Click on image to get to documentary
Some interesting weekend viewing from The Age TV, a terrific documentary by Australian film maker Taki Oldham:
Something is stirring in America. After Barack Obama and a Democratic congress swept to power promising a new era of hope and change, out of nowhere a citizens protest movement called the Tea Party emerged threatening to derail their agenda. Was this uprising the epitome of grassroots democracy? Or was it, as some said, an example of astroturfing – the creation of fake grassroots groups designed to put corporate messages in the mouths of seemingly independent citizens? Fascinated by this concept of astroturfing, and curious to find out if these accusations were true, Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham hopped on a plane to investigate. The Billionaires’ Tea Party is a journey through a unique moment in American history and a thoroughly researched piece of investigative journalism.
Compelling evidence that right-wing billionaire’s funded and nurtured the Tea Party into existence. It is a weird mix of concerned citizens, birthers and gun-totting militia.
Worth the 45 minutes for those fascinated by American politics and the climate debate.
Watching the Deniers 
Wow, and you accuse us of paranoid conspiracy theories.
What is so strange about people in America seeing gross fiscal irresponsibility by both Republicans and Democrats, and demanding change?
I’ve no doubt billionaires like the Kochs contribute to the tea party, and encourage it. But maybe they’re worried about America’s fiscal irresponsibility as well – perhaps they want to help the country they love.
And lets not forget all the billions are not on the side of the tea party. When you consider the hideous amounts of money lost by the likes of Solyndra, and the vast fortune politicians like Al Gore have made, pushing big state spending and subsidies for companies in which he has a personal interest, and the vast budgets of organisations like Greenpeace and the WWF, its quite clear money is flowing freely on both sides.
But hey, I’m only 12 minutes into the video – maybe it will have something more interesting to say nearer the end.
Eric claims that it is a conspiracy theory then accepts that it is astroturfing and then justifies it, nothing new to see from eric here
Astroturfing refers to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client’s agenda.[citation needed] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.
Eric Missing the point as usual.
Greenpeace and the WWF do not claim disinterest, they proudly declare that interest , the tea party claimed to be a disinterested grassroots spontaneous campaign. clearly it was not.
If you are suggesting that the Tea Party was inspired by a small group of billionaires forming think tanks, I’m happy to agree that is very likely the case.
But suggesting it is “astroturfing”, in the sense that the current movement does not have significant support in the wider American population is plain balmy.
At what point did the Kochs suggest they are not interested in promoting a right wing, small government future?
FFS they lost the bloody election for the GOP , how does that relate to your claim
” that the current movement does not have significant support in the wider American population is plain balmy.”
if it had the support you claim the GOP would have won, it did not, get used to it
Again missing the point that it was a set up group.
The Republicans control Congress, so they haven’t lost every election they contested.
Obama won the Presidential election, and he might have won no matter which candidate the Republicans nominated – he has a lot of support. But as one of the Heartland people said “The contest was between the person who introduced Obamacare, and the person who invented it. There was no compelling reason to change president”.
You’re quoting a Heartland person? They are the dregs,absolute intellectual dwarves. It’s rather distressing when such mediocrity in the service of secretive capital gets attention. You’re quoting thugs.
Interesting points Eric, but I tend to see it the same way the tobacco industry funded think tanks and sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the risks of smoking.
Demanding change and ending gross fiscal irresponsibility are reasonable demands, you’ll get no argument from me there.
I understand why you see it that way, but I see people like Al Gore, who’s wealth depends on pushing the green agenda, and I see oil interests funding the movie “Promised Land”, IMO to try to sabotage American domestic energy production – so this accusation can be levelled at both sides.
For the record I believe Al Gore believes in what he does – it would be insane to dedicate your life to pushing a POV you detested simply for money.
Sadly the video lost connection. I don’t think I’ll bother to restart it – it was very much just more of the same paranoia. And hopelessly one sided – it was accusing the Tea Party of being puppets because they receive help from wealthy donors.
If receiving help from wealthy donors makes you a puppet, is Obama a puppet, because of the help he received from wealthy donors?
Or are you only a puppet if you receive contributions to advance a right wing view – are left wingers immune from the temptation to dance at the bidding of the wealthy, because of their inherent goodness?
Let me know if there are any “killer points” towards the end of the video, and I’ll make an effort to fast forward and watch them – otherwise its just a waste of my time.
Mike, on reflection this comment was harsher than it should have been. The video was interesting in that it reflects a point of view. I’ll watch the end of it when I get a chance.
It was set up by wealthy donors eric, again missed the point completely.
Obama was not a set up of wealthy donors,
your brain is just a waste of our time
Obama was not a set up of wealthy donors,
Wasn’t he? If he hadn’t attracted the interest of wealthy Democrats, he would never have been nominated as President. Presidential candidates who don’t impress the party with their fundraising skills don’t win nomination.
Or are you suggesting that the Kochs don’t have the right to push their viewpoint, because they’re rich?
DO you confuse everything
again, the Tea party was not a spontaneous grassroots campaign which is what we a discussing,
you are claiming that it was and only funded later by big oil and ciggies
Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco – DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/…/study-confirms-tea-party-was-created-big-t…Feb 11, 2013 – Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy … when tobacco companies began to invest in third party groups to fight excise taxes on … “Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have … Any such effort requires an intellectual foundation – a set of theoretical …
how thick are you?
And you’re missing my point.
Who gives a fsck how it started?
The point is it currently enjoys a significant amount of popularity.
I personally think the modern green movement borrowed many of its ideas from the NAZI movement. The NAZIs were into organic food and national parks in a big way.
Consider the following quote from “A Decade of Progress in Eugenics”, p30-31:-
Click to access decadeofprogress00inte.pdf
The outstanding generahzations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect
Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;
Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world-wide;
Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of trans- port, replacing primitive transportation;
Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;
Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;
Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted.
Some NAZIs went on to found or participate in influential green movements after the war, such as Gunther Schwab.
Does this mean that all green ideas should be condemned because of their origins? Or should you consider the modern green movement on the merits of the ideas they present, rather than worrying what some of its founders did during WW2?
How it started is the whole point of the post.
The post is trying to create the impression its a sham movement, that people have been deceived.
“I believe the modern green movement borrowed many of its ideas from the NAZI movement.” ‘Borrowed’? Are they giving them back soon,idiot?
You are a f**king idiot,so that sort of ‘belief’ does not surprise me. Come on genius,lay out the case for your Godwinning argument. A point by point comparison of NAZI policy and Green Party policy,let’s see how the ‘many ideas’ assertion stacks up.
You have to be joking – the NAZIs were a complete bunch of back to nature freaks.
Consider the following excerpt from “Organic Farming – an International History”.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=25QnL3-njZQC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%2Bhimmler+%2Borganic&source=bl&ots=EK6uwsXMe2&sig=TMIiZRVDemd57Ma1yvEg8nF_sm0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CJ9WUZyZKcmsiAfy3oDQCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%2Bhimmler%20%2Borganic&f=false
Several Nazi leaders – Rudolf Hess, Richard Walther, Darre (minister of Agriculture and Peasant Leader of the Reich) and Heinrich Himmler – were interested in biodynamic agriculture and demanded
its potential be tested. Skeptical regarding the long term success of artificial fertilizers, they aimed at developing a non-anthroposophic, science based ‘agriculture in accordance with the laws of life’
The entire Eugenics catastrophist movement was based on the idea that modern civilisation had created an imbalance with nature – that the softness of modern life was allowing a rising tide of weaklings and the unfit to survive and reproduce, weaklings who would normally be culled by the rigours of natural selection. The death camps were an attempt to redress the balance, to avert this growing threat to human survival, by weeding out an culling those who (in their opinion) should have died, because of their genetic weakness, before they had a chance to reproduce.
So some of the Nazi ‘elite’ were into biodynamics, and some Greens. Neither Nazis or Greens invented the concept. Australia’s first national park was dedicated in 1879,…now, where are the ‘many ideas’ you promised?
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Try reading Professor Ian Kershaw’s “Hitler” before you repeat this twaddle.
So some of the Nazi ‘elite’ were into biodynamics, and some Greens. Neither Nazis or Greens invented the concept. Australia’s first national park was dedicated in 1879,…now, where are the ‘many ideas’ you promised?
I just presented 6 modern green ideas straight out of the proceeds of the third International Eugenics Congress, held in 1932, and I quoted a history of Organic farming which cites NAZI interest in Organics, and describes how this was in accord with the NAZI back to nature ideology.
I also cited the example of Gunther Schwab, a prominent Austrian NAZI green philosopher, who after the war went on to founded the World Union for the Protection of Life. Gunther Schwab speculated in a book written in 1958 about the threat posed by CO2.
The Eugenics movement itself was started by Francis Galton with a popular book “Hereditary Genius”, published in 1870, in which he speculated on the possibility that selective breeding could be applied to humans – from its foundation it held increasing sway over Western civilisation, until its pinnacle in the 1920s.
Just what evidence would it take for you to concede my point? A signed letter from Hitler instructing the Nazi Werwolf resistance movement to found the Greenpeace movement?
Six Eugenicist ‘ideas’ that the modern Greens use? Are you serious? Are those ideas exclusively from Eugenics,direct to seminal Aussie green activism?
Over exploitation and destruction of natural resources is not a Greens idea,its an OBSERVED reality,that the Greens and other political parties show awareness of. Responses to environmental degradation have cross party support…are they all Nazis? The push to end rainforest logging in NSW in the 1970s and 1980s was entirely borne of scientific observation of poor forestry practice, awareness of resource limits and all catchment values,and understanding that the public was subsidising uneconomic roading and extraction and gaining token royalties. And there was no Green Party then. No need for Eugenicist blather either.
Over-mechanisation? As far as I’m aware The Greens have no policy aimed at demechanisation. Of course anyone aware of dependence on FFs knows that mechanisation of all processes,or ongoing maintenance of hi-mech systems, may not be achievable.
Over-construction of distribution and storage? Not Greens policy to pull down warehouses, sweetie. And they are keen on trains aren’t they?
Post war embrace of the fast-turnover disposable consumption economy. A concern pre-dating Green party establishment.
Over-population? Is this a problem only identified by The Greens? Or are they one party intellectually honest enough to do the sums on per capita consumption and the implications of ‘only growth’ paradigms? And if you refuse to acknowledge consumption beyond the capacity of natural systems yields well you get the global wild fisheries and native forestry scenario we have today. Evidence NOW tells us about our world NOW. What need has modern politics to ‘borrow’ a ‘policy’ or philosophy from Eugenics?
