It could be worse than projections. I think the scenarios are based on ocean and terrestrial sinks maintaining their current uptake of ACO2. There is some uncertainty there.
Nick, I’m pretty sure there no uncertainty on that score – the net rate of uptake will decrease. There is uncertainty about how much decrease in net uptake there will be.
The first drop of the deluge of pointless, dull and inane ramblings from the ignorant deniers.
The thread has the message “Some more thread for thoughts, links and debate.”
You can bet that any thoughts from the deniers will be recycled and crazy. All their links are to anti-science ideoblogs, and any debate will consist of nothing but put downs and ad hominems. This pretty much sums of the thought pattern of your typical denier.
It’s a scam, the scientists do it for the money, it’s all politics, you are stalking me, no warming for 15 years, Watts is our leader, The Daily Mail has a lot of boobs, the models are wrong, it’s the sun, it’s natural, look how cold it is here, it’s groupthink, I wonder if WUWT has any new posts, the IPCC is corrupt, what’s on Fox news, Wikipedia is run by lefties, has anyone replied to my posts, REPEAT
Unfortunately for any deniers who see an open thread, they will instantly turn into a screaming zombie full of hatred and distain for anyone who agrees with science. They treat any open thread as a soapbox where they think that their evangelical proselytising will be listened too.
So if you are a ‘skeptic’ and you are reading this, and thinking of replying or posting, please don’t bother. Just sign up with WUWT where your ranting will be appreciated by your cult brethren. Stop acting like the door-knocking Mormons and pissing everybody off. If I wanted to read about your denier religion, I would go to the Church of WUWT. This is not your crusade. It’s about time you guys stop acting like trolls.
The scenarios of the graph are based on our civilization continuing in something like its present form until 2100. An almost total collapse of the current growth based model could change things. Although as Nick says, at a higher temperature, most carbon dioxide sinks will adsorb less carbon dioxide. They will get to the point where they start to release it again and even stopping its emission will not prevent its continuing rise.
I also wonder what will happen when locally devastating effects start to happen to rich places, such as New York City becoming uninhabitable due to sea level rise. Of course before that happens, much worse things will have happened to poor places, like a large proportion of Bangladesh becoming flooded by sea water too frequently to allow the growing of traditional food plants.
The phase in the link:
“IPCC AR5 is still unable to give scenario dependent projections of the dynamic ice loss (see AR5 table 13.5) and it is unable to assess the probability of an Antarctic collapse”
is very worrying.
Even the experts on ice sheet dynamics seem to lack total confidence in the upper bound of their predictions.
I’m glad I live several hundred metres above sea level.
.
Steve–That much ice takes time to melt. Even the very worst credible scenarios don’t put sea level rise at more than low double digit meters by 2100. Not that the worst case isn’t a long-term horror-show, but everyone alive today will be gone. Think how much anyone living in 2113 is going to thank us!
yes definitely the most important research required at the moment with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 we are flying in the dark,
under 2 would seem not be be consistent with paleoclimate yet we have that as part of the spread.?
seven or more years between reports is no longer a realistic option.
notice that when research shows lesser values for anything in AR4 figures, AR4 was declared to be alarmist yet when research implied higher than AR4 then AR4 was declared to be the gold standard
“The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for
some years after volcanic eruptions. Several small eruptions have caused a RF of –0.11 [–
0.15 to –0.08] W m–2 for the years 2008–2011, which is approximately twice as strong as
during the years 1999–2002. {8.4}
so back to back la ninas and volcanic RF’s twice as strong as 1999-2002
The estimate for the range of temperature increases to expect for a doubling of CO2 has not changed much the last 25 years. In this respect we can decrease the frequency of the IPCC reports.
And there is much more uncertainty, about changes in extreme weather, about the costs of climate change impacts, about the costs of mitigation (technological development), about the right discount rate, etc.
If it is at all possible, these uncertainties will not decrease fast. We will have to fly in the dark, we are doing something unprecedented to the Earth. That is no excuse to watch and see, on the contrary.
We are not going to prevent serious warming by the end of the century and beyond by restraining emissions. That must be obvious by now.
Maybe it is time to re-appraise nuclear power. Europe does it without batting an eyelid.
Surely we are smart enough to develop this as a safe technology.
(Despite incidents such as Fukushima, they at least provide valuable lessons on what does not work).
I would like to see a decent cost-benefit analysis.
We tend to focus a lot on temperature series and cryosphere dynamics when it comes to communicating the science of climate change and tend to forget, and I’m showing my professional bias here, the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change on natural systems and biodiversity. One of the most important papers recently written is that of Warren et al in Nature from May this year. It looks at sets of geographical data for 50000 terrestrial species and their known tolerances, they are able to model range shifts and predict the effect on biological diversity. They predict that a business as usual scenario will result in greater than 55% of terrestrial plants and greater than 30% of terrestrial animals will suffer significant range contractions of greater than 50%. What I find particularly disturbing about this is the modelling is based only on the parameters I outlined. They did not factor in increased land use, habitat degradation and fragmentation, extreme weather, competition or phenological constraints…to name a few. Because of this their predictions are very conservative.
Of course, deniers like to bleat on about scientists and models but the thing is, plants, animals, fungi and bacteria can’t be accused of having agendas. They respond to the environment around them and the almost incontrovertible evidence is they are already undergoing biological, geographical and phenological range shifts in line with rapid Anthropogenic Climate Change. I have a small list of representative papers along this line if anyone is interested.
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budget that we must follow if we’re to keep the world under a temperature rise of 2C over pre-industrial levels – the widely accepted level above which lies catastrophic climate change. According to the report, we can “spend” 1,000 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2 in total. We’ve already spent more than half, and at the current rates we are on track to blow the other half in 30 years.
Not only is human society at risk from this unprecedented rate of warming, the ecosystems on which all life is based are also seriously under threat.
read about these some time ago, gympie is to spend about $23 million on a dirt wall which will keep some of the floods out ( gympie has flooded five times in two years)
John, those Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors sound interesting, but the link you gave is to a 2008 article that mentioned that the first 6 were ordered for 2013.
I have been looking up more recent things about the company (Now renamed Gen4 Energy), but I can’t find a reference to any currently installed Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors by this company. Do you have more up to date information?
Thanks for the link to that article, I think I agreed with 99% of it! Nice to see a balanced look at the future of renewables with a realization that they alone cannot provide the power that our modern society demands. At this point nuclear looks to be the only solution not only in Australia but in the US and China too.
As I said, action will be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, but it won’t be the action most alarmists want.
These small scale nuke reactors hold huge promise especially once a critical level of demand is reached and they can be massed produced.
It seems to me that Thorium may be the real winner in the next two decades….
There’s been nothing found in the past decade to discount the views of Lomborg and others that solar and (maybe) wind will become competitive with coal/oil in the mid 2030’s.
CSG is already having massive effects on the US emission rates and will do so elsewhere once we and the Europeans get past our inherent fear of anything new.
I posted a link a week or two back about new new zero emission buildings which will, over the next decades, vastly reduce city carbon footprints.
I’ve said earlier that I don’t believe we’ll ever get to a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) because one or more of these technologies,or something not even pondered yet, will kick in. This will happen irrespective of, and often in opposition to, government. But it will happen.
This notion that we need to do “sumfing” and therefore its all up to government flies in the face of the history of advances in technology. Just get government out of the way and let the market-place do what it does best.
“the action most alarmists want.” And what do you think that is? How many people do you think Earth can sustain with a reasonably comfortable lifestyle?
Oh well, that’s different. Nowhere in the world are renewables within cooee of providing base-load power, not even those places like German who’ve thrown everything including the kitchen sink at it. But these guys ran a computer model and have PROVEN that it will work.
Doesn’t get more convincing that that! Talk about living in a fantasy world.
Point3… link to all the theoretic and model based naysayers you like. US emissions are down and natural gas has played a large part in that. The real world does trump the models, you know.
What I want is cheap, reliable energy. Where it comes from is of secondary issue. If and when renewables are able to provide reliable power at a price that is competitive with FF then I’ll be all for it. I have been, after all, saying all along that solar will get there in 20 yrs or so and that we will then go with it.
But just wishing that renewables would work and then going from there to assertions that they do work is fantasyland. All over the world solar and wind provide minor amounts of power at extremely high prices and none of them come close to being able to provide reliable power.
Denmark has gone heavily for wind but relies totally on its connection with the European grid to provide it with power when the wind doesn’t blow. Hence they have one of the highest electricity costs in the world. Could we go down that path? Can we rely in NZ and PNG to help out when the wind stops?
Germany’s Energiewende is also in big trouble. Germany’s solar and wind power supplies barely 10% of total requirements. Consequently Germany is installing extra coal-fired capacity and, unlike the US, Germany’s emissions are rising. Germany is not working out how to go 100% renewable. Their aim is to be 50% renewable by 2030 and that’s already way behind schedule.
“a new breakthrough in solar panels this week twice the power at half the cost”
More support for the Lomborg view. Solar will improve and become cheaper. Equally there are reputed improvements in battery storage in the pipeline that will allow solar to become more reliable.
Yet you keep whining that we need to do ‘sumfing’ now. Well the thing that can be done now is CSG and nuclear.
Germany’s renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012.[1][2] In 2011 20.5% (123.5 TWh) of Germany’s electricity supply (603 TWh) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.”
”
What I want is cheap, reliable energy”
and you can have that in australia from renewable by transferring fossil fuel subsidies over to the renewable sector
john “a new breakthrough in solar panels this week twice the power at half the cost”
I read about breakthroughs like that all the time. Many never make it to commercialization. Solar has been getting slightly more effective and significantly less expensive over the last decade. That’s great. It’s a more viable option now. But it’s not cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity and it only provides power when the sun is shining. It requires backup generation to power cities so when you look at costs you have to include the cost of the backup generation. Suddenly it’s not competitive anymore.
The future is bright for renewables. Whether it’s solar, fuel cells, geothermal, wind, or something else there will always be a market for it and hopefully at some point they will provide the bulk of the power that we use at a cost comparable to today’s fossil fuels.
That said I still believe that the best option for the immediate future is nuclear.
J Giddeon says:
October 8, 2013 at 5:27 am
Oh well, that’s different. Nowhere in the world are renewables within cooee of providing base-load power, not even those places like German
If you have enough nuclear capacity to backup your renewable energy then why would you need the renewable energy at all? It would be cheaper and much more cost effective to just build the nuclear plants.
john wants renewable energy and he doesn’t care about the cost. He doesn’t care if higher costs impact the poor most of all. He laughed when the people in Collinsville losts their jobs and their livelihood when the coal mine was closed.
All john cares about is his agenda not the people it impacts.
“Denmark, Germany, Scotland and Ireland are all working out how to go 100% renewable.”
Denmark relies entirely on its connection to the European grid to provide base-load and therefore has the highest electricity prices in Europe.
Germany’s current plan is to get to 50% renewables by 2030. they have no plan to get anywhere near 100% renewables in anything like the near future.
One of the problems is that half of Germany’s renewables are from hydro and biomass and they are basically at capacity now. So to get to their 50% target (currently 21%) they will rely on solar and wind. But neither of these are growing at the rate required.
Because of all this, Germany pays the second highest electricity prices in Europe and 50% higher than Aust.
Despite what your usual fantasy sites might tell you, Germany is not the guide to a carbon free future.
“A few said that could happen within 40 years but most said it would take another 50 or even 60 years. The fusion dream has never been worked on so vigorously. But turning it into reality is much more than 30 years away.’
How are they going to replace the 150 MW lost when they switch to solar? They’ll need 5 more solar plants of the same capacity – and that’s just during daylight hours!
“Collinsville Power Station was operated until December 2012 as an intermediate plant fuelled by locally mined coal and with a total output of 180 MW.
The Solar PV power station has a planned capacity of between 20-30 MW”
Hmmm, just like nobody suggested they need to replace the full capacity of the original power station, Bill. So what was the point of your original comment concern troll?
The previous plant was producing 180 MW. Are you suggesting that it wasn’t necessary? That the energy produced wasn’t used? You can’t just take out 150 MW of production and not replace it with something else if there is demand for the energy. Of course those 30 MW will only be produced during the day so at night a backup source of generation will be needed.
So what have they been getting by on since the plant closed down LAST YEAR? I know the answer but you seem to trying to build a strawman to make some point about missing power that is clearly just typical anti-renewable guff.
Bill Jamison says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:06 am
No one said they haven’t had power for the last 10 months. Do you really believe that nonsense?
Bill Jamison says:
September 28, 2013 at 11:09 am
The question is why isn’t the coal mine viable? And if it’s shut down then what are people doing for electricity TODAY?
I’ve already posted showing just how dependent Australia is on coal. It’s not like one mine or one coal fired power plant closing is going to change anything. “A drop in the bucket” comes to mind.
You’re in such denial that you can’t see the truth even when it’s right in front of your eyes.
I’m not anti-renewable energy at all. But simple math tells me that 30 MW doesn’t replace 180 MW. It also tells me that it would take 6 solar plants of the same size to replace the generating capacity lost when this coal-fired plant closed. In additional there will have to be backup generation available for those times when the solar planting isn’t producing either any electricity or enough electricity to meet demand.
Pretty simple stuff actually. Even you guys should be able to figure it out for yourselves.
Classic concern troll. Well done. Now you can disappear again. It was quite pleasant here without having to read and subsequently ignore your bullshit.
‘Even you guys should be able to figure it out for yourselves’…Oh,that’s right I’d forgotten how incredibly smart you are, Bill. Pardon me. Queensland has a surplus of baseload: Collinsville does not need to be replaced.
I find people who don’t accept settled science very boring. Especially when it comes to the cause of global warming, which has been in discussion for over 100 years and was settled over 30 years. What I find more interesting is the science of denial.
Anyone ever heard of Chris Mooney. He is too is interested in the science of climate change denial.
Sunday Age some time back had an intiguing front page article about withdrawl of corporate support from the IPA. The latter’s stand on CC now looking so manhood-in-auditory-apparatus, so to speak, that even elements of Big Money is embarassed. The story appeared 25th August. Oddly, no subsequent comments anywhere..anybody got any details as to who has withdrawn support? (Gotta luv the IPA, surely an ethics-free zone. If they were in Thailand they’d be lobbying for child prostitution.)
According to the National Weather Service, a record 5.91 inches of rain fell on Saturday, breaking the day’s old record of 3.07 inches of rain set on October 5, 1910, WAVE reported.
The deluge also already breaks the local all-time record for rainfall the month of October: The previous record was 5.07 inches set in 2004.
That graph is definitely dodgy John. They have pirates as being a forcing component. Everybody knows that it is the lack of pirates that is contributing to global warming. My Pastafarian friends assure me this is the word of his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself. Ramen. http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikaandersen/files/2012/03/w1467103173.jpg
john I apologize for providing a link to a chart that it too complicated for you to understand. I should know better. I’ll try to find one that shows the same information in a more simple form that even you can comprehend.
How about NASA’s statement: “This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius 1.8 Degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. ”
So apparently the planet was excessively hot at other times.
So much arrogance in claiming to know what temperature is right for the earth and what is “excessively hot”.
we are not here to educate you about the past stupid, we are here to ridicule your moronic beliefs about global temp anomalies from the middle of antarctica
Bill jamison–Since you’re being pushy for an answer to your stupid question: Yes, the evidence indicates it was hotter than the present or likely to occur for a few more decades some time in the last million years. So f*ing what? Does that mean humans will want to live in that world?
This post has now passed 500 comments and it is by and large a pissing match between a couple of denier morons and a few irritated followers of the science. Pathetic.
reading the comments it is obvious that our denier “friends see renewable energy as left wing power and nuclear csg and coal as right wing power sources,
they cannot handle the implication, that the greenies were right all along and weirdly would rather stick with fossil fuels and drag the entire civilized community and their own offspring into peril with them than see a clean planet powered by renewable.
Obviously it’s YOU that sees different energy sources as either left-wing or right-wing when, in fact, they are simply different energy sources with different costs associated with them and different strengths and weaknesses.
here is an extreme right wing loony on unleashed today at the ABC
makes my point
new testament IPCC:
08 Oct 2013 7:05:38pm
Lets face it SL, climate change is a new religion, the IPCC yet another denomination, Wind turbines the Green’s iconic saviour.
And wasnt the Bible peer reviewed, just like the latest IPCC report ?
So better start building another organic ARK. Only science lovers and believers in orderly base pairs spirals will be admitted. Denialists and climate heathen are to be sacrificed to the flood. Greenpeace can renew their rainbow (registered trademark) for the benefit of future generations. Saint Bob Brown can then have a second coming. And his electric karma can be chased by his green dogma until the next ice age.
It’s funny when Willard gets a stink on about being called a denier because of his apparent association of the word with holocaust denial. Denial is denial whether it be HIV/AIDS, moon landing, the official 9/11 reports and indeed holocaust denial. Well, here is one definite link between right wing free market ideology, climate change denial and holocaust denial. Interesting and informative stuff. https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/shuts-down-the-holocaust/43201b3a2936ec68c823ff596b0a27c529ea9350/
Welcome to George Orwell’s world where:
-history can be rewritten, over and over
-the Ministry of Defence is responsible for making war
-the “free” market is actually a game of monopoly
-the economy can be in emergency or doing quite well at the same time
-everybody can be a scientist and believe/prove what they like
-taxes can be used to fund politicians going to weddings
– black is white
-white is black
-climate change is crap
etc
Watts is involved in a shameful attempt to proscribe the use of a word, no matter that it has wide application and its use in this ‘debate’ is derived from psychology. Using the Holocaust to shut down use of ‘denier’ is a measure of his cynicism and bad faith. He’s exploiting tragedy.
The alarmist community have deliberately and constantly used the word denier because of its holocaust connotations. Its the ultimate pejorative even though it makes no logical sense.
Oh I don’t care. Use any word you like although what I’m supposed to be denying is of interest. That there is a climate? that it changes? that we’re all gunna die because of CO2?
Its just a tad childish but when it morphs into calls for these deniers to be executed or gaoled, then the watermelon’s true nature is revealed.
Whenever I see people using the term I’m reminded of Hubbard…
‘If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names”
You mean like “watermelon” and “alarmist”? Glass houses, stones and all that. It also isn’t really namecalling ifit’s inherently true. A duck is a duck, a denier is a denier, a hypocrite is a hypocrite and you are a dopey bastard.
JG – what do you expect?
We can tolerate idiocy up to a point – but no more. If you cannot cope with the (fully justified) abuse, then go away and stop whingeing.
J Giddeon says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:23 am
Oooww, I might have inadvertently struck a nerve since we now have JB twisting the truth…or is he just too moronic to recognise the truth.
In fact, it was JB who started talking about masturbation (“you’ll go blind”) and I just turned it into a joke, which he, either through failure to recognise the joke, or because he just can’t help himself, then took too far .
as children often do.
Now when I point out his apparent obsession with the male appendage, he gets very defensive. Just a joke, JB. Calm down.
Could someone point out where in this blog’s “Community and discussion guidelines” it says that abuse is okay as long as it’s “justified”? I couldn’t seem to find it. In fact the very first thing it says is “Treat all posters, commentators and readers with respect and refrain from personal insults and ad hominem attacks”.
anyone who puts up an ice core temperature anomaly to claim the earth was 2degrees hotter and finding themselves completely ridiculed, so then questions the reliability of their own prior graph is not a poster. they are annoying little Dumb F… trolls
The behavior of posters such as john byatt and roger the dodger are pretty typical of “Right-Wing Authoritarian” types:
“they aggress when they believe right and might are on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is (in their minds) endorsed by established authority [like climate scientists!], or supports such authority. “Might”
means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in numbers, as in a lynch mob”
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” (or insulting in this case)
“Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt. ” (which helps explain the name calling and insults)
“High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do” (Ah ha, now I see why you guys are so worried!)
“believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed.”
Yep that is exactly what we find here: a group-think mentality with no tolerance for anyone with dissenting views. They resort to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments when they can’t debate a point. They verbally attack and abuse anyone who questions or challenges them. They bully and insult and demean others instead of sticking to the topic at hand. Definitely fit the Right-Wing Authoritarian description.
Eric Worrall came to be known as Bozo because he was entertaining and his big bucket of deniers ‘science ‘ really just contained confetti. You need a nickname too. I think from this day forward I shall call you Boohoo Bill.
Still beating that dead horse john? It’s telling that you REALLY need me to be a christian so you could use it as an ad hominem attack against me. But since I’m an atheist you can’t do that so all you can do is accuse me of secretly being a christian.
At least I’m not the only one that can see how pathetic that is!
just look at your continued contrary attitude claiming that scientists say that one ice core gives the global temperature, that is pure creationist thinking, yet you want to try to portray yourself as atheist, give it up
Wow that’s a stretch even for you john! I quoted scientists and provided a cite and that’s “creationist thinking”???? Really?
Wouldn’t a creationist think that ice cores couldn’t possible represent hundreds of thousands of years of earth’s history? Wouldn’t they think the flood would have melted that ice or something?
Can you provide a link to a single creationist site that supports the ice core history???
You’ve posted a ton of stupid crap but this might be the dumbest yet. That’s impressive.
I see that you have dropped out of the Vostok debate and missed boohoo’s insistence that he knows something, he even uses Capitals and question marks. very impressive,
why don’t you two go back to your denialist or creationist blogs where you will have your dickhead mates accepting your ” just one ice core study gives the total global temperature anomaly” retarded understanding
Yes I did stop posting there. I made my point; it was perfectly clear to anyone with a reading age above year 3 (ie not you) that you were wrong and that you probably knew you were wrong; it was clear that you were just trying to play your silly semantic games to hide your error; it seemed pretty clear that you didn’t quite have a handle on what an anomaly is;
and I decided not to play.
BTW going to apologise for fabricating quotes? Silly question!
john I quoted climate scientists on the ice cores. If you don’t agree with them please let them know. Apparently you don’t realize that the snow that falls over Greenland or Antarctica comes from water molecules formed over the ocean possibly thousands of miles away. Instead you think that the ice core only shows how cold it was right at that spot. Ignorance on your part. The quotes I posted even explain why the ice cores provide more information than just local temperature.
possibly but you missed the point
‘
“Whatever the cause of the carbon release,—some scientists theorize that a comet struck the earth—Wright and Schaller’s contention that it happened so rapidly is radically different from conventional thinking, and bound to be a source of controversy, Schaller believes.
“Scientists have been using this event from 55 million years ago to build models about what’s going on now,” Schaller said. “But they’ve been assuming it took something like 10,000 years to release that carbon, which we’ve shown is not the case. We now have a very precise record through the carbon release that can be used to fix those models.”
You had a point? You asked a question and I supplied the possible answer stated right there in your link. If you’re trying to make a point then you should actual post something about it instead of simply posting a link.
Personally I find it unlikely that a comet impact would help scientists understand current changes caused by atmospheric CO2 increase.
Two decades ago, Broecker said, “The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” He stood by that warning in a 2012 interview:
“We’re in for big trouble,” he says matter-of-factly. “There’s been a “true disruption of the basic climate of the planet.”
“My point [with the ‘angry beast’ metaphor] was that by adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, we were poking our climate system without being sure how it would respond,” he says.
At the rate we are spewing carbon pollution into the atmosphere, one might even say we are punching the climate beast in the nose. Paleoclimate studies, including this new one, suggests that is a very, very bad move.
and you idiots have your heads firmly up your own backsides
I didn’t say it was moved by Abbott. It was archived by the National Archive as is required under the Archive Act.
You go on as though the data was saved from the clutches of those evil Libs when what actually happened was what happens all the time in government.
I know that you are very upset that the government did what it said it would do given that you prefer your governments to do the opposite of what they promise, but all your whining is just that.
Abbott promised to close the commission. It closed. The data was saved as per the law.
were did abbott promise to remove all the data that the climate commission had provided , QLD also shut down their climate ministry but maintained all the previous work on their government website,
Why did Abbott need to order the taking down of the Climate Commission site?
If he accepts the science underpinning the physics of global warming he should be rabidly keen to keep that information in the public domain and easily locatable by people who are not aware of Pandora (= most people). After all it was paid for by the government and it provides a public service, does it not?
Will you post the updated graph when it is available JB? Probably not as it will indeed show a significant recovery, just like the sea ice extent which is currently 1.8 million sq km greater than last year. That increased extent is equal to the size of Queensland.
Check what day 243 is and check where you got the graph from. Maybe you should post the graph adjacent to that? You show the 2012 minimum. 2013 will not be a record low.
it was to get you all excited about this years recovery,
it however leaves us with the second highest decadal minus trend relative to 1981/2010 for extent
2012 3.63 1.40 -14.0
2013 5.35 2.07 -13.7
it was also the lowest yearly volume maximum
it was also the thinnest average August ice on record,
The main feature was not the colder weather but rather the wind direction which prevented a lot of loss through fram, that could change in the coming weeks.
and as for DMI, three of the past five years have been the lowest on record,
He posts a 12 month old graph to show there is no recovery. Caught out, he tries again and writes:
“here is a tip for you, do not just look at the september minimum, follow it for the rest of the year, you are in for a shock”
At the end of August the 2013 volume was 1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year. The September 2013 value has not yet been released. It will most certainly show a significant recovery. When it is released you can post the updated graph here JB and we can see who the “dopey bastard” really is.
love the picking the bits you like while ignoring the trends
“August 2013 was 5,800 km3. This value is 66% lower than the mean over this period, 76% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.8 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. August ice volume was about 1400 km3 larger than in August of 2012 and within 200 km3 of the 2010 August ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer month was less than in previous years. August ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.
Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the residuals of the anomaly from the trend in Fig 1 and standard deviations about the daily 1979-2012 mean in Fig 2. Average ice thickness in August 2013 over the PIOMAS domain was slightly smaller than in 2012 with thinner ice covering larger areas (Fig 3.). Updates will be generated at approximately one-month intervals”.
So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right. In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post. And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny. BTW those values are millions of km3.
I look forward to you posting the updated graph when it is available showing the recovery.
“Or does he just have a fascination with everyone’s genitalia?”
JB’s childish namecalling and ad hominem attacks are getting tiresome besides clearly being against the forum rules. It is a sign of desperation from someone who can’t maintain a properly thought out argument.
I check the political forum PollBludger regularly. Mostly leftists on that blog. It is not the LW/RW arguments that gets hot, it is the Gillard vs Rudd arguments that really got them going.
Political discourse is fiery, scientific discourse does not need to be. Nevertheless this is what the blog owner Willam Bowe told his posters:
“This means, inter alia, a) no more calling each other “retards”, b) no more peddling of fantasies about the personal lives of public figures we might not happen to like, and c) no more calling each other moron, cretin, imbecile etc. without due provocation.”
J giddeon commented that he, against the advice of his priest or pastor often played with himself but that he required two hands to do that.
logical conclusion is that he
1 is a confessed wanker
2 has two peni
3 has a large, penis envy thing happening and qualifies himself by the size of what is basically a urine disposal and reproduction organ
I have never before on any blog come across someone who was so into masturbation that he wanted to tell the world about it
Oooww, I might have inadvertently struck a nerve since we now have JB twisting the truth…or is he just too moronic to recognise the truth.
In fact, it was JB who started talking about masturbation (“you’ll go blind”) and I just turned it into a joke, which he, either through failure to recognise the joke, or because he just can’t help himself, then took too far .
as children often do.
Now when I point out his apparent obsession with the male appendage, he gets very defensive. Just a joke, JB. Calm down.
Smokey says:
November 2, 2008 at 3:18 am
Look at the latest sea ice graph here [from Anthony’s link on the right side of this page; updated twice daily].
If the current trend continues for only a few more days, 2008 sea ice levels will exceed those of 2002 – 2007.
How will the globaloney bovine fecal purveyance specialists spin that inconvenient fact?
I thought that the moderators at WUWT didn’t abide anonymity and multiple identities. Why would the moderator dbstealy tolerate “Smokey”, who is known to post under other names?
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:30 am
At the end of August the 2013 volume was 1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year.
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
BTW those values are millions of km3.
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:07 am
To clarify previous comment: for comparison, my value was in millions of km3
That is now 3 times you have boasted and demonstrated your ignorance and confusion. Where are you getting your ‘1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year’ from? It seems you don’t know the difference between volume and area or unable to read simple text.
Rodger. I do know the difference between volume and area. You are right. It is 1.4 thousands of km3 not millions. It didn’t look right, therefor my first correction. Easy mistake to make and no problem to admit it..
1. That according to Marcott the earth’s temperature was as warm as now during the mid-Holocene. I don’t know how you could argue with that since the paper itself admits that temps over the past 11000 yrs were warmer than now 25% of the time.
2. that “it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what [the Vostok] ice cores show.”
Well again that is absolutely true. In the period between 120kya and 130kya the Vostok data show plenty of times when the earth was 2c (and often a lot more than that) higher than present.
Even in the current inter-glacial, temps,according to the Vostok data, were a lot higher than now over several eras, particularly around 2500bc.
So I don’t see what the problem is. Bill right on both counts…JB working out which foot to stick in his mouth.
Personally I don’t put a lot of faith in these data. Any scientist who thinks they can calculate temp 150kya to two decimal places has lost all perspective. All we can say is that the current inter-glacial is the same as the previous inter-glacials.
Can you really not understand that simple temperature graph? It’s not difficult, it shows temperature and time. That’s it. Even you should be able to comprehend it. And if you can’t I already posted a direct quote from NASA saying the same thing: the earth isn’t as warm as it has been in the past.
