over 10 years.
Look at the wft graph posted @# 45 & then type in 2004 for the 10 year trend.
Or intellectual used car salesmen - and he prefers to try and defend the lemon he bought from them rather than admit he was conned.
Interesting. You simply ignore the fact that your illogic was pointed out and carry on as if your argument still holds. Why am I not surprised?
I did. Did you?
The graph in #45 runs for just over 17 years rather than 20, and it shows a rise in linear trend of about 0.15C in UAH (more than 3x what you claimed), about 0.14C in GISTEMP (more than 3x what you claimed), and about 0.10C (more than 2x what you claimed) in HADCRUT4.
Given how badly off your characterisation of it was, would you care to reconsider your use of the graph (and the illogic you previously applied to it) as evidence that there's nothing to worry about?
And then there's this from the same comment as the graph you focused on:
Well, this is an Aussie site so why don’t you go tell all those shivering Aussies in Brisbane who are experiencing the coldest winter in 103 years!
Poor Duff...Brisbane metro had its coldest July night---one night--since 1911... how this becomes a claim about winter I don't know...apart from the obvious observation that you are an ass.
Meanwhile,June in Brisbane--the first month of winter [offered in the certainty that you will be hemispherically confused]-- was 2C above the long term average.
The July mean is so far average....so there is no sign yet that Brisbane's winter will be the 'coldest in 103 years'. It is more likely to rank as one of the warmer ones.
Because I am too savvy to buy the intellectual lemon that local conditions are indicative of global conditions. You, on the other hand, are stupid or dishonest enough to repeat it after it has been explained to you a hundred times.
You have bought a lemon there too - bit of a habit with you - and you're waxing lyrical about what a great deal you got! No-one has been forecasting "horrendous global warming" over the 30 year period starting from 30 years ago.
@66 Total agreement!
Oops sorry about that plot at #49.Didn't réalisé that RSS was now thé deniers' favorite. Here's its trend coared tout thé others:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:1996…
The above is what you get if you leave autocorrect in French and don't correct the corrections before posting. Can you work out what I was trying to say?
turboblocke
Yes ;-)
I quite like this as a means of illustrating just how out of whack RSS really is wrt UAH TLT and surface temperature reconstructions.
RSS has been recurrent denier cherry-pick du jour for some time. Monckton started peddling it (falsely labelled as surface temperature!) a good few months ago. Maybe longer.
What amazes me is that you can point out the deliberate deception using a single graph (eg yours or mine) and yet the deceived party doesn't react by getting angry with Monckton.
Why is that? In normal reality, if somebody tricks you and you find out about it, you get annoyed or worse with the person who deceived you. But pseudosceptics just keep ploughing on from one rigged graph to the next, apparently uncaring that they have been manipulated and deceived.
How bizarre is that?
Actually, now I check, it seems he's been doing this for several years. Here's a recent example. Note the false labelling of RSS TLT as 'global mean surface temperature change'.
That's just a careless, ignorant error. The presentation of an outlier alone is deliberately deceptive.
BBD, #75 that is exactly the one I took issue with here:
in June's Open Thread
the one which appears at the top of the 'Charter' (FFS) of his latest so called charity wheeze and which was the basis of my woodfortrees diagrams brought to Duffer's attention here, again, in my #57 above.
Duffer has still not grasped the purpose of my time period pick. What a Duffer!
Interesting where you found your version.
Ah that's comedy gold, Lionel. You should have quoted some for the thread:
And so on and on. For another four paragraphs. Highlights include:
You want to live in a world where this is simply satire, don't you? It would be a better world than this.
I think Munchkin is deluded enough to believe his own BS.
I didn't quote it here because I felt too sick whilst reading it and didn't wish to pass on the discomfort. Not a criticism of you doing so BTW.
This from somebody who has been in a 'bang seat' of heavy metal being thrown around the skies on practice intercepts without feeling the slightest qualms, my only problem being excruciating pain in ears during the decent phase of one such trip, yes I did follow the equalising procedures without success.
