Freedom of expression, even putting forward minority and unpopular views, is without doubt a universal right. It is a fundamental belief of mine, and shared by all readers of this blog.
Over the years I’ve received notes from readers about the sometimes rambunctious nature of comments on WtD. I’ve allowed many comments from climate sceptics due to my passion for freedom of expression. I’m aware it can result in long discussion threads, which on occasion become heated. There are community standards for WtD which I developed to help manage this issue, and based on these I’ve banned certain readers.
it is worth stating I have not allowed these long threads to boost blogs numbers. Long comment threads add nothing to the overall traffic of WtD.
Which brings me to my point.
As some of you may have recently heard, the Sydney Morning Herald (see here) and Los Angeles Times (see here) have made a stand on printing letters sceptical of climate change. Put simply, they will not print factual inaccuracies.
To quote the letters editor of the Sydney Morning Herald:
“Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts. This applies to all our contributors on any subject. On that basis, a letter that says, “there is no sign humans have caused climate change” would not make the grade for our page…”
I strongly agree with the stance taken by both the SMH and LA Times. It is a wise move, and one that can help rid the internet of information pollution.
Truth matters, as do facts.
This is especially true in the climate change debate.
The discussion about climate change is not helped if it is polluted by misinformation, which is really the intent of climate change deniers.
So for this reason, claims such as “global warming is not real”, “global warming is a hoax” or “there has been no warming for 15 years” will not longer be allowed. I’d much rather the WtD comments section reflect what we all want the debate to be – about an appropriate response to climate change.
While some may claim this as an act of censorship, I think it is beholden upon myself and other commentators to now take a much firmer stand. The SMH and LA Times have shown wisdom, and I believe it is worth following their example.
We’ve been far too forgiving of the deliberate attempt to mislead and lie to the public. For the acts of climate change sceptics are just that – acts of deception.
Perhaps I should have implemented this policy from the outset or much sooner. Nonetheless, I think my original intention to allow free-for-all debate was well intentioned and was acceptable in the first years of this blog.
Deniers of course have their own blogs and space to make there case, and they’re welcome to prosecute their case there.
I’ll be watching comments closely and implementing this new policy – however if a false claim slips through, please let me know and I’ll attend to it. WtD is a solo effort, thus it is not possible to monitor comments every moment of the day.
it will take a few weeks to fully implement, but I hope this change in policy makes reading WtD more enjoyable.
Thanks to the many readers of WtD over the years, and for those who emailed me with their concerns.
I’ve listened to your voices.
~ Mike @ WtD
[Correction: initially I made reference to the number of visitors when I fully intended to make reference to the number visits. A small distinction, and a genuine error on my behalf. I fully intended to state the later.]
Watching the Deniers 
well done
We recently had a comment here that the Arctic summer was the coldest on record this year,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131024102243.htm
Unprecedented Arctic Warming: Average Summer Temperatures in Last 100 Years May Be Warmest in 120,000 Years
Thanks John, it is for this reason I’ve made the decision. Blatant lies have no place.
http://www.caff.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=788&catid=508&Itemid=1554
Both “coldest summer on record” and “last 100 years may be the warmest in 120,000” can be true in this case.
if you know what coldest on record refers to
The DMI plot has a grid resolution of 25km, daily temperatures north of 80 degrees versus the 1958/2002 mean,
winter temps show the overall warming, summer temps are restricted by the energy contributing to melting ice rather than increased surface temp, once the ice melts out for part of the season DMI is going to need a new graph
Yes I do know what “coldest on record” refers to John.
I was simply pointing out that the new paper’s claims don’t negate or make false the claim that this past summer was the coldest on record. Both can be true.
You’re wasting your time John and giving a voice to a serial pest. He will employ a pseudo-Schroedinger’s cat argument that two states are possible at the same time. Let him post away with his nonsense. Any rational person reading his garbage will see it for what it is.
Nonsense? You mean a single year can’t be cold if the decade or century is warm?
Ridiculous.
“Bill Jamison says:
October 26, 2013 at 1:13 am
Both “coldest summer on record” and “last 100 years may be the warmest in 120,000″ can be true in this case.”