“Ice cores give access to palaeoclimate series that includes local
temperature and precipitation rate, moisture source conditions,
wind strength and aerosol fluxes of marine, volcanic, terrestrial,
cosmogenic and anthropogenic origin”
now answer the questions dickhead
what is the zero line of the Vostok temperature graph dated to?
how do you get a global temperature from an anomaly in the Vostok ice core?
what is the current anomaly for Vostok from that zero line ?
what is the current anomaly for parts of the WAIS ?
what is the currently anomaly for the high Arctic ?
do any of these temperatures give the temperature of the earth?
So that’s it? Another one of your silly little semantic games? Because none of us realised that Vostok may not represent the whole earth.
So when I said “the earth was 2c…” I should have realised that you were going to forensically search for someway to misread it and therefore I should have said “the earth, as shown by the Vostok data, was 2c…”.
“Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
So with Milankovitch variations, it took about 5000 years for the earth to cool ~0.7°C. Then in about 200 years with CO2, that trend is reversed. Can't you see that humans have now overwhelmed the Milankovitch cycle.
So it doesn't really matter if it was hotter in the past, as the Milankovitch cycle meant that there was more energy from the sun reaching the earth. Then as the Milankovitch cycle waned, this meant that less energy was now reaching the earth, thus the cooling trend. We should still be cooling, but human produced greenhouse gases have created extra heat.
You can see this graphically here.
Note the large spike in the temps during the last part of the graph. That is the effect of human produced greenhouse gases.
The evidence is overwhelming.
If you still not convinced, watch these videos by an expert in the field, yes it's about 1 hour each, but you need the time to explain a complex topic.
There’s no pickle. You just simply can’t comprehend a simple graph. Since you can’t understand a graph (and a simple one at that!) maybe you can understand this:
NASA: “This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius 1.8 Degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. ”
I’ll translate that for you john: the earth has been warmer in the past as shown by ice cores.
Even you should be able to understand that simple statement.
both you and twodicks have claimed that the vostok graphs show the earth two degrees warmer
the vostok temperature graph is for the ice core you twit , not the earth
the zero line is minus 56 DegC around 1980’s/1990’s
so your 2 degrees anomaly is a temperature of minus 54DegC
the current anomaly for Vostok is 1DegC or temperature average of minus 55DegC
the anomaly in parts of the WAIS and high Arctic are both 2.4DegC,
higher than your Vostok 2 degrees anomaly
do any of these anomalies give the earth’s current temperature, NO
Yes I know the chart shows the temperature derived from the ice core. It’s a proxy and like all proxies has it’s limits. Maybe you can explain how the earth could have been the same temperature or even cooler than it is today yet locations in Greenland and Antarctica could be 2C warmer than it is today. As I’ve shown twice now even NASA agrees that the earth isn’t currently as warm as it’s been in the past.
You do know that ALL temperature reconstructions rely on proxies, right? We don’t have a source of global temperature going back hundreds of years nevermind hundreds of thousands of years.
So finding that you have make a complete fool of yourself you take off into never never land about proxies
read petit et al 1999, you put their graph up, which you did not understand so not much chance you understanding how paleo temperatures are ascertained
It’s the only proxy we have that goes that far back john. It’s is considered a proxy for global temperature whether you agree or not. Why don’t you go ask Gavin if he’s still working.
Hey john you should probably let UCAR know that ice cores don’t serve as global proxies because they claim the opposite:
“Layer thickness also may tell us something about global temperatures. Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere, which usually arises during periods when the overall global temperature is high, causing increased evaporation from the oceans.”
Imagine that! They claim that ice cores tell them about global temperature. What dolts! I mean idiots. Oh no I mean twits.
““Layer thickness also may tell us something about global temperatures. Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere’
they are referring to ice cores all around the world, one ice core does not give you a global temperature, it gives an understanding of regional conditions, you have to correlate them
to see just how stupid you are go and take the annual temperature at Vostok now, on top on greenland now and every other glacier or ice sheet, because you are saying that each of those separately gives a global temperature because you have no idea of what your are talking about
I’m simply quoting the scientists at UCAR and NASA. If you have a cite to prove those scientists are wrong then please provide it otherwise you are simply stating your opinion.
no, you are completely misunderstanding what is being said, probably on purpose as no one could be that stupid, not even you
ten thousand years from now an ice core dated to 2013 will show the earth as 1degree warmer from vostok and an ice core from the WAIS will show the earth 2.4DegC warmer. WTF? and that is by your logic that each individual ice core gives the global temperature
“ten thousand years from now an ice core dated to 2013 ….”
That’s not at all how it works. Paleoclimatologists don’t work out temps down to one year. The data I’ve seen from Petit et al averages records in 1 metre lots which can cover anything from 20 or so years to 500+ years. You are now obfuscating to hide your misunderstanding.
Give it up Bill. He is just playing his childish semantic games and no amount of evidence that scientists use Vostok to extrapolate to the global will make the slightest difference to him. Additionally, I’m not sure he entirely understands how anomalies work, which would be a major drawback in understanding the issue.
twodicks ” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file”
fuckwit
and still maintaining this one ice core gives the global temperature even though there is a difference of 1.4DegC between vostok and WAIS
“twodicks ” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file””
Now JB, we all know that you struggle with the concept of the quote, but I didn’t say the above despite your putting in quotation marks.
I could normally live with such illiteracy/idiocy but what you wrote that purports to be my words makes not the slightest internal sense, or logic. I’d prefer that people didn’t think I was that ill-educated. So please stop it or make it clear that you are just fabricating quotes.
So those scientists are all wrong john? I quoted them exactly, no room for mistaking what they said: “global temperature”.
If you don’t agree then please take it up with them.
Regardless of whether you believe an ice core can serve as a proxy for global temperature or not I’ve also quoted NASA as saying that the earth still isn’t as warm as it has been in the past. This whole stupid argument is over whether the earth is “excessively hot” or not.
I provided FULL QUOTES so I’d love to know how I’m misrepresenting what they said. It’s quite clear and simple:
“Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere, which usually arises during periods when the overall global temperature is high”.
“The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
Apparently john thinks these scientists aren’t smart enough to write clearly. He thinks they really meant “the ice core shows the temperature for Vostok only”. Not quite what the scientists said but john, of course, knows better than scientists.
Paleoclimatology (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within (e.g.) rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils; it then uses these records to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery.[1]
I asked “How many ice cores go back 400,000 years” and you provide a link to a study that has nothing to do with ice cores and you think that is some kind of rebuttal? It certainly has nothing to do with the ice cores that we’re discussing here or whether ice cores can be a proxy for global temperature or not.
bill if you wish to believe that you can ascertain the global anomaly from one ice core study in the middle of anarctica or on greenland then go for it,
as i said you have greenland and vostok both showing different global anomalies for 130,000 years ago according to you
and you missed the wiki which puts the scientists comment into context
note “to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system”
Paleoclimatology (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within (e.g.) rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils; it then uses these records to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery.[1]
however if you wish to remain ignorant do not let me stop you,
John if you don’t believe climate scientists when they say that ice core are a proxy for global temperature that’s your problem. I didn’t make the claim I quoted climate scientists so take it up with them.
“K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:43 am
It didn’t look right, therefor my first correction. Easy mistake to make and no problem to admit it..”
“K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right. In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post. And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny. BTW those values are millions of km3.”
^ This was your next posting after you dig, your so called ‘first correction’ Is this what you call a correction, another dig? No sorry I was wrong?
It’s only an easy mistake to make if you suffer chronically from ‘motivated reasoning’. But if you watched the Chris Mooney video I linked you would have discovered that.
“So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right.”
This doesn’t sound like a correction. In fact you were utterly wrong. It looks like you are digging your hole even deeper.
“In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post.”
And deeper. (You might to actually take your own advice, dingbat)
“And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny.”
Looks like you are well on your way to digging your hole to China. (BTW it is YOU who is denying. Still no apology I notice)
“BTW those values are millions of km3” <- Ahh your 'so called' correction. You say millions, when you should be saying thousands. Funny looking correction if you ask me. It actually looks like you are confirming your last statement.
Hello China!!!
You are right, you shouldn't be called a denier. A bloody manic crackpot seems more appropriate.
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Which Einstein quote do you think best applies to you?
JB post a graph 12 months old to prove there was no rebound.
When pointed out to him his error, he obfuscates and denies before finally finding the actual figures showed there was a rebound. I was proved right, not that he admitted it.
In my posts I quoted millions of km3. I noticed something was wrong and in a rush made the same error in the correction. Rodger pointed it out and unlike JB I immediately admitted the mistake of putting millions instead of thousands.
My question remains when will JB ever admit he is wrong even in the face of indisputable facts?
Was the graph from 2012? It did not show a recovery, but 2013 will.
Will JB post the updated graph when it appears?
Did he admit that he was wrong and there is actually a recovery in volume?
recoveries do not come from the melt season but from the growth season and are found in the maximum early next year, the ice is not growing in summer it is melting
this year had the lowest maximum volume ever, slightly less than previous years
i had stated previously to watch the coming monthly PIOMAS data remembering that these are monthly averages.
things to not bode well for the next maximum with very low average ice thickness this year
Since the minimum was significantly higher this year than last it means there will be more multi-year sea ice next year. That’s a good thing. Only time will tell if it signals the start of a recovery however. It could just be a blip on the continuing downward trend.
Do you notice the latest part of the data is BELOW the blue trend line. Do you notice the latest data is about -7. It would need to be above 0 for a recovery to occur.
Can you please just quit this site and go to WUWT. You are a complete joke, just like all the other deniers who insist on trolling here. In case you haven’t noticed, the name of this site is ‘Watching the Deniers’. It a site where people can get together and laugh and poke fun at the crazy and stupid antics of the deniers. It is not a site where deniers are supposed to come onto a actually prove how stupid and deranged they are really are.
Scorching temperatures put NSW on bushfire alert
The Rural Fire Service is warning deteriorating weather could create catastrophic bushfire conditions in some parts of New South Wales and the ACT today.
A combination of high temperatures, strong winds and low humidity means an extreme fire danger is in force for the Greater Sydney, Greater Hunter and Illawarra districts.
The north and south coasts, northern Riverina and north-west are listed as severe.
The weather bureau is forecasting the mercury will reach 39 degrees Celsius in Sydney which would break the previous October record of 38.2C set in 2008.
There are currently 40 bushfires burning with 13 of them uncontained.
UAH Data Has Killed the Pause
Some “Pause” — UAH’s record of the average temperature of the lower troposphere now shows 0.21°C (0.37°F) of warming over the last 15 years (=slope*interval).
Except it’s not quite statistically significant. The SkS trend calculator gives a 15-year trend of 0.135 ± 0.217°C/decade (2σ), which is a statistical signfiicance of 79%, less than the canonical (and arbitrary) standard of 95%. The large uncertainty just shows that 15 years is too small of an interval to make statistically meaningful conclusions about trends. If the 15-yr trend uncertainty is 0.217°C/decade (2σ), the trend would need to be 0.213°C/decade for a statistical significance of 95% — and the UAH record has had a 15-year trend of 0.213°C/decade or greater only 32% of the time. (Yes, I know that the uncertainty varies somewhat with the interval, but this estimate is good enough for blog work.)
The last 5 years are still the warmest 5 years in the UAH LT record:
I suspect that more and more decent forums will close their doors to them.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc. but there comes a point where the evidence eventually drowns them out.
We may even see them desperately migrating to sites such as WTD.
How else can you explain their presence here?
Wow I was really worried there. After all its been peer reviewed and all AND its on the ABC who, as we know, are centrists and would never over-egg the pudding in regards to AGW.
But then I saw “The University of Hawaii study used nearly 40 different climate-modelling systems to work out …”. So not actual data, just modeled scenarios. Given how well the models have done in the past two decades in predicting the hiatus, I’m not going to worry a great deal about yet another we’re-all-gunna-die story. (Queue JB coming up with another graph from Sks/RC showing how the models really did get the hiatus right, no really they did!).
Its based on BAU emissions but who knows what BAU emissions are going to be? These people just create their scenarios in economic and climate models and then convince themselves that they are seeing the real world. They aren’t.
Just on the BAU….
“The biggest change in the IMF’s outlook in the past six months concerns China. In April, it believed the slowing of China’s growth to just below 8 per cent this year would be a passing pang, with growth returning to 8.5 per cent by 2015 and continuing at that level into the indefinite future.
But it now believes there has been a permanent reduction in China’s potential, and it sees growth slowing to 7.3 per cent next year and to just below 7 per cent beyond 2016. If the pattern of global disappointment continues, China’s long-term growth rate could be below 6 per cent, it says. For the IMF, which traditionally adjusts its forecasts in fractions of a percentage point, this is a huge downgrade.”
That article also talks about downgrades in growth forecasts for India, Brazil and others. Was the BAU based on earlier higher growth expectations? Do these newer data push the “unprecedented temperatures” back a few years?
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Bohr.
The IMF’s significant downgrading of potential future growth have major geo-political consequences which are being discussed in other fora but I just wanted to touch on the issues as regards DAGW.
I’m not entirely sure what economic forecasts are used to arrive at the various RCP but I do recall that up to 60% of the forecast rise in emissions under RCP8.5 through to 2050 were to come from economic growth in the BRICS.
Yet the IMF has just thrown a large bucket of cold water on the growth forecasts for the BRICs into the medium term and is suggesting that Russia and China may be in for sustained lower than forecast growth. India also is also seen as having problems.
All this means that, if growth is down, emissions will be down as against forecast and therefore AR5’s projections will be overstated. Back of the envelope, if BRICS growth is reduced by 25% and BRICS make up 60% of forecast growth, the IPCC emission growth forecasts will be overstated by 15%, all else being equal. What will that do to the projections?
This is why I referred to them as guesses. The so-called projections are based on assumptions in climate models, which are in turn based on assumptions in economic models which are based on assumptions about economic growth and geo-political change.
Thinking that you can plug guess after guess into a computer and at the end determine 2100 temps to within a few tenths of a degree or SL in 80 years to within a few cm, is just bonkers. But that’s what we are asked to believe.
“RCP’s are just maintaining the long term global growth and social improvements”
Oh really…and just how do they maintain long term growth? Wow you don’t understand this stuff at all, do you.
“try an RCP7,5, only refers to RF and none will be spot on, and correct read to reach”
Can anyone who understands gibberish please translate this for me.
“and correct read to reach”. They’re all English words but its still unintelligible.
just like:
“what a link titled opinion?”
” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file”
Conservative governments have been dismantling environmental policy around the country, with the incoming national government aiming to repeal carbon pricing as its first order of business. And so it will be in Tasmania, where the Green vote will decline from 21.6% to around 14% in 2014, with the possible loss of seats. A conservative Liberal majority government will be elected, and environmental policies will be reversed.
Despite the success of Tasmania’s transition to a new economy defined by its natural and cultural heritage and its clean, green branding, the Tasmanian Liberals have promised to support the old industries. They plan to log World Heritage forests and oppose the remarkable Tasmanian Forest Agreement between forest stakeholders, which was set to achieve reduced forest conflict and to move the forest industry onto a sustainable environmental and economic footing.
The Liberals will encourage mining ventures in the Tarkine, the largest Gondwanan cool temperate rainforest in Australia and possibly in the southern hemisphere, and a refuge for the endangered Tasmanian Devil. They have talked about revoking the name “Tarkine”. They plan to undo environmental regulations, cut “green tape”, reduce third party planning appeals, not “lock up” any mining regions or forests, and axe the Tasmanian Climate Action Council.
The Liberals will have the support of the national government led by arch-conservative Tony Abbott, and, in opposing the environmental policy reversals across the country, the Greens may well find that support for their beleaguered state and national parties rallies again.
In this the Tasmanian and Australian Greens will certainly find common cause and, with a clear distance now established from unpopular Labor governments, they will remind voters of the reasons why their parties were founded in the first place
I have to wonder if this is sloppy journalism or biased reporting:
“Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer.”
That WAS true until the PDO switched. Now Alaska is seeing very cold winters and increased sea ice in the Bering Sea. In fact it hit record levels last year. 2012 was well below average in Alaska: “The mean average annual temperature in 2012 for the 20 stations was 30.0°F, a substantial negative departure of 2.9°F from the 30-year normal of 32.9°F.” 2013 started out much warmer than average and then winter kicked in with March and April being colder than average. In fact April was -6.9F below average and one station was -15.2F below average and 6 out of the 20 stations were -10.0F or more below average. Very cold indeed.
As far as sea ice in the Bering Sea and the record last year here’s what Livescience reported in May 2012:
“Arctic sea ice has persistently dwindled over the last three decades, yet sea ice set record highs in waters around Alaska this past winter.
Ice in the Bering Sea not only covered more area than usual, it also stuck around longer, bucking the downward trend in sea ice cover observed since 1979, when satellite records for the region began.”
Look at the trend on that chart and you’ll see why Alaskans are probably hoping for some global warming!
“”Permafrost has been thawing since the last Ice Age,” Alaska Department of Transportation engineer Jeff Curley told the paper.
“Roads affected by permafrost thawing are very common,” he said.”
In other words, it has been happening for a long time it’s not new. The USA Today article claims that Alaska is warming when in fact it’s cooling and has been since the PDO switched to the cool phase. The official temperature chart I posted clearly shows the strong association between temperature in Alaska and the phase of the PDO.
Permafrost carbon release
Potentially abrupt? No
Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.
I don’t have a graph but I do have a chart. It’s on the page I linked previously and it shows that the highest amount of warming in Alaska over the period 1949-2011 was during the winter at 5.8F while summer temperatures rose 2.0F. The annual increase was 3.0F.
Rodger the Dodger says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:58 am
This pretty much sums of the thought pattern of your typical denier.
It’s a scam, the scientists do it for the money, it’s all politics, you are stalking me, no warming for 15 years, Watts is our leader, The Daily Mail has a lot of boobs, the models are wrong, it’s the sun, it’s natural, look how cold it is here, it’s groupthink, I wonder if WUWT has any new posts, the IPCC is corrupt, what’s on Fox news, Wikipedia is run by lefties, has anyone replied to my posts, REPEAT
Did you read that, ‘look how cold it is here’
And what have you done, look how cold it is in Alaska.
It’s called ‘Global Warming’ for a reason. Pointing out how cold it is in Alaska is pretty pointless, but then again everything you write about is pretty pointless.
Did you see the Richard Alley video I posted. If you did you would understand that you are banging your head against a brick wall. Why are you still here with your idiotic, boring and stupefying proselytising.
What do you think would happen if I decided to comment on one of the denier blogs. I would be hounded. To give you an example here are some ad homs by Steve Goddard.
I am starting to realize that you aren’t particularly bright
Superstitious people will be humiliated here.
I am not in the business of curing stupidity.
Did you even bother to read WHY I mentioned Alaska temperature? It has nothing at all to do with global warming, manmade or not. It has to do with the incorrect claim in a story that “Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer.” That statement is false and is easily seen in the official chart of state temperature. When the PDO was in the warm phase Alaska warmed very quickly and dramatically. When the PDO shifted to the cool phase Alaska cooled dramatically. It doesn’t have anything to do with global warming. It’s a regional phenomenon tied to oceanic cycles. No news there and no surprise either.
Once again you build a strawman up only to knock it down in some silly attempt to try to make a point. But thanks for the laugh.
sorry boohoo i cannot believe that you are actually this stupid so just putting it down to you finding out that you are wrong but have to stick to your, scientists believe that you can get a global temperature anomaly from one ice core anywhere on earth because you are simply incapable of believing that your could be wrong
I can’t be wrong john because I didn’t make the claim. I quoted scientists and gave a link for that claim. If you disagree with the claim then that’s fine. Maybe you really do know better than those scientists at a well respected research facility but I highly doubt it!
J Giddeon says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:15 am
Ar5 table 12.2
Permafrost carbon release
Potentially abrupt? No
Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.On methane emissions (page TS-23)
seems to be a cut and paste from some denier blog twodicks,
Models and ecosystem warming experiments show high agreement that wetland CH4 emissions will increase per unit area in a warmer climate, but wetland areal extent may increase or decrease depending on regional changes in temperature and precipitation affecting wetland hydrology, so that there is low confidence in quantitative projections of wetland CH4 emissions. Reservoirs of carbon in hydrates and permafrost are very large, and thus could potentially act as very powerful feedbacks. Although poorly constrained, the 21st century global release of CH4 from hydrates to the atmosphere is likely to be low due to the under-saturated state of the ocean, long-ventilation time of the ocean, and slow propagation of warming through the seafloor. Release of carbon from thawing permafrost is very likely to provide a positive feedback, but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}
Models and ecosystem warming experiments show high agreement that wetland CH4 emissions will increase per unit area in a warmer climate, but wetland areal extent may increase or decrease depending on regional changes in temperature and precipitation affecting wetland hydrology, so that there is low confidence in quantitative projections of wetland CH4 emissions. Reservoirs of carbon in hydrates and permafrost are very large, and thus could potentially act as very powerful feedbacks. Although poorly constrained, the 21st century global release of CH4 from hydrates to the atmosphere is likely to be low due to the under-saturated state of the ocean, long-ventilation time of the ocean, and slow propagation of warming through the seafloor. Release of carbon from thawing permafrost is very likely to provide a positive feedback, but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}
so you had not read it and when you did you still did not have a clue, confusing the words low confidence as to mean unlikely.
then after confirming that it was a cut and pase “yeah” you now admit it was you own ignorant understanding of table 12.4
this confirms my first comment that you got it off some denier blog
1. No I didn’t
2. Your a bloody lunatic
3. This time I will require an answer as to why you simply fabricated out of thin air this notion that I cited TS 23.
apologies twodicks you did not even read it and My copy of TS23 credited it to you,
anyone following the methane debate would have known for at least 18 months that an abrupt methane release this century was unlikely, i was not addressing that,
it is your confusing low confidence as to mean unlikely
“Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.”
low confidence simply means ” but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}”
the research papers on when permafrost becomes a net source have an earliest possibility from mid 2020’s
so simply not enough research but nothing has been called off which is pure drivel
if your read above that you will see that No is from the AR5 definition (consensus)
Several components or phenomena in the climate system could potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear
changes, and some are known to have done so in the past. Examples include the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation, Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon forest and monsoonal
circulations. For some events, there is information on potential consequences, but in general there is low
confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century. [12.5.5, Table 12.4]
so NO is only based on lack on consensus which is the case at the moment
A new paper ( M.G. Wyatt, et al.) identifies an new cliamte feedback phenomena which they are calling the ‘Stadium-Wave’ effect.
“The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. ”
The good news (or bad news – depends on whether you are pro-man or pro-Mann) is that the hiatus could continue for another 20 years and that the recent rebound in Arctic sea-ice levels is the harbinger for a prolonged return to higher levels.
Trying to find a reason for something which does not exist ?
“How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”
Actually it seems they weren’t trying to find a reason for the pause, but just came out as one of the consequences of the theory.
It seems that Wyatt was a student of Pielke Sr. Its pleasing to see her trying hard to be not drawn into one or other of the AGW camps.
But, were the hiatus to continue for another decade or two, or even through to late this decade, its hard to see how the AGW political machine could maintain the scare. If it isn’t already over, it would most certainly be by then.
Curry has talked in the past about fostering the next generation of scientists who aren’t encumbered by partisanship of the past two bruising decades. I’m guessing Wyatt is one such. If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned, science will need a new generation to salvage its reputation with the public and the political class.
As tudent of Pielke now under Curry’s wings and she wants to foster ” the next generation of scientists who aren’t encumbered by partisanship of the past two bruising decades.” Scary stuff but since we are now on the topic of false premises you say…
“If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned….”
Is the hiatus global? What percentage of the entire climate system do you think the global surface temperature represents? And let’s pretend for a moment that your false premise is actually correct, why would the theory have to be jettisoned? It is now unequivocable and if global warming suddenly stopped and even reversed, the response in the scientific community would be one of dispassionate exploration to understand what the cause of that is as has been the research into the current causes of global warming. The response of the lunatic fringe of course would be the baying for blood and ridiculous statements that scientists were wrong all along and theories needto be jettisoned. This of course would just further highlight how ignorant of the scientific process morons who make those kinds of statements are.
If you don’t want to bruise scientists, stop subjecting them to a barrage of slurs. One of those slurs is to presume that ‘climate scientists’ are partisan. Those who claim that they are, and have been subject to some kind of division or sorting into camps, are simply partisan themselves.
Curry’s fostering ability is being ruined by her clear partisanship and tendency to speak without engaging her brain. That is not a slur: her blog provides the evidence from her own hand.
Nick must have meant that you shouldn’t call other climate scientists partisan. If Nick thinks a scientist is partisan then it’s okay to call them partisan.
Hang on Gids, Curry has nailed her colours to the mast very clearly…You do know she is blogging away furiously, don’t you? She is very clear in her positioning, maybe clearer than she realises! As an individual she is partisan…how is that controversial?
Whereas you are not identifying individuals who have made their ideas clear, you’re just hand-waving at an anonymous, unquantified ‘generation’ of climate scientists that is ‘encumbered by partisanship’ [presumably their own?]
Do I have to help you with understanding what you did there?
I guess its the same thought processes as you have with left leaning journalists on the ABC, being that, when you agree with them you don’t see them as partisan, merely as correct. That you don’t see partisanship among so many of the leading lights in the warmist camp is just extraordinary from where I sit.
Mann, Jones, indeed the whole hockey team, Connelly, Karoly, Flannery, pachauri, more recently Cook, et al. These and so many more who don’t just offer the science but actively push political views, seek to silence critics, end careers and destroy reputations. If you don’t see partisanship there then its hardly worth discussing since we are talking a different language.
JHS do you really believe that some kind of switch is going to be magically flipped in just 7 years? Basically that’s what that paper says. We know how quickly places are warming – or not warming in some cases – so to claim that a specific location will suddenly see catastrophic change in just 7 years is ridiculous in my opinion. I’m surprised that the paper got published.
Written by Judith Curry. You are probably correct. I am curious though, have you actually read the entire paper including it’s caveats or are you just relying on this article and/or its abstract?
Interesting how that paper has a direct conduit to News Ltd’s ‘expert’ blog commentator Andrew Dolt, and other anti-AGW media campaigners…messages they want to hear and want to spread, much? From a brief look at Wyatt and Curry 2013, the first question immediately emerges: what can we say about periodicity / pseudo-periodicity at 50 to 80 year frequencies? A: do we have enough data?
“Interesting how that paper has a direct conduit to News Ltd’s ‘expert’ blog commentator Andrew Dolt, and other anti-AGW media campaigners…messages they want to hear and want to spread, much? ”
Stock standard conspiracy ideation.
Curry flagged that this paper was on the way a week or two back and that she saw it as very important. Since I see her as one of the most trustworthy in this field, I’ve been keeping a close eye on Climate Etc. Perhaps Bolt et al did likewise. Don’t know, don’t care.
as to ‘Dolt’. What is it with you guys and your oh-so-clever (/sarc) name-calling. Its just so childish. If you expect to be treated like adults, I’d drop it.
I don’t give a flying about whether you consider yourself an arbiter of adulthood, Gids.
Bolt is a dolt: fact. Might be painful, but you have to face it. The man’s every cell is partisan, he never corrects [frequent] errors and he suppresses dissent. He is hindrance to rational discussion. ‘Conspiratorial ideation’? Not really, it is selective reproduction in plain sight: Bolt frequently praises the Watts and Morano conduits, and is always reproducing junk from the UK media that is sourced from the GWPF. He religiously avoids dispassionate analysis of science, or anything for that matter. News Ltd have advertised their aversion to science by alienating the Australian climate scientific community, in case you missed it. No one will talk to News directly anymore.
Back to the paper…it has everything but the kitchen sink thrown in: every climate, ocean and circulation index you can name, plus numerous proxy measures. Very ambitious…
Gee,Gids, you think Bolt’s approach to climate science is competent, or useful? Wow! Could you actually get a grip on the subject’s basics from his contributions?
If Bolt seriously thinks that he has the right end of the stick, then he’s misguided. You can see that he does not think for himself: like Delingpole he provides the verbal dressing for other people’s ‘opinions’ about climate.. If he doesn’t care about the need for a real informational base, but understands the subject is useful for sh*t-stirring, then he is simply an ‘entertainer’ of a sort. An opportunist,and a cynical one. What motivates a man to inject himself into public discourse with such an approach? Ego? Attention seeking? Self-nomination as a defender of specific view of the world and how it works?
“Are all my opinions fact?” Of course [sarc]. On the subject of Bolt, it’s pretty obvious he is pre-motivated to argue no matter the inadequacy of his knowledge. He’s a ‘reputable’ equivalent of the loudmouth in the pub.
Can you seriously mount a factual case for his being intelligent, or a useful social commentator? That is, truly useful, not just a useful idiot providing click-bait and echoing his masters world views.
It’s the Charney Report; “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”, drawn up by a National Research Council study group led by Jule Charney, at the behest of the US National Academy of Sciences. They also took advice from experts in the field, James Hansen and Richard Lindzen among them.
It is clear that even back then, climate science was aware of the role the oceans could play in the suppression of surface temperatures. Reading the report is fascinating, not least because these guys made quite a few educated guesses that have proved remarkably robust. Of course, the models they referred to were very crude, and temperature estimates were agreed more by committee than science, but the take-home points must not be lost: nearly a decade before the foundation of the IPCC, scientists were warning us very clearly of the potential danger in which we were placing ourselves. And they understood that the oceans could disguise the warming – which makes a mockery of claims that the hiatus was not anticipated.
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:20 am
oh ho, this can’t be good!
A new paper ( M.G. Wyatt, et al.) identifies an new cliamte feedback phenomena which they are calling the ‘Stadium-Wave’ effect.”
