Looks like early-season heat record south of 26th // (43.5C, in 1988) broken Wed – if 45C+ area is a guide http://t.co/Id9oNsWEtj— Peter Hannam (@p_hannam) October 09, 2013
We just set records here in California too except they were for low temperature and minimum high temperature. Some periods of record go back over 110 years. Pretty impressive cold for this early in the Fall. I can’t recall ever seeing mountains in southern California get snow the first week of October.
The US has been copping some extreme volatility all year, whereas Australia has been generally more stable, but consistently warmer than average. I read that it’s really down to the land/ocean distributions at respective poles.
You have a frozen/thawing sea, we have a frozen continent. You have high latitude land , we have high latitude ocean. These respective distributions of water to land are almost exact opposites. With Arctic amplification and shrinking summer sea ice, your jet stream whips up and down more, giving you more weather whiplash. With Antarctic amplification, our circumpolar wind streams over the Southern Ocean stay straight and get faster: the southern ocean atmosphere has barely warmed, but the belts to the north have, so when cold fronts surge up from the south they stimulate windier periods of pre-frontal NW winds. The highs are getting higher in the high pressure belt over Australia.
More energy in the system plays out differently no matter the matching latitude N or S. Those RCPs look pretty intimidating in seeing these differentials further heightened. It’s going to make NH agriculture even more of a crap shoot. Hopefully there is enough agricultural land to buffer heightened volatility, but increasing demand is also impinging. SH agriculture will be challenged by drying tendencies.
The US copes with extreme weather variability EVERY year. It’s a large country with extremely diverse climate zones. Florida is tropical and gets hit by hurricanes. Alaska is arctic and gets extremely cold. In the middle they get everything from spring tornadoes to blizzards to drought and heatwaves. California’s weather varies based on ENSO and other Pacific ocean cycles. An El Nino year tends to be very warm and wet and stormy while a La Nina year is the opposite: dry with few storms but can either be colder than normal or warmer than normal. Other parts of the country also have seasons strongly predicted by ENSO state.
Very rapid intensification, apparently. I think the stats break down to fewer cyclones at the mo, but a higher proportion of those are in the top categories. And a greater number are showing this rapid intensification business.
Let’s hope the evacuation plans works as well as hoped.
The bottom line: According to the 2012 IPCC report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (PDF):
Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. (Section 3.4.4)
and precipitation will likely increase by 8%
the cyclone rating system in QLD is to be upgraded as far south as the sunshine coast, adds quite a bit to costs so QLD premier will probably forego on that, i am sure that the insurance companies will not
This is a very powerful and dangerous storm. A similar storm in 1999 killed an estimated 15,000 people. The Bay of Bengal is notorious for deadly storms due to the very warm water and the geographic conditions that result in very high storm surge. Millions of people have been killed in this region by these storms in the last 300 years:
J Giddeon says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:23 am
“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)”
The above statement just shows how crazy deniers will get. Dude, this is the dishonest little game that YOU people play, starting your analysis at an abnormally hot year. For your reference, this is called cherry picking, and is anti-science at it’s best. The minimum range is 30 years as per WMO specifications. Anyone who has to rely on such a misrepresentation of the facts is just plain stupid. Just look at the Daily Mail, Bolt, Jones etc.
‘I know there are lots of ‘excuses’ ‘ Dude, what you call excuses, most normal people call THE FACTS. How you can claim that observations are now ‘excuses’ really does show how freaking deluded you are.
To really show how deluded you are, watch this video of Richard Alley.
You really need to watch this, otherwise you will be referred from now on as not as deniers, as that is too kind, but as the CDC and Alley calls people like you, climate zombies.
Of course the real issue that is raised by skeptics is whether climate models accurately capture and predict periods of no warming such as this one. You are apparently trying to confuse that issue.
Skeptics started off disputing that warming was happening [some are still back there], then that while we were warming humans had nothing to do with it [some are still ‘convinced’ of this]. Then ‘skeptics’ shifted ground,suggesting that the atmosphere would not warm as much as predicted, and/or not as fast as predicted, so of course they had to frame models as ineffective. This is what you’re about here. By ‘arguing’ that models don’t capture short-term movements, they ‘surely’ cannot be effective long-term. This of course is getting it ass-backwards, as experts never suggested that models were very good at the short-term. They have explained why, often, but that is ignored because it does not offer ‘skeptics’ the absolute certainty that they for some idiot reason think they can demand from modelling complex systems.
What, are you now pretending you want ‘better’ models for the sake of science? And while it’s ‘not warming’, the cryosphere continues to shrink, changing the albedo of the planet: summer snow cover is the lowest it has ever been, river flow regimes are changing, and melting ice contributes to ongoing SLR. SLR continues with slight acceleration with thermic expansion as well,as lagging responses continue.
Anyone would think that if we reach +2C in 2070 instead of 2055 it’s hunky-dory. They’d rather be right about the wobbles than about the basic message of the physics.
No we don’t need better models for science. We need better models because we can’t afford to disrupt our economy in a rush to reduce carbon emissions if there is no emergency.
Personally I think it’s pretty arrogant to believe we understand the climate system well enough to model it with any degree of accuracy of a period of 50 to 100 years. You obviously feel differently. It’s not simple physics because of the unknowns and feedbacks.
Playing the humility card on behalf of science, eh? Scientists are arrogant? For tangentially pointing out the disregarded or undercosted downsides of BAU? Scientists should not rise above their station -nobody likes a smart-arse, after all. The role of science is to make its paymasters look clever, so don’t tell them stuff that is costly with slow returns….if you want arrogance look at the financial community which has distorted the real economy of living on behalf of quick returns for the elite.
Science has made the correct call on warming from a long way out, if you’d take in the history of the climate and science you might realise that.
Nick if the physics are so simple and our knowledge of climate so complete then why are there so many different climate models that give such different results? If we truly understood the climate well enough to model it accurately then we wouldn’t need many different models that use widely different values for climate sensitivity (as just one example).
Some of you want to pretend that this is simple: we add CO2 to the atmosphere and the planet will warm a certain amount. But the climate is far from simple.
More groups are modelling, building their own models, and each run produces slightly different ‘natural variability ‘ on its trajectory as a unique climate. As you know scenarios vary, then other inputs can vary as well…look at table 12.1 in AR5 WG1 Ch.12, and the footnotes and references. All this explains model individuality…but look where they end up.
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between the 30 year period used for “climate normal” and the current period where warming has paused. One has nothing to do with the other despite your attempt to link them.
this was the third time in 2 threads where I’ve tried to point out that the hiatus is NOT dependent on starting at 1998.
Yet here we have little Rodge saying, straight after quoting me saying other years also yield an hiatus figure, that I’m being. dishonest by ” starting your analysis at an abnormally hot year.”
Well folks I’ve run out of ideas. If simple english won’t convey the message I can’t come up with an alternative. Maybe if I can find an English -> gibberish translator, I can write in your native tongue.
The funny part is that you’ve been so heavily conditioned by your various warmist indoctrination sites to think that the hiatus is all about 1998 that you can’t think anything else, even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary. But you’ll undoubtedly go on thinking you are wonderfully independent thinkers. More than a little funny.
simple english, the planet has not stopped warming,you are ignorant of 93% of the warming, you are either too stupid or you are , no i think too stupid is the answer
?Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:22 am
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between the 30 year period used for “climate normal” and the current period where warming has paused. One has nothing to do with the other despite your attempt to link them.”
Just when I thought you couldn’t get any funnier, more comedy gold!!
No you dickhead, it is you who doesn’t understand the difference.
The WMO standard of 30 years years is there for a reason. If you use a time period lower than that you will get an artificial result.
Ahh, forget it. I’m bored with trying to explain why you get this so wrong. You are such an idiot that it won’t matter what I say. You will never get it. You are just so stupid. Just stop replying to my posts. You are like trying to explain something to a glass of water.
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 4:33 am
John do we know what the earth’s temperature was in the past 100,000 years? 200,000? 400,000?”
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:06 am
It’s a simple question john can’t you answer it?”
Bill, why are you pestering John about the earth’s past temperature?
At one stage the earth was hotter than an oven, and then later on it was as cold as Antarctica. So frigging what? You have already been told that it’s irrelevant, why don’t you get that it’s irrelevant. What everyone is concerned about is the future temperature of the planet. That is a more important topic.
If it’s such a simple question, why don’t you just frigging Google it then. You seem to pronounce yourself as the climate expert around here. But don’t bother telling us the result. We all here don’t really care. You are the one who is obsessed with it. Go knock yourself out. In fact no one here really cares what you say. You are just an annoying dumpy troll.
-‘Oh, you are so rude Rodger, why do you keep making fun of me, you are so mean, you are like one of those RWA types.’
Well if you want us to stop making fun of you, STOP POSTING HERE!!! I don’t know how to make it more simple for you. Maybe you can give us your email address and I can send it to you in crayon. You keep acting like a clown and wonder why we all laugh at you. The solution is easy. Go away. You have been told countless times yet you still insist on coming here. What is wrong with you. Any normal person would have just cut their losses and moved on, but NO, you have to be special. You are on a mission to be as obnoxious and disruptive as you can. This is typical troll behaviour. Before you go, I would really like to know. Why are you such a troll?
The climate zombie creationists link getting a bit more exposure
For a while now, I’ve considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as “a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’. In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’.
Why? Because they can’t explain it. Not just that: many seem to believe they are not obliged to do so, which is suspiciously convenient, and all too reminiscent of those who would claim they don’t need to ‘explain’ God. In this, they share a view once expressed in a Guardian forum which, to this day, remains one of my favourite denialist non-sequiturs. When challenged, a poster calling himself Hamlet 4 insisted “I don’t need to prove climate change is caused by natural variability. It just is.”
JB cites SKS pointing out some of your denialist mob evoke NV as a complete explain-all for GW. “The climates always changing,etc.”
So then you point out the IPCC also uses the concept NV / NIV with a sarky attempted tu quoque….My question makes the distinction between the magical and the science. I just point out that the IPCC use it rationally, not magically, so your “you too” fails on the slightest analysis. NIV is evoked by rationals to explain variation within the trajectory induced by AGHGs, not as an explanation of the whole. Clear?
Do you really not understand what you were saying there?
I sometimes wonder about the ability of you chaps to follow the simplest logical thread. Not so much surprised by Jb, but I thought Nick was better than that. According to the sks article ” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’. In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’.
Yet the IPCC WG1 chapter 11 uses the same terminology. So either the claims of sks that using that term shows you are creationist are so much bs OR the IPCC is populated by creationists.
BTW JB, in that one chapter they use the term “natural internal variablitity” 10 times.
and the term “natural variability” 16 times.
You must try harder : the IPCC and rejectionists may use the same term, but to different ends. Surely you can see the contextual difference? Or do you really think that science and denialism are equally matched conceptually?
So it’s ‘people you like’ versus ‘people you don’t like’ ? No, I’m arguing from the evidence. Scientists, having generated system wide observations and identified poorly quantified knowns, reason for natural internal variability producing wobbles in the metric of GAT. Rejectionists decree we don’t know enough or even anything, and yet it’s ALWAYS natural internal variability…or cosmic ray magic in some cases [NEV]…given that logical blindness, I cannot see what liking or not liking has to do with it!
Are you arguing there is no difference in context in those examples of NIV’s citing ? No difference in the theoretical and observational underpinnings of the two ‘camps’ ? The generational incumbency of professional scientists and institutions means no more than the passion of a small amateur army of disparate beliefs / competing ignorances that calls itself skeptics ? Could it be you really believe that? Do you really believe the sides have an equal claim to authority, and an equal knowledge of the field ? Are you a nihilist?
No, no I get it. When the IPCC and the ‘real’ scientists use the term, they are being very scientific.
When contrarians like Lindzen, or Spencer or Curry use the term is proves they are zombie creationists who think climate is changing because of supernatural intervention.
None of those lukewarmers are silly enough to evoke NV as a complete alternative to AGW in the peer-reviewed literature, and they barely like to hint at it in ‘off the record’ fora. Lindzen still clings to his Iris. Curry and Spencer [Spencer through reasons of faith] prefer to conjure a kind of safety in uncertainty.
I would think that the three you mention are in the natural negative feedbacks will stop the warming camp but they just have no idea what these magical feedbacks are, hope they find them before we get to 2DegC
Oh dear! On a mission to help the East out of poverty, are they? Two generations ago, they were the red peril! Next thing they’ll be saying that the earth is in CO2 drought…oh wait, these folk do say stuff like that, to the right audience..
Sadly, it is the tune on the BAU song sheet at the mo… we will never be wealthy enough to fund the busted bits, despite being collectively more wealthy than ever according to the defined metrics. A rising tide lifts all boats, except it doesn’t lift the 40 million sunken ones on food stamps.
“J Giddeon says:
October 13, 2013 at 1:39 am
I ran a find through chapter 11 of the AR5 WG1 report.”
Dude, that’s not how you are supposed to read and understand a long and complex report. I’m sure that when you were at primary school, they taught you to read one word after the other. That way what you are reading might actually make sense. What you are doing is trying to make a stupid non-existent argument from the hot air out of your arse. If you actually READ the report, I know, a crazy concept, you will find that the crux of the report is that humans are contributing to climate change. If you go onto the climate zombies blogs they try and claim that warming is non-existent, or that if they actually concede there is warming, that it’s ENTIRELY natural variation with a pinch of fairy dust. Do you see the difference you bozo.
Here is a simpler version that even your feeble brain might understand.
Climate zombies = Entirely Natural Variation
IPCC = Humans + Natural Variation.
I know, it’s a really hard concept for a zombie to understand, so here it is in zombiespeak.
I suspect he’s being laying low ever since his .3 degree warming screw-up. You may not have heard about that since I’m sure the places you habituate would not have mentioned it. FYG, he asserted, with the usual certainty of the warmist that the MET office had found warming of 0.3C warming in the past 16 yrs. When it was pointed out that the warming as per the MET was .03/decade = .05 in the period he mentioned, he went very quite.
Eventually he deleted the twitter records but never acknowledged the error or apologised. Indeed as I recall he repeated the error on radio.
yes he was wrong with his decimal place, we all do that but i am quite sure that he would have an infinitely better understanding of the science than you,
Hard to see how it was a typo though given that he made such a big deal of the planet warming contra what Bolt was saying and never actually used that excuse himself.
Its really quite interesting how little some of the gurus of the AGW faith actually know. Karl here simply didn’t know about the hiatus and Suzuki on Q&A was just an embarrassment.
“J Giddeon says:
October 13, 2013 at 8:12 am
this was the third time in 2 threads where I’ve tried to point out that the hiatus is NOT dependent on starting at 1998.
Yet here we have little Rodge saying, straight after quoting me saying other years also yield an hiatus figure”
What a freaking liar you are. I never said that ‘other years also yield an hiatus figure’. What an atrocious troll you are. I said that WMO uses a minimum 30 year timeframe to determine long term trends. And if you use those standards, the warming trend is revealed. When are you and your cult leader Bolt going to understand that if you use a timeframe less than 30 years you will get the wrong result. You get a statistical artefact. To put it simply, if you ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer. How is that so hard to understand.
Also you are only looking at less than 5% of the climate system, repeatedly told to you and also in the IPCC report. But your retarded brain cell refuses to accept this.
But since the ‘no warming for x years’ is the centrepiece of your cult, you repeatedly refuse to accept that you are blatantly wrong.
Check out page 81 of the full IPCC report and you will see why. Also the video of Richard Alley also explains why. But of course you refuse to watch the video or properly read the IPCC report because you are a climate zombie. You will never understand why you are wrong because your single brain cell is enclosed within an impregnable bubble of arrogance and stupidity glued together with motivated reasoning.
30 years is the accepted norm for climate discussion.
If you must use too short terms you will note that the “pause” is not statistically significant. For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:
• There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. None.
• Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None.
• Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. Always.
No one seems too concerned about the 15-year time span covers the years 1992 through 2006, during which the rate of warming was 0.28 deg.C/decade. That’s a lot faster than the warming rate from 1975 to now. The time scales were too short for alarm then. They’re too short for complacency now.
Well it had to happen at some time didn’t it. JB’s now decided that I’m a creationist as well. No evidence mind you but then he had no evidence to reach the same conclusion about Bill.
Believing that everyone who disagrees with you is a creationist just makes life easier to understand.
Actually the only evidence that john needs is your disagreement with him. Anyone that disagrees with him, by definition (his of course), MUST be a creationist.
The logic is pretty flawless actually. Since he’s RIGHT and he KNOWS the truth then it goes without saying that anyone that disagrees with him is WRONG and a creationist. There is no other answer.
I have to wonder if john is this unpleasant in person. It would definitely explain why he spends all day posting on various websites.
What is it with climate zombies and their statistically insignificant hiatus. No matter how many times you tell them that any trend calculated with a period of less than 30 years is statistically insignificant, they still don’t get it. If you get a hiatus, or warming or cooling that lasts for 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years, it is totally meaningless, insignificant. Now if you were to have a hiatus or warming or cooling that lasts for more than 30 years, now you are getting to be statistically significant. But no, they keep yapping on about this hiatus like it is their Nobel prize winning idea that they think invalidates AGW theory. Well sorry, it doesn’t. It may be the centrepiece of their cult, but it is a insignificant centrepiece. It means that your whole cult is built on sand. No foundation whatsoever. But yap, yap, yap they go. And then they have the gall to insult anyone who doesn’t follow their cult and their insignificance. This is why Bolt is also such an idiot, but what would you expect from a Art’s degree failure.
Rodge’s law :”No matter how many times you tell them that any trend calculated with a period of less than 30 years is statistically insignificant, they still don’t get it.”
WMO GUIDE TO CLIMATOLOGICAL PRACTICES (3RD EDTN);
Chapter 4.8.1 Period of calculation
“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often subtantially greater than 30 years.”
