Open Thread 37

[Here is an interesting article by Byran Appleyard](http://www.bryanappleyard.com/article.php?article_id=177) describing how he once scoffed at AGW, but has been convinced.

PRWatch has a piece out, citing Tim Lambert among others:

Who'd Pay for Rupert Murdoch's Climate Change Skepticism?

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8760

On Monday the Bright Green Blog at The Christian Science Monitor had [a very clear description](http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1215/Climategate…) of what the Climategate "trick" tree ring issue is, and its significance: namely that the conclusion from it "is precisely the opposite of that reached by authors of many climate-skeptic opinion pieces and blogs..."

http://www.english-wine.com/content.html

"There are nearly 400 commercial vineyards in England and Wales covering approximately 2000 acres of land in total."

"Nearly all are in the southern half of England and Wales. Most English and Welsh vineyards are small (less than 5 acres), many very small (less than 1 acre). Only a small number exceed 25 acres and just a handful 50 acres. The largest (Denbies, Dorking, Surrey) has around 200 acres of vines under cultivation. "

I wonder if anybody has ever plotted the number of acres in England under grape cultivation against temperature to see if that acreage would be a good proxy for temperature?

Surely Plimer must have this information, as he makes claims that seem to assume he has this data?

What can I say... RE Mark Francis at #2.

The article is a bit disingenuous when stating : 'While very few of the skeptics have any scientific credentials in climate sciences...'

Of course this is not true.
A skeptic having a science degree is easily enough 'credentials'. It certainly is enough 'credentials' for the likes of little ole denier me ! :-)
And time for you to learn to count gentle-persons. There are tens or thousands of us.

Vince, that assumes he (or any of the think-tanks and echo chambers) are interested in doing real research. With all that money available from industry you'd think someone would have used, bought, and borrowed the raw temp data to reanalyze it to see if CRU, GISS and NOAA got it right. And then trumpeted the results all over the place if they came up with a radically different answer.

As we know, research isn't high on their list of priorities, and they'd prefer to just make things up (like underwater volcanoes that we can't see, measure or detect are responsible for putting into the air more fossil-fuel signature CO2 than humans). ;-)

Oh, another example...they'd prefer to start tv stations to broadcast lies and slander rather than do the hard work required to understand the science. I won't link to the tv station, but you can find info [on the Desmogblog](http://www.desmogblog.com/climategatetv-deniers-start-their-own-station).

In other words, Plimer just fabricates his stuff about Roman-era vineyards being an indicator of climate?
That's odd - why would a well-respected expert with worldwide renown for his published work in the field of Climate science fabricate stuff?

Uh, hang on...

Hi, I'm currently debating a denialist here:

http://gazetteonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2009/12/16/al-go…

and he has referred to a Monckton paper here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgr…

where Monckton claims that the IR signature for enhanced greenhouse warming is missing. I recall reading a pretty thorough debunking of his Fraudulence's claims, on Deltoid I thought, but am unable to relocate it. Can anyone help me please? I'd rather not read Monckton, my mental health is suffering badly enough with this denialist I'm already debating. I'm starting to hope for the worst-case scenario to come true just so I can say, "I told you so."

Dirk

After meeting James Lovelock I don't suppose he would have eyes for any other than Gaia.

Proper #8:

You are likely to find all you need at John Cook's Skeptical Science website.

Proper #8:

Also you can have David Archer explain it here:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

Lecture 5 pretty neatly explains it.

Also on that page is a link to ModTran
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html

Where the climate skeptic can put in different values of CO2 and see the signature. 280ppm is about the baseline value and then you can put in the current 375 and see the difference. I guess however the skeptic would simply respond that this is the work of the conspiracy.

BTW I could not recommend more highly the lectures of David Archer for people such as myself who are not climate scientists or indeed scientists at all.

He really has a gift for teaching the subject. I thought I knew a bit about AGW before I started - boy was I wrong. At least if you do watch the lectures you will get a far stronger understanding of the nuts and bolts behind AGW theory.

David posted these on Real Climate.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

Just popped in to see if there was any reaction to Randi's post at the JREF http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html regarding his position on AGW. The Skeptical (real ones, not deniers) blogs are going nuts.

Just popped in to see if there was any reaction to Randi's post at the JREF http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html regarding his position on AGW. The Skeptical (real ones, not deniers) blogs are going nuts.

Disappointing. I think James Randi is simply not familiar with the bulk of the data.

This must be compulsory reading for all. About time someone compiled a list of hypocrisies from deniers to show the complete stupidity of their arguments.

A sample:

1. They profess that markets can solve all problems while simultaneously preaching that businesses will never be able to adapt to higher energy prices.

2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.

3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).

4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.

5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change. (see this Tom Friedman article)

6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so.

7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.

I strongly suggest adding onto this list and passing it on.

I think Randi's posting a follow up later. Meanwhile it's generating lots of comment at Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/say_it_aint_so_randi.php and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/16/the-season-of…

I'm not up with all the data either but it doesn't take much effort to find out the petition is a complete load.

Proper Ganda - Try this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

You'll find that site an invaluable resource for countering denier idiocy.

How is that Copenhagen thing going boys and girls? Not so well I hear.So bad infact that the green meanies are getting violent. Did they really think something was going to happen? If they don't get something, which I doubt,they will get even more unruly. Someone is going to get really hurt. With climate gate exploding all over the place,(remember you saying it was much to do about nothing) people are realizing that nothing CRU, NASA, IPCC, and others have said can be trusted. CRU is being investigated NASA is being sued, Pen state is being looked at and it's funding threatened, Australia data has been proven,"adjusted" the same with NZ and now Russia. No matter where you look the raw data is not the same as what the warmest's have been using. It is not looking good, jobs are on the line and billions of funding is going to be reviewed. The lawyers are chomping at the bit. They smell blood and money.

It's a curious delusion that believes that the weather is dependent on public opinion.

C says "denier idiocy" and then, as if by magic, along comes Kent.

Hey Kent, how come if climate change science is a hoax promoted by green lefties they're outside in the rain in Copenhagen getting pepper-sprayed and whacked with batons?

Oh, and Kent, given that NASA's raw data is all available, how about doing your own analysis and showing everyone what's really happening, or are you content to stay on the sidelines and talk crap?

Well, given the happy greeting Chavez received for his anti-capitalism rant at Copenhagen, is it any wonder many of us don't trust the people involved? It's been said before that green is the new red, and the delegates at Copenhagen sure aren't doing anything to make the situation seem otherwise.

you really need to keep comment moderation on your blasphemy...

http://atheiskeptihumanist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=90

GOATS ON FIRE!

How is that Copenhagen thing going boys and girls? Not so well I hear.

That's what the one world government against global warming and for more taxes wants you to hear.

Looks like you've just been goated by Dennis Markuze. details: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/goats_on_fire.php

Ben @22,

The climate and the laws of physics don't pay much attentions to politics nor ideology.

People who want to undermine the politics of Chavez, have a simple option, don't let avoiding dangerous climate change become a marker of the left.

If conservatives are betting on climate change not being a big problem they are facing 10 to 1 odds against.

Conservatives need to pull there finger out and act serioursly on climate change if they don't want to force populations towards the left for the next 50 years.

Proper Gander:

One (of many) thing wrong:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/shine-on-shine-on-moncktons-moon.html

Why defenses against that are wrong:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

Some of the Monckton paper and publishing history:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/08/monckton_and_the_aps.php

Orac responds to Randi's post. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/james_randi_anthropogenic_glo…

Hey ESPness, if you want to put a link in your post, put the word you want highlighted in square brackets, immediately followed in normal parentheses by the URL.

eg [here](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/james_randi_anthropogenic_glo…) is the Randi link.

Re: #29

You too, Marion Delgado. The blog software here interprets underscores as an instruction to italicise.

Vineyards are, in my opinion, a very questionable proxy for temperature. How many grapes get grown in the UK is a function of the state of the international wine market just as much as temperature. Sure, grapes may have been grown once upon a time but who's to say how good the wine was? More to the point, would it be viable in the modern marketplace? What could have been an acceptable crop once upon a time might not even be worth considering nowadays.

Kent:

How is that Copenhagen thing going boys and girls? Not so well I hear.

Just witnessing how tragedy of the commons plays out.

No matter where you look the raw data is not the same as what the warmest's have been using.

Kent is a stage 1 denialist (he disputes the existence of global warming, let alone human cause). As such he is beyond reason.

This sounds very similar to the denialist guff on New Zealand temperatures and on the Darwin adjustments:

http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-17/data-cherry-picked-climatologists.htm…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate…

Anyone familiar with this one?

When PM Rudd got accused of being a climate change sceptic at Copenhagen do they have a point? No policy that impacts mining and especially exports of fossil fuels in any significant way - massive expansion of gas and coal production and export capacity currently underway. R&D focused on Carbon Capture and Storage ahead of everything else - that means the use of fossil fuels isn't impacted in any significant way - a remarkable willingness to give concessions to the big emitters in negotiations to get the Opposition on side but no willingness to negotiate tougher measures to get the Greens on side.

The science debate over the fundamentals of climate change is pretty much over; only nitpicking over details and inflating them to suggest the fundamentals are somehow affected - and trying to smear reputations - is about all that's left for those who oppose action on emissions. Oh, and telling lies and avoiding being answerable for them (Plimer, Carter etc). But even when the science is overwhelming the capacity of people to choose short-term self-interest and ignore the long term costs and consequences should not be underestimated. In Australia the fossil fuel interests wield enormous clout (all those royalties and revenues feeding government coffers, plus the costs and difficulties of changing); it's clear from the unwillingness of most politicians who claim to take climate change seriously to engage in any policy that impacts those interests.

So, to answer my rhetorical question, I think that the Rudd government is giving us the policies of climate denial whilst giving us the rhetoric of taking the issue seriously. I suppose we should be grateful that we are hearing that rhetoric - and hope that somewhere down the line we get some real action - but it's hard to believe we'll see that action in time to avert seriously damaging impacts.

I saw a British documentary some years ago that led me to conclude that the Romans had been growing coconuts in Londinium in sufficient quantity that when the Normans invaded they were more commonly available to the king's squires than equine. This information was certainly more convincing of there having been substantial warming in history, than some paltry statistical evidence of rising temperatures today. Warmer than any time in recorded history? Pshaw. Did it ever occur to you warmers that it was so warm that they didn't even think to record the temperatures, because they were too preoccupied with beach parties and perilous infestations of carnivorous lagomorphs?

It's time you watermelons start to appreciate the free market, and this should begin by an understanding that property rights are a monotonically decreasing function of the distance on a Riemannian circle. For those of you that don't recall your primary school geometry that means that if I build a machine that teleports things from Bangladesh, then it's capitalism, because they are too far away to exercise tyranny over me. You should read your Adam Smith sometime, warmers! Instead of supporting trial lawyers that vote for Hugo Chavez, why don't you try getting real jobs selling valuable things like weight loss pills?

Thank you Stephen, Craig and Marion.