J Giddeon has finally got something right. The latest Curry paper is NOT good at all, in fact it’s outright appalling. Pseudoscience at it’s best.
You didn’t even bother to read the actual paper did you!! You have just relied on the Curry press release haven’t you. I have read the paper twice, just to make sure that I understood it. For a start, if you read the references you will find that Curry’s freshly minted denier Wyatt has collaborated with other deniers like Tsonis. In case you don’t know, Curry has form, she even has her own denier blog. Extremely low confidence you should have for anything she touches.
Also nowhere in the paper is the slightest reference to the ‘hiatus’.
What the paper details is how they put into a computer, a whole range of indices, including fish catches, detrend them, normalise them, put them through a filter and then run a statistical analysis looking for signals. And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. Surprise, Surprise. Who would have thunk that.
What was funny is they ran their hypothesis through the models, and guess what, zero, zip, nada. That should have been the first clue that they were wrong, but no, they concluded that they were right and the models were wrong. (But then again all the deniers claim that the models are wrong, so this is no surprise)
And then in an ‘An Ice Cometh’ moment, they then predict that the long term ice decline will suddenly reverse.
Comical isn’t it!!!
J Giddeon, you are a disgrace, not even worthy of using the moniker ‘skeptic’. You have proved yourself to be a stone cold denier. You accept whatever crap the professional deniers tell you to think. You troll on websites that are against your beliefs. And to top it off you insult and misrepresent. When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.
my hypothesis is as good as any
reading around, the massive increase in sardines catches was at the time explained by the overfishing of pelagic predators, this led to a massive increase in sardine catches and of course overfishing of those which also led to a decline in their population as well
but you will have to wait thirty years to see if i am correct
“my hypothesis is as good as any’
Well that’s your first mistake.
from the paper:
“iii) Japanese Sardines (JS: Klyashtorin 1998; Noto and Yasuda 1999, 2003), whose
population outbursts off the Japanese coast are spatially related to the meridional migrations of the western-boundary current (Kuroshio Current) and its extension (Oyashio Front) and temporally associated with positive polarities of Pacific ocean-atmospheric circulation patterns (PDO, NPO, NINO, ALPI). Annually resolved commercial statistics are available since 1920. Japanese chronicles extend the record to 1640 (Kawasaki 1994)”
So not the total sardine population – just the outbursts off the Japanese coast.
there are many claims that the abundance of of all sardines in different locations of the northern hemisphere have a “more than trivial relationship to AMO ”
there are hundreds of sardine fisheries in the northern hemisphere
if you could find a correlation for both abundance and crashes, in harmony with the AMO in more than just one location then you might have some credibility.
so the question, given the number of sardine fisheries, was the correlation only found in this small area off japan and was that the reason why it was included ?
because most researchers would laugh at this being used as one of the indices
Its in the paper. The sardine outburst is a proxy for changes in ocean currents and the like. eg “Japanese sardine outbursts co-vary positively with Pacific circulations – PDO, in particular” Records on the outburst go back into the 17th century so are of particular value.
it is circular reasoning the sardines back our hypothesis therefore our hypothesis explains the sardines yet i have found numerous papers looking for links to the abundance el nino winter sst temps MLD etc
so even that is not yet fully understood
Boy oh boy, Rodge, you really are an angry young man. Or is it an angry old man (trying to return soup?). Or just angry that your one true faith is crumbling?
“You didn’t even bother to read the actual paper did you!! ”
And you know that, how? Just more irrational screaming, heh Rodge. Indeed I did read it and have gone over the critical passages several times.
(I’m gunna give you a gift here which each of you can/will use. This level of statistical analysis isn’t my forte so I struggle to understand the minutiae of what they did. But I do get it in the broad. Nonetheless, I’ll rely on the expertise of the authors, reviewers and subsequent critics as to the accuracy of the maths).
” if you read the references you will find that Curry’s freshly minted denier Wyatt has collaborated with other deniers like Tsonis.”
Yes it is well known that, when evaluating any new theory the first thing you do is check who the theoriser has previously worked with and decide if the theory is right or wrong based on that (/sarc).
“What the paper details is how they put into a computer, a whole range of indices, including fish catches, detrend them, normalise them, put them through a filter and then run a statistical analysis looking for signals. And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. Surprise, Surprise.”
They used a computer? Unheard of….
Yes fish catches (sardines) was one of the indices. One of many. Interesting that its the only one you mention – no agenda here? They do explain why they used that index.
“And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. “. Actually the AMO was one of the indices. I probably should stop there because clearly you didn’t understand the process. Maybe a third reading is in order. Perhaps this time with an open mind.
“That should have been the first clue that they were wrong, but no, they concluded that they were right and the models were wrong.”
Because anything that disagrees with the models (like the real world) is, by definition, wrong. Actually if you read the paper, they didn’t say the models were wrong, just that they don’t currently reflect the stadium wave. There is a difference.
“And then in an ‘An Ice Cometh’ moment, they then predict that the long term ice decline will suddenly reverse.”
A testable prediction. That’s how science used to work.
“you are a disgrace” – don’t sugar-coat it. I can take the truth 🙂
“When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.”
Not for a while yet.
I love the part where you think you know what you’re talking about. I recall asking you a couple of very straightforward questions which go the very heart of your position on the hiatus. I can understand why you don’t wish to answer but I’ll try again.
Is the hiatus global?
What percentage of the entire climate system do you think the global surface temperature represents?
Pretty straightforward really. The first is a simple yes/no and the second a number.
Rather presumptuous of you to be demanding that I answer your inane questions given that you’ve previously announced that you wouldn’t talk to me because of my “idiocy”. Or were you just saying that to garner the raptured applause of watching throng?
Somehow you think you can just reverse that and I’ll fall into line.
But just to demonstrate that I’m a better man than you I’ll play.
Question 1 – No
Question 2 – What’s your definition of ” entire climate system”.
You said, “If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned…” yet you admit the hiatus isn’t global.
If the hiatus isn’t global, why would the Anthropogenic GLOBAL warming theory have to be jettisoned?
For your clarification, the entire climate system incorporates all the troposphere and the oceans. By volume, air surface temperature measures about 3% of the entire system but this point is now moot given you have agreed that the hiatus isn’t global so we get back to the question I have put to you. To me it appears a strange position to take. Why would you throw out an entire theory because a tiny part of it isn’t, for want of better words, performing in an expected manner?
Of course the hiatus is global. By common definition the hiatus is simply a pause in the increase of global temperature reported by GISS, HadCRUT, etc.
That doesn’t mean that no place in the world has continued to warm any more than global warming meant that every place in the world was warming.
As I said the hiatus is defined as the pause in global surface temperature increase.
Up until recently all of the hockey sticks and claims of catastrophic warming have been based on surface warming. Now you want to change it? I know you’re rather talk about OHC instead of surface temperature or even ocean temperature now but that’s inconsistent from what has been discussed in the past.
You really need to stop basing your arguments on what you read over at WUWT or Jo’s or Steve’s or wherever. Your assertions are incorrect. OHC was being examined right from the time when sea levels were observed rising and particularly accelerating. The funny thing about the Mann work was that it was the denier dens that blew that up to what could be considered celebrity status as far as graphs go. For the rest of us, it was just another piece in the puzzle. The fact that Al Gore decided to present it infuriated the loony right in the USA and their ideologically driven outrage helped sell the movie he made…which I still haven’t watched by the way.
Regardless, wherever I or anyone chose to focus our attention has no bearing on the fact that the ocean is still warming, the ice is still melting and species are still moving, hiatus or not. I am yet to find any denier who can insinuate that because there is a hiatus that warming has stopped and then explain the physical and biological indicators that demonstrate it hasn’t. So here is your chance. If the hiatus in the surface temperature means GLOBAL warming has stopped, why are those physical and biological processes still occurring?
“Up until recently all of the hockey sticks and claims of catastrophic warming have been based on surface warming.”
Crap. Just crap.
Claims of ‘catastrophic’ warming are strawmen simplifications ,and claims of warming are not based on current surface warming, they’re based on physics and ACO2 output plus feedbacks. From Arrhenius’ time claims of warming were based on physics and output of CO2 from human activity, not observed temperatures. That physical underpinning has always informed claims.
The ‘hockey’ sticks appear in the long term data: CO2 levels, reconstructed temperature. The projections for temperature increase are not hockey stick shaped. They show increase accelerating for a period in the mid to late 20th C then a slowing to a new higher equilibrium state then slow decay. The equilibrium level and point in time a function of how much CO2 we burn and how fast.
Nick are you really claiming that we haven’t been seeing charts of surface temperature for the last 20 years and talk of increasing temperature? You can’t be serious!
ALL of the emphasis has been on surface warming. Whether it’s one of Mann’s papers or Marcott’s they all discuss surface temperature.
You know uki, I really thought you were smarter than you are.
If the habitat of a species warms to a point where the species ends up migrating it doesn’t happen immediately. It takes time. For example when it was warmer in Siberia in the past the tree line was significantly higher. But it takes time for the trees to move up. Decades or even tens of decades. Yet you sit here and ask “Why are species still migrating if global warming has stopped?”. What a silly question. You really can’t be that ignorant. Ice melts when temperature increases above the melting point. Once that temperature is reached the ice will melt regardless of whether the temperature continues to increase or not. Yet you use this argument as proof that the earth is still warming.
Bill, if the thermal tolerances of animals are narrow and they are forced to move to less suitable habitats, I can assure you it actually happens quite quickly. The new habitats are generally less favourable in terms of food availability and there are added issues of niche partioning and competition and a dozen other factors. If temperature rise stops, the migration stops. It hasn’t. With many plants, yes there is a lag time but at the back end of a range shift. For annual plants, the easiest to study, they react just as quickly as animals in terms of range extension at the front end and guess what? They haven’t stopped either. It’s also not just geographical changes in species either. An even bigger although less discussed issue with both plants and animals are changes in phenology. These are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature and guess what? They are still moving to. I don’t know what your supposed area of expertise is, but mine is ecology and plant pathology. Would you like to discuss the shifting ranges of pathogenic plant fungi? I am more than happy to educate you in that area especially and guess what? They too are still shifting inline with warming. Again these are even more sensitive to changes in temperature than phenology of plants and animals.
Bill, I’m not claiming that. What we are experiencing is the warming predicted by AGHG theory sparked by Arrhenius calculations and rebooted by Callendar, then refined in the 1960s and 1970s. Please keep the hockey stick where it originated : in the shape of temperature reconstructions of the last 800 to 2000 and more years.
Predictions of future warming are not based on current warming of a component of the earth/atmosphere system or even all of it, they are based on the physics of GHGs. Warming now or twenty years ago is not predictive it is only incidentally confirmatory [and wobbles are expected on the way]. John Byatt linked, way back, the Charney report from 1979: it’s about the system as a whole, lagging components and all. Really it’s simple, deliver x amount of carbon into the atmosphere over x years and it will perturb the system in a lot of ways for a long period, and different pieces of the system will react according to their component properties.
The information going to government is largely available to all. It was always about the system; it could not be any other way given the physicist/meteorologist background of 1960s and 1970s researchers. Obviously surface temperature is an aspect that we collectively recognise and emphasise, but often at the expense of better understanding. I reject most media framing of it, they lack space, resources, format and competence in many cases.
I definitely reject the framing put about by aspects of the blogocracy that ‘warmists’ overwhelmingly pick and choose indices that suit them. Look through the archives of competent sites and you will see a systems approach,the discussion of facets and features of the system,and plenty of integrative discussion. Even bullshit sites like Watts attempt that as well, in an attempt to mimic competence. Then you have the low-resource cranks who are obsessed by the sun, or some purported official statistical shortcomings: motivated rejectionism seeking a ‘knock-out issue’.
People who do not read their history or the IPCC reports just go round in circles, projecting wildly.
By my logic? You can try and deflect from the strange twisted and contradictory positions you hold as much as you like. Im not biting. Its all there for everyone to see and in one sentence. Ill take it you cant answer the question because you have realized the pickle you put yourself in. You lecturing me on logic is like Tony Abbott lecturing on gender equality. So unless you are prepared to actually explain how you can hold contradictory positions I would suggest not responding at all because Im not really interested in anything else you have to say.
You are delusional and dishonest. I’ve asked you to answer the question. Whenever you decide to do that I will be more than happy to continue. Instead od answering you decided to obfuscate. That is your right to do so of course but I won’t be playing along. You can try and claim that I am avoiding or whatever and give yourself a delusional pat on the back. You will only be extending your dishonesty to yourself. So answer the question or fuck off. Either way I dont really care. Your level of importance tome is such that I wouldn’t pisses on you if you were on fire. Feel free to be offended.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that I’m dealing with someone whose logic skills and gripe on the plain written word is ‘equivicable’ 🙂 . I’ll answer using smaller words, ok.
Your assertion is that, since the hiatus is not global, is not happening throughout the entire climate system, then it can’t have an affect on the AGW theory.
Now that is at least arguable. But I’d reject it on the basis that the hiatus, while not global, is happening in general and on average across the globe.
My point was this. If you reject the notion that the temperature record, when in hiatus, has nothing to say about the theory because its not globally in hiatus, then the temperature record, when in a warming phase, has nothing to say about theory because the warming wasn’t global. And that’s just screwy.
I did try to use little words, but I suspect I’ve lost you again.
Oh FFS, its a hiatus in the surface temperatures. So introducing all the other areas is a complete furfhy.
Nurse: “I think this man is very sick because his body temp is 39 degrees”
Doctor: “No I looked at his big toe nail and it looks fine. He can go home”.
“A testable prediction. That’s how science used to work.” Gids, model predictions of warming are testable, too…did you not know? Haven’t you been claiming they are bust, which kind of suggests testability?
Science still ‘works’ the way it did, not that you’d have a clue, judging by that silly snark.
Wyatt and Curry make some interesting choices of data: for instance, one proxy for their ITCZ value, and reference to Black et al 1999, which is superseded by Black et al 2007. What gives there? I also wonder about the solidity of the Russian sea ice obs back to early 20thC.
Statements from Wyatt in the Georgia Tech press release about the ‘recovery’ of summer minimum sea ice in the Arctic between 2012 and 2013 being consistent with her ‘stadium wave’ are simply hand-waving, not supportable by the paper. the ‘recovery’ is consistent with inter-annual variability / reversion to the mean / wind and cloud conditions.etc. It is simply too early to be hanging that one out there.
They didn’t say the recovery of arctic sea ice IS consistent with their theory they said “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
Hair-splitting,Bill…the work, a highly filtered mesh of detrended indices, does not allow even the caution of ‘suggestive of consistency’…still not cautious enough. This paper seems to be built on [more indices added] Wyatt,Kravtsov and Tsonis 2012…where did that go? The ‘stadium wave’ was the label then ,too.
the crap has been flying on WUWT re marcia wyatt paper
this is the death of AGW
they have stolen my hypothesis and given it a different name
‘
i have been saying this for years
poor marcia had to come in and tell them that it neither supported or rejected AGW
in the knee deep shit someone waded in to say that the emperor has no clothes
Ivan says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:05 pm
The paper does not say anything about how this new model explains the pause in global warming, does not say anything explicitly against the IPCC models, it emphasizes that it is not clear how this could be applied to the 21 st century conditions. And the abstract is absolutely unreadable and does not say anything at all about any of the points raised by the authors in their media statements.
they may have been a bit miffed that it was not released the same day as AR5 WG1 though
Deniers are so funny aren’t they. When they are not childishly arguing with each other like Willie and Roy, they are lapping up any old bullshit claim. It seems that their ideology strips away their eyes and their brains. You would think that they have gin soaked cotton wool between their ears. But go on J Giddeon, defend the indefensible with your ad hom’s. That’s all you have left. You don’t even realise the joker you are, which what makes you even funnier.
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 5:54 am
Or just angry that your one true faith is crumbling?”
Dude, it is your faith which is crumbling. Climate science has been around for over 150 years and is getting stronger. There is no faith required, just evidence, and the evidence is now overwhelming. Do you really think that some kid fresh out of college and a couple of deluded deniers will suddenly demolish basic physics. What a laugh.
You really need to do some proper reading, not just the regurgitated fur balls from the denier blogs.
I never ceased to be amazed at these attitudes – if only the deniers would do more reading they’d agree with us. This view that the only difference is the level of knowledge. The arrogance is breath-taking or just arrogance of youth. Take your pick.
Just to give you an inkling of how wrong you are:
I don’t dispute the science of GW.. I accept that adding CO2e to a system will, all else being equal, cause warming.
I don’t dispute that there has been some warming since the Dalton minimum and that some portion of that is due to man.
Where we part ways is the view that any of this is the slightest bit of a problem.
I don’t buy the idea that, since we can show that some warming has occurred due to raised co2, therefore it is proven that things are going to be disastrous in 2100.
I’m perfectly comfortable with the current temp increases and quite comfortable that the future will be benign.
I don’t buy the scare emission scenarios for the 21st C. I think we will easily adapt to a warmer world and that technology will reduce emissions into the future without the need for inefficent government intervention.
Finally I reject the notion that the science is settled and that we know all we need to know about the climate systems in order to make precise predictions/projections. The hiatus is but one example of the fact that scientists don’t know enough to make guesses about the future – that the system is way more complex than they thought.
Bottom line – adding CO2 will make the global warmer than otherwise. But how much warmer is the question. The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.
“The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.”
Totally wrong-headed. You’re Australian I take it? Unbelievable denial of the reality of increasingly violent weather extremes and related. Like fires. Like forest die-off.
You’re not paying attention to what’s happening in the world outside whatever bubble it is you’re in. How bad does it have to get before it pops? How dumb are you?
Yep, it IS clear you DO need to do more reading,Gids. You reject serious work, built up over many generations, in favor of magical thinking.
You think it’s all going to be OK, or manageable, based on what you have learned. Thing is, folks who have put working lives into building you a knowledge base across the earth sciences disagree with you…and you can just flick it away!
You see, Nick, that’s where you are wrong, or at least wrong about what I think.
I’m perfectly happy to go along with the consensus that if we get to, say, the levels of emissions foreshadowed in RCP8.5 then we will get some form of warming approaching that which the IPCC has calculated. On the whole, I’d go with Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and the like in thinking that the climate models are too sensitive and that the warming from a RCP8.5 scenario would be on the lower side of the projections, but a warming nonetheless.
Where I part ways is that I just don’t think we are going to get anywhere near RCP8.5. Indeed I don’t think we’ll get to a doubling – 560ppm.
Now, this is not rejecting the science. Its not even rejecting the economics behind the science. In the main, its thinking that , for example, RCP4.5 is closer to the truth than RCP8.5.
I do have some expertise in economic history and my view is that emissions will decline in the middle of this century because of the natural replacement of 19th-20th centruy technology with 21st century technology.
So again, not rejecting the science. Just not accepting the assumptions that the science uses to make its projections.
so you accept the science but not the projections,what papers do Spencer, Lindzen, Curry have which shows lower sensitivity?
none which have survived replication, not bloody one
over two degrees is dangerous, another paper out last week confirming that
what a complete dropkick
@ uknowispeaksense
In a paper published last week in the international scientific journal Earth System Dynamics, the scientists say they are surprised at how much worse the impacts would become once the 2ºC threshold is passed. At the moment, they say, the failure of politicians to make commitments to cut emissions means that the temperature is set to reach and pass the danger zone of 3.5ºC.
While the scientists spell out what will happen to the vegetation and the water availability, they do not venture into predicting what conflict might arise if a billion people or more whose food supply would collapse embarked on mass migration to avoid starvation.
The “green” areas of the world most affected are the grasslands of Eastern India, shrub lands of the Tibetan Plateau, the forests of Northern Canada, and the savannas of Ethiopia and Somalia. The melting permafrost of the Siberian tundra will also be significant, releasing further greenhouse gases.
“J Giddeon says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
You see, Nick, that’s where you are wrong, or at least wrong about what I think.
I’m perfectly happy to go along with the consensus that if we get to, say, the levels of emissions foreshadowed in RCP8.5 then we will get some form of warming approaching that which the IPCC has calculated. On the whole, I’d go with Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and the like in thinking that the climate models are too sensitive”
I would love to believe Spencer and Lindzen, but they have been too corrupted by the fossil fuel industry, they are both experts of the Heartland Institure, who’s aim is to discredit climate science. Then you have the vast majority of climate scientists who have actually done the real research and shown that they are wrong.
“The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.”
You see, if we look at the PETM, we find that there was enormous ecological disruption with only a fraction of our current emissions. So you are wrong there. Your problem is that you have been on the astroturf ideoblogs and Bolt’s blog for too long. You have drunk their Kool-aid. There have already been times when there has been rapid greenhouse warming and the consequence has been bad. We don’t need models, we just have to look at the past. Our civilisation is already on a knife edge. The GFC showed that all it takes it’s a little push and the house of cards will fall. Our food supply is heavily dependent on crops like corn and wheat, which have seen massive crop failures due to heatwaves and drought. We also know that during times such as the Younger Dryas, the climate is able to rapidly warm with just a small forcing. We also know that past civilisations have collapsed due massive droughts that were within natural variation. We are now pushing the climate so that super El Nino’s or megadroughts, both of which have occurred in the past, are even more likely in the future. So with all due respect, you are talking out of your arse.
“When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.”
I know there is a real desire among the commentariate here that everyone be in furious agreement with each other. that if Mike says “XYZ”, JB, writes to his agreement and U agrees with JB and Nick agrees with U and Rodge agrees with Nick and so on and so on.
But where is the value in that? If there’s no challenging of views then there’s no learning. You just end up with everyone agreeing that there is no temperature pause while the outside world is trying to work out what caused the pause. Its the climate equivalent of the Amish.
I can easily go to sites where my views would be entirely accepted. I’ve been to blogs where, if I wrote “Abbott is a genius” I’d get 90% furious agreement and 10% saying I was understating the truth. But who learns from that?
You need to have your views tested and disputed. That’s why I’m here. Of course you have to put up with the abuse but again that’s standard all over. Most people don’t like to be challenged.
So how long will I be here…until (1) I no longer feel like I’m getting anything out of the alternate views or (2) Mike decides he’s had enough of his congregation being upset and bans me.
The behavior here from the likes of Rodger the dodger and john byatt is typical of Right-Wing Authoritarian types. They bully, insult, attack, demean, lie, distort, and gang up on people in an attempt to silence dissension and conflicting viewpoints. They have no intent on being civil or even obeying the rules of this blog regarding treatment of other posters.
It’s too bad they can’t just state their views and disagree with other people without resorting to the RWA tactics.
No one is asking for special treatment john. We aren’t even asking that Mike enforce the rules that he created that specifically state that posters must treat “commentators and readers with respect and refrain from personal insults”. In my case I’m just pointing out how your behavior is typical of RWA types. Your goal is to silence critics and anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You don’t have enough faith and confidence in your own ability to debate that you can avoid insulting others and calling them names. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that reads your posts.
when you make numerous absolutely inane claims and expect to be taking seriously then people are going to tell you that you are a dickhead
what a moron to claim that scientists have said that you can get the global anomaly from one ice core in the middle of antarctica , we might as well forget GISS Hadcrut etc and just take the temperature at Vostock
it is a moronic claim from a fool yet you want to be taken seriously, seriously?
More typical RWA responses from you john. Now you’re simply trying to justify the behavior. Who was that said it’s okay to be abusive because we deserve it? I didn’t expect you to admit you’re engaging in RWA behavior because you certainly can’t admit to yourself that is what you are. But it’s true. Look at the definition and description of behaviors of RWA types and it clearly fits you and rodger. You can’t simply try to make your point and be satisfied. You have to call people names, resort to ad hominem attacks (including accusing people of being religious), insult, bully, and gang up on people. Pretty pathetic and speaks volumes about you personally that you can’t even begin to stay civil.
uknowispeaksense says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:00 am
Does Boohoo’s attempts to paint us as rightwing remind you of anything? It reminds me of “Atheism is a religion”
i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,
poor bastard a self confessed right wing mouthpice berating the ABC for lefty views but has no option other than to accept bills crap without being able to defend himself
I didn’t even include you in the list of RWA types uki. Apparently you self-identify!
I can see how some religious people think that militant atheists are religious-like. If an atheist feels the need to proselytize and preach about how someone’s religious beliefs are wrong or false then the atheist can come across as almost having their own religion and religious-like zeal.
But for us atheists that recognize the atheism is the absence of belief then it can’t be a religion. There are no mores, morals and belief systems that go with being an atheist. To claim otherwise is wrong.
“i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,”
Why? Oh I see, Bill’s on my ‘side’ so I have to agree or pretend to agree with what he says.
Sorry JB that’s your go. Its you and your mates who feel the need to protect the herd. It was you who tried, ever so ineptly, to defend Mr U when he screwed up ‘unequivocably’. Its also why, I assume, no one chipped you on the ethics of your stalking of Bill.
I feel no need to defend or otherwise, anything Bill says. He’s on his own as far as I’m concerned and I’d hope he feels the same way about me.
If I’m forced to comment on his “Right-Wing Authoritarian” I’d say it was half correct. There is a real authoritarian bent but its from the left. That’s why so many of the AGW crowd talk about subsuming democracy to save the planet, or talk about silencing ‘denier dissent’, or talk about gaoling ‘cliamte criminals’. They seek to impose their views on the rest but they do so from the left.
I know most of you don’t appreciate the term ‘watermelon’ but it is very accurate. Those who in the past would have been attracted to the authoritarian left prior to the fall of the USSR, gravitated toward the greens. Seen in that regard, Bob Brown’s attempts to close down the ‘hate media’ are perfectly consistent.
J Giddeon you nailed it: I don’t feel the need to defend you. We aren’t together against other posters on this site we just happen to agree on some issue. I’m sure we disagree on others. It isn’t an “us against them” mentality for us although it apparently is for them.
I use the term “Right-Wing Authoritarian” even though it’s coming from self-proclaimed liberals in this case because that’s how this blog defined the behavior. Unfortunately they can’t see themselves in the description even though it fits people like john byatt and rodger the dodger perfectly. Here’s quotes from a book on the matter:
“We shall probably always have individuals lurking among us who yearn to play
tyrant.” – Remind you of any posters?
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” – yep. They also claim to be smarter too.
“High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do” – Which explains why they believe AGW is such a defining issue and why they would claim the earth is currently “excessively hot” even though it’s been warmer in the past.
So they may truly be “Left-Wing Authoritarian” but they fit the description of RWA to a “T”.
And again I have to thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly john. It’s like you don’t even realize that you’re proving my point for me.
Why don’t you just write what you really feel: that you are not only smarter than me and other “deniers” but that you really are morally superior to us too. Others have already justified the abuse and insults thrown our way.
“You just end up with everyone agreeing that there is no temperature pause while the outside world is trying to work out what caused the pause.”
I don’t disagree that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface air temperatures when your starting year is 1998 and you will struggle to find anyone here who does. Where you will find people here disagreeing with you is when you try and suggest that this hiatus is global. It isn’t. The temperature sets do not take into account ocean temperatures. So, even though you don’t want to answer my 2 simple questions, I’ll ask you this instead.
If the global temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years, why is sealevel still rising, why is ice still melting and why are tens of thousands of species still moving in a manner consistent with global warming?
“when your starting year is 1998 ”
This is the dishonest little game you people play. suggesting its all an artefact of the very warm 1998.
But as I pointed out a thread or two back, there is also no statistically significant warming if you starting year is 1997 or 1999 for any of the main datasets and back into 1996 and 1995 for some of them. When I pointed this out everyone ran a mile and pretended not to hear.
I know there are lots of ‘excuses’ raised for fact that surface temps failed to do what the models decreed. ENSO masking, heat accumulation in intermediate ocean depths,weak solar forcing, volcanoes. (maybe the stadium wave)
All of those involve natural variability. So clearly co2 warming can be overwhelmed by other forces. More importantly, the models failed to predict the pause and therefore take inadequate note of natural variability.
Until this is incorporated into the models we can have no faith in their predictions. Already we’ve seen CS numbers reduced when the hiatus is taken into account (Otto et al) and it seems likely we’ll see the same happen to the models.
twodicks “But as I pointed out a thread or two back, there is also no statistically significant warming if you starting year is 1997 or 1999 for any of the main datasets and back into 1996 and 1995 for some of them. When I pointed this out everyone ran a mile and pretended not to hear.’
if that was the case then we could have claimed no statistically significant warming in 2011 when phil jones declared the warming since 1995 statistically significant
so why didn’t we?
well we had to wait until after the The 2010/11 and 2011/12 La Niñas to find a trend which we preferred
the same warming signal is still there when you account for ENSO and volcanic activity over the last years,
the deniers claim that internal variability is not investigated and then deny internal variability when it suits their cognitive bias
“So clearly CO2 warming can be overwhelmed by other forces” Yes, this has always been understood. It’s always being overwhelmed in the shortest terms. But the basis for concern is built on the clear and obvious fact that currently CO2 is rising persistently and is a persistent presence in the human influenced atmosphere. So it has clearly been understood that CO2 would be a prevailing influence on long term global temperature trajectories, knowing the carbon resources we can access and plan[ned] to burn.
The models are really looking at where the system ends up under varying CO2 emissions scenarios. 2100 and beyond. They all predict warming, increasing with the higher emissions. They don’t pretend to be looking at decades with any great precision because we understand annual and decadal variability to be high for all those ‘excuse’ you note. They generate natural variability, and considerable ‘pauses’, with the parameterisations of the inputs, but real and simulated ENSO is not periodic. So they will never predict ENSO from a distance. The Solar cycle is not regular either: it has been observed to be anything from 9 to 13 years long. Given known unknowns, models are very useful, and have been vindicated on rational assessment. Do you have an unrealistic expectation of what the models could do?