“The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend. In general, the most recent 5‑ to 10‑year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30‑year record.”
Oh literate one, perhaps you could translate this –
“Hard to see how it was a typo though given that he made such a big deal of the planet warming contra what Bolt was saying and never actually used that excuse himself.”
Glad to help out Gregory. Always anxious to extend the education of others.
Bolt was saying there was no warming since 1997.
KK tweeted outrage at Bolt’s error by claiming there’s been a .3c warming in the past 16yrs (so “contra what Bolt was saying”)
JB tries to excuse the error as a typo but KK “never actually used that excuse himself.”
It wasn’t written as I would for a English essay. It was written in shorthand for those who were part of the conversation and understood the background.
“Furthermore, a short-term hiatus in warming does not detract from a longer warming trend. In fact such pauses are only to be expected, as US scientists demonstrated in 2009:
“…Climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight coolingin the presence of longer-term warming.”
In spite of these fundamental problems with their argument, skeptics have kept repeating it. However, even the most blinkered among them will now have to concede that this is an argument that cannot be substantiated.”
Yes, blinkered skeptics might concede, but when you have to deal with climate zombies with a deformed single brain cell, nothing can help them!!
Hiatus? What hiatus? Posters here having been arguing that there is no hiatus.
Has anyone here said that the hiatus takes away from the long term warming? The issue commonly raised here and other sites is that the models failed to predict the hiatus.
“Mental health issues, water- and food-borne diseases will also increase under global warming projections.”
Yep, the climate zombies risk losing their single brain cell and going completely crazy. They are already crazy running on one brain cell, imagine how crazy they would get if they lost that all together. It would just be never ending incoherent rambling, as opposed to the intermittent incoherent rambling that we hear from them now.
“Another 800,000 people will fall ill year from contaminated food and water”
Apparently, even though Australia in 2100 will be 3 to 4 times richer than at present, we will forget how to deliver clean food and water to the citizenry.
Nup, no scaremongering there.
Sorry Greg but just repeating the question in the same words doesn’t help my understanding of what you are asking.
I’m guessing the 1950’s crack is just gratuitous insult so I’ll ignore that.
But I genuinely don’t know what you mean by Gold standard (we’ll I do know what the gold standard was but it has no relevance here!) or Food standard, or water standard. Are you asking me to opine on the quality of water (for example) in 2100? If so I’d guess…clean.
Worldwide increases in foodborne illness
Food Poisoning in Australia:
Number of cases of food poisoning in Australia 5.4 million yearly.
Number of new daily cases of food poisoning in Australia 11,500.
120 People die due to food poisoning each year in Australia.
You are such a dickhead aren’t you, you just can’t help being a dickhead. No one cares what you say because you are full of shit.
Check this out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16102316
“The estimate of incidence of gastroenteritis in Australia is 17.2 million (95% confidence interval 14.5-19.9 million) cases per year.”
No there is no scaremongering. Just you and your trash talk. Just piss off.
Gidds, you are so freaking dumb. It was YOU who was claiming it was scaremongering, and I showed that 800,000 extra people isn’t that much, No one was saying it was scary. Only You. That one brain cell gets easily overloaded and forgetful very easily doesn’t it!! You are a freaking lunatic.
From the study rodge posted: ” In addition, foodborne gastroenteritis causes approximately 15,000 (95% CrI 11,000-18,000) hospitalizations and 80 (95% CrI 40-120) deaths annually. ”
So 80 deaths pa from gastric. Apparently over food related deaths are around 45pa which gets us close to JB’s 120pa.
But these people are predicting 800000 from food and water. Let’s say 400000 from food. So we go from 120 deaths pa to 400000 deaths pa.
With the projected population increase that would be a pretty dramatic decrease in the rate of illness on a per-capita basis.
It can sound scary if you read “it’s project that 20% more people will die every year in Australia in 2050” until you find out that the population is expected to double.
“Of the 17.2 million cases of gastroenteritis in Australia each year, 5.4 million (32%)
were estimated to originate from contaminated food, with a 95% credible interval of
4.0–6.9 million cases”
Just watching you two climate zombies spin your wheels, finding out that your initial comment of scaremongering is completely wrong is classic. Worth framing. You two guys are so stupid you would trip over a cordless phone. Priceless.
“wondered how they worked out that the age of the earth was only 4000 years”
Wrong again JB. No creationist thinks the earth is only 4000 yrs old. That’s just crazy talk. No we think its somewhere between 6000 and 10000 yrs old.
Personally I go for it being created on the 6 days before 7 October 8431BC. Then she rested during the labour day public holiday.
are so you are one of those who believe that the first generations lived for 800 or so years, they are debating that as we speak , you old young earthers (6000 years) and the younger earthers (4000 years)
“Bill Jamison says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:24 am
So they’re predicting a 5% increase? ”
See even Bill has worked out that you are full of shit and nothing but trash talk. You are such a joke, even another climate zombie like Bill has figured you out.
The nurse also has to wrap his pills in a Judith Curry paper smeared with his ‘chocolate’. He is guaranteed to swallow that. The nurse has already found out that if you show him any real science, he will turn up his nose and act like a petulant baby. Then when he’s finished, the nurse will praise him with ‘What a good troll you are’ while checking to see if he has done poo poo in his nappy again.
It’s a shame, he is depriving some poor village of it’s idiot.
“Bill Jamison says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:29 am
I have to wonder if john is this unpleasant in person. It would definitely explain why he spends all day posting on various websites.”
Talk about a pot calling the kettle black moment. What a hypocrite. This website is called ‘Watching the Deniers’. I know for climate zombies it might be hard to figure out, but this is a site where we ‘watch the deniers’ and then have a big laugh at their crazy antics. That’s what we do here. ‘It’s written on the tin’. It is no surprise then when some dopey climate zombies wander on all pretentious and arrogant that they get their faces smashed in. It’s what we do here. It’s our ‘sport’. Don’t like poo poo jokes, well piss off then.
And to think Mike was contemplating a name change. Where else could you go and watch the clowns on parade, in their hats of make believe intellectualism, declaring they are the independent adjudicators of anything “Climate”, by using the faux science of the likes of Watts, The Heartland Institute, Monckton. IPA, Bolt, Jones, etc.. With such a exhibition of self-aggrandisement, are we really supposed think, that they actually have some relevance to actual climate science?
Send in the clowns. Oh, that’s right, don’t bother they’re here.
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.
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.
, RCP4.5 is closer to the truth than RCP8.5.
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.
Discuss
So we do nothing until we reach 2DegC but we will not reach 2DegC because Lindzen, spencer and curry do not believe that the sensitivity is as depicted by the science?
Apparently, even though Australia in 2100 will be 3 to 4 times richer than at present, we will forget how to deliver clean food and water to the citizenry.
We’ll be rich I tell ya. We can buy any solution we want. We’ll just keep investing in those awesome “fracking” ventures and then sellout and buy potable water options to grow the food on our prime agricultural land. We’ll be laurfing, all the way to the bank of Monsanto. See John, problem solved. Who needs science.
but the real question is, WTF is he doing here, when his only points seem to be
1, sensitivity is less than 1DegC
2. we will run out of fossil; fuel or invent some technology which we can roll out around the world in a decade or so, before we double atmospheric concentration to 560ppm
and ocean acidification does not even rate a mention
why all the rest of the crap?, surely these are his only points of debate.
I’ve never said such a thing. But don’t let that stop from just making things up.
“2. we will run out of fossil; fuel or invent some technology which we can roll out around the world in a decade or so, before we double atmospheric concentration to 560ppm”
We’ll never run out of FF. The technology is being invented. It just needs to become more cost efficent which is also happening.
So we will get to a doubling of CO2 levels by 2050. How?
That means 560ppm by 2050.
We are currently at around 395ppm. Since 2000 atmospheric CO2 has been increasing by, on average, 2ppmpa.
Let’s be generous and say that this will somehow increase to 3ppmpa.
There are 37 yrs to go to 2050. At 3ppmpa that’s an extra 111ppm.
395 + 111 = 506ppm. And that’s using an unrealistically high year average increase.
So how do we achieve 560ppm by 2050? By just asserting it and pretending the numbers and logic don’t matter.
1. comprehension fail
2. One (GDP) is a percentage increase. The other (CO2 levels) are a unit increase.
3. Ever heard of emission intensity? Australia’s has fall be over 27% since 1990.
4 eg between 1995 and 2000 World GDP(PPP) increased by 21% while atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 2%
“Under the Outlook Baseline scenario, the global concentration of GHGs is expected to reach
approximately 685 ppm CO2-equivalent (CO2e) by mid-century and more than 1 000 ppm CO2e by 2100.
The concentration of CO2 alone is projected to be around 530 ppm in 2050 and 780 ppm in 2100
(Figure 3.9). As a result, global mean temperature is expected to increase, though there is still uncertainty
surrounding the climate sensitivity”
Spoken like someone who hasn’t got the foggiest idea about which they talk. Its a very complex area but I’ll try to explain it in simple terms for you.
Currently, over the long term, Australia’s real GDP growth rate is over 3%. But let’s cut that back to a very conservative 2%.
At an annual 2% growth rate, our real GDP will double by 2050. It would then double again by 2086.
Therefore, we would be 4 times wealthier by the late 21st century than at present.
That means 4 times more able to pay for mitigation schemes, 4 times more able to pay for all those pet projects that the Gaia worshippers of the late 21st century might want..
The very basis of the various model forecasts is that the world will grow at these types of rates. Indeed under most of these scenarios, the poorest country in the world in 2100, will be wealthier (in real terms) than the wealthiest country in 2000.
Of course, it may turn out that we don’t achieve these type of growth rates. In that case the levels of emissions would also decline. So either, we will be much more able to pay for mitigation or we will reduce emissions due to lower economic activity than BAU envisions.
Add to that the likely advances in emission reduction technology and you (might) see why I think things aren’t anywhere near as bad as projected.
And just to emphasis again. this doesn’t reject the science, it just changes the economic assumptions behind the science’s projections.
Look everybody, the clowns are back, this time they’re pretending to be master economic modellers. You know, those sage men, who dabble in the art of predicting the future, using nothing more then the massaging of their massive organs. Today we will be taught how they will maintain economic stability for the next 100 years. A feat that they have never been able to do for even 10 years in the past. So be prepared to have your education extended by these prophets of obfuscation.
“Today we will be taught how they will maintain economic stability for the next 100 years.”
Well we were talking averages Greg. There will be ups and downs. Just like in the 20th century there were ups and downs. But overall Australia’s GDP was 20 times greater in 2000 than in 1900.
But one last thing. Say there was a major downturn such that we didn’t a achieve an average 2% growth rate. That event would also cause our emission growth rates to decline as well and therefore all the IPCC emissions would be wrong as well. Emission growth is intimately linked to economic growth.
I know you’d prefer that that wasn’t true so I’ll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
“Under the Outlook Baseline scenario, the global concentration of GHGs is expected to reach
approximately 685 ppm CO2-equivalent (CO2e) by mid-century and more than 1 000 ppm CO2e by 2100.
The concentration of CO2 alone is projected to be around 530 ppm in 2050 and 780 ppm in 2100
(Figure 3.9). As a result, global mean temperature is expected to increase, though there is still uncertainty
surrounding the climate sensitivity”
You’ve shown your ignorance in all things economic, climate change and later on in the blog, american politics. If you are a product of the Australian education system then we are really in trouble. Your inability to think laterally is beyond belief. Averages, that’s your answer ? That’s going to take us into the 21st century and make us rich? Well, if you really wan’t to establish the Averages Standard for the economic model, good luck. But don’t breath to deep, because rising climate change averages, which you have to accept, if you accept economic averages are going to beat you there.
Now economic standards. We had the Gold standard for several hundred years, in various forms, depending on the country. this was mainly due to it’s rare nature. we now use fiat currencies and they are in deep trouble. Now lets see what forms of rare exotics could be used for a standard in our troubled climate future.Water is one, food is another, but would people fight wars over such simple necessities of life? I’m sure, even with your limited ability to correlate variables, the answer is obvious.
Regarding american politics Talk about wallowing in ignorance You think that because someone says the’re a republican or democrat, that there is some sort of code that dictates their loyalties? Everything people have been writing about you is true.
I was going to try to give your Water Standards idea a serious, respectful reply, but the more I got into it the more I realised just how unbelievably screwy it is.
Gold was used as a standard because, apart from the fact that it was universally valued, it was very valuable compared to its volume, was easily stored and transported and was non-perishable. Not that anyone would have thought about it being non-perishable because no one would have been screwy enough to think of using a perishable item as a currency standard.
Can you just imagine it. “Todays news: the Aust dollar fell in value today as it was learnt that mice had gotten into the nations wheat silo storage area.” or “Todays news: the Aust dollar fell in value today as it was learnt that someone had left the tap on and gigalitres of our currency went down the drain. ”
I know that the catastrophists in our midst foresee wars being fought over water and food because, in their fevered mind we are going to run out of them, but, seriously, currencies based on the water standard?
giddeon twodicks and bozo bill, the two circus clowns with red noses and the floppy oversized shoes of their own incapabilities, stumbling and falling on their faces only to bounce up again all covered in the egg and dribbling crap
“look we just made fools of ourselves but we are back, that is what we are here for, pure entertainment”
“Tony Abbott has only been in power for a little over a month, but he is already looking increasingly isolated – both on his home turf and in the international arena – in his stubborn insistence on repealing a market price for carbon.
Somehow, the new conservative government imagines itself being a major international player – using its rotating presidency of the G20 to bring China and the US to the table and thrash out a long term climate treaty.
But to achieve that it needs credibility: and becoming the first government in the world to end a carbon price, and possibly the first in the world to reduce a renewable energy target, means it will have none.
So far, the new government has failed to move beyond election sloganeering and is struggling to produce any other coherent argument to support the move. Even today, Environment Minister Greg Hunt could find no other justification for repealing other than to say that Abbott had said he would.”
“john byatt says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Environment Minister Greg Hunt could find no other justification for repealing other than to say that Abbott had said he would.”
The Libs are climate zombie extremists, driven by pure ideology. They steadfastly refuse to accept reality, no matter who tries to point it out to them. The carbon tax hasn’t raised the price of a lamb roast to $100 as fear mongered by Abbott. In fact most economists agree that it won’t harm economic growth.
So we can get the best of both worlds. A low carbon economy while still protecting our living standards. Also imagine all the jobs that would be created with the construction of new renewable energy power plants.
Things could hardly be going better for the Libs on the CO2 tax issue.
Now that silly old Shorten has decided to again align the ALP with the greens, Abbott will have a party ridiculing them. Abbott can spend the next 6 months trying to legislate the CO2 tax away knowing that it can’t be done. So he gets the electorates favour for trying to fulfil the election promise while still collecting the tax to use in the fight to reduce Labor’s budget deficit.
By 1 July he’ll have a DD trigger in place. If the new senate is so stupid as to reject the legislation again, he’d have his trigger again , and could call a DD at his convenience. Such an election would wipe out most of the independents, especially if they were seen as defying the wishes of the electorate.
And the final bit of joy is that, with the ALP trying to save the tax, Abbott will go to the next election with a pretty good case that the ALP will reintroduce the tax if elected.
Then on top of all that, if the US and China, through some miracle did bring in a tax, Abbott has always kept his options open to do so if the rest of the world did it.
I’m pretty sure Abbott is very comfortable with where the tax issue sits now.
Just one point on the unbelievably bias of the linked article. It asserts “It should be remembered that the US leadership also supports carbon pricing, but is only prevented from doing so by the extreme right of the Republican Party, the Tea Party nut cases, and those that owe their position to backing from the fossil fuel industry.”
For the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Democrats controlled both houses. If they really wanted a CO2 tax they could have had one irrespective of what these so-called nut cases said. But they don’t want a tax because it is way too unpopular. What they want is to be able to say they want a tax while doing nothing so that the usual fools will be….fooled.
Just one point on the unbelievably bias of the linked article..”
Two words – Cat Scan. There was no bias in the article you dopey drongo. ‘When you are on the right, everything looks to be on the left’. You only see bias because you are so incredibly biased. You just have no frigging idea do you.
I know, to the climate zombie reality is always a leftie conspiracy. None of us here give two hoots what some dopey biased climate zombie thinks. We are trying to have a conversation here without your ignorant and stupid interruptions. How many times do I have to flush before you go away?
I guess in your blind rage you failed to actually follow the logic.
The article claimed that the US leadership wants to bring in a tax but can’t because of the evil tea party types. I was just pointing out that if that were true they could have done so when they had full power in 2008-9. They didn’t because they don’t really want a tax.
I get that you’d prefer that your fondest held views not be challenged by logic, but you’re going to have to get used to it.
. He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.
and five months later introduced a bill which the republicans denounced as a tax
“The bill has faced almost uniform opposition from Republicans in the house, who say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would dramatically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family a total of $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050”
it was as much a tax as gillards carbon price but with a lot more clout
.
“Abbott can spend the next 6 months trying to legislate the CO2 tax away knowing that it can’t be done. So he gets the electorates favour for trying to fulfil the election promise while still collecting the tax to use in the fight to reduce Labor’s budget deficit.”
and Palmer controls the senate from July and will want every cent collected to be returned to pass the legislation
Abbott calls DD to get rid of the tax because it was his promise
Abbot reintroduces the tax because it was his promise if china and US move ( both already have moved, china with taxes as well.
I fervently hope phony Tony pulls the trigger. He’s already behind in the two party preferred only a month after the election. By July he will be struggling to hold onto leadership of his party.
As abbot had been bleating about removing the carbon tax for three years it is obvious looking at the shifts in voting preferences from August, that it had nothing to do with the election outcome, labor lost the election thanks to themselves alone.
