Credit where credit due: naming disasters after climate sceptics

While obviously intended to be satirical, the following video does pose an interesting question: can we lay “blame” for climate change and increasing weather extremes at the feet of politicians who have blocked mitigation efforts?

Note the video has over 1 million views. It clearly has struck a nerve.

Of course we can’t blame Andrew Bolt, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Abbott, James Inhofe etc. for Hurricane Sandy.

But can we accuse them of negligence and misleading the public?

Can we say they’re actions helped create policy inertia and this unfolding tragedy?

The answer is yes.

220 thoughts on “Credit where credit due: naming disasters after climate sceptics

  1. Gregory T says:

    “The Black Abbott Bush Fire”,does sound good.
    Excellent video.

  2. Gregory T says:

    I think that the real problem in the US would be, that those politicians would just deny that the hurricane or storm ever existed in the first place. Here in Australia, cyclones, would have to be labeled as Shit Storms, since they would just be crap.

  3. john byatt says:

    hurricane willard ended up all piss and wind

  4. Bill Jamison says:

    Should we credit them for the lack of major hurricanes hitting the US? Every day that goes by adds to the new record being set for longest time without a Cat 3 or higher hurricane hitting the US mainland. I mean if you want to blame them when something bad happens shouldn’t you also credit them when something bad doesn’t happen?

  5. john byatt says:

    This idea probably came about from comments on Arctic sea ice blog comments some time ago

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/the-naming-of-arctic-cyclones.html

  6. Blog of Greg says:

    There must be ways that we can highlight and name and shame those in Aus that are denialists that are stopping action against climate change. Good work those who created the vid! Thanks for sharing it WTD!

  7. Berbalang says:

    I like the idea but the problem is that we would quickly run out of names. Maybe we could use them sparingly naming only the really nasty storms after deniers.

  8. BBD says:

    Good bare-knuckle satire. We need more of it. Liars and buffoons should be mocked, mercilessly.

  9. john byatt says:

    Jo Haigh Imperial college

    [audio src="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/tls/tls_20130827-0930a.mp3" /]

    Q- What is the current consensus then amongst scientists about how our climate is changing? Are we doing enough to avert a potential disaster in years to come?
    A – No. Not at all. No. Precious little. All the science shows that unless we do something more radical the temperature is going to carry on increasing.

    28 minutes

  10. Bill Jamison says:

    If we truly want to name disasters after people to publicly shame them then why don’t we just name them after every first world country? Anyone reading or posting on this blog is using electricity and computers and more than likely has a significantly larger carbon footprint than poor people in Africa and third world countries. If you really believe that CO2 is such an issue then do something about it and stop using electricity. Stop buying anything made from plastic. Only eat what you grow or raise yourself.

    In other words stop blaming others for what you do yourself. Stop waiting for others to solve what you believe is a serious problem. Take action at home and stop waiting for someone else to fix it.

    • Sou says:

      In other words, Bill doesn’t want to hear about climate change any more.

      Most of us aren’t just waiting for others, Bill. We’re doing our best to reduce our own carbon emissions but it’s not enough. We need everyone to do so.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Do you drive an electric car like Anthony Watts? Have you installed solar panels on your roof like Anthony Watts? Or do you just go door to door “educating” your neighbors like John Byatt?

        I love hearing about climate change. I’m fascinated by the complexity of the climate and how much we still don’t know about it. I just find it humorous when people cry that ‘someone needs to do something!’ while they sit around in their heated and air conditioned house and drive their gasoline powered car – enjoying all the benefits of modern society powered by fossil fuels.

        • Sou says:

          I have solar panels and solar hot water. I would love to have an electric car. I take public transport when I can and own a bike. I limit electricity and gas usage. I have a push lawn mower not a fuel-powered or electric one and have converted all the lawns to plants to limit the need for watering. As well, our house uses as much passive heating and cooling as possible. Interestingly the solar panels have helped a lot in that regard.

          There’s not much more I can do at the individual level. There is a heap more that must be done at the institutional and aggregate level. I don’t go door to door, but it’s worth thinking about.

        • Sou says:

          Oh, and like WTD I run an active blog to combat all the nonsense put out by climate science deniers. I’ve also helped teach others about climate for several years before starting my blog – on another website in particular. Got lots of good feedback from that, even from science deniers. Just like now.

        • Sou says:

          I just find it humorous when people cry that ‘someone needs to do something!’ …enjoying all the benefits of modern society powered by fossil fuels.

          What most of us want is to enjoy all the benefits of modern society powered by renewable energy. What did you think? That we want to live like cavemen? Good grief.

          We’d be more than half way to clean energy targets if it wasn’t for people who deny climate science and who want to stop the shift to clean energy. If it wasn’t for climate science deniers we’d probably all be able to afford those neat zappy electric cars by now. They’d be priced right and able to go the distance.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Sure renewable energy is great – at what cost? Here in California there are endless challenges brought against proposed solar plants because of the amount of land required. Of course the plants aren’t actually economically feasible without large government subsidies either.

          It’s well known and well documented that renewable energy costs more than conventional sources particularly coal and natural gas. At what cost to the poor do you want to make the switch to higher cost energy sources? Since you already have solar energy you know the additional costs involved.

          Sounds like you’re a conspiracy theorist since you blame “climate science deniers” for not being able to afford an electric car. Not sure why you’d say that since the limitation of electric cars is well known and their price has come down considerably. If they were really competitive with conventional gas and diesel versions then they would have already dominated the market. Instead you blame the anonymous climate science deniers. Sounds like you’re not very familiar with the way things work in a capitalistic society. If battery technology was advanced enough to easily power a vehicle for distances comparable to a tank of gas and recharge quickly too then the market for it would be virtually unlimited. Instead of recognizing that fact you choose to go the conspiracy theory route and blame some unknown bad guys that deny climate science. Those must be some really powerful people – who ever they are!

        • john byatt says:

          The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Wind Turbine Syndrome
          Aug 06, 2013
          This blogger is AWED! Am I in awe of something? No, I am a subscriber to AWED (link) which is the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. In a recent email AWED’s John Droz has pointed us to a review of a book “Wind Turbine …
          http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
          Wind Power Sucks Subsidies Instead of Turning Turbines
          May 22, 2013
          The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that it was time for those who worship wind turbines to pay their full cost, and not force other electricity consumers and tax payers to pay for a costly, unreliable and obsolete …
          http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/
          The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Wind Turbines kill up …
          Mar 22, 2013
          The Greens are all for wild life and the preservation of natural things. We must surely soon see the Greens campaigning against the terrible slaughter of 39 million birds a year. Who or what is doing the killing. Why, wind …
          http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
          The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Useless Wind Power …
          Jan 19, 2013
          In all the noise surrounding the fires last week, a small story may have gone un-noticed. South Australia is planning to approve the new Ceres Wind Plant on The Yorke Peninsula. This is the link to the release of the fact sheet …
          http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
          12345678

        • john byatt says:

          and again Australias number one climate change denier shock jock Jones at an anti wind rally again run by the climate deniers,
          he has a big influence in the national coalition opposition, soon to be government

          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/wind-protesters-take-fight-to-canberra/story-fn3dxiwe-1226665339737

      • john byatt says:

        The last state government introduced many emission reduction schemes in regard to housing, elec trariffs, vehicle offsets, even rain harvesting and was having a big impact on QLD’s carbon footprint. Our new state government, nearly every member a denier dismantled most of these schemes and was even contemplating removing climate science from state schools.

        Those in our area who took up the governments major funding initiatives and installed solar did so because it was cheaper not because they wished to save the planet,

        They also had regulations for buildings requiring the installation of insulation etc to reduce the need for A/C and heating, again all dismantled by the incoming government with a claim of reducing building costs on home owners.

        A huge project, Solar Dawn was also abandoned by the state government,

        even state rules imposed to prevent development along the coast at risk from SLR have been overturned and development handed back to .local councils and developers.

        The state department of climate change was another victim of the Newman conservative denier government.

        Australia is about to elect a federal government of climate deniers,

        good to hear from the concern trolls who insist that the planet self regulates its own temperature
        ,
        a large number of QLD’ers would agree with that nonsense due to creationism being allowed in our state schools many decades ago.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          $1.5 billion for 250 megawatts? Wow that’s expensive. No wonder it got cancelled.