BBD ref your plot in #74: how did you determine the offsets?
turboblocke
I rebaselined everything to the UAH 1981 - 2010 baseline by obtaining the mean for that period for the chosen time-series and using the WfT "offset" function to subtract it from the time-series. The mean is helpfully provided in the WfT "Raw data" page.
Remember to use From: 1981 - To: 2011 to get JAN 1981 - DEC 2010
Sorry, I should have included this:
Hadcrut4, GISTEMP, RSS 1981 - 2010:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1981/to:2011/plot/gistemp/…
The Raw data gives rounded means (offset values) of:
HadCRUT4 - 0.3
GISTEMP - 0.4
RSS - 0.1
Just for fun:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT, RSS TLT 1996 - present; common 1981 - 2010 baseline; monthly means; OLS linear fits
Thanks BBD that's useful to know.
It changed my life.
:-)
RSS TLT vs UAH TLT is interesting. If you look closely, RSS diverges from UAH ~2005.
RSS TLT and UAH TLT 1979 - present; common 1981 - 2010 baseline; linear fits 1979 - present and 1996 - present
Only a trip to Vegas could defibrilate the stone dead heart of David Duff
Calvin Beisner, Dr Roy, the Cornwall Alliance and dominionist theology. A damn big oh dear.
Here's an article about it all, which is the source for these quotes from the Cornwall Alliance publication Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion not Death:
Good to know where they are coming from.
Talking about Monckton: Monckton suffers from Graves' Disease, which is linked to psychiatric problems. Given his erratic behaviour, that link is important. Photos of him show some of the symptoms of the disease, namely proptosis (bulging eyes). I think people should take note that this man, who advocates denialist opinions that are extremely dangerous for all mankind, meanwhile suffers from a disease that affects mentation.
You guys are still only talking about fractions of degrees over approx 20 years on a global average scale.
It is also clear that the GLOBAL trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose.
For Stu2: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif
Is Stu saying that the current levelling means we don't have to be concerned about the future trajectory?
Does Stu2 have any evidence to support his notion that the current levelling off will continue indefinitely?
So...in response to my:
...the answer appears to be "no". I'd point out the stupidity of the (apparent) argument, but it's been done over and over again.
What FrankD and turboblocke said. Just about every single denialist that isn't a drive by commenter eventually tries that particular piece of rhetoric on, and not one of them has ever managed to back up the implication they wish to draw from it with a solid argument.
Not one.
I don't know what's worse - that they think the implication obviously follows from their observation, or that they don't but hope that we are gullible enough to.
At this juncture think it useful to remind ourselves just how dishonest and devious the pair of comics 2stupid & Duff can be, earlier this year at Deltoid:
from February 2014 Open Thread.
2S & Duff (one the vocalist and the other the dumber) are like a pair of tapeworms running through all the threads but never absorbing anything.
Stu 2 is stuck in a loop, because we've had this conversation before:
I am going to edit this so that it better expresses what is actually happening:
"It is also clear that the GLOBAL surface temperature trend has flattened considerably over the last approx 10 years no matter which data set you choose but OHC continues to rise rapidly demonstrating the ongoing accumulation of energy within the climate system as a whole. Recent studies suggest that this is a transient effect arising from a combination of a weak solar cycle, an increase in volcanic aerosols, a preponderance of La Nina events and an increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake in the equatorial Pacific. There is no evidence that climate sensitivity is lower than previously estimated, nor that "global warming" has stopped or even slowed down when the climate system as a whole is considered, rather than just the small part of it comprising the troposphere.
Please - this time - read the words Stu 2.
Has anyone heard from BernardJ lately? I haven't seen him about in a while, and hope he's okay.
OT, but don't forget all the oil & gas.
Why is the BBC so slow to to show this on their News site:
NATO officials believe missile attack behind MH17 crash?