The Green movement in Australia has activist roots preceding Eugenics,and certainly owes UTTERLY NOTHING to German war criminals of the 1940s.
Your argument is crap. As usual. Yes,you will need a letter from Adolf. Now go fetch.
Eric Worrall says:
March 30, 2013 at 12:04 am
Obama was not a set up of wealthy donors,
Wasn’t he? If he hadn’t attracted the interest of wealthy Democrats, he would never have been nominated as President. Presidential candidates who don’t impress the party with their fundraising skills don’t win nomination.
Or are you suggesting that the Kochs don’t have the right to push their viewpoint, because they’re rich?
Obama was not a set up, he attracted the funding later, you even confirm that.
realise that you will never see the difference though
Are you seriously suggesting the leaders of the Tea Party movement don’t believe in right wing ideas of smaller government and more freedom, that they’re just doing it for their monthly cheque from the Kochs? Does it really matter whether the Kochs came up with the idea, and attracted a lot of like minded people to their cause?
again
“attracted a lot of like minded people to their cause?”
” Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client’s agenda.[citation needed] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.
And greens never do anything like that, because you’re the good guys?
FFS John – are you suggesting the Tea Party does not have popular support, in which case where did the votes come from, or … seriously, what are you suggesting?
try to stay on topic eric, and do the Nazis really need to be cited in every thread you comment on?
We’re talking about whether how a movement starts is relevant, and whether the origins of a movement forever taint its ideas. The NAZI roots of the green movement seemed a convenient example.
The’ NAZI roots of the green movement’ is a bullshit sophomore concept straight out of Liberal Party dumbness. Leave it for professional idiots like George Brandis to waste Senate time with. It’s really a contemptible smear.
Eric Worrall says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:58 pm
If you are suggesting that the Tea Party was inspired by a small group of billionaires forming think tanks, I’m happy to agree that is very likely the case.
right, you got it at last, not inspired though, actually their brainchild
Sure – and your point is?
actually their brainchild
And your point is?
The whole point of the post eric was just that
“the billionaires tea party”
The suggestion of the post is the tea party is an orchestrated astroturf campaign. This is ridiculous, given the level of popular support they enjoy.
The level of popular support the Tea Party enjoys covers America’s idiots pretty well I guess. And astroturfing is big bucks in opinion management and advertising. Think of all the uncritical support and exaggeration of popularity Murdoch allows them through his wretched company.
Yes, that wretched freedom of expression thing. If only people got their news pre-canned, like in Soviet Russia. Journalists should be licensed, and that license should be reviewed regularly by a government appointed board of ethics. That way, people would only ever hear points of view approved by politicians.
At the moment we get a major part of our news invented for us by sociopaths like Murdoch. The orchestrated hysteria about Conroy’s media package from Kim Williams was just a string of self-serving hyperbole,that utterly drowned out the Coalition’s me-toos…showing you who the real opposition are. Opinion from unelected unaccountable suits is no more desirable than your scenario,I’d think. Why do you think that billionaires that steal from you are more trustworthy than governments? Because you admire and covet wealth for wealth’s sake? Because their media outlets constantly reinforce the oligarchs legitimacy,between pushing tits and trinkets at you?
These people screwed the global economy then got us to pay,while pushing their desocietalising divisiveness through astroturf useful idiots. I prefer the example of the Bank of North Dakota.
If you don’t like Murdoch’s influence, feel free to set up your own press organisation. Thats the great thing about economic and political freedom – you don’t have to accept the status quo. Mike for example is doing his bit to promote his POV, without the approval of Murdoch or the government.
I’d prefer to inherit one the way Rupert did.
So would I – but that doesn’t seem to be an option sadly.
My first comment
Eric claims that it is a conspiracy theory then accepts that it is astroturfing and then justifies it, nothing new to see from eric here
guess that has been confirmed as an accurate assessment,
No, the conspiracy theory is suggesting the Tea Party is the puppet of billionaires, that it doesn’t enjoy significant grassroots support.
Anyone got a panadol?
I suggest you lay off the medications for a while John – they’re not good for your health if taken to excess.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the secretly recorded video of an Americans For Prosperity meeting where representatives were giving reports on Tea Party events they had organized to one of the Koch brothers.
the puppet masters
How many conservatives realize the Tea Party’s … – Plaintxt.org
http://www.plaintxt.org/conservatives_realize_the_tea_party_s_billionaire_…How many conservatives realize the Tea Party’s billionaire puppet masters are hoarding oil, raising gas prices? The billionaire Koch brothers have been buying …
Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and …
thinkprogress.org/…/study-confirms-tea-party-was-created-by-big-to…Feb 11, 2013 – Published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Tobacco Control, the study … Why the victory of the Tea Party extremists (backed by Big Oil) over the … The puppets fighting against the evils of government don’t realize their …
This is like arguing the American Revolution would never have happened if George Washington hadn’t been born.
The Kochs may have helped inspire the Tea Party, may have helped and still help to build it, but it wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a lot of sympathy for their ideas in the general population.
trust me, analogies are not your thing
eric himself is a puppet of big oil. he accepts whatever they tell him via their paid for false sceptics and then endorses and spreads their nonsense further afield .
More paranoid conspiracy theories John?
perhaps useful idiot would have been more appropriate
Sorry I’ve just got to communicate with my Koch handler before I answer your point.
monckton whups another commie Nazi
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/lord-christopher-monckton-3rd-viscount.html
Monckton and his sidekick Scrotum
picnic at hanging sock
http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-in-australia-picnic-at-hanging-sock/
New environmental charity group – please give generously!
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=oJLqyuxm96k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoJLqyuxm96k
Sorry, desktop link 🙂
Hansen
we are still unaware of the amount of aerosols from coal fired plants
this is the most urgent information which we need,
The tragedy of this science story isthat the great uncertainty in interpretations of the climate
forcings did not have to be. Global aerosol properties should be monitored to high precision, similar to
the way CO2 is monitored. The capability of measuring detailed aerosol properties has long existed, as
demonstrated by observations of Venus.26 The requirement is measurement of the polarization of
reflected sunlight to an accuracy of 0.1%, with measurements covering the spectral range from nearultraviolet to the near-infrared at a range of scattering angles, as is possible froman orbiting
satellite.27,28,29 Unfortunately, the satellite mission designed for that purpose30 failed to achieve orbit,
suffering precisely the same launch failure as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO). Although a
replacement OCO mission is in preparation, no replacement aerosol mission is scheduled.
I was wondering if the last few years have seen something similar to the mid-century “cooling” with aerosols having a notable impact on the warming trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
The trend for three of the past four decades has been .17C, the last decade it was ,15C if back to back la ninas and aerosol effect has only been able to reduce that trend by .02C then we may be in for a rude reality in the near future,
the La nina events alone would account for the reduced rate.especially as the ocean warming has accelerated along with the loss of the Arctic ice,
CS remains at best estimate of 3DegC, any large aerosol effect is going to place us on the high side rather than on the low side.
not optimistic about coming years as once the arctic seasonal ice has gone we will see an almost instant increase in Arctic ocean surface temperature.
when that happens GISS will capture it but Hadcrut will not, so more drivel about GISS being manipulated to be expected
Relevant
Lindzen’s point is fundamentally flawed. Temperatures will respond to net forcing – not just CO2, or CO2-eq, and net forcing is around 1.7 W/m2 from the pre-industrial – that is under 50% of the forcing from 2xCO2, not 76%, nor 80% nor ‘almost’ a doubling. Claims that we should have reached equilibrium with that forcing are equally risible. Lindzen is effectively assuming zero heat capacity in the oceans and that aerosol forcing is 0 W/m2 with no uncertainty. The statements he makes on this have only rhetorical content – no science. – gavin]
so if we had accurate data on aerosols we would then have a more accurate assessment of the positive forcing due to current CO2e
this would not give us CS but would allow us to see if 3DegC was looking more likely.
The 3Degc CS is basically from water vapour feedback and does not take into account other expected or unexpected feedbacks
Of course its possible that climate sensitivity has been overestimated, and solar forcing underestimated.
And whenever GISS is revised, the new numbers seem to make global warming appear worse (e.g. cooling the past, warming the present).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
GISS is currently estimating a substantially higher trend than say Hadcrut 4.
GISS vs Hadcrut 4
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
You will find that next strong el nino, Hadcrut will have the highest yearly temp anomaly.
leave you to find out why, if you ever work it out let us know
How much warming should have occurred, thanks to the ~50ppm rise in CO2 since 1997?
Pretty much the warming that has occurred.
Actually I agree with you. The warming which has occurred is between zero and 0.1c – which agrees well with Linden’s climate sensitivity estimate of 0.5c / doubling.
s/Linden/Lindzen/
🙂
Lindzens low ball CS ramblings made in the 1980s have been thoroughly punctured by observations.
Eric, why do you believe that the 1998 El Nino was due to Co2 emissions?
So you admit part of the 90s warming was due to ocean cycles?
Why have ‘ocean cycles’ been warming us since the 1850s,Eric?
Even alarmists don’t think CO2 had much impact before 1940 Nick.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm
That link could use revision,while saying that pre-1940 ACO2 was ‘non-negligible’,which is better than not much. It uses solar reconstruction work that needs updating.
Quite possibly, but as far as I know there is still agreement between alarmists and “deniers” that natural forcings dominated climate change before 1940.
So you agree that the 1998 record wasn’t anthropogenic, yet on the other hand you argue that a non-anthropogenic high disproves AGW, even though temps have risen around that mean.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Eric.
There is this truly bizarre confusion afoot about how warming manifests itself. Some of the rejectionists seem to think that ENSO is responsible for GW simply because it is one mechanism that shifts warmth into the atmosphere in discrete events. Somehow ENSO has been doling out the warmth from a magical stash,and just coincidentally most of the ENSO action has lead to increase in GAT. Before the LIA,ENSO must have been magickly hiding energy in the ocean since the Holocene Optimum,despite the decline in sea-level since that time. Now all of a sudden ENSO is releasing it,though again SL is not playing along with this conceit,because it’s rising. So ENSO is magickly heating the atmosphere AND the ocean,and we can consider AGHG increase to be of no input! This I assume is the ‘it’s ocean cycles’ theory of denial.
This is a deliberate confusion of the means of delivery/removal of heat from oceans with the mechanism of GW working through the entire system through increased atmospheric opacity to IR. It’s like believing that an electric radiator not only radiates heat,but generates itself the energy that it converts into radiant heat.
Methinks Erric doth protest too much.