BORING !! When are you going to get the hint. We don’t give a shit what the climate zombies like you and twodicks think or post. No one also gives a shit what the Murdoch press prints. Only dopey bastards like you eat that shit up.
all trends from 2008 to now are either negative or so small +ve that they aren’t statistically significant. I know that a trend for 5 years is neither here nor there but it does show they were right so far.
Well if that’s the case john then we don’t need to worry about global warming predictions from the IPCC because we won’t know if they’re true until 2100. Right? We can’t know if they are true or not until the end so why worry about it.
Your right we do have predictions that aren’t all the way out to 2100. But we don’t have to worry about those for a decade or two either because we can’t know if they’re on track or not.
What you missed and is really obvious is that this prediction was easy to falsify if wrong. They predicted a pause in warming and that’s exactly what we’ve experienced. If the 5 year mean temperature had continued to increase at a statistically significant rate then they would have been wrong.
You’re obviously not any better with logic than you are with math!
it cannot be falsified or confirmed until the end of the ten years, you are lousy with logic, it will pretty much depend on the final year but will still be irrelevant
Of course it could falsified before the decade is up john. If I were to say “The price of gold will stay flat for the next decade” then you don’t need to wait 10 years to see if that happens. It could drop or rise significantly before the 10 year period was over and my claim would be falsified. The same with this prediction that global warming would pause. It has. The 5 year mean is flat since about 2003. It has paused.
So far it hasn’t been falsified. If the warming continued then it would already be falsified. You really are lousy at this stuff. You should find a new obsession because you don’t have the skills for this one.
Pretty interesting Bill. One of the worst career moves a scientist can make is to contradict the consensus AND be right.
It’ll be interesting to see if they turn out to be right about a resumption of warming in 2015 (queue outraged assertions that the warming never stopped 🙂 ).
If they turn out to be THAT accurate, their observations would have to be incorporated into subsequent models with a consequent decrease in forecast warming.
I think the warming will only resume if the AMO or the MOC changes again. If one or both is tied to the solar cycle in some way then they may stay in the cool phase for a while. So much uncertainty, so much more to learn!
They are predicting cooling in the Atlantic though…
Man you are dumb. Do you really think we are going to click onto one of your anti-science blogs. You are a joke. Blah, Blah, Blah. That’s all we ever hear from you.
I wondered if it was his mother who came down to the basement each morning to dress him and clean up the pizza boxes and Cheetos packets. He’s obviously one of the 101st fighting keyboarders.
Why are you linking to a 5 1/2 year old news article. BOORING. It’s 2013 you stupid dickhead.
Also did you even read the paper.
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
What’s that word, temporarily. Look that up you boring dopey troll. Just piss off.
Do I really need to try to explain it to you rodger? Are you incapable of understanding that the article predicted a decade long pause in warming and here we are 6 years later and the warming is still on pause. In other words they were right.
Of course that doesn’t mean that they were right for the right reasons.
Hey everybody! the Watts Prius clown car is back and look, it has solar panels on the roof. Lets see how many clowns they managed to stuff in it this time.Ah, how disappointing, it’s only Bill.
you are a real hoot, get trashed on every bit of crap you come up with so now just being an idiot,for the sake of it, how embarrassing if any of your friends or relatives stumble across this blog.
Yes, we are all on the floor with a big belly laugh every time you post. You should create a YouTube video. That’s why we come here. Comedy gold every day.
As you know from reading my Facebook posts, none of my friends and family are the least bit interested in climate. Of course if anyone I know does stumble upon this tiny insignificant blog they’ll see you guys for what you truly are so I’m certainly not the one that will be embarrassed.
most villages have an idiot, this blog has two bill and giddeon
but why are you two here posting your absolute garbage about global temperature anomalies from the middle of antarctica and absurd predictions of global atmospheric CO2 concentrations never doubling?
“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in. It is the way the world economy grows if there is an approximately constant growth rate. So, it should be little surprise that the CO2 level has grown exponentially in recent years.
The theoretical curve (red line) that matches the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%. The figure shows that, if the current rate is maintained, the CO2 levels will reach exactly twice the pre-industrial level in 2050. This is twice the maximum level typically recorded during all of the previous interglacial periods. Clearly, we are leaving the ice age cycle in a big hurry.”
Well JB, your link is simply wrong. I’ve been trying to nut out how they made their error but they don’t have any workings so its not possible to tell.
But its simple to see that they are indeed wrong. They say that CO2 levels are increasing at 2.22% annually. Using the 72 rule,that would mean that they would double in 36 years. They haven’t – they are wrong, big time.
Or look at it another way.
the level in 1958 was 314ppm. If it increased by 2.22% the level in 1959 should have been 321. But it was 315. Then in 1960 it should have been 328 but it was 316. And so on and so on. There formula becomes increasingly separated from reality as the years go on.
The hilarious thing is this is the site you’ve been relying on all along for your assertions that we’ll get to 560ppm by 2050. I feel sorry for you that you’ve been so easily duped.
I put the number in Excel and got 935 in 2000. That’s starting with 315ppm in 1950 and adding 2.2% every year.
The reality is that CO2 has increased just less than 25% in 63 years. If the increase was steady it would be more like 0.35% annually not 2.2% annually. That’s quite a big mistake!
No you don’t have an understanding of what you quoted:
“the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
That is false and is easily proven so. If you have even basic Excel skills it will take you all of a minute or two to see the results for yourself. The total increase in the last 60 years (assuming the data starts in1950) is just less than 25%.
For the decade of 2000-2010 the average annual increase was 2ppm. That’s obviously not even 1% per year. That math is simple enough that even you should be able to do it in your head but in case you can’t then here it is: 1% of 350 is 3.5
I’m not backing anyone john. That’s what you can’t understand. I did the math and J Giddeon is correct. If you can’t do the math yourself just let me know and I’ll post a screen cap for you. It’s a simple formula in Excel. Not difficult at all.
In fact just look at the last link I provided and you should be able to see that the growth rate has NEVER been even 1% nevermind 2.2%. NEVER. That site is wrong. Deal with it.
Yes you are an idiot. You are the one that quoted it:
“the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
WRONG
“from 1958 to the present” WRONG. The growth rate has never been 2.2%.
Is there a scenario where the growth rate increases to that rate? I don’t know. That would be almost 9ppm per year when the annual average rate for the previous decade was only 2ppm.
But what you quoted isn’t talking about future increase it’s talking about “from 1958 to the present”. Are you really this stupid john?
The annual growth rate in the highest emission scenario shows an annual growth rate of 1%. Starting at 395ppm in 2013 with 1% annual increase results in 938ppm in 2100.
Still not even close to the 2.2% claimed in the link you provided! So it doesn’t matter if we’re discussing the measured increase since 1958 or the projected increase by 2100 the annual growth rate IS NOT 2.2%. EVER
OK, nutted it out. Despite saying that they are comparing CO2 level growth with interest earnings (“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in.”) what they are really saying is that there is an increase in the rate of increase by 2.2%. It’d be like putting your money in the bank at 10% and then getting 10.022% next year and then 10.024% the year after and so on so that by year 33 you’re getting 20%pa. Not at all as they explained it. Its probably an arguable analysis but doesn’t really fit the known data with any sort of consistency.
What they appear to have done is just data fit using two end point – 1958 and 2008. The formula they postulate at the end of article is pretty accurate for those end points. But the further you get from 1958 the worse it becomes as a predictive tool, so that by the mid 1980’s it completely useless. Then as we move closer to 2008 it gets better because it was designed to be accurate for 2008.
Interestingly, as we move from 2008 forward it is getting worse each year. For each year from 2008 to 2012 the formula predicts a higher CO2 level than was actually achieved. Unless there is some massive increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation this in-built error in the formula will get larger just as it did between 1958 and 1988. .
What is this unnatural obsession by the climate zombies to look at less than 5% of the climate system. Global warming hasn’t stopped you dickheads. Greenhouse gases just don’t stop working all of a sudden. What dopey bastards you lot are. You lot a dumber than a bag of sledgehammers. Stop boring us to death.
Why was the entire focus on the surface temperature warming until the hiatus?
Okay, okay, rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.
Surface temperature has not continued to increase at a statistically significant rate. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows we live on the surface and the predictions of catastrophic warming were for the surface. A warming of 0.09C in the top 2000 meters of the ocean isn’t going cause major problems for mankind any time soon.
You guys are so silly trying to still drum up ways to scare people into action. I got news for ya: it’s not working!
so this is what it is all about, it’s all about bill, he does not give a shit about people currently suffering nor the increased suffering in years to come, what a selfish little twerp you are,
Says the man who cheered when people lost their jobs when the coal mine closed.
In case you hadn’t noticed john, people have always suffered and they always will suffer. That’s the nature of life. I see the suffering that modern technology has prevented and I’m awed by it. You would have us go back to the dark ages. People would die from a lack of inexpensive energy to run their air conditioners in the summer and their heaters in the winter. People live significantly longer today than in the past and it’s partly due to cheap energy. Sorry you can’t see that.
You’re calling me a liar? That’s funny john. You’re the most dishonest person I’ve come across in all my years of using the Internet – and even BBS systems before that!
Are you saying you weren’t happy with the coal mine closed down?
john byatt says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:11 am
but bill you believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature so that would exclude you from a rational debate about costs,
just this week a QLD coal power stn has shut down in collinsville and solar is being built to supply about 6000 homes,
the reason is that without the local coal mine now closed (not viable) the coal powered stn is also not economically viable , wind in australia is now also cheaper than starting up new coal plants,
and please every day we have deniers claiming that the planet has not warmed and others claiming that it is not due to humans or even that CO2 does not cause warming
they are all your deniers friends, you say that you accept the warming and human contribution then turn around and claim a magical, creationist belief that god made the planet self regulating,
so claiming that the debate was never about etc is more of your drivel
now point to the bit which states that i was happy that the miners lost their jobs dickhead
you just go from one lie to the next without remorse, sociopath
You were crowing about how the dirty coal mine was closed and would be replaced by a solar plant. Don’t try to pretend that you weren’t or that you actually cared about any of those people that lost their jobs and their businesses!
You are just a obnoxious stupid troll. No one here is trying to drum up ways to scare people you dimwit. We are just having a bit of fun laughing at the antics of the dopey climate zombies. This is not about you. We don’t care what you and twodicks say. When are you going to get that simple concept through your thick skull. But NOOO, you are too stupid to even get that. You are some witless crusade to be as foolish as possible. Why are you such a worthless and stupid individual? Dropped as a baby perhaps? Someone hit you over the head with a hammer?
I find it fascinating that so many of your posts now focus on me and J Giddeon. Why do you want to spend so much time talking about us and not the topics at hand?
Man you are so freaking dumb. We are all hoping that you will piss off and leave us in peace. We have been telling you so many times now, but NOOO, you are so freaking stupid. FUCK OFF. Got it now!!
If you’re thinking that insulting us and calling us names will drive us away then obviously you’re dumber than you appear. And that’s saying something!
It’s obvious you’re fascinated with us and from the strong reaction to our posts you are also afraid of us. People don’t have a strong reaction without reason.
what caused the climate system to start putting all the heat into the oceans instead of the atmosphere in 1998. From 1975 to 1998 the surface was warming as the theory suggested. Then it suddenly stopped in 1997-8 and, according to you, all the heat went into oceans. What mechanism caused the change?
What is wrong with you? We don’t give a shit what sort of questions you have. Ever heard of Google. Go ask your questions there. Oh and by the way, any answers you find, keep to yourself. As I have said before. We don’t give a shit what climate zombies think. We just like to make fun of them.
Yes you stupid dickhead, we are all angry, angry that little twerps like you keep annoying us. We come here for a bit of fun, but we instead get dumbs trolls. What the hell is wrong with you. You just can’t get the picture
I suppose you and rodger DO think what you post on this blog is serious. Well it’s not. It’s meaningless. You aren’t saving the world you’re just wasting time. Sorry to have to break it to you but it’s the truth. This blog is insignificant and so are your posts.
Well rodger the first step in getting help is admitting you have a problem. Now that you’ve admitted you have an anger problem you can start to deal with it. I suggest therapy and staying off the Internet for at least a year.
John you linked some dumbass site that was wrong and you posted a quote from that site. It’s wrong, deal with it. I never said the IPCC is wrong. How could I? The IPCC is about projections and by definition those projections can’t be proven false yet.
Once again you try to twist facts to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
that site agrees exactly with the IPCC projections for 2050 you are wrong.
i bet that you live alone a miserable little sociopath who spends most of his time in bars, stumbles home after the boozer he drinks in closes , gets on the internet and takes his frustrations out on the world until 3am in the morning
Wow you’re dense at times. It’s not whether that sites shows projections that match the IPCC or not it’s about the quote you posted: the annual growth rate is not and has never been 2.2%.
Why can’t you understand that?
I don’t know if the projections are that high or not but that’s not the issue. The issue is the site you linked is WRONG when they claim the annual rate of increase from 1958 to the present is 2.2%. It’s 0.35%.
john do yourself a favor and take a remedial math class and then an Excel class and learn how to figure this stuff out for yourself so you don’t end up looking so dumb.
The average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 has never been 2.2% and is not projected to be 2.2%.
I bet you two are sitting there going “Ah fuck we look stupid right now!”
And you’d be RIGHT!!!
I bet J Giddeon gets a good laugh when he sees what you did. I tried to spell it out for you guys but even then you couldn’t do the math for yourselves. Pity. I thought the education system in Australia was better than that.
Please don’t tell me you want to continue this john and look even dumber than you already do!
rodger posted the official annual increase from 2012 to 2013 and it was 2.66 not over 8.
You can’t twist this and make it look like you were right john. You were wrong and now you look dumb and rodger does too. It’s not my fault you guys can’t do basic math.
I think this is even more entertaining than you’re mistake about the monthly absolute mean temperatures john. I say that because they is so incredibly simple and yet you keep trying to fight over it. We’re at 400ppm so a 2% increase would be 8ppm and yet the highest increase shown is less than 3ppm. Last year it was 2.66. That’s not even 1%. Incredibly simple math. Hard to misconstrue yet you and rodger both managed to fuck it up royally and look stupid in the process.
Do you think we really care what two random and basically anonymous climate zombies think on an insignificant blog. We are not here to have an argument with you. We are here to have a bit of fun without YOU. How many simple mistakes have you and twodicks have made. Why do you insist on just farting around stinking up the place.
bill
1 earth is self regulating for temperature
2 you can get the global anomally from the middle of the antarctic
3 cannot work out the percent increase from 1.4 ppm to 1.9 ppm
and the bloody atmospheric concentration hits 400ppm and bill claims we are not fair bringing facts in
retard, get some sleep and hopefully you will wake up sober
“The theoretical curve (red line) that matches the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
It talks about a 2.22% GROWTH rate. That is different from an absolute difference which is what you have confused. So from 2ppm to 2.044ppm is a 2% GROWTH rate.
If you continue it looks like this
2.00
2.04
2.09
2.13
2.18
2.23
2.28
2.33
2.38
Sorry, you are wrong Bill, time to get your Excel skills up.
I think perhaps the penny has finally dropped and Bill has worked out that he is wrong, again, and again and again. But he should have worked it out ages ago. By default anything a climate zombie says is wrong. They are after all dimwitted and brainless by their very nature. But you can bet he will be back with some crazy idea that he is right about something. Guaranteed comedy gold though.
“You’re just another american who is willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick being shoved up your asshole every day… The owners of this country know the truth… it’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!”
― George Carlin
Oh dear, Bill has proven himself to be a total arse.
“The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.long
Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.
Why can’t you understand that?
So simple and yet you can’t figure it out. What a dumb shit you are!
I bet JB gets a good laugh when he sees what you did. I tried to spell it out for you but even then you couldn’t do the math for yourselves. Pity. I thought the education system in America was better than that.
You can’t twist this and make it look like you were right Bill.
Hard to misconstrue yet you managed to fuck it up royally and look stupid in the process.
Wow.
Copying and editing Bill’s own words against him. 10 seconds. The look on Bills face. Priceless.
This moment is worthy of framing. You just made my day. I now have a smile from ear to ear. Looking forward to your next major cock-up.
Watching the deniers. Best site ever!! I would pay to have this many laughs.
TomE says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Anthony: I have a few climate websites I follow, WUWT, Bishop Hill, IceAgeNow, Real Science. I always spend a lot of time at WUWT because there are some very interesting, informative comments, and the people who comment here are dedicated and know what they are talking about. There is at times some dialog which gets a little heated but that is part of the engaging and the putting forth of opinions. Keep at it, don’t get discouraged. I don’t use twitter, I see too many people like Mann who put out off the cuff ridiculous remarks which they should read the next morning. Much like the mornings after when too much to drink and a big mouth embarrass’s one.
rodger and nick (or anyone) , you wite weally well, i am ratshit, how about seeing what you can come up with to support labor and greens to reject the dismantling of climate initiatives of the previous government,
i do not mind putting my name to it 100,000 signatures would be the goal
JC –
I think some (more?) moderation is needed. There are now more than 700 comments for this thread which is getting excessive (most of them worthless drivel by infantile trolls).
I know it takes time etc. but it is getting a bit out of hand.
I am not averse to somebody pulling the plug on (i.e. banning) repeat offenders – there is no longer any point in pretending we are indulging in informative discussions with these people.
I’ve read back through about 6 months of threads here and there is quite a penchant for getting rid of those who upset the natives.
But equally the place is bloody boring as hell when there’s no one there to offer differing views. Instead it becomes a contest to see who can agree more fulsomely with everyone else. You end up with this self-reinforcing circle which tells each member how much smarter the group is as compared to those evil deniers.
Its also why you are so incredulous as to the turn of events in the world beyond WtD such as the rise of Abbott and the world-wide decline in interest and concern about AGW. By talking to each other and reading only approved sites, you miss the real world. Even when you go to non-approved sites, its not to see if there’s anything to learn but just to find something that you can show to tribe to reinforce the feeling of superiority.