Denialist scientists all agree there's no such thing as consensus in science.

tree mugger:

i put some more stuff over in the Plimer spot for you to have a sooky about

I thought you were the type who goes all sooky over a "great big new tax".

By the way you know who, don't forget to complain about Tim Lambert going all sooky and putting you on moderation.

Proper Gander @ 9

"I'm starting to hope for the worst-case scenario to come true just so I can say, "I told you so."

What do you mean "starting"?

I would say most alarmists hope for worst case scenarios. Oh sure, most wouldn't openly admit it like you did, but it is obvious in many other ways.

First, anyone who even thinks about questioning a worst case hypothetical is a denier. Alarmists are constantly defending worst case scenarios to the, well, worst case scenario.

Second. Did you notice how not one alarmists on this site was phased by your comment? That's because they all feel like you do....you are at home with like minded people.

Can you hear the silence?

Comforting, isn't it?

It reminds me of a statement a liberal said to me a few years back regarding Iraq. He said, "not only do I hope we lose the war, but the more bad news the better".

No. It wasn't Harry Reid.

Betula:

Did you notice how not one alarmists on this site was phased by your comment?

I noticed your beat-up.

Looks like someone @ 43 had their Wheaties this morning..... that's a good boy.

Would you like some hypocrisy with those flakes?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/16/world/main5985006.shtml

How about some irony on the side?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY

Now that's what I call a nourishing meal.

Betula @42- when the climate refugees show up, I'm sending them to your house with the expanded-range Anopheles mosquitoes.

And in that usage, it's fazed. This isn't Star Trek, no one's getting phasered here.

On the bright side, I had confirmation from the denialist I was debating of what I suspected all along- he thinks a good bout of climate change will be good for "evolution."

Proper.

"when the climate refugees show up, I'm sending them to your house with the expanded-range Anopheles mosquitoes."

So they'll be going directly to your house first? I suggest you put out some C02 mosquito traps.

http://www.megacatch.com/co2gassystem.html

mb:
I can't tell if you're a skeptic or a denialist. What's your take on the "sparrow" theory of coconut proliferation? First of all, what is the range of a fully laden sparrow holding a coconut?

Some more hockey stick funny business ... from 2006.

Wegman ghostwriter revealed

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/

How could a trio of statistical experts, all on their own, hope to write a report on a field, climate science, of which they had no previous knowledge or experience?

The shocking answer is: They didnât. They had some help from a physicist turned climate skeptic and textbook author (not to mention Wikipedia and a classic sociology text).

Solar Cycle 24 is starting to crank up now.

We had the largest solar flare of Cycle 24 so far on Wednesday (a C 5.3) and the solar flux of 87 today is the highest reading since January 2008.

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Gareth Renowden's blog Hot Topic NZ has been hacked and is down- I hope he has spotted it and is working on getting it fixed (couldn't find his email to let him know). I can't imagine this is a coincidence (eg random act) given the timing.

btw thanks for reminder Gaz

[SCM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2151…).

Makes me wonder if anyone will try to hack Deltoid, BraveNewClimate, Greenfyre, or any other the other blogs that so get up the noses of the Denialati.

They might try DenialDepot too, but how would we ever know...?

The forecast is for solar activity to remain 'very low to low'.

@ 35

You should read your Adam Smith sometime, warmers!

As should you. Adam Smith is not the security blanket to the modern free market corporatist ideologues that they like to think he is.

>Adam Smith is not the security blanket to the modern free market corporatist ideologues that they like to think he is.

neither is mb!

Jimmy @ 48

You seem excited about solar cycle 24 "starting to crank up" so I checked your attached link.

Within the link is this statement:

"The largest Solar Flare of Cycle 24 thus far took place early Wednesday morning. It registered C5.3 on the flare scale. It is small in comparison to flares at solar max, however it is a good sign nonetheless."

A good sign of what?

If the sun doesn't pick up soon, according to those on the denialosphere, it will be curtains for the warmists.

Not that I necessarily support such an outlandish view, after my fruitful discussion with Akerman about volcanoes, but I am prepared to keep an open mind on the subject. Time is on our side.

Clearly Denialists are in the process of constructing their smokescreen to hide behind when temperatures over the next 5 years put paid once-and-for-all to the "no recent warming" lie:
they want to be able to say: "We've been warning you about increased temperatures due to solar flares since December 2009 - have a look on Deltoid".

Anybody believe Denialists will still be able to fool anybody come 2015 though?

Re #53

Adam Smith is not the security blanket to the modern free market corporatist ideologues that they like to think he is.

Having read large slabs of the Wealth of Nations I heartily agree, WotWot.

Smith was certainly an exponent of the creative and productive potential of capitalism, but "libertarians" claiming Smith as one of their own are truly kidding themselves.

oh hmmmph. all apologies, mb.

The rest of you, please note that mb is joking - the documentary he was citing is called Monty Python and the Holy Grail, fwiw. Hence, read your Adam Smith, warmers! is in that context also meant humorously.

< / killjoy >

The spoof-counter spoof climate war is underway. Are we prepared for another Drudge attack?

Humor like this will weaken our resolve, comrades.

Their actions are ridiculous even by their own standards. I cannot think of any flavor of property-oriented libertarianism that deems it acceptable to "do harm" to others by destroying the value of their property. They're a bunch of Randian looters that read her books and mistook themselves for the heroes. If anything they should demand that polluters pay complete restitution, not some pittance reached through international agreement by third parties, and call for clear ownership over any region of the surface of the planet so that property owners might receive recompense when harmed. They wouldn't be preoccupied with lowly pragmatism, they would be arguing the primacy of property and defending the absolute reach of a market subject to arbitration of disputes between property owners by a universal court.

Maybe that's why so many of them reach to attacking the motives of researchers and proffering sophomoric arguments about subjects well outside their expertise, to push the battle line away from even when their own cognitive dissonance would break down and they would view themselves as monsters.

Though you would hope the arguments would be less transparently retarded than, "here is this vague anecdote, which I take to be much more precise than your actual measurements, and anyway, it's all chaotic like the n-body problem, you know, if the moon just teleported into Jupiter's orbit it would normal. Plus you grew that S. Cerevisiae in a whiskey bottle, so that ethanol is natural and not the product of fermentation. I know your real motives!!!"

el gullibo:

If the sun doesn't pick up soon, according to those on the denialosphere, it will be curtains for the warmists.

They would say that, wouldn't they? In spite of the sun not having yet "picked up", the last 12 months were the same average temperature as 1998. And unless the system has suddenly gone back into a La Niño in December, 2009 will be warmer than 1998. Pretty amazing considering 1998 had a huge El Niño and 2009 started with a La Niña.

Not that I necessarily support such an outlandish view, after my fruitful discussion with Akerman about volcanoes, but I am prepared to keep an open mind on the subject.

So open that your brains fall out.

Time is on our side.

Yes, it's on the side of people who know that as time goes by, the long term warming trend will become larger sooner or later.

The long term cooling trend will become obvious sooner than later.

The fifty-year cooling trend will become obvious any day now.

< / killjoy >

*Damn you, Marion Delgado! It such a long fall from up there on my high horse.*

Can anyone tell me what statistical "tricks" to "hide" the incline were used by Screaming Viscount Monckton and his Raving Loony Monster Party in the graph?

http://i48.tinypic.com/2ex3kns.jpg

SOrry, meant to link to this - Monckton's letter to Pachauri

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pacha…

[Marion](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2151…).

Erm, that would be a swallow, not a sparrow.

Everyone knows that sparrows can't carry coconuts.

Connor, the 60 year cycle is quite evident, so we can expect at least another 20 years of cooling until the warming begins again.

Alternatively, through no fault of ours, we could slip into a Maunder.

Can anyone tell me what statistical "tricks" to "hide" the incline were used by Screaming Viscount Monckton and his Raving Loony Monster Party in the graph?

Having studied statistics at postgrad level I can tell you (and forgive the jargon, there's simply no other way to explain it) the technique or "trick" used by Monckton is called "tilting the graph".

HadCrut3 now shows a warming trend from 1998 to November 2009.

All those idiots who crapped on about "cooling since 1998" based on HadCrut3 can now go to hell.

We all agree then, the world's average temperature has not changed this century.

@71:

HadCrut3 now shows a warming trend from 1998 to November 2009.

@72:

We all agree then, the world's average temperature has not changed this century.

Please don't feed the troll.

Gullible as they come:

We all agree then, the world's average temperature has not changed this century.

Bullshit.

The continuing adventures of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley...

In this week's episode, the Viscount hangs out with Senator Fielding of Australia in Copenhagen, and gets knocked unconscious by a New World Order cop.

We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.

However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves â or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.

And so on and so forth.

http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global

Silkworm...

I thought you would enjoy this video of the Danish police beating the Copenhagen crowd...

And so on and so forth...

http://www.breitbart.tv/did-dutch-police-use-potent-greenhouse-gas-to-d…

What's the optimal temperature of the planet?

From Deep Climate http://www.deepclimate.org

Contrarian scholarship: Revisiting the Wegman report

Update, Dec. 19: This post has been substantially revised to remove speculation about Donald Rapp's possible role in the Wegman report. I apologize for any embarrassment caused to Donald Rapp or Edward Wegman by that speculation.

The post has also been updated to reflect new information about the provenance of Wegman et al's section on tree ring proxies, as well as more background detail on some of the events leading up to the Wegman report. There are also more details about large swathes of unattributed material found in the Wegman report and in Donald Rapp's book Assessing Climate Change.

It is clear that the circumstances and contents of both the Wegman report and Rapp's text book deserve closer scrutiny.

Dec. 20: Comments are now open again.

Key paragraph:

Part of the answer lies in the close examination of the Wegman report. Surprsingly, extensive passages from Wegman et al on proxies have turned up in a skeptic text book by contrarian author Donald Rapp. And at least one of these common passages on tree ring proxies closely follows a classic text by noted paleoclimatologist Raymond Bradley, but with a key alteration not found in the original. Moreover, Wegmanâs section on social networks appears to contain some unattributed material from Wikipedia and from a classic sociology text.

Real Climate, right, now, simply returns "It Works!" in big bold letters.

Hacked?

Last time it was down there was a message from the blog software ...

Something to watch over the day!

Has Real Climate been hacked?

I see dhogaza beat me to this - when I try to go to individual threads, it returns a 'not found' error, too.

It now states "The RealClimate software is being upgraded. Apologies for the short break in service, but we should be back soon."

Probably no hack

Thanks, Kristjan.

Good news! The GBR is in 'bloody brilliant shape'.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scientists-crying-wolf-over-coral/…

[Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2156…).

You think so? Ask [Ove Hoegh-Guldberg](http://www.climateshifts.org/) why this is not actually the case.

Oh, and let us know what he says...

Re #82.