Golly, so now I’m a Poe who pretends to be a closet Fundie who is pretending to be a denier dissimulating as a rational skeptic.
Have I got that right? Its just a bit difficult to keep up with your theories.
It’s very easy to keep up with yours.
Thanks Nick, its nice to know I’m communicating my points clearly.
Is that what I said? Well bugger me.
It’s also possible that Wiccans have magic powers and Justin Bieber is Satan.
Given that alarmists are struggling to explain the current pause in global warming, producing papers suggesting Chinese particulates, deep ocean heating, and a variety of other speculative causes, and given that estimates of climate sensitivity range from 2 – 4.5 (or higher if you listen to the lunatic fringe), I put it to you that your suggestion that climate sensitivity estimates cannot be wrong is a little overconfident.
There you go,you cite a few mechanisms from the world of science for variation. However you’d prefer to ignore them and cling to an idea that has been tested and rejected for years.
Rejected by people who were so utterly convinced of the CO2 hypothesis, they thought it appropriate to fiddle data to remove contradictory evidence which they knew in their heart had to be wrong.
Not rejected by everyone.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3165.txt
Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.
Fiddle data/remove contradictory evidence? More of your highly partial guessing at email ‘evidence’ as usual.
Have you seen some the solar terrestrial physics musings? Attempting to argue for delayed influence of solar cycles at 40 or 100 year lags by simply curve fitting. Meteorology/climate dynamics is not their thing.
Obviously the consensus of scientists who supported the CO2 hypothesis did not include large numbers of people who studied the interaction between solar radiation and the Earth’s atmosphere, at least when this email was written.
Willie Soon is a solar terrestrial physicist – so there is obviously still some controversy in the solar terrestrial physics community.
Soon is a hired man.
Oh I forgot – people who accept millions in Government grants are high minded nonpartisans, while anyone who ever accepts a penny of oil money is an industry whore.
You’re forgetting Fat Al.
You mean Al Gore? I forgot about him – he’s somehow kept his eco-halo, despite accepting in excess of $100 million from the Qatar Royal Family.
So Soon, like Gore is an industry whore?
In Soon’s case,yes.
Eric Worrall says:
March 30, 2013 at 6:51 am
Of course its possible that climate sensitivity has been overestimated, and solar forcing underestimated.
solar is a cycle eric and you have been telling us that it is so low that we are heading into a mini ice age.
ludicrous comment
Oh but see what Eric did there? He didn’t make any firm prediction or statement. He’s just making simpering little insinuations to mask the fact he actually has no idea what he’s talking about outside of what his prophets tell him to say.
The film this thread is based around made him so uncomfortable he couldn’t even watch it.
*Sigh*
There’s more than one solar cycle John. There’s the 11 year cycle, which we’ve all heard of, but there also appears to be a 200 year cycle, a 1500 year cycle, and who knows how many others.
Eric temperature and solar have been going in the opposite direction for the last 35 years,
you spruik garbage
lets have your theory about solar increasing the temp as it plunges us into an ice age
you cannot be this stupid.
More insinuations marked with “appears to be” and “who knows how many others”. Convincing!
Poor old Eric. Just making up facts whenever they don’t fit his theories.
😉
The world hasn’t been warming for 17 of those years John. And solar activity is still quite high, compared to say Dalton or Maunder Minimum levels.
When do I expect the next ice age? I expect a *mini* ice age to start biting over the next decade, and last until around 2040 or so. A major ice age will start sometime in the next 8000 years – but our chances of seeing the start of the big one are pretty slim.
“Solar activity is quite high compared with the Dalton and Maunder Mins” Is it? You’re exaggerating certainty here,and you’re basing your ideas on Eurocentric observations, imperfect sunspot counts and an arbitary averaging. We are more confident about vulcanism having a pronounced effect on temperatures in Europe in the first half of the 1800s,and the fact that temperatures have been drifting slowly downwards since 6000 years ago…until ACO2 interceded.
So which volcanic eruption caused the 17 year pause in warming?
In any case, the next decade should give us some answers. If the flatline continues, or turns into a decline, then its game over for CO2 alarmism.
Warming ‘paused’ from the 1940s to the 1970s,so the next decade is not to be over-rated. Personally I expect a step change up within the next decade,as the science indicates.
The last 17 years is not like the 1940 – 1970 pause. During the last 17 years, 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 ever produce by humanity was released into the atmosphere – with bugger all impact on global temperature.
If this situation of spiralling emissions and flatlining temperatures continues much longer, its going to get increasingly embarrassing for alarmism.
What 17 year pause?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/trend/plot/wti
Yes,what ‘pause’,and why do we have to repeat the suggestion you should look at the system total,not just air temperature? The circularity of your ‘argument’ process,and the absence of argument, has been noted many times. How many more times around the block?
Every day is groundhog day for Erric.
Fixed it for you
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996
As for looking at the “total system”, you guys wouldn’t be down to reading tealeaves if the surface temperature was still moving the way you want.
Still has a definite rising trend.
Still has a definite rising trend.
No, the trend since 1996 is less than the error margin of around 0.1c, so the apparent upward trend is not definite.
eric the trend for three out the past four decades was 0.17C the last decade was 015C, how does your brain see that as cooling,
just for interest of course and how do you see warming from a decreasing solar trend over the last 35 years? sure that a lot would like your answer,
The yellow highlighter of fate has failed. http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-australian-how-to-lie-without.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+QuarkSoupByDavidAppell+%28Quark+Soup+by+David+Appell%29
Just more definite than your flat line or cooling (what is it this week?).
Joanne Nova has taken up the cause of promoting Africans for Norway.
Perhaps its time we all paused to consider the plight of others less fortunate than ourselves.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/radi-aid-africa-helps-freezing-children-in-norway-d/
Stop trying to change the subject. When’s the ice age you predicted coming?
When do I expect the next ice age? I expect a *mini* ice age to start biting over the next decade, and last until around 2040 or so. A major ice age will start sometime in the next 8000 years – but our chances of seeing the start of the big one are pretty slim.
That’s not much of a prediction. Do you mean within the next ten years (before 2023), or do you mean the decade 2021 – 2030? And what is your margin of error?
Hmmm Eric,
On what are you basing your mini ice age prediction? Not those Wattsonian ice maps you never bothered to have a close look at? Or maybe sundry forecasts from a ‘meteorologist’ who spent the better part of a decade at Purdue University and still did not manage to graduate, in anything… let alone meteorology. (Not the sharpest tool in the box then)…..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
Still, he is your ‘go to’ man for reliable climate science. Unbelievable.
I am curious though, if you had a brain tumour would you go to some quack who never graduated from medical school for treatment, or seek out the best qualified neurosurgeon in the field?
That should be a ‘no brainer’ if you pardon the pun.
I’d be a little horrified if the brain surgeon proposed a treatment which had never been experimentally verified, based on computer models built by zealots who called critics “deniers”, computer models whose creators had suffered a variety of embarrassments, including efforts to hide contradictory evidence, and who had been busted breaking laws to frustrate inquiries from outsiders into how the models work.
I think I’d ask for a second opinion.
My cousin did exactly that with charlie Teo and now has an extra five years at least .
you might be horrified he was thrilled
“never been experimentally verified, based on computer models built by zealots”
What load of bollocks!
All that crap about not being experimentally verified, you get from said moronic meteorologist quack who never qualified (and took 8 years to find out just how dumb he was), and who has been repeatedly proven wrong. If you actually had a case that you could back up then I would concede you may have a point, but every single denialist criticism of climate science has been comprehensively debunked. I mean, Watts has even debunked his own research on occasion, what a farce…
And by the way, the current rise in temperatures of the last 50 years, and 80% loss of Polar ice in only 30 years are based on reality, not models. Also, said computer models have been proven to be remarkably accurate, as opposed to the ‘predictions’ from quack “climatologists”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
The models are accurate. That’s why deniars must attack them.
Oh right. The mini ice-age that has been predicted as coming in the next decade consistently since 205. That mini-ice age.
As I point out on my blog, imminent cooling has been a key tenet in the denialist faith for years and it never happens, and doesn’t show any sign of happening in the future. But keep the faith Eric. Someone has to.
And by the way, the current rise in temperatures of the last 50 years, and 80% loss of Polar ice in only 30 years are based on reality, not models. Also, said computer models have been proven to be remarkably accurate, as opposed to the ‘predictions’ from quack “climatologists”
The SkS post is nonsense. The rather coy admission that they “only used the best predictions” covers the fact that the prediction they are presenting is clearly Hansen scenario “C” (emissions stop after 2000), which is clearly not a description of reality.
Given the spaghetti of other model predictions alarmists produce, I’m not surprised they can pick out a few lines which by random chance coincide for a few years with global temperature.
The models do very well, which is why Watts feels compelled to lie about their qualities.
Crude projections of the wishful inadequate thinkers have crashed and burned: Ridley in the early 1990s has his pants around his ankles now, Lindzen is too low, Don Easterbrook [who can’t even read a caption] is way out, Monckton simply makes up graphs, Aussie John McLean ‘predicted’ we’d be back to 1950s temperatures by now….Eric,these people are all vain idiots first and foremost. Only vanity and egoism can explain their self-nomination as credible critics and analysts. Their records simply condemn them as irrelevant noise.
Jo is indeed less fortunate than ourselves.
You’ve got to laugh though – a bunch of black kids giving the finger to Geldof and all the other lefty heroes of African Aid.
I laugh at Nova and people who feel that she is worth acknowledging.
The sign of an impending ice age would be snow falling during the UK winter surviving all summer.
keep notes eric and let know when it happens, we will let you know when the summer arctic is is gone
guess we will not be hearing from your anytime in the next ten thousand years and beyond
The snow melted in Summer during the LIA too, except in 1816, when a slight volcanic drop in global temperature, superimposed on the LIA, caused widespread catastrophe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
If the snow melted in summer then i guess that the little ice age was a stupid name for the period?
as it was
The term “Little Ice Age” is used by the CRU etc, but feel free to call your alarmist climate heroes “stupid”.
The scientists at CRU and everyone else on earth except you know that the little ice age is a misnomer
Yes. We have ample data indicating the decline in snow cover in autumn,spring and summer,and the continued retreat of glaciers globally. The only tendency noted is an increase in high latitude snow cover recently in winter,the reasons for which are explained by AGW induced polar vortex disruption and a higher average atmospheric moisture content. If this winter snowfall increase is being seen in the Alps,it has not translated into glacier accumulation zone stabilising.
No sign of global cooling at all.