Bill, guess what I did. I actually did a little research and I found out where this ‘coldest summer on record’ meme you mention originated from. And surprise surprise, it comes from the anti-science and well known distorter of facts here.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/12/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-2013-north-pole-seeing-coldest-summer-ever-recorded-by-dmi/
If we investigate further it points to a link here
In this week’s Saturday Summary, meteorologist Joe Bastardi takes a look at the Arctic situation, among other interesting stuff. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/12/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-2013-north-pole-seeing-coldest-summer-ever-recorded-by-dmi/#sthash.xuoFhJSk.dpuf
Who is Joe Bastardi?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Joe_Bastardi.htm
A Known Climate Misinformer.
Now for the reality check.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/01/greenland-soars-to-highest-temperature-ever-recorded/
Also check this image out.
So if you look at the blue lines, you will see the coldest summers occurred in the 1890’s.
Bill, you are a complete disgrace. You will believe any old rubbish from the professional misinformation machine. Now just crawl back into that bubble of denial and start sucking your thumb again. Typical troll.
I didn’t make the claim that this was the coldest summer on record in the arctic. John mentioned it. I simply pointed out that the new paper claiming that the most recent 100 years are the warmest in possibly 120,000 do not prove this wasn’t the coldest summer on record. Both can easily be true at the same time. I do know that based on DMI information this was a colder than normal summer in the arctic. Record cold? I have no idea because I haven’t been able to find any records that prove or disprove the claim.
Not sure why you posted that image though since it doesn’t include this past summer for comparison purposes so it’s meaningless as far as this debate is concerned.
I’m not sure why some of you have a problem with the statement that the new paper doesn’t prove this wasn’t (or couldn’t be) the coldest summer on record for the arctic. Even if it’s true it’s meaningless in the context of trends. One cold year, even a record cold year, is just weather.
BJ “john mentioned it”
john byatt says:
October 24, 2013 at 10:55 pm
well done
JB “We recently had a comment here that the Arctic summer was the coldest on record this year,
??????
well this bloke is claiming that it was the coldest summer on record
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/12/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-2013-north-pole-seeing-coldest-summer-ever-recorded-by-dmi/
bill is playing troll again and he makes two claims
” Both can easily be true at the same time.”
most recent 100 years are the warmest in possibly 120,000 do not prove this wasn’t the coldest summer on record.
bill is just being a troll as there is no way that the last summer in the arctic could possibly be the coldest in the record
so his claim that both could be true is just hyperbole”
John said “most recent 100 years are the warmest in possibly 120,000 do not prove this wasn’t the coldest summer on record.
bill is just being a troll as there is no way that the last summer in the arctic could possibly be the coldest in the record ”
Amazing you can’t see the logic failure in your statement.
As I’ve said several times now both can be true they aren’t mutually exclusive. To claim they are is ridiculous.
“As I’ve said several times now both can be true they aren’t mutually exclusive. To claim they are is ridiculous.’
in context they are mutually exclusive because what you are saying is in effect
that it is possible that the last summer Arctic temperature was colder than the 1910 period (the record)
it was a complete load of hyperbole and was not possible except in your own fantasy world
No I’m saying that the link to the paper you provided doesn’t disprove the claim that this past summer was the coldest on record. You posted it as a rebuttal to that claim and yet they aren’t mutually exclusive even though you try to pretend they are.
I don’t know if it was the coldest summer on record for the arctic. I didn’t make the claim. I do know that DMI’s data shows it was colder than average based on their data which doesn’t go back for 100+ years.
what i said
We recently had a comment here that the Arctic summer was the coldest on record this year,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131024102243.htm
Unprecedented Arctic Warming: Average Summer Temperatures in Last 100 Years May Be Warmest in 120,000 Years
your nonsense claim is in fact that the paper does not disprove that last summers Arctic temperature was not the coldest since 1910
pure logic disproves it, it was already disproved before the paper, the paper gives a long term look
the point you are trying to obscure is ” Average Summer Temperatures in Last 100 Years May Be Warmest in 120,000 Years’
Well at least you confirmed that you were trying to disprove the claim that this past summer was the coldest on record in the arctic based on a paper that didn’t include this year’s data and has nothing to do with a single year nevermind a single summer.
As usual simple logic eludes you.
oh look it does disprove it
“Temperatures across the Arctic have been rising substantially in recent decades as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. Studies by CU-Boulder researchers in Greenland indicate temperatures on the ice sheet have climbed 7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1991.
rising substantially in recent decades and coldest in over one hundred years are mutually exclusive
God you’re dumb.