          So whose fault is it that “deniers” got elected?

  11. Bill Jamison says:

    Maybe the biggest irony is the fact that it’s almost Sept 1st and there hasn’t been a single hurricane in the Atlantic yet. Even Revkin knows the evidence of a human-caused change in intensity is tenuous at best. He points out that the new IPCC report will list it as “low confidence”.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/hurricane-marco-rubio-a-winning-climate-campaign/?_r=0#more-50531

    Indeed.

    Apparently the new normal is fewer major hurricanes hitting the US.

    • john byatt says:

      Must be having a bit of trouble sleeping, worried about hurricanes

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/denier-weirdness-science-deniers-just.html

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Funny how your link touches on the fire in the Yosemite area but fails to mention that the temperature trend over the last 100 years is actually negative for the Sierra and that precipitation for the southern Sierra has increased from 10 to 20%. It’s the combination of 100 years of fire suppression and increased precipitation that is thought to have increased the fuel load substantially in much of the Sierra. Of course right now we’re in the midst of a 2 year drought which isn’t at all unusual in California since our temperature and precipitation patterns are highly correlated to both ENSO and PDO phases.

        On that link he wants to ignore the fact that there hasn’t been a major hurricane to hit the US in almost 8 years and tornadoes were at very low rates this spring. Yet all extreme weather must be due to climate change and are, of course, confirmation that extreme weather is increasing. Except when it isn’t.

        • john byatt says:

          2007

        • Gregory T says:

          And yet the 2012 hurricane Sandy, the largest atlantic hurricane on record, and affected 24 states from Florida to Maine and into the mid west,.in your eyes, must be a minor storm not worth mentioning. You seem to think that a major hurricane is only major when it affects the US. Such an insular attitude. Go onto Wikipedia and read what the largest atlantic hurricane on record did.to countries in the caribbean and most of the victims were not lounging around in air conditioned comfort, with their beemers in the garage. No they were victims of people like you who spread misinformation from the churches of Watts, Jo Nova, Monckton and Lucia who say Don’t worry, it will fix itself, what,don’t you have a FEMA to come and help clean up, to bad, so sad.
          Don’t bother to respond with the usual, diatribe, about how were so stupid and ignorant at this blog. We and the rest of the world are well aware of the fact that being a superpower does not equate to super intelligence, only religious fervor.

        • Dr No says:

          I thought that climate change meant less, but more intense, hurricanes/cyclones.
          Thanks for reminding me that this appears to be happening.

          And, of course, that average rainfall could increase at low and high latitudes and decrease at mid latitudes.
          Thanks again for reminding me about this.

          As for tornadoes – I dont think there is any research indicating what will happen.
          But thanks for drawing my attention to the fact that they could be decreasing in numbers.

          Also, thanks for reminding me that the PDO phase is due to end and we are likely to experience a really severe El Nino very soon. Then we will have to prepare for another drought and heat waves.

          I suggest we award a prize to people like Bill for their insightful observations.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The PDO phase typically last decades and it switched to the cool phase ~2000. It was during the warm phase that the global temperature increased from around 1980 through 2000. It’ll definitely be interesting to see what happens over the next decade if it stays in the cool phase and there are fewer El Niños and more La Niñas.

          The interesting thing about Sandy was the timing where it collided with the strong cold front coming out of Canada.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Since global warming is supposed to result in “fewer storms but higher intensity” then you’d think we would have seen a Cat 5 hurricane since 2007 but there hasn’t been a single one.

          But you guys don’t like to let facts get in the way of computer models predictions so just keep believing.

        • Gregory T says:

          Read this and then lets talk about intensity, severity and size.
          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sandy.html#4

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes you should probably read your link Gregory. The whole reason Sandy blew up was because it collided with the cold air from the arctic like I said…from your link:

          Hurricane Sandy is expected to mix with a powerful cold front approaching the east coast, and cold Arctic Air mass, setting up for a powerful storm, a “Bride of Frankenstorm.”

          The cold front stretching from the upper Midwest to the Gulf coast is moving eastward and is expected to temporarily push Sandy away from the coast. However, the front is expected to break down as it moves toward the coast, allowing Hurricane Sandy to come back toward the coast.

          As happens when any storm becomes extra-tropical, <b.Sandy will go from a warm to cold core center and the strongest winds spread out and the storm will expand. According to the National Hurricane Center, hurricane force winds extend outward up to 35 miles (55 km) from the center and tropical storm force winds extend outward up to 275 miles (445 km). The wind field of Sandy is expected to grow in size during the next couple of days. The storm’s circulation almost reaches 2,000 miles.

          I’d like to see where global warming models predict that hurricanes will mix with cold arctic storms to become more powerful.

          I watched that storm develop on the models for several days before it became news. I posted my first warning on Oct. 25 on another forum: “This storm has the potential to be massive. If you live in New England you might want to stock up on supplies and gas ahead of time just in case”. I then posted an image from the GFS model run showing a direct hit on New York.

          It’s not like strong storms haven’t hit the New England area before with one of the most notable being the 1938 storm which hit as a Cat 3:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane

        • Gregory T says:

          So it wasn’t an extreme weather event or the largest Atlantic hurricane on record. The fact that it mixed with another weather event, negates everything. The fact it was the largest before it collided with the Canadian front is also meaningless. What is even more meaningless, is your discription of your weatherman act. I’m sure you did Watts proud. Perhaps it’s time you got a refresher course on climate change denial. I’m sure, David E. Wojick could whip you up a quick module, you could probably get a discount off the $5,000 each he charges Heartland. Oops, was that supposed to be a secret, oh well, maybe if the whole church went in together, they could get a bulk rate.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes it was an extreme event just like the 1938 hurricane and some of the other hurricanes that hit New England. It was as big as it was because it was so late in the season and mixed with the cold air. Not because the earth is warmer but because there was COLD air. That’s what you want to conveniently ignore. It was also extratropical. I’m not sure any of the computer model simulations deal with storms that become extratropical. In a sense it became a massive nor’easter. That’s what some places got several feet of snow – not something you would expect from a tropical storm.

          Without that deep cold front coming out of the arctic it’s likely that Sandy would have curved out into the Atlantic just like so many other storms and we wouldn’t be discussing it here. Next you’ll blame all that early season cold air on global warming too.

  12. Gregory T says:

    Dr No.. Your right, he does need an award. This last comment of his, cements his status. Imagine, the confluence of one weather event, into another,extreme weather event, could have nothing to do,with that which does not exist.

  13. john byatt says:

    Sandy wunderground jeff masters

    Arctic sea ice loss can cause blocking ridges
    Blocking ridges occur naturally, but are uncommon over Greenland this time of year. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, blocking near the longitude of Greenland (50°W) only occurs about 2% of the time in the fall. These odds rise to about 6% in winter and spring. As I discussed in an April post, Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns, three studies published in the past year have found that the jet stream has been getting stuck in unusually strong blocking patterns in recent years. These studies found that the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible, since this heats up the pole, altering the Equator-to-pole temperature difference, forcing the jet stream to slow down, meander, and get stuck in large loops. The 2012 Arctic sea ice melt season was extreme, with sea ice extent hitting a record lows. Could sea ice loss have contributed to the blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey? It is possible, but we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link, as the studies of sea ice loss on jet stream patterns are so new. The author of one of the new studies, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, had this say in a recent post by Andy Revkin in his Dot Earth blog: “While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic.”

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/why-did-hurricane-sandy-take-such-an-unusual-track-into-new-jersey

    • Bill Jamison says:

      “the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible” “we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link” “it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s”

      The low sea ice extent *might* help explain the unusual track but it’s not the first time a storm has hit that area. Notice that Dr. Masters doesn’t blame the low sea ice extent for the unusual early season cold front that mixed with the warm air of Sandy and helped fuel the massive storm.

      • john byatt says:

        “Not the first time a storm has hit the area”, sounds like not the first drought we have had, not the first massive heat wave we have had,

        it was your claim that “On that link he wants to ignore the fact that there hasn’t been a major hurricane to hit the US in almost 8 years”

        that is what we are refuting and now your only reply is that it is not the first time a storm has hit that area,

        3:18 AM
        Sunday, September 1, 2013 (PDT)
        Time in San Diego, CA, USA

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Does it bother you that I’m a night person jb? Is that supposed to signify something? if not then what’s the point of posting it?