Ultimately it leads to inertia. That there is no curiosity about the hiatus is astounding. But it seems that the group somehow came to a consensus that the hiatus doesn’t exist and defend that view in the face of reality. Even while previous heroes of the movement such as Otto and Storch (and yes, even the IPCC) seek to examine and explain the hiatus, the group YELLS that there’s nothing to see here.
“Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.” etc
Perhaps you haven’t got up to chapter 9 yet?
Banning:
It seemed to me that Mr W was banned for dobbing WtD into WUWT when they erroneously accused Watts of tampering with a graph.
There was also another chap (I’d have to go back to get the name) who was banned for pointing out a monumental error from you about how many people die from carbon pollution. I think there were other reasons but the posts had been deleted so I couldn’t work out what the crime was.
They’re two I recall. Two in a few months is pretty unusual on these types of sites.
Eric Worrall says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:02 am
I never suggested there is a SPECTRE like conspiracy of climate scientists. What I believe is occurring is an episode of group hysteria, not unlike the group hysteria surrounding the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis in the 1930s.
The dreadful history of Eugenics does not prove that climate alarmism is also an episode of irrational hysteria. What it does demonstrate though is that such episodes are possible, and can affect even scientists and scientific institutions.
The evidence I have seen in the Climategate archive is that climate scientists believe in what they are doing, and believe in their mission to save the world – so much so, that when they encounter an observation which contradicts their theory, their response is to discard the observation.
he was warned and then next comment returned to his eugenics crap
So was there someone else kicked out for inappropriately talking to WUWT? I must admit, when reading the old threads I only skimmed so maybe I got mixed up.
Huh? Wasn’t it you who confused actual and percentage rates?
You continue to distort the issue of Vostok. I think its because you didn’t understand how the ice cores work – something about thinking each year was identifiable.
no it was you, we were laughing at you both and we both gave you hints that you were on the wrong track,
” I think its because you didn’t understand how the ice cores work – something about thinking each year was identifiable”
so in ten thousand years from now with complete yearly anomaly data it will be identifiable that was the point, and it was about the fact that parts of the WAIS has a current anomaly of 2.4DeGC
but you two clotheads, stupidly unknowingly claiming that the global temperature anomaly would be seen as 2.4Degc for 2013 from the future ice cores, if we still have any ice that is
bozobill still believes that is what the scientists say
and you also claim that, by your own stupid backing his statement even though you denied going along with whatever crap he might say
no one wants to get rid of you because you believe we think you are evil, just a better class of troll would be appreciated
you would have been long gone from UKi blog with the nonsense you write,
mike has been very tolerant , probably doing another research paper on you retards.
“but you two clotheads, stupidly unknowingly claiming that the global temperature anomaly would be seen as 2.4Degc for 2013 from the future ice cores, if we still have any ice that is”
Well I’m sure that’s how you remember it but you are wrong, totally wrong. But you’ll keep repeating it as though its true and never admit that you got it hopelessly wrong and really didn’t understand how ice cores work.
J Giddeon says:
October 16, 2013 at 12:23 am
OK, nutted it out. Despite saying that they are comparing CO2 level growth with interest earnings (“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in.”) what they are really saying is that there is an increase in the rate of increase by 2.2%. It’d be like putting your money in the bank at 10% and then getting 10.022% next year and then 10.024% the year after and so on so that by year 33 you’re getting 20%pa. Not at all as they explained it. Its probably an arguable analysis but doesn’t really fit the known data with any sort of consistency.
What they appear to have done is just data fit using two end point – 1958 and 2008. The formula they postulate at the end of article is pretty accurate for those end points. But the further you get from 1958 the worse it becomes as a predictive tool, so that by the mid 1980′s it completely useless. Then as we move closer to 2008 it gets better because it was designed to be accurate for 2008.
Interestingly, as we move from 2008 forward it is getting worse each year. For each year from 2008 to 2012 the formula predicts a higher CO2 level than was actually achieved. Unless there is some massive increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation this in-built error in the formula will get larger just as it did between 1958 and 1988. .
Why are you advertising a Heartland expert’s website? Are you mentally retarded? Why are you still trolling this website with rubbish? What is wrong with you? http://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green
“Why are you advertising a Heartland expert’s website? ”
I wasn’t. I was linking to an interesting analysis which remains interesting even if the author(s) happen to do some work for some people who receive some funding from some people you disapprove of.
Ever heard of ‘conflict of interest’? The fact that you didn’t know that the link you provided is tainted shows that you are completely retarded. Sorry, but none of here want to hear the dribbled ramblings of a retarded troll.
All anti-science blogs and all from 2010. This might have been news 3 years ago, so why do you think that anyone here would be interested in this rubbish now? Why are you so stupid and continue to prove it every time you come here? Why do you eat up with glee old news from stupid anti-science denier blogs? What is it about the title ‘Watching the deniers’ that you don’t get? The answer to all these questions, you are a obsessive retarded denier troll. You just can’t help yourself can you? You are a complete and utter joke.
Yes I’m aware of the concept. Do you think that all sceintists are susceptible to configuring their views to suit their employer?
For example M. Mann’s employer, Penn State, is funded by the Koch Bros. By your logic we should reject the Hockey stick for that reason alone.
Or is it only those whose views you reject who can be bought off and if so do you realise that that implies that you are simply seeking an excuse to reject data that doesn’t fit your prejudices.
Gids presents the fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ in its true sense: because Green has a doctorate he is an ‘authority’ no matter the irrelevance of the field in which he gained his PhD. Green is in fact notable for the over-reach of his claim to realistically test climate science projections….but despite his low-grade offering being years old, his work lives on as a zombie rejectionist meme.
John, the great educator, will only head to those great institutions of learning, that can provide him with the answers, that only his lower order thinking skills can accept. The WUWT’s, Heartland, IPA, etc, Oh yeah, and the latest addition to his academic arsenal,
“ForPrin.com”. I’m sure his peers, had high hopes for him, he cut and pasted what he was told, but his inability to handle his own research, left them shaking their heads. But don’t fret,
As George Bernard Shaw said,
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
They have expertise in forecasting and evaluating the procedures and systems used to make forecasts. that’s his area of expertise and that’s where his authority lay.
There’s actually a subset of sceptics who see CAGW as just another in a long line of over-egged millenarian forecasts and this analysis is in that genre. You might refer to Booker’s book “Scared to Death”.
I find it more than a little surprising that you’d suggest others are using an “appeal to authority” when the most used phase on this site is “accept the science”. we have quite a sub-group here of people whose main ‘thinking’ is that whatever climate scientists say is true. eg JB has been asserting for a very long time that we’ll reach 560ppm CO2 levels by 2050 based on ‘research’ that he didn’t understand and didn’t , it would appear, even try to understand. There are innumerable similar example from quite a few of the group.
The forecasts (aren’t they projections?) from the consensus are based on forecasts from economists which are in turn based on forecasts from futurists and political scientists. Someone who has expertise in evaluating forecasts has some authority here.
No need to appeal to the ‘authority’ of Green again, Gids. Citing the science is not an appeal to authority, it’s just cutting to the source…
All of it comes with caution and caveats, particularly the economic modelling. Projections of CO2 levels of x by time y are simply based on observations of past behavior, then scenarios of output based on levels of restraint from zero to full. It ain’t sinister. The big caveats are physical ones: how long will enhanced biological drawdown keep up? What will be the ‘shape’ of methane release from thawing ground? Those are known unknowns worth considering, not Green’s lightweight diversions.
Watching the Deniers 
another record smashed?
On 8/10/13, Eucla equaled its all-time high October record of 42.9C [set 24/10/2008]
We just set records here in California too except they were for low temperature and minimum high temperature. Some periods of record go back over 110 years. Pretty impressive cold for this early in the Fall. I can’t recall ever seeing mountains in southern California get snow the first week of October.
The US has been copping some extreme volatility all year, whereas Australia has been generally more stable, but consistently warmer than average. I read that it’s really down to the land/ocean distributions at respective poles.
You have a frozen/thawing sea, we have a frozen continent. You have high latitude land , we have high latitude ocean. These respective distributions of water to land are almost exact opposites. With Arctic amplification and shrinking summer sea ice, your jet stream whips up and down more, giving you more weather whiplash. With Antarctic amplification, our circumpolar wind streams over the Southern Ocean stay straight and get faster: the southern ocean atmosphere has barely warmed, but the belts to the north have, so when cold fronts surge up from the south they stimulate windier periods of pre-frontal NW winds. The highs are getting higher in the high pressure belt over Australia.
More energy in the system plays out differently no matter the matching latitude N or S. Those RCPs look pretty intimidating in seeing these differentials further heightened. It’s going to make NH agriculture even more of a crap shoot. Hopefully there is enough agricultural land to buffer heightened volatility, but increasing demand is also impinging. SH agriculture will be challenged by drying tendencies.
The US copes with extreme weather variability EVERY year. It’s a large country with extremely diverse climate zones. Florida is tropical and gets hit by hurricanes. Alaska is arctic and gets extremely cold. In the middle they get everything from spring tornadoes to blizzards to drought and heatwaves. California’s weather varies based on ENSO and other Pacific ocean cycles. An El Nino year tends to be very warm and wet and stormy while a La Nina year is the opposite: dry with few storms but can either be colder than normal or warmer than normal. Other parts of the country also have seasons strongly predicted by ENSO state.
this is one huge mother,
and it can only get worse if we listen to the dickheads
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-12/thousands-evacuated-as-cyclone-phailin-heads-for-india/5018602
Very rapid intensification, apparently. I think the stats break down to fewer cyclones at the mo, but a higher proportion of those are in the top categories. And a greater number are showing this rapid intensification business.
Let’s hope the evacuation plans works as well as hoped.
see if this link works for the track
SREX
The bottom line: According to the 2012 IPCC report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (PDF):
Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. (Section 3.4.4)
and precipitation will likely increase by 8%
the cyclone rating system in QLD is to be upgraded as far south as the sunshine coast, adds quite a bit to costs so QLD premier will probably forego on that, i am sure that the insurance companies will not
This is a very powerful and dangerous storm. A similar storm in 1999 killed an estimated 15,000 people. The Bay of Bengal is notorious for deadly storms due to the very warm water and the geographic conditions that result in very high storm surge. Millions of people have been killed in this region by these storms in the last 300 years:
http://weather.royalgazette.com/auto/royalgazette/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp
Quick google the Flannery where is the Flannery?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-12/the-waiting-game-life-in-queensland-drought/5017542
J Giddeon says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:23 am
“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)”
The above statement just shows how crazy deniers will get. Dude, this is the dishonest little game that YOU people play, starting your analysis at an abnormally hot year. For your reference, this is called cherry picking, and is anti-science at it’s best. The minimum range is 30 years as per WMO specifications. Anyone who has to rely on such a misrepresentation of the facts is just plain stupid. Just look at the Daily Mail, Bolt, Jones etc.
‘I know there are lots of ‘excuses’ ‘ Dude, what you call excuses, most normal people call THE FACTS. How you can claim that observations are now ‘excuses’ really does show how freaking deluded you are.
To really show how deluded you are, watch this video of Richard Alley.
You really need to watch this, otherwise you will be referred from now on as not as deniers, as that is too kind, but as the CDC and Alley calls people like you, climate zombies.
Click to access 11_225700_A_Zombie_Final.pdf
‘The minimum range is 30 years as per WMO specifications.”
Are you just making things up? Per WMO: “A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_data_and_products.php
Of course the real issue that is raised by skeptics is whether climate models accurately capture and predict periods of no warming such as this one. You are apparently trying to confuse that issue.
Skeptics started off disputing that warming was happening [some are still back there], then that while we were warming humans had nothing to do with it [some are still ‘convinced’ of this]. Then ‘skeptics’ shifted ground,suggesting that the atmosphere would not warm as much as predicted, and/or not as fast as predicted, so of course they had to frame models as ineffective. This is what you’re about here. By ‘arguing’ that models don’t capture short-term movements, they ‘surely’ cannot be effective long-term. This of course is getting it ass-backwards, as experts never suggested that models were very good at the short-term. They have explained why, often, but that is ignored because it does not offer ‘skeptics’ the absolute certainty that they for some idiot reason think they can demand from modelling complex systems.
What, are you now pretending you want ‘better’ models for the sake of science? And while it’s ‘not warming’, the cryosphere continues to shrink, changing the albedo of the planet: summer snow cover is the lowest it has ever been, river flow regimes are changing, and melting ice contributes to ongoing SLR. SLR continues with slight acceleration with thermic expansion as well,as lagging responses continue.
Anyone would think that if we reach +2C in 2070 instead of 2055 it’s hunky-dory. They’d rather be right about the wobbles than about the basic message of the physics.
No we don’t need better models for science. We need better models because we can’t afford to disrupt our economy in a rush to reduce carbon emissions if there is no emergency.
Personally I think it’s pretty arrogant to believe we understand the climate system well enough to model it with any degree of accuracy of a period of 50 to 100 years. You obviously feel differently. It’s not simple physics because of the unknowns and feedbacks.
Playing the humility card on behalf of science, eh? Scientists are arrogant? For tangentially pointing out the disregarded or undercosted downsides of BAU? Scientists should not rise above their station -nobody likes a smart-arse, after all. The role of science is to make its paymasters look clever, so don’t tell them stuff that is costly with slow returns….if you want arrogance look at the financial community which has distorted the real economy of living on behalf of quick returns for the elite.
Science has made the correct call on warming from a long way out, if you’d take in the history of the climate and science you might realise that.
Nick if the physics are so simple and our knowledge of climate so complete then why are there so many different climate models that give such different results? If we truly understood the climate well enough to model it accurately then we wouldn’t need many different models that use widely different values for climate sensitivity (as just one example).
Some of you want to pretend that this is simple: we add CO2 to the atmosphere and the planet will warm a certain amount. But the climate is far from simple.
More groups are modelling, building their own models, and each run produces slightly different ‘natural variability ‘ on its trajectory as a unique climate. As you know scenarios vary, then other inputs can vary as well…look at table 12.1 in AR5 WG1 Ch.12, and the footnotes and references. All this explains model individuality…but look where they end up.
What is the point of your last statement? If stupid was illegal, you would be spending your whole life in prison.
Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 8:59 am
‘The minimum range is 30 years as per WMO specifications.”
Are you just making things up?”
Are you high? You ask me if I am ‘just making things up’ and then you quote the WMO showing that I wasn’t making it up.
Here it is again.
“The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
Comedy gold. Keep it up. You are funnier than Bill Maher.
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between the 30 year period used for “climate normal” and the current period where warming has paused. One has nothing to do with the other despite your attempt to link them.
this was the third time in 2 threads where I’ve tried to point out that the hiatus is NOT dependent on starting at 1998.
Yet here we have little Rodge saying, straight after quoting me saying other years also yield an hiatus figure, that I’m being. dishonest by ” starting your analysis at an abnormally hot year.”
Well folks I’ve run out of ideas. If simple english won’t convey the message I can’t come up with an alternative. Maybe if I can find an English -> gibberish translator, I can write in your native tongue.
The funny part is that you’ve been so heavily conditioned by your various warmist indoctrination sites to think that the hiatus is all about 1998 that you can’t think anything else, even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary. But you’ll undoubtedly go on thinking you are wonderfully independent thinkers. More than a little funny.
simple english, the planet has not stopped warming,you are ignorant of 93% of the warming, you are either too stupid or you are , no i think too stupid is the answer
?Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:22 am
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between the 30 year period used for “climate normal” and the current period where warming has paused. One has nothing to do with the other despite your attempt to link them.”
Just when I thought you couldn’t get any funnier, more comedy gold!!
No you dickhead, it is you who doesn’t understand the difference.
The WMO standard of 30 years years is there for a reason. If you use a time period lower than that you will get an artificial result.
Ahh, forget it. I’m bored with trying to explain why you get this so wrong. You are such an idiot that it won’t matter what I say. You will never get it. You are just so stupid. Just stop replying to my posts. You are like trying to explain something to a glass of water.
Yeah I bet you don’t want to try to explain away your mistake anymore. No surprise there.
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 4:33 am
John do we know what the earth’s temperature was in the past 100,000 years? 200,000? 400,000?”
“Bill Jamison says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:06 am
It’s a simple question john can’t you answer it?”
Bill, why are you pestering John about the earth’s past temperature?
At one stage the earth was hotter than an oven, and then later on it was as cold as Antarctica. So frigging what? You have already been told that it’s irrelevant, why don’t you get that it’s irrelevant. What everyone is concerned about is the future temperature of the planet. That is a more important topic.
If it’s such a simple question, why don’t you just frigging Google it then. You seem to pronounce yourself as the climate expert around here. But don’t bother telling us the result. We all here don’t really care. You are the one who is obsessed with it. Go knock yourself out. In fact no one here really cares what you say. You are just an annoying dumpy troll.
-‘Oh, you are so rude Rodger, why do you keep making fun of me, you are so mean, you are like one of those RWA types.’
Well if you want us to stop making fun of you, STOP POSTING HERE!!! I don’t know how to make it more simple for you. Maybe you can give us your email address and I can send it to you in crayon. You keep acting like a clown and wonder why we all laugh at you. The solution is easy. Go away. You have been told countless times yet you still insist on coming here. What is wrong with you. Any normal person would have just cut their losses and moved on, but NO, you have to be special. You are on a mission to be as obnoxious and disruptive as you can. This is typical troll behaviour. Before you go, I would really like to know. Why are you such a troll?
blah blah blah blah blah
Nice rant rodger. You seem very angry.
How the F*** do their minds work if they even have one that is.
notably for the AR5 SPM the scientists managed to keep all their figures and only had some wording to change
while the politicians try to downplay the science the zombies are all up in arms that the politicians actually try to build in an alarmist message
so the most conservative possible outcome yet they all see conspiracy.