John said “rising substantially in recent decades and coldest in over one hundred years are mutually exclusive”
No they are not mutually exclusive. You truly are a disgrace to AGW believers everywhere John. That’s such simple logic even you should be able to figure it out.
You have can have temperatures “rising substantially” for a period of decades and still have one single record cold summer. They most certainly are not mutually exclusive. Sheesh.
Notice how no one else is coming to your defense here? There’s a reason for that! It’s also ridiculous that you feel the need to defend the idea that it can’t possibly be a record cold year in the arctic as if that would somehow call AGW into question. I have news for you: it doesn’t. It’s meaningless. It’s weather.
what a waste of time
“You have can have temperatures “rising substantially” for a period of decades and still have one single record cold summer. They most certainly are not mutually exclusive. Sheesh.
but it was not a record cold summer was it?
it was below the mean over a short time period
a record would require about 7DegF colder
again it would now be impossible to have one summer recording record cold
now prove what you are claiming using actual data not dribbling
Climate council on increasing bushfire risk
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-raising-fire-risk-20131024-2w4gf.html?utm_content=buffer7cbe4&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
Bravo Mike. Idiot trolls need your blog more than your blog needs them. Don’t forget the concern trolls.
As stated by Nick
” like somebody obfuscating on a blog”
also should not be tolerated, numerous examples
[Edited ~ Mike @ WtD]
Maybe you could just acknowledge that you’re calling the noise significant whilst ignoring the signal?
they will not even acknowledge that Jones stated in 2011 that the warming since 1995 was now statistically significant,
So two back to back la ninas and they want to rewrite physics
I’m just asking what form of words would be acceptable to describe a well known fact that even the IPCC acknowledges.
misleading without explanation
Surface Warming “Pause”
After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”
In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”
J – the issue is when people try to use misrepresent the the fact the planet is warming, and the energy balance of the earth is what we’re really talking about.
Land surface data is one thing, and it like any trend it will be noisy. Focusing on short term trends is cherry picking and irrelevant. We’re talking about 150+ years of data.
SST, acidification of the oceans etc. all conclusive evidence.
There is no point harping on about the “hiatus”.
Move on from that point.
First warning.
You’ve just edited out my link to Storch et al talking about this very issue. Are you saying this is not a valid area of inquiry as far as this blog is concerned?
J Giddeon.
The denialist nonsense about the existence of a “hiatus” in the warming of the planet has been patiently and impatiently dissected, deconstructed, analysed, refuted and put to bed so many times that ploughing the same ground yet again in the hope that it will turn up a gotcha is just a waste of time – except for the denialist propagandists.
Mike’s rubbed your nose yet again in the two essential points:
1) there is an imbalance in the Earth’s incoming/outgoing energy budget which means that the planet is warming apace, and
2) surface temperature trajectories are noisy, which does not mean that the underlying warming mechanism has stopped.
If you sincerely believe that you have a valid point you should be able to frame it with due acknowledgement of all the previous, relevant science and scientific points. Otherwise you’re just like that particularly retarded dog that Debunker mentions below.
“The denialist nonsense about the existence of a “hiatus””
Perhaps you’d like to explain it to Mr Storch (that well know spruiker of denialist nonsense). I’d provide a link to his discussion of it but apparently such things are no longer permitted here.
I could also point you to that other well known purveyor of denialist nonsense, the IPCC
AR5 Chapter 9
But I assume that will be considered to be beyond the pale for this blog.
RealClimate: The IPCC AR5 attribution statement
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/…/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
Oct 10, 2013 – The AR5 explanation for the hiatus as given in chapter 9 is basically that …. I noticed that the IPCC plans to finalize WG1 sometime in Jan 2014.
JG you do not understand any of this WUWT is a dill
here is someone who does, a climatologist
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
“Michael Marriott says:
October 25, 2013 at 5:26 am
There is no point harping on about the “hiatus”.
Move on from that point.
First warning.”
So despite being warned, Gidiot is still chasing the ‘hiatus’, acting like a retarded dog with his creation of the ultimate straw man by using the IPCC report to discredit climate science. Disgraceful. Is this guy weird or what.
if he really wants to understand it then he can read real climate
gavin also suggests
http://skepticalscience.com/jones-2013-attribution.html
Just for you J G – “If you measure the temperature trend between two particularly hot years you get a flat line which is not statistically significant. Meanwhile, the thermal content of the planet continues to rise.”