“…we can have no faith in their predictions” Our confidence in models is [and has always been] qualified, and has been justified by developments in real time. All I can say is that all models incorporating CO2 increase have predicted temperature will rise and continue to do so until equilibration and drawdown of CO2 levels. They have got the sign of the change right. They have got the pace of the change close enough. So your conditional rejection of trust is unwarranted even now.
It would take an unprecedented and persistent dimming of solar influence to counter ACO2. Natural variation from internal climate modes /pseudo-cycles and oscillations is not that persistent.
“If the global temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years, why is sealevel still rising, why is ice still melting and why are tens of thousands of species still moving in a manner consistent with global warming?”
If the temperature has risen enough to melt ice then it doesn’t need to keep rising for the ice to continue to melt. Since you consider yourself to be really smart you should know something so obvious.
If you think I’m going to buy into the already debunked “Trenberth’s Missing Heat” guff that you will no doubt recite word for word from WUWT forget it. It’s already been dealt with elsewhere. Nice try though.
This has nothing to do with Trenberth or anyone else. You said that the oceans continue to undergo thermal expansion. Recent papers show that the oceans have warmed by as much as 0.09C in the last few decades. How much thermal expansion is associated with that temperature increase?
“Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the
heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 10*22 J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer.”
You said papers. But that report tells you how much. Feel free to read it. I think it mentions something like 3.2mm/yr. If you dispte that sea level has risen that much then I would love to hear your justification. If you are going to tell me that 0.9 degrees in the top 2000m of ocean couldn’t result in that much rise, well, without referring to the already debunked garbage about “missing heat” mentioned by Spencer and repeated at WUWT and all the other non science blogs, I can’t wait to hear about it. Perhaps you could write to all the oceanographers and tellt hem how they are wrong. Feel free to print their response in full here. Should be pretty funny.
You keep claiming that sea level is rising due to thermal expansion. So how much thermal expansion is there from a temperature increase of 0.09C in the top 2000m of the oceans?
“Mark Morano has called out the flying wingnuts to harrass Prof. Mora, which, as you know can be quite unpleasant, but even if not, those of us who appreciate good work (and Mora has a long and excellent track record on biodiversity issues) do not mind giving a pat on the back, so if you feel that a pat is of value, let him know, if you have a question about his new paper, ask, and if you think you have something to add, that would be nice, better tho if brief. And finally, if you have been the subject of a flying monkey attack, talk about how you dealt with it.”
“Bill Jamison says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:21 am
They bully, insult, attack, demean, lie, distort, and gang up on people in an attempt to silence dissension and conflicting viewpoints.”
Gee, life must be tough being a zombie. You should watch the movie ‘World War Z’. You have hoards of zombies attacking humans, and in their defence they start shooting the zombies. There is one scene where the zombies are trying to get over a wall, and they are being cut down with a machine gun from a helicopter. You don’t stop to think, I wonder if the zombies think ‘stop being a bully humans, stop insulting and attacking us, we only want to convert you into a zombie like us’.
Bill, you are the zombie. We bully, insult, attack and demean you because you are trying to convert us into your brand of zombie. No one is forcing you to post here. If you don’t want to be insulted and attacked, delete your bookmark and do something else. If you insist on posting inane, pointless and idiotic remarks, well, I’m not in the business of curing stupidity. Why do you need to be constantly reminded that this site is called ‘Watching the Deniers’. It could just as easily be called ‘Making fun of Deniers’ or ‘Deniers and their stupid antics’ The fact that you don’t get this and continue to act like a troll tells me that you are mentally retarted. If I were to go to one of the denier sites, I would get the exact treatment that you are getting. I know this so I don’t go there. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand.
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:07 am
You need to have your views tested and disputed.”
I’m afraid that you may be about 30 years to late. Climate science was settled decades ago. Do you really think my view on heliocentrism, plate tectonics, evolution, quantum mechanics and climate science, all settled science, really needs to be tested and disputed. Are you just arrogant or plain stupid. If I wish to increase my knowledge on any of these subjects, do you really think that I would take the crazed opinion of some random denier troll. Of course not. I would read and watch videos authored by experts in their field. So your feeble attempt to ‘test our views’ is beyond useless. Your last attempt, by posting a link by the deceptive Curry, has only further reinforced how useless you are.
Well Rodger at least you don’t deny your RWA tactics like john does. You try to justify them but at least you don’t deny them.
Now we’re zombies haha. You’re hilarious rodger. At least you have some humor (intentional or not) in your posts unlike john who is just angry and bitter.
Nick says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:06 am
“This paper seems to be built on [more indices added] Wyatt,Kravtsov and Tsonis 2012…where did that go? The ‘stadium wave’ was the label then ,too.”
Curry, Tsonis and Wyatt have been chewing on the ‘Mexican Wave theory’ old bone since at least 2010. Then all of a sudden, this latest Curry paper is released and it’s all new again. This time with a set of steak knives and even more hand waving. It sank like a stone then, and now burdened with even more indices, is destined to ‘sleep with the fishes’. /pun
Wyatt has also guest posted on Roger Pielke’s denier blog.
The ‘Mexican wave theory’ is Tsonis’s baby, but he must be bored of it and passed off this limp lettuce to Wyatt.
For a bit of a laugh, you should check out the grandiose webpage of Tsonis.
“I was one of the first scientists to promote the application of Chaos theory and nonlinear data analysis in Atmospheric Sciences.”
Obviously never heard of Lorenz, who coined the term ‘Butterfly Effect’, and was the real pioneer in chaos theory 20 years earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz
King idiot.
In the latest Curry paper, in the intro, she says.
“Behavior of numerous and diverse geophysical indices – from fish populations to cosmic nuclides – fluctuate at a quasi-periodic 50-to-80 year tempo (e.g. Ogurtsov et al. 2002;”
and a quote from that paper.
“We consider the galactic cosmic rays as the more probable cause for the quasi-22-year climatic variation, although the contribution of some other sources, such as 22-year variation of solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (Baranyi, Ludmany, and Coffey, 1998) and precipitation of particles in auroral zone (Veretenenko and Pudovkin, 1997) cannot be excluded. The 22-year cycle is seen in the GCR intensity, since during solar cycles with negative polarity of the Sun’s northern polar field”
Does anyone notice the discrepancy?
Curry says “cosmic nuclides – fluctuate at a quasi-periodic 50-to-80 year tempo”
yet the paper she references says “22-year cycle is seen in the GCR intensity”.
How does one turn 22 into 50-80?
Would you call this a lie? Misrepresentation? Stupidity?
This is really basic stuff, taught in any university. If you use a reference, then your text should at least match your reference.
MARodger says:
11 Oct 2013 at 4:21 AM
prokaryotes @154.
It is called the “stadium wave” (what we Brits call a ‘Mexican wave’) hypothesis not the “stadium” hypothesis although, as this is more the work of Wyatt, it may be that Curry is engaged in a bit of ‘grandstanding’ by getting in as joint author on the paper you link to.
Curry is a declared Pacificite (“It’s the PDO wot dun it!”) not an Atlanticist (It’s all due to the AMO.) but the “stadium wave” formula neatly achieves a truce between such wild theorising by tying them all up together.
So is this “stadium wave” but more curve-fitting nonsense? I am always a tad suspicious when an analysis only ever presents smoothed curves that have filtered the bejeebers out of the original data. And when these curve-fitters figure their job is done when the curve appear to fit over the first period they looked at and are not eagerly extending it back to older data or forwards to data freshly measured, I am doubly suspicious.
So guess what? All the graphics I see with this “stadium wave” are 1900-2000 and heavily filtered. True there is also talk of analysis of proxy data 1700-2000 but, whatever that comprises, it doesn’t appear to be worthy of presentation beyond Wyatt’s PhD thesis. And the main author does appear to be lacking in the basics. The “stadium wave” has an alleged period of decades but Wyatt is happy to be quoted as saying “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.” It appears that the period of the signal has been nailed down with incredible accuracy. I bet if we ask nicely Wyatt could even tell us the day of the week that this cycle peaked at.
I don’t quite get why you guys are so upset by this paper. All it’s doing is trying to tie some natural variability together. Maybe it’s correct maybe it’s not (I’d bet it isn’t). Time will tell. It’s just a paper it’s not earth shattering science.
It would be nice if the paper is correct and that the hiatus will last for a couple of decades.
I’m not upset by the paper, it’s having a go… but is this long chain of kick-on effects real, and does it really have a location of genesis? I can’t see yet how the paper pins it to the Siberian Sea convincingly. There is simply not enough detailed data on all those indices going back far enough to claim an over-arching irregular ‘cycle’.
I do worry about any paper being leveraged into something it isn’t, and I’m not pointing at you. Wyatt’s comments are over-reach based on my reading of the paper.
It’s not that it’s being discussed it’s that some of you are getting really defensive about it john. There’s a difference. I’m just surprised because as Wyatt and Curry have stated explicitly, the paper makes no claims about AGW. It’s about natural variability and whether different modes of variability can combine into this “stadium wave” or not.
Even if their theory has some basis in reality I would still doubt that they got it right on the first try. The signals are too weak and too much processing has to be done to try to tweak out a signal of any significance. I’m not faulting them I just think something like this will be hard to prove but I believe they would be the first to admit it.
I think your claim of getting defensive about it is just your own overreaction.to a discussion.
hundreds of studies into the abundance and nonabundance of sardines, even in japan where the science is still not settled and this paper just picks one small area where it finds a correlation and includes that as evidence
the japanese researchers will be rightly dismissive when someone who has not even
contributed to the research in this area claims this circular reasoning as some sort of support for this claimed consistency with her hypothesis
J Giddeon says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:44 am
“i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,”
Why? Oh I see, Bill’s on my ‘side’ so I have to agree or pretend to agree with what he says
NO AS A RIGHT WING MOUTHPIECE YOU HAVE TO WEAR THEM WITHOUT COMMENT
Sorry JB that’s your go. Its you and your mates who feel the need to protect the herd. It was you who tried, ever so ineptly, to defend Mr U when he screwed up ‘unequivocably’. Its also why, I assume, no one chipped you on the ethics of your stalking of Bill.
A TYPO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR DENIAL ANY MORE CORRECT
I feel no need to defend or otherwise, anything Bill says. He’s on his own as far as I’m concerned and I’d hope he feels the same way about me.
YOU HAVE EVEN BACKED HIS RIDICULOUS “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY CAN BE FULLY ASCERTAINED BY THE TEMPERATURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANTARCTIC
If I’m forced to comment on his “Right-Wing Authoritarian” I’d say it was half correct. There is a real authoritarian bent but its from the left. That’s why so many of the AGW crowd talk about subsuming democracy to save the planet, or talk about silencing ‘denier dissent’, or talk about gaoling ‘cliamte criminals’. They seek to impose their views on the rest but they do so from the left.
LEFT IS RIGHT AND RIGHT IS LEFT , ATHEISTS ARE THE BELIEVERS
CLIMATE SCIENCE IS RELIGION “YOUR FAITH”
I know most of you don’t appreciate the term ‘watermelon’ but it is very accurate. Those who in the past would have been attracted to the authoritarian left prior to the fall of the USSR, gravitated toward the greens. Seen in that regard, Bob Brown’s attempts to close down the ‘hate media’ are perfectly consistent.
AND YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, WELL DONE YOU TICK ALL BOXES,
rather irrelevant boohoo . we are talking about temperatures over the next century and what that will mean for wet bulb temperatures, extreme events, coastal flooding of major civilizations ocean, food chain collapse. species extinction the consequences of which will have a direct consequence on the whole biosphere,
we are in deep shit if we do not start to reduce emissions now and we have retards like you and twodicks with their heads up there arse
“A TYPO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR DENIAL ANY MORE CORRECT”
I know it wasn’t a typo.
You know it wasn’t a typo.
Any sentient being reading the exchange would know it wasn’t a typo.
Even the pompous oaf himself knows it wasn’t a typo.
Now I don’t care that you want to out and out lie to protect U. Your lapdog style devotion is cute.
But it is very revealing. If you are prepared to straight out lie about something that is so easily checked and so inconsequential , what aren’t you prepared to lie about?
Does anyone else get the impression after talking to deniers that they have been talking to the retard ‘Reg’ from the SBS comedy series ‘Housos’. You wonder are they mentally retarded, when did they start letting computers into psychiatric wards? Take for instance my latest interaction. This one denier presented a paper from Curry, boldly holding it up like it’s a piece of gold. ‘Check this out, it will demolish your precious faith.’ But you can smell it from a mile away. It’s a piece of dog droppings wrapped up in foil. ‘Look here, this is great, it’s yummy chocolate’. ‘No it’s not, I can smell it from here.’ So he then gives you this squishy foil and when you open it up, it is indeed a piece of dog shit. You then tell them it’s a piece of dog shit, but he smiles and says ‘Is chocolate, very good’. You can see in the gaps of his crooked teeth, old pieces of dog shit. ‘Eww, you have been eating this like a hungry dog.’ ‘Is chocolate, is good’. ‘What is wrong with you, when are you going to piss off’. ‘I want to help you, give you my chocolate, I am nice’.
Very funny JB, but the guy in the orange shirt is still smarter than your average denier. In the end he eventually worked out that it dog poop. You average denier would still deny it’s dog poop. They would go on saying it’s a conspiracy by the watermelon people or that the dog did it for money. Then they turn on you, get really defensive and say why are you making fun of me, stop calling me names, it’s not dog poop. What makes you think it’s dog poop. I can’t tell the difference. Why are you getting so upset.
Ahh deniers, they are such jokers and pranksters aren’t they. You don’t know if they are being serious or pulling your leg. They are funny though. This is why I like this site. It is a never ending source of comedy gold.
“You don’t know if they are being serious or pulling your leg. They are funny though. This is why I like this site. It is a never ending source of comedy gold”
i once thought that,
they were leg pulling or just a poe,
this guy has to be joking, he cannot be effin serious
“fuck no, this is how these people really think, .
WASHINGTON (AP) — Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.
Sounds like no one bothered to look at the actual temperature trend for Kingston Jamaica which is a 0.1C/decade increase over the last 20 years. Not exactly catastrophic warming in the next couple of decades at that rate. But why look at the real data when you have computer models?
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:05 am
Sounds like no one bothered to look at the actual temperature trend for Kingston Jamaica which is a 0.1C/decade increase over the last 20 years. Not exactly catastrophic warming”
Motivated reasoning strikes again.
“Data collected at Jamaica’s airport stations (Figure 4.3.2) for the much shorter period of 1992 to 2010 likewise show a warming trend for the country of about 0.1 degrees Celsius/decade. Some research sources suggest that the rate of warming may be slightly higher — about 0.27 degrees Celsius/decade. Research also suggests seasonal rates of temperature increase which range
from 0.20 – 0.31 °C per decade, with the period of most rapid increase being June-July-August (JJA) at a rate of 0.31 ̊C per decade.”
Looks like YOU are the one who didn’t bother to look at actual temperatures. You are a complete and utter joke. A climate zombie. But keep it up, you are comedy gold!!!!
boohoo”won’t cause a catastrophic shift in climate for Jamaica.
Thank you for confirming my claim”
another man of straw from the climate zombie
“WASHingTON (AP) — Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.
And eventually the whole world in 2047.
A new study on global warming pinpoints the probable dates for when cities and ecosystems around the world will regularly experience hotter environments the likes of which they have never seen before.
This paper doesn’t upset me in the least john. I just don’t think actual data supports the projections they’ve made. The good thing is that they are relatively short term predictions that will be either falsified or confirmed in just a decade or two.
Watching the Deniers 
brought this one to the top
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-j3zCG9DLC30/UlBMp2uHe0I/AAAAAAAAW7M/vFhxgV7xt-o/image7.png?imgmax=800
this is a real wake up call, we need action now
That is a frightening graph.
I wonder what the actual percentage of carbon dioxide in the air will be in 2100.
I will just have to wait and see.
RCP8.5 not only the worst case but the outcome is the most precise.
temperatures continue to rise beyond 2100 in all but RCP2.6
Yes,young chap you’ll have to wait 😉
It could be worse than projections. I think the scenarios are based on ocean and terrestrial sinks maintaining their current uptake of ACO2. There is some uncertainty there.
Nick, I’m pretty sure there no uncertainty on that score – the net rate of uptake will decrease. There is uncertainty about how much decrease in net uptake there will be.
There will be action – just not the type you want.
The first drop of the deluge of pointless, dull and inane ramblings from the ignorant deniers.
The thread has the message “Some more thread for thoughts, links and debate.”
You can bet that any thoughts from the deniers will be recycled and crazy. All their links are to anti-science ideoblogs, and any debate will consist of nothing but put downs and ad hominems. This pretty much sums of the thought pattern of your typical denier.
It’s a scam, the scientists do it for the money, it’s all politics, you are stalking me, no warming for 15 years, Watts is our leader, The Daily Mail has a lot of boobs, the models are wrong, it’s the sun, it’s natural, look how cold it is here, it’s groupthink, I wonder if WUWT has any new posts, the IPCC is corrupt, what’s on Fox news, Wikipedia is run by lefties, has anyone replied to my posts, REPEAT
Unfortunately for any deniers who see an open thread, they will instantly turn into a screaming zombie full of hatred and distain for anyone who agrees with science. They treat any open thread as a soapbox where they think that their evangelical proselytising will be listened too.
So if you are a ‘skeptic’ and you are reading this, and thinking of replying or posting, please don’t bother. Just sign up with WUWT where your ranting will be appreciated by your cult brethren. Stop acting like the door-knocking Mormons and pissing everybody off. If I wanted to read about your denier religion, I would go to the Church of WUWT. This is not your crusade. It’s about time you guys stop acting like trolls.
Only one person ranting and engaging in “put downs and ad hominems” here so far, Rodge.
The scenarios of the graph are based on our civilization continuing in something like its present form until 2100. An almost total collapse of the current growth based model could change things. Although as Nick says, at a higher temperature, most carbon dioxide sinks will adsorb less carbon dioxide. They will get to the point where they start to release it again and even stopping its emission will not prevent its continuing rise.
I also wonder what will happen when locally devastating effects start to happen to rich places, such as New York City becoming uninhabitable due to sea level rise. Of course before that happens, much worse things will have happened to poor places, like a large proportion of Bangladesh becoming flooded by sea water too frequently to allow the growing of traditional food plants.
it is all in AR5 but you have to search for it
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/optimisticicesheetprojectionsinar5
The phase in the link:
“IPCC AR5 is still unable to give scenario dependent projections of the dynamic ice loss (see AR5 table 13.5) and it is unable to assess the probability of an Antarctic collapse”
is very worrying.
Even the experts on ice sheet dynamics seem to lack total confidence in the upper bound of their predictions.
I’m glad I live several hundred metres above sea level.
.
Steve–That much ice takes time to melt. Even the very worst credible scenarios don’t put sea level rise at more than low double digit meters by 2100. Not that the worst case isn’t a long-term horror-show, but everyone alive today will be gone. Think how much anyone living in 2113 is going to thank us!
some reviews of AR5 WG1 from areas of expertise
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/reviews-of-ipcc-review.html
A more holistic view of climate sensitivity
yes definitely the most important research required at the moment with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 we are flying in the dark,
under 2 would seem not be be consistent with paleoclimate yet we have that as part of the spread.?
seven or more years between reports is no longer a realistic option.
notice that when research shows lesser values for anything in AR4 figures, AR4 was declared to be alarmist yet when research implied higher than AR4 then AR4 was declared to be the gold standard
“The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for
some years after volcanic eruptions. Several small eruptions have caused a RF of –0.11 [–
0.15 to –0.08] W m–2 for the years 2008–2011, which is approximately twice as strong as
during the years 1999–2002. {8.4}
so back to back la ninas and volcanic RF’s twice as strong as 1999-2002
what a pickle
The estimate for the range of temperature increases to expect for a doubling of CO2 has not changed much the last 25 years. In this respect we can decrease the frequency of the IPCC reports.
And there is much more uncertainty, about changes in extreme weather, about the costs of climate change impacts, about the costs of mitigation (technological development), about the right discount rate, etc.
If it is at all possible, these uncertainties will not decrease fast. We will have to fly in the dark, we are doing something unprecedented to the Earth. That is no excuse to watch and see, on the contrary.
Click to access WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
SPM 5 confidence levels revealing,
We are not going to prevent serious warming by the end of the century and beyond by restraining emissions. That must be obvious by now.
Maybe it is time to re-appraise nuclear power. Europe does it without batting an eyelid.
Surely we are smart enough to develop this as a safe technology.
(Despite incidents such as Fukushima, they at least provide valuable lessons on what does not work).
I would like to see a decent cost-benefit analysis.
We tend to focus a lot on temperature series and cryosphere dynamics when it comes to communicating the science of climate change and tend to forget, and I’m showing my professional bias here, the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change on natural systems and biodiversity. One of the most important papers recently written is that of Warren et al in Nature from May this year. It looks at sets of geographical data for 50000 terrestrial species and their known tolerances, they are able to model range shifts and predict the effect on biological diversity. They predict that a business as usual scenario will result in greater than 55% of terrestrial plants and greater than 30% of terrestrial animals will suffer significant range contractions of greater than 50%. What I find particularly disturbing about this is the modelling is based only on the parameters I outlined. They did not factor in increased land use, habitat degradation and fragmentation, extreme weather, competition or phenological constraints…to name a few. Because of this their predictions are very conservative.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1887.html
Of course, deniers like to bleat on about scientists and models but the thing is, plants, animals, fungi and bacteria can’t be accused of having agendas. They respond to the environment around them and the almost incontrovertible evidence is they are already undergoing biological, geographical and phenological range shifts in line with rapid Anthropogenic Climate Change. I have a small list of representative papers along this line if anyone is interested.
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/links-to-papers/
http://theconversation.com/pro-nuclear-greenies-thinking-outside-the-box-with-pandoras-promise-18941
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budget that we must follow if we’re to keep the world under a temperature rise of 2C over pre-industrial levels – the widely accepted level above which lies catastrophic climate change. According to the report, we can “spend” 1,000 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2 in total. We’ve already spent more than half, and at the current rates we are on track to blow the other half in 30 years.
Not only is human society at risk from this unprecedented rate of warming, the ecosystems on which all life is based are also seriously under threat.
read about these some time ago, gympie is to spend about $23 million on a dirt wall which will keep some of the floods out ( gympie has flooded five times in two years)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hyperion's_Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors
John, those Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors sound interesting, but the link you gave is to a 2008 article that mentioned that the first 6 were ordered for 2013.
I have been looking up more recent things about the company (Now renamed Gen4 Energy), but I can’t find a reference to any currently installed Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors by this company. Do you have more up to date information?
have not followed it since
cannot see australia pursuing even these small reactors while the coal companies are running the country
found this and see breaking news
http://www.gen4energy.com/
Thanks for the link to that article, I think I agreed with 99% of it! Nice to see a balanced look at the future of renewables with a realization that they alone cannot provide the power that our modern society demands. At this point nuclear looks to be the only solution not only in Australia but in the US and China too.
As I said, action will be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, but it won’t be the action most alarmists want.
These small scale nuke reactors hold huge promise especially once a critical level of demand is reached and they can be massed produced.
It seems to me that Thorium may be the real winner in the next two decades….
There’s been nothing found in the past decade to discount the views of Lomborg and others that solar and (maybe) wind will become competitive with coal/oil in the mid 2030’s.
CSG is already having massive effects on the US emission rates and will do so elsewhere once we and the Europeans get past our inherent fear of anything new.
I posted a link a week or two back about new new zero emission buildings which will, over the next decades, vastly reduce city carbon footprints.
I’ve said earlier that I don’t believe we’ll ever get to a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) because one or more of these technologies,or something not even pondered yet, will kick in. This will happen irrespective of, and often in opposition to, government. But it will happen.
This notion that we need to do “sumfing” and therefore its all up to government flies in the face of the history of advances in technology. Just get government out of the way and let the market-place do what it does best.
too little too late we commit to two degrees within 3 decades on current emissions path
“the action most alarmists want.” And what do you think that is? How many people do you think Earth can sustain with a reasonably comfortable lifestyle?
If we currently are not rolling out solar and wind fast enough what makes you believe that we will roll out nuclear any faster?
we need renewables now and we need small scale nuclear,
CSG is not going to prevent 2DegC and may in fact hasten it
“If we currently are not rolling out solar and wind fast enough what makes you believe that we will roll out nuclear any faster?”
Errrr, because nuclear will be economic and can be used as base-load, and the others not so much.
CSG is one of the main reasons why the US is one of the few states on the planet currently reducing its CO2e emissions.
point 1 http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210
point 2 http://theconversation.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-making-better-use-of-wind-18565
point 3 again http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/11/switching-coal-to-gas-cc/
point 4 http://theconversation.com/a-frack-in-the-bridge-from-coal-to-gas-and-back-again-18992
Oh well, that’s different. Nowhere in the world are renewables within cooee of providing base-load power, not even those places like German who’ve thrown everything including the kitchen sink at it. But these guys ran a computer model and have PROVEN that it will work.
Doesn’t get more convincing that that! Talk about living in a fantasy world.
Point3… link to all the theoretic and model based naysayers you like. US emissions are down and natural gas has played a large part in that. The real world does trump the models, you know.
what is wrong with you people? even when renewables can provide all the power we need you still want to burn fossil fuels,
Denmark, Germany, Scotland and Ireland are all working out how to go 100% renewable.
Twodicks ‘it hasn’t happened yet and i know more than a university professor so it will never happen’
why do you only want dirty power ?
a new breakthrough in solar panels this week twice the power at half the cost
JG ” US emissions are down and natural gas has played a large part in that”
the US needs to reduce emissions by 4% per year every year from now on, not just for the next few years
csg is a dead end in trying to achieve that and is already faltering
JB,
“why do you only want dirty power ?”
What I want is cheap, reliable energy. Where it comes from is of secondary issue. If and when renewables are able to provide reliable power at a price that is competitive with FF then I’ll be all for it. I have been, after all, saying all along that solar will get there in 20 yrs or so and that we will then go with it.
But just wishing that renewables would work and then going from there to assertions that they do work is fantasyland. All over the world solar and wind provide minor amounts of power at extremely high prices and none of them come close to being able to provide reliable power.
Denmark has gone heavily for wind but relies totally on its connection with the European grid to provide it with power when the wind doesn’t blow. Hence they have one of the highest electricity costs in the world. Could we go down that path? Can we rely in NZ and PNG to help out when the wind stops?
Germany’s Energiewende is also in big trouble. Germany’s solar and wind power supplies barely 10% of total requirements. Consequently Germany is installing extra coal-fired capacity and, unlike the US, Germany’s emissions are rising. Germany is not working out how to go 100% renewable. Their aim is to be 50% renewable by 2030 and that’s already way behind schedule.
“a new breakthrough in solar panels this week twice the power at half the cost”
More support for the Lomborg view. Solar will improve and become cheaper. Equally there are reputed improvements in battery storage in the pipeline that will allow solar to become more reliable.
Yet you keep whining that we need to do ‘sumfing’ now. Well the thing that can be done now is CSG and nuclear.
Wiki
Germany’s renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012.[1][2] In 2011 20.5% (123.5 TWh) of Germany’s electricity supply (603 TWh) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.”
”
What I want is cheap, reliable energy”
and you can have that in australia from renewable by transferring fossil fuel subsidies over to the renewable sector
$4.5 billion last year.
john “a new breakthrough in solar panels this week twice the power at half the cost”
I read about breakthroughs like that all the time. Many never make it to commercialization. Solar has been getting slightly more effective and significantly less expensive over the last decade. That’s great. It’s a more viable option now. But it’s not cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity and it only provides power when the sun is shining. It requires backup generation to power cities so when you look at costs you have to include the cost of the backup generation. Suddenly it’s not competitive anymore.
The future is bright for renewables. Whether it’s solar, fuel cells, geothermal, wind, or something else there will always be a market for it and hopefully at some point they will provide the bulk of the power that we use at a cost comparable to today’s fossil fuels.
That said I still believe that the best option for the immediate future is nuclear.
no the best option is renewable backed up by small nuclear,
even the nuclear industry supports renewables as the main component in future energy
Click to access 130110%20BDEW%20Entwicklungen%20der%20deutschen%20Strom-%20und%20Gaswirtschaft_englisch.pdf
Renewables for 2012 provided 21.9%. Only half of that is wind/solar. FF make up over 55% of generation.
German electricty prices are 50% higher than Aust (PPP).
So nowhere near 100% and not even trying to get there. And not at all cheap.
I’m surprised you are toting a system which is causing their emissions to INcrease.
try to keep up we are talking renewable
see here is your comment
J Giddeon says:
October 8, 2013 at 5:27 am
Oh well, that’s different. Nowhere in the world are renewables within cooee of providing base-load power, not even those places like German
and as usual when you get it wrong diverge
If you have enough nuclear capacity to backup your renewable energy then why would you need the renewable energy at all? It would be cheaper and much more cost effective to just build the nuclear plants.
john wants renewable energy and he doesn’t care about the cost. He doesn’t care if higher costs impact the poor most of all. He laughed when the people in Collinsville losts their jobs and their livelihood when the coal mine was closed.
All john cares about is his agenda not the people it impacts.
“Denmark, Germany, Scotland and Ireland are all working out how to go 100% renewable.”
Denmark relies entirely on its connection to the European grid to provide base-load and therefore has the highest electricity prices in Europe.
Germany’s current plan is to get to 50% renewables by 2030. they have no plan to get anywhere near 100% renewables in anything like the near future.