The climate zombie creationists link getting a bit more exposure
For a while now, I’ve considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as “a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’. In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’.
Why? Because they can’t explain it. Not just that: many seem to believe they are not obliged to do so, which is suspiciously convenient, and all too reminiscent of those who would claim they don’t need to ‘explain’ God. In this, they share a view once expressed in a Guardian forum which, to this day, remains one of my favourite denialist non-sequiturs. When challenged, a poster calling himself Hamlet 4 insisted “I don’t need to prove climate change is caused by natural variability. It just is.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientific-explanation-climate-change-contrarians.html
I ran a find through chapter 11 of the AR5 WG1 report. I’m sure I’d get similar results from the other chapters.
They use the term “natural internal variability” 10 times in that chapter alone.
That’s the trouble with the IPCC – its full of ” zombie creationists”.
Are they saying that the NIV is ‘causing CC’, Gids? Nope.
Huh? Did you read the post that I was responding to? How could you misconstrue what I wrote? Deliberate?
Giddeon goes off on another tangent,
howzat ?
JB cites SKS pointing out some of your denialist mob evoke NV as a complete explain-all for GW. “The climates always changing,etc.”
So then you point out the IPCC also uses the concept NV / NIV with a sarky attempted tu quoque….My question makes the distinction between the magical and the science. I just point out that the IPCC use it rationally, not magically, so your “you too” fails on the slightest analysis. NIV is evoked by rationals to explain variation within the trajectory induced by AGHGs, not as an explanation of the whole. Clear?
Do you really not understand what you were saying there?
there is really no excuse for such lack of understanding as you have just displayed here, no he is not pulling your leg, this is his reality,
“contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability”
twodicks”They use the term “natural internal variability”
that you are not very bright is clearly undeniable.
sounds like the creationists remark struck a raw nerve
I sometimes wonder about the ability of you chaps to follow the simplest logical thread. Not so much surprised by Jb, but I thought Nick was better than that. According to the sks article ” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’. In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’.
Yet the IPCC WG1 chapter 11 uses the same terminology. So either the claims of sks that using that term shows you are creationist are so much bs OR the IPCC is populated by creationists.
BTW JB, in that one chapter they use the term “natural internal variablitity” 10 times.
and the term “natural variability” 16 times.
You must try harder : the IPCC and rejectionists may use the same term, but to different ends. Surely you can see the contextual difference? Or do you really think that science and denialism are equally matched conceptually?
Yes I get it.
When scientists we like use the term is proves them to be clever and unbiased seekers after the ultimate truth.
When people we don’t like use the term it proves they are creationists.
giddeon does not do reality
So it’s ‘people you like’ versus ‘people you don’t like’ ? No, I’m arguing from the evidence. Scientists, having generated system wide observations and identified poorly quantified knowns, reason for natural internal variability producing wobbles in the metric of GAT. Rejectionists decree we don’t know enough or even anything, and yet it’s ALWAYS natural internal variability…or cosmic ray magic in some cases [NEV]…given that logical blindness, I cannot see what liking or not liking has to do with it!
Are you arguing there is no difference in context in those examples of NIV’s citing ? No difference in the theoretical and observational underpinnings of the two ‘camps’ ? The generational incumbency of professional scientists and institutions means no more than the passion of a small amateur army of disparate beliefs / competing ignorances that calls itself skeptics ? Could it be you really believe that? Do you really believe the sides have an equal claim to authority, and an equal knowledge of the field ? Are you a nihilist?
No, no I get it. When the IPCC and the ‘real’ scientists use the term, they are being very scientific.
When contrarians like Lindzen, or Spencer or Curry use the term is proves they are zombie creationists who think climate is changing because of supernatural intervention.
Perfectly reasonable…to some.
None of those lukewarmers are silly enough to evoke NV as a complete alternative to AGW in the peer-reviewed literature, and they barely like to hint at it in ‘off the record’ fora. Lindzen still clings to his Iris. Curry and Spencer [Spencer through reasons of faith] prefer to conjure a kind of safety in uncertainty.
I would think that the three you mention are in the natural negative feedbacks will stop the warming camp but they just have no idea what these magical feedbacks are, hope they find them before we get to 2DegC
Climate change is a big joke to the climate zombies
they were accidentally recorded
Oh dear! On a mission to help the East out of poverty, are they? Two generations ago, they were the red peril! Next thing they’ll be saying that the earth is in CO2 drought…oh wait, these folk do say stuff like that, to the right audience..
Sadly, it is the tune on the BAU song sheet at the mo… we will never be wealthy enough to fund the busted bits, despite being collectively more wealthy than ever according to the defined metrics. A rising tide lifts all boats, except it doesn’t lift the 40 million sunken ones on food stamps.
“J Giddeon says:
October 13, 2013 at 1:39 am
I ran a find through chapter 11 of the AR5 WG1 report.”
Dude, that’s not how you are supposed to read and understand a long and complex report. I’m sure that when you were at primary school, they taught you to read one word after the other. That way what you are reading might actually make sense. What you are doing is trying to make a stupid non-existent argument from the hot air out of your arse. If you actually READ the report, I know, a crazy concept, you will find that the crux of the report is that humans are contributing to climate change. If you go onto the climate zombies blogs they try and claim that warming is non-existent, or that if they actually concede there is warming, that it’s ENTIRELY natural variation with a pinch of fairy dust. Do you see the difference you bozo.
Here is a simpler version that even your feeble brain might understand.
Climate zombies = Entirely Natural Variation
IPCC = Humans + Natural Variation.
I know, it’s a really hard concept for a zombie to understand, so here it is in zombiespeak.
Ahh, grrr, grr, ahhh, grr, ahh, grrr, grrr, ahhh, eww,
have not seen Dr Karl get into the fray for a while
he has a huge following
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/08/3864474.htm
I suspect he’s being laying low ever since his .3 degree warming screw-up. You may not have heard about that since I’m sure the places you habituate would not have mentioned it. FYG, he asserted, with the usual certainty of the warmist that the MET office had found warming of 0.3C warming in the past 16 yrs. When it was pointed out that the warming as per the MET was .03/decade = .05 in the period he mentioned, he went very quite.
Eventually he deleted the twitter records but never acknowledged the error or apologised. Indeed as I recall he repeated the error on radio.
Another of our great searchers after the truth.
yes he was wrong with his decimal place, we all do that but i am quite sure that he would have an infinitely better understanding of the science than you,
or do you consider yourself in the same league?
there seemed to be quite a bit of creationist mindset on bolt’s blog attacking dr karl over that mistake, why?
and mr google told me
creation ministries seem to have an ongoing war with Dr karl ,
“another of our great searchers after the truth ‘ is a very similar creationist dismissal
eh giddeon ?
You live in a very dangerous world JB.
Everywhere you look you see creationists. Pretty funny.
they are on the same page as you
http://creation.com/karl-kruszelnicki-still-missing-the-missing-links
So another typo JB? A lot of that going around.
Hard to see how it was a typo though given that he made such a big deal of the planet warming contra what Bolt was saying and never actually used that excuse himself.
Its really quite interesting how little some of the gurus of the AGW faith actually know. Karl here simply didn’t know about the hiatus and Suzuki on Q&A was just an embarrassment.
“J Giddeon says:
October 13, 2013 at 8:12 am
this was the third time in 2 threads where I’ve tried to point out that the hiatus is NOT dependent on starting at 1998.
Yet here we have little Rodge saying, straight after quoting me saying other years also yield an hiatus figure”
What a freaking liar you are. I never said that ‘other years also yield an hiatus figure’. What an atrocious troll you are. I said that WMO uses a minimum 30 year timeframe to determine long term trends. And if you use those standards, the warming trend is revealed. When are you and your cult leader Bolt going to understand that if you use a timeframe less than 30 years you will get the wrong result. You get a statistical artefact. To put it simply, if you ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer. How is that so hard to understand.
Also you are only looking at less than 5% of the climate system, repeatedly told to you and also in the IPCC report. But your retarded brain cell refuses to accept this.
But since the ‘no warming for x years’ is the centrepiece of your cult, you repeatedly refuse to accept that you are blatantly wrong.
Check out page 81 of the full IPCC report and you will see why. Also the video of Richard Alley also explains why. But of course you refuse to watch the video or properly read the IPCC report because you are a climate zombie. You will never understand why you are wrong because your single brain cell is enclosed within an impregnable bubble of arrogance and stupidity glued together with motivated reasoning.
30 years is the accepted norm for climate discussion.
If you must use too short terms you will note that the “pause” is not statistically significant. For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:
• There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. None.
• Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None.
• Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. Always.
No one seems too concerned about the 15-year time span covers the years 1992 through 2006, during which the rate of warming was 0.28 deg.C/decade. That’s a lot faster than the warming rate from 1975 to now. The time scales were too short for alarm then. They’re too short for complacency now.
Rodge,
“What a freaking liar you are. I never said that ‘other years also yield an hiatus figure’. ”
Oh dear, Rodge, you’ve completely misunderstood what I wrote. Reread it, but try to do so when you’re calm. Outrage never trumps reason.
shouldn’t you be on some creationist blog talking about crocoducks
Well it had to happen at some time didn’t it. JB’s now decided that I’m a creationist as well. No evidence mind you but then he had no evidence to reach the same conclusion about Bill.
Believing that everyone who disagrees with you is a creationist just makes life easier to understand.
giddeon, i have played hide and seek with your type for years,
my type?
So lack of evidence that I’m a creationist, is evidence that I’m hiding evidence of being a creationist.
Actually the only evidence that john needs is your disagreement with him. Anyone that disagrees with him, by definition (his of course), MUST be a creationist.
The logic is pretty flawless actually. Since he’s RIGHT and he KNOWS the truth then it goes without saying that anyone that disagrees with him is WRONG and a creationist. There is no other answer.
I have to wonder if john is this unpleasant in person. It would definitely explain why he spends all day posting on various websites.
bill has been stalking as usual
Yet here we have little Rodge saying, straight after quoting me saying other years also yield an hiatus figure”
try english next time
rodge truncated that particular sentences.
If you read the whole sentence then it will make more sense.
Well maybe not to you but to someone who’s reasonably literate.
you are always whining that people here lack comprehension skills
work it out
hope they have backup
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/americawasnotshutdownproper.jpg?w=480&h=360
what will the impact on ENSO be?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/14/3867366.htm
What is it with climate zombies and their statistically insignificant hiatus. No matter how many times you tell them that any trend calculated with a period of less than 30 years is statistically insignificant, they still don’t get it. If you get a hiatus, or warming or cooling that lasts for 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years, it is totally meaningless, insignificant. Now if you were to have a hiatus or warming or cooling that lasts for more than 30 years, now you are getting to be statistically significant. But no, they keep yapping on about this hiatus like it is their Nobel prize winning idea that they think invalidates AGW theory. Well sorry, it doesn’t. It may be the centrepiece of their cult, but it is a insignificant centrepiece. It means that your whole cult is built on sand. No foundation whatsoever. But yap, yap, yap they go. And then they have the gall to insult anyone who doesn’t follow their cult and their insignificance. This is why Bolt is also such an idiot, but what would you expect from a Art’s degree failure.
Rodge’s law :”No matter how many times you tell them that any trend calculated with a period of less than 30 years is statistically insignificant, they still don’t get it.”
WMO GUIDE TO CLIMATOLOGICAL PRACTICES (3RD EDTN);
Chapter 4.8.1 Period of calculation
“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often subtantially greater than 30 years.”
“The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend. In general, the most recent 5‑ to 10‑year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30‑year record.”
ooops
” The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend”.
now see if you can work that out
Click to access WCDMPNo61_1.pdf
“
Already know what it means. But nice attempt at deflection.
so it means global temperature does it?
SO does it?
Oh literate one, perhaps you could translate this –
“Hard to see how it was a typo though given that he made such a big deal of the planet warming contra what Bolt was saying and never actually used that excuse himself.”
Glad to help out Gregory. Always anxious to extend the education of others.
Bolt was saying there was no warming since 1997.
KK tweeted outrage at Bolt’s error by claiming there’s been a .3c warming in the past 16yrs (so “contra what Bolt was saying”)
JB tries to excuse the error as a typo but KK “never actually used that excuse himself.”
telling lies for god again?… where did i say it was a typo?
“yes he was wrong with his decimal place,” Are you saying it wasn’t a typo and that he deliberately overstated the data by a factor of 10?
I never lie for God…she doesn’t appreciate it.
HTF could it be a typo when he also said .3 in a radio interview
he had read 0.03 but had recalled it as 0.3 later
so ““yes he was wrong with his decimal place, we all do it”
and now you dish up more drivel
“Are you saying it wasn’t a typo and that he deliberately overstated the data by a factor of 10?”
stand by for the retard claiming that JB said Karl overstated the data deliberately.
bottom line, you told a lie and thought that no one would notice
You see nothing wrong with the structure of your sentence ?
It wasn’t written as I would for a English essay. It was written in shorthand for those who were part of the conversation and understood the background.
try english instead and we may figure out what you are saying
I’d be anxious too, if I was trying to extend the education of others, using Bolt as an example of academic prowess.But I guess it says it all.
Check this out
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/06/global-warming-since-1995-statistically-significant
“Furthermore, a short-term hiatus in warming does not detract from a longer warming trend. In fact such pauses are only to be expected, as US scientists demonstrated in 2009:
“…Climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight coolingin the presence of longer-term warming.”
In spite of these fundamental problems with their argument, skeptics have kept repeating it. However, even the most blinkered among them will now have to concede that this is an argument that cannot be substantiated.”
Yes, blinkered skeptics might concede, but when you have to deal with climate zombies with a deformed single brain cell, nothing can help them!!
if there was such a hiatus then it would have been followed as such from 1997. they would have been screaming every year since 1997
yet nothing from them until the back to back la ninas 2010/2011 2011/2012
this type of crap will be trotted out all the way up to 2DegC
Hiatus? What hiatus? Posters here having been arguing that there is no hiatus.
Has anyone here said that the hiatus takes away from the long term warming? The issue commonly raised here and other sites is that the models failed to predict the hiatus.
well that is wrong also
i think that piece of nonsense came from Rose putting up the leaked copy of a graph which was incorrect and duly fixed before final copy was published
It’s hard to be wrong when your 95% confidence range covers about the same amount of warming as has occurred in the last 150 years.
“truncated that particular sentences.”
there’re those bloody typos again.
Yes that’s a genuine example of a typo as opposed to JB’s use of typos to try to hide genuine errors.
“a genuine example of a typo”
as opposed to a none genuine example ?
“use of typos to hide genuine errors, as opposed to hiding non genuine errors?
you are a complete idiot
Are you angry because I demonstrated that you unashamedly lied about Mr U’s typo claim?
Check this out
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-vulnerable-in-a-warming-planet-leaked-ipcc-report-finds-20131014-2vhz0.html
“Mental health issues, water- and food-borne diseases will also increase under global warming projections.”
Yep, the climate zombies risk losing their single brain cell and going completely crazy. They are already crazy running on one brain cell, imagine how crazy they would get if they lost that all together. It would just be never ending incoherent rambling, as opposed to the intermittent incoherent rambling that we hear from them now.
“Another 800,000 people will fall ill year from contaminated food and water”
Apparently, even though Australia in 2100 will be 3 to 4 times richer than at present, we will forget how to deliver clean food and water to the citizenry.
Nup, no scaremongering there.
Pray tell, what standard (Gold, Food, Water, Air. etc) do you foresee being used in the year 2100 ? Or are you staying in the 1950’s ?
I’m sorry Greg, I have no idea what your question is.
Are you asking if I think we’ll return to the Gold Standard? If so, then no.
I’d love to know how warmer temps result in contaminated water. How many fall ill today in Australia from contaminated water?
two simple questions –
1.what standard (Gold, Food, Water, Air. etc) do you foresee being used in the year 2100 ?
2.Or are you staying in the 1950′s ?
Sorry Greg but just repeating the question in the same words doesn’t help my understanding of what you are asking.
I’m guessing the 1950’s crack is just gratuitous insult so I’ll ignore that.
But I genuinely don’t know what you mean by Gold standard (we’ll I do know what the gold standard was but it has no relevance here!) or Food standard, or water standard. Are you asking me to opine on the quality of water (for example) in 2100? If so I’d guess…clean.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/badfood.html
are these stats correct?
Worldwide increases in foodborne illness
Food Poisoning in Australia:
Number of cases of food poisoning in Australia 5.4 million yearly.
Number of new daily cases of food poisoning in Australia 11,500.
120 People die due to food poisoning each year in Australia.
You are such a dickhead aren’t you, you just can’t help being a dickhead. No one cares what you say because you are full of shit.
Check this out
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16102316
“The estimate of incidence of gastroenteritis in Australia is 17.2 million (95% confidence interval 14.5-19.9 million) cases per year.”
No there is no scaremongering. Just you and your trash talk. Just piss off.
So they’re predicting a 5% increase? Wouldn’t that mean the rate per-capita would actually be lower than it is today?
oooh, I get the impression Rodge doesn’t like having his nice scary scenarios exposed as rubbish.
Gidds, you are so freaking dumb. It was YOU who was claiming it was scaremongering, and I showed that 800,000 extra people isn’t that much, No one was saying it was scary. Only You. That one brain cell gets easily overloaded and forgetful very easily doesn’t it!! You are a freaking lunatic.
“So they’re predicting a 5% increase?”
No more like a 3000 fold increase.
From the study rodge posted: ” In addition, foodborne gastroenteritis causes approximately 15,000 (95% CrI 11,000-18,000) hospitalizations and 80 (95% CrI 40-120) deaths annually. ”
So 80 deaths pa from gastric. Apparently over food related deaths are around 45pa which gets us close to JB’s 120pa.
But these people are predicting 800000 from food and water. Let’s say 400000 from food. So we go from 120 deaths pa to 400000 deaths pa.
oops, got that wrong, misread deaths for illness.