Not sure about Mike, but if you used that wording I would find it completely acceptable.
Concentrating on a surface trend is a bit like concentrating on the surface of an iceberg. It ignores 90% of the mass below the water line. The captain of the Titanic made the same mistake. J. G. Why do you keep chasing the same bus every day and never catching it, like some particularly retarded dog?
“JG you do not understand any of this WUWT is a dill”
Is that a sentence? But I get your point….when you can’t argue a point just assert that it all came from WUWT and that, in the context of this group, is the same as proving it wrong. Pathetic.
JG you do not understand any of this WUWT is a dill
here is someone who does, a climatologist
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
“RealClimate: The IPCC AR5 attribution statement”
that RC article doesn’t address the issue of the surface temp stagnation.
They are like this group – if we don’t mention it then it doesn’t exist.
Some swine does mention it in comments and you can almost see gavin tripping over himself to change the subject.
It could be argued that since recent trends have fallen slightly below the multi-model ensemble mean, this should imply that our uncertainty has massively increased and hence the confidence statement should be weaker than stated. However this doesn’t really follow. Over-estimates of model sensitivity would be accounted for in the methodology (via a scaling factor of less than one), and indeed, a small over-estimate (by about 10%) is already factored in. Mis-specification of post-2000 forcings (underestimated volcanoes, Chinese aerosols or overestimated solar), or indeed, uncertainties in all forcings in the earlier period, leads to reduced confidence in attribution in the fingerprint studies, and an lower estimate of the anthropogenic contribution. Finally, if the issue is related simply to an random realisation of El Niño/La Niña phases or other sources of internal variability, this simply feeds into the ‘Internal variability’ assessment. Thus the effects of recent years are already embedded within the calculation, and will have led to a reduced confidence compared to a situation where things lined up more. Using this as an additional factor to change the confidence rating again would be double counting.
There is more information on this process in the IPCC chapter itself, and in the referenced literature (particularly Ribes and Terray (2013), Jones et al (2013) and Gillet et al (2013)). There is also a summary of relevant recent papers at SkepticalScience.
Bottom line? These statements are both comprehensible and traceable back to the literature and the data. While they are conclusive, they are not a dramatic departure from basic conclusions of AR4 and subsequent literature – but then, that is exactly what one should expect.
did not even know what he was reading,
JG “Some swine does mention it in comments and you can almost see gavin tripping over himself to change the subject.”
lie or you do not have a clue about the science, which is it?
so proof?
J Giddeon says:
October 25, 2013 at 3:01 am
mid 1996 to now is more than 15 yrs.
As I wrote in an earlier thread, the issue for me is not whether the zero trend is predictive but what it means for the models which don’t replicate an extended hiatus.
ignorance to even suggest predictive or in fact relevant
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/February/anthropogenic-global-warming-1997.aspx
So I guess J G’s point is that climate models do not replicate the ‘hiatus’ and that therefore they are crap, and cannot be replied upon for any future planning. What he fails to realise though, is that for the models to replicate this ‘slowdown’ they would have had to predict an anomalous El Nino exactly in 1998, so extreme that it produced the hottest year that century, (because denialists cherry pick that year to ensure that a zero trend is produced), followed by an unbroken succession of La Nina’s for the next decade or so. Since the models were never intended, (nor would it have been possible) to predict natural variability to such a fine extent, this is setting an impossible standard.
What J G also fails to grasp is that (although we have had an unbroken succession of La Ninas since 2000), we have had at least 3 years that have been nearly as hot, if not hotter than that “once in a century” year of 1998. Three “once in a century” events in 10 years. In what sense then has Global Warming stopped? Also, given that most of the current warming appears to have been trapped in the ocean due to successive La Ninas, what will happen when the next El Nino comes along (especially as we are coming out of a Solar minima as well)? Yet, no matter how many times he has had this explained to him, he continues to concentrate on the relatively inconsequential tip of the iceberg whilst ignoring the bulk of the mass underneath, like an idiot savant playing the same tune over and over again. Really, this stuff is not rocket science, and should be able to be understood by anyone possessing a moderate amount of functioning brain cells
“So I guess J G’s point is that climate models do not replicate the ‘hiatus’ and that therefore they are crap, ”
I’ve never said that
“and cannot be replied upon for any future planning.”