Could it have been something like this used:
Missile profile: 9K37 Buk?
From WUWT, new begging video from Tim Flannery, he wants your money - again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/hard-times-for-aussie-alarmists-f…
I'm sure regulars here will be only too keen to contribute to such a "worthy" cause.
;)
Already did, GSW, already did - it's another small means to poke a stick in the (metaphorical) eye of those in power who don't give a shit about the climate or those who will get screwed by it and want inconveniently dissenting voices to be heard an awful lot less - quite apart from the direct value provided by the Climate Council's work.
But if you're going to dub things "begging", it's seem passing strange that you've failed to post about all the denialist begging that's gone on over the last year or two. It would be irresponsible not to speculate why your observations are so one-sided, no?
Indeed, I wonder what GSW thinks this is about. Warning Monkey business have a barff bag handy or de-clutter the floor before viewing.
Duffer still has not answered my question in that respect.
Tim, I've got two comments stuck in moderation. They are essentially the same, so you only need to retrieve one of them if you get the chance to check them.
Sou.
To show how devious Monckton is being by displaying this graph I extended the range of my woodfortrees plot linked up-thread first back to 1995 which showed even RSS as a positive trend but not quite so marked as if one extends back to 1991.
Oops, drat, being harassed by another hope this is clearer.
To show how devious Monckton is being by displaying this graph I extended the range of my woodfortrees plot linked up-thread first back to 1995 which showed even RSS as a positive trend but not quite so marked as if one extends back to 1991.
Monckton does not listen to alarmists!
Having a copy of Bill McGuire's 'Waking the Giant' I was curious about his 'Global Catastrophes' (surprise pdf link found here) when I noticed this compact and well produced book on the shelves.
Although a bit long in the tooth at nine years since published date , Katrina being mentioned, it looks at a range of bad moods we can expect from mother nature as we continue to warm and otherwise deface this planet.
The beginning of the chapter, 'Global Warming: A lot of Hot Air?' includes these very apposite statements considering we are now those nine years on and we know some of those responsible for a lack of concerted action and Bill names one such, from pages 23-24:
Such a book would be worth the reading for the likes of a certain John character who popped up on HotWhopper recently.
Moron at #95 must enjoy the irony of WUWT running that stale attack piece on Flannery while Watts always has the begging bowl out....
The contents of the piece by 'Eric Worrall' is just repetition of quote-mining by News Ltds finest minds...obviously a slow news week at the website for the slow-minded by the slow-minded.
Friends, to make you less lonley here is the current state of the "death spiral" aka the "canary" in climate scientology:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Scary isn't it? ;-)
I don't know about scary, but it's well over 1,000,000 km2 below the mean for the satellite period baselines for this date...so the melt season is unfolding pretty much as expected.
At least the canary is better off than "previously thought": ;-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
#4 the pick-one-outlier-and-snigger school of 'criticism'. Arctic sea ice decline is ahead of schedule according to IPCC review of all projections.
I can't snigger at you as an outlier, OP, as your rejectionist projection is bang in the middle of abysmal.
Well Ill raise you on that oh oily prat:
PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME
Full context @:
Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Reada da wordsa oily prat.
Now stop being so silly.
Nick, OP's problem is that he hasn't yet gone 'instinct'...
If only.
Dear Lionel, what are you raising?
Roll-up! Roll-up! Roll-up! Enter the clown of the circus that is Australian Parliament:
Tony Abbott - the bridge builder.
Sorry, but I really do not understand how such a creature could rise to the top, GSW, OP & co. may have the answers here.
I believe I have the answer Lionel. Abbot is a reaction against the unscientific climate scare cult. In other words he is your fault. :-)
Disingenuous, as previously explained. It's better off than the worst end of the range of projections from arguably the most pessimistic researcher. That doesn't make it "better than previously thought" by the profession, and if you understand projection ranges it doesn't necessarily make it "better than previously thought" by that researcher.