One of the problems is that half of Germany’s renewables are from hydro and biomass and they are basically at capacity now. So to get to their 50% target (currently 21%) they will rely on solar and wind. But neither of these are growing at the rate required.
Because of all this, Germany pays the second highest electricity prices in Europe and 50% higher than Aust.
Despite what your usual fantasy sites might tell you, Germany is not the guide to a carbon free future.
In the meantime, another glimpse of the possible carbon free future …..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621
After I wrote a post that started
“Renewables for 2012 provided 21.9%. Only half of that is wind/solar. FF make up over 55% of generation.”
JB responded:
“try to keep up we are talking renewable”
I guess he thinks there is a logic there but he’d be wrong.
“A few said that could happen within 40 years but most said it would take another 50 or even 60 years. The fusion dream has never been worked on so vigorously. But turning it into reality is much more than 30 years away.’
we have not got 30 to 60 years twodicks
“we have not got 30 to 60 years”
Well that’s certainly the view of those who jump at their own shadows
Check Table 12.2 in the draft…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/ar5T12.4.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1380746813865
But I thought renewable energy was supposed to be bad for employment. http://www.northqueenslandregister.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/collinsville-solar-project/2673452.aspx
When the collinsville coal mine shut down the coal fired power plant was no longer viable,
solar is
How are they going to replace the 150 MW lost when they switch to solar? They’ll need 5 more solar plants of the same capacity – and that’s just during daylight hours!
“Collinsville Power Station was operated until December 2012 as an intermediate plant fuelled by locally mined coal and with a total output of 180 MW.
The Solar PV power station has a planned capacity of between 20-30 MW”
OH MY GOD Bill! How have those poor people around Collinsville gotten by without any power for the last 10 months?
No one said they haven’t had power for the last 10 months. Do you really believe that nonsense?
Hmmm, just like nobody suggested they need to replace the full capacity of the original power station, Bill. So what was the point of your original comment concern troll?
The previous plant was producing 180 MW. Are you suggesting that it wasn’t necessary? That the energy produced wasn’t used? You can’t just take out 150 MW of production and not replace it with something else if there is demand for the energy. Of course those 30 MW will only be produced during the day so at night a backup source of generation will be needed.
So what have they been getting by on since the plant closed down LAST YEAR? I know the answer but you seem to trying to build a strawman to make some point about missing power that is clearly just typical anti-renewable guff.
Bill Jamison says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:06 am
No one said they haven’t had power for the last 10 months. Do you really believe that nonsense?
Bill Jamison says:
September 28, 2013 at 11:09 am
The question is why isn’t the coal mine viable? And if it’s shut down then what are people doing for electricity TODAY?
I’ve already posted showing just how dependent Australia is on coal. It’s not like one mine or one coal fired power plant closing is going to change anything. “A drop in the bucket” comes to mind.
You’re in such denial that you can’t see the truth even when it’s right in front of your eyes.
I’m not anti-renewable energy at all. But simple math tells me that 30 MW doesn’t replace 180 MW. It also tells me that it would take 6 solar plants of the same size to replace the generating capacity lost when this coal-fired plant closed. In additional there will have to be backup generation available for those times when the solar planting isn’t producing either any electricity or enough electricity to meet demand.
Pretty simple stuff actually. Even you guys should be able to figure it out for yourselves.
Classic concern troll. Well done. Now you can disappear again. It was quite pleasant here without having to read and subsequently ignore your bullshit.
Australia has a national grid from north QLD to tasmania so we can hook in wind and solar
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/collinsville-looks-to-50mw-plant-combining-pv-solar-thermal-gas-44266
‘Even you guys should be able to figure it out for yourselves’…Oh,that’s right I’d forgotten how incredibly smart you are, Bill. Pardon me. Queensland has a surplus of baseload: Collinsville does not need to be replaced.
It’s amazing how I can point out the obvious and you guys don’t want to hear it.
it was only obvious to you coming from your own lack of understanding, ie ignorance
the rest of us new the reality
collinsville population is under 3000, the coal plant was part of the QLD grid
I find people who don’t accept settled science very boring. Especially when it comes to the cause of global warming, which has been in discussion for over 100 years and was settled over 30 years. What I find more interesting is the science of denial.
Anyone ever heard of Chris Mooney. He is too is interested in the science of climate change denial.
Here is a good article that he wrote
“The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
He has also written several books on the subject that make for very interesting reading.
He also has a really good presentation on YouTube that explains why the deniers reject reality.
Sunday Age some time back had an intiguing front page article about withdrawl of corporate support from the IPA. The latter’s stand on CC now looking so manhood-in-auditory-apparatus, so to speak, that even elements of Big Money is embarassed. The story appeared 25th August. Oddly, no subsequent comments anywhere..anybody got any details as to who has withdrawn support? (Gotta luv the IPA, surely an ethics-free zone. If they were in Thailand they’d be lobbying for child prostitution.)
According to the National Weather Service, a record 5.91 inches of rain fell on Saturday, breaking the day’s old record of 3.07 inches of rain set on October 5, 1910, WAVE reported.
The deluge also already breaks the local all-time record for rainfall the month of October: The previous record was 5.07 inches set in 2004.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/06/20843475-i-couldnt-believe-it-record-rainfall-flooding-displace-dozens-in-kentucky
WUWT RF Components graph
.
That graph is definitely dodgy John. They have pirates as being a forcing component. Everybody knows that it is the lack of pirates that is contributing to global warming. My Pastafarian friends assure me this is the word of his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself. Ramen. http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikaandersen/files/2012/03/w1467103173.jpg
yes one of them posted something similar yesterday
not sure if it was about pirates or clowns though
john I apologize for providing a link to a chart that it too complicated for you to understand. I should know better. I’ll try to find one that shows the same information in a more simple form that even you can comprehend.
bill you are so out of your depth and do not even know it
will he repeat what he stated or change it?
let’s see
here it is
bill “Was it “excessively hot” when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what ice cores show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
anything you might wish to retract bill?
Would you like me to tell you how to read that chart john? Obviously you don’t understand it.
this statement “bill “Was it “excessively hot” when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what ice cores show”
confirms that you do not have a clue what the graphs show,
wriggle away .
Hey john you might want to take a remedial class in reading charts. This one is pretty simple and yet you can’t understand it. Amazing.
I knew that you did not have a clue so would just try to bluff it out,
no surprise there
How about NASA’s statement: “This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius 1.8 Degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. ”
So apparently the planet was excessively hot at other times.
So much arrogance in claiming to know what temperature is right for the earth and what is “excessively hot”.
lets get back to the point bill
bill “Was it “excessively hot” when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what ice cores show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
anything you might wish to retract bill?
I thought that bill was going to explain the vostock graphs and his
“excessively hot” when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what ice cores show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
left the building?
john do you disagree that it was hotter in the past? NASA says it was and they are climate scientists. Do you disagree with them?
Still waiting for an answer john. It’s a really simple question.
we are not here to educate you about the past stupid, we are here to ridicule your moronic beliefs about global temp anomalies from the middle of antarctica
Bill jamison–Since you’re being pushy for an answer to your stupid question: Yes, the evidence indicates it was hotter than the present or likely to occur for a few more decades some time in the last million years. So f*ing what? Does that mean humans will want to live in that world?
This post has now passed 500 comments and it is by and large a pissing match between a couple of denier morons and a few irritated followers of the science. Pathetic.
It is time for reasonable people to follow the path of the L.A. Times: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story You are conflating science with your reactionary ideological bullshit, and rational people are increasingly not going to put up with it any more.
At least someone answered the question john. You obviously couldn’t.
Establishing the rules of the game
Click to access 2013%20JOS.pdf
here is the problem
http://trillionthtonne.org/
reading the comments it is obvious that our denier “friends see renewable energy as left wing power and nuclear csg and coal as right wing power sources,
they cannot handle the implication, that the greenies were right all along and weirdly would rather stick with fossil fuels and drag the entire civilized community and their own offspring into peril with them than see a clean planet powered by renewable.
.
Obviously it’s YOU that sees different energy sources as either left-wing or right-wing when, in fact, they are simply different energy sources with different costs associated with them and different strengths and weaknesses.
no i see different energy uses as a clean healthy planet or a disaster in the making
So why did you refer to them as left-wing and right-wing?
here is an extreme right wing loony on unleashed today at the ABC
makes my point
new testament IPCC:
08 Oct 2013 7:05:38pm
Lets face it SL, climate change is a new religion, the IPCC yet another denomination, Wind turbines the Green’s iconic saviour.
And wasnt the Bible peer reviewed, just like the latest IPCC report ?
So better start building another organic ARK. Only science lovers and believers in orderly base pairs spirals will be admitted. Denialists and climate heathen are to be sacrificed to the flood. Greenpeace can renew their rainbow (registered trademark) for the benefit of future generations. Saint Bob Brown can then have a second coming. And his electric karma can be chased by his green dogma until the next ice age.
That makes your point? Then apparently you don’t have a point because that’s just rambling nonsense.
exactly
BJ, you are out of your depth again.
Go home – I can hear your mother calling you.
Still nothing to add Dr No? No surprise there.
It’s funny when Willard gets a stink on about being called a denier because of his apparent association of the word with holocaust denial. Denial is denial whether it be HIV/AIDS, moon landing, the official 9/11 reports and indeed holocaust denial. Well, here is one definite link between right wing free market ideology, climate change denial and holocaust denial. Interesting and informative stuff. https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/shuts-down-the-holocaust/43201b3a2936ec68c823ff596b0a27c529ea9350/
certifiable
Welcome to George Orwell’s world where:
-history can be rewritten, over and over
-the Ministry of Defence is responsible for making war
-the “free” market is actually a game of monopoly
-the economy can be in emergency or doing quite well at the same time
-everybody can be a scientist and believe/prove what they like
-taxes can be used to fund politicians going to weddings
– black is white
-white is black
-climate change is crap
etc
Watts is involved in a shameful attempt to proscribe the use of a word, no matter that it has wide application and its use in this ‘debate’ is derived from psychology. Using the Holocaust to shut down use of ‘denier’ is a measure of his cynicism and bad faith. He’s exploiting tragedy.
And therein lies his hypocrisy.
The alarmist community have deliberately and constantly used the word denier because of its holocaust connotations. Its the ultimate pejorative even though it makes no logical sense.
Nope. Denial is denial. What other word for denial would you prefer? Contrarian? There are holocaust contrarians too. You’re a dopey bastard.
i vote for dopey bastards
“What other word for denial would you prefer? ”
Oh I don’t care. Use any word you like although what I’m supposed to be denying is of interest. That there is a climate? that it changes? that we’re all gunna die because of CO2?
Its just a tad childish but when it morphs into calls for these deniers to be executed or gaoled, then the watermelon’s true nature is revealed.
Whenever I see people using the term I’m reminded of Hubbard…
‘If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names”
You mean like “watermelon” and “alarmist”? Glass houses, stones and all that. It also isn’t really namecalling ifit’s inherently true. A duck is a duck, a denier is a denier, a hypocrite is a hypocrite and you are a dopey bastard.
dopey bastard it is then
So their incisive, well argued, unassailable response was….more ad homs.
Children.
JG – what do you expect?
We can tolerate idiocy up to a point – but no more. If you cannot cope with the (fully justified) abuse, then go away and stop whingeing.
Fret not Doc, I can cope. Its really quite hilarious how inept they are at it.
sure twodicks,
J Giddeon says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:23 am
Oooww, I might have inadvertently struck a nerve since we now have JB twisting the truth…or is he just too moronic to recognise the truth.
In fact, it was JB who started talking about masturbation (“you’ll go blind”) and I just turned it into a joke, which he, either through failure to recognise the joke, or because he just can’t help himself, then took too far .
as children often do.
Now when I point out his apparent obsession with the male appendage, he gets very defensive. Just a joke, JB. Calm down.
by the way which part was twisting the truth
the priests warning you against it with the same “you will go blind” ?
your revelation that it required both your hands to accomplish ?
that you could not get that dopey just playing with one?
Could someone point out where in this blog’s “Community and discussion guidelines” it says that abuse is okay as long as it’s “justified”? I couldn’t seem to find it. In fact the very first thing it says is “Treat all posters, commentators and readers with respect and refrain from personal insults and ad hominem attacks”.
Boofuckinghoo troll.
you are not a poster or a commentator, you are an ignorant troll who cannot even understand a simple ice core temperature graph
Okay so it doesn’t say it’s okay to be abusive to other posters. Got it.
anyone who puts up an ice core temperature anomaly to claim the earth was 2degrees hotter and finding themselves completely ridiculed, so then questions the reliability of their own prior graph is not a poster. they are annoying little Dumb F… trolls
The behavior of posters such as john byatt and roger the dodger are pretty typical of “Right-Wing Authoritarian” types:
“they aggress when they believe right and might are on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is (in their minds) endorsed by established authority [like climate scientists!], or supports such authority. “Might”
means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in numbers, as in a lynch mob”
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” (or insulting in this case)
“Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt. ” (which helps explain the name calling and insults)
“High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do” (Ah ha, now I see why you guys are so worried!)
“believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed.”
Yep that is exactly what we find here: a group-think mentality with no tolerance for anyone with dissenting views. They resort to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments when they can’t debate a point. They verbally attack and abuse anyone who questions or challenges them. They bully and insult and demean others instead of sticking to the topic at hand. Definitely fit the Right-Wing Authoritarian description.
Eric Worrall came to be known as Bozo because he was entertaining and his big bucket of deniers ‘science ‘ really just contained confetti. You need a nickname too. I think from this day forward I shall call you Boohoo Bill.
whereas bill’s authority is the bible
Still beating that dead horse john? It’s telling that you REALLY need me to be a christian so you could use it as an ad hominem attack against me. But since I’m an atheist you can’t do that so all you can do is accuse me of secretly being a christian.
At least I’m not the only one that can see how pathetic that is!
just look at your continued contrary attitude claiming that scientists say that one ice core gives the global temperature, that is pure creationist thinking, yet you want to try to portray yourself as atheist, give it up
no need to shout,
Wow that’s a stretch even for you john! I quoted scientists and provided a cite and that’s “creationist thinking”???? Really?
Wouldn’t a creationist think that ice cores couldn’t possible represent hundreds of thousands of years of earth’s history? Wouldn’t they think the flood would have melted that ice or something?
Can you provide a link to a single creationist site that supports the ice core history???
You’ve posted a ton of stupid crap but this might be the dumbest yet. That’s impressive.
love it, creationists use up a lot of question marks in replies
creationists do not deny the temperatures, so why only refer to age.
we know why
“I think from this day forward I shall call you Boohoo Bill.”
omg the children are proliferating.
Mike wanted to change the blog’s name….maybe he could call it OSHC
https://www.oshclub.com.au/oshclub.html
I see that you have dropped out of the Vostok debate and missed boohoo’s insistence that he knows something, he even uses Capitals and question marks. very impressive,
why don’t you two go back to your denialist or creationist blogs where you will have your dickhead mates accepting your ” just one ice core study gives the total global temperature anomaly” retarded understanding
twodicks “Use any word you like although what I’m supposed to be denying is of interest.”
well you are denying that we need a lot more proxies than one ice core study in the middle of Antarctica to obtain a global temperature anomaly
touche
Yes I did stop posting there. I made my point; it was perfectly clear to anyone with a reading age above year 3 (ie not you) that you were wrong and that you probably knew you were wrong; it was clear that you were just trying to play your silly semantic games to hide your error; it seemed pretty clear that you didn’t quite have a handle on what an anomaly is;
and I decided not to play.
BTW going to apologise for fabricating quotes? Silly question!
so you do claim that a global anomaly can be obtained from just one ice core in the middle of antarctica , thanks for confirming that once again
,,,
by the way read the comments the deniers are getting stuck into each other
shit even the creationist one cannot handle willis’s crap
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/sad-lindzen-surprised-tisdale-and.html?showComment=1381384658989#c4851495251296592284
john I quoted climate scientists on the ice cores. If you don’t agree with them please let them know. Apparently you don’t realize that the snow that falls over Greenland or Antarctica comes from water molecules formed over the ocean possibly thousands of miles away. Instead you think that the ice core only shows how cold it was right at that spot. Ignorance on your part. The quotes I posted even explain why the ice cores provide more information than just local temperature.
sou has a post about WUWT dopey bastards,
they are the same self contradicting retards as we have here
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/barry-brill-finds-57-varieties-of.html
now what caused this?
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html
Maybe a COMET?
possibly but you missed the point
‘
“Whatever the cause of the carbon release,—some scientists theorize that a comet struck the earth—Wright and Schaller’s contention that it happened so rapidly is radically different from conventional thinking, and bound to be a source of controversy, Schaller believes.
“Scientists have been using this event from 55 million years ago to build models about what’s going on now,” Schaller said. “But they’ve been assuming it took something like 10,000 years to release that carbon, which we’ve shown is not the case. We now have a very precise record through the carbon release that can be used to fix those models.”
You had a point? You asked a question and I supplied the possible answer stated right there in your link. If you’re trying to make a point then you should actual post something about it instead of simply posting a link.
Personally I find it unlikely that a comet impact would help scientists understand current changes caused by atmospheric CO2 increase.
a quote from the past PETM study
Two decades ago, Broecker said, “The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” He stood by that warning in a 2012 interview:
“We’re in for big trouble,” he says matter-of-factly. “There’s been a “true disruption of the basic climate of the planet.”
“My point [with the ‘angry beast’ metaphor] was that by adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, we were poking our climate system without being sure how it would respond,” he says.
At the rate we are spewing carbon pollution into the atmosphere, one might even say we are punching the climate beast in the nose. Paleoclimate studies, including this new one, suggests that is a very, very bad move.
and you idiots have your heads firmly up your own backsides
more here
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/
interactive AR4 /AR5 sensitivity comparisons
http://kiln.it/embeds/ipcc/sensitivity/
Abbott has had all the climate commission information deleted and the website shutdown
,
all archives here
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/136923/20130919-1415/climatecommission.gov.au/index.html
So not deleted…just moved to the national archive.
But “deleted” sounds so much more Orwellian so we go with that. Typical.
deleted and shut down by abbott,, so not moved by abbott to the national archives, chosen by national library to be kept,
I didn’t say it was moved by Abbott. It was archived by the National Archive as is required under the Archive Act.
You go on as though the data was saved from the clutches of those evil Libs when what actually happened was what happens all the time in government.
I know that you are very upset that the government did what it said it would do given that you prefer your governments to do the opposite of what they promise, but all your whining is just that.
Abbott promised to close the commission. It closed. The data was saved as per the law.
were did abbott promise to remove all the data that the climate commission had provided , QLD also shut down their climate ministry but maintained all the previous work on their government website,
More obfuscation. Fool
trying to work you lot out is hard work
one comment complaining about being called names
the next claiming that calling peoples names is because you cannot debate
and then effin calling people names
dopey hypocrite bastards
Ah i know my problem i was expecting coherent and consistent reasoning
mea culpa as the catholics say
J Giddeon.
Why did Abbott need to order the taking down of the Climate Commission site?
If he accepts the science underpinning the physics of global warming he should be rabidly keen to keep that information in the public domain and easily locatable by people who are not aware of Pandora (= most people). After all it was paid for by the government and it provides a public service, does it not?
Oh, of course, silly me…
The recovery
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png?height=360&width=480
Another meaningless posting by JB. That graph is 12 months out of date. It only includes the september 2012 minimum.
“September Update Delayed: Required data not available due to US Government shutdown”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Will you post the updated graph when it is available JB? Probably not as it will indeed show a significant recovery, just like the sea ice extent which is currently 1.8 million sq km greater than last year. That increased extent is equal to the size of Queensland.
it is titled the recovery, waiting for the storm from the dopey bastards saying exactly what you said
here is a tip for you, do not just look at the september minimum, follow it for the rest of the year, you are in for a shock
2013 maximum was the lowest volume on record,
lowest volume maximum of course
So you are the only person who has the 2013 value JB?
“The Polar Science Center reports that “September Update Delayed: Required data not available due to US Government shutdown.”. The daily numbers still only get as far as day 243″.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,517.0.html#msg15743
Check what day 243 is and check where you got the graph from. Maybe you should post the graph adjacent to that? You show the 2012 minimum. 2013 will not be a record low.
who said it was this years minimum?
it was to get you all excited about this years recovery,
it however leaves us with the second highest decadal minus trend relative to 1981/2010 for extent
2012 3.63 1.40 -14.0
2013 5.35 2.07 -13.7
it was also the lowest yearly volume maximum
it was also the thinnest average August ice on record,
The main feature was not the colder weather but rather the wind direction which prevented a lot of loss through fram, that could change in the coming weeks.
and as for DMI, three of the past five years have been the lowest on record,
yet still it melts
Usual diversionary tactic by JB.
He posts a 12 month old graph to show there is no recovery. Caught out, he tries again and writes:
“here is a tip for you, do not just look at the september minimum, follow it for the rest of the year, you are in for a shock”
At the end of August the 2013 volume was 1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year. The September 2013 value has not yet been released. It will most certainly show a significant recovery. When it is released you can post the updated graph here JB and we can see who the “dopey bastard” really is.
love the picking the bits you like while ignoring the trends
“August 2013 was 5,800 km3. This value is 66% lower than the mean over this period, 76% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.8 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. August ice volume was about 1400 km3 larger than in August of 2012 and within 200 km3 of the 2010 August ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer month was less than in previous years. August ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.
Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the residuals of the anomaly from the trend in Fig 1 and standard deviations about the daily 1979-2012 mean in Fig 2. Average ice thickness in August 2013 over the PIOMAS domain was slightly smaller than in 2012 with thinner ice covering larger areas (Fig 3.). Updates will be generated at approximately one-month intervals”.
twodicks ” It will most certainly show a significant recovery”
ah the thirteenth significant recovery
So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right. In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post. And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny. BTW those values are millions of km3.
I look forward to you posting the updated graph when it is available showing the recovery.
posted the recovery below twodicks from WUWT
remember ?
“twodicks ” It will most certainly show a significant recovery”’
JB is becoming a little deranged. I didn’t say that, it was K.Largo .So many people pointing out his many errors that he can’t keep track.
Or does he just have a fascination with everyone’s genitalia?
To clarify previous comment: for comparison, my value was in millions of km3
right twodicks still getting you two confused
“Or does he just have a fascination with everyone’s genitalia?”
JB’s childish namecalling and ad hominem attacks are getting tiresome besides clearly being against the forum rules. It is a sign of desperation from someone who can’t maintain a properly thought out argument.
from now on twodicks refers to either of you, both too stupid to have got that way only playing with one
“right twodicks still getting you two confused”
come on JB, man up. You’re just fascinated by the male appendage….not that there’s anything wrong with that 🙂
I check the political forum PollBludger regularly. Mostly leftists on that blog. It is not the LW/RW arguments that gets hot, it is the Gillard vs Rudd arguments that really got them going.
Political discourse is fiery, scientific discourse does not need to be. Nevertheless this is what the blog owner Willam Bowe told his posters:
“This means, inter alia, a) no more calling each other “retards”, b) no more peddling of fantasies about the personal lives of public figures we might not happen to like, and c) no more calling each other moron, cretin, imbecile etc. without due provocation.”
lets recap
J giddeon commented that he, against the advice of his priest or pastor often played with himself but that he required two hands to do that.
logical conclusion is that he
1 is a confessed wanker
2 has two peni
3 has a large, penis envy thing happening and qualifies himself by the size of what is basically a urine disposal and reproduction organ
I have never before on any blog come across someone who was so into masturbation that he wanted to tell the world about it
Pathetic, JB.
Is this a science blog?
Oooww, I might have inadvertently struck a nerve since we now have JB twisting the truth…or is he just too moronic to recognise the truth.
In fact, it was JB who started talking about masturbation (“you’ll go blind”) and I just turned it into a joke, which he, either through failure to recognise the joke, or because he just can’t help himself, then took too far .
as children often do.
Now when I point out his apparent obsession with the male appendage, he gets very defensive. Just a joke, JB. Calm down.
here is the deniers DMI coldest year on record (summer)
So DMI are deniers?
Looks like more comparatively warm on that graph than comparatively cold.
Deniers grasping at straws.
What that chart shows is this year was below average almost the entire summer. I don’t know if it was a record or not but I can read a chart.
It chart shows most of the year the Arctic was warmer – and, in the summer, fractionally colder. And yet the ice melts.
The ice ALWAYS melts JHS. The majority of the melting isn’t from warm air temperature either. I hope you actually knew that.
75% down by volume as measured in September since 1979.
The world warms due to CO2. I know you know that, but don’t like it.
WUWT impressive rebound arctic ice 2013, eh no that is 2008
the ever reliable smokey dopey bastard
Smokey says:
November 2, 2008 at 3:18 am
Look at the latest sea ice graph here [from Anthony’s link on the right side of this page; updated twice daily].
If the current trend continues for only a few more days, 2008 sea ice levels will exceed those of 2002 – 2007.
How will the globaloney bovine fecal purveyance specialists spin that inconvenient fact?
I thought that the moderators at WUWT didn’t abide anonymity and multiple identities. Why would the moderator dbstealy tolerate “Smokey”, who is known to post under other names?
Oh…
very much like the climate retards sceptics party blog
the blog master is also the resident troll
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:30 am
At the end of August the 2013 volume was 1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year.
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
BTW those values are millions of km3.
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:07 am
To clarify previous comment: for comparison, my value was in millions of km3
That is now 3 times you have boasted and demonstrated your ignorance and confusion. Where are you getting your ‘1.4 million cu km higher than the previous year’ from? It seems you don’t know the difference between volume and area or unable to read simple text.
This is what the reference says..
“August ice volume was about 1400 km3 larger than in August of 2012”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Do you know the difference between 1,400 km3 and 1,400,000 km3? Obviously NOT!!!
Usual delusional tactic by K largo!!!
ouch
Rodger. I do know the difference between volume and area. You are right. It is 1.4 thousands of km3 not millions. It didn’t look right, therefor my first correction. Easy mistake to make and no problem to admit it..
“check that you understand what you are posting before you post.”
i think that was you
I admit my error. Do you?
you did not think that was going to bite you on the bum so quickly did you?
no one wants to help bill out of this pickle
john byatt says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:14 am
I thought that bill was going to explain the vostock graphs and his
“excessively hot” when it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what ice cores show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
no bill they want nothing to do with you on this, sorry on your own, they have deserted you.
Yesterday Bill made two points:
1. That according to Marcott the earth’s temperature was as warm as now during the mid-Holocene. I don’t know how you could argue with that since the paper itself admits that temps over the past 11000 yrs were warmer than now 25% of the time.
2. that “it was quite probably 2C warmer than it is now? That’s exactly what [the Vostok] ice cores show.”
Well again that is absolutely true. In the period between 120kya and 130kya the Vostok data show plenty of times when the earth was 2c (and often a lot more than that) higher than present.
Even in the current inter-glacial, temps,according to the Vostok data, were a lot higher than now over several eras, particularly around 2500bc.
So I don’t see what the problem is. Bill right on both counts…JB working out which foot to stick in his mouth.
Personally I don’t put a lot of faith in these data. Any scientist who thinks they can calculate temp 150kya to two decimal places has lost all perspective. All we can say is that the current inter-glacial is the same as the previous inter-glacials.
“the Vostok data show plenty of times when the earth was 2c (and often a lot more than that) higher than present”
you stand by that idiotic remark?.
hint ““check that you understand what you are posting before you post.”
what is the zero line of the Vostok temperature graph dated to?
how do you get a global temperature from an anomaly in the Vostok ice core?
what is the current anomaly for Vostok from that zero line ?
what is the current anomaly for parts of the WAIS ?
what is the currently anomaly for the high Arctic ?
do any of these temperatures give the temperature of the earth?
last question refers to temperature anomaiesl for the earth
not going to answer twodicks?
Can you really not understand that simple temperature graph? It’s not difficult, it shows temperature and time. That’s it. Even you should be able to comprehend it. And if you can’t I already posted a direct quote from NASA saying the same thing: the earth isn’t as warm as it has been in the past.
You can’t possibly be this dense.
idiot
Click to access Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf
“Ice cores give access to palaeoclimate series that includes local
temperature and precipitation rate, moisture source conditions,
wind strength and aerosol fluxes of marine, volcanic, terrestrial,
cosmogenic and anthropogenic origin”
now answer the questions dickhead
what is the zero line of the Vostok temperature graph dated to?
how do you get a global temperature from an anomaly in the Vostok ice core?
what is the current anomaly for Vostok from that zero line ?
what is the current anomaly for parts of the WAIS ?
what is the currently anomaly for the high Arctic ?
do any of these temperatures give the temperature of the earth?
So that’s it? Another one of your silly little semantic games? Because none of us realised that Vostok may not represent the whole earth.
So when I said “the earth was 2c…” I should have realised that you were going to forensically search for someway to misread it and therefore I should have said “the earth, as shown by the Vostok data, was 2c…”.
Wow, you got us.
Child.
no the earth was not 2Degrees warmer as as shown by vostok, the temperature is local to vostok
just how dumb are you two?
This is from the Marcott paper.
“Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
So with Milankovitch variations, it took about 5000 years for the earth to cool ~0.7°C. Then in about 200 years with CO2, that trend is reversed. Can't you see that humans have now overwhelmed the Milankovitch cycle.
So it doesn't really matter if it was hotter in the past, as the Milankovitch cycle meant that there was more energy from the sun reaching the earth. Then as the Milankovitch cycle waned, this meant that less energy was now reaching the earth, thus the cooling trend. We should still be cooling, but human produced greenhouse gases have created extra heat.
You can see this graphically here.