Reset.
wondered how they worked out that the age of the earth was only 4000 years
With the projected population increase that would be a pretty dramatic decrease in the rate of illness on a per-capita basis.
It can sound scary if you read “it’s project that 20% more people will die every year in Australia in 2050” until you find out that the population is expected to double.
“Of the 17.2 million cases of gastroenteritis in Australia each year, 5.4 million (32%)
were estimated to originate from contaminated food, with a 95% credible interval of
4.0–6.9 million cases”
Click to access foodborne_report.pdf
So in fact we go from 5.4mill cases to 6.2mill cases. So a 15% increase.
Just watching you two climate zombies spin your wheels, finding out that your initial comment of scaremongering is completely wrong is classic. Worth framing. You two guys are so stupid you would trip over a cordless phone. Priceless.
“wondered how they worked out that the age of the earth was only 4000 years”
Wrong again JB. No creationist thinks the earth is only 4000 yrs old. That’s just crazy talk. No we think its somewhere between 6000 and 10000 yrs old.
Personally I go for it being created on the 6 days before 7 October 8431BC. Then she rested during the labour day public holiday.
are so you are one of those who believe that the first generations lived for 800 or so years, they are debating that as we speak , you old young earthers (6000 years) and the younger earthers (4000 years)
the younger earthers think you lot are retards
Does anyone think JB doesn’t quite get satire?
“J Giddeon says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:56 am
Nup, no scaremongering there.”
“Bill Jamison says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:24 am
So they’re predicting a 5% increase? ”
See even Bill has worked out that you are full of shit and nothing but trash talk. You are such a joke, even another climate zombie like Bill has figured you out.
“giddeon. giddeon your medication is ready”
i think that was your nurse calling you
The nurse also has to wrap his pills in a Judith Curry paper smeared with his ‘chocolate’. He is guaranteed to swallow that. The nurse has already found out that if you show him any real science, he will turn up his nose and act like a petulant baby. Then when he’s finished, the nurse will praise him with ‘What a good troll you are’ while checking to see if he has done poo poo in his nappy again.
It’s a shame, he is depriving some poor village of it’s idiot.
More on the poo jokes? JB with his penis addiction. Rodge with his Coprophagia fetish.
BTW Rodge, did you reread the Curry paper a third time and do you now understand it?
giddeon do you have any idea of the number of branches of science which are involved in climate change research ? literally dozens if not scores,
from atmospheric physics right through the alphabet to zoology, the findings are consistent
the only people who reject most branches of science are creationists.
if it quacks like a duck
“Bill Jamison says:
October 14, 2013 at 5:29 am
I have to wonder if john is this unpleasant in person. It would definitely explain why he spends all day posting on various websites.”
Talk about a pot calling the kettle black moment. What a hypocrite. This website is called ‘Watching the Deniers’. I know for climate zombies it might be hard to figure out, but this is a site where we ‘watch the deniers’ and then have a big laugh at their crazy antics. That’s what we do here. ‘It’s written on the tin’. It is no surprise then when some dopey climate zombies wander on all pretentious and arrogant that they get their faces smashed in. It’s what we do here. It’s our ‘sport’. Don’t like poo poo jokes, well piss off then.
So you ARE this unpleasant in person too? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
Actually I bet you’re really some meek nobody that just needs attention so you play the tough guy on the internet where you can stay anonymous.
so nothing to say about giddeon J ?
And to think Mike was contemplating a name change. Where else could you go and watch the clowns on parade, in their hats of make believe intellectualism, declaring they are the independent adjudicators of anything “Climate”, by using the faux science of the likes of Watts, The Heartland Institute, Monckton. IPA, Bolt, Jones, etc.. With such a exhibition of self-aggrandisement, are we really supposed think, that they actually have some relevance to actual climate science?
Send in the clowns. Oh, that’s right, don’t bother they’re here.
A fan of Broadway musicals huh Gregory?
This is worth having another look at
what is going on here? irrelevant parts removed
J Giddeon says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
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.
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.
, RCP4.5 is closer to the truth than RCP8.5.
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.
Discuss
So we do nothing until we reach 2DegC but we will not reach 2DegC because Lindzen, spencer and curry do not believe that the sensitivity is as depicted by the science?
when do we double CO2 560ppm, 2050?
http://greenphysicist2.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html
But John, don’t forget;
J Giddeon says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:56 am
Apparently, even though Australia in 2100 will be 3 to 4 times richer than at present, we will forget how to deliver clean food and water to the citizenry.
We’ll be rich I tell ya. We can buy any solution we want. We’ll just keep investing in those awesome “fracking” ventures and then sellout and buy potable water options to grow the food on our prime agricultural land. We’ll be laurfing, all the way to the bank of Monsanto. See John, problem solved. Who needs science.
but the real question is, WTF is he doing here, when his only points seem to be
1, sensitivity is less than 1DegC
2. we will run out of fossil; fuel or invent some technology which we can roll out around the world in a decade or so, before we double atmospheric concentration to 560ppm
and ocean acidification does not even rate a mention
why all the rest of the crap?, surely these are his only points of debate.
“1, sensitivity is less than 1DegC”
I’ve never said such a thing. But don’t let that stop from just making things up.
“2. we will run out of fossil; fuel or invent some technology which we can roll out around the world in a decade or so, before we double atmospheric concentration to 560ppm”
We’ll never run out of FF. The technology is being invented. It just needs to become more cost efficent which is also happening.
“On the whole, I’d go with Spencer, Lindzen, Curry and the like in thinking that the climate models are too sensitive”
“1, sensitivity is less than 1DegC”
I’ve never said such a thing”
both Lindzen and Spencer claim less than 1DegreeC Sensitivity
“We’ll never run out of FF” but before we double CO2″
which we will do before 2050 using exactly the same growth forecast that you used for GDP growth
“It just needs to become more cost efficient which is also happening.”
we already have the technology it is called renewable and it is cost efficient”
So we will get to a doubling of CO2 levels by 2050. How?
That means 560ppm by 2050.
We are currently at around 395ppm. Since 2000 atmospheric CO2 has been increasing by, on average, 2ppmpa.
Let’s be generous and say that this will somehow increase to 3ppmpa.
There are 37 yrs to go to 2050. At 3ppmpa that’s an extra 111ppm.
395 + 111 = 506ppm. And that’s using an unrealistically high year average increase.
So how do we achieve 560ppm by 2050? By just asserting it and pretending the numbers and logic don’t matter.
as i said “the irony”
giddeon “Australia’s real GDP growth rate is over 3%. But let’s cut that back to a very conservative 2%.
At an annual 2% growth rate, our real GDP will double by 2050. It would then double again by 2086.
yet you claim that emissions get to 3PPM increase and remain at that
what a complete moron you are this is the same growth rate for emissions
1. comprehension fail
2. One (GDP) is a percentage increase. The other (CO2 levels) are a unit increase.
3. Ever heard of emission intensity? Australia’s has fall be over 27% since 1990.
4 eg between 1995 and 2000 World GDP(PPP) increased by 21% while atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 2%
Now what we you saying about complete morons?
or
3. Ever heard of emission intensity? Australia’s has fallen by over 27% since 1990.
no wonder you are on here, a failed economist
Click to access 49082173.pdf
“Under the Outlook Baseline scenario, the global concentration of GHGs is expected to reach
approximately 685 ppm CO2-equivalent (CO2e) by mid-century and more than 1 000 ppm CO2e by 2100.
The concentration of CO2 alone is projected to be around 530 ppm in 2050 and 780 ppm in 2100
(Figure 3.9). As a result, global mean temperature is expected to increase, though there is still uncertainty
surrounding the climate sensitivity”
“The concentration of CO2 alone is projected to be around 530 ppm in 2050 ”
So no doubling by 2050.
Some else said that…who was that genius? 🙂
twodicks ” we will never get to doubling CO2
OH we will get two doubling CO2e by 2050 but only 530ppm CO2 by 2050
and claims that he is still correct, lets face it these retards will never accept science
I wonder why?
greg,
Spoken like someone who hasn’t got the foggiest idea about which they talk. Its a very complex area but I’ll try to explain it in simple terms for you.
Currently, over the long term, Australia’s real GDP growth rate is over 3%. But let’s cut that back to a very conservative 2%.
At an annual 2% growth rate, our real GDP will double by 2050. It would then double again by 2086.
Therefore, we would be 4 times wealthier by the late 21st century than at present.
That means 4 times more able to pay for mitigation schemes, 4 times more able to pay for all those pet projects that the Gaia worshippers of the late 21st century might want..
The very basis of the various model forecasts is that the world will grow at these types of rates. Indeed under most of these scenarios, the poorest country in the world in 2100, will be wealthier (in real terms) than the wealthiest country in 2000.
Of course, it may turn out that we don’t achieve these type of growth rates. In that case the levels of emissions would also decline. So either, we will be much more able to pay for mitigation or we will reduce emissions due to lower economic activity than BAU envisions.
Add to that the likely advances in emission reduction technology and you (might) see why I think things aren’t anywhere near as bad as projected.
And just to emphasis again. this doesn’t reject the science, it just changes the economic assumptions behind the science’s projections.
the irony
Look everybody, the clowns are back, this time they’re pretending to be master economic modellers. You know, those sage men, who dabble in the art of predicting the future, using nothing more then the massaging of their massive organs. Today we will be taught how they will maintain economic stability for the next 100 years. A feat that they have never been able to do for even 10 years in the past. So be prepared to have your education extended by these prophets of obfuscation.
“Today we will be taught how they will maintain economic stability for the next 100 years.”
Well we were talking averages Greg. There will be ups and downs. Just like in the 20th century there were ups and downs. But overall Australia’s GDP was 20 times greater in 2000 than in 1900.
But one last thing. Say there was a major downturn such that we didn’t a achieve an average 2% growth rate. That event would also cause our emission growth rates to decline as well and therefore all the IPCC emissions would be wrong as well. Emission growth is intimately linked to economic growth.
I know you’d prefer that that wasn’t true so I’ll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
BTW Greg, still waiting for you to explain what the Gold Standard’s got to do with climate change.
again you are a total twat
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/11/18/2746117.htm
That article is talking about total emissions.
We were talking about atmospheric CO2 levels.
Want me to explain the difference?
In 2009 atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 0.59%
no wonder you are on here, a failed economist
Click to access 49082173.pdf
“Under the Outlook Baseline scenario, the global concentration of GHGs is expected to reach
approximately 685 ppm CO2-equivalent (CO2e) by mid-century and more than 1 000 ppm CO2e by 2100.
The concentration of CO2 alone is projected to be around 530 ppm in 2050 and 780 ppm in 2100
(Figure 3.9). As a result, global mean temperature is expected to increase, though there is still uncertainty
surrounding the climate sensitivity”
You’ve shown your ignorance in all things economic, climate change and later on in the blog, american politics. If you are a product of the Australian education system then we are really in trouble. Your inability to think laterally is beyond belief. Averages, that’s your answer ? That’s going to take us into the 21st century and make us rich? Well, if you really wan’t to establish the Averages Standard for the economic model, good luck. But don’t breath to deep, because rising climate change averages, which you have to accept, if you accept economic averages are going to beat you there.
Now economic standards. We had the Gold standard for several hundred years, in various forms, depending on the country. this was mainly due to it’s rare nature. we now use fiat currencies and they are in deep trouble. Now lets see what forms of rare exotics could be used for a standard in our troubled climate future.Water is one, food is another, but would people fight wars over such simple necessities of life? I’m sure, even with your limited ability to correlate variables, the answer is obvious.
Regarding american politics Talk about wallowing in ignorance You think that because someone says the’re a republican or democrat, that there is some sort of code that dictates their loyalties? Everything people have been writing about you is true.
there it is in all it’s glory
JG or GJ “In 2009 atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 0.59%”
Sorry Gregory,
I was going to try to give your Water Standards idea a serious, respectful reply, but the more I got into it the more I realised just how unbelievably screwy it is.
Gold was used as a standard because, apart from the fact that it was universally valued, it was very valuable compared to its volume, was easily stored and transported and was non-perishable. Not that anyone would have thought about it being non-perishable because no one would have been screwy enough to think of using a perishable item as a currency standard.
Can you just imagine it. “Todays news: the Aust dollar fell in value today as it was learnt that mice had gotten into the nations wheat silo storage area.” or “Todays news: the Aust dollar fell in value today as it was learnt that someone had left the tap on and gigalitres of our currency went down the drain. ”
I know that the catastrophists in our midst foresee wars being fought over water and food because, in their fevered mind we are going to run out of them, but, seriously, currencies based on the water standard?
God, this site just gets funnier by the day.
giddeon twodicks and bozo bill, the two circus clowns with red noses and the floppy oversized shoes of their own incapabilities, stumbling and falling on their faces only to bounce up again all covered in the egg and dribbling crap
“look we just made fools of ourselves but we are back, that is what we are here for, pure entertainment”
http://www.livescience.com/38167-national-security-impact-of-warming-climate.html
@ uki
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/bill-shorten-can-make-tony-abbott-look-silly-on-carbon-pricing-87571
“Tony Abbott has only been in power for a little over a month, but he is already looking increasingly isolated – both on his home turf and in the international arena – in his stubborn insistence on repealing a market price for carbon.
Somehow, the new conservative government imagines itself being a major international player – using its rotating presidency of the G20 to bring China and the US to the table and thrash out a long term climate treaty.
But to achieve that it needs credibility: and becoming the first government in the world to end a carbon price, and possibly the first in the world to reduce a renewable energy target, means it will have none.
So far, the new government has failed to move beyond election sloganeering and is struggling to produce any other coherent argument to support the move. Even today, Environment Minister Greg Hunt could find no other justification for repealing other than to say that Abbott had said he would.”
“john byatt says:
October 14, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Environment Minister Greg Hunt could find no other justification for repealing other than to say that Abbott had said he would.”
The Libs are climate zombie extremists, driven by pure ideology. They steadfastly refuse to accept reality, no matter who tries to point it out to them. The carbon tax hasn’t raised the price of a lamb roast to $100 as fear mongered by Abbott. In fact most economists agree that it won’t harm economic growth.
http://theconversation.com/economists-back-carbon-tax-package-2313
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/environment/carbon-tax-wont-harm-economic-growth/
So we can get the best of both worlds. A low carbon economy while still protecting our living standards. Also imagine all the jobs that would be created with the construction of new renewable energy power plants.
Things could hardly be going better for the Libs on the CO2 tax issue.
Now that silly old Shorten has decided to again align the ALP with the greens, Abbott will have a party ridiculing them. Abbott can spend the next 6 months trying to legislate the CO2 tax away knowing that it can’t be done. So he gets the electorates favour for trying to fulfil the election promise while still collecting the tax to use in the fight to reduce Labor’s budget deficit.
By 1 July he’ll have a DD trigger in place. If the new senate is so stupid as to reject the legislation again, he’d have his trigger again , and could call a DD at his convenience. Such an election would wipe out most of the independents, especially if they were seen as defying the wishes of the electorate.
And the final bit of joy is that, with the ALP trying to save the tax, Abbott will go to the next election with a pretty good case that the ALP will reintroduce the tax if elected.
Then on top of all that, if the US and China, through some miracle did bring in a tax, Abbott has always kept his options open to do so if the rest of the world did it.
I’m pretty sure Abbott is very comfortable with where the tax issue sits now.
Just one point on the unbelievably bias of the linked article. It asserts “It should be remembered that the US leadership also supports carbon pricing, but is only prevented from doing so by the extreme right of the Republican Party, the Tea Party nut cases, and those that owe their position to backing from the fossil fuel industry.”
For the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Democrats controlled both houses. If they really wanted a CO2 tax they could have had one irrespective of what these so-called nut cases said. But they don’t want a tax because it is way too unpopular. What they want is to be able to say they want a tax while doing nothing so that the usual fools will be….fooled.
Obama served as president from jan 2009
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/25/barack-obama-climate-change-bill
Did the Obamessiah’s climate change bill pass congress?
“J Giddeon says:
October 15, 2013 at 3:10 am
Just one point on the unbelievably bias of the linked article..”
Two words – Cat Scan. There was no bias in the article you dopey drongo. ‘When you are on the right, everything looks to be on the left’. You only see bias because you are so incredibly biased. You just have no frigging idea do you.
The reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/02/12/in-focus-usas-climate-laws/
I know, to the climate zombie reality is always a leftie conspiracy. None of us here give two hoots what some dopey biased climate zombie thinks. We are trying to have a conversation here without your ignorant and stupid interruptions. How many times do I have to flush before you go away?
when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail
I guess in your blind rage you failed to actually follow the logic.
The article claimed that the US leadership wants to bring in a tax but can’t because of the evil tea party types. I was just pointing out that if that were true they could have done so when they had full power in 2008-9. They didn’t because they don’t really want a tax.
I get that you’d prefer that your fondest held views not be challenged by logic, but you’re going to have to get used to it.
as he said dopey bastard
. He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.
and five months later introduced a bill which the republicans denounced as a tax
“The bill has faced almost uniform opposition from Republicans in the house, who say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would dramatically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family a total of $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050”
it was as much a tax as gillards carbon price but with a lot more clout
.
The Democrats controlled the House of Reps and the Senate.
Did it pass?
Well I guess you’re going to feign ignorance.
It didn’t pass.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/climate-change-out-of-obama-budget.html
might duplicate
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza
“Abbott can spend the next 6 months trying to legislate the CO2 tax away knowing that it can’t be done. So he gets the electorates favour for trying to fulfil the election promise while still collecting the tax to use in the fight to reduce Labor’s budget deficit.”
and Palmer controls the senate from July and will want every cent collected to be returned to pass the legislation
Abbott calls DD to get rid of the tax because it was his promise
Abbot reintroduces the tax because it was his promise if china and US move ( both already have moved, china with taxes as well.
what a pickle
I fervently hope phony Tony pulls the trigger. He’s already behind in the two party preferred only a month after the election. By July he will be struggling to hold onto leadership of his party.