So apart from the fact that you're reiterating a disingenuous argument, if I'm now confirmed to be only dying of one terminal disease instead of two I was previously diagnosed with, would you tell me that I have nothing to worry about?
(Are you truly that thick, or do you just play super-thick on blogs because you're not good enough to play it on TV?)
#9 Lionel, that was most amusing.
Putrid's point is like arguing that an extinction (or, in his case, instinction) rate that is predicted by experts to be as bad as 40% over a given time frame turns out to be 'only' 30%... as Lotharsson says above. And of course, anyone with half a brain would realize that an extinction rate of 30% is also a catastrophe.
This reveals the depth of dishonesty to which deniers will go. They try and take a calamitous situation and put a positive spin on it. They are indeed a wretched lot.
Dear Jeffie, my instinct tells me that the Arctic sea will not be exstinct anytime soon. ;-)
What is Olaus twittering on about?
How does a sea "be exstinct"?
Did Olaus not even complete *primary* school?
I think Oily Prat has a distinction in Red, it being a primary colour. That is about as far as his primary education went.
Now for a real education in some pertinent areas Oily Prat could do worse that to find a copy of the excellent, if now a little dated being of 2001 Cassell's Atlas of Evolution: The Earth, its Landscape, and Life Forms where he will discover another Mass Extinction event indicated at the end of the holocene timeline.
Now if OP cannot figure out when that was then this Geological Time Spiral (which I based on that found in the cited volume and to which I added a tree of mine own construction) will assist with his orientation.
That is still a worthwhile book BTW and it is a great shame that most of US Congress and Aussie parliament are ignorant about its subject matter.
There is now no excuse for naysaying that a mass extinction is underway, which is why atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen originated the term for a new geological period The Anthropocene.
Olaus exhibits classic symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. No explanation needed. His quips are moronic and his grasp of English is appalling. He also does not consult the primary literature - instead, he relies on second and third party sources like WUWT and other climate change denying blogs for his scientific information. He then constantly pastes it here, as if it is the definitive source.
My comments are still stuck in moderation. Is there any chance of adding me to the whitelist please?
Ten months after the lies a correction is finally wrung out of the wretched News Ltd
Nick #18
The sickening thing is that who amongst those who read the original articles and letters in that bogpaper will bother scanning that response, let alone digesting its message.
Once again it is mission accomplished and they will not be stopped until there are severe consequences threatened, substantial fines, ban on circulation of more papers until a prominent apology is promised and if that fails custodial sentences for those who push the lies in the first place.
Meanwhile, two decades where affirmative action in mitigation have been lost. This means that whatever the punches the boxer throws in the near future are going to be needlessly heavier than those seen thus far. Now that is criminal.
Lionel #19, last year Murdoch campaigned hard against the ALP's suggestion of modest improvements to a timely right of reply and redress over innaccurate and misleading articles. He won, just as he had forty years ago when the Whitlam government invited news organisations to discuss an accountability framework. He just trumpets alarmist rubbish about removal of free speech, unaccountable bureaucrats and censorship, and political parties go to water.
This correction was placed on page 8 of the paper, and reproduced in full length, obviously in the confidence that few readers would wade through it....and it took ten months to deliver what people here figured out and cross checked inside 48 hours.
And there are a mere eighty or so further articles on climate matters in need of the same printed correction. Mission accomplished indeed.
Murdoch is a 'roach, one who recently declared "...climate change should be approached with great skepticism. "
There are some reality challenged ideologues popping up in the comments there.
Sou at HotWhopper has linked to this article on the Heartland Circus get together Crashed a Climate Change Denial Conference in Las Vegas
Sad, sad, sad Delingpole, Soon and Monckton
One thinks he is a gifted writer, another thinks he is an important scientist and another a member of the House of Lords. Which one is which I am not sure, I doubt any of them are any the wiser.
Bast is just another 'roach.
The Australian should have been forced to print articles of the same length and prominence under banners such as WE GOT IT WRONG ON THE IPCC.