          Sandy was not a major hurricane when it hit in fact it wasn’t a hurricane at all. Not sure how that refutes anything. In reality you’re simply reinforcing the idea that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          In case you don’t know, a “major hurricane” is defined as a Cat 3 or higher storm.

        • john byatt says:

          I wondered why you were going off the rails, obviously lack of sleep

        • Bill Jamison says:

          One reasoned paragraph is considered by you to be “going off the rails”? Fascinating.

          I suppose we should all start including our local timezone when we post so jb can determine whether we are getting enough sleep or not. Would you prefer that I not post after 8pm your time since you’re retired and old people need to get to sleep early?

  14. The number of extreme weather events is rising. Will we run out of deniers? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12

    • Dr No says:

      The answer is no.
      Why? Because despite having just experienced a record warm summer and now winter in Australia:
      (1)We all know that the temperature records have been tampered with.
      (2)We all know that Antarctic is not heating up
      (3)We know that is the fault of the PDO
      (4)It had nothing to do with greenhouse gases but was simply because we did not experience enough cold days
      (5) Warm temperatures are good for us- so stop complaining
      (6) Things will return to normal after the election on Saturday because Tony Abbot says it is crap anyway.
      and, finally,
      (7) You cannot fool me with science

      • Bill Jamison says:

        It’s not the PDO it’s ENSO – according to the new paper just published.

        You are right about one thing: warmer temperatures are better for us if we want to feed all 7 billion people. Another cold period like the LIA and we’d have massive starvation.

        • john byatt says:

          love how they see opposites as warm versus cold

          warm…… cool

          cold……..hot

          cold planet bad, hot planet good?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          As usual jb you miss the point: warm planet means plants will grow and cold planet means fewer plants grow.

          Just look at the current locations around the world and figure out where plants grow – the tropics or the poles?

          It’s not that difficult. More life more biodiversity exists in warmer areas than colder areas. Even the frozen tundra holds the evidence of previous life that existed when the tundra wasn’t frozen.

        • john byatt says:

          this is just too ignorant for words, go and get more sleep

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes you are ignorant if you don’t realize that plants grow in warm climates and don’t grow in cold snowy ones. Ever heard of SPRING jb? It’s when things warm up enough for plants to grow again.

          That’s how the world works or in you words “how god designed it”.

        • john byatt says:

          You are an idiot

          this does not even scratch the surface of limiting factors but it is a small start

          we are talking about increasing global temperature here unless you believe that god will maintain it as humans prefer it or we are heading into an ice age as most denier blogs predict

          Temperature affects the productivity and growth of a plant depending upon whether the plant variety is a warm-season or cool-season crop. If temperatures are high and day length is long, cool-season crops such as broccoli and spinach will bolt rather than produce the desired flower. Temperatures that are too low or high for a warm-season crop will prevent fruit set. Temperatures that are too high for warm-season crops such as pepper or tomato can cause pollen to become inviable and not pollinate flowers. Adverse temperatures also cause stunted growth and poor quality. For example, the bitterness in lettuce is caused by high temperatures.

          and your reply is that plants do not grow in a cold snowy environment, how do they go in a hot dry environment,?

          thousands of papers on all aspects of climate change and some dickhead on a blog wants the permafrost to melt so we can grow more food,

          simplistic nonsense, you need rest and sleep

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Aren’t YOU the one that claimed that 14C is the ideal temperature for humans?

          That is of course ignoring the fact that January has a mean temperature of 12C and July has a mean temperature of 15.8C. So in your mind January is too cold and July is too hot. Sounds like a children’s story!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well aren’t you the one that claimed 14C was the ideal annual mean temperature for mankind jb???

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So they ran a computer model and it didn’t forecast increased yield. If it had would you have posted the results?

          I’m confident it WILL increase yields in locations farther to the north that currently aren’t warm enough or don’t have a long enough growing season for some crops.

          The problem with you guys is that you only look for the negative. Some warming has both positive and negative impacts. Change can be good but you guys refuse to admit that ANYTHING good could possibly come from any amount of warming.

          All I can say is you better get used to it.

        • If only you could find some science supported your view.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I see the problem – you think that computer model projections are “science”. They aren’t.

        • I see the problem, you have a problem with modern technology. Step away from your computer. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No JHS I don’t have a problem with technology I’m just acutely aware of the limitations of computer modeling and simulations. To model something you have to base the model on assumptions. Those assumption may or may not be correct. Unless you know what assumptions went into the model then there’s no way to know the error bars associated with the output and it’s rarely discussed when people like you tout the “evidence” of the projections of doom and gloom.

        • So your response would appear to be not to model and trust to fate. How medieval.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Trust to fate? No the answer is to model and recognize the limitations of the models.

          It’s just like the fiasco over the “State of Australians Cities” report. The report is flawed and then inept reporting conflates the flaws and guys like you and John eat it up and never question the highly inflated results. The truth is we still don’t know what model was used to generate the original projections by PWC or what assumptions went into that model. All we know are the projections.

          It’s unfortunate that people like you read this stories about projections and seem to believe that they will automatically be right when the truth is there is no way to know. They could be off by 50% or 500%. Only time will tell.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yeah the lack of hurricanes is really killing the gas and oil industry in the US this year…

          /sarc

        • The CEI has been rising reasonably steadily for a generation. Only a fool wouldn’t make plans.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      So now we just have to look at US data to determine whether global extreme events are rising?

      What caused the decline from 1910 through 1970 while CO2 was rising?

      • Dr No says:

        I know ,I know I know. ….The answer is sun spots !

        It is so obvious. Why cant the climate scientists see this?
        They must be pretty darned stupid if you ask me.

        Tony and Rupert are right to call all this kerfuffle so much crap.

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        “What caused the decline from 1910 through 1970 while CO2 was rising?”

        Hey Bill, have you ever heard of this magical website recently created that answers all your questions. Here is the link http://www.google.com.

        Why do you continue to clog up the threads with your inane musings? Why do you even bother? The fact that CO2 traps heat and act’s as a greenhouse gas was discovered in 1859-1860 by John Tyndall. That’s right, 153 years ago. So unless you can disprove his work, and in that 153 years, no one has, anything you say is just rubbish.

      • Gregory T says:

        You know Bill, you should really start to put more effort into local issues, what with your pro AGW California government, the pro AGW Federal EPA, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#adapt
        I know, I know, their all part of the conspiracy. But what if, by the wildest imagination, it’s true? (after all, you’re proof that strange things happen). Is Watts going to come pick you up in his electric car, take you to his compound with all the solar panels, where you and the rest of the church members can sit around and sing “We shall over come”, while you wait for the mother ship, that you have been promised a place on? All the while hoping that a extreme weather event does not delay the departure. No Bill, you’ve got 38 million people in California alone to convince of your false and misleading concepts regarding AGW, why come to this blog and preach your intemperate and mundane pronouncements, when you’ve got so much work to do at home? Is it because you are a missionary, from the great “Church of The Denial” who’s apostles, Watts, Jo Nova, Monckton, Lucia and all the lesser reviewless ones, have decreed; “Thou shalt go out into the cyber of space and foul the links and blogs, with our messages of abnegation” Well Bill, you have failed in your missionary task, so perhaps you should return to your church and seek absolution from your deities and maybe they’ll save you a spot on the mother ship, or maybe in their self induced Armageddon, a rapture awaits you.

      • I’ll leave the historical analysis of 1910-1970 to you,

        Om the meantime let’s fix today.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How can you expect any prediction of future activity to be accurate if we can’t understand the factors that resulted in a decades long decrease? Yet you prefer to ignore it.

        • Off you gp, “sceptic”, see if you can answer your own question. What was the reason for the 1910-1970 decline?

          We can’t do anything until we know everything is procrastination writ large.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Since we’re really only talking about US then the immediate answer would be the cool phase of the PDO since the cooling trend in the US coincided with the change in phase. The Pacific Ocean is the biggest factor in US weather obviously.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I believe on this site it’s common to tell people to do your own research. Or in your words “you have the key phrases”.