Not much sign of any warming lately either.
Twenty plus national all-time surface temperature records in 2010 and 2011. Warmest la Nina year observed. Record high SSTs durations in Arctic and around Australia. Stuff like that.
Nova and eric think that it is funny
RADI AID
The Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund, who dreamed up the project, explain their purpose this way:
Imagine if every person in Africa saw the Africa for Norway video, and this was the only information they ever got about Norway. What would they think about Norway?
…
The pictures we usually see in fundraisers are of poor African children. Hunger and poverty is ugly, and it calls for action. But while these images can engage people in the short term, we are concerned that many people simply give up because it seems like nothing is getting better. Africa should not just be something that people either give to, or give up on.
The truth is that there are many positive developments in African countries, and we want these to become known. We need to change the simplistic explanations of problems in Africa. We need to educate ourselves on the complex issues and get more focus on how western countries have a negative impact on Africa’s development.
If we want to address the problems the world is facing we need to do it based on knowledge and respect.
guess they were not interested in the message
I agree there is a serious side to aid for Africa, and the damage it causes.
I haven’t contributed a penny to International Aid organisations since I read the following article.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html
Could be a global spike in food prices this year. Some normally productive areas are still too cold to start planting.
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.nationen.no/2013/03/28/landbruk/varonna/ola_andreas_byrkjedal/rogaland/jaren/8013530/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.nationen.no/2013/03/28/landbruk/varonna/ola_andreas_byrkjedal/rogaland/jaren/8013530/%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1248%26bih%3D670&sa=X&ei=MrZWUc3SAueoiAeKvIDoDA&ved=0CDEQ7gEwAA
I guess the 2012 US drought didn’t have any effect at all.
112 posts so far, 53 from Worrall. As usual he adds nothing.
By now most would have heard the sceptic’s claim that the global surface temperature has not warmed for fifteen years, This claim originated in an opinion piece in the UK Daily Mail by journalist David Rose, it was then repeated by The Australian.
Rose’s claim was that the global surface temperature for 12 August 2012 was exactly the same as August 12 1997, therefore it had not warmed during that period. It sounds compelling but is it scientifically valid? No, by selecting a single date we could show many things, simply by moving that date a few years or even a few months back or forward and you could show whatever you wished, rapid warming, cooling or even a stable temperature as Rose has done. Global surface warming is confirmed by an ongoing trend not by single year comparisons. So far this century we have had six years where the surface temperature has been on or above the trend and six years below the trend all due to the natural yearly variation of where the trapped heat goes, More into the Ocean during La Nina years. This heat going into the ocean then cools back and heats the surface over ensuing decades. Such a short period of the yearly surface temperature record by itself proves neither warming nor cooling. But by using David Rose’s date of the 12 August 1997 and extending the already known linear trend for the period August 1975 through to July 1997 to August 2012 it would have predicted a surface temperature anomaly of .524Celcius above the 1951/1980 average for that month. The actual surface anomaly for August 2012 was .525Celcius. The surface warming trend continues and the total global warming over the past fifteen years has accelerated when we include ocean, glacier and ice sheet trends.
The shape of the fake sceptic’s campaign is clear. The only piece of evidence the fake sceptics have even vaguely in their favour is the somewhat less rapid warming of the surface. Every other piece of evidence runs against them – and massively so. So the mission is to repeat the lie and ignore the other evidence – better still don’t even acknowledge the other evidence. It’s their last, desperate, chance – and they’re putting everything into it. They’ll fail, of course, only convincing their own base. But it’s amusing to see the likes of Eric try it out. When you look at all the evidence it’s clear. It’s man and CO2.
You guys wouldn’t be down to reading tealeaves if surface temperatures were still rising. The sparsity of sea surface monitoring stations, and the fact that a given change in energy content of the sea yields a much smaller change in temperature than the same change in energy content of the atmosphere, means that claims global warming is being swallowed by the sea are highly dubious.
Perhaps if one of your climate heroes were to hang their hat on a prediction of when the sea will return this alleged warming to the atmosphere, I’d have a bit more respect for this “dog ate my homework” excuse for the lack of warming.
Your prattle is telling. It’s simple, more energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving. It’s going to go somewhere. You’ve latched onto under 3% of the heat like terriers because you have nowhere else to run. Denial is dead, prepare for your Muller moment.
Its hilarious you keep suggesting I’ll have a “Muller moment”, given that Muller thinks the CRU and Mann lied and deceived with their exaggerations.
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#axzz22R4YezCa
Muller is a Lukewarmer – he thinks CO2 will be a problem in the future, but there is no need for urgent action. I’m happy to also take a wait and see approach, so in a real sense, Muller and I are much more on the same page than you and Muller are.
Muller is not really doing anything more than get his education in public. At least he’s educable.
“.. given change in energy content of the sea yields a much smaller change [in temperature] than same in atmosphere..” Wow, you noticed!! Baby steps. That means “…claims warming is being swallowed by the sea..” are actually physically valid,though. You are hopeless….and look out for refluxing seas!
Yes, Eric has made 50% of the comments so far, but nothing at all substantive. I would still be interested to hear if, in the hypothetical case that he had a brain tumour, whether he would go to a quack who hadn’t graduated from medical school, or go to the best qualified neurosurgeon he could find for treatment.
Which would it be Eric?.
Already replied several times.
When do I expect the next ice age? I expect a *mini* ice age to start biting over the next decade, and last until around 2040 or so. A major ice age will start sometime in the next 8000 years – but our chances of seeing the start of the big one are pretty slim.
What do you mean by “the next decade”?
So in case you missed it through Eric’s gish galloping, he’s admitted that the 1998 El Nino was in fact non-anthropogenic in origin, and therefore agrees that it is fallacious to argue that there has been no warming since 1997 when it fact the mean temperature has continued to rise around it.
He also seemed to accept that pre-1940s warming was described as multi-factorial by climate experts,yet he cannot see that those same factors are always present to varying degrees and can explain the variability seen during the rising trend post 1940. No,if the rise slows,pauses or reverses then CO2 has to be a non- or overestimated contributor in Eric’s ideologically constrained world view.
No, my point is that if these “other factors” can flatten the anthropogenic signal, its a little premature to conclude that the post 1940s warming was entirely anthropogenic.
Alarmism requires a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling of CO2 or so – because if it is substantially less than 3c / doubling, nothing we are ever likely to do to the atmosphere will substantially shift global climate. That is why any suggestion of solar influence or other forcings in post 1940 global warming is vigorously opposed.
No-one assumes the post 1940 situation is ‘entirely anthropogenic’. That’s precisely the strawman we rational folk complain about. Using it betrays unfamiliarity with the research. We are sure that solar factors decouple post 1960s,but natural and anthropogenic aerosols and soot,plus internal ocean variation have a lot to say. We know we are at a lowering point in the precessional forcing curve,yet we have warmed 1C since the 1820s.
CS less than 3C/doubled CO2 will still shift climate ‘substantially’: look at what has so far occurred with just 40% of a doubling while pretending that CS is in your Goldilocks zone. Hmmm.
CS of whatever cannot be looked at without human context. A crowded planet,politically expectant,agriculturally extended, is not in the position of mobility and having a largely virginal primary productivity to tap. We do however have the technology to shift away from FFs considerably,but are being held back by old resource blocs, feudal capitalism and the stranglehold of dumbness applied by Murdoch globally. The corruption of political systems by entrenched interests is damaging our ability to deal with reality.
Eric understands so little about AGW he believes our argument is that Co2 is the only forcing on climate.
You see Eric, these factors are short term and “flatten” only briefly. So if we have a record El Nino, followed by a decade marked with La Ninas and a rising mean temperature, what happens when we get the next big El Nino?
To argue that “16 years without warming” is proof the theory is bunk to argue that Co2 is the only effect on climate which is plainly wrong.
Eric Worrall says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:36 am
The last 17 years is not like the 1940 – 1970 pause.
17 years ? where did that come from?
since mar 1996 ?
eric’s graph
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996
did he look at it?
The warming for this period is less than 0.1c. Given that the error margin is around 0.1c, any trend which yields a change of less than 0.1c could be an artefact – the real trend could be flat, the apparent trend could be the product of observation errors. Therefore with a trend this flat, you cannot conclude that there was actually a trend.
That’s not how statistics works, Eric. Is your math no better than Monckton’s? It’s simple, the temperature is still increasing – as much as you’d like it not too it still is.
It most certainly is the way statistics work. if the change in temperature is less than the observational error, you cannot say for sure that any change occurred – the apparent change could be due to observational error.
good grief you do not even accept the validity of your own graph,
Have you never studied even basic science?
If an observed change is less than the error margin, you cannot conclude there was a change.
Jones et al 2012
Keywords:
global temperature;hemispheric temperature;land surface
[1] This study is an extensive revision of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) land station temperature database that has been used to produce a grid-box data set of 5° latitude × 5° longitude temperature anomalies. The new database (CRUTEM4) comprises 5583 station records of which 4842 have enough data for the 1961–1990 period to calculate or estimate the average temperatures for this period. Many station records have had their data replaced by newly homogenized series that have been produced by a number of studies, particularly from National Meteorological Services (NMSs). Hemispheric temperature averages for land areas developed with the new CRUTEM4 data set differ slightly from their CRUTEM3 equivalent. The inclusion of much additional data from the Arctic (particularly the Russian Arctic) has led to estimates for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) being warmer by about 0.1°C for the years since 2001. The NH/Southern Hemisphere (SH) warms by 1.12°C/0.84°C over the period 1901–2010. The robustness of the hemispheric averages is assessed by producing five different analyses, each including a different subset of 20% of the station time series and by omitting some large countries. CRUTEM4 is also compared with hemispheric averages produced by reanalyses undertaken by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF): ERA-40 (1958–2001) and ERA-Interim (1979–2010) data sets. For the NH, agreement is good back to 1958 and excellent from 1979 at monthly, annual, and decadal time scales. For the SH, agreement is poorer, but if the area is restricted to the SH north of 60°S, the agreement is dramatically improved from the mid-1970s.
Where is your reference eric that all error bars favour a lower estimate?
put up or shut up
Your understanding of the “error margin” is incorrect. A couple of months studying probability and statistics would help you.
The fundamental reason for the wide sigma is simple – your data series is too short. You’re doing it wrong – it’s denial marketing at its most obtuse.
Just to clarify for myself:
It would appear that Erric is saying we can’t be sure what has been happening for the last 17 years, and the temperature could actually have risen ~0.2 degrees C (margin of error and all that).