Note the large spike in the temps during the last part of the graph. That is the effect of human produced greenhouse gases.
The evidence is overwhelming.
If you still not convinced, watch these videos by an expert in the field, yes it's about 1 hour each, but you need the time to explain a complex topic.
There’s no pickle. You just simply can’t comprehend a simple graph. Since you can’t understand a graph (and a simple one at that!) maybe you can understand this:
NASA: “This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius 1.8 Degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. ”
I’ll translate that for you john: the earth has been warmer in the past as shown by ice cores.
Even you should be able to understand that simple statement.
both you and twodicks have claimed that the vostok graphs show the earth two degrees warmer
the vostok temperature graph is for the ice core you twit , not the earth
the zero line is minus 56 DegC around 1980’s/1990’s
so your 2 degrees anomaly is a temperature of minus 54DegC
the current anomaly for Vostok is 1DegC or temperature average of minus 55DegC
the anomaly in parts of the WAIS and high Arctic are both 2.4DegC,
higher than your Vostok 2 degrees anomaly
do any of these anomalies give the earth’s current temperature, NO
what a couple of ignorant idiots
Yes I know the chart shows the temperature derived from the ice core. It’s a proxy and like all proxies has it’s limits. Maybe you can explain how the earth could have been the same temperature or even cooler than it is today yet locations in Greenland and Antarctica could be 2C warmer than it is today. As I’ve shown twice now even NASA agrees that the earth isn’t currently as warm as it’s been in the past.
You do know that ALL temperature reconstructions rely on proxies, right? We don’t have a source of global temperature going back hundreds of years nevermind hundreds of thousands of years.
So finding that you have make a complete fool of yourself you take off into never never land about proxies
read petit et al 1999, you put their graph up, which you did not understand so not much chance you understanding how paleo temperatures are ascertained
It’s the only proxy we have that goes that far back john. It’s is considered a proxy for global temperature whether you agree or not. Why don’t you go ask Gavin if he’s still working.
Hey john you should probably let UCAR know that ice cores don’t serve as global proxies because they claim the opposite:
“Layer thickness also may tell us something about global temperatures. Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere, which usually arises during periods when the overall global temperature is high, causing increased evaporation from the oceans.”
Imagine that! They claim that ice cores tell them about global temperature. What dolts! I mean idiots. Oh no I mean twits.
vostok ice cores are not a proxy for global temperature anymore than the current 2.4degC in both the WAIS and high arctic are?
you do not have a flamim clue
What else does UCAR say out ice cores? I’m glad you asked!
“The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
What? John Byatt claims they don’t! I wonder who is correct???? LOL
http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html
““Layer thickness also may tell us something about global temperatures. Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere’
they are referring to ice cores all around the world, one ice core does not give you a global temperature, it gives an understanding of regional conditions, you have to correlate them
“serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
see last comment, you cannot be this stupid to believe that individual ice cores each relate to the global temperature
Nice try john but that still doesn’t explain this statement:
“The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
Keep back pedaling. You never admit it when you’re wrong.
to see just how stupid you are go and take the annual temperature at Vostok now, on top on greenland now and every other glacier or ice sheet, because you are saying that each of those separately gives a global temperature because you have no idea of what your are talking about
I’m simply quoting the scientists at UCAR and NASA. If you have a cite to prove those scientists are wrong then please provide it otherwise you are simply stating your opinion.
no, you are completely misunderstanding what is being said, probably on purpose as no one could be that stupid, not even you
ten thousand years from now an ice core dated to 2013 will show the earth as 1degree warmer from vostok and an ice core from the WAIS will show the earth 2.4DegC warmer. WTF? and that is by your logic that each individual ice core gives the global temperature
“ten thousand years from now an ice core dated to 2013 ….”
That’s not at all how it works. Paleoclimatologists don’t work out temps down to one year. The data I’ve seen from Petit et al averages records in 1 metre lots which can cover anything from 20 or so years to 500+ years. You are now obfuscating to hide your misunderstanding.
Give it up Bill. He is just playing his childish semantic games and no amount of evidence that scientists use Vostok to extrapolate to the global will make the slightest difference to him. Additionally, I’m not sure he entirely understands how anomalies work, which would be a major drawback in understanding the issue.
twodicks ” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file”
fuckwit
and still maintaining this one ice core gives the global temperature even though there is a difference of 1.4DegC between vostok and WAIS
i am enjoying this
What do greenland ice core temperature anomalies reveal for the same period as the Vostok cores 120,000 years ago?
too funny you both maintaining that one ice core gives global temperature,
you had your chance to back down and admit you were wrong,
even better, more refined to 130,000 years ago
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2105/es2105page03.cfm
so what was Greenlands temperature 130,000 years ago
what was global temperature 130,000 years ago ?
what was vostoks temperature 130 thousand years ago
bloody hell they were all different, how can that be with bill and twodicks maintaining that they should all be the same
“twodicks ” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file””
Now JB, we all know that you struggle with the concept of the quote, but I didn’t say the above despite your putting in quotation marks.
I could normally live with such illiteracy/idiocy but what you wrote that purports to be my words makes not the slightest internal sense, or logic. I’d prefer that people didn’t think I was that ill-educated. So please stop it or make it clear that you are just fabricating quotes.
So those scientists are all wrong john? I quoted them exactly, no room for mistaking what they said: “global temperature”.
If you don’t agree then please take it up with them.
Regardless of whether you believe an ice core can serve as a proxy for global temperature or not I’ve also quoted NASA as saying that the earth still isn’t as warm as it has been in the past. This whole stupid argument is over whether the earth is “excessively hot” or not.
Bill ‘ i am quoting scientists”
no you are misrepresenting what they are saying
so which ice core is correct was it Vostock and a global temperature anomaly of
2Degc or was it greenland with over 5degc ?
or even the 3degc global temperature when accounting for all studies
keep misrepresenting scientists boohoo expect that from creationists
I provided FULL QUOTES so I’d love to know how I’m misrepresenting what they said. It’s quite clear and simple:
“Higher snowfall rates in polar regions generally correspond to more moisture in the global atmosphere, which usually arises during periods when the overall global temperature is high”.
“The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
Apparently john thinks these scientists aren’t smart enough to write clearly. He thinks they really meant “the ice core shows the temperature for Vostok only”. Not quite what the scientists said but john, of course, knows better than scientists.
Such arrogance is laughable.
and you still do not get it they are referring to many correlated ice core studies not just one in the middle of Antarctica.
even the total temperature data confirms your stupidity
start here boohoo http://tinyurl.com/lhgkpj2
boohoo ” we don’;t need no stinking MWP proxy studies, we just need to look at an ice core from the middle of antarctica”
you are thick as a brick
You’re sounding really desperate john.
Exactly how many ice cores go back 400,000 years????
idiot
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018298001072
love it
Paleoclimatology (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within (e.g.) rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils; it then uses these records to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery.[1]
I asked “How many ice cores go back 400,000 years” and you provide a link to a study that has nothing to do with ice cores and you think that is some kind of rebuttal? It certainly has nothing to do with the ice cores that we’re discussing here or whether ice cores can be a proxy for global temperature or not.
Were you hoping no one would notice?
bill if you wish to believe that you can ascertain the global anomaly from one ice core study in the middle of anarctica or on greenland then go for it,
as i said you have greenland and vostok both showing different global anomalies for 130,000 years ago according to you
and you missed the wiki which puts the scientists comment into context
note “to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system”
Paleoclimatology (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within (e.g.) rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils; it then uses these records to determine the past states of the Earth’s various climate regions and its atmospheric system. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery.[1]
however if you wish to remain ignorant do not let me stop you,
John if you don’t believe climate scientists when they say that ice core are a proxy for global temperature that’s your problem. I didn’t make the claim I quoted climate scientists so take it up with them.
“K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:43 am
It didn’t look right, therefor my first correction. Easy mistake to make and no problem to admit it..”
“K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right. In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post. And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny. BTW those values are millions of km3.”
^ This was your next posting after you dig, your so called ‘first correction’ Is this what you call a correction, another dig? No sorry I was wrong?
It’s only an easy mistake to make if you suffer chronically from ‘motivated reasoning’. But if you watched the Chris Mooney video I linked you would have discovered that.
“So you found the facts after all JB which showed I was right.”
This doesn’t sound like a correction. In fact you were utterly wrong. It looks like you are digging your hole even deeper.
“In future you might check that you understand what you are posting before you post.”
And deeper. (You might to actually take your own advice, dingbat)
“And your first reaction shouldn’t be to just deny, deny.”
Looks like you are well on your way to digging your hole to China. (BTW it is YOU who is denying. Still no apology I notice)
“BTW those values are millions of km3” <- Ahh your 'so called' correction. You say millions, when you should be saying thousands. Funny looking correction if you ask me. It actually looks like you are confirming your last statement.
Hello China!!!
You are right, you shouldn't be called a denier. A bloody manic crackpot seems more appropriate.
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Which Einstein quote do you think best applies to you?
JB post a graph 12 months old to prove there was no rebound.
When pointed out to him his error, he obfuscates and denies before finally finding the actual figures showed there was a rebound. I was proved right, not that he admitted it.
In my posts I quoted millions of km3. I noticed something was wrong and in a rush made the same error in the correction. Rodger pointed it out and unlike JB I immediately admitted the mistake of putting millions instead of thousands.
My question remains when will JB ever admit he is wrong even in the face of indisputable facts?
Was the graph from 2012? It did not show a recovery, but 2013 will.
Will JB post the updated graph when it appears?
Did he admit that he was wrong and there is actually a recovery in volume?
there is no recovery in volume, these are anomalies from a baseline 1979/2011
do you know the difference between absolute volumes and anomalies
recoveries do not come from the melt season but from the growth season and are found in the maximum early next year, the ice is not growing in summer it is melting
this year had the lowest maximum volume ever, slightly less than previous years
i had stated previously to watch the coming monthly PIOMAS data remembering that these are monthly averages.
things to not bode well for the next maximum with very low average ice thickness this year
Since the minimum was significantly higher this year than last it means there will be more multi-year sea ice next year. That’s a good thing. Only time will tell if it signals the start of a recovery however. It could just be a blip on the continuing downward trend.
K largo says:
October 9, 2013 at 8:24 am
My question remains when will JB ever admit he is wrong even in the face of indisputable facts?
Was the graph from 2012? It did not show a recovery, but 2013 will.
Dude, you need to have a close look at this graph which is about 1 month old.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?
THERE IS NO RECOVERY!!
Do you notice the latest part of the data is BELOW the blue trend line. Do you notice the latest data is about -7. It would need to be above 0 for a recovery to occur.
Can you please just quit this site and go to WUWT. You are a complete joke, just like all the other deniers who insist on trolling here. In case you haven’t noticed, the name of this site is ‘Watching the Deniers’. It a site where people can get together and laugh and poke fun at the crazy and stupid antics of the deniers. It is not a site where deniers are supposed to come onto a actually prove how stupid and deranged they are really are.
Scorching temperatures put NSW on bushfire alert
The Rural Fire Service is warning deteriorating weather could create catastrophic bushfire conditions in some parts of New South Wales and the ACT today.
A combination of high temperatures, strong winds and low humidity means an extreme fire danger is in force for the Greater Sydney, Greater Hunter and Illawarra districts.
The north and south coasts, northern Riverina and north-west are listed as severe.
The weather bureau is forecasting the mercury will reach 39 degrees Celsius in Sydney which would break the previous October record of 38.2C set in 2008.
There are currently 40 bushfires burning with 13 of them uncontained.
UAH Data Has Killed the Pause
Some “Pause” — UAH’s record of the average temperature of the lower troposphere now shows 0.21°C (0.37°F) of warming over the last 15 years (=slope*interval).
Except it’s not quite statistically significant. The SkS trend calculator gives a 15-year trend of 0.135 ± 0.217°C/decade (2σ), which is a statistical signfiicance of 79%, less than the canonical (and arbitrary) standard of 95%. The large uncertainty just shows that 15 years is too small of an interval to make statistically meaningful conclusions about trends. If the 15-yr trend uncertainty is 0.217°C/decade (2σ), the trend would need to be 0.213°C/decade for a statistical significance of 95% — and the UAH record has had a 15-year trend of 0.213°C/decade or greater only 32% of the time. (Yes, I know that the uncertainty varies somewhat with the interval, but this estimate is good enough for blog work.)
The last 5 years are still the warmest 5 years in the UAH LT record:
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/uah-data-has-killed-pause.html
So wait now you’re claiming that the heat went into the atmosphere and not the ocean?
😉
children the warming goes both into the atmosphere and the ocean and into melting ice etc
so he is obviously not claiming that all the warming went into the atmosphere and not the ocean.
two trolls, three dicks
Unlike deniers, it would appear excess energy can do *two* things at the same time. 🙂
“Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
It’s about time newspapers stopped with the false balance. The LA Times has decided not to print letters to the editor on the subject of climate change that make factually inaccurate assertions. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story
APN also appears to have stopped printing sceptic letters which contain scientific inaccuracies.
some sceptics still get printed but only ones like “taxing air” or defending Abbott on shutting down the public information of climate change
I suspect that more and more decent forums will close their doors to them.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc. but there comes a point where the evidence eventually drowns them out.
We may even see them desperately migrating to sites such as WTD.
How else can you explain their presence here?
curses, foiled again, the wuwt flying monkeys are onto us and have a strong suspicion that this photo may not be real.
http://img.archive.is/NRUFR/166d06a1b8cbd66ff4734184f60a559b4dd6a251
James Hansen
discussion paper sensitivity
Click to access 20130926_PTRSpaperDiscussion.pdf
.
Think of the poor the deniers scream
we agree
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html
.
wake up you pack of denying retards
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/record-temperatures-could-hit-as-early-as-2020/5013442
.
Wow I was really worried there. After all its been peer reviewed and all AND its on the ABC who, as we know, are centrists and would never over-egg the pudding in regards to AGW.
But then I saw “The University of Hawaii study used nearly 40 different climate-modelling systems to work out …”. So not actual data, just modeled scenarios. Given how well the models have done in the past two decades in predicting the hiatus, I’m not going to worry a great deal about yet another we’re-all-gunna-die story. (Queue JB coming up with another graph from Sks/RC showing how the models really did get the hiatus right, no really they did!).
Its based on BAU emissions but who knows what BAU emissions are going to be? These people just create their scenarios in economic and climate models and then convince themselves that they are seeing the real world. They aren’t.
Just on the BAU….
“The biggest change in the IMF’s outlook in the past six months concerns China. In April, it believed the slowing of China’s growth to just below 8 per cent this year would be a passing pang, with growth returning to 8.5 per cent by 2015 and continuing at that level into the indefinite future.
But it now believes there has been a permanent reduction in China’s potential, and it sees growth slowing to 7.3 per cent next year and to just below 7 per cent beyond 2016. If the pattern of global disappointment continues, China’s long-term growth rate could be below 6 per cent, it says. For the IMF, which traditionally adjusts its forecasts in fractions of a percentage point, this is a huge downgrade.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/lessons-for-joe-in-high-finance/story-e6frg9qo-1226735689238
That article also talks about downgrades in growth forecasts for India, Brazil and others. Was the BAU based on earlier higher growth expectations? Do these newer data push the “unprecedented temperatures” back a few years?
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Bohr.
the study was not done by the ABC you moron
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html
“Given how well the models have done in the past two decades in predicting the hiatus’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/
seems that you now have three admissions to make to being wrong. Vostok?
“the study was not done by the ABC you moron”
Comprehension fail….did I say the ABC did the study? I just pointed out your link was to the ABC.
Then you ‘prove’ the models are right by linking to RC. Just as I thought. You are so predictable.
“After all its been peer reviewed and all AND its on the ABC”
pray tell then what that bit of absurdity was supposed to imply
JB, I’m not playing your childish games. What I meant by referring to the ABC ought to be clear to anyone with a reading age above year 3.
But this was one clause out of a very long post, the rest of which you are obviously anxious to avoid. As usual.
what a link titled opinion?, go away
huh?
here is an opinion
george
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/scientists-democracy-dissent-reasonable-boyd
There’s quite a bit out there in the WWW about this new IMF WEO that I referred to earlier:
Click to access text.pdf
The IMF’s significant downgrading of potential future growth have major geo-political consequences which are being discussed in other fora but I just wanted to touch on the issues as regards DAGW.
I’m not entirely sure what economic forecasts are used to arrive at the various RCP but I do recall that up to 60% of the forecast rise in emissions under RCP8.5 through to 2050 were to come from economic growth in the BRICS.
Yet the IMF has just thrown a large bucket of cold water on the growth forecasts for the BRICs into the medium term and is suggesting that Russia and China may be in for sustained lower than forecast growth. India also is also seen as having problems.
All this means that, if growth is down, emissions will be down as against forecast and therefore AR5’s projections will be overstated. Back of the envelope, if BRICS growth is reduced by 25% and BRICS make up 60% of forecast growth, the IPCC emission growth forecasts will be overstated by 15%, all else being equal. What will that do to the projections?
This is why I referred to them as guesses. The so-called projections are based on assumptions in climate models, which are in turn based on assumptions in economic models which are based on assumptions about economic growth and geo-political change.
Thinking that you can plug guess after guess into a computer and at the end determine 2100 temps to within a few tenths of a degree or SL in 80 years to within a few cm, is just bonkers. But that’s what we are asked to believe.
RCP’s are just maintaining the long term global growth and social improvements
RCP’s are not written in stone, try RCP&.5 if you are concerned we will not read 8.5
try an RCP7,5, only refers to RF and none will be spot on, and correct read to reach
“RCP’s are just maintaining the long term global growth and social improvements”
Oh really…and just how do they maintain long term growth? Wow you don’t understand this stuff at all, do you.
“try an RCP7,5, only refers to RF and none will be spot on, and correct read to reach”
Can anyone who understands gibberish please translate this for me.
“and correct read to reach”. They’re all English words but its still unintelligible.
just like:
“what a link titled opinion?”
” in ten thousand years time we will have advanced no further than only covering twenty years or so in ice core data despite having current temperatures on file”
“RCP’s are just maintaining the long term global growth and social improvements”
twodicks “Oh really…and just how do they maintain long term growth? Wow you don’t understand this stuff at all, do you”.
if the world does not go into recession, and emissions grow each year,we call that long term global growth, the track which the world has been on
i know you want it to all about China’s extraordinary growth, now slowing down but it is not,
implications for the next tasmanian elections
What will happen to the environment?
Conservative governments have been dismantling environmental policy around the country, with the incoming national government aiming to repeal carbon pricing as its first order of business. And so it will be in Tasmania, where the Green vote will decline from 21.6% to around 14% in 2014, with the possible loss of seats. A conservative Liberal majority government will be elected, and environmental policies will be reversed.
Despite the success of Tasmania’s transition to a new economy defined by its natural and cultural heritage and its clean, green branding, the Tasmanian Liberals have promised to support the old industries. They plan to log World Heritage forests and oppose the remarkable Tasmanian Forest Agreement between forest stakeholders, which was set to achieve reduced forest conflict and to move the forest industry onto a sustainable environmental and economic footing.
The Liberals will encourage mining ventures in the Tarkine, the largest Gondwanan cool temperate rainforest in Australia and possibly in the southern hemisphere, and a refuge for the endangered Tasmanian Devil. They have talked about revoking the name “Tarkine”. They plan to undo environmental regulations, cut “green tape”, reduce third party planning appeals, not “lock up” any mining regions or forests, and axe the Tasmanian Climate Action Council.
The Liberals will have the support of the national government led by arch-conservative Tony Abbott, and, in opposing the environmental policy reversals across the country, the Greens may well find that support for their beleaguered state and national parties rallies again.
In this the Tasmanian and Australian Greens will certainly find common cause and, with a clear distance now established from unpopular Labor governments, they will remind voters of the reasons why their parties were founded in the first place
full article here
http://theconversation.com/federal-greens-vote-will-be-bad-news-for-tasmanias-environment-18078c
remove c at end
Australian unemployment rate – 5.6%.
Tasmanian unemployment rate – 8.5% (the only state with a rate above 6%!!!)
I wonder why the incoming government wants to change things? I wonder why the electorate wants a change?
BTW your post was well written, lucid and readable. So unlike you,.. oh wait….
https://theconversation.com/federal-greens-vote-will-be-bad-news-for-tasmanias-environment-18078
(shakes head in exasperation)
oops my comment and your owning up crossed.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/alaska-sinks–climate-change-thaws-permafrost/2794255/
alaska sinking permafrost melt , video
I have to wonder if this is sloppy journalism or biased reporting:
“Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer.”
That WAS true until the PDO switched. Now Alaska is seeing very cold winters and increased sea ice in the Bering Sea. In fact it hit record levels last year. 2012 was well below average in Alaska: “The mean average annual temperature in 2012 for the 20 stations was 30.0°F, a substantial negative departure of 2.9°F from the 30-year normal of 32.9°F.” 2013 started out much warmer than average and then winter kicked in with March and April being colder than average. In fact April was -6.9F below average and one station was -15.2F below average and 6 out of the 20 stations were -10.0F or more below average. Very cold indeed.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
As far as sea ice in the Bering Sea and the record last year here’s what Livescience reported in May 2012:
“Arctic sea ice has persistently dwindled over the last three decades, yet sea ice set record highs in waters around Alaska this past winter.
Ice in the Bering Sea not only covered more area than usual, it also stuck around longer, bucking the downward trend in sea ice cover observed since 1979, when satellite records for the region began.”
Look at the trend on that chart and you’ll see why Alaskans are probably hoping for some global warming!
permafrost does not melt in winter boohoo it melts in summer and it does not need a heatwave
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alaska-permafrost-melt-spurs-climate-challenges-disagreements-article-1.1481078
From your link:
“”Permafrost has been thawing since the last Ice Age,” Alaska Department of Transportation engineer Jeff Curley told the paper.
“Roads affected by permafrost thawing are very common,” he said.”
In other words, it has been happening for a long time it’s not new. The USA Today article claims that Alaska is warming when in fact it’s cooling and has been since the PDO switched to the cool phase. The official temperature chart I posted clearly shows the strong association between temperature in Alaska and the phase of the PDO.
Ar5 table 12.2
Permafrost carbon release
Potentially abrupt? No
Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.
do you have a graph for just summer temperatures,
number of heatwaves or something ?
I don’t have a graph but I do have a chart. It’s on the page I linked previously and it shows that the highest amount of warming in Alaska over the period 1949-2011 was during the winter at 5.8F while summer temperatures rose 2.0F. The annual increase was 3.0F.
Chart: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/Seasonal_Yearly_Temp_Change_F.png
Alaska’s annual mean temperature has dropped about 3F since it peaked in 2002. 2012 was over 5F cooler than the warmest year of 1993.
yes you already said all that, i asked you
do you have a graph for just summer temperatures,up to 2012?
the newspaper story was correct they are talking long term trend as here
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/alaska.html
No actually I hadn’t posted any of that before. I hadn’t said anything about the difference in warming/cooling between winter and summer.
You asked a question and I gave you the answer: from the period of 1949-2011 Alaska warmed on average 2.0F during the summer.
Bill, you are so predictable.
In my first post in this thread I wrote.
Rodger the Dodger says:
October 6, 2013 at 11:58 am
This pretty much sums of the thought pattern of your typical denier.
It’s a scam, the scientists do it for the money, it’s all politics, you are stalking me, no warming for 15 years, Watts is our leader, The Daily Mail has a lot of boobs, the models are wrong, it’s the sun, it’s natural, look how cold it is here, it’s groupthink, I wonder if WUWT has any new posts, the IPCC is corrupt, what’s on Fox news, Wikipedia is run by lefties, has anyone replied to my posts, REPEAT
Did you read that, ‘look how cold it is here’
And what have you done, look how cold it is in Alaska.
It’s called ‘Global Warming’ for a reason. Pointing out how cold it is in Alaska is pretty pointless, but then again everything you write about is pretty pointless.
Did you see the Richard Alley video I posted. If you did you would understand that you are banging your head against a brick wall. Why are you still here with your idiotic, boring and stupefying proselytising.
What do you think would happen if I decided to comment on one of the denier blogs. I would be hounded. To give you an example here are some ad homs by Steve Goddard.
I am starting to realize that you aren’t particularly bright
Superstitious people will be humiliated here.
I am not in the business of curing stupidity.
Wow you seem to be one angry little man Rodger!
Did you even bother to read WHY I mentioned Alaska temperature? It has nothing at all to do with global warming, manmade or not. It has to do with the incorrect claim in a story that “Alaska’s temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer.” That statement is false and is easily seen in the official chart of state temperature. When the PDO was in the warm phase Alaska warmed very quickly and dramatically. When the PDO shifted to the cool phase Alaska cooled dramatically. It doesn’t have anything to do with global warming. It’s a regional phenomenon tied to oceanic cycles. No news there and no surprise either.
Once again you build a strawman up only to knock it down in some silly attempt to try to make a point. But thanks for the laugh.
Bill Jamison says, “So those scientists are all wrong john? ….
If you don’t agree then please take it up with them.”
Such a lack of self-awareness can only come from a denier.
I quoted scientists and john disagreed with them.
Who are you going to believe?
Not sure where a “lack of self-awareness” fits in there anywhere and I wouldn’t call john a denier.
sorry boohoo i cannot believe that you are actually this stupid so just putting it down to you finding out that you are wrong but have to stick to your, scientists believe that you can get a global temperature anomaly from one ice core anywhere on earth because you are simply incapable of believing that your could be wrong
I can’t be wrong john because I didn’t make the claim. I quoted scientists and gave a link for that claim. If you disagree with the claim then that’s fine. Maybe you really do know better than those scientists at a well respected research facility but I highly doubt it!
J Giddeon says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:15 am
Ar5 table 12.2
Permafrost carbon release
Potentially abrupt? No
Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.On methane emissions (page TS-23)
seems to be a cut and paste from some denier blog twodicks,
Models and ecosystem warming experiments show high agreement that wetland CH4 emissions will increase per unit area in a warmer climate, but wetland areal extent may increase or decrease depending on regional changes in temperature and precipitation affecting wetland hydrology, so that there is low confidence in quantitative projections of wetland CH4 emissions. Reservoirs of carbon in hydrates and permafrost are very large, and thus could potentially act as very powerful feedbacks. Although poorly constrained, the 21st century global release of CH4 from hydrates to the atmosphere is likely to be low due to the under-saturated state of the ocean, long-ventilation time of the ocean, and slow propagation of warming through the seafloor. Release of carbon from thawing permafrost is very likely to provide a positive feedback, but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}
“seems to be a cut and paste from some denier blog twodicks,”
Yeah, it was from some obscure group called the IPCC WG1. They wrote some denialist report called AR5 and it was from that.
“seems to be a cut and paste from some denier blog twodicks,”
Yeah
prove that it was a cut and paste from AR5 WG1 twodicks
.
fail
what are you on about? I didn’t say it was a cut and paste – you did.
Its a faithful rendering of an extract from table 12.4.
go here:
Click to access WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf
Page 176
you cited TS 23 twodicks
this
Models and ecosystem warming experiments show high agreement that wetland CH4 emissions will increase per unit area in a warmer climate, but wetland areal extent may increase or decrease depending on regional changes in temperature and precipitation affecting wetland hydrology, so that there is low confidence in quantitative projections of wetland CH4 emissions. Reservoirs of carbon in hydrates and permafrost are very large, and thus could potentially act as very powerful feedbacks. Although poorly constrained, the 21st century global release of CH4 from hydrates to the atmosphere is likely to be low due to the under-saturated state of the ocean, long-ventilation time of the ocean, and slow propagation of warming through the seafloor. Release of carbon from thawing permafrost is very likely to provide a positive feedback, but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}
so you had not read it and when you did you still did not have a clue, confusing the words low confidence as to mean unlikely.
then after confirming that it was a cut and pase “yeah” you now admit it was you own ignorant understanding of table 12.4
this confirms my first comment that you got it off some denier blog
touche
“you cited TS 23”
1. No I didn’t
2. Your a bloody lunatic
3. This time I will require an answer as to why you simply fabricated out of thin air this notion that I cited TS 23.
apologies twodicks you did not even read it and My copy of TS23 credited it to you,
anyone following the methane debate would have known for at least 18 months that an abrupt methane release this century was unlikely, i was not addressing that,
it is your confusing low confidence as to mean unlikely
“Possibility that permafrost will become a net source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (low confidence).
Another one of the climate emergencies that the IPCC has called off.”
low confidence simply means ” but there is limited confidence in quantitative projections of its strength. {6.4}”
the research papers on when permafrost becomes a net source have an earliest possibility from mid 2020’s
so simply not enough research but nothing has been called off which is pure drivel
“apologies twodicks you did not even read it and My copy of TS23 credited it to you,”
Oh so it wasn’t you who made it up, it was….errr, ahem, something.
and this
“Permafrost carbon release
Potentially abrupt? No”
if your read above that you will see that No is from the AR5 definition (consensus)
Several components or phenomena in the climate system could potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear
changes, and some are known to have done so in the past. Examples include the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation, Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon forest and monsoonal
circulations. For some events, there is information on potential consequences, but in general there is low
confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century. [12.5.5, Table 12.4]
so NO is only based on lack on consensus which is the case at the moment
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/
The expected Radiative forcing up to 2100 lies somewhere between 2.6Wm2 and upwards
the citing of a few RCP’s are just examples of some of those RF’s under different emissions or mitigation scenarios
they do not rule out possibilities like RF 2.8wm2, 4.7wm2 or even 7.5wm2 by 2100 just because they are the only ones put up
from neven’s blog
oh ho, this can’t be good!