As abbot had been bleating about removing the carbon tax for three years it is obvious looking at the shifts in voting preferences from August, that it had nothing to do with the election outcome, labor lost the election thanks to themselves alone.
Did you know the pause in warming was predicted at least 5 1/2 years ago?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html
So far they’re right on the money.
BORING !! When are you going to get the hint. We don’t give a shit what the climate zombies like you and twodicks think or post. No one also gives a shit what the Murdoch press prints. Only dopey bastards like you eat that shit up.
Obviously you care rodger. I can tell by the long missives that you write. You care very deeply.
If you prefer you can read the article in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
They made the prediction in 2007 so they are more than half way through the decade they predicted with no significant warming.
I don’t think many people (alarmists especially) believed it when it was published in 2008 though.
that’s the UK Telegraph. Not owned by Murdoch.
Go back to sleep.
then in 2010 we had a new record high, yer right on the money,
all trends from 2008 to now are either negative or so small +ve that they aren’t statistically significant. I know that a trend for 5 years is neither here nor there but it does show they were right so far.
“all trends from 2008” you cannot even use a decade to claim warming cooling or stable temperature, more drivel from the imbecile
way to miss the point
” I know that a trend for 5 years is neither here nor there but it does show they were right so far.”
you cannot be right so far with a ten year prediction which will still be irrelevant at the end of ten years
Of course they can be “right so far”. duh
What a silly claim to make john.
sorry you cannot be right so far if the outcome will not be evident for another five years
bill went to the casino and lost two thousand bucks but half way through the night.
he was asked how he was going, ” well ahead so far”
irrelevant half way through billy
Well if that’s the case john then we don’t need to worry about global warming predictions from the IPCC because we won’t know if they’re true until 2100. Right? We can’t know if they are true or not until the end so why worry about it.
Silly silly silly
well bill we have just looked at a report on predictions for Jamaica that was not 2100,
we have predictions of temperature rise by 2060, that is not 2100,
we have predictions for SLR for 2046 that is not 2100
and we have all already increases in extremes confirmed by IPCC that is also not 2100
piss off bill, you go from from idiotic statement to the next, your ideology is obvious
Your right we do have predictions that aren’t all the way out to 2100. But we don’t have to worry about those for a decade or two either because we can’t know if they’re on track or not.
What you missed and is really obvious is that this prediction was easy to falsify if wrong. They predicted a pause in warming and that’s exactly what we’ve experienced. If the 5 year mean temperature had continued to increase at a statistically significant rate then they would have been wrong.
You’re obviously not any better with logic than you are with math!
it cannot be falsified or confirmed until the end of the ten years, you are lousy with logic, it will pretty much depend on the final year but will still be irrelevant
Of course it could falsified before the decade is up john. If I were to say “The price of gold will stay flat for the next decade” then you don’t need to wait 10 years to see if that happens. It could drop or rise significantly before the 10 year period was over and my claim would be falsified. The same with this prediction that global warming would pause. It has. The 5 year mean is flat since about 2003. It has paused.
So far it hasn’t been falsified. If the warming continued then it would already be falsified. You really are lousy at this stuff. You should find a new obsession because you don’t have the skills for this one.
after your total stuff up with growth rates you come back with more drivel,
your analogy is crap
boohoo “Of course it could falsified before the decade is up john.”
so they collected on the bet have they you retard ?
NO
why?
Pretty interesting Bill. One of the worst career moves a scientist can make is to contradict the consensus AND be right.
It’ll be interesting to see if they turn out to be right about a resumption of warming in 2015 (queue outraged assertions that the warming never stopped 🙂 ).
If they turn out to be THAT accurate, their observations would have to be incorporated into subsequent models with a consequent decrease in forecast warming.
I think the warming will only resume if the AMO or the MOC changes again. If one or both is tied to the solar cycle in some way then they may stay in the cool phase for a while. So much uncertainty, so much more to learn!
They are predicting cooling in the Atlantic though…
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/13/explosive-max-planck-institute-initial-forecast-shows-0-5c-cooling-of-north-atlantic-sst-by-2016/
Man you are dumb. Do you really think we are going to click onto one of your anti-science blogs. You are a joke. Blah, Blah, Blah. That’s all we ever hear from you.
bill has a real clever trick up his sleeve, here it comes
Just for you rodger the dodger of links:
Click to access Perspektive_Erde_2013_09_low.pdf
Bill your mother is calling.
Time to pack up your toys and go home.
Another post from “Dr No Value”!
Thanks for playing.
William, you still haven’t told us who dresses you in the morning.
zoot you still haven’t told us why you would want to know. And please don’t ask for nude pics of me!
You first.
zoot i think that he probably lives alone, so probably has someone to come in to dress him
I wondered if it was his mother who came down to the basement each morning to dress him and clean up the pizza boxes and Cheetos packets. He’s obviously one of the 101st fighting keyboarders.
Why are you linking to a 5 1/2 year old news article. BOORING. It’s 2013 you stupid dickhead.
Also did you even read the paper.
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
What’s that word, temporarily. Look that up you boring dopey troll. Just piss off.
Do I really need to try to explain it to you rodger? Are you incapable of understanding that the article predicted a decade long pause in warming and here we are 6 years later and the warming is still on pause. In other words they were right.
Of course that doesn’t mean that they were right for the right reasons.
Hey everybody! the Watts Prius clown car is back and look, it has solar panels on the roof. Lets see how many clowns they managed to stuff in it this time.Ah, how disappointing, it’s only Bill.
I’m glad to see that I’m really having an impact on you guys!
you are a real hoot, get trashed on every bit of crap you come up with so now just being an idiot,for the sake of it, how embarrassing if any of your friends or relatives stumble across this blog.
Yes, we are all on the floor with a big belly laugh every time you post. You should create a YouTube video. That’s why we come here. Comedy gold every day.
As you know from reading my Facebook posts, none of my friends and family are the least bit interested in climate. Of course if anyone I know does stumble upon this tiny insignificant blog they’ll see you guys for what you truly are so I’m certainly not the one that will be embarrassed.
I knew you cared rodger. Now I know why you care.
most villages have an idiot, this blog has two bill and giddeon
but why are you two here posting your absolute garbage about global temperature anomalies from the middle of antarctica and absurd predictions of global atmospheric CO2 concentrations never doubling?
http://greenphysicist2.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html
“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in. It is the way the world economy grows if there is an approximately constant growth rate. So, it should be little surprise that the CO2 level has grown exponentially in recent years.
The theoretical curve (red line) that matches the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%. The figure shows that, if the current rate is maintained, the CO2 levels will reach exactly twice the pre-industrial level in 2050. This is twice the maximum level typically recorded during all of the previous interglacial periods. Clearly, we are leaving the ice age cycle in a big hurry.”
How dare me to post quotes from climate scientists that you disagree with! Shame on me!
Well JB, your link is simply wrong. I’ve been trying to nut out how they made their error but they don’t have any workings so its not possible to tell.
But its simple to see that they are indeed wrong. They say that CO2 levels are increasing at 2.22% annually. Using the 72 rule,that would mean that they would double in 36 years. They haven’t – they are wrong, big time.
Or look at it another way.
the level in 1958 was 314ppm. If it increased by 2.22% the level in 1959 should have been 321. But it was 315. Then in 1960 it should have been 328 but it was 316. And so on and so on. There formula becomes increasingly separated from reality as the years go on.
The hilarious thing is this is the site you’ve been relying on all along for your assertions that we’ll get to 560ppm by 2050. I feel sorry for you that you’ve been so easily duped.
IPCC
and that is CO2 not COe
I put the number in Excel and got 935 in 2000. That’s starting with 315ppm in 1950 and adding 2.2% every year.
The reality is that CO2 has increased just less than 25% in 63 years. If the increase was steady it would be more like 0.35% annually not 2.2% annually. That’s quite a big mistake!
I do not think you have a handle on this at all
IPCC
and that is CO2 not COe
here bill you link to skeptical science and do not forget you are backing some retard who claims we will never get to 560ppm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=332
No you don’t have an understanding of what you quoted:
“the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
That is false and is easily proven so. If you have even basic Excel skills it will take you all of a minute or two to see the results for yourself. The total increase in the last 60 years (assuming the data starts in1950) is just less than 25%.
For the decade of 2000-2010 the average annual increase was 2ppm. That’s obviously not even 1% per year. That math is simple enough that even you should be able to do it in your head but in case you can’t then here it is: 1% of 350 is 3.5
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
Face it john the site you linked and the quote you posted are WRONG.
now don;t you feel stupid
I’m not backing anyone john. That’s what you can’t understand. I did the math and J Giddeon is correct. If you can’t do the math yourself just let me know and I’ll post a screen cap for you. It’s a simple formula in Excel. Not difficult at all.
In fact just look at the last link I provided and you should be able to see that the growth rate has NEVER been even 1% nevermind 2.2%. NEVER. That site is wrong. Deal with it.
john: “now don;t you feel stupid”
Sorry man you used the wrong pronoun what you meant was “now don;t I feel stupid”
You can’t even see the mistake when it’s spelled out for you. The annual increase is not 2.2% it’s not even 2.2ppm.
You should feel stupid.
idiot
Yes you are an idiot. You are the one that quoted it:
“the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
WRONG
“from 1958 to the present” WRONG. The growth rate has never been 2.2%.
Is there a scenario where the growth rate increases to that rate? I don’t know. That would be almost 9ppm per year when the annual average rate for the previous decade was only 2ppm.
But what you quoted isn’t talking about future increase it’s talking about “from 1958 to the present”. Are you really this stupid john?
Since you’ve proven once again john that you’re incapable of using Excel or doing simple math I did it for you.
Based on this graphic you posted: http://www.ipcc-data.org/figures/ipcc_ddc_co2_scenarios.jpg
The annual growth rate in the highest emission scenario shows an annual growth rate of 1%. Starting at 395ppm in 2013 with 1% annual increase results in 938ppm in 2100.
Still not even close to the 2.2% claimed in the link you provided! So it doesn’t matter if we’re discussing the measured increase since 1958 or the projected increase by 2100 the annual growth rate IS NOT 2.2%. EVER
Well rodger just proved he can’t do simple math!
You guys really should get some basic education if you want to try to discuss these things. I’m embarrassed for both of you!
OK, nutted it out. Despite saying that they are comparing CO2 level growth with interest earnings (“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in.”) what they are really saying is that there is an increase in the rate of increase by 2.2%. It’d be like putting your money in the bank at 10% and then getting 10.022% next year and then 10.024% the year after and so on so that by year 33 you’re getting 20%pa. Not at all as they explained it. Its probably an arguable analysis but doesn’t really fit the known data with any sort of consistency.
What they appear to have done is just data fit using two end point – 1958 and 2008. The formula they postulate at the end of article is pretty accurate for those end points. But the further you get from 1958 the worse it becomes as a predictive tool, so that by the mid 1980’s it completely useless. Then as we move closer to 2008 it gets better because it was designed to be accurate for 2008.
Interestingly, as we move from 2008 forward it is getting worse each year. For each year from 2008 to 2012 the formula predicts a higher CO2 level than was actually achieved. Unless there is some massive increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation this in-built error in the formula will get larger just as it did between 1958 and 1988. .
What is this unnatural obsession by the climate zombies to look at less than 5% of the climate system. Global warming hasn’t stopped you dickheads. Greenhouse gases just don’t stop working all of a sudden. What dopey bastards you lot are. You lot a dumber than a bag of sledgehammers. Stop boring us to death.
Why was the entire focus on the surface temperature warming until the hiatus?
Okay, okay, rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.
Surface temperature has not continued to increase at a statistically significant rate. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows we live on the surface and the predictions of catastrophic warming were for the surface. A warming of 0.09C in the top 2000 meters of the ocean isn’t going cause major problems for mankind any time soon.
You guys are so silly trying to still drum up ways to scare people into action. I got news for ya: it’s not working!
” any time soon.”
so this is what it is all about, it’s all about bill, he does not give a shit about people currently suffering nor the increased suffering in years to come, what a selfish little twerp you are,
Says the man who cheered when people lost their jobs when the coal mine closed.
In case you hadn’t noticed john, people have always suffered and they always will suffer. That’s the nature of life. I see the suffering that modern technology has prevented and I’m awed by it. You would have us go back to the dark ages. People would die from a lack of inexpensive energy to run their air conditioners in the summer and their heaters in the winter. People live significantly longer today than in the past and it’s partly due to cheap energy. Sorry you can’t see that.
oh we cannot do anything about climate change because it will take us back to the dark ages, we will all be living in caves
we have heard it all before billy
“Says the man who cheered when people lost their jobs when the coal mine closed.
so you have a link to that effect , no you don;t because you are a sniveling little liar on just about every comment you make
a failure taking his frustration out on humanity,
You’re calling me a liar? That’s funny john. You’re the most dishonest person I’ve come across in all my years of using the Internet – and even BBS systems before that!
Are you saying you weren’t happy with the coal mine closed down?
bill you made a claim i asked you for your proof and now you ask me when i stopped beating my wife
now post your proof or get a brain
why not just put up the comment bill
john byatt says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:11 am
but bill you believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature so that would exclude you from a rational debate about costs,
just this week a QLD coal power stn has shut down in collinsville and solar is being built to supply about 6000 homes,
the reason is that without the local coal mine now closed (not viable) the coal powered stn is also not economically viable , wind in australia is now also cheaper than starting up new coal plants,
and please every day we have deniers claiming that the planet has not warmed and others claiming that it is not due to humans or even that CO2 does not cause warming
they are all your deniers friends, you say that you accept the warming and human contribution then turn around and claim a magical, creationist belief that god made the planet self regulating,
so claiming that the debate was never about etc is more of your drivel
now point to the bit which states that i was happy that the miners lost their jobs dickhead
you just go from one lie to the next without remorse, sociopath
You were crowing about how the dirty coal mine was closed and would be replaced by a solar plant. Don’t try to pretend that you weren’t or that you actually cared about any of those people that lost their jobs and their businesses!
where you idiot, it was fact as story about a closed coal mine, point to the bit about crowing
You are just a obnoxious stupid troll. No one here is trying to drum up ways to scare people you dimwit. We are just having a bit of fun laughing at the antics of the dopey climate zombies. This is not about you. We don’t care what you and twodicks say. When are you going to get that simple concept through your thick skull. But NOOO, you are too stupid to even get that. You are some witless crusade to be as foolish as possible. Why are you such a worthless and stupid individual? Dropped as a baby perhaps? Someone hit you over the head with a hammer?
I find it fascinating that so many of your posts now focus on me and J Giddeon. Why do you want to spend so much time talking about us and not the topics at hand?
topics at hand
you and twodicks are the topics at hand, the blog is called watching you two make twits of yourselves
Man you are so freaking dumb. We are all hoping that you will piss off and leave us in peace. We have been telling you so many times now, but NOOO, you are so freaking stupid. FUCK OFF. Got it now!!
If you’re thinking that insulting us and calling us names will drive us away then obviously you’re dumber than you appear. And that’s saying something!
It’s obvious you’re fascinated with us and from the strong reaction to our posts you are also afraid of us. People don’t have a strong reaction without reason.
Reason Bill? Because you represent the biggest danger to humanity, or in the words of Martin Luther King Jr.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
+1
what caused the climate system to start putting all the heat into the oceans instead of the atmosphere in 1998. From 1975 to 1998 the surface was warming as the theory suggested. Then it suddenly stopped in 1997-8 and, according to you, all the heat went into oceans. What mechanism caused the change?
What is wrong with you? We don’t give a shit what sort of questions you have. Ever heard of Google. Go ask your questions there. Oh and by the way, any answers you find, keep to yourself. As I have said before. We don’t give a shit what climate zombies think. We just like to make fun of them.
Such an angry little guy!
Dude have a nice cold beer and try to relax. It’s the Internet. Don’t take it so seriously.
this is just the remark expected from a climate zombie, “it ain’t serious”,
not for a clown like you but 97% of the world’s scientist take it quite serious
clown
Yes you stupid dickhead, we are all angry, angry that little twerps like you keep annoying us. We come here for a bit of fun, but we instead get dumbs trolls. What the hell is wrong with you. You just can’t get the picture
I suppose you and rodger DO think what you post on this blog is serious. Well it’s not. It’s meaningless. You aren’t saving the world you’re just wasting time. Sorry to have to break it to you but it’s the truth. This blog is insignificant and so are your posts.
Well rodger the first step in getting help is admitting you have a problem. Now that you’ve admitted you have an anger problem you can start to deal with it. I suggest therapy and staying off the Internet for at least a year.
so what do you think you are doing here bill, trying to fuck the world up?
we are here to read and have a good laugh at the stupidity of your lot
we learn a bit as well,
i am fascinated in how the deniers mind works,
you and twodicks are classic ideological deniers
“look the IPCC is wrong I put it in excel”
you can put it in your arse bill and still make as much sense
Why am I here? Let me paraphrase you: “I am here to read and have a good laugh at the stupidity of your lot”
It would be an interesting blog if you and your lot could actually discuss things and abide by the blog rules.
John you linked some dumbass site that was wrong and you posted a quote from that site. It’s wrong, deal with it. I never said the IPCC is wrong. How could I? The IPCC is about projections and by definition those projections can’t be proven false yet.
Once again you try to twist facts to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
that site agrees exactly with the IPCC projections for 2050 you are wrong.
i bet that you live alone a miserable little sociopath who spends most of his time in bars, stumbles home after the boozer he drinks in closes , gets on the internet and takes his frustrations out on the world until 3am in the morning
Wow you’re dense at times. It’s not whether that sites shows projections that match the IPCC or not it’s about the quote you posted: the annual growth rate is not and has never been 2.2%.
Why can’t you understand that?