I'll just correct your statement a little:

In 'bloody brilliant shape' compared to coral reefs in the rest of the world.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_outlook_…

And references:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=decline+in+coral+reefs&hl=en&cr=…

On a side note, an interesting little factoid about Peter Ridd - he's the science co-ordinator for the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group founded by the right-wing think tank Institute of Public Affairs:

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_outlook_…

It doesn't mean that he's wrong, but it would be helpful if he would cite some research that actually supports his view. The only paper that appears in the scientific literature that flies against the contention that the Great Barrier Reef is in a state of decline is his own. This paper was published in Energy & Environment and has the IPA stamp all over it.

Surely you can do better than that.

[El blimpo's fatuous statement about the health of the Great Barrier Reef](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2156…) was posted a day after I was perusing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's blog. Although not directly related to the coral bleaching that occurs with raise ocean temperature, there is nevertheless an apposite thread about [ocean acidification](http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/the-sounds-of-science-lubchenco-s…) that was posted last week.

One of the starling things, even after all of the nonsense that I've seen the denialists engage in, is that there are actually [folk who still do not accept and/or understand CO2-induced acidification](http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/the-sounds-of-science-lubchenco-s…). I was reminded of a thread at Marohasy's cesspit that contained stunning examples of this, and to save the gentle readers here the necessity of having to shower after wading through the sullage there, I'll repost my responses below...

(Comment from: Bernard J. [30 October 2008 at 1:22 am](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-…))

It is apparent that many here have no operational understanding of what acids and bases are. For a start, there are at least four definitions of the term 'acid', and thus they may be categorised as Arrhenius acids, as Lowry-Brønsted acids, as solvent-system acids or as Lewis acids. The first two definitions are most pertinent to the issue of sea-water acidification, because they pertain to the increase in the hydrogen ions that cause ocean acidity.

An Arrhenius acid is a substance that increases the concentration of hydrogen ions (protons: H+) in a solution. In water these protons are present as hydronium ions (H3O+). Bases are substances that increase the concentration of hydroxide ions (OH-).

A Lowry-Brønsted acid is a proton (H+) donor and a Lowry-Brønsted base is a proton acceptor.

In these contexts any circumstance that increases the concentration in solution of the definitive cation is acidification. It is as simple as that. The classic "an acid is..." definition is largely an arbitrary one, with a pH chosen to be 'neutral' by reference to pure water, where the number of H+ [ions] equals the number of OH- [ions]. This is merely a reference point, and it has no bearing on the fact that in going from pH 9 to pH 5 the concentration of H+ is increasing, and the concentration of OH- is similarly decreasing. And vice versa for a pH change in the opposite direction. For many chemical and biochemical equilibria neutrality is an irrelevance in a continuum of hydrogen cation concentration.

In these two definitions, an 'acid' per se is a solution that has more hydrogen ions than hydroxl ions, but the term 'acidification' is always considered relative to a starting concentration of hydrogen ions, and not to the 'neutral' point. Using the (il)logic of some on this thread the process of going to pH 5 from pH 6 is 'acidification' but going from pH 9 from pH 8 is not, even though in both cases the concentration of hydrogen ions has increased by one order of magnitude [my latter emphasis].

This might be fodder for late night pub semantics, but it is not science, and the proponents of such a misconceived idea are obviously not acquainted with the definitions and the practise of chemistry.

Moreover, there seems to be a misconception that an increase in acidity (yes, it is an increase in acidity) from pH 8.1 to pH 8.0 requires large concentrations of carbonic acid (and by implication, carbon dioxide)...

For those who are unaware (and it seems to be a few here), the pH scale is the negative base 10 logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94Ã10-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

This is not much, is it kiddies?

Except it is, if you are an organism living in an exquisitely pH-sensitive milieu, such as occurs in carbonate cycling or in acid osmosis. I rather suspect that some of the blusterers here have no idea of the biochemistry of energy production and transport through a cell, or they would be rather less cavalier about dismissing the significance of acidity (yes, even above pH 7.0) in biological systems.

But keep it up boys. You are simply documenting, for all the world to see for all time, your blindingly breath-taking ignorance of basic chemistry.

Oo, I just made a joke. It pales next to all the others here though...

There then followed some amusing play with numbers, that had no basis in reality, from Ian Mott and from Gordon Robertson. If one really must read what these gentlemen had to say, one can follow the links here, but for now I'll simply post my reply...

(Comment from: Bernard J. [October 2008 at 5:24 pm](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-…))

(Keeping in mind that the mean pH of plasma is around 7.4...)

From Wikipedia, the electronic toilet wall:

"Acidosis

Acidosis is an increased acidity (i.e. an increased hydrogen ion concentration). If not further qualified, it refers to acidity of the blood plasma.

Acidosis is said to occur when arterial pH falls below 7.35, while its counterpart (alkalosis) occurs at a pH over 7.45."

The medical world will be stunned to discover that there is no such condition as acidosis, at least until the pH drops below 7.0.

To reiterate â Arrhenius (and Lowry-Brønsted) 'acidification' is the process of increasing the concentration hydrogen/hydronium ions in a solution. It has nothing to do with the arbitrary 'landmark' of pH 7.0.

For heaven's sake, pH 7 is not even a firm descriptor of what an acid is. Anyone who has done an introductory chemistry course at university will have learned this. Conveniently, Wickedpedia has something to say on this as well:

"Neutral pH at 25 °C is not exactly 7. pH is an experimental value, so it has an associated error. Since the dissociation constant of water is (1.011 ± 0.005) à 10â14, pH of water at 25 °C would be 6.998 ± 0.001. The value is consistent, however, with neutral pH being 7.00 to two significant figures, which is near enough for most people to assume that it is exactly 7. The pH of water gets smaller with higher temperatures. For example, at 50 °C, pH of water is 6.55 ± 0.01. This means that a diluted solution is neutral when its pH at 50 °C is around 6.55, and also that a pH of 7.00 is very slightly basic."

In the above example 'acidification' would not occur under Ian Mott's definition until pH dropped below 6.55. But more telling is the shift in the neutral point â it is not cast in stone, and it is fore this reason amongst many others that an increase in hydrogen/hydronium ion concentration is acidification, irrespective of the initial starting concentration.

Failure to understand this simply reflects a lack of acquaintance with fundamental acid-base chemistry, and the nomenclature that accompanies it.

The "BUSIEST MAN IN THE SNOWJOB INDUSTRY" award goes to.....

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: The head of the U.N Climate Change Panel

Personally, I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

Let's see what the great DR. has done to deserve such an award....

"when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries"

"a director until 2003 of India Oil, the countryâs largest commercial enterprise"

"until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation" Indias largest electricity producer.

"In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life."

Dr. Pachauri is also President if TERI-NA:

"TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the worldâs largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international âcarbon marketâ, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets."

What else has he been up to?

"In 2007, for instance, he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specialising in âsustainable technologiesâ"

"In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation."

"He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank, as it launched its Sustainable Future Fund"

"He became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund"

"This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a âstrategic adviserâ"

He is also...."chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the carbon market."

"He has become head of Yale Universityâs Climate and Energy Institute, which enjoys millions of dollars of US state and corporate funding."

"He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank"

"He is Director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies"

"he is even a policy adviser to SNCF, Franceâs state-owned railway company."

"Meanwhile, back home in India, he serves on an array of influential government bodies, including the Economic Advisory Committee to the prime minister, holds various academic posts and has somehow found time in his busy life to publish 22 books."

So c'mon, let's all give it up for Dr. Pachauri!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-o…

I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

yawn

Shorter TheGreatGlobalWarmingHoax:

I can survive real well at 40 deg. C.

* * *

Shorter Betula:

The fact that Pachauri has interests in a wide variety of organizations -- including oil and coal companies, and renewable energy companies -- shows that something nefarious is going on. I'm not going to tell you what it is, but trust me, it's very nefarious. And it also shows that climate science is some unspecified nefarious thing.

* * *

Shorter el gordo:

The 60 years' cycle is quite evident, or maybe it's not quite evident.

Shorter bi:

I'm jealous because I didn't get the award.

Has anyone seen this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LyG3AyuLJA

McIntyre attacking Mann on Fox News.

I refuse. Vomit is not good for the keyboard ...

Actually, the Pox report was balanced. McIntyre said he believes in global warming, but it probably won't be as severe as Mann thinks.

Shorter bi:
I'm jealous because I didn't get the award.

That should be:

Shorter Betula:
I'm jealous because I didn't get the award.

>*"Actually, the Pox report was balanced."*

Balanced between what McIntyre says on one hand and what McIntyre says on the other hand.

Mann refused to show.

On a more serious note the bookmakers are offering 2/1 for a London white xmas. It hasn't been this close for 30 years.

Just more irrefutable proof that a cool PDO is back in action.

Mann refused to show

with a dishonest amateur. Whoopee doo.

On a more serious note the bookmakers are offering 2/1 for a London white xmas. It hasn't been this close for 30 years.

Climate is usually defined using 30 years of weather. Love the irony of el gullibo.

Just more irrefutable proof that a cool PDO is back in action.

Actually just more irrefutable proof that el gullibo doesn't care about the difference between weather and climate.

el gordo, so Fox wasn't balanced?

Okay, Fox is unbalanced.

Back in 1779-80 there was a unique weather event in North America, one of the worst winters in American history. We had just come off a solar max, so that leaves sol out of the equation. What was the trigger?

In 1780 the Caribbean experienced one of its worst hurricane seasons on record, severely damaging all of the foreign fleets nestled there. It was a La Nina year and the Murray Darling system was awash.

Climate is more complex than I had previously imagined, so if I can't blame the sun for everything, then I don't see how you can blame a trace gas.

There is little between your global warming theory and my global cooling alarmism - just 4 degrees of separation between hell on earth and a mini ice age.

el gordo writes:

>*There is little between your global warming theory and my global cooling alarmism*

Just the overwhelming weight of evidence, but that's the only difference.

I cannot think of any flavor of property-oriented libertarianism that deems it acceptable to "do harm" to others by destroying the value of their property.

Scratch a libertarian and you'll find someone desperately trying to pretend that the tragedy of the commons is a socialist ruse.

el gullibo:

I don't see how you can blame a trace gas.

You don't see the difference between weather and climate so it no surprise if you don't see anything else.

There is little between - just 4 degrees of separation between hell on earth and a mini ice age.

Standard denialist tactic: minimize signal or its importance. The difference between ice-ages and recently was 5-6°C and took more than 7,000 years to happen. There is no comparison with 4°C in 200 years.

The LIA was down 2 degrees in Europe, according to the proxy data. Beyond that point we would have serious adaptation problems

Chris states:

"That should be: Shorter Betula: I'm jealous because I didn't get the award."

That's right Chris, I'm jealous because I didn't get the award that I made up.

Comedy Gold.

Perhaps it's time for a new award. I think I'll call it the "Chris O'Neill logic award"

The first recipient of this award goes to.....

Chris O'Neill!

Damn! Now I'm jealous because I didn't give it to myself.

I wish myself better luck next time.

ALARMISTS!

Quick, kill your cats and dogs before it's too late!

Seriously, "the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle."