        • Wear your petard with pride!

          You’re the one who asked about 1910-1970. You’re now the one proclaiming people should do their own research. Off you go.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Just Google “correlation US temperature and PDO phase” then read and learn JHS. It’s not that difficult. Apparently you only like to provide key phrases where I went so far as to give you the Google search phrase. Or should I give you a LMGTFY link?

        • I had already Googled it. I found this, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm

          If sir needed a larger petard to rest upon he need only ask.

          (I know Watts, D’Aleo and others promote this on their blogscience sites.)

        • Your citation doesn’t actually make your case. It’s also an old paper, unpublished in so far as I can make out. From your paper:

          Implications for climate predictions

          Recent studies suggest that ENSO teleconnections with North American climate are strongly dependent on the phase of the PDO, such that the “canonical” El Niño and La Niña patterns are only valid during years in which ENSO and PDO extremes are “in phase” (i.e. with warm PDO+El Niño, and cool PDO+La Niña, but not with other combinations) (Gershunov and Barnett 1999, Gershunov et al. 1999, McCabe and Dettinger 1999). Other studies have identified PDO connections with summer rainfall and drought in the US (Nigam et al. 1999), and the relative risks for winter and spring flood events in the Pacific Northwest (Hamlet and Lettenmeier, in press).

          At the time of this writing, causes for (and predictability limits of) the PDO are not known. What is known is that the nature of the mechanisms giving rise to the PDO will determine whether or not it is possible to make decade-long PDO climate predictions. For example, it has been demonstrated that aspects of ENSO variability are predictable at lead times of at least one year. This time frame is related to the time period that equatorial ocean currents and temperatures need to respond and equilibrate to changes in tropical winds. By analogy, if the PDO arises from air-sea interactions that require 10 year ocean adjustment times, then aspects of the phenomenon will be (in theory) predictable at lead times of up to 10 years.

          Even in the absence of a theoretical or mechanistic understanding, PDO climate information provides assistance in improving seasonal climate forecasts for North America. This is true because of the PDO’s strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has exploited this facet of North American climate with their “Optimal Climate Normals” (OCN) statistical prediction tool. In the absence of El Niño or La Niña, the PDO provides much of the skill in seasonal climate forecasts for North America. Combining ENSO and PDO information offers improved statistical climate predictions over those based solely upon one of these two important climate patterns (Gershunov and Barnett 1999, Gershunov et al. 1999, McCabe and Dettinger 1999).

          The skill in PDO-based forecasts comes from its tendency to persist, thus this skill disappears when there is an unforeseen change in the PDO pattern. Such a change–a flip from warm to cool PDO phases–may have taken place in 1998, coincident with the demise of the 1997/98 El Niño and the beginning of the ongoing La Niña episode. Currently, because no one is certain how the PDO works, it is not possible to say with great confidence that these recent changes in Pacific climate mark the beginning of a 20-to30 year long cool phase of the PDO. Thus, the lack of PDO understanding presents a barrier to both real-time monitoring and forecasting PDO reversals. The research community’s ENSO experience showed that improved understanding and predictions came with the synergy of observational, theoretical, and modeling studies (National Academy Press, 1996). Each of these lines of PDO research have been identified as high priorities by the ongoing US CLIVAR program. PDO science is relatively new compared to ENSO science, but insights into the PDO have come at a furious pace in the last decade of the 20th century. More insights into how PDO works, and how to predict PDO variations, are sure to come in the first decade of the 21st century.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It would help if you actually read what I wrote and responded to my points. I said that there is a correlation between the PDO and ENSO and US temperature. As a rebuttal you post a link to SkS about the PDO being blamed for last century’s global temperature increase.

          Now look at what I DID say:

          Chart of US temperature: http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1090/mkcq.jpg

          Notice that it warms from ~1915 until ~1942. It cools from ~1942 until ~1980. It warms from ~1980 until today. What does SkS say?

          Three so-called regime shifts can be seen in the PDO index shown in fig 2, namely around 1923, 1945 and 1977.

          And that’s just looking at the PDO and not ENSO. Combine the two and you see they have a HUGE influence on US temperature…just as I said. They also have a strong influence on precipitation and drought.

          The link I provided also backs up my claim:

          In the absence of El Niño or La Niña, the PDO provides much of the skill in seasonal climate forecasts for North America. Combining ENSO and PDO information offers improved statistical climate predictions over those based solely upon one of these two important climate patterns (Gershunov and Barnett 1999, Gershunov et al. 1999, McCabe and Dettinger 1999).

          It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the Pacific Ocean has a major influence on US temperature. None at all.

          I think SkS will have to update their pages based on the two new papers showing that ENSO has a direct impact on global temperature. In fact they claim the “pause” is due to La Nina conditions prevailing over the last decade.

        • It’s obviously terribly important to you, Bill, to blame the reader for not understanding your argument. Oh well.

          The narrow point under discussion is NOAA’s CEI index, 1910-1970, and why that’s lower than today. Your Imageschack plot of US temperatures does indeed show that higher temperatures appear to correlate with more extreme events. I think we both would have predicted that. So the new, roughly equivalent question, is what drives the higher temperatures in the US?

          You then say that the higher temperatures in the US correlate with the PDO over the time period 1910-1970. The PDO has been negative for three years. Yet 2012 was the warmest year in the US. What new factor has entered the equation that jeopardises your historic correlation?

          See https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov%2Fproducts%2FGODAS%2Focean_briefing_gif%2Fglobal_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

          (At this point a quick Google will show Watts, D’Aleo, Pielke Sr, Roy Spencer all trying to assert that the PDO, perhaps with the AMO, is what’s driving temperature – both in the US and globally. Inherently, over long enough timescales, an oscillation is not a trend. Let them publish – and, no, SPPI does not count.)

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You’re absolutely right JHS, I do blame you for not understanding this simple couple of sentences:

          Since we’re really only talking about US then the immediate answer would be the cool phase of the PDO since the cooling trend in the US coincided with the change in phase. The Pacific Ocean is the biggest factor in US weather obviously.

          Nowhere did I say or imply anything about global temperature being controlled or even influenced by the PDO yet you claim to rebut my statement by a link to SkS discussing PDO and global temperature.

          I assume you are aware of the two new papers recently featured on WUWT that claim that the pause in warming is due to ENSO and that ENSO has a major impact on global temperature. Right?

        • Is an oscillation (as in PDO or ENSO) a trend?

          Oh dear Bill, WUWT? Seriously? Talk about motivated reasoning.

          “I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.”

          — Bora Zivkovic is the Blog Editor at Scientific American, chronobiologist, biology teacher, organizer of ScienceOnline conferences and editor of Open Laboratory anthologies of best science writing on the Web.

          http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Of course oscillations aren’t a trend. Don’t be silly. In this case the oscillations impact the trend of temperature that we measure. Simple really. I thought you could figure that out for yourself but obviously I over estimated your ability once again.

          Since you are apparently the only one here that doesn’t read WUWT I won’t provide a link to the new paper discussed there. Instead I’ll provide a link to Tamino. I don’t know if you read Tamino regularly but I know johnny boy does so he should already be familiar with this post:

          http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/

          That’s about one of the new papers that blames the “pause” on ENSO. Maybe you can ask Tamino if an oscillation is a trend LOL

        • You do have a habit of over-estimating peoples’ abilities, starting with your own.

          What will happen when this pause ends? I suggest looking at prior pauses such as
          Jan ’70 to Nov ’77, Nov ’77 to Nov ’86, Sep ’87 to Nov ’96, Mar ’97 to Oct ’02.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Ah I see. You think I don’t understand the implications of blaming the “pause” on ENSO.

          Once again your reading comprehension is FAIL. I’m not the one saying the pause is due to ENSO. Climate scientists are saying that in two new papers. If they are correct then if the current phase of predominantly La Niñas switches then global temperature will go back up. That said, PDO cold phase means more La Niñas than El Niños. So if these researchers are correct then the global trend may not continue to increase as rapidly as it did during the period from ~1980 to ~2000 when the PDO was in the warm phase. Time will tell if they’re right or not.