I’ve never said that
What I have said is that, depending on how much longer the stagnation continues and what factors are determined to have caused it, the models may need to be adjusted to take account of the new circumstances. Currently only 2% of model runs replicate a 15 yr stagnation. It is hard to see how such adjustments could result in anything other than lower temp projections and/or a longer timeframe before getting to a 2c or 3c rise. Its not like this is controversial (well except for here) since real life consensus scientists are saying similar things.
” (because denialists cherry pick that year to ensure that a zero trend is produced),”
I don’t know how many times it needs to be said but the stagnation calculations aren’t reliant on 1998. All the main datasets also show a non-signifcant trend if you start in 1997 and some if you start in 1996. But that doesn’t suit the meme so you just keep on with the cherry-pick accusation.
Its good to see, D, that you know what’s caused the stagnation. Pass it on to people like Storch and the IPCC who aren’t quite as confident as you.
My Apologies J G for putting words in your mouth. However, the standard contrarian argument goes like this: Models cannot replicate the recent “hiatus” therefore they are unreliable, therefore we cannot use them for future projections, therefore global warming is not happening. I naively assumed that since you were pushing the initial part of this barrow, that you were signed up for the rest.
Now lets fact check the rest of your post. You say:
“the stagnation calculations aren’t reliant on 1998. All the main datasets also show a non-signifcant trend if you start in 1997 and some if you start in 1996”
Lets have a look at 1996 shall we?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/offset:-0.26/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/offset:-0.26/trend
That looks pretty significantly upward to me. What about 1997?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.26/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.26/trend
Still a slight upward trend. How about 2000?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-0.26/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/offset:-0.26/trend
Hmmm… still slightly upward. OK what about 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.26/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.26/trend
Totally flat.. That’s not a cherry pick?
By the way, that is using a somewhat outdated Hadcrut3 dataset. If we use Hadcrut4, which includes many more stations in the Arctic, the upward trend is a lot stronger, even starting at 1998.
I do wish you would post links to the other datasets so that we can examine them ourselves. Particularly interested in the ones from 1996. Not sure how that will play out. If you make claims like that, you have to back them up.
As has been made clear many times though, this fixation on surface temperatures ignores the vast amount of heat going into the Oceans which is ignoring over 90% of the problem. To a large extent, the so called “hiatus” is irrelevant. Given that we have made absolutely no attempt to slow down our rate of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, (even sped it up!), can there be any doubt this “hiatus”, will be temporary?
I prefer to use the Skeptical science trend calculator for two reasons. First it provides actual numbers so you don’t need to rely on ey-balling a graph. Secondly SKS is an approved site here so we are less likely to see its results dismissed as paid for by big oil or whatever.
So using SKS with a start date of 1996.99 to 2013.75 we get the following results.
GISS Trend: 0.073 ±0.121 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA L/O Trend: 0.045 ±0.111 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCrut4 Trend: 0.046 ±0.116 °C/decade (2σ)
BEST Trend: 0.169 ±0.280 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA Land Trend: 0.132 ±0.186 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.093 ±0.212 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS Trend: -0.009 ±0.206 °C/decade (2σ)
ie no dataset shows statistical significance at 2σ for the period from the beginning of 1997 to now.
Repeat starting at 1995.99 and only NOAA Land shows a statistically significant upward trend although a few other get close.
how dumb are they?
this dumb
“So using SKS with a start date of 1996.99 to 2013.75”
Care to explain why that’s dumb.
It has been explained to you at length why using short time frames to determine trends is pointless, but you refuse to listen. Also the atmosphere is less than 5% of the energy, making your statements even more pointless. You have been told to drop this on many occasions but you are still manically chasing your tail. This is clear behaviour of a retarded climate zombie troll.
1. I was asked a question and I answered it.
2. the models we are talking about make projections about surface temps. Its probably a good idea to use surface temp data to compare their results with the real world. When we start talking about comparing models which project deep sea temps, then it will be appropriate to include real world deep sea temp data.
Its an apples-with-apples thing but I suspect you’ll still want to throw the odd orange in the mix.
Here is a good reason why you shouldn’t read anything into short term trends.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Double-Standard-on-Internal-Variability_Tamino.html
A “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”
Funnily enough, by 2006 contrarians such as Bob Carter were trumpeting the “no warming since 1998” meme. What does it all mean?
It means, short term trends (even 15 years), aren’t a great deal of use for predictions.