Furthermore, the obvious intent of that paper in peddling lies and nonsense on this topic should be punishable in criminal law.
Has anyone has heard from Bernard J lately? He hasn't been at HW for a while, nor here.
BTW I'm having trouble commenting here. My comments are getting stuck in moderation so I'm trying with different credentials. From the sharp reduction in the number of comments I'm guessing a lot of people are in the same boat.
Agreed, Craig. It's an astonishingly serious matter. There should be concomitantly severe penalties.
And Abbott's mass child murderers in the Levant are at it again too. Waiting for Isis.
Country wide Dutch record 24h precip was 208mm, Voorschoten 2-3 August 1948; awaiting validation of today's 216mm, Maarssen/Utrecht.
cRR
Probably connected to what is happening this side of the water, 'The Sleeve' as the French have it.
Torrential rain and flash flooding cause travel chaos.
I happened to find that just in time and had a hunch some of it would come my way. I am baby-sitting a pair of Guinea-pigs for grandchildren whilst they are away further West, South Devon, on a caravan holiday with my wife. I moved out to slide their run up to the already prepared for the night hutch just in time to get the covers on before the first heavy rain. Was still tidying up as the heavens opened. Better go get this wet shirt off now.
Judy sure has dug her hole deeper as seen at Sou's.
Very quiet around here.
"Global Warming" still languishing around the "bugger all" level for nearly two decades, the carbon tax has finally disappeared up its own fundament, and other, ill advised, eco energy policies reeking economic havoc (aka the so-called Green Energy Jobs Revolution in full swing ;) ) whereever they remain.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/german-utilities-bail-out-elec…
No wonder you lot are quiet.
;)
Is anyone else not able to post comments here? All mine are getting stuck in moderation.
Well, that one worked. Fifth time lucky :)
Has anyone heard from Bernard J lately? He doesn't seem to have been around for a while. P'raps on holidays?
GSW (Gormless) is speaking out of his you-know-what again. I say this as 2014 is projected to be the warmest year in recorded history over much of western Europe - every month this year has had well above average temperatures. This from a dope who claims that temperatures have flatlined over the past 2 decades.
No Dutch record, just another top ten 24h precip number (some 160mm).
" I say this as 2014 is projected to be the warmest year in recorded history over much of western Europe" - true, NL is scheming two tenths over the previous record year (waaaay back in 2006).
Oh! So you are standing in for this GormlessStupidWitless ijit.
It is going quiet here not because of imaginary lack of continued warming but that across the world the usual suspects continue to throw up their previous courses which because mother nature is now seeking in a rather loud voice is making many wake up to where the truth lies.
Those many dis-informers are peddling hard to prevent the lash back that will surely come because they know that their enablers, including paymasters, will throw them to the crowds when that dark brown smelly stuff hits the fan.
Oops. recomposed and forgot to alter one word,
'...because mother nature is now speaking...'
#28 - a convoluted piece on the fact that energy should be abundant, clean and distributed at a tenth of current prices.
"German wholesale next-year electricity prices have plunged 60 percent since 2008 as green power, which has priority access to the grid, cut into the running hours of gas, coal and nuclear plants."
Of course GSW abhors such a thin electricity bill.
#33, what remains are the chemtrailidiots. WUWT is kind of a museum. But they have been fatally succesful, as Mother Nature is the first to acknowledge.
A tip when reading about Germany: if they tell you that the consumer and small user rates are very high without telling you that major users rates are average, then they're not being honest with you. In fact, thanks to renewables, wholesale rates in Germany are so low that the way the electricity market runs needs to be altered by allowing a significant element of capacity payments. This means that, primarily fossil fuel, generators will be paid to have plant ready to supply when necessary. It's the only way to keep them profitable until they're made redundant by renewables.