A new paper ( M.G. Wyatt, et al.) identifies an new cliamte feedback phenomena which they are calling the ‘Stadium-Wave’ effect.
“The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. ”
The good news (or bad news – depends on whether you are pro-man or pro-Mann) is that the hiatus could continue for another 20 years and that the recent rebound in Arctic sea-ice levels is the harbinger for a prolonged return to higher levels.
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming
Trying to find a reason for something which does not exist ?
“How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”
Actually it seems they weren’t trying to find a reason for the pause, but just came out as one of the consequences of the theory.
It seems that Wyatt was a student of Pielke Sr. Its pleasing to see her trying hard to be not drawn into one or other of the AGW camps.
But, were the hiatus to continue for another decade or two, or even through to late this decade, its hard to see how the AGW political machine could maintain the scare. If it isn’t already over, it would most certainly be by then.
Curry has talked in the past about fostering the next generation of scientists who aren’t encumbered by partisanship of the past two bruising decades. I’m guessing Wyatt is one such. If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned, science will need a new generation to salvage its reputation with the public and the political class.
As tudent of Pielke now under Curry’s wings and she wants to foster ” the next generation of scientists who aren’t encumbered by partisanship of the past two bruising decades.” Scary stuff but since we are now on the topic of false premises you say…
“If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned….”
Is the hiatus global? What percentage of the entire climate system do you think the global surface temperature represents? And let’s pretend for a moment that your false premise is actually correct, why would the theory have to be jettisoned? It is now unequivocable and if global warming suddenly stopped and even reversed, the response in the scientific community would be one of dispassionate exploration to understand what the cause of that is as has been the research into the current causes of global warming. The response of the lunatic fringe of course would be the baying for blood and ridiculous statements that scientists were wrong all along and theories needto be jettisoned. This of course would just further highlight how ignorant of the scientific process morons who make those kinds of statements are.
If you don’t want to bruise scientists, stop subjecting them to a barrage of slurs. One of those slurs is to presume that ‘climate scientists’ are partisan. Those who claim that they are, and have been subject to some kind of division or sorting into camps, are simply partisan themselves.
Curry’s fostering ability is being ruined by her clear partisanship and tendency to speak without engaging her brain. That is not a slur: her blog provides the evidence from her own hand.
I shouldn’t call some scientists partisan but its ok to call Curry partisan. OKaaay
Nick must have meant that you shouldn’t call other climate scientists partisan. If Nick thinks a scientist is partisan then it’s okay to call them partisan.
No irony there!
Hang on Gids, Curry has nailed her colours to the mast very clearly…You do know she is blogging away furiously, don’t you? She is very clear in her positioning, maybe clearer than she realises! As an individual she is partisan…how is that controversial?
Whereas you are not identifying individuals who have made their ideas clear, you’re just hand-waving at an anonymous, unquantified ‘generation’ of climate scientists that is ‘encumbered by partisanship’ [presumably their own?]
Do I have to help you with understanding what you did there?
Nick
I guess its the same thought processes as you have with left leaning journalists on the ABC, being that, when you agree with them you don’t see them as partisan, merely as correct. That you don’t see partisanship among so many of the leading lights in the warmist camp is just extraordinary from where I sit.
Mann, Jones, indeed the whole hockey team, Connelly, Karoly, Flannery, pachauri, more recently Cook, et al. These and so many more who don’t just offer the science but actively push political views, seek to silence critics, end careers and destroy reputations. If you don’t see partisanship there then its hardly worth discussing since we are talking a different language.
and they still have not worked out that a warmer MWP than mid 20th century global temperature would mean a much higher climate sensitivity.
own goals but completely beyond their own reality
I’d enjoy seeing the reputable citations you have for your assertions.
In the meantime, here’s one for you to ponder, http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/10/meet-prof-camilo-mora-the-man-who-uses-climate-models-to-warn-you-of-the-coming-plague-a-climate-plague-affecting-every-living-thing-will-likely-start-in-2020-in-southern-indonesia-scienti/.
JHS do you really believe that some kind of switch is going to be magically flipped in just 7 years? Basically that’s what that paper says. We know how quickly places are warming – or not warming in some cases – so to claim that a specific location will suddenly see catastrophic change in just 7 years is ridiculous in my opinion. I’m surprised that the paper got published.
“oh ho, this can’t be good!”
Written by Judith Curry. You are probably correct. I am curious though, have you actually read the entire paper including it’s caveats or are you just relying on this article and/or its abstract?
Interesting how that paper has a direct conduit to News Ltd’s ‘expert’ blog commentator Andrew Dolt, and other anti-AGW media campaigners…messages they want to hear and want to spread, much? From a brief look at Wyatt and Curry 2013, the first question immediately emerges: what can we say about periodicity / pseudo-periodicity at 50 to 80 year frequencies? A: do we have enough data?
Seems to be moot considering the work already done at sifting out natural variability from best observed times…and why no interest from the Dolt on this one? No need to answer, Gids.
Indeed.
“Interesting how that paper has a direct conduit to News Ltd’s ‘expert’ blog commentator Andrew Dolt, and other anti-AGW media campaigners…messages they want to hear and want to spread, much? ”
Stock standard conspiracy ideation.
Curry flagged that this paper was on the way a week or two back and that she saw it as very important. Since I see her as one of the most trustworthy in this field, I’ve been keeping a close eye on Climate Etc. Perhaps Bolt et al did likewise. Don’t know, don’t care.
as to ‘Dolt’. What is it with you guys and your oh-so-clever (/sarc) name-calling. Its just so childish. If you expect to be treated like adults, I’d drop it.
I don’t give a flying about whether you consider yourself an arbiter of adulthood, Gids.
Bolt is a dolt: fact. Might be painful, but you have to face it. The man’s every cell is partisan, he never corrects [frequent] errors and he suppresses dissent. He is hindrance to rational discussion. ‘Conspiratorial ideation’? Not really, it is selective reproduction in plain sight: Bolt frequently praises the Watts and Morano conduits, and is always reproducing junk from the UK media that is sourced from the GWPF. He religiously avoids dispassionate analysis of science, or anything for that matter. News Ltd have advertised their aversion to science by alienating the Australian climate scientific community, in case you missed it. No one will talk to News directly anymore.
Back to the paper…it has everything but the kitchen sink thrown in: every climate, ocean and circulation index you can name, plus numerous proxy measures. Very ambitious…
adulthood?, from the guy who boasted of having a big dick ?
“Bolt is a dolt: fact.”
A fact? Wow. We might have a slightly differing definition of that word.
Or are all your opinions fact?
Gee,Gids, you think Bolt’s approach to climate science is competent, or useful? Wow! Could you actually get a grip on the subject’s basics from his contributions?
If Bolt seriously thinks that he has the right end of the stick, then he’s misguided. You can see that he does not think for himself: like Delingpole he provides the verbal dressing for other people’s ‘opinions’ about climate.. If he doesn’t care about the need for a real informational base, but understands the subject is useful for sh*t-stirring, then he is simply an ‘entertainer’ of a sort. An opportunist,and a cynical one. What motivates a man to inject himself into public discourse with such an approach? Ego? Attention seeking? Self-nomination as a defender of specific view of the world and how it works?
“Are all my opinions fact?” Of course [sarc]. On the subject of Bolt, it’s pretty obvious he is pre-motivated to argue no matter the inadequacy of his knowledge. He’s a ‘reputable’ equivalent of the loudmouth in the pub.
Can you seriously mount a factual case for his being intelligent, or a useful social commentator? That is, truly useful, not just a useful idiot providing click-bait and echoing his masters world views.
@RC
It was published in 1979.
It’s the Charney Report; “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”, drawn up by a National Research Council study group led by Jule Charney, at the behest of the US National Academy of Sciences. They also took advice from experts in the field, James Hansen and Richard Lindzen among them.
It is clear that even back then, climate science was aware of the role the oceans could play in the suppression of surface temperatures. Reading the report is fascinating, not least because these guys made quite a few educated guesses that have proved remarkably robust. Of course, the models they referred to were very crude, and temperature estimates were agreed more by committee than science, but the take-home points must not be lost: nearly a decade before the foundation of the IPCC, scientists were warning us very clearly of the potential danger in which we were placing ourselves. And they understood that the oceans could disguise the warming – which makes a mockery of claims that the hiatus was not anticipated.
here if anyone interested in our understanding back in 1979
Click to access charney_report.pdf
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:20 am
oh ho, this can’t be good!
A new paper ( M.G. Wyatt, et al.) identifies an new cliamte feedback phenomena which they are calling the ‘Stadium-Wave’ effect.”
J Giddeon has finally got something right. The latest Curry paper is NOT good at all, in fact it’s outright appalling. Pseudoscience at it’s best.
You didn’t even bother to read the actual paper did you!! You have just relied on the Curry press release haven’t you. I have read the paper twice, just to make sure that I understood it. For a start, if you read the references you will find that Curry’s freshly minted denier Wyatt has collaborated with other deniers like Tsonis. In case you don’t know, Curry has form, she even has her own denier blog. Extremely low confidence you should have for anything she touches.
Also nowhere in the paper is the slightest reference to the ‘hiatus’.
What the paper details is how they put into a computer, a whole range of indices, including fish catches, detrend them, normalise them, put them through a filter and then run a statistical analysis looking for signals. And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. Surprise, Surprise. Who would have thunk that.
What was funny is they ran their hypothesis through the models, and guess what, zero, zip, nada. That should have been the first clue that they were wrong, but no, they concluded that they were right and the models were wrong. (But then again all the deniers claim that the models are wrong, so this is no surprise)
And then in an ‘An Ice Cometh’ moment, they then predict that the long term ice decline will suddenly reverse.
Comical isn’t it!!!
J Giddeon, you are a disgrace, not even worthy of using the moniker ‘skeptic’. You have proved yourself to be a stone cold denier. You accept whatever crap the professional deniers tell you to think. You troll on websites that are against your beliefs. And to top it off you insult and misrepresent. When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.
do not look at the anchovy, focus on the sardine
WTF
my hypothesis is as good as any
reading around, the massive increase in sardines catches was at the time explained by the overfishing of pelagic predators, this led to a massive increase in sardine catches and of course overfishing of those which also led to a decline in their population as well
but you will have to wait thirty years to see if i am correct
“my hypothesis is as good as any’
Well that’s your first mistake.
from the paper:
“iii) Japanese Sardines (JS: Klyashtorin 1998; Noto and Yasuda 1999, 2003), whose
population outbursts off the Japanese coast are spatially related to the meridional migrations of the western-boundary current (Kuroshio Current) and its extension (Oyashio Front) and temporally associated with positive polarities of Pacific ocean-atmospheric circulation patterns (PDO, NPO, NINO, ALPI). Annually resolved commercial statistics are available since 1920. Japanese chronicles extend the record to 1640 (Kawasaki 1994)”
So not the total sardine population – just the outbursts off the Japanese coast.
you could use this data to come up with whatever you prefer
The AMO does effect japanese sardines but more about where they will be caught rather than actual numbers.
the high level of japanese sardine catches after the 1930’s seems to have more to do with the crash of herring stocks and fishers changing species
the anchovy and the japanese sardines should have similar peaks but out of sequence with each other by half a cycle if one wants to use AMO
with the crash of the sardine catches the fishers turned to anchovy as is apparent by the large uptick to the right of the graph above.
yum thinking of italian sardines for tea .
http://www.yummly.com/recipes/italian-sardines
“population outbursts off the Japanese coast are spatially related to the meridional migrations of the western-boundary ‘
had looked at that but the outbursts seem more due to el nino off the japanese coast
there are many claims that the abundance of of all sardines in different locations of the northern hemisphere have a “more than trivial relationship to AMO ”
there are hundreds of sardine fisheries in the northern hemisphere
if you could find a correlation for both abundance and crashes, in harmony with the AMO in more than just one location then you might have some credibility.
so the question, given the number of sardine fisheries, was the correlation only found in this small area off japan and was that the reason why it was included ?
because most researchers would laugh at this being used as one of the indices
Its in the paper. The sardine outburst is a proxy for changes in ocean currents and the like. eg “Japanese sardine outbursts co-vary positively with Pacific circulations – PDO, in particular” Records on the outburst go back into the 17th century so are of particular value.
yes but that is supposed to happen for sardine species all over the northern hemisphere yet only one correlation out of hundreds of possibilities?
it is circular reasoning the sardines back our hypothesis therefore our hypothesis explains the sardines yet i have found numerous papers looking for links to the abundance el nino winter sst temps MLD etc
so even that is not yet fully understood
Boy oh boy, Rodge, you really are an angry young man. Or is it an angry old man (trying to return soup?). Or just angry that your one true faith is crumbling?
“You didn’t even bother to read the actual paper did you!! ”
And you know that, how? Just more irrational screaming, heh Rodge. Indeed I did read it and have gone over the critical passages several times.
(I’m gunna give you a gift here which each of you can/will use. This level of statistical analysis isn’t my forte so I struggle to understand the minutiae of what they did. But I do get it in the broad. Nonetheless, I’ll rely on the expertise of the authors, reviewers and subsequent critics as to the accuracy of the maths).
” if you read the references you will find that Curry’s freshly minted denier Wyatt has collaborated with other deniers like Tsonis.”
Yes it is well known that, when evaluating any new theory the first thing you do is check who the theoriser has previously worked with and decide if the theory is right or wrong based on that (/sarc).
“What the paper details is how they put into a computer, a whole range of indices, including fish catches, detrend them, normalise them, put them through a filter and then run a statistical analysis looking for signals. And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. Surprise, Surprise.”
They used a computer? Unheard of….
Yes fish catches (sardines) was one of the indices. One of many. Interesting that its the only one you mention – no agenda here? They do explain why they used that index.
“And guess what, they found one that matched the AMO. “. Actually the AMO was one of the indices. I probably should stop there because clearly you didn’t understand the process. Maybe a third reading is in order. Perhaps this time with an open mind.
“That should have been the first clue that they were wrong, but no, they concluded that they were right and the models were wrong.”
Because anything that disagrees with the models (like the real world) is, by definition, wrong. Actually if you read the paper, they didn’t say the models were wrong, just that they don’t currently reflect the stadium wave. There is a difference.
“And then in an ‘An Ice Cometh’ moment, they then predict that the long term ice decline will suddenly reverse.”
A testable prediction. That’s how science used to work.
“you are a disgrace” – don’t sugar-coat it. I can take the truth 🙂
“When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.”
Not for a while yet.
The scourge of internet trolls
I love the part where you think you know what you’re talking about. I recall asking you a couple of very straightforward questions which go the very heart of your position on the hiatus. I can understand why you don’t wish to answer but I’ll try again.
Is the hiatus global?
What percentage of the entire climate system do you think the global surface temperature represents?
Pretty straightforward really. The first is a simple yes/no and the second a number.
Rather presumptuous of you to be demanding that I answer your inane questions given that you’ve previously announced that you wouldn’t talk to me because of my “idiocy”. Or were you just saying that to garner the raptured applause of watching throng?
Somehow you think you can just reverse that and I’ll fall into line.
But just to demonstrate that I’m a better man than you I’ll play.
Question 1 – No
Question 2 – What’s your definition of ” entire climate system”.
You said, “If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned…” yet you admit the hiatus isn’t global.
If the hiatus isn’t global, why would the Anthropogenic GLOBAL warming theory have to be jettisoned?
For your clarification, the entire climate system incorporates all the troposphere and the oceans. By volume, air surface temperature measures about 3% of the entire system but this point is now moot given you have agreed that the hiatus isn’t global so we get back to the question I have put to you. To me it appears a strange position to take. Why would you throw out an entire theory because a tiny part of it isn’t, for want of better words, performing in an expected manner?
Of course the hiatus is global. By common definition the hiatus is simply a pause in the increase of global temperature reported by GISS, HadCRUT, etc.
That doesn’t mean that no place in the world has continued to warm any more than global warming meant that every place in the world was warming.
No, it’s the global surface temperature. This accounts for about 3% of the climate system. 3% of the system in a so-called hiatus is far from global.
As I said the hiatus is defined as the pause in global surface temperature increase.
Up until recently all of the hockey sticks and claims of catastrophic warming have been based on surface warming. Now you want to change it? I know you’re rather talk about OHC instead of surface temperature or even ocean temperature now but that’s inconsistent from what has been discussed in the past.
You really need to stop basing your arguments on what you read over at WUWT or Jo’s or Steve’s or wherever. Your assertions are incorrect. OHC was being examined right from the time when sea levels were observed rising and particularly accelerating. The funny thing about the Mann work was that it was the denier dens that blew that up to what could be considered celebrity status as far as graphs go. For the rest of us, it was just another piece in the puzzle. The fact that Al Gore decided to present it infuriated the loony right in the USA and their ideologically driven outrage helped sell the movie he made…which I still haven’t watched by the way.
Regardless, wherever I or anyone chose to focus our attention has no bearing on the fact that the ocean is still warming, the ice is still melting and species are still moving, hiatus or not. I am yet to find any denier who can insinuate that because there is a hiatus that warming has stopped and then explain the physical and biological indicators that demonstrate it hasn’t. So here is your chance. If the hiatus in the surface temperature means GLOBAL warming has stopped, why are those physical and biological processes still occurring?
“Up until recently all of the hockey sticks and claims of catastrophic warming have been based on surface warming.”
Crap. Just crap.
Claims of ‘catastrophic’ warming are strawmen simplifications ,and claims of warming are not based on current surface warming, they’re based on physics and ACO2 output plus feedbacks. From Arrhenius’ time claims of warming were based on physics and output of CO2 from human activity, not observed temperatures. That physical underpinning has always informed claims.
The ‘hockey’ sticks appear in the long term data: CO2 levels, reconstructed temperature. The projections for temperature increase are not hockey stick shaped. They show increase accelerating for a period in the mid to late 20th C then a slowing to a new higher equilibrium state then slow decay. The equilibrium level and point in time a function of how much CO2 we burn and how fast.
so you are confirming that you have never read any of the science, just parrot willard
yes we have known about it since 1979 but were keeping it a secret until required
Click to access charney_report.pdf
Nick are you really claiming that we haven’t been seeing charts of surface temperature for the last 20 years and talk of increasing temperature? You can’t be serious!
ALL of the emphasis has been on surface warming. Whether it’s one of Mann’s papers or Marcott’s they all discuss surface temperature.
You know uki, I really thought you were smarter than you are.
If the habitat of a species warms to a point where the species ends up migrating it doesn’t happen immediately. It takes time. For example when it was warmer in Siberia in the past the tree line was significantly higher. But it takes time for the trees to move up. Decades or even tens of decades. Yet you sit here and ask “Why are species still migrating if global warming has stopped?”. What a silly question. You really can’t be that ignorant. Ice melts when temperature increases above the melting point. Once that temperature is reached the ice will melt regardless of whether the temperature continues to increase or not. Yet you use this argument as proof that the earth is still warming.
Bill, if the thermal tolerances of animals are narrow and they are forced to move to less suitable habitats, I can assure you it actually happens quite quickly. The new habitats are generally less favourable in terms of food availability and there are added issues of niche partioning and competition and a dozen other factors. If temperature rise stops, the migration stops. It hasn’t. With many plants, yes there is a lag time but at the back end of a range shift. For annual plants, the easiest to study, they react just as quickly as animals in terms of range extension at the front end and guess what? They haven’t stopped either. It’s also not just geographical changes in species either. An even bigger although less discussed issue with both plants and animals are changes in phenology. These are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature and guess what? They are still moving to. I don’t know what your supposed area of expertise is, but mine is ecology and plant pathology. Would you like to discuss the shifting ranges of pathogenic plant fungi? I am more than happy to educate you in that area especially and guess what? They too are still shifting inline with warming. Again these are even more sensitive to changes in temperature than phenology of plants and animals.
Bill, I’m not claiming that. What we are experiencing is the warming predicted by AGHG theory sparked by Arrhenius calculations and rebooted by Callendar, then refined in the 1960s and 1970s. Please keep the hockey stick where it originated : in the shape of temperature reconstructions of the last 800 to 2000 and more years.
Predictions of future warming are not based on current warming of a component of the earth/atmosphere system or even all of it, they are based on the physics of GHGs. Warming now or twenty years ago is not predictive it is only incidentally confirmatory [and wobbles are expected on the way]. John Byatt linked, way back, the Charney report from 1979: it’s about the system as a whole, lagging components and all. Really it’s simple, deliver x amount of carbon into the atmosphere over x years and it will perturb the system in a lot of ways for a long period, and different pieces of the system will react according to their component properties.
The information going to government is largely available to all. It was always about the system; it could not be any other way given the physicist/meteorologist background of 1960s and 1970s researchers. Obviously surface temperature is an aspect that we collectively recognise and emphasise, but often at the expense of better understanding. I reject most media framing of it, they lack space, resources, format and competence in many cases.
I definitely reject the framing put about by aspects of the blogocracy that ‘warmists’ overwhelmingly pick and choose indices that suit them. Look through the archives of competent sites and you will see a systems approach,the discussion of facets and features of the system,and plenty of integrative discussion. Even bullshit sites like Watts attempt that as well, in an attempt to mimic competence. Then you have the low-resource cranks who are obsessed by the sun, or some purported official statistical shortcomings: motivated rejectionism seeking a ‘knock-out issue’.
People who do not read their history or the IPCC reports just go round in circles, projecting wildly.
“You said, “If the hiatus continues and the AGW theory has to be jettisoned…” yet you admit the hiatus isn’t global.
If the hiatus isn’t global, why would the Anthropogenic GLOBAL warming theory have to be jettisoned?”
Mr U, when the world was warming (1975-98) was it global? Where there pockets where warming didn’t occur? We all know there were.
So by your logic, there is no such thing as AGW.
By my logic? You can try and deflect from the strange twisted and contradictory positions you hold as much as you like. Im not biting. Its all there for everyone to see and in one sentence. Ill take it you cant answer the question because you have realized the pickle you put yourself in. You lecturing me on logic is like Tony Abbott lecturing on gender equality. So unless you are prepared to actually explain how you can hold contradictory positions I would suggest not responding at all because Im not really interested in anything else you have to say.
Translation…Mr U realises he’s made a logical error and has decided to end the discussion while employing maximum water-muddying abuse. Typical.
You are delusional and dishonest. I’ve asked you to answer the question. Whenever you decide to do that I will be more than happy to continue. Instead od answering you decided to obfuscate. That is your right to do so of course but I won’t be playing along. You can try and claim that I am avoiding or whatever and give yourself a delusional pat on the back. You will only be extending your dishonesty to yourself. So answer the question or fuck off. Either way I dont really care. Your level of importance tome is such that I wouldn’t pisses on you if you were on fire. Feel free to be offended.
But I have already answered your question U.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that I’m dealing with someone whose logic skills and gripe on the plain written word is ‘equivicable’ 🙂 . I’ll answer using smaller words, ok.
Your assertion is that, since the hiatus is not global, is not happening throughout the entire climate system, then it can’t have an affect on the AGW theory.
Now that is at least arguable. But I’d reject it on the basis that the hiatus, while not global, is happening in general and on average across the globe.
My point was this. If you reject the notion that the temperature record, when in hiatus, has nothing to say about the theory because its not globally in hiatus, then the temperature record, when in a warming phase, has nothing to say about theory because the warming wasn’t global. And that’s just screwy.
I did try to use little words, but I suspect I’ve lost you again.
giddeon “the hiatus, while not global, is happening in general and on average across the globe.
not even close twodicks it is not happening in the ocean,that is 90% of the warming’
it is not happening in the arctic , link posted arctic temperatures accelerating
it is not happening in the plant or animal kingdoms
it is only happening in the atmosphere if one draws a short term trend which cannot be used to support warming, cooling or static temperature
put up which trend in the sks calculator that you are using
Oh FFS, its a hiatus in the surface temperatures. So introducing all the other areas is a complete furfhy.
Nurse: “I think this man is very sick because his body temp is 39 degrees”
Doctor: “No I looked at his big toe nail and it looks fine. He can go home”.
“A testable prediction. That’s how science used to work.” Gids, model predictions of warming are testable, too…did you not know? Haven’t you been claiming they are bust, which kind of suggests testability?
Science still ‘works’ the way it did, not that you’d have a clue, judging by that silly snark.
Wyatt and Curry make some interesting choices of data: for instance, one proxy for their ITCZ value, and reference to Black et al 1999, which is superseded by Black et al 2007. What gives there? I also wonder about the solidity of the Russian sea ice obs back to early 20thC.
Statements from Wyatt in the Georgia Tech press release about the ‘recovery’ of summer minimum sea ice in the Arctic between 2012 and 2013 being consistent with her ‘stadium wave’ are simply hand-waving, not supportable by the paper. the ‘recovery’ is consistent with inter-annual variability / reversion to the mean / wind and cloud conditions.etc. It is simply too early to be hanging that one out there.
They didn’t say the recovery of arctic sea ice IS consistent with their theory they said “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
Their statement is much more cautious.
Hair-splitting,Bill…the work, a highly filtered mesh of detrended indices, does not allow even the caution of ‘suggestive of consistency’…still not cautious enough. This paper seems to be built on [more indices added] Wyatt,Kravtsov and Tsonis 2012…where did that go? The ‘stadium wave’ was the label then ,too.
the crap has been flying on WUWT re marcia wyatt paper
this is the death of AGW
they have stolen my hypothesis and given it a different name
‘
i have been saying this for years
poor marcia had to come in and tell them that it neither supported or rejected AGW
in the knee deep shit someone waded in to say that the emperor has no clothes
Ivan says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:05 pm
The paper does not say anything about how this new model explains the pause in global warming, does not say anything explicitly against the IPCC models, it emphasizes that it is not clear how this could be applied to the 21 st century conditions. And the abstract is absolutely unreadable and does not say anything at all about any of the points raised by the authors in their media statements.
they may have been a bit miffed that it was not released the same day as AR5 WG1 though
Deniers are so funny aren’t they. When they are not childishly arguing with each other like Willie and Roy, they are lapping up any old bullshit claim. It seems that their ideology strips away their eyes and their brains. You would think that they have gin soaked cotton wool between their ears. But go on J Giddeon, defend the indefensible with your ad hom’s. That’s all you have left. You don’t even realise the joker you are, which what makes you even funnier.
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 5:54 am
Or just angry that your one true faith is crumbling?”
Dude, it is your faith which is crumbling. Climate science has been around for over 150 years and is getting stronger. There is no faith required, just evidence, and the evidence is now overwhelming. Do you really think that some kid fresh out of college and a couple of deluded deniers will suddenly demolish basic physics. What a laugh.
You really need to do some proper reading, not just the regurgitated fur balls from the denier blogs.
Here is a start,
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
and you can actually see it in the cores.
Climate science is literally rock solid!!!
good links this one should be a cause for action
I never ceased to be amazed at these attitudes – if only the deniers would do more reading they’d agree with us. This view that the only difference is the level of knowledge. The arrogance is breath-taking or just arrogance of youth. Take your pick.
Just to give you an inkling of how wrong you are:
I don’t dispute the science of GW.. I accept that adding CO2e to a system will, all else being equal, cause warming.
I don’t dispute that there has been some warming since the Dalton minimum and that some portion of that is due to man.
Where we part ways is the view that any of this is the slightest bit of a problem.
I don’t buy the idea that, since we can show that some warming has occurred due to raised co2, therefore it is proven that things are going to be disastrous in 2100.
I’m perfectly comfortable with the current temp increases and quite comfortable that the future will be benign.
I don’t buy the scare emission scenarios for the 21st C. I think we will easily adapt to a warmer world and that technology will reduce emissions into the future without the need for inefficent government intervention.
Finally I reject the notion that the science is settled and that we know all we need to know about the climate systems in order to make precise predictions/projections. The hiatus is but one example of the fact that scientists don’t know enough to make guesses about the future – that the system is way more complex than they thought.
Bottom line – adding CO2 will make the global warmer than otherwise. But how much warmer is the question. The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.
“The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.”
Totally wrong-headed. You’re Australian I take it? Unbelievable denial of the reality of increasingly violent weather extremes and related. Like fires. Like forest die-off.
You’re not paying attention to what’s happening in the world outside whatever bubble it is you’re in. How bad does it have to get before it pops? How dumb are you?
Yep, it IS clear you DO need to do more reading,Gids. You reject serious work, built up over many generations, in favor of magical thinking.
You think it’s all going to be OK, or manageable, based on what you have learned. Thing is, folks who have put working lives into building you a knowledge base across the earth sciences disagree with you…and you can just flick it away!
You see, Nick, that’s where you are wrong, or at least wrong about what I think.
I’m perfectly happy to go along with the consensus that if we get to, say, the levels of emissions foreshadowed in RCP8.5 then we will get some form of warming approaching that which the IPCC has calculated. On the whole, I’d go with Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and the like in thinking that the climate models are too sensitive and that the warming from a RCP8.5 scenario would be on the lower side of the projections, but a warming nonetheless.
Where I part ways is that I just don’t think we are going to get anywhere near RCP8.5. Indeed I don’t think we’ll get to a doubling – 560ppm.
Now, this is not rejecting the science. Its not even rejecting the economics behind the science. In the main, its thinking that , for example, RCP4.5 is closer to the truth than RCP8.5.
I do have some expertise in economic history and my view is that emissions will decline in the middle of this century because of the natural replacement of 19th-20th centruy technology with 21st century technology.