Gavin Schmidt
Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries
[Edited]
[Edited ~ Mike @ WtD]
[Edited ~ Mike @ WtD]
[Edited I’m removing whole sub-thread ~ Mike @ WtD]
Gistemp J-D 1996 anomaly 33
every year since has had a higher J-D anomaly and 2012 J-D anomaly was 55
Some interesting work demonstrating accurate modelling and also explaining ocean heat uptake. I am always amused by non-experts claiming “the models are wrong” with an inferred “therefore” when they have little to no understanding of the state of play in terms of current modelling, how models are built and how science moves forward in general. The ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in the surface temperature record has given trolls plenty of fodder to spread their ignorant nonsense to equally ignorant listeners but inparticular the concern trolls have had a field day with it. They get to say, they accept the premise for AGW but “if the models can’t predict…” Of course they neglect the facts that models aren’t meant to be predictive with a high degree of accuracy but rather to provide a range of possible outcomes. I’m not going to rehash all that because it is well known, understood and accepted everywhere but in the denier mind.
doi: 10.1038/nature12534
doi: 10.1038/srep02645
doi: 10.1002/grl.50541
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
concern trolling like this ?
“As I wrote in an earlier thread, the issue for me is not whether the zero trend is predictive but what it means for the models which don’t replicate an extended hiatus.”
Exactly.
concern troll – someone who fails to acknowledge that I’m 100% correct
I’ve provided a link to a definition of what a concern troll is on at least two occasions and you fit the defintion perfectly. Feel free to go and look for it.
[Edited ~ Mike @ WtD]
“…that the settled science isn’t quite settled is just so unscientific.”
Strike 1 I would think. I like it when you think you have the credentials to determine if something is scientific or not.
You’re unequivicably 🙂 correct U.
Equally I don’t have the credentials to know if a dog is best in show. But I do know when its a cat.
which is not even relevant, troll reply
I doubt that. You know, all those flora yapping and meowing sounds very similar.
“J Giddeon says:
October 25, 2013 at 5:09 am
There is no doubt that the models don’t replicate this. ”
When are you going to wake up.
THE MODELS DO REPLICATE THIS
“Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130829
This is the main problem with braindead climate zombie trolls is that they live inside a constructed fantasy world, reading Murdoch papers and ideological blogs. They are totally convinced the bald face lies and fabrications that they have been reading for so long are the truth. Not only that, when presented with reality they withdraw back into their fairytale bubble sucking their thumbs. Then they get all worked up and lash out at the people trying to wake them up from their stupor Truly sad and pathetic.
Tell Storch et al who found that a mere 2% of runs replicated a 15yr stagnation and none replicated a 17yr stagnation.
Is “stagnation” an approved word given that its used by a real life consensus scientist?
do we have to put up with his lies?
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario
and no recognition of attribution for that,
as mike said get over it, move on
Yeah, well I did post a link where Storch talks about attribution but it was deemed inappropriate for the ‘truth-seekers’ here.
that was not the lie
You keep mentioning a 17 year stagnation. How about posting the dataset that has this?
Storch talked about if the stagnation continued to the point where it was 20 years with little warming then “we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario”. In their SI you can see the model run projections for 17 through 30 years and the percentage of runs that replicate a stagnation of that length. See S2. For 17 years it’s actually 0.4% for CMIP5 in Column E which is compared to HadCRUT4.
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
In other words no one is claiming there is currently 17 years of temperature stagnation. Storch is discussing a possible what if scenario.
Thanks Bill, so basically J G has the wrong end of the stick.
storch is referring to his own simulations
“You keep mentioning a 17 year stagnation.”
I don’t keep mentioning it. I mentioned it once and then somewhat erroneously in that I said that Storch had found that no models replicated a 17 yrs hiatus whereas it was Christy who said that. Storch said a mere 2% of models replicated a 15yr lack of statistically significant trend and none replicated a 20yr stagnation.
Incidentally Christy is now calling the 17yr point reached although I’m assuming Christy is persona non gratia here.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
what do you not understand about this so claimed hiatus being off topic, this is mike’s blog not yours, now respect his wishes or fuck off dickhead
Since Mike proclaimed that this topic, which is under active consideration in many parts of the consensus world, is of no interest here, I have not raised it as a new issue. I have merely been responding to others who have continued to raise it and who have continued to prove that it doesn’t exist. If people stop asking me questions and stop trying to prove that my previous statements were wrong and stop trying to put words in my mouth, then I will stop talking about it. I just hope you can get Storch and Otto and Christy and myriad others to do likewise.