I note that there is talk of a capacity market in the UK. This is perhaps related to some of the FF generators closing down capacity because they can't compete with renewables, bringing with it the danger of blackouts. Some people might see this as blackmail, whereas others might see it as a legitimate tactic to keep prices artificially high for a sector that backed the wrong horse i.e. built FF capacity based on the gamble that FFs would always be cheaper than renewables.
It is indeed. And some of the exhibits are very badly stuffed.
The GooseSezWhat?s and Oilys of this world are just what you get left with when reality has abraded away all but the most poisonously stupid...
An amusing addition to the above. What can you say? How many years have these clowns been involved in this 'debate'?
The hard-core denialati are lucky they're poster children for Dunning-Kruger, otherwise they'd just die of shame...
Nuclear weapons, should we be worried:
Not if you live in Jim Inhofe's country.
That's both very funny, and very, very disturbing...
'The hard-core denialati are lucky they’re poster children for Dunning-Kruger, otherwise they’d just die of shame…'
Speaking on behalf of the Denialati I find that comment offensive.
BBD is for once right. I agree. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Now if #40 didn't worry you maybe this will:
Ebola crisis: Virus spreading too fast, says WHO.
This has been going since February! Hells teeth!
And what have we seen since
Football World Cup
Commonwealth Games
on top of all other travel mostly by air.
And of course those determined to smuggle in foodstuffs will get it in somehow.
But er. long with rising temperatures and climate refugee uptick......the scene is set.
So you deniers climate change is not happening, the world is not still warming, i.e. warming has paused:
don't tell the birds.
Ebola? And then there is this:
What’s Behind The Rise In Deadly Flesh-Eating Bacteria In America’s Waterways.
So you hope for more warming El Duffo, be careful what you wish for. We know the seas around the UK are warming, plant and animal life is telling us. Take a sub out for 'The Wildlife Trusts' and inform yourself if you are not convinced.
Graham Lloyd, despite having to issue an an apology for writing misleading crap about climate change, still keeps his job as a purveyor of anti-information at The Australian:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/07/scientists-lambast-the-australi…
Yeah Craig, and don't the deniers-delayers like playing at semantics.
It is way past time that there were consequences for these purveyors of misdirection.
Deltoid and Jeff anno 2014:
http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/nosferatu-eine-sy…
Its ironic that I am attending a scientific congress and our illiterate twerp from Sweden pops up with more of his vacuous bilge. Importantly, climate change and its ecological effects are top of the bill here. Too bad that OP will not go "instinct" fast enough....
Wot, Sweden? Burn.
http://www.thelocal.se/20140804/five-day-forest-fire-rages-out-of-contr…
Climate change coupled with high levels of phosphate and nitrate run off into slow flowing limnic systems is a recipe for disaster as they are discovering in the US:
7 Things You Need To Know About The Toxin That’s Poisoned Ohio’s Drinking Water
there are a couple of other articles there which focus on the Ohio bloom also one highlighting that the problem is more widespread:
5 Places Where The Bacteria That Just Contaminated Ohio’s Water Supply Might Strike Next,
which reminds me of the chapter 'Lagoons of pig feces' in Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'.
And if this is not enough there are plenty more disasters like this one waiting in the wings:
Canadians Can’t Drink Their Water After 1.3 Billion Gallons Of Mining Waste Flows Into Rivers.
Then there is the criminal waste of water taken up by fracking which is already increasing water stress in states such as California and those adjacent.
When will the fracking insane realise that you cannot drink money or eat gold?
I discovered something interesting about human cognitive development and the influence of organisms such as some bacteria that produce human traits such as risk taking behaviour and psychological make-up.
I doubt that the Usual suspects here appreciate that each of us is a walking carrier for countless small organisms such as bacteria, fungii and small invertebrates. Search on 'skin microbiome' and 'skin flora' to begin getting an idea.
We upset these at our peril, but have to watch out for bacteriophages. Individuals of differing indigenous populations have a different collection of organisms on and in their bodies. Climate change by forcing migration, altering weather patterns - temperature and precipitation is sure going to make life interesting as humans try to negotiate a path through the coming decades.