          That said I find it hard to believe that the strong 1998 El Niño had very little impact on global temperature as shown in the figure created by Tamino. Seems to me there is an obvious issue with that analysis.

        • I am ever so pleased you have convinced yourself. I’m always charmed by those sporting the caps of indignation, as you do. The earth is warming – the current hiatus in surface temperatures is so-called sceptics’ Fools Gold.

  15. john byatt says:

    last year i bet eric $100 that 2012 would be warmer than 2011, after going on about cooling he would not take up the bet,

    try again with bill.

    I bet that 2013 will be a warmer year than 2012, $100 , any takers?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Did you bet him that 2010 and 2011 would be cooler than 2009?

      As of now that’s looking like a good bet to take since GISS has this year at 56 while last year came in at 57. Obviously it can go either way at this point. The remaining months will have to have an average anomaly of 62.4 or less for this year to be cooler than last year which is certainly possible considering only 2 months so far this year have come in with a higher anomaly.

      I won’t take the bet though. There’s no way I’m going to give you my personal information for sending payment!

      How about a bet where the loser has to post here on this forum that they lost and they were wrong and the other person was right? A public admission.

      • john byatt says:

        “considering only 2 months so far this year have come in with a higher anomaly”

        then give it a go .

        2012 39 42 52 61 70 59 51 58 68 72 69 45……… 57
        2013 63 50 58 48 56 66 54
        Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

        $100

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No money John I’m not giving you my personal information to pay me after your cyberstalking.

          Either way I’ll bookmark this thread and remind you when you lose!

        • john byatt says:

          gutless bill, all talk but not that sure of himself when it comes to laying cash on the table

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You’re unwilling to take a bet where you have to make a public announcement of being wrong jayembee?

        • john byatt says:

          The pink panther, i sign many at the bottom of the comment john byatt,……

          cooloola was the other one

          the sound of the spirit, the wind through the casuarinas along the sand dunes

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “he remaining months will have to have an average anomaly of 62.4 or less for this year to be cooler than last year”

          August GISS value is 62 so you still have a shot at being right jb but you’ll need the remaining 4 months to have an average anomaly over 65. So far not a single month has been higher than 62. BTW GISS updated last year’s values for some months and the annual anomaly is now .58 not .57 which makes it even tougher for you to be right!

          2012 39 43 52 61 71 59 52 58 68 73 69 46 58
          2013 62 50 58 47 55 60 53 62

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Rounding up you could be right if the average monthly anomaly is over 64 not 65. Slightly better chance!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Any guesses as to the GISS global land/sea temperature anomaly for September?

          I’ll guess .59

        • john byatt says:

          if we must 63

        • Bill Jamison says:

          With September at 74 you still have a shot!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Amazing how many months have been adjusted just since my post on Sept 12!

          2012 40 43 53 62 71 60 51 59 68 73 70 47 – 58
          2013 63 51 60 48 57 61 54 61 74

          Average through September: 58.77

        • J Giddeon says:

          “Amazing how many months have been adjusted just since my post on Sept 12!”

          Not amazing at all. That’s what GISS do. What’s amazing is that those adjustments would have feed through into adjusting temperatures back in the first half of the previous century.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          In fairness temperatures for previous months have been adjusted both up and down. The adjustments to 2012 months haven’t been substantial. Only time will tell if the adjustments to 2013 months will have an impact. I do understand why some adjustments are made since the value initially reported is preliminary.

  16. john byatt says:

    Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C

    aha bill seems to think that as “July has a mean temperature of 15.8C” which needs to be changed to past tense., he believes that a yearly mean of 15.8C would be fine.glad we finally sorted that out

    • Bill Jamison says:

      And somehow you think that the annual mean for those years is somehow the ideal temperature for mankind?

      It’s not that I “think* July has a mean temperature of 15.8C that’s what NCDC shows in their link that I’ve provided you several times already. They also show an annual mean of 14C. Please don’t tell me you still think each month has the same mean temperature after I proved to you they don’t!

  17. Bill Jamison says:

    Cold weather causes heart attacks…I wonder where we discuss this before?

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-cold-weather-heart.html

    Note that it’s from TODAY.

    • john byatt says:

      one study syndrome

      thousands of studies

      here is one

      http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/view/17495

    • zoot says:

      Cold weather causes heart attacks

      Well I never, and here was I thinking my heart attack was caused by a blocked cardiac blood vessel.
      Funnily enough, the linked article only mentions temperature as a trigger of myocardial infarctions. Bill’s poor grasp of English lets him down again.

      Come on Bill, who dresses you in the morning?

      • Gregory T says:

        Actually zoot, they just tell him he has clothes on.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Oh wow you really got me good this time zoot man you must feel proud! Of course JHS wants to immediately claim “But heat causes deaths!” and of course that ignores the fact that there are more excess deaths during the winter than the summer. Another inconvenient fact.

        I apologize to all for my inexact language how could I possibly write “causes” when I meant “triggers”? Oh the public shame!

        • zoot says:

          Sounds like I hit a nerve.

        • I supplied IPCC data for my claim. You supplied arm waving.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          From your link JHS:

          “Reductions in cold-related deaths due to climate change are projected to be greater than increases in heat-related deaths in the UK”

          You gave a link to projected changes. We’re talking about current situation which is more people die during the winter than the summer. As I’ve said just google “excess winter deaths” and you’ll find plenty of info.

        • The IPCC analysis is on “Projected impacts of climate change on heat- and cold-related mortality”. Will AGW make things better or worse? And the answer is worse, as you’ve tacitly admitted.

          “Reductions in cold-related deaths due to climate change are projected to be greater than increases in heat-related deaths in the UK (Donaldson et al., 2001)”

        • Bill Jamison says:

          AGW is projected <— key word right there to increase heat related deaths and reduce cold related deaths. According to your link to the IPCC document in the UK the reduction in cold related deaths is expected to be larger than the increase in heat related deaths.

          I do find it interesting that the IPCC has far current heat related deaths in Australia than the Australian government does – hopefully you remember the State of Australian Cities report where the official total of heatwave related deaths is 2,887 over the last 123 years. That averages out to 24 per year. As we noted in the previous conversation on this topic, that number is bound to increase with increasing population and also ageing population regardless of any warming.

        • AR4 was published in 2007 so, by definition, won’t be current. Let’s see what AR5 brings.

          AGW is not good for your health.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          AGW may not be good for your health but neither is extreme cold. With a global mean annual temperature of only 14C for the baseline period and only 12C for January it doesn’t leave much room for it to drop before people start dying.

        • But it’s not going to get colder now, is it Bill? It’s going to get much warmer.

          AGW is not good for your health.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So you can see the future JHS?

          It’s projected (there’s that word again!) to get warmer. How much warmer is certainly up for debate. The range of model output varies from cooling to substantial and devastating warming (10C or more).

          Obviously we don’t really understand the climate system all that well or we would have so many models that vary so wildly.

          Will it get warmer? Most likely yes.

        • Oh dear, Bill, AGW is not good for your health, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904105145.htm

          I see the future much as the overwhelming number of scientists do, yes. What do you use?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes JHS you see computer modeling and simulations projecting doom and gloom and you assume it will really happen. Or is it that you want it to happen? Are you hoping that deniers are wrong and that all of these terrible things come to pass just so you can be RIGHT.

        • I provide a study. Bill flaps his arms. Will he achieve enough lift to for takeoff this time?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How can a computer model projection ever be a “study”? Generally a “study” consists of observations and investigations.

          I suppose from now on pharmaceutical companies can claim to have “studied” the safety of a new medicine by simply running a computer simulation and looking at the projected safety instead of actually testing it. After all it’s good enough for climate science.

          Did you know that when a company like Boeing or Airbus designs a new plane they do it on a computer? They simulate all kinds of parameters and attempt to model the behavior. Then they actually build models and test them and revise their computer models to match actual results. Once all that is done, and it takes many iterations, they finally build a real plane and then they test it. Imagine that! They don’t just assume their models are right even after all that testing. They have to actually study the way the plane responds under actual flight conditions.

          I suppose they could skip all that studying and just rely on computer models too. Right JHS?

        • You seem to be advocating testing using earth as a control. I think I spot a flaw in your reasoning.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Like it or not that’s what IS happening. It should be obvious to anyone that is realistic that there isn’t going to be a meaningful climate treaty any time soon.