To me that’s a pretty flimsy basis for his repeated (ad nauseum) statement that AGW stopped 17 years ago. Yet he seems so certain. Delusion or what?
For all of you who suggest Climategate had no impact, the video below is part of an interview with Michael Mann, in which he blames Climategate for scuttling Copehnagen:-
In the interests of full disclosure, in other parts of the video he discusses his rather sad explanation for “Hide the Decline” and the climategate inquiries, but thats all boring old news.
Oh yeah, before Debunker adds more spam:-
When do I expect the next ice age? I expect a *mini* ice age to start biting over the next decade, and last until around 2040 or so. A major ice age will start sometime in the next 8000 years – but our chances of seeing the start of the big one are pretty slim.
What do you mean by “the next decade”?
Interested in your definition of an ice free arctic in the summer. How many sq km of ice would you accept before you would consider it ice free?
Just establishing the ground rules in anticipation of your humiliating apology in the next few years…..
His definition will be anything less than whatever is left
Climategate 1 – you’re a nine times loser. Climategates 2 – damp squib. CG3 – utter nonsense from the get go – and the likes of Eric fell for it. Climategate was a political manoeuvre – it hasn’t changed physics. In the end climate bats last.
We broke Copenhagen. And you keep forgetting to mention the fact that at least one of the 9 inquiries was seriously dodgy, run by a director of a global green lobby group who forgot to declare his interest in the group.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/
But why mess up a nice tidy story? Far better to say “9 inquiries” than “8 inquiries and one dodgy one”.
And I’m sure if I dug I’d find similar problems with the other inquiries. But why bother? My point was that Climategate messed up Copenhagen – and as supporting evidence I provided a video of Michael Mann saying Climategate messed up Copenhagen.
Nine times loser. Nine. Physics will win. You will lose.
Its not quality which counts with climate alarmists, its quantity.
You simply don’t care that at least one of the inquiries was dodgy, because it said something you wanted to hear.
Climategate 3 has been notable for the number of emails from Climategate 2 that have been requoted. Rejectionists cannot even count to three,so it’s little surprise they won’t acknowledge nine inquiries.
Ronald Oxburghs professional career and public positions are no secret,Eric. The Register is a shit sheet without transparent provenance and ownership info.
Nine times loser – and still thinks he has a case. A zealot is born.
certainly has a bee in his bonnet about one of the inquiries, did it have a different outcome to the rest or something?
had it found against cru then eric would be here claiming that the rest were dodgy
.
finding for cru of course must mean that it was dodgy because it conclusions were the same as the other eight.
do not expect any logic from eric
How eric came to claim 17 years without warming
firstly david rose stuffed up with addition, his period was fifteeen years not sixteen, so the sceptics like eric figure that it is now nearly a year later than the rose graph so it must be 17 years instead of 16.
finally working that out it is only now nearly 16 they now have to present a graph from 1996 instead of 1997,
what to do ?
simply claim that the error bar is the same as the temperature rise, which from looking at the graph it clearly is above .1DegC.
post the graph and hope that noone notices, use a yellow marker if that help with the deception.
So rather than admit that Rose and themselves cannot count, expecting to land on 1997 after claiming 17 years, to their horror they landed at 1996, shit cannot admit we cannot add up, so keep the seventeen year fuckup and try the error bar idiocy
Rose has been roundly condemned by scientists that he has misquoted,quote mined or quote-fabricated for several years now. Murari Lal…Mojib Latif…James Annan…Myles Allen…Ed Hawkins. Eric,better sources please.
he even managed to misquote Curry, not sure why he bothered though, plenty of crap from her to quote without resorting to fabrication
that? whom! ..standards are slipping 😉
I cannot complain about using that, I seem to do it all the time, who and whom seem like asking a question,
who is on first?
the deniers 10K challenge to prove AGW in a court has been repeated by the creationists,
10K to prove evolution in a court (channel seven this morning)
same same
The deniers can’t prove it in the scientific literature so of course they want a publicity stunt like this.
Guess he is up the christian outreach centre this morning?
Bremen
The Arctic appears to have just fallen off a cliff
Put my headgear on and went and had a look at that watching the watchers blog, of all the posts there only about two refer to posts here and certainly none of them about the science posts put up.
seems to have started editing most comments, way out of their depth in just about everything,
hates insults yet not a mention of the flying monkeys at nova nor Watts.
do not think i will bother again unless it is just to get a good laugh.
this was my pick from that blog
D. Straw Man: Using a larger, more outrageous belief or idea to impugn someone’s beliefs
Example: Skeptics question climate science. Therefore, skeptics refuse to believe science.
Using the broader statement is designed make the disagreement irrational.
These arguments are often used in conjunction with ad hominem attacks.
and then a bit further down in the same post
Gravity is a physical phenomena that is clearly demonstrable. Climate change is not. We have limited data, various models and a system so complex a super computer is required to run the data. All of which can introduce error and serial error. While climate science likes to say it is “certain”, it is anything but certain. The only result one can produce is a probability coefficient or a confidence interval. These may be as high as 95%. They may be much lower. Results can fall outside the interval and the theory still be true, but not over and over again. It’s so much more difficult than dropping a hammer.
then again maybe it was an example
Run out of ideas of how to get through to people like Eric. The analogy equating unqualified bloggers like Watts to medical quacks didn’t work. He just goes and quotes easily debunked (and already debunked) drivel from the quacks themselves in order to justify not listening to the real experts.
The fact that Watts is not only unqualified, but took around 8 years to get that way, (when most people would have had a doctorate by then), seems not to bother him at all. The fact that Watts is also a serial data distorter, sometime liar and full time fraud, appears not bother him either. Watts is still his expert of choice. (massive face palm)…..
Truly, the man is denser than a neutron star……
Getting through to eric
eric “Its hilarious you keep suggesting I’ll have a “Muller moment”
or “it is hilarious that i will ever accept the science”
So no matter what happens from now on or even in the past eric will never change his position.
Not time to panic
In roughly the last two years the global oceans have risen approximately 20 millimetres (mm), or 10 mm per year. This is over three times the rate of sea level rise during the time of satellite-based observations (currently 3.18 mm per year), from 1993 to the present..
but what does it mean?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-Encounters-Giant-Speed-Bump-on-the-Road-to-Higher-Sea-Level.html
This shows just how quickly that the dynamics can change in either direction,
it puts in perspective the rooftop shouting in 2010 by the sceptics that the drop in sea level 2010/2011 disproved the IPCC projections
Watts
Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
Watts: always an idiot. The only important thing about his views is their persistence in the face of contrary evidence. We are watching recalcitrance without even slightly redeeming infotainment value.
By there own graph, there was a similar divergence of slightly smaller magnitude just before 2006.
Fear mongering about nothing – but thats normal for SkS.
Eric Worrall says:
March 30, 2013 at 10:58 pm
We broke Copenhagen.
This comment by eric explains the real purpose of the false sceptic movement,helped by the useful idiots like eric, to spread confusion and delay action.
This will have dire consequences
Why would my end goal be to delay action, and destroy the world for my daughter, if I didn’t actually believe that the proposed actions are dangerously harmful?
I have no idealogical reason to reject alarmism. If I thought there was any truth in it, my argument would not be about the science, but about the best strategy for decarbonisation. I would be campaigning for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels, campaigning for useless non solutions like wind power to be tossed in favour of solutions which work.
As someone who is optimistic about the future, and who fervently believes in high tech solutions to today’s problems, I have no problem with nuclear power whatsoever – except that fossil fuels are still a little cheaper, and easier to use. But there is a real chance that a little more research into nuclear could change all that, and nuclear might become the economical option as well as the low carbon option.
All governments have to do is guarantee regulatory stability, and people with money will find solutions to bringing down the cost of nuclear power.
So my goal is to delay harmful action, to stop it completely if I can – but this is because I believe most of the actions proposed by lefties are a complete waste of time, to address a non problem, and if implemented would cause severe damage to the global economy, to freedom, and to the future prospects of my little girl.
Shorter Erric: “I’m living in la-la land”.
No, I believe that alarmist science is sloppy and riddled with errors, and gross overconfidence in predictions which aren’t doing so well.
Remember when James Hansen predicted the President had 4 years to save the world? Well guess what – if Hansen’s 2009 prediction was true, we’re already doomed.
Maybe its time we built alarmists a space ship, so they can send their kids to a distant planet, to escape the doomed Earth, a distant planet where they can learn to wear their undies on the outside, and fly around wearing a cape.
Eric when you claim that NASA data is manipulated that is an idelogical position,
get used to it
NASA and Hadcrut have both produced substantially different graphs of recent temperature changes. Perhaps they should compare notes, try to get the science right.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
Eric different base periods and different measurements, eg GISS Arctic ocean will produce different outcomes, the trend in all datasets is the same,
Foster and Rahmstorf 2012
Both graphs are a measure of global mean temperature.
But *surprise*, the NASA GISS graph produces a more alarming picture of temperature rise.
It wasn’t always this way – it took years of small adjustments for Hansen to produce his outlier assessment.
We’ve busted Hansen again and again, applying small fiddles to his data.
Very appropriate. It’s April 1 and Erric is citing Watts (again).
And while I’m here, anybody else get coffee up their nose when Erric stated “I believe that alarmist science is sloppy and riddled with errors,” and then cited the master of the yellow highlighter?
‘…except that fossil fuels are a little cheaper…’ They actually enjoy direct and indirect subsidy. Even the IMF is accepting that the costs of FF use have been irrationally discounted. This is a legacy of attitudes towards mining in general: the benefits are readily appreciated in generating ‘immediate’ wealth, while the waste is historically ignored,then only slowly and unevenly acknowledged as needing treatment/stabilisation/remediation. And when it comes to the ‘odorless invisible gas’ even great minds like Tony Abbott’s can be confused. Mining spoil/discharge was ignored in the past because the scale of damage it wrought did not seriously impinge on enormous areas,we did not have the understanding or means to dtetc many of the downsides,and because community rights did not have any widespread formal recognition. We are in a whole different scale of operations now,and have been for decades despite most folk being indifferent to that reality.
Let’s be clear,concern about FFs and the ratcheting damage of ACO2,and a desire to recognise and have recognised their costs and the time frames relevant to their replacement is NOT ‘alarmism’. It’s realism. Further,even without GW,we have to be replacing FF generation now because of supply bottlenecks and time frames.