I don’t know if the projections are that high or not but that’s not the issue. The issue is the site you linked is WRONG when they claim the annual rate of increase from 1958 to the present is 2.2%. It’s 0.35%.
Are you incapable of doing the math AGAIN?
john do yourself a favor and take a remedial math class and then an Excel class and learn how to figure this stuff out for yourself so you don’t end up looking so dumb.
The average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 has never been 2.2% and is not projected to be 2.2%.
Bill you are so wrong, again.
2007 2.22
2008 1.60
2009 1.88
2010 2.44
2011 1.84
2012 2.66
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
“annual growth rate is not and has never been 2.2%.”
Bullshit, it has in fact been at times over 2.2%
Now FUCK OFF.
Wow rodger you just proved you’re even dumber than john. Those are the increases in ppm not percentage. DUH
As I said to john even you should be able to do such simple math in your head. At a current value of over 390ppm a 1% increase would be 3.9ppm.
So simple and yet you and john can’t figure it out. What dumb shits you are!
The funny thing is that it’s right there in big letters in that link:
August 2013: 395.15 ppm
August 2012: 392.41 ppm
PPM = PARTS PER MILLION
2.2% of 392 = 8.62 which would mean we’d be at 401 right now not 395.
Wow you just looked really stupid. But thanks for the laugh!
I bet you two are sitting there going “Ah fuck we look stupid right now!”
And you’d be RIGHT!!!
I bet J Giddeon gets a good laugh when he sees what you did. I tried to spell it out for you guys but even then you couldn’t do the math for yourselves. Pity. I thought the education system in Australia was better than that.
bill you are presuming how it was done
increases
1990 to 1999 1.4ppm per year
2000 to 2010 1.9ppm per year
what was the increase for the decade 2000 to 2010 from the 1990-1999 period
it is easy bill a .5 difference
now what is that as a percent bill
“2.2% of 392 = 8.62 which would mean we’d be at 401 right now not 395.
own goal dickhead we reached 400PPM this year
havent you heard of the variations throughout the year?
FFS FO
Please don’t tell me you want to continue this john and look even dumber than you already do!
rodger posted the official annual increase from 2012 to 2013 and it was 2.66 not over 8.
You can’t twist this and make it look like you were right john. You were wrong and now you look dumb and rodger does too. It’s not my fault you guys can’t do basic math.
I think this is even more entertaining than you’re mistake about the monthly absolute mean temperatures john. I say that because they is so incredibly simple and yet you keep trying to fight over it. We’re at 400ppm so a 2% increase would be 8ppm and yet the highest increase shown is less than 3ppm. Last year it was 2.66. That’s not even 1%. Incredibly simple math. Hard to misconstrue yet you and rodger both managed to fuck it up royally and look stupid in the process.
Wow.
come on billy what is the percent increase from 1.4ppm to 1.9ppm, use your arse or excel if you need to?
Do you think we really care what two random and basically anonymous climate zombies think on an insignificant blog. We are not here to have an argument with you. We are here to have a bit of fun without YOU. How many simple mistakes have you and twodicks have made. Why do you insist on just farting around stinking up the place.
bill
1 earth is self regulating for temperature
2 you can get the global anomally from the middle of the antarctic
3 cannot work out the percent increase from 1.4 ppm to 1.9 ppm
and the bloody atmospheric concentration hits 400ppm and bill claims we are not fair bringing facts in
retard, get some sleep and hopefully you will wake up sober
john byatt says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:32 am
bill you are presuming how it was done
increases
1990 to 1999 1.4ppm per year
2000 to 2010 1.9ppm per year
what was the increase for the decade 2000 to 2010 from the 1990-1999 period yearly average?
it is easy bill a .5 difference per year
now what is that as a percent increase bill
From the link.
“The theoretical curve (red line) that matches the observations from 1958 to the present turns out to have an annual growth rate of 2.22%.”
It talks about a 2.22% GROWTH rate. That is different from an absolute difference which is what you have confused. So from 2ppm to 2.044ppm is a 2% GROWTH rate.
If you continue it looks like this
2.00
2.04
2.09
2.13
2.18
2.23
2.28
2.33
2.38
Sorry, you are wrong Bill, time to get your Excel skills up.
or wipe his arse before putting things in it
I think perhaps the penny has finally dropped and Bill has worked out that he is wrong, again, and again and again. But he should have worked it out ages ago. By default anything a climate zombie says is wrong. They are after all dimwitted and brainless by their very nature. But you can bet he will be back with some crazy idea that he is right about something. Guaranteed comedy gold though.
So that’s what you’re going to argue now? Um, okay.
John.. This about says it all,
“You’re just another american who is willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick being shoved up your asshole every day… The owners of this country know the truth… it’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!”
― George Carlin
Quite the word-smith. Dead now, but I hear he had an excellent adventure.
Oh dear, Bill has proven himself to be a total arse.
“The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1”
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.long
Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.
Why can’t you understand that?
So simple and yet you can’t figure it out. What a dumb shit you are!
I bet JB gets a good laugh when he sees what you did. I tried to spell it out for you but even then you couldn’t do the math for yourselves. Pity. I thought the education system in America was better than that.
You can’t twist this and make it look like you were right Bill.
Hard to misconstrue yet you managed to fuck it up royally and look stupid in the process.
Wow.
Copying and editing Bill’s own words against him. 10 seconds. The look on Bills face. Priceless.
This moment is worthy of framing. You just made my day. I now have a smile from ear to ear. Looking forward to your next major cock-up.
Watching the deniers. Best site ever!! I would pay to have this many laughs.
was pissing myself when the doodle head put this one up
“2.2% of 392 = 8.62 which would mean we’d be at 401 right now not 395.2.2% of 392 = 8.62 which would mean we’d be at 401 right now not 395.
that should have told him straight away he had it all confused,
but then the clothhead continues to carry on like a fart in a pickle bottle
and twodicks “I do have some expertise in economic history”
LOL
Retard comment of the day at willards
TomE says:
October 14, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Anthony: I have a few climate websites I follow, WUWT, Bishop Hill, IceAgeNow, Real Science. I always spend a lot of time at WUWT because there are some very interesting, informative comments, and the people who comment here are dedicated and know what they are talking about. There is at times some dialog which gets a little heated but that is part of the engaging and the putting forth of opinions. Keep at it, don’t get discouraged. I don’t use twitter, I see too many people like Mann who put out off the cuff ridiculous remarks which they should read the next morning. Much like the mornings after when too much to drink and a big mouth embarrass’s one.
great eh?
and the flying monkeys are all telling willard to sue michael mann for claiming his funding came from koch bros
he has already admitted it though via heartland,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
Glieck?Really?
Actually, since you only read approved sites you probably don’t know the facts behind that. Here’s a taste:
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html
The bizarre world of the climate deniers, Monckton defeats the Nazi OWG of their own nightmares
@ the climate retards party blog or any other of the moronic sites of misinformation
good laugh though.
how ironic that Germany is a world leader on climate change , they get it
http://www.nature.com/news/congo-carbon-plan-kicks-off-1.13910
rodger and nick (or anyone) , you wite weally well, i am ratshit, how about seeing what you can come up with to support labor and greens to reject the dismantling of climate initiatives of the previous government,
i do not mind putting my name to it 100,000 signatures would be the goal
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/start_a_petition/
please think about it
“WE urge the labor and green members of the Australian senate to stand up for etc etc
watts swallows , hook line and sinker
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/how-roy-spencer-and-john-christy-trick.html
Payback
JC –
I think some (more?) moderation is needed. There are now more than 700 comments for this thread which is getting excessive (most of them worthless drivel by infantile trolls).
I know it takes time etc. but it is getting a bit out of hand.
I am not averse to somebody pulling the plug on (i.e. banning) repeat offenders – there is no longer any point in pretending we are indulging in informative discussions with these people.
contacted
Mummy, make the bad man go away
I’ve read back through about 6 months of threads here and there is quite a penchant for getting rid of those who upset the natives.
But equally the place is bloody boring as hell when there’s no one there to offer differing views. Instead it becomes a contest to see who can agree more fulsomely with everyone else. You end up with this self-reinforcing circle which tells each member how much smarter the group is as compared to those evil deniers.
Its also why you are so incredulous as to the turn of events in the world beyond WtD such as the rise of Abbott and the world-wide decline in interest and concern about AGW. By talking to each other and reading only approved sites, you miss the real world. Even when you go to non-approved sites, its not to see if there’s anything to learn but just to find something that you can show to tribe to reinforce the feeling of superiority.
Ultimately it leads to inertia. That there is no curiosity about the hiatus is astounding. But it seems that the group somehow came to a consensus that the hiatus doesn’t exist and defend that view in the face of reality. Even while previous heroes of the movement such as Otto and Storch (and yes, even the IPCC) seek to examine and explain the hiatus, the group YELLS that there’s nothing to see here.
I’ve read back through about 6 months of threads here and there is quite a penchant for getting rid of those who upset the natives.
crap, the only one banned was eric the worrall for turning every thread into his obsession with eugenics
“even the IPCC) seek to examine and explain the hiatus”
apparently you did not read it then
AR5 Chapter 9
“Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.” etc
Perhaps you haven’t got up to chapter 9 yet?
Banning:
It seemed to me that Mr W was banned for dobbing WtD into WUWT when they erroneously accused Watts of tampering with a graph.
There was also another chap (I’d have to go back to get the name) who was banned for pointing out a monumental error from you about how many people die from carbon pollution. I think there were other reasons but the posts had been deleted so I couldn’t work out what the crime was.
They’re two I recall. Two in a few months is pretty unusual on these types of sites.
Eric Worrall says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:02 am
I never suggested there is a SPECTRE like conspiracy of climate scientists. What I believe is occurring is an episode of group hysteria, not unlike the group hysteria surrounding the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis in the 1930s.
The dreadful history of Eugenics does not prove that climate alarmism is also an episode of irrational hysteria. What it does demonstrate though is that such episodes are possible, and can affect even scientists and scientific institutions.
The evidence I have seen in the Climategate archive is that climate scientists believe in what they are doing, and believe in their mission to save the world – so much so, that when they encounter an observation which contradicts their theory, their response is to discard the observation.
he was warned and then next comment returned to his eugenics crap
banned
mikes blog, you are supposed to be a guest.
OK.
So was there someone else kicked out for inappropriately talking to WUWT? I must admit, when reading the old threads I only skimmed so maybe I got mixed up.
he was already banned when he put up the wuwt post, why should mike now ask him back for more eugenics crap?
he is probably banned permanently you will have to ask mike
Oh I don’t care that they were banned and certainly don’t care whether they come back or not. Just asking.
Twodicks”But equally the place is bloody boring as hell when there’s no one there to offer differing views.”
but you are not offering different views you are offering complete crap such as getting the global anomaly from the middle of antarctica,
no effin idea about the CO2 growth rate, these are not different views just garbage
“no effin idea about the CO2 growth rate, ”
Huh? Wasn’t it you who confused actual and percentage rates?
You continue to distort the issue of Vostok. I think its because you didn’t understand how the ice cores work – something about thinking each year was identifiable.
no it was you, we were laughing at you both and we both gave you hints that you were on the wrong track,
” I think its because you didn’t understand how the ice cores work – something about thinking each year was identifiable”
so in ten thousand years from now with complete yearly anomaly data it will be identifiable that was the point, and it was about the fact that parts of the WAIS has a current anomaly of 2.4DeGC
but you two clotheads, stupidly unknowingly claiming that the global temperature anomaly would be seen as 2.4Degc for 2013 from the future ice cores, if we still have any ice that is
bozobill still believes that is what the scientists say
and you also claim that, by your own stupid backing his statement even though you denied going along with whatever crap he might say
no one wants to get rid of you because you believe we think you are evil, just a better class of troll would be appreciated
you would have been long gone from UKi blog with the nonsense you write,
mike has been very tolerant , probably doing another research paper on you retards.
“but you two clotheads, stupidly unknowingly claiming that the global temperature anomaly would be seen as 2.4Degc for 2013 from the future ice cores, if we still have any ice that is”
Well I’m sure that’s how you remember it but you are wrong, totally wrong. But you’ll keep repeating it as though its true and never admit that you got it hopelessly wrong and really didn’t understand how ice cores work.
and you still do not f*cking get it
J Giddeon says:
October 16, 2013 at 12:23 am
OK, nutted it out. Despite saying that they are comparing CO2 level growth with interest earnings (“An exponential rise is exactly the way your money grows if you put it into a savings account with continuous compounding of your balance, leaving the interest in.”) what they are really saying is that there is an increase in the rate of increase by 2.2%. It’d be like putting your money in the bank at 10% and then getting 10.022% next year and then 10.024% the year after and so on so that by year 33 you’re getting 20%pa. Not at all as they explained it. Its probably an arguable analysis but doesn’t really fit the known data with any sort of consistency.
What they appear to have done is just data fit using two end point – 1958 and 2008. The formula they postulate at the end of article is pretty accurate for those end points. But the further you get from 1958 the worse it becomes as a predictive tool, so that by the mid 1980′s it completely useless. Then as we move closer to 2008 it gets better because it was designed to be accurate for 2008.
Interestingly, as we move from 2008 forward it is getting worse each year. For each year from 2008 to 2012 the formula predicts a higher CO2 level than was actually achieved. Unless there is some massive increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation this in-built error in the formula will get larger just as it did between 1958 and 1988. .
“and you still do not f*cking get it”
That’s a pretty thorough demolition of what I wrote. The most cogent piece of logic I’ve seen from you.
doubt that they would get this either
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/no-basis-to-deny-global-warming/
petition just started, please consider and share
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/keep_Australias_commitment_to_Carbon_reduction/?eIazJfb
“truly scary”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131015191401.htm
Antidote…
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php/global-warming-analogies-forecasting-project
they knocked the second coming of christ analogy on the head, too funny
to close to their reality
Gee’s Monty Python clip on IA, sure nailed WtD’s very own.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/life/satire/apocalypse-now/#commentspost
Why are you advertising a Heartland expert’s website? Are you mentally retarded? Why are you still trolling this website with rubbish? What is wrong with you?
http://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green
“Why are you advertising a Heartland expert’s website? ”
I wasn’t. I was linking to an interesting analysis which remains interesting even if the author(s) happen to do some work for some people who receive some funding from some people you disapprove of.
Ever heard of ‘conflict of interest’? The fact that you didn’t know that the link you provided is tainted shows that you are completely retarded. Sorry, but none of here want to hear the dribbled ramblings of a retarded troll.
some crap he found at watts,
Also available here
http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com
http://www.questia.com
http://www.climatedepot.com
http://www.theclimatebet.com
http://www.ukipmeps.org › Blog › CO2 Scam Blog
works.bepress.com
http://www.climategate.com
http://www.academia.edu
All anti-science blogs and all from 2010. This might have been news 3 years ago, so why do you think that anyone here would be interested in this rubbish now? Why are you so stupid and continue to prove it every time you come here? Why do you eat up with glee old news from stupid anti-science denier blogs? What is it about the title ‘Watching the deniers’ that you don’t get? The answer to all these questions, you are a obsessive retarded denier troll. You just can’t help yourself can you? You are a complete and utter joke.
“Ever heard of ‘conflict of interest’? ”
Yes I’m aware of the concept. Do you think that all sceintists are susceptible to configuring their views to suit their employer?
For example M. Mann’s employer, Penn State, is funded by the Koch Bros. By your logic we should reject the Hockey stick for that reason alone.
Or is it only those whose views you reject who can be bought off and if so do you realise that that implies that you are simply seeking an excuse to reject data that doesn’t fit your prejudices.
and just what programs at Penn are actually supported by Koch bros,
you claim to know all about it so explain in full.
Gids presents the fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ in its true sense: because Green has a doctorate he is an ‘authority’ no matter the irrelevance of the field in which he gained his PhD. Green is in fact notable for the over-reach of his claim to realistically test climate science projections….but despite his low-grade offering being years old, his work lives on as a zombie rejectionist meme.
John, the great educator, will only head to those great institutions of learning, that can provide him with the answers, that only his lower order thinking skills can accept. The WUWT’s, Heartland, IPA, etc, Oh yeah, and the latest addition to his academic arsenal,
“ForPrin.com”. I’m sure his peers, had high hopes for him, he cut and pasted what he was told, but his inability to handle his own research, left them shaking their heads. But don’t fret,
As George Bernard Shaw said,
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
Nick,
They have expertise in forecasting and evaluating the procedures and systems used to make forecasts. that’s his area of expertise and that’s where his authority lay.
There’s actually a subset of sceptics who see CAGW as just another in a long line of over-egged millenarian forecasts and this analysis is in that genre. You might refer to Booker’s book “Scared to Death”.
I find it more than a little surprising that you’d suggest others are using an “appeal to authority” when the most used phase on this site is “accept the science”. we have quite a sub-group here of people whose main ‘thinking’ is that whatever climate scientists say is true. eg JB has been asserting for a very long time that we’ll reach 560ppm CO2 levels by 2050 based on ‘research’ that he didn’t understand and didn’t , it would appear, even try to understand. There are innumerable similar example from quite a few of the group.
The forecasts (aren’t they projections?) from the consensus are based on forecasts from economists which are in turn based on forecasts from futurists and political scientists. Someone who has expertise in evaluating forecasts has some authority here.
No need to appeal to the ‘authority’ of Green again, Gids. Citing the science is not an appeal to authority, it’s just cutting to the source…
All of it comes with caution and caveats, particularly the economic modelling. Projections of CO2 levels of x by time y are simply based on observations of past behavior, then scenarios of output based on levels of restraint from zero to full. It ain’t sinister. The big caveats are physical ones: how long will enhanced biological drawdown keep up? What will be the ‘shape’ of methane release from thawing ground? Those are known unknowns worth considering, not Green’s lightweight diversions.
For those who want bypass the crap.
http://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green