          We will find out sooner or later if the current crop of climate models have any skill at all. Right now it’s not looking that good.

        • Yup, agreed. The science is clear.

          Meanwhile the policy reaction is that of a rabbit staring into a headlamp.

      • Dr No says:

        Summer heat killed 87 in 2013
        http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/02/national/summer-heat-killed-87-in-2013/#.UiV_zdLimSo

        More than likely the medical profession is in league with the climate scientists. How do we know they didnt “arrange” a few more deaths to suit their cause?

        Otherwise, the real reason would have been because Japan is located in the north Pacific. Hence the PDO would have been responsible.

        And, because it was summer, the Japanese would have been located closer to the sunspots. Quite simple really.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Sounds like you’re unaware that more people die during the winter than during the summer which is termed “excess winter deaths”.

          Of course heatwaves kill. They used to kill a lot more people before modern technology and cheap energy made air conditioning so readily available. Excess deaths used to be during summer months in Australia in the 1800 but that changed and now the excess deaths are during the winter.

          Winter cold in India killed at least 140:
          http://www.saharasamay.com/nation-news/676521540/north-india-cold-up-cold-winter-temperature-weather-forecast-del.html

        • More people will die in the warmer world ahead.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Of course more people will die the population continues to increase. duh

        • More people will die because the earth warms. Duh.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          More people will die because there will be more population. Most of the warming will be towards the poles – remember? – and that won’t cause deaths. Fewer people will die during the winter though so that’s a good thing. In fact, according to the IPCC report you linked the increase in deaths due to heat will be more than offset by the reduction in cold related deaths in some countries. So more people will actually live due to global warming in some countries. Imagine that.

          Oh wait, you can’t imagine that because you’ve been programmed to believe that only bad things can come from any and all warming. I keep forgetting that you can’t violate your programming!

        • The science says the drawbacks of AGW will outweigh any benefits.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How many reports have you seen that LOOK for benefits of AGW? Whether it’s good or bad depends completely on the magnitude of warming and that it still to be determined.

        • john byatt says:

          skeptical science started a list of good and bad outcomes, not sure they kept it up to dat though

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

        • The scientific process is to look for effects – and then judge whether they are good or bad.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m glad you recognize that we won’t know if the impacts are good or bad until we know what will happen. We don’t know how much warming there will be or how fast it will occur so we can’t predict what impacts will happen and when.

          Obviously there is a HUGE difference between having 1C warming by 2100 than having 10C warming by 2100.

        • Knowing, with absolute certainty, is for mystics and mathematicians.

          We know it will warm, within a range. And we know the effects are not positive whether the impact is another 1C or a cataclysmic 10C. And we know the longer we wait the more trouble we store up.

          We know inactivity is a poor policy choice.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Sounds like you’re unfamiliar with the fact that at least one of the models used by the IPCC shows that cooling is possible. You really need to educate yourself JHS. We don’t KNOW it will warm. We believe it’s highly likely that it will warm.

        • Cooling is possible…over the short term. We know more energy is entering the system than leaving. There’s only one long term result from that.

          But I do enjoy your wriggling.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How do we know there is more energy entering the system than leaving? Clouds have an awfully big impact on albedo.

        • Clouds are part of the system.

          The measurements are from the top of the atmosphere – more energy enters than leaves.

          Any old prevarication that leads to inaction is a good thing, eh?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Turns out JHS that you need to do a little more research. All we have are estimates of the energy balance. Part of the equation is based on OHC which is estimated. One recent paper put the imbalance at 0.6 W/ms with an accuracy of +/-4 W/ms. Not 0.4 but 4. In other words the error range is more than 6 times larger than the estimated imbalance:

          …the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

          The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm–2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12.Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.

          This uncertainty is almost an order of magnitude larger than the imbalance of 0.58 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from OHC information.

          So there may be more energy entering into the system. We don’t know for sure.

          Source: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf

          Isn’t it refreshing to have someone give you an actual quote from a paper and a link to the source?

          Be honest JHS – were you aware of any of this? Or did you believe we actually knew the actual energy imbalance because it was measured? After all you did say “The measurements are from the top of the atmosphere – more energy enters than leaves.”. Doesn’t sound like you knew either that the uncertainly was “an order of magnitude larger” than the figure commonly used or that the figure of 0.6 W/ms itself was inferred (or you could say “estimated”) from OHC.

          BTW If that paper is accurate then all of the current climate models are WRONG because they use inaccurate values for longwave radiation at the surface.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey JHS so did you learn anything about estimate global energy imbalance?

        • john byatt says:

          We cannot precisely measure the imbalance but denying it is inane

          see citations

          http://www.nasw.org/users/climate_writer/Guest/pdf/Earth.EnergyImbalance.pdf

        • john byatt says:

          and this year

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

          The magnitude of the warming trend is consistent with observational estimates, being equivalent to an average 0.47 ± 0.03 W m–2 for the period 1975–2009. There is large decadal variability in the heat uptake, the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19 ± 0.11 W m–2) than the preceding record. Globally this corresponds to 0.84 W m–2, consistent with earlier estimates [Trenberth et al., 2009]. In an observing system experiment where Argo is withdrawn, the ocean heating for the last decade is reduced (0.82 ± 0.10 W m–2), but is still significantly higher than in previous decades. The estimation shows depths below 700 m becoming much more strongly involved in the heat uptake after 1998, and subsequently accounting for about 30% of the ocean warming.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey John the way it works is you estimate the imbalance and then you provide the error bars for your estimate. If the error bars exceed your estimate then you can’t state with a high degree of certainty that your estimate is correct.

          We have an estimate of earth’s energy imbalance. We don’t have a measurement like JHS thinks. Is it postive (meaning more energy entering than leaving)? Most likely yes. According to the paper I link it could be as little as 0.2 W/ms. Even that depends on the accuracy of their estimate of OHC.

        • john byatt says:

          see below, you are not making any sense claiming no imbalance,
          retract or look like a dill, your choice

        • Has Bill’s attempt at quote mining his pre-determined conclusion got him into more trouble? Tsk, tsk.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey JHS how come you didn’t answer the question? It was simple enough: Did you know that the global energy imbalance is estimated (or inferred if you prefer) and not measured? Did you know the reason for the uncertainty? Do you understand it better now (assuming you bothered to read either the paper I linked or the one that john linked)? We’re trying to educate you here so you don’t continue to make false statements or believe things that aren’t true.

          I clearly quoted the relevant parts of the paper. No quote mining. What I quoted accurately represents their findings. The range of uncertainty is large and greatly exceeds the estimated energy imbalance. That’s what they say right there in the paper. Also, as I stated, if their claims are correct then the current crop of climate models are WRONG since they are based on different assumptions for longwave radiation at the surface.

        • I rather think you missed the point of your paper, Bill.

          Your first quote simply states that we don’t have a complete set of measurements from the inside of the system – not the outside of the system.

          As for your second quote, the paragraph goes onto say “Despite this limitation, changes in the CERES net flux have been shown to track the changes in OHC data. This suggests that the intrinsic precision of CERES is able to resolve the small imbalances on interannual timescales, thus providing a basis for constraining the balance of the measured radiation fluxes to time-varying changes in OHC”

          I.e. in conjunction with other data the uncertainty is manageable.Even Ms Curry states “Note, concluding that climate models are incorrect because of this new analysis of the global heat budget is NOT justified” in her review of the paper.

          There is basic reading on NASA and lightly more advance on Wikipedia. There are papers by Hansen, Loeb, etc. I rather like the Science of Doom’s treatment at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/.

          More energy entering than leaving.

        • john byatt says:

          makes you wonder what he believes is causing the warming.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes I know that the consensus is that there is more energy entering the system than leaving. Obviously I know it since I quoted the commonly used figures. What I am saying and you keep ignoring is that 1) We don’t have measurements as you wrote, we have estimates that are inferred by OHC which is itself estimated and 2) Measurement uncertainty is significantly larger than the estimate of the imbalance.