24th
So for this reason, claims such as “global warming is not real”, “global warming is a hoax” or “there has been no warming for 15 years” will not longer be allowed. I’d much rather the WtD comments section reflect what we all want the debate to be – about an appropriate response to climate change.
it is now the 28th
you are the only one here breaking the rules here, maybe bozo missed it
““there has been no warming for 15 years” will not longer be allowed”
get it ?
OK JB, let’s all pretend to ignore what is plainly in front of us and assert that the only person posting on the stagnation since the 24th is me. Dill.
BTW still waiting with baited breathe your explanation as to why ““So using SKS with a start date of 1996.99 to 2013.75″ is “dumb”.
he is using this from storch
At My Institute
At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. I
CMIP5 simulations
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/cmip5-simulations/
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
Will you still allow comments that violate the blogs policy such as insults, personal attacks, etc?
bad punctuation will not be tolerated
Come on Bill…we all know the answer to that.
I figured it was worth asking since there was basically no moderation previously. If some blog policies are going to be enforced I thought that just maybe they all would be enforced.
But then I’m an eternal optimist!
Ah, the Eternal optimist.
It seems I may have been proven wrong. For many years I have been telling people that deniers and trolls have a lack of self-awareness. But then as soon as Mike announces that he is tightening his comments policy, the two main trolls here are curious about specifics obviously out of concern for their own ability to continue trolling.
I wrote a post once where I was comparing the mentality of deniers to the comment made by a gentlemen I met once in north Queensland. That man said to me, “Mike, I’m not a racist, but I just can’t stand Indians and coons.” I don’t need to go into how abhorrent this is. It is apparent to everyone. It reminded me of “I’m not a denier but…..” and now we essentially have “I’m not a troll but……” So thank you Gids and Bill for showing me that I can be wrong about trolls. You do have self awareness.
I was just searching for a form of words that would allow us to continue to discuss the stagnation in surface temps since it never occurred to me that a blog which purported to be about climate science would deem that to be a verboten topic. But alas, oh pompous one, I was unequivicably mistaken.
you have made all your points and you have it wrong, you simply do not understand any of the science involved, could not find anything at RC about the hiatus,
because you do not have a clue and it was there in black and white
he asks if insults are allowed and then insults uki
I didn’t ask and it wasn’t an insult…it was an observation
Gidiot is a complete knuckleheaded climate zombie arsewipe troll. No, that wasn’t an insult, just an observation.
When someone says “thankyou” you should say “you’re welcome”…..oh you still want to deny that you’re a troll? Interesting.
You are not discussing. You are throwing random stones.
Remember the topic of this thread is to stay calm and tell the truth. Try to stay on topic and not distract the rest of the class or you will be sent to the corner.
uki said “the two main trolls here are curious about specifics obviously out of concern for their own ability to continue trolling”
If you’re referring to me then you should read my post again. I was asking about the enforcement of blog policies that have been in place – but completely ignored – since long before I first posted here.
Talk about lack of self-awareness!
Look out Mike. The self appointed blog policeman is here to tell you how he is morally outraged at how you run your blog.
Actually I’m talking about your lack of self-awareness regarding violating blog policies uki.
Or are you actually aware of it and do it anyway?
Oh I am fully aware that calling you a moron, idiot, fool and all manner of names likely violates mike’s blog policy. It is up to him to pull me up if he sees fit and if he does I’ll wear it. Perhaps he agrees with me.
A simple “Yes” would have sufficed. But nice of you to admit that you intentionally violate the blog policies and that since Mike doesn’t moderate your comments you suppose that he probably agrees with you. If that’s the case I suppose he should update the blog policies to reflect that stance: “Do not insult or attack posters unless they are skeptics.”
one small correction
“unless they are retarded trolls”
You forgot to mention that a “retarded troll” is anyone that disagrees with you and particularly those that prove you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You think you are a sceptic. Very funny. You’re certainly repetitive. You keep filling every single thread with mindless repetition of whatever point you are trying to make. It is truly mindnumbing. Do us all a favour and fuck off before you render everyone here as moronic as you.
a retarded troll would be someone who claims that the planet is self regulating for temperature
that you can get a global anomaly from the centre of Antarctica
that claims the Exponential growth in atmospheric CO2 is based on total carbon dioxide in atmosphere
that it is possible that the Arctic was more than 7 degF colder than the DMI graph reveals
dan certainly is a retarded troll ,
So typical of you John to make up stuff. It’s what you do best. You’re the most dishonest person that posts here John and that’s saying something!
a lie
are you claiming that someone who stated those things would not qualify as a retarded troll?
you think they would be clever?