Windpower gets you upset,but you are always careful to fail to acknowledge that it is not seen as a sole or universal ‘solution’ or silver-bullet. You are building strawmen as usual. Wind and solar power are having big impacts on the shape of power supply globally:some FF generation units have been parked already here.
The global economy has a death wish,with its unphysical assumptions,heightening inequity,and the rent-seeking recklessness of money and derivatives traders. Your little girl is threatened by unheeding,unreformed and corrupt economic activity even without considering the environmental consequences of irrational discounting.
Weird that Abbott does not wish to tax cO2 per tonne when he states that it is weightless, sounds like a cheap option to me tony
‘…except that fossil fuels are a little cheaper…’ They actually enjoy direct and indirect subsidy. Even the IMF is accepting that the costs of FF use have been irrationally discounted. This is a legacy of attitudes towards mining in general: … . We are in a whole different scale of operations now,and have been for decades despite most folk being indifferent to that reality.
Let’s be clear,concern about FFs and the ratcheting damage of ACO2,and a desire to recognise and have recognised their costs and the time frames relevant to their replacement is NOT ‘alarmism’. It’s realism.
So far none of the predictions of catastrophe have occurred. Storms are not increasing in frequency or power – the USA for example is suffering a prolonged hurricane drought. All of the significant events predicted by alarmist climate models lay in the future – a future which hasn’t happened, and may never happen.
Further,even without GW,we have to be replacing FF generation now because of supply bottlenecks and time frames.
Business can’t wait a generation to become profitable again – by then any country crazy enough to force higher energy prices on its own businesses than are paid by competitors in foreign countries will be an economic wasteland.
If action was necessary, then any investment should be to find ways to reduce the cost of nuclear power, and remove bottlenecks, such as regulatory uncertainty or outright bans, that are preventing adoption of the only low carbon energy source which has any hope of replacing fossil fuels at an affordable price.
Windpower gets you upset,but you are always careful to fail to acknowledge that it is not seen as a sole or universal ‘solution’ or silver-bullet. You are building strawmen as usual. Wind and solar power are having big impacts on the shape of power supply globally:some FF generation units have been parked already here.
Wind power gets me upset because it is a horrific pointless waste of resources. The intermittent energy produce by wind power never arrives when you need it. To make wind power viable, you have to build fossil fuel backup power systems for your wind capacity – continent wide windless conditions can and do happen, several times a year. Not only do you have to pay subsidies for hideously expensive wind power systems, you also have to pay subsidies for the construction and maintenance of fossil fuel plants which have to be switched off some of the time – which have to be switched off when the wind blows.
Worse, the only system which is responsive enough to balance a grid with a substantial wind power component is single cycle gas – an old, inefficient design of gas generator. More efficient, closed cycle gas turbines, cannot change their output quickly enough to compensate for the wild fluctuations in wind power.
So you’re not even saving that much CO2 – running older, less efficient gas turbines on idle, then having their output fluctuate wildly to compensate for every gust of wind, is not a recipe for efficient conversion of gas to electricity. You have to burn a lot more CO2 in such generators, for a given amount of power, than you would have to burn in a modern closed cycle turbine feeding power to a stable grid.
The global economy has a death wish,with its unphysical assumptions,heightening inequity,and the rent-seeking recklessness of money and derivatives traders. Your little girl is threatened by unheeding,unreformed and corrupt economic activity even without considering the environmental consequences of irrational discounting.
The biggest threat from “rent seekers” I see is the spivs who would load their power use onto my electricity bill, by taking advantage of regressive government subsidies for the middle class.
To put your claims about wind power in perspective I’ll give you this observation: since we started building wind power in Australia more than a decade ago we have not built any more coal fired generating capacity. Of course the uptake of solar hot water and solar rooftop generation has been a big input too [and we have so much more potential on untapped roof]. Better building standards,more realistic pricing,better networks and smarter management also help. IOW, there has been a LOT of waste cut out of our systems,and there is potential to remove more,to which we add real renewables contributions.
IIRC the last large FF generator built in Australia was a gas fired replacement for retiring a coal fired unit.
Now clearly we need baseload generation,but can we just deal with the realities and not invent stuff?
Nothing you said addresses my specific criticisms:
1. Wind power has to be backed by fossil fuel generators, to maintain grid stability.
2. The fossil fuel generator operator requires a subsidy, to compensate for having to switch their plant off whenever the wind blows.
3. The wind operator needs a high level of subsidy, to compensate for operating an expensive, uneconomical power generation system. Normally subsidy deals pay them for power, regardless of whether the generated power is dumped on the grid at a time when it is useful to anyone.
All of this means you are effectively paying for your power multiple times – once to maintain all the fossil fuel infrastructure, again to compensate the fossil fuel operator for all their lost income due to having to switch off their generator whenever the wind blows, again to pay the wind turbine operator when the wind blows at the wrong time, and expensive subsidies to get the wind turbines built in the first place.
If you think you can run a modern economy based on this kind of haemorrhage of costs, take a look at the EU, see whether it is working for them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
Would sky high energy prices shut down every industry? Of course not – the energy intensity of different processes varies widely. But don’t expect anyone to say smelt Aluminium using expensive wind turbine power, when energy costs are a large part of the cost of refining metal ore.
All green policies will do is drive energy intensive industries, such as metal smelting, offshore. And if the metal is smelted offshore, there is no point shipping the metal back to Australia for value added manufacturing. We won’t see that metal again until we import the finished goods from China.
So not only do we lose the energy intensive industries which could have been performed in Australia, we lose the value added manufacturing opportunities which could have been ours, had the metal been smelted in Australia.
I guess though Australia is one of the few countries which can get away with this, to some extent – after all, we’ve still got plenty of ore we can dig up and ship overseas. We don’t really have to care about adding value, and using the ore for our own industries.
Again, the rise of renewables in the broadest sense in Australia has seen mothballing of FF generation. I happily acknowledge that baseload is needed,but I reject an assumption that baseload simply has to be increased as renewables inputs increase their share of production. Greater use of solar and wind will open up more pump storage generation prospects to provide overnight baseload: there are quite a few viable sites available if we bite the bullet and cut down on coal and gas.
I do not accept that FF generation is ‘cheap’ as you know,and it seems the biosphere is demonstrating the reality of my view–accounting has to be realistic,not proscribed and idealised by crude economic faith. In fact the history of coal fired generation has seen the closure of coal generation units in the inner cities as these plants were gradually accepted to be highly damaging to health and increasingly archaic technology,despite that they could still have a ‘productive’ life under simplistic cost models,or irresponsible governance.
It seems that some of our problems with integrating renewables into dispatchable powered systems is that renewables can drop spot prices ,to the distress of the business models of privatised power generators. So the problem is that the money boys can’t get their money like they expected,not that integrating generation sources is not technically feasible. A technically efficient integrated multirenewables based generation system is possible,despite a view that it is not economically efficient . My view is that modern economics is inefficient–it’s corrupted and gamed against the greater good–and the rot started with dismantling of public ownership,state banks and mutualism.
Another problem is that the promise of privatisation is often a lie. Prices have risen every year though arguments for privatisation claimed that competition would lower prices or lessen their rate of increase. On privatisation the need for investor returns becomes a encumbrance on the ability to best plan,run and adapt a national grid system for changing circumstances.
And we are in changing circumstances. We find ourselves hobbled by sociopathic capitalism,rent seekers and social delusions when we need to adapt quickly to the reality of CO2 as waste,climate change as real but tractable,and the reality of FF supply bottlenecks.
The new normal? UK still buried under snow – and its almost April.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21929436
Sorry it *is* April.
It’s quite something. Coldest March since 1960-something in the UK. Record warm March over Greenland and nearabouts. =atmospheric blocking.
Have a look at the papers discussing the likely causes: changes in the Arctic
I see – the Australian heatwave proves global warming is real, because its hot.
The severe winter in the North proves global warming is real, because its cold and snowy.
What would constitute evidence the world was cooling? Normal weather everywhere?
well it is april first
No eric what it means is that you still do not understand the changing dynamics of the NH jet stream due to Arctic ice loss
I see – so its a big joke. Whats the punchline?
No eric what it means is that you still do not understand the changing dynamics of the NH jet stream due to Arctic ice loss
No John, its a simple question.
If warm and cold weather both prove the world is warming, what would constitute evidence the world is cooling?
If you can’t answer that question, stop wasting people’s time suggesting any unusual weather event validates your alarmism.
You
Eric, why are we revisiting your incredulity again?
‘The severe winter in the North’ is not an accurate summary of the real winter in the north,as I’ve just pointed out. The cold pool over northern Europe is offset by a warm pool over Greenland and northern Canada= pretty average whole of North. The interesting point is why the polarised winter weather? Why blocking of such a scale and persistence? Again refer to papers discussing warming CLIMATE in the Arctic,and changes to ice thickness and extent.
Warm and cold weather do not prove immediately and without context anything about global climate warming or cooling.So we direct you to info that supplies context…which you ignore. Sigh…
Nick, my point about the severe Northern winter is at least as valid as you guys talking up an Australian heatwave as “the new normal”.
In a few years though I suspect it will all be moot – a few more winters like this, and the only concern about global warming Northern Europeans and Americans will feel is when they are likely to get some. Your heroes will flipflop back to global cooling scares, to keep their jobs.
eric prove your statement
China, America, Britain, Europe and Russia all reported severe winter conditions this year.
Or perhaps this doesn’t cover a large enough geographical area? Perhaps its OK to talk up a few broken records in a relatively small part of the Earth’s surface like Australia, but a severe winter which covers a far larger region doesn’t count, because its cold weather?
Once more,as mentioned often,none of the indicators are showing GLOBAL cooling…sea temps…air temps…sea ice…ice caps…glaciers and icefields the world over…tree lines…permafrost extent…ice-out days…freezing days…first blooming days.
You fixate on one winter [actually part of one spring month] and Antarctic sea-ice,both of which have physical explanations for their [temporary] ‘counter’ trending behavior,ignore those explanations and all the indicators and wonder why no one takes you seriously. You’re attempting to argue black is white,you’re trying to play poker with a couple of footie cards.
what would constitute evidence the world is cooling?
well it certainly would not be the continuing surface warming nor loss of the Arctic
For those of us who do not believe that NASA is in league with Satan to instigate a one world government, we can read climatologist Gavin Schmidt’s evaluation of The Australian’s twaddle.
“By using David Rose’s start date of the 12 August 1997 and continuing the already known linear trend for the period August 1975 through to July 1997. It would have predicted a surface temperature anomaly of .524Celcius above the 1951/1980 average for August 2012. The actual surface anomaly for August 2012 was .525Celcius. The global surface warming trend continues”
so as predicted we would in a warming world expect to see more record warm events etc.