          I do have to laugh when jb pretends to know and understand this type of stuff! Sometimes he fakes it pretty well and then other times, like now, his ignorance is painfully obvious.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill says prove me wrong pretending that he has a clue,

          what bill is saying is prove GWPF is wrong

          http://www.thegwpf.org/doug-hoffman-new-global-energy-balance-data-shows-climate-models-profoundly-uncertain/

          what a tosser

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Is that another skeptic blog that you read regularly jb? I don’t read it and haven’t read your link but it sounds like maybe they’re saying the same thing I am. Maybe you could provide some quotes for us.

  18. Gregory T says:

    If I read this right, although it’s hard to really know, all things considered;

    Note that it’s from TODAY.

    Bill has left the building.

  19. john byatt says:

    Bill posts this

    This uncertainty is almost an order of magnitude larger than the imbalance of 0.58 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from OHC information.

    and then claims this

    So there may be more energy entering into the system. We don’t know for sure.

    you confirm that you do not have a clue ” there may be more energy entering the system”

    It is the reduction in energy leaving the system not more coming in

    and it is confirmed by ocean heat content, melting glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic volume loss

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Wow you really don’t get it, do you?

      We have models that estimate that there is more energy entering the system than leaving which has lead to the warming experienced over the last few decades. Then along came the pause in warming and so people went looking for “the missing heat”. That’s when they decided to reanalyze OHC to see if they could find the missing heat. No surprise really – they found it. Is it real? Maybe. Is it a statistical artifact? Possibly. Do we really know that there is more energy entering the system TODAY than leaving? No we don’t know that with a high degree of certainty. The measurement errors are too large to know for sure. So they estimate it based on OHC. But that is using the newly reanalyzed OHC where they found the missing heat.

      The input only varies without from the sun. I think we all know that. Well I’m not sure you do jb. I’ve assumed you knew other simple concepts and you proved me wrong so I should probably stop assuming you have any actual knowledge on these subjects. You certainly don’t seem to know much about the global energy imbalance such as how it’s estimated and the uncertainty involved.

      It’s easy to sum up: scientists believe that there is currently a positive energy imbalance of ~0.6 W/ms ±0.4. The exact number changes slightly with each study but is a similar range. That means it could be as low as 0.2 W/ms (actually 0.18 but I’m rounding) and it would still be in the range of the paper I linked.

      If their calculations are off much at all or their estimates of OHC are too high then it’s likely even lower. We don’t know for sure. And that was my exact point: some people like JHS think that it’s measured when it’s not. It’s estimated and inferred and modeled. If they’re wrong and there’s more energy being lost than gained then it would help explain the pause. Maybe in a few years we’ll know for sure or at least with a greater degree of confidence

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Sorry this “The input only varies without from the sun.” should have been “The input (of energy to the earth’s climate system) only varies with output from the sun.”

        Even that isn’t entirely correct since clouds play a major factor in how much of that energy actually makes into the system.

      • john byatt says:

        bIll, you are contradicting yourself

        Bill Jamison says:
        September 8, 2013 at 7:32 am
        How do we know there is more energy entering the system than leaving?

        @ rc

        a recent paper by Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations, Nature Geoscience, 5, 691–696 (2012), which indicates significant adjustments to the energy balance MEASURED data shows how far we are from certainty.

        [Response: Again the use of ‘significance’ without understanding what is being done. The Stephens et al paper is a very incremental change from previous estimates of the global energy balances – chiefly an improvement in latent heat fluxes because of undercounts in the satellite precipitation products and an increase in downward longwave radiation. Neither are large changes in the bigger scheme of things, though you will no doubt be happy to hear the shifts bring the data closer to the model estimates. But really, are you really going to try and pull the ‘there is uncertainty, therefore we know nothing’ line? That isn’t going to fly. – gavin

        keep up with the concern trolling though

        • john byatt says:

          so bills nonsense “BTW If that paper is accurate then all of the current climate models are WRONG ”

          just confirms his total ignorance

          Gavin Schmidt above
          you will no doubt be happy to hear the shifts bring the data closer to the model estimates

          see bill. you just make an idiot of yourself

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john just because you don’t understand what I’m talking about doesn’t mean I’m an idiot. You didn’t (don’t?) understand monthly anomalies and you don’t understand how to read charts even when spoon fed the information. All you can do is regurgitate what you read on rc and tamino. You have ZERO understanding though which is unfortunate. I have no idea what you did for a career but it obviously didn’t include any science or math.

          Read the Stephens paper and then explain to me why I’m wrong.

        • john byatt says:

          get some sleep bill you are making a bigger ass of yourself questioning gavin schmidt’s understanding

          2:20 AM, go to bed

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m glad you didn’t even try to explain why I was wrong (in your mind anyway) since it would have exposed your ignorance jb. You obviously don’t have the background to comprehend anything this technical so do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.

        • john byatt says:

          bill, all you have is the Nova/GWPF from where you got this crap and pretended that it was your own reading of the paper.

          both climatologist gavin schmidt and even lukewarmer Curry have rebutted those absurd claims, time to admit that you are way out of your depth,

          The planet is not self regulating for temperature as you believe and The planet is out of equilibrium, The study you claimed proved that it was more uncertain actually reduced the uncertainty as Gavin Schmidt revealed “you will no doubt be happy to hear the shifts bring the data closer to the model estimates’

          even Nova told you that your understanding of price waterhouse report was idiotic but was too polite to say it

          nova not thinking that it was important enough? you are playing with yourself.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Even you had to admit I was right about the exaggerated claims of heat related deaths. Should I quote you again to prove it? I read the PWC report correctly and I quoted from it. It was whoever wrote the State of Australian Cities report that made the mistakes. My issue with the PWC report is that it used some unknown model to estimate future deaths without any supporting documentation to substantiate their claims.

        • john byatt says:

          here is the deal, If you cannot convince arch denier Nova that you are correct why do you still think you are correct, your comment just skipped mentioning an important caveat on the graph you posted, you got caught out when i downloaded the full paper

          nova found the same thing

          and once more you appeal to your own authority,

          nova thinks you are off your rocker why should we think otherwise?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nice strawman argument there jb. Nowhere was it said that Jo Nova didn’t agree with me about the actual mistakes in the report. Her only concern was whether it merited a blog post. Not sure why you can’t understand that.

          If I was wrong you would have posted about it once someone else figured it out and told you.

      • All measurements are estimated, inferred and modelled – every single one. They all come with error ranges too. How tall are you? How much do you weigh? What is your BMI? What error is associated with that? How accurate are your scales?

        Some people, like Bill, think uncertainty is their friend. It is not. Doing nothing is a poor policy decision.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s the only policy we have JHS so you better learn to accept it!

        • john byatt says:

          but bill believes that the planet self regulates for temperature, pretty much same as the christian fundamentalists.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Still trying to paint me as a christian fundamentalist jb? Didn’t that blow up in your face last time? Are you going to try to find another quote from me somewhere out on the Internet that you can use now that you can’t read my Facebook posts?

        • john byatt says:

          No bill i think we established the fact that your claims of being atheist was well and truly put in doubt,

          It came down to, why did you lie about it? that makes others take the piss out of you over it

          “pretty much same as the christian fundamentalists”

          does not paint you as such it just confirms that you have the same self regulating planet faith as the fundamentalists

          .

        • Bill Jamison says:

          In all the time you spent reading my years of Facebook posts you found one example to try to use to “out me” as a christian. That was it. I politely thanked people for their “thoughts and prayers”. I never posted anything about god or a church, I don’t “Like” any religious groups or people, I don’t share religious themed posts. Yet you think that me being polite is proof that I’m lying and that I’m a christian.

          No wonder you buy the AGW meme of catastrophic warming hook, line, and sinker!

        • john byatt says:

          ” “thoughts and prayers’

          apologies, i thought prayers were about god, my bad

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I don’t have to have a belief in supernatural gods to thank family and friends for their “thoughts and prayers”. Have you ever heard the phrase “it’s the thought that counts”?

          It *might* be different if I had actually posted asking people to pray for my mom but of course I didn’t do that. Even for people that believe in god the concept that praying to their god changes the outcome seems ludicrous to me.

        • john byatt says:

          did you tell your friends that it was ludicrous or thank them?

          predicted at the start that you would go from denial to try to explain it away
          anyway enough of your religious beliefs as mike wants it finished, i will give you the last comment

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No need to try to explain it more than I did. I don’t go around insulting family and friends religious beliefs. Do you? Do you get on your wife’s Facebook page and insult her friends and/or family when they post things that are religious in nature?