Some of the protective organisms are 'bequeathed' by the mother as the infant exits the birth canal and other protections are conferred by breast milk. Now I wonder what the stat's are WRT various infections and other health disorders when comparing those born naturally with those who arrive in the world via Caesarian Section? Similarly for those suckled by breast and those fed substitutes. There is more to this than just vitamins.
But of course all the usual suspects will blithely ignore this. Will this predilection for ignorance over study be down to nature or nurture considering the points raised above?
Expanding on Jef's post #48 here are more consequences of the continued warming of planet Earth:
A note on global warming, ocean acidification, and the future of medicine.
There, now. Follow the money or get taught by confrontation:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118968/rick-scott-attacked-over-clim…
"One example of where Florida is hurting now is how property and construction have become too risky for insurers. According to the state-created storm risk management center, a growing number of insurance companies have exited the market entirely. Climate change and its related extreme weather both factored into that decision."
Readfearn mocks the National Review's further and better lies in Michael Mann's case against it:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/06/michael-mann-s-opponents-hockey-st…
Yes Vince, you may like the article on this that appeared at the the Rabett's place.
So, what are fair GHG reduction targets for the countries of the world, i.e. which countries should set themselves the most aggressive reductions?
HT Rabett in 'Chait gets it'
'Cumulative Carbon and Just Allocation of the Global Carbon Commons' R.T. Pierrehumbert (PDF).
What about Australia, well David JC MacKay sourced some useful diagrams here Pages 11-14 albeit a bit dated.
I'd like to share with you a link to an analysis piece which is very important in its implications for renewables, for non-environmental reasons which are obvious to many of us, but are being ignored by many who should know better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/business/international/russia-may-be-…
A few key phrases:
The chiefs of big gas middlemen ... would sit down with their counterparts at Gazprom or Sonatrach... and work out long-term contracts linked to the price of oil.
big industrial customers are insisting on prices determined by the actual trading of gas
he European gas market is beginning to resemble that of the United States, where gas is priced according to what buyers and sellers will pay, not linked to much more expensive oil.
Europe’s much-criticized renewables push is also influencing energy markets. In the first half of this year, 28.5 percent of German electric power came from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power — a nearly 4 percent increase over a year earlier. Britain is also surging ahead, with almost 15 percent of electricity coming from renewable sources, an increase of almost one-third.
Although the growth of electricity generated by offshore wind farms and vast solar arrays is a nasty headache for fossil-fuel utilities, these unconventional power installations are reducing demand for gas and coal in Europe.
Russia’s influence over European energy markets is weakening rather than growing stronger.
Prices for future delivery of gas have dropped more than 30 percent over the past year on the British market
The European Union, which has been under pressure from industries to ease back on costly new emission-cutting requirements, is taking note of this unexpected strategic gain from renewables, which comes as the Union is formulating energy policies for the next 15 years.
On July 23, Günther Oettinger, the top European energy official, told reporters that a higher-than-expected energy savings target would be recommended for 2030 because of “the need for energy security in gas because of the situation in Russia and Ukraine,” according to Reuters.
Whatever domestic energy supplies Europe can tap will strengthen its hand and serve as insurance. In that sense, renewables are important cards to hold.
“The Ukraine crisis could act as a wake-up call for European decision makers to increase the use of renewable energy,” said Marcus Ferdinand, an analyst at Point Carbon, a research firm based in Oslo.
Dear deniers, you are losing this debate. After all, they said it couldn't be done - SA hits 43% renewable electricity for July. No disasters ensue. Go figure...
Yup.
I used to point out to people that the weather/wind changed here just as often as it did in Melbourne. It's just more noticeable in Melbourne because they're more likely to get rain with it than we are in Adelaide. Weell, they used to get more rain anyway.
Why not use the wind when you're sitting right at the edge of the Roaring Forties - or where there's any other climatic or geographic feature that promotes wind?
Bill wrote:
test!