123 Australian summer all time records
Uk weather is the coldest for fifty years, that is not an all time record
Short answer eric is when cold records outnumber warm records by two to one which is the opposite to which is currently occurring
You need Global Cooling,baby I ain’t foolin’…we need to see cross-metric change ‘way down inside’ before coolin’ gonna give you its love,Eric.
Plateauing and reversing of SLR. Steadying and re-advancing of monitored glaciers around the world. Regrowth of sea ice extents in summer,spring,autumn and rebuilding sea ice volume. Stabilising then reversing of treeline advances currently observed extensively. Reversal of widely observed phenological changes. And many other observed changes.
Eric,there is currently NO SIGN of global cooling. And no physical reason to expect it,even if we re-Maunder; Maunder modelling shows that warming would slow but not stop or be reversed.
We can expect some disruptive regional effects even if they seem counter-intuitive at first blush.
And according to Erric this is all going to happen before 2023.
I was discussing the fairly narrow issue of of you guys citing any unusual weather as evidence of global warming.
If you can’t invert the statement, and suggest what *weather* you would expect from global cooling, the claiming any unusual weather as evidence of global warming is not scientific – it can’t be falsified.
Again, til it sinks in
john byatt says:
April 1, 2013 at 1:59 am
Short answer eric is when cold records outnumber warm records by two to one which is the opposite to which is currently occurring
Be interesting to add up the cold records in the North this winter.
then do it and get back to us when you have more than rhetoric
Given that the IPCC reports explicitly mention regional oddness and increasing extremes perhaps its not surprising that ‘unusual’ weather–actually the increasing number of long-duration heat events, record snowfalls in places that usually have dry cold continental climates,and super-intense rain events–is worth looking at,Eric.
Why, I’m in the Northern Hemisphere and it has been cold and snowy, but no record breaking temperatures here. Our coldest temperature for Winter was still well above zero, not like it used to be when I was younger.
But last year we were breaking high temperatures over and over and over, plus the record breaking drought. And the year before that was the record breaking flooding.
He managed to dismiss the two years in a row with SLR at 10mm without much brain work.
He in fact only referred to the previous drop, do not mention the accelerated rise in the past two years. It is counter to his idealogical denial and must be dismissed.
Wonder what he thinks now about watts claim that the 2010/2011 falsified the IPCC projections?
for watts it served its purpose to get those usefull idiots like eric spreading his gospel
now that watts looks like an idiot for the umpteemth time eric just wishes to move on and not discuss it at all,
did Watts make a complete fool of himself eric ?
or is it only us who must answer questions eg evidence for cooling.
The flying monkeys at the time.
Of course watts will now post about the increased acceleration, how will he spin that.
He will ignore his own 2010 counter claim and tell us that it is the land water now running back to the ocean
Yawn. Let me know when your blip becomes a trend. What was that? 30 years by your reckoning?
Yep even when watts makes a total fool of himself eric the useful idiot stays loyal.
We’re still arguing whether 16 years without warming is significant, and you expect me to take a SLR blip seriously?
“Let me know when your blip becomes a trend” Meanwhile SLR has been rising as 3.2mm/annum throughout the satellite period,and has been rising since the late 1800s.Trendy enough Eric?
I just nominated anthony watts for the 2013 watts april fool award
I nominate Anthony for his 2010 post sea level drop proves IPCC predictions wrong
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-Encounters-Giant-Speed-Bump-on-the-Road-to-Higher-Sea-Level.html
rgds
john byatt
Could be a toss up with monckton
Hannah Bowrey and Morgan James, a pair of Newcastle University PhD candidates in neuroscience, had concerns with how Lord Monckton had interpreted a graph.
‘‘It depends how you interpret it,’’ Ms Bowrey said.
Lord Monckton: No it doesn’t.
Ms Bowrey: No, it absolutely does.
The viscount wasn’t budging.
Lord Monckton: I imagine you are not yourself a statistician.
Ms Bowrey: Yeah, we both teach statistics at the uni.
Lord Monckton ploughed through the awkward exchange, not engaging the pair.
‘‘Eventually, the scientist who [devised the graph] may well face prosecution.’’
‘‘Sue us,’’ said Ms Bowrey, exasperated.
One out of Sydney this morning
If a 1 year bump in SLR is significant, how about 5 years of steadily worsening winters in the Northern Hemisphere? Or is a change only significant when it supports your global warming narrative?
Worse than we thought
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130331165603.htm
meaningless without new records eric and when we look at the whole NH and find that it is just a distribution of cold and warm air rather than a colder overall condition
A one year drop is meaningful a two year acceleration is a blip,
UK met
On its official blog, the Met Office said: ‘For the winter as a whole, the UK mean temperature of 3.3 °C makes it milder than 2008/09 (3.2 °C), 2009/10 (1.6 °C) and 2010/11 (2.4 °C), but colder than 2011/12 (4.6 °C).’
The figures demonstrated how variable the weather in the UK can be.
The blog added: ‘Starting with a mild and wet December and a mild start to January it turned cold from the middle of January with snow affecting many areas at times. The cold weather continued through February which was a dry month.’
Eric,again,not reading links. People try to help you with the available science literature. Why don’t you read it without prejudice? “5 years of steadily worsening winters” is an unambiguous claim. Is it reasonable? Why don’t you back it up by going through the seasonal assessments of at least a few national weather bureaus in the north?
Again,we point you to papers. There is one by Cohen et al 2012 that discusses cooler areas in NH winter in high Eurasia and NA brought on by GW mediated atmospheric moistening, and Arctic sea ice loss spurred jet stream weakening,leading to potentially cooler winters…even while the other seasons warm.
The current little spurt in SLR is only brought up in context of the last little drop in SLR being seized on by the US [Usual Suspects] as yet another indicator that we can throw statistics out the window for a self-pleasuring blather about trends to
global cooling…
Repeat after me: regional and seasonal change under global warming need not
always be to warming. Some places may see little change or even a little cooling for a while,even as a global scale average rises. Of course this can mean that other places will be warming faster than average.
steadily worsening NH winters eric
I think that you are telling a lie
prove that you are not
Rahmstorf
March was average” Averaged over the northern hemisphere the anomaly disappears – the average is close to the long-term average. Of course, the distribution of hot and cold is related to atmospheric circulation, and thus the air pressure distribution. The air pressure anomaly looks like this:
Winter snow extent has been steadily increasing.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/northern-hemisphere-snow-extent-was-greatest-on-record-in-december/
Frankly I’m not convinced by far North temperature measurements – seems to me there’s an awful lot of infilling in the far North, and dodgy measurements at airport stations.
But lets see what the numbers say when the snow melts.
spring snow cover is in dramatic decline
NOAA
Over the long-term, the rapid rate of warming in Alaska and the rest of the Arctic in recent decades is sharply reducing the area covered by snow each year in the Northern Hemisphere. The rate of snow cover loss over Northern Hemisphere land areas in June between 1979 and 2012 is -17.6% per decade—a faster decline than September sea ice loss over the same period.Loss of spring snow cover affects the length of the growing season, the timing and dynamics of spring river runoff, permafrost thawing, and wildlife populations. Snow plays an important role in the Arctic ecosystem—for example, protecting plants from repeated destructive freezes by insulating their roots over the winter
that is due to global warming eric
If you can do 1yr blips in SLR, I can do 5 year blips in snow cover.
IT was a 45 year blip for snow cover, try to stay on topic.
you have been done on watts absurd 2010 SLR proves IPCC wrong post
I was wondering when we’d get a link to moron blogger ‘Steve Goddard’. One of the all-time time wasters of the internet.
Earth to Eric. December snow extent has been increasing since the 1960s according to the moron….while,unmentioned by the moron, seasonal extents spring summer and autumn have been declining. Also unmentioned by the moron is that global glacial mass balance has been dropping since the ’60s. So that December blip is doing FA for the cooling cause.
Earth to Eric,’Goddard’s’ ‘just havin’ fun’…the forced laughter of a fool who whinges about alleged data manipulation [a lie] while himself crudely dealing selected data.
after this post watts threw goddard or whatever his name under a bus
Steve Goddard? That’s a laugh out loud citation. Watts is spam. Goddard is pure climate comedy gold!
did Watts make a complete fool of himself eric ?
or is it only us who must answer questions eg evidence for cooling.
4 corners tonight
scientists ignored
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-01/key-information-missing-from-lng-approvals/4603026
Hey JB ,you’re “in the coal business” now [as if Qld wasn’t ever thus!] Dumbell Newman said so…
And we found a loophole to get out of SOLAR DAWN at Chinchilla which is now scrapped,
company in talks to do it at Moree in NSW
None of this new fangled greeny commie power for us,
Does anyone still believe Labour cares about jobs – at least jobs in industries, such as mining and fossil fuel power generation? Obviously not in Queensland, given their drubbing in the last election.
labor went beyond it’s use by date, the lnp should have won the previous election.
they could have won the last with Flegg even,
How many have been referred to CMC in just the first year.
it is pathetic,
i accept whoever is in the government but do not fawn over them like you
what was really bizarre was labor saying that they have to sell off assets to pay off debt and the LNP campaign against the sell off during the election
soon as they got in , oh we have to sell off assets to pay off debt
at the moment they have promised not to do anything until the next election but looks like the new SCUH will be privatised before it is built even as a way around it.
of course their supporters not wanting to sell off assets last year are all for it now
weird
can we expect that you will all be for CC direct action come sept ?
probably
so eric any answers yet ?
Still waiting for the Northern snow to melt John. I reckon it will start melting in a big way in about 2 weeks – mid April. After all, we haven’t hit little ice age conditions. Not yet.
If the ground stays frozen much longer than that, a lot of people are going to go hungry by the end of this year. Could be an interesting year for food prices.
You do not look at links, earlier snow melt is worse than later snow melt,
food prices have been going up due to droughts
the small town snow cover problem you posted is not going to drive up prices, trust me
snow on the ground does not mean that the ground underneath is frozen FFS
snow on the ground does not mean that the ground underneath is frozen FFS
I lived in the NH for 15 years FFS, if you try to stick a spade into ground sitting under snow, especially if the snow has been there for a few months, it bounces off with a metallic clank.
The only question is how thick the frozen layer of ground is, not whether the ground is frozen.
so you deny that snow is an insulator
even prevents your septic freezing up
Lack of snow allows frost to go deeper into the ground, potentially freezing the system. .