So hurry, before the cats and dogs in Bangladesh are affected by the cats and dogs of the rich nations....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganim…

Betula,

I'll bet you would be a serious candidate for a troll award. I for sure would place you high up the list. Your posts for sure are quite utterly vacuous, a sure indication that you possess the necessary attributes of a troll. Well done.

Betula:

I'm jealous because I didn't get the award that I made up.

Yeah, I forgot your jokes make sense.

Comedy Gold

Yeah. So funny. Just like your first joke.

Shorter Jeff Harvey @ 105:

I own a dog.

Betula,

I'll bet you would be a serious candidate for a troll award. I for sure would place you high up the list. Your posts for sure are quite utterly vacuous,

Really?!

I don't see them. All I see is:

Comment by Betula blocked. [unkill]â[show comment]

Best to avoid eye irritation that way. There are lots of ignorant little wankers here that are best [killfiled], IMHO.

Best,

D

Dano,

You know, if you put your hands over your eyes.....no one can see you.

And how is it that your reading this?

I interrupt this no doubt fascinating discussion -

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-diver…

Today weâll take a closer look at Wegman et alâs tree-ring passage and do a detailed side-by-side comparison with its apparent main antecedent, chapter section 10.2 in Raymond Bradleyâs classic Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary.

That comparison leaves no doubt that Wegman et alâs explication was substantially derived from that of Bradley, although the relevant attribution appears to be missing. There are, however, several divergences of note, also in the main unattributed, and some of Wegmanâs paraphrasing introduces errors of analysis.

But the real shocker are two key passages in Wegman et al, which state unsubstantiated findings in flagrant contradiction with those of Bradley, apparently in order to denigrate the value of tree-ring derived temperature reconstructions.

'The CON Logic Award'. It has a nice ring to it, but I have this terrible feeling it might be oxymoronic.

Careful where you step Betula, CON and the host are joined at the hip.

Leading Climate Scientist James Hansen on Why Heâs Pleased the Copenhagen Summit Failed, âCap and Fade,â Climategate and More

Sortition, that link to Hansen just illustrates why climate scientists should stick to climate science, thereby avoiding the Dunning Kruger syndrome.

The shallowness of Hansen's analysis is at the level typically seen on a denier blog.

Consider this:

Well, they were talking about having a cap-and-trade-with-offsets agreement, which is analogous to the Kyoto Protocol, which was disastrous. Before the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions of carbon dioxide were going up one-and-a-half percent per year. After the accord, they went up three percent per year. That approach simply wonât work.

Hansen is really claiming that if a carbon tax had been at the centre of the KP it would have been effective.

That's despite the inadequate targets and the effective non-inclusion of developing countries - eg China, the world's biggest emitter, and India - and non-ratification of the treaty by the US, the world's number two emitter, not to mention Australia until the Rudd government was elected relatively recently.

Here's another example:

Cap and trade, they attempt to put a cap on different sources of carbon dioxide emissions. They say thereâs a limit on how much a given industry in a country can emit. But the problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. Thatâs what happened after Kyoto, and thatâs what would happen again, ifâas long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased.

Aside from the "a given industry" bit being wrong, the argument rests on the fact that emissions were not limited, either by a tax or a cap, in countries to which production was shifted.

That would be a problem for any system - tax, cap or direct intervention - where coverage does not extend to all countries. And in the case of the Kyoto protocol, coverage was limited to countries responsible for less than half the world's industrial output and growing at a much, much slower rate than the rest.

Fossil fuels are only "the cheapest energy" because they are not limited, either by cap or a tax, in these other places.

Hansen's argument that cap and trade policies led to faster emissions growth is on a par with arguing that laws are useless in preventing polygamy, because anti-polygamy laws in the Australia haven't stopped the practice in some other place where it's still legal

There are plenty of potential problems with cap and trade, but blaming it for the failure of Kyoto to reduce emissions is stretching things way too far.

There are plenty of potential problems with cap and fade. Probably the most obvious is that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

I saw the James Cameron movie Avatar last night. Can I just say that it was the best thinh I've seen in a long time. If you are keen on the rights of indigenous peoples, biodiversity and the preservation of rainforests or sympathetic to Buddhism you'd be best advised to bring something to stifle the sniffles. I won't spoil it too much for others by saying too much about the movie itself but this is a classic feelgood movie.

The usages were familar. Dances with Wolves, Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Star Wars and maybe Pocahontas all rolled into one with simply stunning cinematography. There can't be too many people who wouldn't find this movie very engaging.

That said, one of the most perverse reactions was from Andrew Blot who in his now familar rants claimed that it was green propaganda while asserting that it would finally mark the end of environmentalism.

MOST people will date the death of the great global warming scare not from the Copenhagen fiasco - boring! - but from Avatar.

It wonât be the worldâs most expensive warmist conference but the worldâs most expensive movie that will stick in most memories as the precise point at which the green faith started to shrivel from sheer stupidity.

Avatar, in fact, is the warmist dream filmed in 3D. Staring through your glasses at James Cameronâs spectacular $400 million creation, you can finally see where this global warming cult was going.

And you can see, too, everything that will now slowly pull it back to earth.

December 2009. Note it down. The beginning of the end, even as Avatar becomes possibly the biggest-grossing film in history.

For me, this convinces me that whatever Blot once was, he is now completely unhinged -- a psychopath. No properly socialised person who saw the film could use it as a springboard for embracing the filth merchant cause, and Blot is, after all, writing this because he fears just the opposite. His blog groupies weren't slow to express this tension. For Blot now though, it's like someone with reflexive OCD. When he sees red where others see green and he can't not vent about it. Those indigenes on Pandora were metaphorically sticking him and his groupies through the heart with every arrow and spear they drove into the invading terrestrial hordes. With this latest piece, Blot at least has dropped the fiction that opposition to mitigation is not part of a broader disgust for things environmental.

It did occur to me though that in theory at least, a true conservative might well object to Blot's piece along the following lines: What's more conservative than wanting to protect your land against alien invaders, who want to rob you and trash your traditional culture and murder you? Wouldn't any true conservative side with the little people who just want to be left alone against greedy robber barons? Isn't respect for the dead and for the wisdome of the ages to be preferred to the mad grasp for power and self-gratification? What did the original sin in the Garden of Eden entail?

Perhaps it's time for some of us to do a little concern trolling over in the Blotosphere. This he is going to find damn annoying.

There are plenty of potential problems with cap and fade. Probably the most obvious is that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Provide us with your 'killer' piece of evidence that supports this claim.

Go back to the Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods (151-132 million years ago), when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 and 2000 parts per million by volume, there was no runaway Greenhouse Effect, instead full glaciation was the norm.

As always, Mr Greenstreet is simply lifting (in this case) from the Lavoisier Group.

However,Skeptical Science gives an apt answer:

CO2 levels reach some spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician, around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels.

There are plenty of potential problems with el gordo. Probably the most obvious is that he's full of bullshit.

Here's one I hadn't seen before. I came across [this page](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM), which has a deconstruction of 2007's "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon), which serves as the basis of the petition project.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

Have a look at figure 4 - students of "W" theory will experience a sense of deja vu.

Con

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

Here I go replying to an ignorant, arrogant troll. A sufficient condition to be sure there's no increase in climatic forcing from CO2 is that the 30 year trend in global temperature is not positive and that there is no decrease in forcing caused by something else such as sulphate aerosols or solar radiation.

The 30-year trend in global temperature is very strongly positive so that sufficient condition is a long, long way from being satisfied.

Now, what does it take you to accept that CO2 causes climate forcing?

Yet another interesting discovery about the CRU crack:

The code, data, and documents in the .zip file of the CRU material might have been ripped from e-mail attachments. Check out FOIA/documents/communicating_cc.pdf -- and note the file format.

Satellite measurements of infrared spectra seems to offer firm proof that less energy is escaping, which supports the proposition of an empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

So I will accept AGW if temperatures continue to rise against the natural trend of cooler temps.

Chris O'Neill:

> Now, what does it take you to accept that CO2 causes climate forcing?

el gordo:

> So I will accept AGW if [...]

Shorter el gordo:

I can't deny outright that CO2 causes climate forcing, but I have to seem like I do deny it, so I'll dodge Chris's question and pretend that he asked a different question.

el credulo:

So I will accept AGW if temperatures continue to rise against the natural trend of cooler temps.

Is this what you would have said in 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, 1980 and is this what you will say in 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030,.., forever and ever, amen?

This is a comment on the post ["Monckton has a gold Nobel prize pin"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_has_a_gold_nobel_priz…) by Tim Lambert in this blog.

Quote from the post:

Oh, and did you know that the EU is a dictatorship? Monckton:

The world needs the United States to continue as the engine-house of prosperity, the wellspring of invention, the hope of freedom, the guarantor of peace. You must not transform your great nation into merely another stifling, inept, corrupt, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship such as China, Russia, or the European Union.

End of quote.

Dear Tim,

How would you classify a political regime where:

1. the Parliament (elected body) can not propose laws (termed "regulations" or "directives" in the eurospeak, these may only be proposed by the Commission);
2. a law is considered approved if the Parliament produces no decision on it within a set time limit;
3. even if the Parliament votes against by an absolute majority (required to reject a law), the rejected law may still be enacted by the Commission.

Note that the European Commission is a body that is nominated and not elected.

All of this has been first included into the Maastricht treaty, and remained in every other European treaty signed after that.

Therefore, all the EU laws are indeed created by a group of unelected bureaucrats, as Lord Monckton had correctly stated. Do you seriously believe this is how a democracy works?

All these treaties are published on EU sites and may be downloaded.

Cheers, J.B.

A recent UN report suggests that 13 of the biggest cities in third world countries run the risk of producing global cooling.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/the_global_warming_threat_i…

Your a liar [as well as a creep](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…) el gordo!

And your source also published Dr G.O., they have no effective fact checking (like you).

Poor old Girma, but let's get back to the science.

A recent article by P.Sorrel et al in Quaternary Science Reviews believes more storms are likely as we drift toward cooler temperatures. I pulled the quote from WCR.

'Sorrel et al. found periods of intense storm activity around 2,700 BP and 1,250 BP, and they note both of these were unusually cool periods.

They note that the Medieval Warm Period (around 900 AD to 1200 AD) was a time of few storms, while âIn the subsequent 600 years after the MWP, corresponding to the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA), our proxy records mark the return towards more energetic conditions in the Seine estuaryâ.

Basically, they showed over and over that storm activity increases in cold periods and diminishes in warm periods. Claiming that global warming will result in increased mid-latitude storm activity is simply not consistent with 1,000s of years of climate information collected in northwestern France.'

Not even a retraction of [your lie](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2167…) el gordo?

How Plimeresque of you to just bluster on and facts be damned. You were hoping to shove that one down the memory hole were you Winston Smith?

Here are some impressive graphs, illustrating the importance of the PDO as a major climate change trigger.

http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/page3.html

Maybe el gordo's not a really liar jakerman. Perhaps he's such a complete dickhead he actually believes within himself that the article is referring to his personal hobby-horse, global cooling, rather than what it says on its face i.e. "tamp(ing) down **rising temperatures** by between 20 percent to 80 percent" ?