So again, not rejecting the science. Just not accepting the assumptions that the science uses to make its projections.
so you accept the science but not the projections,what papers do Spencer, Lindzen, Curry have which shows lower sensitivity?
none which have survived replication, not bloody one
over two degrees is dangerous, another paper out last week confirming that
what a complete dropkick
@ uknowispeaksense
In a paper published last week in the international scientific journal Earth System Dynamics, the scientists say they are surprised at how much worse the impacts would become once the 2ºC threshold is passed. At the moment, they say, the failure of politicians to make commitments to cut emissions means that the temperature is set to reach and pass the danger zone of 3.5ºC.
While the scientists spell out what will happen to the vegetation and the water availability, they do not venture into predicting what conflict might arise if a billion people or more whose food supply would collapse embarked on mass migration to avoid starvation.
The “green” areas of the world most affected are the grasslands of Eastern India, shrub lands of the Tibetan Plateau, the forests of Northern Canada, and the savannas of Ethiopia and Somalia. The melting permafrost of the Siberian tundra will also be significant, releasing further greenhouse gases.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/347/2013/esd-4-347-2013.html
“J Giddeon says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
You see, Nick, that’s where you are wrong, or at least wrong about what I think.
I’m perfectly happy to go along with the consensus that if we get to, say, the levels of emissions foreshadowed in RCP8.5 then we will get some form of warming approaching that which the IPCC has calculated. On the whole, I’d go with Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and the like in thinking that the climate models are too sensitive”
I would love to believe Spencer and Lindzen, but they have been too corrupted by the fossil fuel industry, they are both experts of the Heartland Institure, who’s aim is to discredit climate science. Then you have the vast majority of climate scientists who have actually done the real research and shown that they are wrong.
“The more we learn the more we see that the original worries were overblown.”
You see, if we look at the PETM, we find that there was enormous ecological disruption with only a fraction of our current emissions. So you are wrong there. Your problem is that you have been on the astroturf ideoblogs and Bolt’s blog for too long. You have drunk their Kool-aid. There have already been times when there has been rapid greenhouse warming and the consequence has been bad. We don’t need models, we just have to look at the past. Our civilisation is already on a knife edge. The GFC showed that all it takes it’s a little push and the house of cards will fall. Our food supply is heavily dependent on crops like corn and wheat, which have seen massive crop failures due to heatwaves and drought. We also know that during times such as the Younger Dryas, the climate is able to rapidly warm with just a small forcing. We also know that past civilisations have collapsed due massive droughts that were within natural variation. We are now pushing the climate so that super El Nino’s or megadroughts, both of which have occurred in the past, are even more likely in the future. So with all due respect, you are talking out of your arse.
“When are you just going to piss off and leave us in peace.”
I know there is a real desire among the commentariate here that everyone be in furious agreement with each other. that if Mike says “XYZ”, JB, writes to his agreement and U agrees with JB and Nick agrees with U and Rodge agrees with Nick and so on and so on.
But where is the value in that? If there’s no challenging of views then there’s no learning. You just end up with everyone agreeing that there is no temperature pause while the outside world is trying to work out what caused the pause. Its the climate equivalent of the Amish.
I can easily go to sites where my views would be entirely accepted. I’ve been to blogs where, if I wrote “Abbott is a genius” I’d get 90% furious agreement and 10% saying I was understating the truth. But who learns from that?
You need to have your views tested and disputed. That’s why I’m here. Of course you have to put up with the abuse but again that’s standard all over. Most people don’t like to be challenged.
So how long will I be here…until (1) I no longer feel like I’m getting anything out of the alternate views or (2) Mike decides he’s had enough of his congregation being upset and bans me.
The behavior here from the likes of Rodger the dodger and john byatt is typical of Right-Wing Authoritarian types. They bully, insult, attack, demean, lie, distort, and gang up on people in an attempt to silence dissension and conflicting viewpoints. They have no intent on being civil or even obeying the rules of this blog regarding treatment of other posters.
It’s too bad they can’t just state their views and disagree with other people without resorting to the RWA tactics.
too funny
one minute it is no one is supporting you here so you are wrong the next you are all supporting each other so you are still wrong
and twodicks is to the right of the tea party
trolls do not get special treatment boohoo
No one is asking for special treatment john. We aren’t even asking that Mike enforce the rules that he created that specifically state that posters must treat “commentators and readers with respect and refrain from personal insults”. In my case I’m just pointing out how your behavior is typical of RWA types. Your goal is to silence critics and anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You don’t have enough faith and confidence in your own ability to debate that you can avoid insulting others and calling them names. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that reads your posts.
when you make numerous absolutely inane claims and expect to be taking seriously then people are going to tell you that you are a dickhead
what a moron to claim that scientists have said that you can get the global anomaly from one ice core in the middle of antarctica , we might as well forget GISS Hadcrut etc and just take the temperature at Vostock
it is a moronic claim from a fool yet you want to be taken seriously, seriously?
Does Boohoo’s attempts to paint us as rightwing remind you of anything? It reminds me of “Atheism is a religion”
More typical RWA responses from you john. Now you’re simply trying to justify the behavior. Who was that said it’s okay to be abusive because we deserve it? I didn’t expect you to admit you’re engaging in RWA behavior because you certainly can’t admit to yourself that is what you are. But it’s true. Look at the definition and description of behaviors of RWA types and it clearly fits you and rodger. You can’t simply try to make your point and be satisfied. You have to call people names, resort to ad hominem attacks (including accusing people of being religious), insult, bully, and gang up on people. Pretty pathetic and speaks volumes about you personally that you can’t even begin to stay civil.
billboohool we are just calling dickheads dickheads
uknowispeaksense says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:00 am
Does Boohoo’s attempts to paint us as rightwing remind you of anything? It reminds me of “Atheism is a religion”
i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,
poor bastard a self confessed right wing mouthpice berating the ABC for lefty views but has no option other than to accept bills crap without being able to defend himself
loving it
I didn’t even include you in the list of RWA types uki. Apparently you self-identify!
I can see how some religious people think that militant atheists are religious-like. If an atheist feels the need to proselytize and preach about how someone’s religious beliefs are wrong or false then the atheist can come across as almost having their own religion and religious-like zeal.
But for us atheists that recognize the atheism is the absence of belief then it can’t be a religion. There are no mores, morals and belief systems that go with being an atheist. To claim otherwise is wrong.
“and twodicks is to the right of the tea party”
Evidence? Sorry to use words you don’t understand.
“i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,”
Why? Oh I see, Bill’s on my ‘side’ so I have to agree or pretend to agree with what he says.
Sorry JB that’s your go. Its you and your mates who feel the need to protect the herd. It was you who tried, ever so ineptly, to defend Mr U when he screwed up ‘unequivocably’. Its also why, I assume, no one chipped you on the ethics of your stalking of Bill.
I feel no need to defend or otherwise, anything Bill says. He’s on his own as far as I’m concerned and I’d hope he feels the same way about me.
If I’m forced to comment on his “Right-Wing Authoritarian” I’d say it was half correct. There is a real authoritarian bent but its from the left. That’s why so many of the AGW crowd talk about subsuming democracy to save the planet, or talk about silencing ‘denier dissent’, or talk about gaoling ‘cliamte criminals’. They seek to impose their views on the rest but they do so from the left.
I know most of you don’t appreciate the term ‘watermelon’ but it is very accurate. Those who in the past would have been attracted to the authoritarian left prior to the fall of the USSR, gravitated toward the greens. Seen in that regard, Bob Brown’s attempts to close down the ‘hate media’ are perfectly consistent.
J Giddeon you nailed it: I don’t feel the need to defend you. We aren’t together against other posters on this site we just happen to agree on some issue. I’m sure we disagree on others. It isn’t an “us against them” mentality for us although it apparently is for them.
I use the term “Right-Wing Authoritarian” even though it’s coming from self-proclaimed liberals in this case because that’s how this blog defined the behavior. Unfortunately they can’t see themselves in the description even though it fits people like john byatt and rodger the dodger perfectly. Here’s quotes from a book on the matter:
“We shall probably always have individuals lurking among us who yearn to play
tyrant.” – Remind you of any posters?
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” – yep. They also claim to be smarter too.
“High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do” – Which explains why they believe AGW is such a defining issue and why they would claim the earth is currently “excessively hot” even though it’s been warmer in the past.
So they may truly be “Left-Wing Authoritarian” but they fit the description of RWA to a “T”.
ah so this is it, a common claim in denial land
boohoobill ““the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting”
and i have news for you, uki is a researcher in a field directly relevant to the science so yes on that aspect he is way smarter than you,
it is just fact, you may be smarter on things like theology though
And again I have to thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly john. It’s like you don’t even realize that you’re proving my point for me.
Why don’t you just write what you really feel: that you are not only smarter than me and other “deniers” but that you really are morally superior to us too. Others have already justified the abuse and insults thrown our way.
“You just end up with everyone agreeing that there is no temperature pause while the outside world is trying to work out what caused the pause.”
I don’t disagree that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface air temperatures when your starting year is 1998 and you will struggle to find anyone here who does. Where you will find people here disagreeing with you is when you try and suggest that this hiatus is global. It isn’t. The temperature sets do not take into account ocean temperatures. So, even though you don’t want to answer my 2 simple questions, I’ll ask you this instead.
If the global temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years, why is sealevel still rising, why is ice still melting and why are tens of thousands of species still moving in a manner consistent with global warming?
If I may, a supplementary question: Explain the difference between heat and temperature.
remove a bucket of water from a large bathtub of hot water,
both are the same temperature
which one has more heat?
“when your starting year is 1998 ”
This is the dishonest little game you people play. suggesting its all an artefact of the very warm 1998.
But as I pointed out a thread or two back, there is also no statistically significant warming if you starting year is 1997 or 1999 for any of the main datasets and back into 1996 and 1995 for some of them. When I pointed this out everyone ran a mile and pretended not to hear.
I know there are lots of ‘excuses’ raised for fact that surface temps failed to do what the models decreed. ENSO masking, heat accumulation in intermediate ocean depths,weak solar forcing, volcanoes. (maybe the stadium wave)
All of those involve natural variability. So clearly co2 warming can be overwhelmed by other forces. More importantly, the models failed to predict the pause and therefore take inadequate note of natural variability.
Until this is incorporated into the models we can have no faith in their predictions. Already we’ve seen CS numbers reduced when the hiatus is taken into account (Otto et al) and it seems likely we’ll see the same happen to the models.
twodicks “But as I pointed out a thread or two back, there is also no statistically significant warming if you starting year is 1997 or 1999 for any of the main datasets and back into 1996 and 1995 for some of them. When I pointed this out everyone ran a mile and pretended not to hear.’
if that was the case then we could have claimed no statistically significant warming in 2011 when phil jones declared the warming since 1995 statistically significant
so why didn’t we?
well we had to wait until after the The 2010/11 and 2011/12 La Niñas to find a trend which we preferred
the same warming signal is still there when you account for ENSO and volcanic activity over the last years,
the deniers claim that internal variability is not investigated and then deny internal variability when it suits their cognitive bias
we ignore the warming signal at our own peril
“So clearly CO2 warming can be overwhelmed by other forces” Yes, this has always been understood. It’s always being overwhelmed in the shortest terms. But the basis for concern is built on the clear and obvious fact that currently CO2 is rising persistently and is a persistent presence in the human influenced atmosphere. So it has clearly been understood that CO2 would be a prevailing influence on long term global temperature trajectories, knowing the carbon resources we can access and plan[ned] to burn.
The models are really looking at where the system ends up under varying CO2 emissions scenarios. 2100 and beyond. They all predict warming, increasing with the higher emissions. They don’t pretend to be looking at decades with any great precision because we understand annual and decadal variability to be high for all those ‘excuse’ you note. They generate natural variability, and considerable ‘pauses’, with the parameterisations of the inputs, but real and simulated ENSO is not periodic. So they will never predict ENSO from a distance. The Solar cycle is not regular either: it has been observed to be anything from 9 to 13 years long. Given known unknowns, models are very useful, and have been vindicated on rational assessment. Do you have an unrealistic expectation of what the models could do?
“…we can have no faith in their predictions” Our confidence in models is [and has always been] qualified, and has been justified by developments in real time. All I can say is that all models incorporating CO2 increase have predicted temperature will rise and continue to do so until equilibration and drawdown of CO2 levels. They have got the sign of the change right. They have got the pace of the change close enough. So your conditional rejection of trust is unwarranted even now.
It would take an unprecedented and persistent dimming of solar influence to counter ACO2. Natural variation from internal climate modes /pseudo-cycles and oscillations is not that persistent.
“if that was the case ”
Its not a question of “if”. It is the case. Go to sks trend calculator and check for yourself. Why is this so hard?
so which period are you using two dicks?
“If the global temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years, why is sealevel still rising, why is ice still melting and why are tens of thousands of species still moving in a manner consistent with global warming?”
If the temperature has risen enough to melt ice then it doesn’t need to keep rising for the ice to continue to melt. Since you consider yourself to be really smart you should know something so obvious.
pfftt
and the oceans continue to undergo thermal expansion because?
the plants, animals and fungi are still on the move because?
“If the temperature has risen enough to melt ice then it doesn’t need to keep rising for the ice to continue to melt”.
Arctic Report Card: Region Continues to Warm at Unprecedented Rate
Oct. 22, 2010
unable to link to NOAA
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101022071814.htm
shit that was the claim by the climate sceptics two effin years ago
yet still it warms
How much thermal expansion occurs from 0.09C of warming?
If you think I’m going to buy into the already debunked “Trenberth’s Missing Heat” guff that you will no doubt recite word for word from WUWT forget it. It’s already been dealt with elsewhere. Nice try though.
This has nothing to do with Trenberth or anyone else. You said that the oceans continue to undergo thermal expansion. Recent papers show that the oceans have warmed by as much as 0.09C in the last few decades. How much thermal expansion is associated with that temperature increase?
which papers?
It’s what came out of the Levitus analysis:
“Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the
heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 10*22 J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer.”
Click to access Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
How much thermal expansion do you get from 0.09C warming?
You said papers. But that report tells you how much. Feel free to read it. I think it mentions something like 3.2mm/yr. If you dispte that sea level has risen that much then I would love to hear your justification. If you are going to tell me that 0.9 degrees in the top 2000m of ocean couldn’t result in that much rise, well, without referring to the already debunked garbage about “missing heat” mentioned by Spencer and repeated at WUWT and all the other non science blogs, I can’t wait to hear about it. Perhaps you could write to all the oceanographers and tellt hem how they are wrong. Feel free to print their response in full here. Should be pretty funny.
You keep claiming that sea level is rising due to thermal expansion. So how much thermal expansion is there from a temperature increase of 0.09C in the top 2000m of the oceans?
Seems to me it wouldn’t be much.
” Of course you have to put up with the abuse”
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/the-97-need-to-strike-back.html
“Mark Morano has called out the flying wingnuts to harrass Prof. Mora, which, as you know can be quite unpleasant, but even if not, those of us who appreciate good work (and Mora has a long and excellent track record on biodiversity issues) do not mind giving a pat on the back, so if you feel that a pat is of value, let him know, if you have a question about his new paper, ask, and if you think you have something to add, that would be nice, better tho if brief. And finally, if you have been the subject of a flying monkey attack, talk about how you dealt with it.”
“Bill Jamison says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:21 am
They bully, insult, attack, demean, lie, distort, and gang up on people in an attempt to silence dissension and conflicting viewpoints.”
Gee, life must be tough being a zombie. You should watch the movie ‘World War Z’. You have hoards of zombies attacking humans, and in their defence they start shooting the zombies. There is one scene where the zombies are trying to get over a wall, and they are being cut down with a machine gun from a helicopter. You don’t stop to think, I wonder if the zombies think ‘stop being a bully humans, stop insulting and attacking us, we only want to convert you into a zombie like us’.
Bill, you are the zombie. We bully, insult, attack and demean you because you are trying to convert us into your brand of zombie. No one is forcing you to post here. If you don’t want to be insulted and attacked, delete your bookmark and do something else. If you insist on posting inane, pointless and idiotic remarks, well, I’m not in the business of curing stupidity. Why do you need to be constantly reminded that this site is called ‘Watching the Deniers’. It could just as easily be called ‘Making fun of Deniers’ or ‘Deniers and their stupid antics’ The fact that you don’t get this and continue to act like a troll tells me that you are mentally retarted. If I were to go to one of the denier sites, I would get the exact treatment that you are getting. I know this so I don’t go there. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand.
“J Giddeon says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:07 am
You need to have your views tested and disputed.”
I’m afraid that you may be about 30 years to late. Climate science was settled decades ago. Do you really think my view on heliocentrism, plate tectonics, evolution, quantum mechanics and climate science, all settled science, really needs to be tested and disputed. Are you just arrogant or plain stupid. If I wish to increase my knowledge on any of these subjects, do you really think that I would take the crazed opinion of some random denier troll. Of course not. I would read and watch videos authored by experts in their field. So your feeble attempt to ‘test our views’ is beyond useless. Your last attempt, by posting a link by the deceptive Curry, has only further reinforced how useless you are.
Well Rodger at least you don’t deny your RWA tactics like john does. You try to justify them but at least you don’t deny them.
Now we’re zombies haha. You’re hilarious rodger. At least you have some humor (intentional or not) in your posts unlike john who is just angry and bitter.
the climate zombies
Nick says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:06 am
“This paper seems to be built on [more indices added] Wyatt,Kravtsov and Tsonis 2012…where did that go? The ‘stadium wave’ was the label then ,too.”
Check this out.
“Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMNG43C1429K
Curry, Tsonis and Wyatt have been chewing on the ‘Mexican Wave theory’ old bone since at least 2010. Then all of a sudden, this latest Curry paper is released and it’s all new again. This time with a set of steak knives and even more hand waving. It sank like a stone then, and now burdened with even more indices, is destined to ‘sleep with the fishes’. /pun
Wyatt has also guest posted on Roger Pielke’s denier blog.
The ‘Mexican wave theory’ is Tsonis’s baby, but he must be bored of it and passed off this limp lettuce to Wyatt.
For a bit of a laugh, you should check out the grandiose webpage of Tsonis.
“I was one of the first scientists to promote the application of Chaos theory and nonlinear data analysis in Atmospheric Sciences.”
Obviously never heard of Lorenz, who coined the term ‘Butterfly Effect’, and was the real pioneer in chaos theory 20 years earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz
King idiot.
In the latest Curry paper, in the intro, she says.
“Behavior of numerous and diverse geophysical indices – from fish populations to cosmic nuclides – fluctuate at a quasi-periodic 50-to-80 year tempo (e.g. Ogurtsov et al. 2002;”
Here is the Ogurtsov et al. 2002 paper.
Click to access sph03.pdf
and a quote from that paper.
“We consider the galactic cosmic rays as the more probable cause for the quasi-22-year climatic variation, although the contribution of some other sources, such as 22-year variation of solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (Baranyi, Ludmany, and Coffey, 1998) and precipitation of particles in auroral zone (Veretenenko and Pudovkin, 1997) cannot be excluded. The 22-year cycle is seen in the GCR intensity, since during solar cycles with negative polarity of the Sun’s northern polar field”
Does anyone notice the discrepancy?
Curry says “cosmic nuclides – fluctuate at a quasi-periodic 50-to-80 year tempo”
yet the paper she references says “22-year cycle is seen in the GCR intensity”.
How does one turn 22 into 50-80?
Would you call this a lie? Misrepresentation? Stupidity?
This is really basic stuff, taught in any university. If you use a reference, then your text should at least match your reference.
I would give this paper a big fat F.
It gained one mention at RC
MARodger says:
11 Oct 2013 at 4:21 AM
prokaryotes @154.
It is called the “stadium wave” (what we Brits call a ‘Mexican wave’) hypothesis not the “stadium” hypothesis although, as this is more the work of Wyatt, it may be that Curry is engaged in a bit of ‘grandstanding’ by getting in as joint author on the paper you link to.
Curry is a declared Pacificite (“It’s the PDO wot dun it!”) not an Atlanticist (It’s all due to the AMO.) but the “stadium wave” formula neatly achieves a truce between such wild theorising by tying them all up together.
So is this “stadium wave” but more curve-fitting nonsense? I am always a tad suspicious when an analysis only ever presents smoothed curves that have filtered the bejeebers out of the original data. And when these curve-fitters figure their job is done when the curve appear to fit over the first period they looked at and are not eagerly extending it back to older data or forwards to data freshly measured, I am doubly suspicious.
So guess what? All the graphics I see with this “stadium wave” are 1900-2000 and heavily filtered. True there is also talk of analysis of proxy data 1700-2000 but, whatever that comprises, it doesn’t appear to be worthy of presentation beyond Wyatt’s PhD thesis. And the main author does appear to be lacking in the basics. The “stadium wave” has an alleged period of decades but Wyatt is happy to be quoted as saying “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.” It appears that the period of the signal has been nailed down with incredible accuracy. I bet if we ask nicely Wyatt could even tell us the day of the week that this cycle peaked at.
I don’t quite get why you guys are so upset by this paper. All it’s doing is trying to tie some natural variability together. Maybe it’s correct maybe it’s not (I’d bet it isn’t). Time will tell. It’s just a paper it’s not earth shattering science.
It would be nice if the paper is correct and that the hiatus will last for a couple of decades.
Yes, it would be nice, Bill.
I’m not upset by the paper, it’s having a go… but is this long chain of kick-on effects real, and does it really have a location of genesis? I can’t see yet how the paper pins it to the Siberian Sea convincingly. There is simply not enough detailed data on all those indices going back far enough to claim an over-arching irregular ‘cycle’.
I do worry about any paper being leveraged into something it isn’t, and I’m not pointing at you. Wyatt’s comments are over-reach based on my reading of the paper.
I do not think that anyone is upset by the paper, is not being upset some reason not to discuss it?
it has been discussed at willard’s blog, are you the discussion police?
It’s not that it’s being discussed it’s that some of you are getting really defensive about it john. There’s a difference. I’m just surprised because as Wyatt and Curry have stated explicitly, the paper makes no claims about AGW. It’s about natural variability and whether different modes of variability can combine into this “stadium wave” or not.
Even if their theory has some basis in reality I would still doubt that they got it right on the first try. The signals are too weak and too much processing has to be done to try to tweak out a signal of any significance. I’m not faulting them I just think something like this will be hard to prove but I believe they would be the first to admit it.
I think your claim of getting defensive about it is just your own overreaction.to a discussion.
hundreds of studies into the abundance and nonabundance of sardines, even in japan where the science is still not settled and this paper just picks one small area where it finds a correlation and includes that as evidence
the japanese researchers will be rightly dismissive when someone who has not even
contributed to the research in this area claims this circular reasoning as some sort of support for this claimed consistency with her hypothesis
Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly john.
J Giddeon says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:44 am
“i feel sorry for poor old twodicks who just has to wear bills anti right wing rant,”
Why? Oh I see, Bill’s on my ‘side’ so I have to agree or pretend to agree with what he says
NO AS A RIGHT WING MOUTHPIECE YOU HAVE TO WEAR THEM WITHOUT COMMENT
Sorry JB that’s your go. Its you and your mates who feel the need to protect the herd. It was you who tried, ever so ineptly, to defend Mr U when he screwed up ‘unequivocably’. Its also why, I assume, no one chipped you on the ethics of your stalking of Bill.
A TYPO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR DENIAL ANY MORE CORRECT
I feel no need to defend or otherwise, anything Bill says. He’s on his own as far as I’m concerned and I’d hope he feels the same way about me.
YOU HAVE EVEN BACKED HIS RIDICULOUS “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY CAN BE FULLY ASCERTAINED BY THE TEMPERATURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANTARCTIC
If I’m forced to comment on his “Right-Wing Authoritarian” I’d say it was half correct. There is a real authoritarian bent but its from the left. That’s why so many of the AGW crowd talk about subsuming democracy to save the planet, or talk about silencing ‘denier dissent’, or talk about gaoling ‘cliamte criminals’. They seek to impose their views on the rest but they do so from the left.
LEFT IS RIGHT AND RIGHT IS LEFT , ATHEISTS ARE THE BELIEVERS
CLIMATE SCIENCE IS RELIGION “YOUR FAITH”
I know most of you don’t appreciate the term ‘watermelon’ but it is very accurate. Those who in the past would have been attracted to the authoritarian left prior to the fall of the USSR, gravitated toward the greens. Seen in that regard, Bob Brown’s attempts to close down the ‘hate media’ are perfectly consistent.
AND YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, WELL DONE YOU TICK ALL BOXES,
Your posts can be so confusing john. It sure would help if you indicated when you were quoting someone and when you’re injecting your own thoughts.
Yes i could hardly work out twodicks reply to roger, makes it easy with the capitals eh?
sorry not for you it seems,
John do we know what the earth’s temperature was in the past 100,000 years? 200,000? 400,000?
rather irrelevant boohoo . we are talking about temperatures over the next century and what that will mean for wet bulb temperatures, extreme events, coastal flooding of major civilizations ocean, food chain collapse. species extinction the consequences of which will have a direct consequence on the whole biosphere,
we are in deep shit if we do not start to reduce emissions now and we have retards like you and twodicks with their heads up there arse
It’s a simple question john can’t you answer it?
“A TYPO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR DENIAL ANY MORE CORRECT”
I know it wasn’t a typo.
You know it wasn’t a typo.
Any sentient being reading the exchange would know it wasn’t a typo.
Even the pompous oaf himself knows it wasn’t a typo.
Now I don’t care that you want to out and out lie to protect U. Your lapdog style devotion is cute.
But it is very revealing. If you are prepared to straight out lie about something that is so easily checked and so inconsequential , what aren’t you prepared to lie about?
Well I think I know the answer to that conundrum.
Does anyone else get the impression after talking to deniers that they have been talking to the retard ‘Reg’ from the SBS comedy series ‘Housos’. You wonder are they mentally retarded, when did they start letting computers into psychiatric wards? Take for instance my latest interaction. This one denier presented a paper from Curry, boldly holding it up like it’s a piece of gold. ‘Check this out, it will demolish your precious faith.’ But you can smell it from a mile away. It’s a piece of dog droppings wrapped up in foil. ‘Look here, this is great, it’s yummy chocolate’. ‘No it’s not, I can smell it from here.’ So he then gives you this squishy foil and when you open it up, it is indeed a piece of dog shit. You then tell them it’s a piece of dog shit, but he smiles and says ‘Is chocolate, very good’. You can see in the gaps of his crooked teeth, old pieces of dog shit. ‘Eww, you have been eating this like a hungry dog.’ ‘Is chocolate, is good’. ‘What is wrong with you, when are you going to piss off’. ‘I want to help you, give you my chocolate, I am nice’.
crack me up roger
JG is wearing the orange shirt
Very funny JB, but the guy in the orange shirt is still smarter than your average denier. In the end he eventually worked out that it dog poop. You average denier would still deny it’s dog poop. They would go on saying it’s a conspiracy by the watermelon people or that the dog did it for money. Then they turn on you, get really defensive and say why are you making fun of me, stop calling me names, it’s not dog poop. What makes you think it’s dog poop. I can’t tell the difference. Why are you getting so upset.
Ahh deniers, they are such jokers and pranksters aren’t they. You don’t know if they are being serious or pulling your leg. They are funny though. This is why I like this site. It is a never ending source of comedy gold.
“You don’t know if they are being serious or pulling your leg. They are funny though. This is why I like this site. It is a never ending source of comedy gold”
i once thought that,
they were leg pulling or just a poe,
this guy has to be joking, he cannot be effin serious
“fuck no, this is how these people really think, .
children making poo jokes. really? and that they think they are sooooo funny is the sad part.
cancel willard’s ice age coming
WASHINGTON (AP) — Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.
And eventually the whole world in 2047.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/study-temperatures-go-charts-around-2047
Sounds like no one bothered to look at the actual temperature trend for Kingston Jamaica which is a 0.1C/decade increase over the last 20 years. Not exactly catastrophic warming in the next couple of decades at that rate. But why look at the real data when you have computer models?
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:05 am
Sounds like no one bothered to look at the actual temperature trend for Kingston Jamaica which is a 0.1C/decade increase over the last 20 years. Not exactly catastrophic warming”
Motivated reasoning strikes again.
“Data collected at Jamaica’s airport stations (Figure 4.3.2) for the much shorter period of 1992 to 2010 likewise show a warming trend for the country of about 0.1 degrees Celsius/decade. Some research sources suggest that the rate of warming may be slightly higher — about 0.27 degrees Celsius/decade. Research also suggests seasonal rates of temperature increase which range
from 0.20 – 0.31 °C per decade, with the period of most rapid increase being June-July-August (JJA) at a rate of 0.31 ̊C per decade.”
Click to access STATE%20OF%20THE%20JAMAICAN%20CLIMATE%202012%20-%20POLICY%20MAKER,%20JAN%2029,%202012.pdf
Looks like YOU are the one who didn’t bother to look at actual temperatures. You are a complete and utter joke. A climate zombie. But keep it up, you are comedy gold!!!!
Nope that data confirms my assertion: Even an increase of 0.31C in the next 10 years won’t cause a catastrophic shift in climate for Jamaica.
Thank you for confirming my claim.
boohoo”won’t cause a catastrophic shift in climate for Jamaica.
Thank you for confirming my claim”
another man of straw from the climate zombie
“WASHingTON (AP) — Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.
And eventually the whole world in 2047.
A new study on global warming pinpoints the probable dates for when cities and ecosystems around the world will regularly experience hotter environments the likes of which they have never seen before.
Sorry you can’t see the stupidity in that claim john. But then it’s an alarmist claim so you obviously just accept it at face value.
I don’t quite get why you are so upset by this paper bill.
This paper doesn’t upset me in the least john. I just don’t think actual data supports the projections they’ve made. The good thing is that they are relatively short term predictions that will be either falsified or confirmed in just a decade or two.