You cannot just look at snowfall and say that the ground underneath is frozen FFS
so your little town is going to plant the crop with spades are they?
if you try to stick a spade into ground sitting under snow, especially if the snow has been there for a few months, it bounces off with a metallic clank.
so you deny that snow is an insulator
Yes snow is an insulator. But if placed in contact with something which is warmer than the freezing point of water – e.g. liquid water – the snow *melts*, until thermal equilibrium is achieved. If the ground is warm, the snow “doesn’t settle” – it melts on contact with the ground.
So if frozen snow is in direct contact with the ground, and is stable for an extended period of time, this means the ground adjacent to the snow is also frozen.
What happens next depends on how long the snow is in contact with the ground. Ice is not a good conductor of heat, so the ground beneath the snow freezes quite slowly.
But it still freezes. Pipes freezing solid and bursting is quite common in Britain. In severe winters, this even happens when the pipes are buried – I had it happen to me a few times.
so your little town is going to plant the crop with spades are they?
if you try to stick a spade into ground sitting under snow, especially if the snow has been there for a few months, it bounces off with a metallic clank.
Some places in Europe don’t use mechanised tools, they’re too poor.
But it doesn’t matter. If the ground is essentially lumps of ice, it doesn’t matter if you can punch a hole through it with a digger. Commercial crops won’t grow until it warms up at least a few degrees above zero.
You can deal with temporary bouts of frost after the ground has melted – for example, its quite common in the UK to see fields covered with plastic, to try to protect seedlings from frost. But you can’t get something to grow in an ice field.
FFS how the F***K are places that are too poor and only use spades to plant going to drive up world food prices?
FFS how the F***K are places that are too poor and only use spades to plant going to drive up world food prices?this may repeat
They get hungry too – and there are a lot of them. If they run out of food, they sell things, often themselves, to get their next meal.
Mind you you have a point – given the upward pressure conversion of food to biofuel is exerting on global prices, they’ll probably just starve to death.
Headline
http://www.wuwt.com./ice age driving peasants to-prostitution=worrall/
Here eric
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/03/29/cold-march-sets-records-across-europe/
One effing record for cold in europe in this story and that is the headline
eric . But you can’t get something to grow in an ice field.
now you are claiming that the ground is still an ice field after the thaw.
If the snow stays on the ground for a long time, if temperatures stay below freezing, the ground has more opportunity to freeze. Usually it only takes a few days for the ground to thaw after the snow thaws – liquid water is a good conductor of heat. This year will be interesting.
IF If the lizard people get here in time
Then we shouldn’t be thawing out the bloody arctic that’s causing all this.
Eric Says:
“Why would my end goal be to delay action, and destroy the world for my daughter,”
Exactly! But that is what Eric is doing by rejecting the vast majority of the scientific literature compiled by experts in the field, for what?
The ramblings of a somewhat dim, sometime radio met announcer who never qualified in anything, let alone climate science, with a history of fraudulent distortion of the facts?
Eric never responded to us when he asked us to provide evidence of fraud from Watts and Nova. (which we duly did).
Tell us Eric, was Watts use of the yellow highlighter on the graph of 700 m ocean temperature fraudulent or not? It was clearly intended to mislead.
So later on, when your daughter has grown up and is living in the world you helped destroy, what are you going to say to her when she says, “why did you ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence daddy?” Are you going to say, “well darling, I had my own experts you see, who, it turns out were not really experts at all, but I didn’t know that at the time”. Pretty lame excuse when you have been told so often….
Eric says “I believe that alarmist science is sloppy and riddled with errors”
This would be the same Eric who posted a link to the Wattsonian ice maps as evidence that the current precipitous arctic melt is just a natural cycle, then failed to even look at the said ice maps himself to check that they supported his position.
Which the didn’t, by the way….
The same Eric who posted the link to Watts fraudulent ocean temperature “highlighter” data manipulation episode.
Are you going to own up to being sloppy and error riddled yourself Eric? If not where is your credibility?
The ice maps indicated that significant fluctuations in ice had occurred in the recent past.
And your denial that ocean warming has also paused doesn’t change facts.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
Your problem is nothing alarming has happened, nor is it likely to happen. You won’t put a date to the resumption of surface temperature global warming. And your favoured “solutions” to your imaginary problem all involve massive government intervention, and rolling back the market economy – which IMO is your real objective.
You still don’t get it do you? If you campaigned for massive programme of building nuclear plants, to decarbonise the economy as rapidly as possible, I’d probably support you – I don’t think decarbonisation is necessary, but I don’t mind nuclear plants.
The changes I oppose, the changes I think are harmful, are your attempts to scuttle the market based economy. That is what I want to protect my daughter against. I’ve visited places where the market economy doesn’t work, or is defective. They’re not the nice parts of the world.
as usual when pinned to the wall, Eric changes the subject.
Firstly, the ice maps show a variation of about 10 percent ice extent from year to year, not the over 50% which we have now, (80% by volume). Hence they did not in any way prove your assertion. You even admitted you hadn’t looked at them closely. Would you not consider that sloppy and error ridden?
Secondly, answer the question. Do you or do you not consider Watts blatantly false “highlight” masquerading as a trend line fraudulent. If not, why not?
The rest of your post is basically a red herring and shameless attempt to change the topic
eric get used to it
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/202626/hot-water-global-warming-has-accelerated-past-15-years-new-study-oceans-confirms
Also, why the fixation with 1997? You wouldn’t be indulging in a spot of cherry picking would you?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/trend
the longer the trend is, the more significant it is,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996/trend
Also, it may have escaped your attention, but that is a plot of S U R F A C E sea temperature, not 700m or 2000 m where most of the heat is going. Please Eric, do try to keep up…
had a look at eric’s link it is the surface temp identcial with air temp over ocean but easier to obtain
tells you nothing about actual ocean temperatures
Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?
Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also taken and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs (Kennedy et al. 2011). The problems are reduced using night only marine air temperature (NMAT) but at the expense of discarding approximately half the MAT data. Our use of SST anomalies implies that we are tacitly assuming that the anomalies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT. Kennedy et al. (2011) provide comparisons of hemispheric and large area averages of SST and NMAT anomalies.
NOAA sea temperature data fabrication.
It would be awful to pass up an opportunity to fiddle the data.
You keep posting links to Watts. What is it that you don’t get about quackery?
The man is unqualified, demonstrably unintelligent, (8 years for a 3 year course, which he then failed), and a fraud to boot.
Explain again Eric, why his yellow highlighter masquerading as a trend line was not fraudulent?
Yet this charlatan is your “expert” of choice…..
‘NOAA sea temperature data FABRICATION’…your link claims it “looks contrived”…so Bobby Tisdale does not know what has happened but doesn’t like it and insists it must be contrived?
Wow,that’s convincing. LOL. Some disaffected grumbling without analysis–and,no, comparing the old data set with the new is NOT analysis– is all the proof you need to cry ‘fabrication’?
I assume you are referring to this article:-
Nothing fraudulent about Watts line – it fits inside the error margins.
The fraudulent bit is that it is made to look like a trend line, when in fact it is not.
Amazed you can’t see that. If a real scientist did that you would be screaming blue murder…
Erric’s a believer.
He has said frequently that he doesn’t believe those thousands of climate scientists with all their fancy data and scientific method, and their peak bodies and professional organisations.
But by jiminy he believes the Reverend Watts and he can often be found at Sister Coddlings House of Snake Oil.
Hey Erric, give us a “Hallelujah!”.
Only fools believe Watts. QED.
Sorry, second plot should have been:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/trend
Apologies for the sloppy error ridden post… 🙂
If 0.1c is all that CO2 emissions since 1995 can achieve, RIP alarmism.
Bring it forward a few years, and the trend disappears.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
‘Alarmism’ -broken-record mischaracterisation part 3987301352- is over what the next century brings. Your calendar will tell you it’s 2013. All the indicators are trending up,though apparently not quickly enough for one expecting instant gratification.
The system is full of step changes and lumpiness [surprisingly,some rejectionists are fond of step-changes’ ‘explanatory’ power in other contexts] so,Eric you may factor in a quite rapid jump,here and there. Why are you surprised about periods of lower increase? Who told you it would be linear or monotonic?
Because that “lumpiness” coincides with a period of unprecedented CO2 growth.
1/3 of all Anthropogenic CO2 ever produced was produced since 1997.
But global temperatures haven’t budged.
Maybe CO2 doesn’t have that much impact after all.
Well, even according to you, yes they have, but it’s within the margin of error so they might not have. By the same token they might have risen twice as far which is also within the margin of error.
Why don’t you quote the statistically significant changes?
Oh, that’s right, they all show unequivocal rises in global temperature.
You are just watching two lines that do not sit together in a way that you think they should Eric. IOW,knowing nothing about the physical underpinnings of and relationship between what each line partly measure,you just wish that it looked neater.
You have to move forward. Please do some reading,take a course,or something…
eric again out of his depth (pun intended)
arguing from ignorance
“And your denial that ocean warming has also paused doesn’t change facts.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend”
as stated eric SST temp is not ocean temp as you claim from your own position of absolute stupidity
You’ve got to look pretty hard for this global warming thing. What was that you said a while ago – “god of the gaps”. Look in the mirror John.
You,Eric, have to look, simple as that. Pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.
So you looked in what in fact was an air temperature proxy for ocean temperature
yet are still unable to admit your stupidity
A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.
Yawn. Let me know when it shows up on the surface.
Ah, the Worrall retort. If I can’t see you, you can’t see me. Brilliant. It’s as if science never existed with Eric “Fire from his Fingertips”. You sure you aren’t a Poe?
Particularly if you refuse to look where we know it is found: melting icefields, retreating glaciers, hottest decades on record, lowest Arctic ice on record, flora and fauna habitats shifting towards the poles …
eric ” the ocean is not Warming’
“oh it is , have to look hard for it if it is in the ocean, so it does not count”
thinks that it will stay there because eric has a magic kettle that once boiled stays at boiling point even after you turn it off, it never cools down to the air
good luck with the ocean doing the same as your magic kettle eric
If I put a pot on the stove, with the heat turned up high, then turn the heat down a little, guess what – it still comes to the boil.
The suggestion a slight decrease in solar activity should have caused immediate cooling is nonsense.
global surface temp has warmed .525DegC since 1997 eric, when will your cooling kick in ?
Even if it takes 17 years.
‘The suggestion that a slight decrease in solar activity should have caused immediate cooling is nonsense’ Except when it backs the Imminent Global Cooling fantasy.