Nah, on second thoughts ... when are you going to admit your post @ 128 is bullshit gordo ?

As an aside, I have to say it is great to see inactivists like el gordo can still add 2 plus 2 and come up with 3 ... even such minute traces of consistency like that can help to show the general public what a pack of dribbling numbskulls denialists actually are !!

As a member of the general public, here to read the arguments for AGW beyond the msm, I'm very impressed by the language and intellectual depth of all Tim's supporters.

Having come from a background on the far left I am letting all my old friends know about Deltoid, so they can make up their own minds about the debate.

El gordo, here's a sample retraction I knocked up and which you're welcome to use as a template ...

"The article in Amercian Thunker on which I based my post at 128 didn't actually say anything about global cooling. In fact it talked about a slower rate of warming in some localised areas but in my haste to confirm my own foolish biases, I stupidly misrepresented what the artcle said. I am truly sorry to have mislead the general public and wish to retract that erroneous post."

Of course if that's too wordy for you just use your own style. It can't be that hard to admit your willful ignorance can it ?

BTW: Do you have a link to this mysterious 'recent UN report' ? The blog post you linked to certainly doesn't.

Chris W,

Retractions don't appear in Winston Smith's operating manual, that's what the memory hole is for!

Frankly I think like Girma, el gordo has developed a pathology. el gordo's is in the form of fact filtering to confirm his own prejudice (as you have clearly observed), making gross misrepresentations, propagandising based on clearly bogus sources, and now spam and baiting.

el gordo's pathology has now taken addiction proportions. I noticed that el gordo was one of a few that posted here on Christmas.

I wonder how long Tim will put up with el gordo's blatant misrepresentation of facts, his failure to correct his misrepresentaions and his consequential propagandising? At some state we start to wonder if such tactics have a legitimate place on this site?

The NAO and AO have both gone negative, with blocking highs dominating we can expect cooler than average winters in the US and Europe for quite some time.

Couldn't agree more jakerman, pathological and potentially a nasty piece of work ... and yet, I wonder ... maybe gordo actually has some rare and hidden depths of character.

On the surface he's a brazen chancer like Plimer, but gordo has also copped the full Graeme Bird, viz: "Hey El Gordo you dirty freak. How about take your intimidation elsewhere? I know what you are up to you poisonous little git. You want the former employer to react in a frenzy of self-justification. What lowdown slime you are." http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=30#comment-154236 Just might be some redeeming qualities there.

At the very least, I can't say I recall their leading thinker (cohenite) displaying as much spine as el gordo. He just goes mute when Bird, or any other denydiot, has one of their regular brain explosions.

On our first meeting GB suffered from an unfortunate misunderstanding, he thought I was one of you.

He claimed he was already banned from here, so his value judgement on my character might be a little dodgy. After the dust settled we safely avoided each other.

mb @ 35

Yep, you got me good (and others too, apparently). Nicely done. Point made and taken.

:-)

â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢

[Yet another](http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/12/a_few_thoughts.html) fearless rugged individualist group blog commentary on the CRU email saga, complete with evidence free hyperbolic accusations that it is the most serious and damaging scientific fraud in recent times. I kid you not.

A particularly articulate version, I grant, but very silly stuff, really.

Now, now, el gordo, given the denialo-crap you were spouting on that thread GB'd have to be an complete-and-utter-cranium-busting-nutbag to think you were anything other than a denialist. He couldn't be as oblivious as you describe ... surely ... ?

But please, one thing at a time, lets put Bird's alleged reasons for your character assessment aside and concentrate on [your post @ 128](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2167…) ?

I'm struggling to understand how anyone with an IQ above room temperature could so successfully bollix up the meaning of what americandribbler.com wrote and what you asserted it meant in your post. I mean they are freakin' diametrically opposite !!

Does your lack of comprehension bother you in the slightest ? Or have you just grown used to it being worn-out and blunted by years of AGW denial.

WotWot,,

>*A particularly articulate version, I grant...*

I wouldn't go that far. Dale Amon presents an opinionated merry-go-round of fact free nonsense.

In this tedious rant Dale found the CRU crew guilty without charge nor evidence. But that doesn't prevent brave
Amon from presenting the solutions to remedy the wrong doing that he has failed to define.

It's ironic. The report says as a result of global temperature rises - linked with greenhouse gas emissions - may currently be between 20% and 80% less as a result of brown clouds around the world.

They go on to say that if this brown cloud was eliminated overnight, this could trigger a rapid global temperature rise of as much as 2 degrees C.

Add that to the 0.75 degrees C rise of the 20th Century, this could push global temperatures well above what is considered by some scientists to be a crucial and dangerous threshold.

Global dimming is not new, the Israelis were the first to detect it during one of their many wars, when commercial airlines were grounded. The Americans confirmed it after 9/11.

So when the world turns naturally cooler the brown cloud and jet trails will only make conditions worse. It's the elephant in the room.

el gordo writes:

>*It's ironic* [blah blah blah]

Its not ironic, it [just predictable](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2167…) that you completely misrepresented the facts and continue to dance and weave rather than retract your blatant falsehood.

Gawd all bloody mighty !!

Weak as piss El Gordo. Weak. As. Piss.

El gordo @128: "... report suggests that 13 of the biggest cities in third world countries run the **risk of producing global cooling**".

El gordo @143: "... The *(same)* report says ... **global temperature rises** ... may currently be between 20% and 80% less".

Your post at 128 lies there oozing dishonesty yet you carry on like some gibbering simpleton and produce post 143 ... in direct contradiction to 128 but with no acknowledgement of your earlier willful distortion !!

Sorry to say it jakerman, but I think you erred in paraphrasing el gordo's claptrap as "[blah blah blah]" ... with that phrase you've attributed more sense and integrity to his blitherings than can be read into his actual posts.

Mea Culpa Chris, there's no running away from it, I erred.

;)

Is that you CON? Very amusing, but let's discuss climate.

The UK Met says 'the famously cold winter of 1962-63 is now expected to occur about once every 1000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.'

This of course is utter madness because the River Dee at Aberdeen is already frozen, like in 1962-63.

Bernard, that changes the whole picture. Still, the Al Gore Warmists are undoubtedly confusing the coconut spreading ability of a European swallow with an African one, making their proxies worthless for describing the Medieval Warming Period.

el gordo writtes:

>*Very amusing, but let's discuss climate. [blah blah blah].*

You're not discussing climate you fraud, you're simply trying to launder your crap weather arguments here, knowing they have been [responded to elsewhere](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying…).

Er, no el gordo. I'm not Chris O'Neill, nor am I Chris Winter who posts here every so often.

Just consider me a member of the general public who's read your lying crap over the last few months and has become even more convinced that denialists are congenitally dishonest, incapable of facing the truth, never to be trusted, spineless, shameless, plus are twisted and rotten at heart.

BTW: I see you haven't yet been able to give us any thoughts on reconciling [your post @ 128](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2167…) with what [americanwanker.com](http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/the_global_warming_threat_i…) **actually said** ?

Thank you and good night.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NAO.jpg

Can anyone direct me to further information abut [these allegations](http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm) agains Wang by Keenan? I know it was published in E&E, but I'd still like to know if anyone esle has taken a look at it.

[Chris W](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2172…).

It's the decloaking of folk such as yourself that warms the cockles of my heart, and that provides the coninued impetus for those such as my own self, who are morbidly drawn to punch the tar babies of the Denialati, to persist when good sense says that it is a fruitless enterprise.

Thank you for closing the year for me with a positive moment. Deity(ies)-of-one's-choice know(s) that there is little enough to be positive about in the contemporary climatic data, and in humanity's response to the same, to be encouraged about...

Bernard,

Having recently caught Tarantino's latest on DVD I was going to make a feeble crack about "Inglorious Lamburts" ... but that would be a Godwin of epic proportions :-)

Truly, you and the rest of the lads/ladies here are doing a good thing.

Cheers,

Chris

PS: And notwithstanding most of them copped it in the end (but let's forget that bit) !!

jakerman @ 152:

In one of the stolen e-mails (1188557698), Tom Wigley discusses that and says "Keenan has a valid point".

Janet, I suppose you already read the documents linked to.

I don't know about you, but have you ever been asked to produce the data that a 19 year old paper was based on, when at the time there was no requirement for data archival? I hope I'll never be.

The worst I see is sloppy meta-data archival by IAP. Bad, but not fraudulent. This shows Phil Jones from his humane side; easily forgotten that it exists.

PJ Renton: Wang was investigated by his university and cleared of all allegations of scientific fraud.

dhogaza, note that the standard of evidence for a U of Albany's fraud investigation is 'the preponderance of the evidence' like in a civil suit, not 'beyond reasonable doubt', like in criminal proceedings. Nice, innit? And your career as a scientist is over if found guilty.

Martin,

I'm pretty sure SUNY's investigation was thorough enough to contact the Chinese Met Service, as Wang invited Keenan to do, and found that Keenan's allegations were entirely without merit. As Keenan would have known had he made the effort on his own or honored the confidentiality agreement with the university.

LB, I haven't been following this issue in detail (something I seem to share with Tom Wigley) like you apparently have. I don't like lawyers and don't like impersonating one.

LB, I haven't been following this issue in detail (something I seem to share with Tom Wigley) like you apparently have. I don't like lawyers and don't like impersonating one.

Martin,

I don't like pompous libertarian assholes who make false public accusations based on statistical hallucinations and refuse to play by the rules.

I know several lawyers I like, personally. Not that I trust them, particularly.

Nice, innit? And your career as a scientist is over if found guilty.

Yes, indeed, that's what Keenan was trying to do, end Wang's career.

That's what they're trying to do to Jones and Mann, as well.

Oh, yeah, they're going after Gavin Schmidt, as well.

Nice world we live in, where scientists trying to do their job are subject to such attacks.

Gavin is a modeler, so he's fair game along with the others who put faith before observational reality.

el gordo you creep, let's have a real name if you dare.

"so he's fair game along with the others who put faith before observational reality" - El Gordo

Talk about ironic statements.

"Gavin is a modeler, so he's fair game along with the others who put faith before observational reality."

That kind of ugliness and intellectual dishonesty speaks volumes, doesn't it.
I do wonder what exactly a poster like this one is actually trying to achieve. Anyone with an open mind and half a brain behind it will find it very easy to see the paucity of contrarian argument when there are characters like this about.

Martin, LB and dogaza, thanks for your comments,

LB writes:

>*I'm pretty sure SUNY's investigation was thorough enough to contact the Chinese Met Service, as Wang invited Keenan to do, and found that Keenan's allegations were entirely without merit.*

If anyone can find confirmation of this please link here. The initial phase of the report called for further investigation of the data in China that's the only Investigation report I've found so far. LB's comments would be consistent with that secondary investigation having been completed and reported.

167 John,

Muck-spreading is all that denidiots do. Notice that they seem strangely unaware that their muck is often completely incompatible with the muck spread by other denidiots.

Gavin is a modeler, so he's fair game along with the others who put faith before observational reality.

That just about sums up your pathetic, worthless contribution to this blog, el gordo: a truly contemptible, vindictive comment based on profound, and no doubt wilful, ignorance of science.

Somewhere there's a dank, slimy rock patiently waiting for you to crawl back under it.

Please don't keep it waiting any longer.

Fatso.

I am curious.

You have had much to say about mainstream (= expert/professional) climatology that is negative. You apparently claim to have insight that is more accurate than that of mainstream climatologists. You seem to believe that you understand how mainstream climatology is in error, and that you are a holder of the 'real' truth...

Please, can you direct us to the post of yours on Deltoid, or on any other blog, that you believe most succinctly demonstrates the veracity of your 'case'. This might describe either the best piece of evidence-based argument that you accept, of the sort that I have [repeatedly requested](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) over the last several weeks, or it might simply be the best argument you have that you feel that climatology has not adressed.

I await a response with much anticipation. You have been free with much unsubstantiated blather to date: how about putting some hard evidence on the table?

Janet, I propose you ask Seth Borenstein, who wrote this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/

The next 20 years will be cooler than the last 30 years as a cool PDO and negative AO/NAO become dominant. Throw in a quiet sun for good measure and we have an opportunity to test AGW orthodoxy.

This will fall on deaf ears because those who accept AGW orthodoxy have already taken the green pill and are unconscious.

el gordo you really have regressed to Girm like mantras.

Well, perhaps "regressed" gives you too much credit?

Martin, thanks for the tip.

janet,

this.

Bingo!

Cheers Martin!

I'll keep my eyes open for anything that determines whether SUNY actually confirmed the 'paper'form records in China. But this letter would be consistent with that step having occurred.

132 el gordo,

Wanna bet? I have already put my money where my mouth is, in 2 bets with a certain GO. Will you?

I wonder, what were your predictions:-
In the 80s, for the 90s;
In the 90s, for the 00s?
How did they turn out?

177 me,

For some reason I said 132. It should read 173.

175 Martin,

And what has happened to the person who made that allegation? Has any action been taken?

The next 20 years will be cooler than the last 30 years as a cool PDO and negative AO/NAO become dominant. Throw in a quiet sun for good measure and we have an opportunity to test AGW orthodoxy.

Credit to you for making specific predictions. That is indeed how theories are tested.

But bold predictions. Very bold indeed.

And that assumption about the sun being quiet? Wouldn't bet the house on it.

MV @172...

Your link in reference to Wang states "A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing"

Imagine that. A university investigation.

Could you imagine what would happen if the university came up with a different conclusion?

Gee, I wonder if the University tried to imagine what that scenario might do to their reputation and how it may affect some of their goals and assets? Let's see...

Regarding goals:

"In short, this is the University at Albanyâs collective objective: in our size, impact, operation, and stature to become a Carnegie Research I institution as well as to qualify for election to the American Association of Universities"

"The level of funding allocated to the campus will determine not only whether but how quickly we can achieve the goal."

Regarding assets:

"These assets have been further enhanced by the Department of Environmental Conservationâs decision to move its state-of-the-art laboratories to the Rensselaer campus." "Scientists, faculty members and students associated with all of these programs study the basic environmental sciences"....... "including global climate change".

"Much of the work is externally supported by grants from major federal research agencies as well as private corporations and interest groups"

http://www.albany.edu/feature99/special/mission_review.html

By the way, has anyone seen a copy of this investigation?

Janet, why don't you ask them?

TrueSkeptic, not that I know. And this backs my contention that there should be a 'Climatology Legal Defence Fund' with proper resources.

Betula, that much text? I must have hit a raw nerve... so now the university is in on the conspiracy... right!

"Betula, that much text? I must have hit a raw nerve... so now the university is in on the conspiracy... right!"

It's a pretty simple concept MV. So simple in fact, that even you see it, despite your pretending that you don't.

Understood.

On another note, did anyone see this very disappointing news?

Britain, America, Russia, Austria, Germany, India, China, Swiss Alps...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240319/As-Britain-told-expect-…

A travesty in the making.

> It's a pretty simple concept MV. So simple in fact, that even you see
> it, despite your pretending that you don't.

Oh I understand it alright. It's called conspiracy theory, and spelled tin-foil hat. Yes, pretty simple.

> this very disappointing news

Yep, used to happen every third year. Now it's every tenth, and we're out of practice. And yes, I understand you want to change the subject.

182 Martin,

I agree. I find it odd that so many scientists appear not to be concerned with the activities of the lying filth merchants.

I know that others here have throws up their hands in horror at the mere thought of taking legal action but what are the alternatives?

183 betula,

The travesty being...what? That idiots will claim that GW is a hoax because it's cold in a few places in winter?

TS, the alternative is what we see: accusations of fraud in thousands of places that nobody has the energy to go and refute, and a dysfunctional google.

The first libel suit would wonderfully focus the mind. I understand that Mike Mann has sometimes considered this, but it shouldn't be his job. There should be a well-staffed, well-resourced organization doing this. And those resources should not come at the expense of the science. It would likely be self-financing though given the unlimited supply of morons.

If scientists were Jews or African Americans or gays, the resources would be found. Heck, libeling scientists as a group would be classified as a hate crime, appropriately so.

Other cheek, meet end of the road.

MV

You may be onto something...

Since the apocolypse from warming seems to have been put on hold, the warmist can now put their tin foil to better use by distributing it around the world and providing thermo insulation to all those suffering from the cold.

Better to help those currently suffering than those hypothetically speculated to suffer in the future I always say...

Regarding the university investigating whether or not it will subject itself to ruin with it's own verdict, the answer is......a shocking no.

Even a tin foil hat couldn't reflect that obvious outcome.

By the way, the subject of this post is "open thread", so don't change the subject.

The travesty being...what? That idiots will claim that GW is a hoax because it's cold in a few places in winter?

Betula must be a DenialDepot commenter in disguise. I can never tell when they are being serious.

On another note, did anyone see this very disappointing news?
Britain, America, Russia, Austria, Germany, India, China, Swiss Alps...

Yes, an unusual quantity of cold, Arctic air has moved south again.

I wonder what that means for the Arctic itself? Oh look, setting a record minimum ice extent for early January.

Betula, please give me a list of universities that were ruined, or even seriously damaged, by exposing fraudulent researchers in their employ.

(crickets chirping)

It's very simple. Exposed fraudsters get dropped like hot potatoes, because they will do it again, not being good enough to succeed honestly. It really is that simple. Do you get it now?

TS, I don't think there is any alternative. The problem is resources. The scientists are busy enough with the science (and with answering FOI demands).

I've been thinking, if the group being targeted were Jews, or blacks, or gays, there would be resources, you bet. This is the same kind of hate crime.

(sotto voce: what an asshole...)

TS: It's not a few places, it's the whole northern hemisphere which is experiencing the cold snap.

During the LIA it was not uniformly cold, with many hot dry summers in Europe similar to what we would expect from AGW.

This may seem like a nasty case of cognitive dissonance, but I'm merely making the point that it will become increasingly difficult to find the signal amongst the noise.

el gordo @173 writes:

>*The next 20 years will be cooler than the last 30 years as a cool PDO and negative AO/NAO become dominant.*

el gordo's next post @194:

>*[...] I'm merely making the point that it will become increasingly difficult to find the signal amongst the noise.*

Betula, you make a good case to reduces [perverse incentives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2181…) in funding models. How would you propose that gets done?

Other than that you discredit yourself with your [childish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2181…) school boy empty talk. And continued [weather cherry picking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2181…).

Grow up!

..it will become increasingly difficult to find the signal amongst the noise.

Only for idiots, and only if they become even stupider than they already are.

Not saying that can't happen, of course...

"Betula, please give me a list of universities that were ruined, or even seriously damaged, by exposing fraudulent researchers in their employ"

MV, are you saying that research fraud can't or won't damage the reputation and funding of a University?

Some would disagree...

"The professors fundamentally abandoned honesty and sincerity ⦠and caused the fall in the school's honor and the country's international confidence," the university said in a statement Monday.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/science/article_a463ab29-a7b3-5acf-964b-398…

And this sounds familiar...

"Moreover, investigations cost time and money, and no institution wants to discover something that could cast a shadow on its reputation."

âThere are conflicting influences on a university where they are the co-grantor and responsible to other investigators,â says Stephen Kelly, the Justice Department attorney who prosecuted Poehlman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html?ex=13191…

> MV, are you saying that research fraud can't or won't damage the reputation
> and funding of a University?

No, I am saying that such damage will be short-lived if the university does the right thing and is seen to take science ethics seriously. There is no comparison with trying a cover-up -- which in the end will do much more damage, as the fraud won't stop and eventually will be found out. Universities know this.

I expected you to bring up the high-profile South Korean example. Did you notice that in spite of the short-term fall-out, both universities (and many individuals in the Poehlman story, against self-interest) did the right thing? This is characteristic for scientists, not anomalous. What do you know that I don't that makes SUNY different?

I'd be interested (no, really!) in el gordo's response to the news that Australia has just had [its hottest decade on record](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/hottest-decade-on-reco…).

Thanks for the link zoot, but I am holding to my prediction that the next 20 years will be cooler than the past 30 years.

Wait a minute, 'hottest decade on record' is weather and not climate. That's some wild cherrypick by BOM and they did it without the help of Ian 'Harry' Harris.

el gordo, they mean the instrument record, not your attention span.

So it is the warmest deade on record.The continent is also getting wetter.Apart from the fires,which were caused by fuel build up,I dont see why it is such a big deal.

>*'hottest decade on record' is weather and not climate. That's some wild cherrypick by BOM*

Good point el gordo, to better emphasise climate BOM should highlight that the decades of 1990s and 2000s were successively the hottest on record.

But of course BOM were responding to denialist, amoung them [fools like you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2183…) who claim cooling.

....I am holding to my prediction that the next 20 years will be cooler than the past 30 years.

El gordo, I think you made a mistake. I hope you don't me me pointing it out. You wrote "prediction" when you obviously meant "wild guess".

Janet, it seems that the final investigation report is not public.

There are some University letters posted on Keenan's site marked in big type CONFIDENTIAL, which aren't anymore... I suspect once they found out the kind of person they were dealing with, and how any published report was going to be misrepresented, they decided to play hardball. "Oops, we didn't interview you for the report. And that means, oops, you won't get to see the draft report."

It's rather hilarious actually if you're not on the receiving end... they have the better lawyers ;-)

el gordo, you are correct in your assertion that the last decade is weather not climate. Had you bothered to look for the [source document](http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100…) you would have found that:

On 8 December 2009, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that 2009 is expected to be the globeâs 5th warmest year on record (about 0.44°C above the 1961-90 average). A cooler-than-average global mean temperature has not been recorded since 1985, with the last decade also being the globeâs warmest on record.

I'll put that in the simplest way I can: for nearly twenty five years the global mean temperature has been above the average. Are we getting closer to climate now?

Yes we are getting close to climate,and it seems like a nice balmy one.Too bad that Copenhagen was such a fizzle.What is objectionable is the vast waste of taxpayer money for those 114 freeloaders to achieve....NOTHING!!But back to the science.If we did a calculation of the slope of temp from 1975 to say 1998,and then another calculation of slope of temp from 1998 to 2009,the change in slope would show that the warming has slowed.Does anyone have a link to a peer=reviewed article that explains why?

> Does anyone have a link to a peer=reviewed article that explains why?

Yes, [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367) is one.

202 el gordo,

Well? Wanna bet?

I recently won a small bet on the 2009 Arctic ice minimum.

I have 2 bets with GO on the next 2 decades.

Loser to give to a charity of the winner's choosing.

Beer money or something more serious?

@210

Yes we are getting close to climate,and it seems like a nice balmy one.

Balmy as in balmy army? Or are you seriously calling 40+ degrees C "balmy"?

Over the last quarter century the 'global mean temperature has been above the average'. That seems to be reasonably accurate and can easily be accounted for by the warm PDO, along with positive AO/NAO.

From 1946 to 1976 the oscillations were in the opposite mode, hence the global cooling fears at the time. Between the wars global warming was the worry, here is an article from the Washington Post of 1922.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_month…

'The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice free water,'

There will be no global warming catastrophe, at least for the next 30 years of climate change.

Here is a better example of how the air con works. Note the GW spike in 1880 is very similar to 1998.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…

Trust me, I'm not in the pocket of big shale.

Hammering home the argument that the PDO is a dominant force in climate change, have a look at these temperature anomalies from Alaska.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

Here is a better example of how the air con works. Note the GW spike in 1880 is very similar to 1998.

With the linear detrending, it looks like something similar that occurred in the past. Without the detrending, it looks like an extended upward trend that was interrupted briefly between 1950 and 1970.

The slope between 1915 and 1945 is actually pretty steep: 1.5C / century. The slope between 1978 and 2008 is slightly more steep: 1.6C / century.

CO2 was probably already forcing climate back in 1915. The data suggests temperature is sensitive to relatively small CO2 fluctuations. If we haven't seen more warming it's probably because climate is also very sensitive to aerosols, and maybe because of some warming in the pipeline.

@215

Astonishingly bizarre "analysis", and yet eerily familiar.

From this day forth I dub thee el girma in His honour. Truly, your capacity to recycle garbage is boundless.

@215

Further to my other post, what's really funny is that you've just shown how craptacular this particular "analaysis" was when it was first waved around here.

What Girma tried to do was remove a supposedly constant linear trend, and claim that everything else was an oscillation.

If you look real close, you'll see that the link you posted shows a *slight upward trend* rather than the original flat line it had when it was originally posted here. This is because the extra few months of data since the original "de-trending" have altered the slope upwards (as they would have to, absent a massive drop in global temperature), thus highlighting once again how totally cretinous, shallow and brittle this supposed "analysis" is.

Gordo, haven't we been through all this "if you take away the trend there's no trend" crap before?

Hmmm...

Occasional upper case hystrionics, multiple exclamation marks, no spaces after punctuation marks... The style of [wazzamad](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2183…) reminds me of a previous troll, although exactly which one it is escapes me fro the moment.

Is this yet another sockpuppeteer attempting to skirt a ban, or to simply make it appear that the Denialati are more numerous here than is actually the case?

wazzamad = frank

If you were wondering why El Nino is quickly breaking down, blame the Humboldt current sweeping up the west coast of South America.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Yet BOM predicts this El Nino will be as big as the 1997-98 Nino.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Incredible as it may seem, the SOI may not be telling the whole story.

Joseph:
So if temperature is senstive "relatively small co2 fluctuations",then why is it that temperatures have been flat for 8 years while co2 has risen 4%?

Joseph: 'CO2 is logarithmically proportional to the equilibrium temperature. So there should be a lag.' Crikey, I hope he's right.

The warm PDO kicked in around 1916 and as Captain Martin Ingebrigteen said in that WP article above, he first noted the warmer conditions in 1918. 'Since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.'

I noticed a reference to one Garth Paltridge in a discussion on Climate Change in the online version of the Belfast Telegraph - I wonder if another Emeritus is shoving himself more fully into the media limelight?

Funnily enough he's got a [new book](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FXNzPgAACAAJ&dq=climate+caper&ei=DC…) out, though thankfully not on Amazon yet.

[Wazzamad/frank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2188…) askes in his characteristically poorly-punctuated fashion:

So if temperature is senstive [sic] "relatively small co2 fluctuations",then why is it that temperatures have been flat for 8 years while co2 has risen 4%?

It is clearly obvious that Wazzamad/frank and an operational understanding of statistics are separate entities that have never met. For his enlightenment it should be pointed out that the trend for the last eight years is not statistically different to the warming trend for decades prior; nor is the variance of the data over the last eight years significantly different to the preceding decades. If he stops a moment and considers what this means, he might be a little more cirsumspect in the questions he poses.

Nevertheless, since he raised the issue, I will ask this of him:

1) what forcing of temperature does Wazzamad/frank ascribe to CO2, and to other factors such as Milankovitch cycles and other astronomical phenomena, to solar variability, to aerosols, to (non-human) biological effects, and to sundry other parameters that impact upon climate?

2) what lag times does Wazzamad/frank ascribe to each of the forcings/parameters listed above; and if his times differ in magnitude, how does he believe they would interact in the final temperature signal that results from the cumulative effect of the forcings/parameters that operate on the planet's climate?

3) given (1) and (2) above, what is the nature of the temperature response, that Wazzamad/frank expects, to increases in atmospheric CO2, when considered in the context of the other forcings/parameters that operate simultaneously?

Via Joanne Nova (via the International Climate Science Coalition), I see that one Mohib Ebrahim has drawn up a totally hilarious "timeline" of "Climategate.

A friend of mine recently asked if there had been any more revelations on who was ultimately responsible for the hacking. I said I knew of nothing beyond certain circumstantial evidence around the location of the computers used. Anyone know any more than this?

Bud: You probably already know that the Russian FSB has admitted the hack was carried out through the Siberian city of Tomsk, but it was only the link and they deny any involvement.

'The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done outside Russia.'

Hmmm...

All in all it was a dismal year for AGW: Copenhagen was a farce, Al Gore revealed his tenuous grasp on science, the NH is colder than a well diggers ass this winter, the US public has turned sceptical, the most liberal US congress in memory can't pass climate change legislation, Beijing and Moscow are apathetic at best. We REALLY need a WARM year, team.

What, the warmest decade on record isn't enough?

Maybe not, zoot.

Some people will never be convinced by anything less than every day - winter or summmer - being hotter than the next in perpetuity.

Of course, there will always then be diehards who see nightfall as the smoking gun...

BOM is predicting that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. For obvious reasons I strongly disagree.

Bud: Bishop Hill had a chat with the Norfolk Police about the hacked emails and they are seeking the help of the National Domestic Extremism Team. No, they are not the 'thought police'.

The NDET are looking for campaign activists being involved, presumably members of the Denialati.

Ultimately, they will blame Russian extremists who are very much in favor of global warming.

@235:

For obvious reasons I strongly disagree.

Care to share them with us?

Hmm. "National Domestic Extremism Team". does this mean that the Norfolk Constabulary thinks that ideologues within Britain may be involved in the CRU crack?

bi IJI: You mean 'freedom fighters' against the 'great delusion'.

zoot: It has nothing to do with the weather, grim as it looks for the UK Met, their failure to predict seasonal patterns will be their undoing and the BOM.

@239
Who said it had anything to do with the weather? I asked if you'd share "the obvious reasons" why you "strongly disagree" with the BOM who you claim are predicting "2010 will be the hottest year on record".

As far as I can see the most they are predicting is warmer than average in the north and west and cooler in the southeast for the Jan - Mar of 2010. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link to the prediction you are quoting?

It's not exactly from the horses mouth, but I believe everything the Liberal says.

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/news/local/news/general/2010-predicted-t…

Bernard J to your questions.
1]The temperature forcings of all the things you mentioned?
Well the stephan-boltzman predicts about 1 degree celcius for a doubling.As for all the others you listed,there are only educated guesses as far as I have seen.Eg the IPCC has admits it has a poor understanding of aerosols.That is the problem;we just dont know.
2]Time lag?
The only time lag that I know of is the one where temperature leads co2 by 800 years in the ice core studies.
3]the nature of the temperature response...?
Again nobody knows.The IPCC has said that climate is a chaotic system and predictions are not possible.A perfect example of that is the present 9 year stasis period which the models did not predict.

el gordo: Freedom as in the freedom to steal e-mails to support some ideological cause? Sounds like extremism to me.

* * *

Shorter wazzamad: I don't know a lot of things, therefore I know that global warming is a scam.

The 1998 -2007 warm period was caused by natural variability rather than a sign of AGW.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/08/update-2009-anot…

bi-IJI : The NDET won't find the whistleblower, nevertheless this heretic has done us all a big favor.

bi-IJI
You must be very clever,knowing that I apparently think that global warming is a scam.How about you stick to evidence based remarks.If you can answer Bernard's questions better than be my guest.

219 Dave,

You can see the numerical trend by looking at the [Raw Data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…), of course.

By the same token, someone wanting to present an exactly detrended graph would make the effort to check the data and adjust the tweaking accordingly. Still, we can't expect such care, can we?

Shorter el gordo: Ideologues aren't extremists, and even if they are, they're whistleblowers.

* * *

Shorter wazzamad: I didn't say global warming is a scam, I only insinuated that global warming is a scam. But it's natural for me to ask if global warming is a scam, even though I'm not saying it is.

All in all it was a dismal year for AGW: Copenhagen was a farce, Al Gore revealed his tenuous grasp on science, the NH is colder than a well diggers ass this winter,

Last time I looked the Pacific Northwest was part of the NH, and we're warm. So is much of Alaska and western Canada, eastern Siberia and western portion of the North American Arctic.

Not only is the eastern and midwestern US and Canada not the world ... it's not even the northern hemisphere.

El Gordo's World Climate Report includes a graph from NCDC that includes a regression line that shows a clear century+ rising trend in temperature, then of course claims that temperature has returned to "normal".

Hilarious own goal by people who can't even read a regression line.

@dhogaza:
add significant parts (if not the whole) of Greenland to that list of "warmer". They've got temperatures normal for spring.

Dhogaza: "...includes a graph from NCDC..."

Wasn't that the band formed by the ex-members of N Sync and AC/DC?

We can all read a regression line, WCR is extrapolating. In their heart of hearts they are hoping it levels off, Virginia is taking a battering.

If the present AO/NAO pattern remains in place it will be a backward Spring in the UK and flooding after the thaw.

Bud: After forensic analysis they now know that the hacker is someone at East Anglia University with 'root' privileges to UEA's secure computer systems.

There are 33 Russian students studying at UEA and the FSB has used 'hacker patriots' in the past, especially from the Siberian city of Tomsk where the leaked emails were linked. The main users of that particular server are the students at Tomsk State University.

Russia is the third largest emitter of 'greenhouse gas' and were reluctant to get involved with the AGW theory, but they also recognized a useful scam at Kyoto. Since Copenhagen they are backing off.

The hacker left a note: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps". MI5 must now be looking for a 'privileged' Russian student.

Fatso.

I suspect that fantasies of tweed and trench-coats have gone to your head.

The Cold War is long over, and the 'Hot Wars' will have little to do with conservative nostalgia for reds under the bed.

The culprits will not turn out to be Russian students.

Oh, and I guess that you'll have to scramble now to come up with the [last word](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) again...

Spoil sport.

Betcha.

El Gordo, in the other thread you were saying someone was collecting data for an FOI and just plumb left it around where it was found by a "whistleblower". Now you're saying it was a Russian student.

Personally, I think it was the Bildeberg Group...

It's in the Bildeberg Group's best interest to see humanity enslaved and addicted to a green pill. No motive for that shadowy group.

If the FSB are not implicated then the police will be seeking a member of the Denialati who has the required skill to hack a fairly insecure system.

In a perverse moment I wandered over to the last page on Marohasy's eutrophying bog.

Besides the notable lack of direction and momentum from the bridge (last thread started 7 October 09, last update on 12 December 09 to say that Marohasy has retired from posting, and consequently 46 pages for the darned thread) I found this gem from our fantasmagorically scienced friend, first mate cohenite:

[Comment from: cohenite January 15th, 2010 at 7:15 pm](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=46#comment-162586)

Deforestation is a seperate issue to AGW but the attachment of deforestation to worsening AGW through release of CO2 from removing trees and the removal of the tree sink is just plain garbage; if indigenous forest is removed for the planting of crops those crops will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the original plants even taking into account the emission amounts from cropping.

[Emphasis mine]

Whoa boy! I understand that such a post will whip the blind of that kingdom into a frenzy of chainsaw-weilding, foaming fury, but after he has basked in the adulation of his awed subjects, perhaps the one-eyed monarch would care to come here and apply some science to his proclamation.

I note too that on the previous page this little exchange occurred:

[Comment from: spangled drongo January 12th, 2010 at 10:02 am](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=45#comment-161965)

Neville,
This cooling must be a blow to the projected "1/4 mile poleward" migration of all species to keep abreast of the warming.
I wonder who blows the whistle and tells us when to advance and when to retreat?

cohers,
I hope Bernard J. is paying strict attention.

http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=415747

[Comment from: spangled drongo January 12th, 2010 at 10:05 am](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=45#comment-161966)

that shoul [sic] be "1/4 mile ANNUAL poleward"

[Comment from: cohenite January 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=45#comment-161977)

SD; an ice-berg could drop on BJâs noggin and he still wouldnât change his mind.

Thereafter (and I am sure that for many many pages prior) followed much pseudoscientific gobbledegook on a range of subjects about which the mewling gulls have no actual understanding. The level of discourse there is reaching new heights in demonstrating that there is no bottom to Stupid.

Although it's flattering to be perceived as a gadfly amongst their herd of stampeding "facts", I ceased and desisted from delving further back than this page.

I apologise in advance if my mere mentioning of incoherenite's further debasements of science invokes the the Ancient Mariner and his crew to sail over here in order to seek an outlet for their Denialist angsts, but I just had note how said sailor of the I-do-not Sea persists in putting arrows through every scientific principle that soars overhead.

It is concerning indeed that folk may be so clueless, and yet still pretend to be sufficiently informed that they might act as the secretary for a national political party...

I wonder whether it isnât time for us to consider the question of geoengineering.

Pre-Copenhagen, there existed the (remote) hope that something like the beginnings of a satisfactory agreement top staunch emissions might emerge. Post-Copenhagen, itâs hard to believe one will arrive anytime soon, and yet, emissions will continue to rise and therewith all of the impacts we are now seeing. The last Assessment report, was based largely on data published by 2005, and known in 2003. Since that time we have learned that emissions are growing more rapidly, sea levels rising faster, sea ice extent in decline with its valuable protective albedo dissipating, glacial mass decomposing more quickly and the prospects are that by 2030-2035, temperatures will have risen enough to put Arctic permafrost on track to dissipate and release its stores of CH4 and CO2, wiping out whatever cuts in emissions growth weâve managed by then. If we lose the permafrost, end of century temperature rises of 4-6 degrees C are pretty much certain, absent some serious geoengineering â and Iâm not talking âno regretsâ measures either. Such rises would be catastrophic, especially for the poles and for Africa which would get a lot warmer than that. We would get massive growth in desertification around the 25 degree north and south latitudes which would encroach on major food growing areas. People depending on glacial meltwater for irrigation would be in dire trouble.

If we are going to start doing geoengineering, it would be as well to start early in a very modest way, precisely so that we can gather data about possible undesirable and unintended consequences, the precise positive impacts of particular measures and so forth.

Crutzen suggests admixture of sulphur dioxide to the stratosphere. This would be fairly cheap to do if for example, aircraft flying over either the north or southern hemispheres during the respective summers used fuel with about 0.1% sulphur added. This wouldnât be enough to materially affect stratospheric ozone (possibly as little as 0.5-0.8W/M negative forcing) and it could be enough to stop the uptick in CO2-forced temperatures beyond the predictions current in 2001. It would be a light foot on the brake which might buy us the time we need to stabilise emissions before we lose the permafrost and Arctic sea ice extent in the northern summer.

Another possibility would be ocean fertilisation, which if it aimed at no more than returning the levels of algae on continental sea shelves to about what it was in in 1980 would make a contribution to the effectiveness of marine sinks and possibly reinvigorate sections of the marine food chain.

The moral hazard issues are not small of course. This is why (rightly) many of us are reluctant to go this way. Giving the polluters a partial pass opens a wedge against doing something about emissions. Thatâs why I believe such measures should be very modest in scale and aimed at nothing more than buying us time to get the right kind of international agreement in place on emissions and eliciting the modelling needed to do accurate risk trading. Using SO2 to protect albedo values is a fairly modest and semi-ânaturalâ exercise. Weâd be underpinning a natural negative feedback.

And of course we should do re-vegetation and biochar or whatever we can.

Thoughts anyone?

This is no time to consider geo-engineering, because the science is not settled.

el gordo, as its is your goal to have the last post (no matter how inane) on an open thread, wouldn't you have less risk of being superceeded if you picked an [inactive open thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/open_thread_5.php)?

Just a thought.

The science of geo-engineering is not settled. In the early 1970's the Soviet Union was thinking of building a land bridge along the Bering Strait to keep the ice out, but it all came to nought when global warming kicked in.

So it might be prudent to let nature take its course until we know what's going on.

El Gordo wittered

The science of geo-engineering is not settled.

and

The science (of AGW) is not settled.

This is what happens when your kind mindlessly repeat a mantra. You miss the point in your reflexive Elizabeth-style program responses. What one believes about CO2-forcing is moot. Increasing stratospheric albedo will mititgate warming, the effects of which are significant, pernicious and long-lived. Where technical and organisational feasibility applies, the case is made out.

It's true that the science of geoengineering is not settled. That's precisely why I suggested a modest start be made. Hence my caveats above:

If we are going to start doing geoengineering, it would be as well to start early in a very modest way, precisely so that we can gather data about possible undesirable and unintended consequences, the precise positive impacts of particular measures and so forth. [...]

Thatâs why I believe such measures should be very modest in scale and aimed at nothing more than buying us time to get the right kind of international agreement in place on emissions and eliciting the modelling needed to do accurate risk trading.

You really are a persistently moronic troll. Perhaps we should dub you El Perl ...

The Royal Society's Report put forward 12 methods, no doubt you would have seen it already.

The idea of shooting giant mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight, isn't very bright. Nor the scattering of carbon absorbing rocks upon the landmass.

Scary stuff and also very expensive.

El Gordo wittered again ...

The idea of shooting giant mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight, isn't very bright.

It's not supposed to be bright but reflective.

And it wasn't giant mirrors, but lots of tiny ones that could be oriented to control the extent of albedo. Can't you get anything right?

Scary stuff and also very expensive.

Not that scary except to someone like you who is an ignoramus, and not particularly expensive -- how much is life on Earth worth? One trillion dollars? Since no life = wiping out all value, this would be a bargain unless we found something cheaper.

I didn't propose this yet of course. I proposed things that were much cheaper and were not technologically cutting edge.

It's like Jakerman says. You really want the last word even when all you can offer is mindless wittering.

They commence scattering the CO2 absorbing rocks and it works, then a 1000 years from now Milankovitch cycles come into play and we enter an ice age.

Who will take responsibility for picking up those rocks when CO2 follows temperatures down?

Milankovitch cycles have an effect in the last 800ky of glacial/interglacial periods.

Is anyone aware of evidence to suggest tht Milankovitch cycles have a decernable effet in a greenhouse (hothouse) world?

El Gordo,
Your prediction about a coming ice age is alarming!
Might I ask what data and what modelling have you done to support your theory?
Does your prediction meet with agreement among your fellow scientists, or is yours a minority opinion?
You *are* a scientist, qualified to make this sort of prediction, right?

The latest on ClimateGate - Google censorship!

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/19/national-posts-lawrence-solomon-claim…

Just when you thought commentary on the CRU hacked emails could not get any more absurd, along comes National Post columnist and âenvironmentalistâ Lawrence Solomon to up the ante. Believe it or not, Solomonâs latest over-the-top screed accuses Google of censoring search results to downplay the so-called Climategate scandal. But, as they say in the newspaper biz: âCheck a story, lose storyâ.

We know that interglacials last about 12,000 years, so we may have reached our used-by- date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Note the CO2 lag of about 800 years.

It might be cheaper and safer to put 'little' mirrors in orbit, than throwing rocks about. If the climate gets cool they could adjust the mirrors and warm a cold spot

Is it true Fatso's heart is set on making the final comment on a thread?

>*Is it true Fatso's heart is set on making the final comment on a thread?*

[Sad but true.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…)

Nice graph, El Gordo, - shows an amazingly close correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past several hundred thousand years!

Did you notice something funny? - *nowhere* in the last several hundred thousand years has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere *ever* reached even 75% of the level it currently stands at due to human action over the last 200 years.

In other words, you may have noticed that what is currently happening to CO2 levels is *unprecedented* in the time period that you have chosen to make your point. Whatever it was your point was.

Then el gordo had sufficient lack of self-awarness to [claim that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/roy_spencer_hides_the_increase…), "*Attention seeking behavior' is not [his] style.*"

Ah, Duffy has John Abbott as his 'expert' - Abbott of the Abbott and Marohasy article recently published...

Oops... not sure how I managed to dredge up this thread! I was trying to post on Open Thread 51.