So are you claiming that the climate scientists I quoted regarding ice core proxies is a retarded troll?
But let me guess John, you believe that moss on Baffin Island proves the entire arctic is warmer now than in the last 120,000 years LOL
Ice cores only give you the temperature at that specific location but Baffin Island moss gives you temperature for the entire arctic??? Oh and did you even know that not all of Baffin Island is even above the Arctic Circle?
look up the word “citations”
abstract
Arctic air temperatures have increased in recent decades, along with documented reductions in sea ice, glacier size, and snowcover. However, the extent to which recent Arctic warming has been anomalous with respect to long-term natural climate variability remains uncertain.
John do you believe that moss on Baffin Island – only part of which is actually north of the arctic circle – can indicate temperature in the arctic for the last 120,000 years? You posted a link to the paper so I know you’re aware of the paper.
read link again
Bill Jamison says:
October 27, 2013 at 5:21 am
So are you claiming that the climate scientists I quoted regarding ice core proxies is a retarded troll?
you stated that the vostok ice core alone was a proxy,
what climate scientist claimed that one ice core could be used as a proxy for the global anomaly? and you have the hide to call people liar
From UCAR: “Layer thickness also may tell us something about global temperatures.” “The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures.”
http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html
So right there they explain two different ways ice cores can be a proxy for global temperature in the past.
Are you going to claim they are “retarded trolls” John?
Now maybe you can explain how moss from Baffin Island is a proxy for the whole of the arctic! You certainly seemed to have accepted that concept without question.
Your link
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html
Antarctic air temperatures
are you really as stupid as you reveal in every comment you make?
You you’re still claiming that ice cores aren’t a proxy for global temperature even though I quoted climate scientists. Yet you turn around and cite the new paper that makes claims about arctic temperature based solely on moss from Baffin Island.
Yet you don’t see the irony.
bill now gets it “ice cores”
so he has gone from claiming one ice core in the centre of Antarctica as a proxy for global anomaly to now ice cores,
There are already many venues for those in denial to talk amongst themselves.
Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.
Of course it is Dan. And I’ve got a great deal for you on a bridge. You’ll make a fortune.
Dan seems to spend his life posting this childish nonsense on every blog
a mathturbater is Dan
Google ‘Dan Pangburn’ to discover what an obsessive certified nutcase does when his psychiatrist leaves their computer for a moment.
This nutter has been mathturbating and left a sorry, sorry trail.
Check out
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/open-letter-to-dan-pangburn-et-al-re.html
He has a wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dan_Pangburn
“Interests include: cosmology archeology paleontology evolution religion climate energy consciousness memory etc.”
Want a laugh, check out his contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Dan_Pangburn&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=-1
This guy is beyond mentally ill.
Nice ad hom attacks there rodger.
dan is bozo’s hero
It wasn’t an attack, it was an observation. This guy has been obsessing about his paper for years now, trying to advertise his blog at every opportunity and won’t listen to reason. Pretty much the definition of a nut case.
I have no idea who he is and I don’t care but posting his “interests” from a wikipedia page is certainly ad hominem.
only if a lizard brain like you missed the rest of it, is your life fully devoted to making an idiot of yourself, have any of your friends read this crap you write here,?
hehe
Was your post supposed to make some sense John? “hehe”?
Are you off your meds again?
J Giddeon says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:18 am
OK JB, let’s all pretend to ignore what is plainly in front of us and assert that the only person posting on the stagnation since the 24th is me. Dill.
BTW still waiting with baited breathe your explanation as to why ““So using SKS with a start date of 1996.99 to 2013.75″ is “dumb”.
they are not claiming stagnation you are the only one doing that
again
claims such as” or “there has been no warming for 15 years” will not longer be allowed.
you are the only one breaking that rule
look ” i can say that the warming has continued for the past 15 years as it has”
you cannot claim otherwise without being sent to the naughty corner
remember the golden rule
he who has the gold makes the rules
John “you are the only one breaking that rule ”
Just don’t mention all of the other rules you and rodger keep breaking.