          If someone says to you “Merry Christmas!” do you stop and say something insulting and explain how you’re an atheist? Or do you simply say “thank you” or even just ignore it completely? Me I’d say “thank you” but then I was taught manners.

  20. john byatt says:

    This is where bill got his crap models are wrong info, reguritating jo nova

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/

    even judith curry can read the paper
    below

    • john byatt says:

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/

      Note, concluding that climate models are incorrect because of this new analysis of the global heat budget is NOT justified. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is not used in climate models in any way, and mainly has been used as a conceptual aid. The CMIP5 models actually agree better with the Stephens et al. analysis than with earlier analyses. That said, the Stephens et al. analysis highlights the uncertainties in our ability to observe and simulate the global mean surface energy balance.

      • john byatt says:

        has bill left the building ?

      • Bill Jamison says:

        I had no idea that you believed what Judith Curry writes! That’s good to know. Now if I quote her I’ll know you see her as a reputable source. After all you referenced her specifically to support your position.

        • john byatt says:

          so you are completely trashed and only have this to come back with

          pathetic troll

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You failed to answer the question: Do you trust what JC writes? If not then why would you read her blog and quote from it?

        • john byatt says:

          we are discussing Currys and Schmidts ability to understand a paper as opposed to what you have claimed is your own understanding.

          Your appeal to your own authority “prove me wrong’ just shows how far you have overestimated your own abilities,

          laughable really

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Okay so you’re saying that Curry understands the paper and that she is a credible source to quote.

          That’s good to know!

          In your haste to criticize me you forgot to know that I said “IF the claims made in the Stephen’s paper are right then the models are wrong.” If the models are using the wrong value for surface radiation then by default they must be wrong. I think the paper said it all:

          This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

          they go on to say:

          In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates.

          So if they are correct then the models need to be updated/corrected. Even you should be able to read that and comprehend what they are stating jb. It’s really not very difficult and there’s no math involved.

        • john byatt says:

          Curry
          So what are we to make of this in terms of climate models and attribution of 20th century warming? Stephens et al. compare their analysis with the CMIP5 model simulations:

          Models are commonly tuned to the TOA, so direct comparison of TOA fluxes provides little insight into model performance. As the surface solar flux is also correlated to the TOA reflected solar flux, that flux is also not entirely free of ‘tuning’ effects, so a direct comparison with estimated surface solar flux also has to be interpreted cautiously. The remaining surface fluxes, however, are completely uncoupled from the TOA fluxes and comparison with observations reveals important insights about model energy balances. The model fluxes given in Fig. 1 are expressed as a multi-model average and a range indicated by maxima and minima fluxes of the model ensemble. The inter-model global mean fluxes lie within the uncertainty of the observed values, and the global mean downward longwave surface fluxes taken from climate models generally lie at the low end of the uncertainty range of the estimated fluxes as noted in other studies. It is also notable that the model latent heat fluxes are closer to the new revised flux. Although model and observations broadly agree in the global mean, important regional biases exist in the modelled energy budgets that are not conveyed in global mean statistics.

          Note, concluding that climate models are incorrect because of this new analysis of the global heat budget is NOT justified. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is not used in climate models in any way, and mainly has been used as a conceptual aid. The CMIP5 models actually agree better with the Stephens et al. analysis than with earlier analyses. That said, the Stephens et al. analysis highlights the uncertainties in our ability to observe and simulate the global mean surface energy balance.

          which indicates significant adjustments to the energy balance MEASURED data shows how far we are from certainty.

          [Response: Again the use of ‘significance’ without understanding what is being done. The Stephens et al paper is a very incremental change from previous estimates of the global energy balances – chiefly an improvement in latent heat fluxes because of undercounts in the satellite precipitation products and an increase in downward longwave radiation. Neither are large changes in the bigger scheme of things, though you will no doubt be happy to hear the shifts bring the data closer to the model estimates. But really, are you really going to try and pull the ‘there is uncertainty, therefore we know nothing’ line? That isn’t going to fly. – gavin

          people will be embarrassed for you.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So that’s TWO quotes from Curry now. I had no idea that you had that much respect for her work and opinion jb. Do you read her blog every day too just like you do with Jo Nova? Maybe you could give me a list of all these great sites that you read daily. Or did you only start reading JC after I blocked you from reading my Facebook posts? I figured you spent quite a bit of time reading my Facebook posts and once I cut you off you had to fill the time reading something else…was it Judith Curry? Or have you been reading her blog for years just like you have Jo Nova?

        • john byatt says:

          Just notices what you highlighted from the paper

          “surface energy budget”

          twit

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m still laughing at you jb. You quote JC and I call you out on it and now you have no response. Either she’s a reputable scientist or she isn’t. If she isn’t then you shouldn’t quote her as a source to support your claim.

          Personally I think JC is a pretty smart scientist and understands these issues better than most. Now I know that you feel the same way about her and you obviously read her blog regularly.

  21. john byatt says:

    Bill wants to compare how much each has done to help reduce emissions,

    so far he apparently uses gas as his contribution,

    is that it bill?

    then anthony watts his hero has an electric car and solar panels

    is that it ?

    most of us who have taken real action do not brag about it.

    but if bill the dill wants to compare action

    go for it, you will be trashed again I assure you

    • Bill Jamison says:

      John you already bragged about the “action” you took which consisted of knocking on your neighbor’s doors. I doubt them opened them though they probably figured out that you’re a creeper right away.

      • john byatt says:

        so list your actions and i will list mine,

        bit wary ?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wary? Your main action is spamming comment boards with inane drivel.

          You seem to forget that I’m not the one claiming to be saving the world. I don’t need a list of actions. I live a reasonable life in a climate that requires very little heating or air conditioning so I use less energy than most people. That’s about it. And I definitely don’t go knocking on my neighbors’ doors to preach to them about climate like you do john. That’s just one more way you’re like a religious person you actually go out and proselytize trying to convert the nonbelievers.

        • john byatt says:

          oh look what i found, a reply

          okay bill, my fossil fuel use is CO2

          power less than 0.2 tonne per month

          vehicle less than 100 kms per month 4 cylinder

          I have propagated over 50,000 native trees for planting in regen sites

          I have planted about half that number again in forest corridors

          I walked the streets during the 2010 election campaign like many others and we achieved enough support to have the greens elected in the senate to pass the carbon price bill, which is still in effect

          we have neither heating or aircond, house is eco smart

          we purchase a tiny amount of processed food, mainly eat fresh every day as we are only a few hundred metres from shopping centre

          together our footprint is less than half one person average Australians

          it is no where near enough we need our government to get on with renewable rather than what is now occurring, fossil fuel lobbyists and a climate change head in the sand government wants to massively increase coal production.

          the new policy is not to make polluters pay but to pay them if they reduce emissions below a cap figure, not going below that figure or even increasing emissions will be cost neutral.

          trees will be planted which will not even compensate for those removed,

          so do we just give up. no

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You forgot to list knocking on your neighbors doors to preach to them about climate change.

          Nice to see someone that really believes taking some action.

        • john byatt says:

          actually i missed a comma

          I have planted about half that number, again in forest corridors

        • Bill Jamison says:

          How much electricity do you use posting hundreds of posts on all of these blogs and websites all day? Isn’t it generated by a coal fired plant?

          I’m still not sure where you came up with the idea that I wanted to “compare how much each has done to help reduce emissions”. Can you quote me where I said anything like that?

          It’s obvious now that you’re a zealot, a true believers, you are the good guy and everyone that doesn’t believe the same is a bad guy. No wonder you feel so superior to others. You believe you’re one of the Chosen Ones, the Anointed, the Enlightened.

        • john byatt says:

          i think that you may have been bragging about watt’s electric car and solar panels and challenged all here about what action they were taking

        • john byatt says:

          I do not see you as a bad guy just as a useful idiot for the false sceptics

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So you’re referring to something I might have posted a couple of months ago?

        • john byatt says:

          no it was a month ago and carried on from there in subsequent posts , my post above was two weeks ago, i had not seen your reply until today

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: