Open Thread 47

A "sceptic" on Realclimate just asserted that the fact that the moon has a 300 degree temperature difference between night and day is evidence that it is "water vapour, and water vapour alone" which is responsible for the Earth's balmy temperature.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A little part of my brain dies off almost every time I read a sceptical argument.

Could one of the regular sceptics here post a sensible one we could discuss intelligently?

Sure Mike lets discuss how Sea ice area goes up then down then up again even when the temperature stays the same. What we are seeing is the effect of the wind. Sea ice area is less a proxy for temperature than it is a proxy for the wind. Sea water and fresh water do not freeze the same way.It takes a lot to form sea ice and the best way to do that is for the wind to form white caps.

Kent! Never not funny!

What's your point? What are you skeptical about? Are you saying that the arctic hasn't been warming, just getting less windy? Do you have anything to back up your claim that "sea ice area is less a proxy for temperature than it is a proxy for the wind"?

Just a couple things to keep in mind:

1. The arctic has been getting warmer.
2. There is wind over water in the tropics.

I'm not saying that wind is ineffectual, just that I need more than your paragraph-less, awkward prose to convince me it has more effect than temperature on sea ice area, except maybe in the short term and in key areas.

So Kent you're saying the clear [trend lower](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png) in Arctic sea ice extent of 2.6%/decade has nothing to do with [solar heating of the arctic ocean](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031480.shtml), for example, but is happening because its less windy?

Ummm... Surely Kent is taking the piss...

No kent isn't taking the piss. This is a recent latest skeptic argument.

Wind patterns have an effect on sea ice loss. Skeptics are trying to get away with dismissing all the summer sea ice decline to change in wind patterns...

Judith Curry has figured out, that we haven t read enough of WuWt, to judge that site:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-p…

Judith Curry Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Keith, thanks for raising this point. The people slagging off on McIntyre, Watts et al. have probably spent no time over at their blogs or made an effort to get to know them personally and understand what makes them tick. Or to talk to the scientific skeptics like Christy, Michaels. Or talk to the libertarian think tanks, like CATO and CEI. Well, iâve made that effort, and therefore I think I know alot more about the what the âdeniersâ are really like than the people accusing me of naivete, who have drawn premature conclusions because somebody found some sort of obscure link to an oil company. Well, if any medical researcher who got funds or otherwise engaged with pharmaceuticals was demonized like those linked even in some obscure way with an oil company, well medical research would come to a screeching halt.

Cato is a really good source of information, especially when compared to something like, ehm, the IPCC.

and those ideas about pharm and medical research are just beyond believe...

Sod, why did you have to spoil my day ;) It is not April fool's day today is it!? I can't believe what I just read @7. This is yet more evidence to show that Curry has lost it.

I would encourage you post this telling comment over at the appropriate threads at ClimateProgress and Bart Verheggen's site and SheWonk, if you already have not done so.

I hope that she goes to the denialist Heartland climate conference. Maybe that will shock her back to her senses and reality, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't because the comment written by her at #7 shows that she is likely too far gone.

Hang on, and who says that Michaels is a "scientific skeptic"? Next she'll be calling McIntyre a scientist.

Could you just point me to the published papers on that one Kent?

And how does the wind relate to the continuing decline in sea ice volume, ie, the fact that the ice is getting thinner irrespective of waxing and waning in surface coverage? How would it fit in, for example, with the 2003-2007 data from ICESat?

Just curious.

The trend in Antarctica is slightly positive.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004257.shtml

CEI "[obscure link](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Insti…) to an oil company"?

Curry drop big time in my opinion when she simply assumes like Watt's et al's critiques have not read their work. (They Just published Dr Girm O, where did she get the idea that critiques don' [read Watts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/tamino_calls_out_anthony_watts…) and [McIntyre](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mcintyre/)? Deltoid reader read and callout Watts, just like we [read Dr O](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…)).

And what does getting to know them personally have to to with science? Isn't it a social tactic/ strategy for alliance building? That's why people shmoose others.

Currently there's a post at WUWT about a cold weather forecast for North American and South America. Pointlessly irrelevant to anything climate related.

As usual the post starts off with the line:

"From the âweather is not climateâ department."

It's supposed to be humor I guess, but I read it as "We know we shouldn't cite weather as an argument against global warming! but haha! we do it anyway!"

Here are some of the comments:

Al Gored: "Shouldnât there be a bright red anomaly wherever Al Gore or James Hansen is?"

GregO: "Whereâs the heat! Weâve lost the heat! It must have gone even deeper into the ocean! Kevin T â FIND THAT HEAT!"

wws: "Al Gore Spoke. Isnât it Obvious? People ask why we pay attention to Al Gore. When Al Gore speaks, Gaia listens!!!(too bad she doesnât like him very much)"

Myron Mesecke: "No wonder they have been in such a rush to try to get cap and trade passed. They arenât just racing against the clock, they are racing against a dropping thermometer."

Makes me feel I should spend time at WUWT getting to know them all, etc. Real productive it might be.

Gordo @10,

Read Manabe et al. (1992), then get back to us.

John Cook also has some interesting posts on Antarctic sea ice. Read those too.

I'll save you the trouble b/c you are disinterested in the science. What it boils down to is that the slight positive trend in (overall) Antarctic sea ice does not refute AGW. Now I'm sure your brain cannot entertain two seemingly counterintuitive thoughts at the same time, but that is how it is.

Cthulhu

I particularly like their new layout, which should attract a larger audience, especially the elderly.

MapleLeaf

I understand the mechanisms involved, it was just a debate on the last open thread where my comrades abused me for not answering their questions.

El Gordo,

So what are the mechanisms involved, as you understand them? That is, in your own words please.

Bald-faced honesty from climate scientists who wrote Manabe et al? Even if the result is counter-intuitive and casts doubt on AGW among the uninformed? And the primitive early 90s GCM has been proved broadly correct on this issue? Well slap my arse and call me Judy!

To help out the interested (I don't expect Gordo to go looking, but stranger things have happened), the relevant section is on page 9.

In other news, Nasif Nahle has an obscure new-ish article out (that was linked to on a forum I frequent) where basically the usual happens.

>The professor reminds us that, âat night time, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up the surface.â

>Thereafter, the direction of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can only go upwards into the upper atmosphere and then out into deep space.

Seems he's going the way of G&T and denying that a greenhouse effect even exists.

For the slow of thinking, here's a publication I linked to in the G&T thread:

Read it and riddle me this - if Nahle and G&T are right, how come there is downwelling IR, not just at night but in the polar night?

"Or talk to the libertarian think tanks, like CATO and CEI."

Is Curry trying to suggest that if I knew these folks personally, I'd have a drastically different impression of their role in this "debate"? I'd suddenly see their dishonest tactics and their quasi-religious hatred of environmental regulation in a more positive light? Is that the idea?

If so, I really think she's gone around the bend.

Apparently, Monckton is the Science spokesman for the United Kingdom Independence Party (main policy: leave EU, hence their name). And, as that appointment would imply, their science policy is awful:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/27/ukip-science-policy-elect…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/27/ukip-science-policy-gener…

Mike, it has been well known since 2007 that the low sea ice level in the arctic was caused by the wind. Even NASA finally admitted that they made a mistake when they said it was due to global warming. The wind moved about 2 million sq. km. through the Fram strait and into the North Atlantic. The low number created by the models was a result of the ice being blown out of the catchment area so it was no longer counted. It did show up in 2009 as a cold water anomally in the North Atlantic which is where it melted.
How accurate is the sea ice volume given the shifting wind driven ice that stacks up in ridges comprised of fresh and salt water, multi-density multi-year ice? Not very I suspect. The Germans flew sensors just above the ice and came up with much thicker readings than they expected. 2-4 meters. Arctic sea ice goes from 14 million sq.Km to about 5 million sq.km. every year The anomally was in 2007 when the loss was 11 million. Since then the minimum has risen by 25% in two years. What will happen this year is hard to say but it is currently the highest in 8 years.

Surely Kent's posts are made in jest? Please tell me that you are having us on Kent.

At it again gordito?

In open thread 46 you enlightened us to [this comment](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic…) saying there is a significant increase (my bold) in sea ice around Antarctica. You provided [this plot](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic…) as a link to support your case.

I asked you to please explain how that graph, which shows conditions almost exactly the long term average, show a significant increase, and you haven't yet done so. Now you have toned down your statement to "the trend is slightly positive". Well, which is it?

Finally, you have yet to comment on longer term trends showing a decrease in Antarctic sea ice, as the satellite record is pretty short. You can find a [summary](http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=14700) of Curran et al (2003) at the Australian Antarctic Division website discussing just this, or the original article (if you have a subscription), at the Science website [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5648/1203).

Throwing random factoids or parroting lines you read elsewhere, and then not being willing or able to discuss them is not really contributing anything useful. Unless of course you see your role as sabotaging useful discourse.

Kent: If you provide links to support your assertions (and hopefully NOT links to climate audit or WUWT, but to original sources), somebody might actually take you half seriously.

Posting that the wind moved the ice, or that the Germans came up with thicker readings than expected are just hearsay without data to back them up.

Links please.

@18 Alex.

Yep, Dr Brian Cox missed a great opportunity for another headline. Replace "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world...", with, "Anyone who thinks AGW theory is fraud and a conspiracy..."

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1240

Don't know if anyone has linked to this one in today's Oz:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/sunshine-claim-clouded…

MapleLeaf @ 13, 15:
The paper cited by el gordo is actually quite interesting, but I doubt he has read it. If he had he would be able to tell us what Comiso and Nishio have to say on page 14, paragraph 27, two last sentences. I'll give him a chance to read it before we discuss this one :)

If there is increased precipitation in the southern ocean we could expect deeper snow. This heavier snow load pushes the Antarctic sea ice below sea level, resulting in even more sea ice and thicker.

So the headline should read 'warmer temperatures increase sea ice'.

"What will happen this year is hard to say but it is currently the highest in 8 years."

Except it's not. Look at the chart: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

You seem to be repeating nonsense you have heard other deniers spout.

Kent that's just [mental](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…)

Nevertheless, as MFS [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…) by all means link us to the research.

Jimmy, Cheryl Jones looks to a be [a real journalist](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/sunshine-claim-clouded…), I wonder if she is appreciated at the Oz?

El gordo:

While heavy snow accumulation can push down pack ice, allowing salt water to flood above the ice level and re-freeze, increasing ice thickness, it is also an excellent insulator. Snow slows down the rate at which seawater below the snow will lose heat to the atmosphere and freeze, so it's not all so simple, and the picture is far from crystal clear. Not that it matters much.

Secondly, can you show me any references for how snow will depress fast ice or have other effects, as it is the loss of this non-seasonal, permanent ice cover that is more of a worry than seasonal pack ice.

Finally, are you avoiding the questions? ([here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…))

The Germans flew sensors just above the ice and came up with much thicker readings than they expected.

Other researchers actually went out into the ice in person and found that some of the ice that the sensors read as "normal" is actually "rotten ice" - so "The [unspecified] Germans' measurements may not have been accurate.

In September 2009 we observed a much different sea icescape in the Southern Beaufort Sea than anticipated, based on remotely sensed products. Radarsat derived ice charts predicted 7 to 9 tenths multi-year (MY) or thick first-year (FY) sea ice throughout most of the Southern Beaufort Sea in the deep water of the Canada Basin. In situ observations found heavily decayed, very small remnant MY and FY floes interspersed with new ice between floes, in melt ponds, thaw holes and growing over negative freeboard older ice. This icescape contained approximately 25% open water, predominantly distributed in between floes or in thaw holes connected to the ocean below. Although this rotten ice regime was quite different that the expected MY regime in terms of ice volume and strength, their near-surface physical properties were found to be sufficiently alike that their radiometric and scattering characteristics were almost identical.

As any good teacher would tell you.... find it out for yourself I only point you in the right direction.

Robert the site you directed me too, which I have looked at almost every day for years, is comparing today's area with the average for 1979 to 2008 it does not compare todays level with the levels since 2002 as the Japanese site does. You notice that I wrote 8 years.
MFS Do some research, google NASA, the wind was what drove the numbers down. Do you even know how sea ice is formed? Do you know that salt water does not get less dense as it cools below 4 degrees C as fresh water does? Google sea ice formation you might learn something. To help you out regarding sea ice numbersgo here;
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm 2010 is the little red line on top. Will it stay there? I don't know.
About the Antarctic sea ice level.Since the ice is not locked in by land it is subjected to the winds. When people talk about the ice melting or forming down there they tend to forget about the effects the wind has on the ice. Of course they also forget about how they measure the ice area.

Stu what a ungly peice of propaganda laudering. Who would have guessed [that writeup](http://climate-change.suite101.com/topiclist/article.cfm/laws-of-physic…) was for an 'article' in the blog of [internationally-acclaimed professor](http://biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html) Nasif Nahle.

But if you didn't know who's who, you have learned fromt hat peice that:

- there is just *A dwindling band of supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming*

- *global warmists have absurdly discarded the accepted laws of thermodynamics to prop up their improbable theory.*

- *the direction of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can only go upwards into the upper atmosphere and then out into deep space.*

- *atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface*

- there been no *sustained rise in world temperatures other than the short blip of 1975-95.*

- *respected scientific publications, such as 'New Scientist'* have retreated *from the tarnished theory* of AGW (Along with Mike Lockwood).

I don't think I could be more accurate than to simply call them (John O'Sullivan & Nasif Nahle) the lying morons that they are.

Kent: Are you for real?

If you spout allegations (any unsubstantiated claim IS an allegation, links help support your case, you know...) and vaguely refer us to Google for research, we're only going to laugh at you and think: Here comes another virgin crackpot fresh from WUWT, Andrew Bolt's Blog, or other denial crackpot website.

I mean you have me on the floor laughing! Do I know how sea ice formed? Hilarious! Yes, I know how sea ice forms, and probably much better than you do. Have you ever visited a polynya and seen it first hand, or been to Antarctica in autumn as the first slush ice forms? Have you observed the progression from slush to firm ice, and its daily wind-driven movement?

You conclude with this doozy: "About the Antarctic sea ice level.Since the ice is not locked in by land it is subjected to the winds. When people talk about the ice melting or forming down there they tend to forget about the effects the wind has on the ice." This is one of the best blunders I've seen in a while, possibly better than [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…). Maybe pedestrians forget about the wind. Have you even stopped to realise that the people standing on the ice taking measurements have a hard time not noticing the wind, and its effect on the ice? Just how much do you think the wind and current circulation in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current contribute to the seasonal pattern of sea ice formation and decay? Do you know the difference between pack ice and fast ice? What effect do you think wind has on fast ice? Do you even know the different types of sea ice? Do you know anything you've not read on a denialist website?

To top it all off, I'd love to know how exactly you see sea ice escaping beyond the ACC.

Kent, can you expalin this [30 year trend](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png) with increasing wind change?

You've been asked directly for reseach papers supporting your claim. You have failed to produce. Show us your evidence for a wind trend that is responsible for the Arctic seaice 30 year trend.

Then explain if the wind is also producing [sea ice thinning](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107) and a trend to [less resiliant](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure6.png) sea-ice. And [trend loss of ice volume](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365871main_earth3-20090707-full.jpg).

kent (31 and elsewhere):

pwned!

Thanks MFS, I don't think kent knows what's hit him :-)

@19

Kent, can you just point me to where and what NASA "admitted" regarding this? Virtually everything NASA says about anything is always somewhere on their website.

Also a link to the papers discussing that view of this ice issue would be good. Sceptics are pushing it, so they must surely know where it comes from. They would know their own sources, wouldn't they?

Aaah a link! Thankyou Kent.

That sea ice chart, for a calendar year, is a very nice demonstration of seasonal change. What conclusion should I draw from that?

I'm also just wondering if you could explain why, within the seasonal variation, it shows the later years trending towards lesser extents. I ignored 2010 (as it's not really enough to pick up a good trend yet), but 2007-2009 are clearly less, especially going through summer. 2002-2004 were clearly greater.

I'd keep that graph quiet if I were you. Just pretend it doesn't exist.

They would know their own sources, wouldn't they?

Yeah, particularly as they probably just pulled it out of their collective arse.

Tom Fuller is over at Bart Verheggen's place spouting nonsense, and expressing outrage over DC finding plagiarism in the Wegman report. He is also spouting facts from the recent review of the IPCC conducted by self serving parties at WUWT.

Please feel free to set him straight. I have tried, but the weaseling makes it neigh impossible and I have work to do.

Thanks all.

jakerman, I think the Aus' Higher Education section journalists are the lonely, lonely people in the Murdoch offices. I suspect Leigh Dayton also has trouble finding anyone to eat her lunch with.

MFS

The data can be found at the University of Illinois website Cryosphere Today. There is clearly a significant increase in ice extent, significant with a probability by chance of less than one in 10,000.

Youâll find several articles in the refereed literature documenting the significant increase.

jakerman@28:
No, clearly she presents arguments both ways (though I have to say that the claims of team Franks look decidely shaky in the light of the criticism by team Cai); she'll be out of a job in Murdoch Land before long.

Gordo,

"Youâll find several articles in the refereed literature documenting the significant increase."

Are your referring to Antarctic sea ice? Citations please. Have you read Manabe et al 1992 yet?

Right now global sea ice anomaly is over 300 000 km^2 below average. Anyhow, that is today, so it means nothing really. The long term and stat sig trend is down.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi…

I particularly like their new layout, which should attract a larger audience, especially the elderly.

The WUWT commenting section already was God's waiting room, full of people wishing to share Arrowroot biscuits with that nice young Christopher Monckton...he's a Lord, you know.

And didn't Australians have more respect when the anthem was God Save The Queen?

Mapleleaf@40:

Arguing with Tom Fuller is a waste of time.

He's the worst of all the denialist concern trolls and has a history of avoiding questions, bullshitting and shifting goalposts based on his posts at RC, Mickey Tobis and here.

Bart's too polite to get rid of him, but that's his problem. :)

Even worse than that, Fuller always comes back to leave his stink even after promising to leave for good. That says a lot about the type of person he is, I guess.

FormerSkeptic @46,

Thanks. Ugh, I just learnt that lesson the hard way. Now I really need to take a shower ;)

He did seem to be rather upset when I suggested that he might also be an ambiguous dog....McI being the other classic example. I guess the truth hurt his feelings.

Yes, IMHO Bart is far too polite and accommodating, it has won him nothing but grief from the contrarians who now feel free to troll there and take advantage of his good nature.

Jakerman, thanks for taking up the good fight while I got some work done!

Fuller likes to smear folks like Gavin, Tim and Mickey Tobis all too frequently (see the Deltoid Tom Fuller Thread for a perfect example).

Yet, he takes offense and whines when he gets called much less derogatory terms. What a tough guy.

Eli (via Dsquared) has Fuller described to a tee.

The claims that arctic sea ice is not decreasing can be easily shown for the nonsense they are by perusing the charts at these sites.

Polar Ice center

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

Graph of sea ice anomaly as calculated by the Polar Research Group at the University of

Illinois, from their Cryosphere Today site.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Good analysis of various charts of arctic sea ice volume below

http://hot-topic.co.nz/feel-floes-gone-by-2016/?utm_source=feedburner&u…

ARCUS State of the Arctic conference

http://soa.arcus.org/program/agendas/theme-1

A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing

27 April, 2010

very impressive illustration

"This is a vivid reminder that global warming isn't a statistical abstraction cooked up in a climate lab.
Greenland is just one example of the physical realities of climate change. On the other side of the planet, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. All over the globe, glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate."
It's also a reminder of the massive amount of inertia at play in our climate. It takes time for the massive Greenland ice sheet to respond to warming. But this inertia is not our friend. Now that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate, it's not like we can throw a rope around the ice sheet and hold it back. The steadily accelerating ice loss from Greenland is an ominous reminder that our actions now will have effects long into the future."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=18

Jakers @ 33,

I saw it and just remembered TrueSceptic's on the JREF.

One wonders how this man became qualified.

PS TrueSceptic is both a legend and supremely patient.

If I may I would like to spread the good way the Swedish Television recently handled the climate gate and IPCC issue:
http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/swedish-television-goes-…

Jakers @ 33

I was reminded of TrueSceptic's post on JREF detailing Nahle's stupidity.

How the man got his qualifications is a mystery.

PS. TrueSceptic is a both a TrueLegend and supremely patient!

Whoops, double post. Bugger.

The China People's Daily thinks Dr Fred Goldberg, a 'Swedish climate expert', is on the money with climate change. He is warning them to prepare for cooler weather. A Dalton Minimum no less.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6959757.html

You already know my feelings on this, so just tear Freddy apart if it gives you pleasure.

What happens when multiyear ice drifts into the Beaufort Gyre?

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_trackncep.html

A cool sun and a large volcanic eruption should cool things down quite markedly.

http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=1519

52 Stu,

I'm just someone who can't stand lying idiots claiming to know better than everyone who *does* actually know. NN/Biocab is a particularly odd case because he can't even do basic arithmetic.

But "legend"? Only in my own lunchtime. :)

It's not new, but has recently been confirmed: 'a short warming event at the very end of the last interglacial period marked the final transition to the ice age.'

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=69533&CultureCode=en

Coincidences do happen.

Gordo fails again:

The current interglacial epoch â the Holocene â has already lasted more than 10,000 years and reached its highest point so far around 6000 years ago. From a climate history perspective, we are currently at the end of the Holocene and could therefore expect to see a cooling-down in a few thousand years if there had been no human influence on the atmosphere and the resulting global warming.

Ignoring the "if", that's cooling in a few thousand years. Sadly a little later than Gordo's predicted 1.5c cooling this decade.

I am touched Gordo that you ignore everything that doesn't fit your Libertarian beliefs.

.......'if there had been no human influence on the atmosphere and the resulting global warming.'

Many peer reviewed papers say much the same, otherwise the gravy train won't stop and pick them up.

Many peer reviewed papers say much the same, otherwise the gravy train won't stop and pick them up.

Conspiracy theory?

You lose.

John 6, Gordo 0.

16 Stu,

Just had a look at that link. It says "A former Harvard and UCLA graduate with degrees in science and mathematics". Considering that NN's own [CV](http://biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html) says

. Certified on Scientific CA&IM Research (University of Harvard and the University of California, San Francisco, CA).

that hardly makes him a "Harvard and UCLA graduate", does it? Once more we have an AGW denier (O'Sullivan) being "economical with the truth".

No mention of where he got the Maths & Physics degrees but I refuse to believe (in fact I deny!) that anyone with a real Maths degree could write what he did at the JREF.

O'Sullivan also says

The internationally-acclaimed professor,

Oh, really? Acclaimed by fantasists, maybe.

Nahle's findings are supported by the failure of greenhouse gas theorists to evince from global thermometer records any sustained rise in world temperatures other than the short blip of 1975-95.

They never stop with this tripe, do they?

If anyone reads Spanish, I'd be interested in any info on the [institution](http://www.ur.mx/) where NN was allegedly a professor.

TrueSceptic, here ya go:

http://www.4icu.org/reviews/3324.htm

Someone mentioned that an old friend of ours has a [guest post](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temper…) at Watts's home for the terminally deluded.

GO spent some time with us, starting [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), and we could even claim to have helped him in preparing his article. What I do find rather amusing, though, is what was said [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). We were joking, of course, thinking that even Watts wouldn't publish this, but it just goes to show that it's impossible to set too low a bar for the deniosphere.

So a world university ranking of 1681 and many faculties. By many I mean three: Economics and Administration; Humanities; Engineering and Architecture.

So. Um.

63 Sou,

Thanks. I see that they don't offer any courses above Masters. I also [found](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_Regiomontana) that it is a "private" university. This makes me suspicious of its standards, I must say.

Have you heard about the new house Al Gore bought in Italy?

http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103…

Can't wait to hear what the carbon footprint on that baby is going to be.

Kent said:
>Sure Mike lets discuss how Sea ice area goes up then down then up again even when the temperature stays the same. What we are seeing is the effect of the wind. Sea ice area is less a proxy for temperature than it is a proxy for the wind. Sea water and fresh water do not freeze the same way.It takes a lot to form sea ice and the best way to do that is for the wind to form white caps.

So it is the wind that makes the ice form when it gets could in the winter.

I think you have just re-written science in a big way!

Lets see instead of a cooker or a freezer, all I need to make some ice is a big fan in a box that blows the air around the food. Amazing!

Why do we all have freezers then?

Oh I forgot, you are a wanker and live in a different dimension.

[Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2472…):

A cool sun and a large volcanic eruption should cool things down quite markedly.

Ah, the master of vacuous non sequiturs strikes again.

Oh corpulent one, in what way does this random neurone-vomit of yours refute the physics of global warming? Is it in any way relevant to the 'sceptic' case?

Hide the decline! Hide the decline! Hide the decline!

Gordo,

You are shooting blanks, yet again.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/missing_sunspot.html

Also, you are rehashing the same old contrarian arguments which were made back in the early 20th century, if not before then. Those ideas did not get traction then and neither will they now, no matter how often you parrot them.

As for an imminent Maunder- or Dalton- type solar minimum, research has shown that that will have little if any impact on global SATs this century as GHG forcing continues to rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Ma…

Please you can debunk your own myths at www.sketicalscience.com. That way you would perhaps avoid making a fool of yourself here and elsewhere.

AGWSkeptic, yes Watts et al. are trying very hard to hide the decline in the Arctic sea ice, not to mention the incline in global SATs from the contrarian UAH satellite data.

Watts et al. are trying very hard to hide the decline in the Arctic sea ice

Are they using "Mike's nature trick", or are the alarmists the only ones permitted to do that?

71 AGWS,

Perhaps *you* could tell *us*, and explain what the trick is while you're at it?

The trick is to make any data which doesn't lead to your pre-ordained conclusions disappear. Hansen, Mann and Gore are world-renowned experts at it.

Is there another version of Godwin's Law, where the first one to mention Al Gore automatically loses the argument?

Is there another version of Godwin's Law, where the first one to mention Al Gore automatically loses the argument?

No, but I think there should be one where the first one to use the word "denialist" or "denier" loses the argument.

Funny how that shoe never seems to fit the other foot.

This is golden. AGWskeptic is repeating the "hide the decline" meme without actually understanding what it means.

Kent's misinformed musings about the sea ice were rather intriguing. How is it that Watts et al. continue to frame their arguments in such a way that they repeatedly dupe people into thinking that they have just revealed some hitherto great unknown truth that those stupid scientists have somehow missed?

In this case, that it was the wind and the wind alone that was responsible for the decline of Arctic sea ice. Good grief, sea ice scientists and those working in sea ice environments have known about the importance of wind for a very long time. Anyhow, John Cook over at SS has dealt with this issue in detail, so Kent if you are still around, sorry mate, but Watts et a. have duped you. Please go to SS to see how Watts et al, have once again, been distorting, manipulating and cherry picking.

Did Watts tell his readers that the Labrador coast in Canada was essentially ice free until late March? Ice did form along the continental shelf after cold weather finally set in during April. That ice is, however, thin and has started to diminish rapidly.

On a parting note, according to Arctic Roos, the Arctic sea ice extent is currently very close to the area it was at this time last year,and in fact in May 2009 the ice extent was the highest since 2003, yet we all know that in September 2009 the Arctic was the third lowest extent on record. Shhh, don't tell Anthony that ;) Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice area in March/April seems to provide very little insight as to the minimum extent.

This is golden. AGWskeptic is repeating the "hide the decline" meme without actually understanding what it means how we alarmists equivocate it.

All fixed.

Care to point out where my link is wrong, AGWdenyingdenialist?

AGWseptic,

"No, but I think there should be one where the first one to use the word "denialist" or "denier" loses the argument."

Does your ruling apply to your ilk using terms like 'alarmist'? Aaah, so you lose @71 then :)

And yes, please do go and follow the link kindly provided by John @76, or share with us in your own words what you understand the terms "trick" and "hide the decline" to mean, and to which data they were made in reference to.

Popcorn time....

Care to point out where my link is wrong, AGWdenyingdenialist?

Care to point out where it's right, AGWalarmingalarmist?

We sure could use that new version of Godwin's Law right about now. John would get a twofer!

AGWseptic,

Are you interested to learn how Lindzen has tried to hide the incline? Anyhow, stop weaseling and please answers our questions. You opened this door with your little rant, now try and support it with some 'substance', if you can.

Shorter Maple Laff:

The denialists did it too! The denialists did it too!!! The delialists did it too!!!11!!one!!

How about y'all try to support your doomsday fantasies with some real science? Hint: the IPCC doesn't count, what with it being a political organization and all.

You alarmists opened the door with your Chicken Little-style shrill screams that the sky was falling and that AGW would doom us all.

73 AGWS,

Such a simple question and you failed. Are you too lazy to look it up, or did you know the answer and lied about it anyway?

AGWseptic @ 83. Oh dear. A little short on substance aren't you. Let me guess, you are all of 12 years old?

Please answer the questions, my popcorn is getting cold.

Stupid physics, be more Libertarian!

Oh and let us not forget how Spencer and Christy recently tried to hide the incline. I'm sure that AGWseptic will defend their 'science' till the day s/he dies :)

"shrill screams that the sky was falling and that AGW would doom us all."

Intriguing please direct us to the page in the IPCC where they said that? Oh wait, you just fabricated an alarmist statement and straw man argument.

75 AGWS,

It's quite simple. Someone who believes lies and delusional nonsense in preference to science is a denier of science.

84 AGWS,

So, you don't know what "hide the decline" meant in that email, and when your ignorance was exposed you tried to change the subject and went off on a wingnut rant.

Yes, you are an excellent example of a denier/denialist (I prefer denidiot because you are stupid as well as irrational).

AGWseptic @ 83. Oh dear. A little short on substance aren't you. Let me guess, you are all of 12 years old?

Splendid example of projection, ML, not to mention Dunning Kruger. Funny how those two seem to go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to delusional alarmists.

Stupid physics, be more Libertarian!

Where did I say I was a libertarian? I guess, to an alarmist like yourself, everyone who disagrees with you is the same. Much simpler than engaging in nuanced thinking, isn't it?

Intriguing please direct us to the page in the IPCC where they said that? Oh wait, you just fabricated an alarmist statement and straw man argument.

Just can't resist showing off your D-K-ness, can you ML? You alarmists have been bellowing from the masthead about the "disastrous" effects of global warming (most of the coastal USA will be under water, species will go extinct, agriculture the world over will be impossible, etc., ad nauseum). And any time a skeptic points out the folly of your "scientific" arguments, you invent the straw man of a conspiracy theory, when in reality you are the ones vomiting forth conspiracies of "big oil".

91 AGWS,

This is getting really good. *You*, a prime example of arrogant wingnut ignorance, dare to cite Dunning-Kruger.

Can we keep you as a pet?

First he says:

Where did I say I was a libertarian? I guess, to an alarmist like yourself, everyone who disagrees with you is the same.

But then he says:

And any time a skeptic points out the folly of your "scientific" arguments, you invent the straw man of a conspiracy theory, when in reality you are the ones vomiting forth conspiracies of "big oil".

Curious.

93 AGWS,

Yes, I do know what it means, but evidently you are willing to accept the alarmist party line. Your ignorance has been exposed. Now I guess I can expect you to go off on a wingnut rant.

No, you have clearly shown that you do not. It is a matter of record what the meaning was. Just in case I misread you, can you give us your version again?

AGWseptic,

Oh FFS, you do not even understand what the D-K effect is! And more "projection" nonsense from you. You were playing this merry little game on another thread recently, and it is very tiresome. Anyhow, I guess we should be grateful, because your juvenile diatribes only go to demonstrate, again, the absolute vacuity the contrarians' "arguments", not to mention that you appear to be ethically bankrupt by repeatedly spouting lies. For example,

AGWS: "agriculture the world over will be impossible"
Again, you lie.

AGWS: "most of the coastal USA will be under water"
Again, you lie.

You still have not answered the questions asked of you. So yet again, you lose troll . Bye :)

Haha, tricked you into thinking I was really stupid, rather than just completely vacuous!

This is getting really good. You, a prime example of arrogant wingnut ignorance, dare to cite Dunning-Kruger.

Translation:

IKYABWAI

Follks, I think we have had enough entertainment with the troll. Their appetite will not be satisfied, no matter how much we feed them, so how about we let them bounce off the walls for a while and see what intriguing statements they come up with while ranting nonsensically into cyberspace.

Just a thought.

Oh FFS, you do not even understand what the D-K effect is!

I've learned much about it from your vomit-fests.

And more "projection" nonsense from you.

Then stop projecting.

Again, you lie.

Evidence?

You still have not answered the questions asked of you.

So not only are you delusional projector of Dunning-Kruger, your reading comprehension skills are somewhere around...non-existent

So yet again, you lose troll . Bye :)

You said that before. Were you lying then? Are you lying now?

It is a matter of record revisionist alarmist history and equivocation what the meaning was.

All fixed.

101 AGWS,

(I know, feeding the troll but...)

No, I want your version, not simple denial of what the author meant.

No, I want your version, not simple denial of what the author meant.

I've already given it to you. It was a case of "hiding" data that didn't lead to the pre-determined conclusion that AGW will mean the death of us all.

103 AGWS,

Not good enough. The comment in the email was specific. Instead, you repeat your rant that manages to include both a CT claim and a strawman.

You really could try to seem something other than an ignorant nutter, you know.

You really could try to seem something other than an ignorant nutter, you know.

Ok, genius, how about you give us your version of "hide the decline"? In your own words, not just cut-and-paste from some alarmist science-free web site like "real"climate.

I won't be holding my breath.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point, AGWSkeptic. TrueSceptic wants to know if you're actually skeptical enough to read and understand the issue rather than just repeating something from a "skeptical" blog or website.

Hence if TrueSceptic gives you the answer, it kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

rather than just repeating something from a "skeptical" blog or website.

As opposed to alarmist propaganda like "real"climate?

Hence if TrueSceptic gives you the answer, it kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

I've already given him the answer. He's so deeply into his AGW delusion that it goes right over his head.

He's so deeply into his AGW delusion that it goes right over his head.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle. Pot.

Shorter Alex:

IKYABWAI

Well that was a little disappointing. It seems that the troll is completely unfamiliar with the 'divergence problem'. Why am I not surprised. It is also clear from their, cough, 'answer' that the troll is diligently parroting lies from Faux news and believes that "hide the decline" refers to someone trying to manipulate/fudge the SAT record, which it of course does not. So the troll's, cough, 'answer', was quite predictably wrong, of course. The troll has well and truly deluded himself, and continues to lie (e.g., "conclusion that AGW will mean the death of us all.")

As for deliberate manipulations and fudging of the SAT data I refer readers to Lindzen's efforts, as well as those of the 'Friends' of Science, Monckton, Willis Eschenbach and other 'skeptics'.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying…

The trick is to make any data which doesn't lead to your pre-ordained conclusions disappear.

You mean "hiding" it by publishing it in Nature for all to see, as was done with the anomalous tree-ring data?

I don't have Fox News Channel, haven't watched it in almost 8 years. But nice try at a strawman.

As for deliberate manipulations and fudging of the SAT data I refer readers to Lindzen's efforts, as well as those of the 'Friends' of Science, Monckton, Willis Eschenbach and other 'skeptics'.

And as "evidence", you cite AGW Alarmist Extraordinaire (and renowned climate scientist) Tim Lambert. Next!

You really must try harder. This is like refuting someone from the Discovery Institute or the flat earth society.

OK, how about Foster et al. (2010, Journal of Geophysical Research) soundly exposing and refuting McLean et al's (who are 'skeptics') manipulation/filtering of the SAT record to hide the long-term warming trend.

Surely this will appease the flat-earth society troll? Really, this is easier than shooting fish in a barrel, yet the troll, undaunted, keeps demonstrating the vacuity of their 'argument' not to mention their ignorance of the science.

Maybe the troll could provide the source for their little rant of 'hide the decline".

I'm sure that it will be a credible, vetted and impartial source. (sarc)

hide the long-term warming trend.

How could they possibly hide something that doesn't exist?

OK, AGWskeptic take your trolling elsewhere.

OK, AGWskeptic take your trolling elsewhere.

By "trolling", you mean "failing to repeat IPCC talking points".

And you are going to make me do this....how, exactly?

I'm calling Poe. At least I hope he's not that stupid.

LOL.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Global lower tropospheric temps for the UAH MSU product (a skeptic's product) show a long trend of +0.132 C per decade.

Likewise,
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_t…

Long term trend in global lower trop. temps. is +0.157 C per decade

Here.... a cloth for the troll to wipe that egg of their face. Nah,on second thoughts I retract the offer, better to savour the moment for a while.

The funny thing is that this is poor even by AGW "Sceptic" standards. For example, did Steve McIntyre say something like It was a case of "hiding" data that didn't lead to the pre-determined conclusion that AGW will mean the death of us all.? No, he understands and accepts the meaning and is familiar with the "divergence problem".

Of course, he attacks Jones and Mann from another direction, but that is beside the point. Is McIntyre part of the great conspiracy too?

"And you are going to make me do this....how, exactly?"

That would be Tim's call.

Robert @118, actually they have shown themselves to really be "that stupid".

WOW!!!!!

0.157 C per decade!!!!!!

At that rate, we'll be just melting in 10000 years or so. Excuse me while I make preparations for the upcoming apocalypse.

I just knew that would be their comeback. Just knew it :) Troll fails to understand/grasp that climate system is non-linear. This juvenile behaviour of the troll is all rather pathetic, even by the incredibly low 'standards' of said troll.

See what I mean Robert? Said troll really is just quite simply "that stupid".

PS: Troll said the warming does not exist-- another lie by the troll has been exposed. In fact, the troll has shown themselves to be a compulsive/serial liar.

There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

I posted a comment about an old friend of ours but it was held for moderation (too many links, I think). It's now appeared at [64](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2473…). Who would have expected us to help someone get a guest post at WUWT?

Aaah, more cherry-picking by the contrarians-- thanks Lindzen. I doubt very much that the troll even understands what stat. sig. means, or what length of time one requires to obtain a stat. sig. trend at the 95% confidence level in the SAT record. Lindzen, however, does, which is why him cherry picking 1995 undermines his credibility.

The troll continues to deceive and demonstrate beyond all doubt their stupidity and ignorance of the facts and the science.

125 AGWS,

You really do keep rolling out the same old, same old, don't you?

Do you know what "statistically significant" means? Do you know what happens if you change 1995 to 1994?

Do you know what happens if you change 1995 to 1994?

You mean if I cherry-pick, which you lot like to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of doing?

TrueSceptic,

I gotta run. Good luck with our pet troll :)

126 ML,

I was hoping that AGWS would attempt to explain, but you've done a lot of the work for him (I'm pretty sure it's "him") now.

128 AGWS,

Not at all. Any year prior to 1995 makes it significant; 1994 is simply the first prior year. You really don't understand this, do you? ML gave you some clues, though.

131 me,

Only Any should be in italics.

Must take a break now.

@111, yes I too was wondering how silly the climate scientists must have been to "hide" the "decline" in a highly respected journal read by many thousands of people.

Their incompetence in "hiding" it this way is only eclipsed by the sheer stupidity of sceptics who didn't even realise that they had full access to it from the day it was "hidden".

But then, in the last week I've had sceptics show me charts which indicate the opposite of what they're saying. Sceptics quote to me from the completely wrong IPCC chapter in support of an argument they were making on a totally different topic. Sceptics argue that the moon proves water vapour is the only climate influence.

I mean, I seriously do not think I can cope with this level of morbid dumbness for much longer. Stop the world please, I want to get off! And I need a strong drink.....

Oh, I understand all too well. Alarmists will cherry-pick, make up data, fudge the numbers and hide the decline until they reach their desired conclusion. Then a gullible public will buy it hook, line and sinker (they hope). Unfortunately (for them), more and more people are starting to catch on to their game, and rejecting the tomfoolery of AGW for the junk science that it is.

AGW'Sceptic', can you tell me what the decline is in, and what it was hidden with?

'I seriously do not think I can cope with this level of morbid dumbness'...

There is a lot of it around, in fact most of the people here seem to have the K & D Effect and don't know it. That is, it's gone undiagnosed for years.

Anybody who thinks a rise of 0.157 C a decade is of concern - must be joking. I am confident that temperatures will fall by 1.5 C degrees within this decade.

A cool PDO, lackluster sun and a very large volcanic eruption will see to that. For those of you who live in the UK, it may be time to emigrate before the pound dips under the radar.

133 Mike,

Good post but you failed to put "sceptics" in quotes. ;)

>and a very large volcanic eruption will see to that

stop adding provisos to your ludicrous theory. Unless you claim to be able to forecast volcanic super-eruptions years in advance...

I hope that you tell this theory to someone you know in person Gordo, so they can point out just how wrong you'll be come January 1st 2020.

134 AGWS,

No, you don't. ML gave you a clue that you could've followed up. Please tell us what "statistically significant" means.

And you still don't know what "hide the decline" means. Better "sceptics" than you do. I gave you one example, from one of the few "sceptics" who does put the work in.

(I've said it before, but that phrase was an absolutely stupid one to use, regardless of the true meaning. What was Jones thinking?)

If the current rash of trolling here is anything to go by, they have passed Peak Talking Point. I mean, 'even Phil Jones admits...' is what, two-and-a-half months old?

El Gordo:

I know I should not be tempted, but which one is your "very large volcanic eruption"?

139 TrueSceptic - perhaps he was thinking "this'll be flypaper for idiots". It certainly worked!

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how, when caught redhanded in a lie, a mistake or just plain wrong, denialists leave it a while, then continue at a later time as if nothing ever happened? Meaning, they let the dust settle rather than admit to making a gaff in the hope that nobody noticed? Isn't this a clear D-K trait?

136 El Gobbo,

It's funny that someone so clueless would make claims about D-K.

But anyway, wanna bet about your 1.5°C drop? I don't mean a one-off month, although I might even go for that. I mean the average anomaly for a whole year.

How much (to go to a charity of the winner's choosing)? $10? $20? $50? $100? (I really don't care if it's US or AU, just as long as we agree.)

Of course, we need a baseline. We can agree that.

142 Neil,

You might be right, but what has been the result?

143 JB,

Yes, this is one of the denidiot traits. It is part of my [HTBAGWS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/eli_rabbets_guide_to_climate_t…). Yes, it could do with an update, but most of it still applies.

Shorter AGW"S":

Hide the decline, Dunning-Kruger, !!11 one, Give me some evidence (except anything used by the IPCC). Name call, name call, no-science, "projection"- no sicence, D-K. Give us your evidence by nothing used by Real-Climate, no science, hide the decline. alarmist, delusion, no-science.

I think our troll has got the ratio of supporting evidence vs concluding nouns in reverse.

Tip: AGW"S"- try supporting your labels with a bit of evidence. (And you've outed your self as suffering D-K in your misuse of the term).

Alright El gordo, getting back to the paper [you cited](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…) in [here](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004257.shtml).

Comiso and Nishio are fundamentally comparing data from different satellite-mounted sensors, and their sea-ice detection algorithms, mostly the newer AMSR-E with the older SSMR and SSM/I. There is a time overlap when more than one sensor was operating, and we can use this to see whether unknown errors in the satellite measurements can be quantified, and whether continuity of data can be achieved between the older sensors and newer ones. Most of the paper concentrates on this, and not on analysing long term trends. In any case 30 years of data is not really long term.

If you have read the paper you would have noted they say, in page 14, paragraph 27: "However, it appears that since the winter of 2002, the maximum values have been increasing but at the same time, the minimum values have been decreasing. It would be interesting if the subsequent years would follow the same pattern and show some modulation in the ice cover." This is referring to maximum winter vs. minimum summer extent of sea ice, and indicating that, although seasonal pack ice has been achieving almost exactly the same extent every september during the southern hemisphere winter maximum, the summer minimum has been decreasing at the same time, i.e. we're losing the multi-year fast ice.

Care to dispute this? Or maybe tell us why you think the maximum winter extent is a more important measure than the summer minimum, which indicates how much ice persists from year to year.

This is probably the last time I bother wasting effort chasing references or links from El gordo, and wasting my glacio colleagues' time for their take on it, since hardly anthing he has linked to so far has said what he claims it said, or not been woefully misinterpreted.

Does anyone know of any information handily available on the web for the IACGEC (Inter-Agency Committee on Global Environmental Change) Framework for Data Exchange? I'm having a bit of a problem finding details.

What is it exactly? It's mentioned in the CRU agreements in the covering letter to UKMO.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/agreements.pdf

Thanks in advance.

@ TrueSkeptic #146.

Thanks :) I'm not going barmy after all.

Tim posted a link to [this](http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020) list of denialist on anthoer site.

Note that John McLean has been given a PhD. I wonder how many others have been [mislabled](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862038.htm) that way?

Tim pointed out that Wegman signed up with this bunch. Where did the republican find him? John Mashey [is digging](http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony) to find out.

Another pearl from el gordo, @56, a link to a wildly speculative article saying the locals were predicting [Katla volcano](http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=1519) to have erupted 3 days ago. Well, it didn't, did it? Did I miss something?

Interesting link @ 58, saying that the world warmed up just before the last glacial started. Unfortunately my library doesn't have a subscription to that journal. I notice the [press release](http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=69533&CultureCode=en) was dumbed down to the level of using 'ice age' where it should have said (and the [abstract](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.05.006) says) 'glacial'... Anyway, what bearing has that got in terms of the current discussion? Are you suggesting that the current warming trend is the spike marking the end of our interglacial? Any supporting documentation for this, or is it just speculation?

Dr. Curry is a patience tester.

She has, indeed, elevated mining geologists and TV weathermen over real scientists consistently - and she's not picking a good example of either, for that matter.

The standing answer to every one of her "Steve McIntyre says ..." or "Anthony Watts says ... " is "who cares, other than you and a herd of practicioners of teabag science?"

That story is one of the weirdest things to come out of this. It's a lot weirder than physicists being fooled by Uri Geller, really.

OT Complaint:

Who, besides Tim, is good on John Lott? He was on the Thom Hartmann show, and most of the links I could find - other than who is Mary Rosh - were Deltoid. So people could have concluded it was a vendetta by Tim.

I realize the dreadful Freakonomics charlatans were at least capable of handing him his head, but they had an obvious motivation and bias, for one thing.

It's like a vampire movie. I'd prefer John Lott didn't feel comfortable talking where normal people can hear him.

MFS

Just speculation at this stage, but I will go and look.

It looks like everyone is waiting to see what the NEEM ice core tells us, the resolution should be good at 115,000 bp and they are optimistically predicting a breakthrough this season.

It will most definetly be interesting to see what NEEM shows up.

Meanwhile, for long records Antarctica is the place to be. What will the 1.5 million year ice core show? Australia's [in the running](http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=22399). They didn't manage it for the International Polar Year, but [Dome C](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=record-breaking-ice-co…) yielded 800,000 years. More info [here](http://www.pages-igbp.org/ipics/data/ipics_oldaa.pdf)

Gordo can not only predict temperature drops based on nothing but his awesome mindpowers, but he can also predict volcano erruptions as well.

I'm impressed.

I take everything back Gordo. I implore you to tell us the exact time and date this unnamed volcano is due to errupt so we can initiate action to save any people who may be under threat.

Please, for the good of mankind.

John: The article is dated 20th of April, and it predicted the eruption in seven days... which was three days ago.

They're talking out of their rear end, there is [no indication](http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/04/eyjafjallajokull_chugs_along_…) at all of reslessness at Katla. (Paragraph 1, point 2)

You mean.... Gordo is wrong? How is that even possible?

Well, technically, it's the article that's wrong... :)

Hot news, straight off the press.

http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-288

We'll throw that one on the evidence for AGW pile, Gordo. Thanks for letting us know.

Hey, gordo, I can't help but smile and wonder every time I write your name on a post, why would you choose to call yourself "the fatso" / "the fat one"?

AGWsceptic said:
>By "trolling", you mean "failing to repeat IPCC talking points". And you are going to make me do this....how, exactly?

Erm, anyone with a few brain cells would get the message and leave. Even if this was a 'skeptic' web site, you would be still trolling, the standard of your comments being so low that you also insult skeptics.

What is it about this site that means that about once a fortnight it attracts an utterly moronic troll who trots out the same meaningless garbage? They usually seem to think for a few days that they are getting the upper hand, and then when they get shown to be the fool that they are, they skulk off again, usually to be replaced by another denidiot within a day or two.

AGWSkeptic is just the latest in a long line (although to be fair he/she is one of the least credible and most ridiculous). Is it that they see the posts by resident trolls Kent, Dave Andrews and El Gordo, and think "I can do better than that..."?

It is quite bizarre.

MFS

1) Eyjafjallajökull has become to deflate, which might mean less vigorous eruption for the time being and (2) there are no signs of any impending eruption at Katla. Volcanic tremors are also down at Eyjafjallajökull.

Thanks for that.

El gordo: I guess I might as well out myself as a closet volcano watcher :)

If you're interested in the topic the blog [I linked to](http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/04/eyjafjallajokull_chugs_along_…) is a fantastic resource, populated mostly by vulcanologists, and the best collection of links you're likely to find around.

The link between eruptions in Eyjaf and those at Katla is pretty tenuous. Katla has erupted within a few months to a few years after Eyjaf the four times that Eyjaf has erupted in historical times, but they are two unconnected systems with separate magma chambers. It could be just coincidence. I gues we'll find out soon enough.

jakerman, Richard Courtney is another PhD "recipient" on that list.

I saw a paper recently that suggested the cold period during the early part of the 19th century had more to do with Tambora than the sun.

This paper seems to throw cold water on that.

http://oro.open.ac.uk/5093/

There was another volcanic eruption at the time, although not recorded by humans. I will hunt it down.

Dunno [MFS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2475…)

Maybe he was looking at a reflection of his own head in the mirror when he came up with the name ?

El Gordo,

that abstract declares Pinatubo to still have been much smaller than Tambora. Pinatubo cooled the globe by a maximum of ~0.5C for a few months, and a lesser amount for a couple of years. Those figure would be greater for Tambora.

So it's highly likely that the LIA, generally caused by a quiet sun, was then exacerbated by the volcanic eruption, since regardless of its true size, it was certainly bigger than the Pinatubo eruption (which agreed nicely with comtempory reports too).

I'm curious too El Gordo. Why do you call yourself the fat one?

Hmmm... 'generally caused by a quiet sun'. May I quote you on that?

Hubert Lamb wrote that the advance of the glaciers around 1250-1300 and 1780-1850 'owed more to increased precipitation,' while in the depths of the Maunder Minimum 1540-1700 it 'owed more to the lengthening of the snow season'.

This makes very good sense, so we can expect greater precipitation over the next couple of decades.

No, c'mon, El Gordo; stick to the point here!

You said (#136): "I am confident that temperatures will fall by 1.5 C degrees within this decade.

A cool PDO, lackluster sun and a very large volcanic eruption will see to that."

So /which/ volcano is going to erupt "within this decade" and save our carbonated skins?

When will it erupt?

And /why/ will it erupt?

Are you gonna have a prayer meeting with Monckton and Watts, followed by a 'volcano dance'?

/Do/ tell...

Stu @ 172- maybe he was after "The Fatuous One" and El Gordo was near enough?.

It's already becoming an urban myth among the Denialati, the trifecta of quiet sun, cool PDO and large eruption is the desired mechanism for a drop of 1.5 C in a decade.

There is something interesting happening in the Arctic, apart from the fact that ice cover is back to average. Normally the ice peaks in mid-March and afterwards starts to fall as warmer weather arrives, but this year Arctic sea ice levels continued their growth into the second half of March.

According to Dr Mark Serreze from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre "this doesn't mean that global warming is over because if we look at the Arctic as a whole we might get to average amounts of sea ice for the time of year. But the ice is thin and quite vulnerable and it can melt very quickly."

Exactly what I've been saying, just an awkward anomaly. No trend in sight.

El Gordo,

I asked before (144). Want to bet on I am confident that temperatures will fall by 1.5 C degrees within this decade ?

Or are you unwilling to put your money where your mouth is?

173 El Gordo,

Everyone knows about the Maunder and Dalton Minima, surely? How about the Little Ice Age?

172 Stu,

My guess is that his name is Gordon and that El Gordo is supposed to sound cool.

The Fat Man said:

"Exactly what I've been saying, just an awkward anomaly. No trend in sight."

Sure there's a trend; ever decreasing Arctic ice mass *and* extent. A month or so of cold air over the Bering Sea doesn't change the big picture.

With the average April maximum of 25 degrees, Sydney recorded its second highest maximum temperatures averages in 151 years.

Just another short term weather anomaly, or order masquerading as randomness?

El Gordo @ 173

Yes, you can quote my view of the cause of the LIA (it's not exactly an uncommon view), IF, and only if, you tell us why you chose the name 'the fat one' ;-)

What is it about this site that means that about once a fortnight it attracts an utterly moronic troll who trots out the same meaningless garbage? They usually seem to think for a few days that they are getting the upper hand, and then when they get shown to be the fool that they are, they skulk off again, usually to be replaced by another denidiot within a day or two.

AGWSkeptic is just the latest in a long line (although to be fair he/she is one of the least credible and most ridiculous). Is it that they see the posts by resident trolls Kent, Dave Andrews and El Gordo, and think "I can do better than that..."?

It is quite bizarre.

Excellent demonstration of Dunning-Kruger, GWB's nemesis! Congratulations!

Oh, did you have something intelligent to say? No? Oh, well...

What is it about this site that means that about once a fortnight it attracts an utterly moronic troll who trots out the same meaningless garbage?

Trolling is basically an expression of unconscious self-loathing.

Trolling is basically an expression of unconscious self-loathing.

If true, the alarmists must absolutely despise themselves.

Trolling is basically an expression of unconscious self-loathing, or a heightened sense of the ridiculous.

Ezzthetic, there is nothing like the trusty "I know you are but what am I" strategy for trying to save face among eight year olds.

I wonder if our pet thought it would work here too without making him look like an 8 year old in a tight spot?

>a heightened sense of the ridiculous.

Or widened in your case, Gordo.

Ezzthetic, there is nothing like the trusty "I know you are but what am I" strategy for trying to save face among eight year olds.

Indeed, and it is very prominent among the AGW alarmist crowd. A result of not having legitimate science to support one's arguments, I suppose.

I think it is fair to conclude El Gordito has confused _sensing_ the ridiculous with _being_ ridiculous. Perhaps, in his delusion, he believes consistently being a character is the same as having integrity of character. It is indicative of a lack of self awareness characteristic of those in deep denial.

[AGWseptic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2476…) defends his projection with more projection. Talk about lack of self awareness. He makes Fatso look like the epitome of enlightenment.

A result of not having legitimate science to support one's arguments, I suppose.

Do you have a reading disability of some sort, AGWSkeptic?

I mean, despite not having full access to the journals, I have been fairly overwhelmed by the sheer number of scientific papers which have been made available on the web in PDF form. They make a lot of interesting reading. There are many websites which can give you the links. Plus I'm about to buy a good textbook on planetary physics, of which there are a few available at both undergrad and postgrad level.

You've made a whole bunch of posts here attacking AGW, yet oddly I see no "killer scientific blow" in any of your arguments. In fact, just as you accuse others of, they are completely and utterly devoid of any scientific content whatsoever.

So we're going to argue the science without using science are we? That is you secret tactic?

I think AGWS is attempting to test the maxim regarding freedom of speech and shouting 'bum poo willy fart' in a crowded theatre.

AGWseptic defends his projection with more projection. Talk about lack of self awareness. He makes Fatso look like the epitome of enlightenment.

Another alarmist uses the term projection without knowing what it means, while simultaneously demonstrating it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

AGWSkeptic, do you have any idea of what Dunning-Kruger said? Essentially, as a consequence of D-K the unskilled over-rate their competence whilst the skilled under-rate theirs. The upshot is that the unskilled end up believing that they know more than the skilled.

The hilarious thing is that when denialists accuse scientists of D-K they are actually correct in that very many scientists do under-rate the strength of their professional knowledge. That is not what the denialists mean though, which amply demonstrates the level of their incompetence.

Maybe you now understand why almost no-one takes you, or your repeated use of the Dunning-Kruger jibe, seriously. This is somewhat compounded by your extraordinarily vacuous arguments and your repeated name-calling.

And after all that you have the cheek to say "Oh, did you have something intelligent to say? No? Oh, well...".

I think AGWS is attempting to test the maxim regarding freedom of speech and shouting 'bum poo willy fart' in a crowded theatre.

I might actually do that, if the theater was showing AGW alarmist favorite An Inconvenient Lie. Then again, I would probably be laughing too hard at the unscientific dreck advanced in said propaganda flick to be able to say anything.

AGWSkeptic, do you have any idea of what Dunning-Kruger said? Essentially, as a consequence of D-K the unskilled over-rate their competence whilst the skilled under-rate theirs. The upshot is that the unskilled end up believing that they know more than the skilled.

Where have I overrated my competence?

The hilarious thing is that when denialists accuse scientists of D-K they are actually correct in that very many scientists do under-rate the strength of their professional knowledge.

So are you underrating your competence? If so, you would be lying, wouldn't you? Or are you overrating your competence?

Maybe you now understand why almost no-one takes you, or your repeated use of the Dunning-Kruger jibe, seriously. This is somewhat compounded by your extraordinarily vacuous arguments and your repeated name-calling. \

Argumentum ad populum. And I don't see you attempting to refute any of my "extraordinarily vacuous arguments". And I'm not the one using the term "denialist" to evoke the Holocaust like you lot do.

Maybe you're right...you are overrating your competence.

AGWseptic,

Projection, in its most infantile form, is embodied in the childish retort, 'I know you are, but what am I'. When one is caught in making hand-waving counter-factual assertions and then accuses, without any rational basis for doing so, those who catch one's irrational assertions of the same fault, that is projection, a quite common and very ordinary ego defense mechanism strongly associated with denial. When it is shown that this behavior is projection and the recourse is to accuse those who point out this self evident fact themselves of projection, it is pathological.

Get professional help.

Ezzthetic, there is nothing like the trusty "I know you are but what am I" strategy for trying to save face among eight year olds.

Indeed, and it is very prominent among the AGW alarmist crowd.

Brilliant!

El gordo said:"Trolling is basically an expression of unconscious self-loathing, or a heightened sense of the ridiculous."

An even smarter person said:"Stupid is as stupid does."

AGWSkeptic kept digging by saying "Where have I overrated my competence?"

Well, post 125 for a start: "There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995". Need one say more?

_Argumentum ad populum_

This would be true if the assertion was that because no one takes AGWseptic seriously, his arguments are vacuous and insulting to one's intelligence.

In actuality the inverse is the true form of the argument being made. More evidence of AGWseptic's inability to form a rational argument. This goes far beyond mere Dunning/Kruger over-estimation of competence to the level of being a bottomless pit of stupid.

No AGWseptic, you are the one who is invoking the Holocaust @197.

The few flimsy claims that you made have been refuted, read the thread and scientific texts. You overrate the contraian's competence, despite overwhelming evidence that (for the most part) they are incompetent.

In addition, you have overrated your 'competence' by trying to argue with scientists, and by thinking that you can formulate a comprehensible or credible scientific argument, when in fact you clearly can't. Classic D-K on your part.

What is sad is that you are unable to comprehend how stupid your pathetic diatribes make you look, and that you probably believe that you are being rather clever.

You, being a D-K victim, believe that AGW is a hoax. Thanks, we get that. Pity that your thinking that is completely baseless. Anyhow, you are not going to change anyone else's mind using the predictable and infantile tactics that you are employing here. You are not the first one to try this, see @166, so alas, despite your deluded preconceptions about your self worth, you are not a special troll at all.

Now please take your juvenile games and mind set somewhere else. Go here:

www.wattsupwiththat.com

There you will find many fellow D-K victims to play with.

PS: Do your mummy and daddy know that this how you behave in public? They must be very, cough, proud (sarc).

Luminous beauty,

When it is shown that this behavior is projection and the recourse is to accuse those who point out this self evident fact themselves of projection, it is pathological.
Get professional help."

I fear that your assessment is correct.

From WFUWT:

"stevengoddard says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:24 pm
20,000 years ago, Chicago and New York were a mile deep in ice. Then the Neanderthals invented the Hummer, and all that beautiful ice started melting â forming the Great Lakes. This proves that the long-term trend is downwards.

55 million years ago, the Arctic was normally ice free. This proves that the long term trend is upwards.

Both trends can be correctly blamed on ancient soccer moms."

And so Goddard (very first post) sets the stage for the Watters' comments on the important phenomenon of polar amplification.

>I might actually do that, if the theater was showing AGW alarmist favorite An Inconvenient Lie. Then again, I would probably be laughing too hard at the unscientific dreck advanced in said propaganda flick to be able to say anything.

It's funny how people over time present a signature of themselves.
The obsession with Al Gore and The Inconvenient Truth, along with American spelling, suggests a rather stereo typical person with little imagination. I think most people progress through the maze, whether sceptic or not.

It seems our friend AGWsceptic has faltered at the lower grade class and the school of sceptics has held them back for a year or more.

And now we have LB making the typical vacuous assertion (stated without the slightest evidence) that anyone who disagrees with the alarmist position must be mentally ill. It's what I typically hear from religious fundamentalist nutbars when they find out that I am an atheist (and just as sophomoric, I might add). Oh, well, go on living with your AGW delusions. Just remember that the rest of the world is catching on. What do you think will happen when a majority of the world's population reaches the conclusion that they have been hoodwinked by a bunch of True BelieversTM in junk science?

Oh, I know, y'all will be on to your next scare long before that happens. What will it be this time? Global cooling, like it was in the 70s? Vaccines causing autism? Alien abductions? Or something completely new?

AGWseptic @207,

"Global cooling, like it was in the 70s? "

Another lie. You just can't get anything right.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, John Fleck. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Volume 89, Issue 9 (September 2008) pp. 1325-1337.

Anyhow, please to to WUWT.

Just when we thought he'd reached the bottom of the stupid bucket, AGWSkeptic pulls out the "Global Cooling in the 1970's" meme. AGWSkeptic, before you make yourself look even more stupid go and read:

Peterson, T.C., W.M. Connelley, and J. Fleck, 2008. âThe Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensusâ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 89, p. 1325-1337.

It is available online.

Hide the cooling! Hide the cooling! Hide the cooling!

Years from now, you'll be saying the same thing about AGW, no doubt.

a rather stereo typical person with little imagination

As opposed to you alarmists, who imagine everything from entire countries being under water to the extinction of humankind.

The sad thing is there are many legitimate environmental issues (deforestation and overfishing, to name two) which are being shunted aside in the name of the false god of AGW. Ironically these things, at least in combination, may make your doomsday fantasies come true faster than you think AGW will.

210 AGWS,

Enough of the idiotic insults and lies. Just answer a question to show that you have any idea what you are talking about. I've asked several times before but it seems you'd rather act like a demented parrot.

What does "statistically significant" mean? You could even look it up.

AGWSkeptic,

OK, three challenges for you:
1. In your own words show us where the Peterson et al. paper is wrong.
2. You are now indulging in the environmental alarmism that you accuse us of ("Ironically these things, at least in combination, may make your doomsday fantasies come true faster than you think AGW will". Show us the evidence for this.
3. As TrueSceptic says, tell us what "statistically significant" means, and show us the calculation that demonstrates that a <20 year period is statistically significant for global climate.

Over to you to show us that you have even an iota of credibility. I bet you duck the challenges...

I've asked several times before but it seems you'd rather act like a demented parrot.

You mean you've parroted the same question innumerable times. Why don't you tell me what it means, if you're such a genius? Why should I give you all of the answers?

1. In your own words, show me where the Peterson paper is right.

2. Show the evidence that AGW is more of a threat than the combination of all other environmental issues, rather than expecting me to prove a negative.

3. Tell me what statistical significance is.

Try to salvage your credibility.

Yep, I was right - you ducked it. Clearly you aren't up to it.

Let's take the first example. We cite the paper - you say "Hide the Decline! Hide the Decline! Hide the Decline!"; we challenge you to show that we are wrong and you parrot the same line back. Do you think that arguing like a five year old is supposed to impress us?

Clearly you are ducking the issue becauses you can't actually support what you are saying. Prove me wrong - I bet you won't.

Folks, this is like watching a traffic accident. The troll really has no clue, and fascinating and fun as it is to watch him repeatedly crash and burn, he really is not worthy our time (and yes, I am guilty of feeding our pet troll too).

I'm more interested in how WFUWT is spinning the paper on Arctic temperature amplification.

It will be alien abductions, AGWSkeptic. Alien abductions will be the new scare. If you want to get in on the ground floor of this investment opportunity we can let you in, subject to you obtaining a PhD in a physical science and signing the "Alien abduction is the greatest threat to mankind" petition. Once these requirements are met you will receive a packet consisting of a list of contact information for your collaborators from scientific organizations residing in countries other than your own and the OTP you will use to communicate with your Soviet handler in the event of denialists catching on to you. Don't worry about any trace of this offer being mined through teh Google in the future. Teh Google and most governments are already involved in this venture and it will all fall through the memory hole before the day is over. In fact, this message can only be viewed by you and it will only appear one time. Pretty neat, eh?

Incidentally, are 'Open Threads' synonymous with 'open trolling season?' If so, I would just like to claim that you are all doody-heads, and should any of you take exception to this, you all believe the earth is made from crackers, and if you disagree then you're a member of a cult, and if you deny membership to this cult, then you have no reason to claim that I am projecting my insecurities, because I don't even own a television so you claiming I have any pants on is completely inappropriate and you should stop excusing your failures by pointing to mine. If you need any further information I suggest you look up the case Rubber vs. Glue.

>_Just remember that the rest of the world is catching on. What do you think will happen when a majority of the world's population reaches the conclusion that they have been hoodwinked by a bunch of True BelieversTM in junk science?_

Argumentum ad populum. For real. Not only is the bottomless pit of stupid bottomless, it is making a giant sucking sound.

AGWmoron said: "I might actually do that, if the theater was showing AGW alarmist favorite An Inconvenient Lie. Then again, I would probably be laughing too hard at the unscientific dreck advanced in said propaganda flick to be able to say anything".

Of course you would - that's how morons behave when presented with that which they don't understand, and outright fear isn't a suitable option.

What you signally fail in is that most basic of human intellectual functions - the ability to rationally explain why.

Meanwhile you seem to be under the impression that your chest beating declarations and third grade/tenth rate rhetoric impresses anyone other than yourself.

214 AGWS,

So, just answer and I won't need to keep asking.

Of course I know, and even if I didn't I'd look it up. Are you too stupid even to do that?

213 GWBN,

Actually, I'm just after the general definition, nothing specifically to do with temperature or climate. Stats 101 or whatever.

217 ML,

The story about melting ice increasing warming because of local albedo change? Is that so new?

It seems that any paper that doesn't show cooling, or at least reduced warming, gets attacked automatically by the deniosphere.

'What do you think will happen when a majority of the world's population reaches the conclusion that they have been hoodwinked by a bunch of True BelieversTM in junk science?'

Thankfully, because the delusion is so intrenched on this blog, I expect many more years of ad homs to come my way even as temperatures fall. Latif said it will only be a couple of decades before it spikes up again, but most of the old farts around here won't get to see it.

When they talk about 'stastistically significant' stuff I expect to see at least a small trend.

196: "I might actually do that, if the theater was showing AGW alarmist favorite An Inconvenient Lie. Then again, I would probably be laughing too hard at the unscientific dreck advanced in said propaganda flick to be able to say anything."

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now...[t]here was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

- Christopher Monckton, logician, naval historian and prominent climate scientist

224 El Gobbo,

I ask once more: why won't you put your money where your mouth is? Do you really think it will drop by 1.5°C over the next 10 years?

225 Zibethicus,

"a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none." I love it. Comedy gold, as is "Christopher Monckton, logician, naval historian and prominent climate scientist".

Perhaps you need to make the irony more obvious?

The Catlin Arctic Survey team were shocked the other day when it began to rain.

'Experienced Arctic explorer Pen Hadow, who is Expedition Director of the project said: "Rain that far north is not at all normal at this time of year. According to the Canadian met services there was also some rain at Borden Camp a hundred miles away.

We're told that southerly winds to the west of a strong high pressure that's been sitting south of Resolute Bay have been pumping very warm air from way down south up over Borden and Ellef Ringnes Islands for the past week. It is pretty unusual for such a strong southerly to push warm air over this area in April."

That would be the greenhouse effect, little documented but of great concern to some feeble minded individuals who are trying to develop a career in atmospheric science.

Zibethicus, you left out Lord High Curer of HIV and the Common Cold.

Hey! Perhaps we should press Dr. Hansen to tackle indigestion and cancer in order to make some impact on the crankosphere?

Results 1 - 10 of about 14,800 for "intellectual insecurity"

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,220 for australian "intellectual insecurity"

Got something to prove?
You proved it.

Get over it eh

Link to the story in the UK Telegraph where Monckton made the 'Great Chinese Arctic Naval Expedition' claim:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-belie…

My guess is that the /real/ reason the 'expedition' "found little ice at the North Pole" was because it had all fallen into the Hollow Earth. It's only a WHITEWASH that's keeping us from knowing the TRUTH...and by the way, AL GORE [insert infinitude of drivelling bunkum here]...

TS @223,

Of course the concept is not new, but they have now managed to get a better handle and understanding of what is happening. The problem with feedbacks is that it can be a bit chicken and egg situation. Anyhow, it is an interesting read.

I was also trying to introduce some science and to move the discussion away from the resident troll AGWS;)

'The problem with feedbacks is that it can be a bit chicken and egg situation.' We can agree on that and I applaud your effort to get back to the science.

Being unskilled in science I sometimes have difficulty in understanding the finer points of the arguments, but does that incompetence really lead to inflated self-assessments? Only among the truly thick, but on this blog we are all university educated, except for John.

Let's talk science so that the masses can understand what we are saying and Tim can retain the honor of having one of the best science blogs in this earthly kingdom.

231 Z,

(Can I call you Z?)

Of course, it was so warm then that the British Isles had a huge surplus of grapes and they were shipped to China over the North Pole. Being ice-free at that time of year (late summer), it was the obvious route. Isn't it funny how the warmists claim this never happened?

232 ML,

Sorry, I know what you intended. Where can we go with this? Most nutty comment at WUWT, maybe?

For illustrative purposes, a timeline of AGWSeptic's arguments so far:

70 - Hide the decline! Hide the decline! Hide the decline!

72 - Michael Mann used a 'trick'?

74 - The trick is to make inconvenient data disappear. Hansen Mann and Gore are therefore frauds.

76 - If you say 'denier' you lose!

79 -~You equivocate

82 -~You first!

84 - Nyah, Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!!!

85 - Show me some science, but nothing from IPCC. You say AGW would doom us all.

92 - Accuses everyone of Dunning-Kruger and primes IPCC for attack by lying that it states "most of the coastal USA will be under water, species will go extinct, agriculture the world over will be impossible, etc.". Complains we can't defend the scientific theory without personal attacks.

98 - IKYABWAI

100 - Don't know what Dunning-Kruger is. You're projecting. I don't lie. You're a delusional projector of DK and you can't read. Are you lying?

101 - My interpretation is as good as yours

103 - 'Hiding the decline' means hiding anything that didn't fit with my conclusion that CC will "mean the death of us all".

105 - You first!

107 - I already answered! You're delusional!

109 - IKYABWAI

112 - Any arguments coming from alarmists are automatically untrue.

115 - The earth is not warming

117 - You can't make me.

122 - Gotcha!!! I'll have to worry about it in 10,000 years.

124 - No statistically significant warming since 1995.

128 - If I pick any other year than 1995 I'll be cherrypicking.

134 - You made it all up, but we're catching onto you!!!

183 - You have D-K.

184 - You alarmists hate yourselves.

189 - AGW has no legitimate science to support its arguments.

194 - I don't project, you do!

196 - AL GORE!!!

197 - I don't have D-K. You lie or you lie. You can't refute my arguments.

207 - You're all deluded. Your science is junk. We're onto you.

210 - Hide the cooling! Hide the cooling! Hide the cooling!

211 - You say the world will be under water and humankind will become extinct, therefore you lie. You ignore the true problems.

214 - You keep repeating your question. Why should I answer it?

215 - It's not up to me to justify my attack on you, it's up to you to justify your theory.

Meanwhile, he challenges us [for science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2473…) @ 85, while producing none of his own, and dodging every question that asks him to justify his arguments. I've lost count of the times he's been challenged to produce some science himself, and has come up with a (not so) smart retort after another to avoid answering...

231 Z,

"(Can I call you Z?)"

(bows)

"Of course, it was so warm then that the British Isles had a huge surplus of grapes and they were shipped to China over the North Pole."

And the /reason why/ no remains have ever been found of the Sino-Britannic Transpolar Grape Trading Fleet is that the trade ended when the rise of International Communism caused the current accumulation of ice at the North Pole.

Even Monckton seems to have noticed that there's some ice up there /now/. You'd better ask /him/ about the precise mechanism which makes Marxism affect Arctic ice levels.

However, it's easy to see what happened here. The growth of icebergs calving from the new polar ice fields forced the grape-trading polar junks to divert from the safe routes around the Hollow Earth.

They sailed too close to the edge, and they ALL FELL INTO THE HOLLOW EARTH. All records of the fleet were then destroyed by the embarrassed governments.

/This/ is why no trace of the fleet exists. Any actual evidence of its existence would actually /disprove/ the theory.

See how it all makes sense when you think about it for a bit? Unlike all the 'scientific' gibberish of the warmists...

"Isn't it funny how the warmists claim this never happened?"

Conspiracy, CONSPIRACY!

AL GORE's interests in warmist industries would come to a screeching, unprofitable halt if enough people realised that an ice-free Arctic means a resumption of the immensely profitable trans-polar grape trade.

What's more, THEIR sinister International Communist Conspiracy is certain to flounder if their last bastion of hope, Communist China (Communist except when /we/ do business with it) is afflicted by enough alcoholics fuelled by cheap British cask wine for political apathy to dominate there.

/THAT'S/ why THEY'RE trying to stop us melting all the ice.

But the day of THEIR downfall is close at hand! When our archaeological teams have wrapped up their reports on the 'discovery' of the latest 'Noah's Ark', they will proceed directly to GREENland, when the search will begin for the remains of the resort hotels and tennis courts used by the Chinese sailors on their stopovers...

MFS, thanks for making the [effort you did](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2477…). Drawing together the gist of AGW"s contribution shows both the volume and emptiness.

Sometimes the best retort to "a demented Parrot" is simply give it the microphone.

Let me preempt AGW"S"s reply:

>*"shows both the volume and emptiness"* -you must be talking about ....[space for child to fill the blank].

William Ruddiman thinks humans have made a big difference in the duration of the Holocene and looking at this graph you can see why.

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/ME036%20Graph%201.jpg

But if you go back about 400,000 years there is an interglacial like ours, more a tabletop than a pointy mountain top, so I am unconvinced by his arguments.

TS @225,

Not sure where this takes us. Usually it is the acloytes at WFUWT who come up with the truly bizarre statements. Here we have Goddard showing his true colours. I guess that it is just something to add to the nutty Steve Goddard file, and something to remind him of the next time he starts pontificating.

It is also an example of him playing at dog whistle and sowing the seed of doubt in the acolytes' minds. Priming them with the silly argument that "there were no SUVs back during the MWP".

"According to statistics from CAAM (China Association of Automobile Manufactures), in March 2010, China automobile production and sales respectively achieved 1,734,300 cars and 1,735,200 cars, respectively up 58% and 56% year on year.
"
http://www.gochinaauto.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4368

Lol.

The 'science' means bupkis. Open your eyes.

MFS,I belilve it was you who asked if I know about fast ice, pan ice. The answer is yes, I know about frazil ice, first year ice, pan ice,the freezing point of sea water,(1.6-1.8 C ) Leads. I have worked in -50 C and know you can tell the outside temp by the thickness of ice on your beard, the sound of the snow crunching under your feet. I know that ice fog can cause the light from streetlights to shine strait up.
OT but might be of interest is the cool water anomally off the coast of Iceland. It has been growing for the last week or so and hooked up with cool water off the UK.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

Kent @ 243: Excellent, you know some about how sea ice forms, and I presume also how it decays every year. BTW in conversation we generally refer to frazil as slush or grease, and I presume you mean pancake ice rather than pan ice. Anyway, since much of the ice decays every dummer and then re-develops every winter, the measure that most emphasis has been put on is the minimum summer extent of sea ice, essentially just fast ice around Antarctica, which is what we were talking about, or multi-year thick ice in the Arctic.

[Your post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…) included this pearl: "About the Antarctic sea ice level.Since the ice is not locked in by land it is subjected to the winds. When people talk about the ice melting or forming down there they tend to forget about the effects the wind has on the ice. Of course they also forget about how they measure the ice area." You seem to be trying to dodge my questions about this statement:

- What makes you say wind-driven movement is an important factor in the extent of fast ice around Antarctica? (a hint, since you post seems to indicate you don't know this: fast ice, which constitutes much of the ice left during the summer minimum, is called so because it has grown along the coast and is thus 'fastened' to it)

- Why do you think sea-ice researchers do not take wind into account? (Since it's kind of hard to miss it when you're standing out there drilling holes and taking measurements)

- Going one better, which specific scientific publications on sea ice do you think might have neglected to include the effect of wind movement into ir calculations and/or projections?

So far we haven't seen anything from you other than suggestions that you think you know more about the causes of sea-ice decay than sea-ice researchers...

MFS,

Just curious. Have you been to "The Ice"? It sounds like you have been down south.

MapleLeaf:
Yes, in Hokkaido and also down south. Might also be going again next December on [Voyage 2](http://its-db.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/voyage.cfm?season=1011), though likely to work on the SR3 transect (marine science, no land-based stuff this time).

Talking of the Melt Water Pulse 1a (MWP), I still can't find the actual mechanisms involved. Sea levels rose 16 meters in a few hundred years, then the see-saw effect between the hemispheres brought about warming.

The delay caused by the Younger Dryas delayed the rapid rise in temperature and after we climbed out of that hole in second gear we eventually reached the Holocene max. A little late, but perfectly positioned for a gradual return to the dominant state of glaciation.

Thanks MFS @246. I've also had the good fortune of going to Antarctica a few times-- what a stunning and fascinating place. Love it.

Awesome!
I volunteered on a round trip in the Astrolabe (Hobart to Dumont D'Urville and back) during my PhD, to collect samples for a guy at IASOS. I haven't spent any time on land, though, just round trip. Looks like the same this year but hopefully they'll let us spend New Year's eve in Casey (we'll be resupplying about that time), the Aurora is a dry ship...
That's all tentative though, the shipping schedule is still likely to change, and who's been successful getting berths has not been announced yet, etc.

Try Global Warming Denial Bingo! When trolls like AGWS turn up, turn tedium into fun with global warming bingo!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24897388/Global-Warming-Denial-Bingo-A-fun-ga…

(I probably need to update the score sheet to add memes like 'hide the decline' and 'not significant warming since 1995'!)

236 MFS,

Yes, it's always instructive to list comments by certain people to expose their behaviour, isn't it?

TrueSceptic @ 251,

Yes, though I'd rather read articles they bring up to find out whether they have even read them or know what they're saying. Regardless, though, both reading articles and compiling lists ends up feeling like a bit of a waste of time...

238 Z,

If you are not already a contributor to [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/), you should be!

238 Z,

If you are not already a contributor to [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/), you should be!

252 MFS,

Once a statement, article, or paper has been cited by the deniosphere, it doesn't really matter what it actually says. Deniers will argue down to the last syllable that it supports their case when it clearly doesn't. Phil Jones's statement about warming since 1995 is just one of many examples.

Meanwhile, Eli Rabett is covering the disgusting [witch-hunt](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-are-tone-trolls-when-you-need…) going on against Michael Mann.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter how many investigations clear scientists of wrong doing, the denialists will never stop. Surely there must be laws that prevent malicious harassment like this? And how about the sheer hypocrisy of long-term professional liar and science fraud Fred Singer?

We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof.Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to âhide the declineâ [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr.Phil Jones refers to as âMike [Mann]âs trick.â Now at last we may find out just how this was done.

It seems he doesn't even know what this refers to but he still feels free to make accusations.

Meanwhile, Eli Rabett is covering the disgusting [witch-hunt](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-are-tone-trolls-when-you-need…) going on against Michael Mann.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter how many investigations clear scientists of wrong doing, the denialists will never stop. Surely there must be laws that prevent malicious harassment like this? And how about the sheer hypocrisy of long-term professional liar and science fr**d Fred Singer?

We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof.Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to âhide the declineâ [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr.Phil Jones refers to as âMike [Mann]âs trick.â Now at last we may find out just how this was done.

It seems he doesn't even know what this refers to but he still feels free to make false accusations.

Sorry about the dup. Must learn that fr**d is a naughty word. Must learn that fr**d is a naughty word.

MFs;
The reason I speak of the wind in regards to extent is the fact that the sea ice is floating and the wind moves it.
The wind can change an area with say 15% sea ice and change it into an area with 14% sea ice. This reduces the sea ice extent without changing the actual amount of sea ice.
Most of the summer minimum sea ice is contained in the lee ward side of the Archipelago. The windward side is the last to ice up. Do we assume that ice is not forming there or do we assume that the ice forms but wind and currents move it out before it attains the 15% ratio?
I guess my assumption regarding a lack of wind incorporation is because it is not talked about. You can see the wind effect in the area graphs. We read about the melt but not about wind effects.
Here is a question for you. We know the area that comprises 15-100% but what is the area contained by the 0-15%? Where is that data? Better yet, what is the polar area where more energy is lost than gained on an yearly basis. Just because sea ice is not forming does not mean the sea water is not cooling.
We look at sea ice but ignore the cooling water it sits on. Sea ice area/extent in my opinion is a poor proxy for earth's thermal gain/loss.
Got to go to work now.It is 9:00 AM my time.

[Kent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2479…).

The wind can change an area with say 15% sea ice and change it into an area with 14% sea ice

OK, so if it's just down to wind, and not to warming, what's happening to change the long-term wind trends?

The next question is, can you think of any technique to falsify your claim? And whilst you're at it, can you also explain why such an avenue has not been investigated by the climatologists of the world? How did they manage to miss such a simple thing?

Sea ice area/extent in my opinion is a poor proxy for earth's thermal gain/loss.

Oh, really...

So when the Arctic is eventually ice-free at the pole in summer, this will be due to wind, and not to warming.

Riiiggghhhttt...

Kent @ 259,

Alright, I'm now labelling you 'bullshitter extraordinnaire'.

You [first](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2471…) blame the wind moving ice out of the areas measured altogether, then you change your tune to blame wind packing for reducing sea ice areas, and assume wind packing is not taken into account. May I remind you you're yet to provide a link to back up your absurd statements.

You quaintly tell us that "Most of the summer minimum sea ice is contained in the lee ward side of the Archipelago". Niiiice... the largest single extent is in the Weddell Sea, in the lee side of the Antarctic Peninsula. Why is it there? Because the Weddell Gyre goes on in its merry-go-round and does not allow any to escape. Do you think loose ice in the gyre is not AND has not been continually packed and redistributed by the wind as long as there has been a gyre and it's had ice?

You say: "We look at sea ice but ignore the cooling water it sits on". I would suggest you get started by looking here [this article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Bottom_Water) in your quest looking for the 'missing water'.

I'll leave the second half of your rant, I have better things to do than waste my time chasing the best references for you to educate yourself when you clearly don't want to. Can I point out you've been supplied with several references by people engaging you and you have failed to come up with a single one to back up ANY ONE of your statements.

I will however point out the funniest sentences for people to discuss if anyone else feels like it:

- "Just because sea ice is not forming does not mean the sea water is not cooling."

- "what is the area contained by the 0-15%? Where is that data?"

Doing a Sunday browse looking for weather anomalies and I came across this.

http://www.colinandrews.net/Cloud-Radar-Circle-Australia-2010-0122.html

On the surface it looks like just another conspiracy theory, but as I'm not a scientist I can't really comment.

...as I'm not a scientist I can't really comment.

That's a first.

El Gordo,

I think they are a radar artifact, I don't really know what causes them, but you see them on BoM radar all the time, not just in Broome and not just on Jan 22nd.

You are probably correct, here's an example of hot pixel artifacts.

http://gazbom.blogspot.com/2010/01/nasa-images-earth-sized-spherical.ht…

I go away for a few days and our current resident Cargo Cult Troll(*) has a little posting spasm ;-)

(*) One who mistakes the form (and vocabulary) of an argument for the substance that makes one valid.

In this case, well-summed up by jakerman and by MFS.

Maybe a better nomenclature is Make-Believe Wizard Troll. They think if they recite the correct form of incantation they'll win the argument, utterly unable to grok that it's not the incantation that has the argumentative power...

What is it about this site that means that about once a fortnight it attracts an utterly moronic troll who trots out the same meaningless garbage? They usually seem to think for a few days that they are getting the upper hand, and then when they get shown to be the fool that they are, they skulk off again, usually to be replaced by another denidiot within a day or two.

Maybe it's a Strange Goldfish Troll Attractor? Perhaps when it's different trolls each time it's a Strange Goldfish Meta-troll Attractor? Or a Goldfish Troll Meta-Bowl? ;-)

Maybe the trolls are like a Bose-Einstein condensate (I'm probably recalling this incorrectly) where all the particles share the same quantum state? Someone has to be able to come up with a really memorable descriptor ;-)

And sure enough, the latest troll did exactly as forecast - walked in, threw around the normal gibberish, got cocky, was shown for the fool that he/she apparently is, and disappeared. I bet he/she is still reading this though.

I forecast the next one will arrive by the end of next week, and it'll all start again.

Back in 1983, in response to the depredations of the Thatcher regime, the Labour Party in the UK published a manifesto which to much of the public looked like that of a distinctively socialist party. Unsurprisingly The manifesto was greeted with unalloyed hatred by the screeching harpies amongst the Fleet Street press, who, rounding on it, dubbed it the longest suicide note in history.

Now, as Real Climate contributor Georg Hoffmann shows, a competitor for the title has emerged. Climate charlatan, Claude Allègre, with his new book, The Climate Imposture (sic) has effectively killed off any pretense at scientific standing he might still have had.

Hoffmann notes:

One of the more egregious examples of blatant making stuff up was covered by Science last week (following on from a post by Huet who revealed that Allègre had hand-drawn a continuation of tree-ring data from Hakan Grudd to show cooling over the 21st Century â something of course that no trees could possibly show (at least yet!).

Hmmm ...

It's now official, the science is settled, Phil Jones and six other authors have come to the conclusion the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real and slightly warmer than our post modern high.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php

Heartland Institute Leak: By journalistic standards this deserves a "gate" suffix. What shout it be? "Cartergate", "Deniergate?". There is a large amount of booksignings scheduled at the conference. Is this so the institute doesn't have to pay the speakers, just do the "free market" thing?

This email comment from DeFreitas is a classic [referring to McLean]

"Why have you not invited John, by the way? I know heâs a bit of a liability in public, but he can spin figures with the best of them"

"It's now official, the science is settled, Phil Jones and six other authors have come to the conclusion the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real and slightly warmer than our post modern high."

I skimmed through the paper and could not find any reference to a global temperature proxy. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Anthony @ [272](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2482…),

The [abstract](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4XSSV31-…) certainly makes no reference to a global temperature proxy.

I'd probably concentrate on two pieces of information in that abstract:

1 - "Winter season stable isotope data from ice core records that reach more than 1400 years back in time suggest that the warm period that began in the 1920s raised southern Greenland temperatures to the same level as those that prevailed during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period some 900â1300 years ago"

2 - A common denier fallacy: This paper concentrates exclusively on SW Greenland. SW Greenland is NOT the world. Even if they had found that southern Greenland was warmer in the MWP than it is now (not a stretch of the imagination, considering it once supported agriculture), I would repeat to the likes of el gordo: southern greenland is NOT the world.

"It's now official, the science is settled, Phil Jones and six other authors have come to the conclusion the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real and slightly warmer than our post modern high."

Ah, no. They said that temps in southern Greenland "were as warm as or slightly warmer than present day Greenland temperatures". Southern Greenland is not the World. As Phil Jones told the BBC, the evidence that the MWP (which nobody claimed wasn't real) was worldwide and warmer than today just doesn't exist.

GWb@166 asked

What is it about this site that means that about once a fortnight it attracts an utterly moronic troll who trots out the same meaningless garbage?

Maybe, given how long El Gordo has been here, whenver a new one appears we should make like the French-caricatured chap in Monty Python's Holy Grail, telling the new denioidiot ....

We heard you but we're not very interested ... we already got one ...

Sorry. but I couldn't help but mention this.

On the ABC's Drum site, in one of the thousands of comments on the JoNova rant about denialgate, some dude/dudess called "tide" started his/her list of reason to be stupid with:

(1) There is NO evidence showing that mankind causes global warming.

(2) Every pound of carbon dioxide that you put into the atmosphere is less effective than the previous pound.

This is a classic case of a denialist holding two mutually exclusive position at once.

It almost has a sick kind of beauty about it.

This paper suggests they have found evidence in the Oroko swamp on the other side of the world.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf

'Of equal interest in the reconstruction is the sharp and sustained cold period in the A.D. 993 â 1091 interval. This cold event is easily the most extreme to have occurred over the past 1,100 years.'

This will keep me occupied for some time.

...some dude/dudess called "tide"...

Tide was one of the most ... interesting commenters - and not due to insight or logic or valuing actual evidence. Mostly due to the absolute certainty with which they put their head in the sand and proclaimed night-time had arrived.

At one point Tide referenced an SPPI document "explaining" a whole load of "reasons" why AGW is a crock - many of which are mutually contradictory as Gaz pointed out, and almost all of which are unsupported by anything approaching evidence.

It's like Stephan Lewandowsky has been reading my comments here:

For several years now, armies of irate pensioners have been swarming the countryside, spurned on by feverish websites, taking photographs of thermometers in the belief that this would invalidate concerns about climate change â and seemingly unaware of the fact that the utility of a thermometer derives from the accuracy of its measurement rather than anything captured by a colour photo.

I'm amazed they find the time in between composing unwitty limericks at Bishop Hill.

Lotharsson ... I just borrowed your example about Tide and posted it over at Lewandowski's piece at The Drum (see above) as part of a longer piece ... Hope that was OK ...

Oops ... Sory ... it was Gaz's example ... apologies ...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=nebraska&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF…

Fran, FWIW I would have no problem with borrowing any of my examples. If you search for "Tide" on that thread or some of the others you may find a few more...

Oh, and if you're talking about them, someone might want to consider archiving the comments at the various The Drum threads of interest (unless they're already in The Wayback Machine or the like). I saw that ABC policy was to delete comments after a period of time.

Meanwhile, the Science Museum in London has declared that they will not take the side of science.

âThe climate science community, by and large, has concluded that humans have intervened in the system in a way that will lead to climate change. But that is their story. Itâs not our story, so that canât be our conclusion. If we take sides we will alienate some of the people who want to be part of the discussion.

Perhaps they should be renamed the Not-Really-Science Museum, or the Politicisation-Of-Science Museum, or the Let's-Pretend-The-Science-Doesn't-Exist Museum?

No doubt someone can come up with a really pithy name ;-)

Has Monckton got a personal web site??
I thought he did. Would like the address if anyone has it.

The only thing I have found is his facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lord-Christopher-Monckton/250675475288

I thought the comment by Stuart Clegg (A Top Gear fan) was amusing:
>I agree with you Julian. It's got to stop. There's a group on FB called the 'Join the fight to stop Global Warming' they have alarmists on there who have links to both our government & American. They're hacking into our pcs and giving them viruses to stop us giving us our opinion. They're getting nasty because they know we're right.

Itâs not our story, so that canât be our conclusion.

In the old days museums looked back, while in the post-modern age they are encouraged to also look forward. More like amusement centers.

278 El Gordo,

Why? Because you also posted a link to a page at CO2Science which contained

Medieval Warm Period," which they defined as occurring "some 900 to 1300 years ago,

BTW, how about that bet? You know, the one about a 1.5°C drop during the next 10 years?

Today Climate Depot [reported](http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6425/Climategateacutes-Phil-Jones-study-f…) that Andrew Bolt reported that CO2 Science reported that there is a new report by 'Climategate' Phil Jones which proves denialists rightwrong.

If there's one thing I've learned from denialists, it's that climate scientists are shifty, lying bastards who will cover up anything that doesn't conform to their Underpants Gnome-inspired, money grabbing agenda.

But in this new report, Jones actually admits that the MWP was warmer than today! (In Greenland.) I can't help but wonder how Jones let Jones's report slip through the cracks. Didn't he redefine peer review? Was there no trick he could learn from Mann? Did he submit a FOI for his own data and actually acquiesce to it?

The only way this can make sense is if Jones's agenda is science. But we know that can't be true because... because... Al Gore.

TrueSceptic

'How about that bet? You know, the one about a 1.5°C drop during the next 10 years?'

Global cooling is a serious matter, I couldn't possibly bet.

European authorities have revealed that carbon-trading fraudsters may account for up to 90 percent of all market activity in some European countries.

This is no laughing matter, even though it's hugely amusing.

Global cooling is a serious matter, I couldn't possibly bet.

Weasel.

I don't want to give El Gordo, an out but are we really hoping he will still be repeating his drivel here in ten years time?

If, in 2020, the global temperature is above the 30-year average by 0.4degC and he still is posting here does anyone think El Gordo will retract anything he has said and even if he did, what would it mean? Will a single person on the planet be better off?

If there are still El Gordo-style delusionals about and posting in ten years will our victory over El Gordo, make a scrap of difference? Haven't we all repeatedly and already shown him to be a reckless repeater of unadulterated trolling tosh.

And if, like the 9/11 truthers or people still going on about Area 54 or the Illuminati they are utterly irrelevant to policy and uninteresting to the mass media, or if it is now plain that we left the whole mitigation thing too late and are now desperately trying to manufacture a quick fix by resort to quite risky geoengineering exercises in the midst of rapidly collapsing ecosystems, mass movements of climate refugees and losses of low-lying islands, why will we care what El Gordo is doing?

Should we even care now?

Just wondering.

"Shown him to be a reckless repeater of unadulterated trolling tosh.' Thanks for the fine words, FB.

More importantly, while the MWP was happening in some places in the NH, there was 100 years of sharp cooling in New Zealand. Something to do with the AAO, but can't find a cause for that blip even in Google Scholar.

Could the continental drift of Antarctica in the Pliocene changed the earth albedo so much that it caused the transition to Pleistocene?

Pan,
According to my undestanding, Antarctica has stayed pretty much put since much earlier than the pleistocene.

Australia, however, has been steadily moving northwards. Once Australia and Antarctica, and South America and Antarctica had separated, and you could get an Antarctic circumpolar current established, then Antarctica was free to cool down (no warm currents like the gulf stream to bring warm water from the tropics). This is thought to be one of the factors leading to the Pleistocene ice age (of which the Holocene is the latest interglacial).

According to drilling in Antarctica at least west antarctica was ice free several times in Pliocene, but never i Pleistocene?

Check out:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/antarctica/ideas/gondwana2.html

My point is that ice free antarctica in pliocene versus antarctica covered with ice in pleistocene would change earth albedo? Has someone done some calculations on this - is the change too insignificant?

Pan,

The following is all from memory, I apologise for the lack of references to sources that might be clearer.

Yes, of course it would drastically change earth albedo. As I said before, that was thought to be one of the main drivers of the pleistocene ice age. Before Australia and South America fully separated from Gondwana, ocean currents were far more effective at distributing heat around the world, in a way similar to how the gulf stream makes Iceland and Norway habitable today. Just think of similar latitudes in the southern hemisphere. You have the Kerguelen group at its mildest, through to the fully glaciated Antarctic Peninsula and the coast of east Antarctica at the same latitude as habitable parts of Norway.

Once the Southern Ocean gained its current form, and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) became established, warm tropical water was not able to make it past the subtropical convergence, and Antarctica was free to cool down and start accumulating snow and ice. The dramatically increased albedo from that is thought to have been among the primary feedbacks that resulted in the ice age that has lasted now ~1.8 million years.

So answering your question, I don't know what the calculations are but it's likely to have been significant.

Before north and south America were joined at the Isthmus the Pacific flowed into the Atlantic. When it closed there was a very large drought in Africa and our ancestors were forced out of the trees to forage on the Savannah.

A few million years ago these creatures had to adapt or perish when confronted by climate change and it has turned out well for humanity.

El gordo,

That's not logical, you don't know how it might have turned out otherwise. Might as well have turned out better. Do you think humanity is in a good place right now, global warming or not?

Thanks for taking your time to answer MSF. I'm aware of the theory of changing ocean sirculation patterns causing the transition to a colder climate in the pliocene, but as the transition took place over millions of years which happens to coincide with the gradual southward continental drift of Antarctica - resulting in a more and more ice cover, and thus higher and higher total earth albedo - could the MAIN driver of climate change in pliocene be the southward movement of Antarctica, rather than change in ocean circulation pattern which seems a more complex explanation?

Doesn't change in ocean pattern happen more abrupt, well on a geological time scale? The continental drift of Antarctica is certainly a very slow process.

It would be interesting to see what influence change of total earth albedo (caused by more on more ice cover in Antarctica) would do to climate in the pliocene, and if it indeed could be the driver of the climate transition to pleistocene climate. Just beeing curious.

Pan,

As far as I know Antarctica has been pretty much stationary, while South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand have been the ones to move north, and away from it. At the time when all these continents were lumped up into Gondwana, there was a much bigger continental mass overlapping the south pole, yet the world was significantly warmer.

But it is possible that the climatic isolation of the Antarctic continent over the south pole (once the Australian passage opened up) enabled ice to cover it, and that the overall effect, including the albedo, caused Greenland and the north pole to become cold enough to ice over as well, again increasing albedo, etc...

According to my old geomorphology textbook (Summerfield, M. 1991. Global Geomorphology. Longman Scientific, Harlow, U.K.), The passage between Australia and Antarctica first opened ~50 million years ago, during the Eocene, when Australia first started to move north. Antarctica was by then already at its present position. The first evidence of sharp cooling in the southern Ocean is from ~40 MYA, and by 30 MYA in the Oligocene there is evidence of glaciation.

However, what I do remember from my 3rd year Botany was that there are 5-6 MYA Nothofagus fossils found on the Antarctic continent, so the climate would have had to be benign enough for hardwood trees to grow there relatively recently (in a geological time scale).

West Antarctica has certainly been ice free several times during the pliocene according to a 2009 paper (if I recall correct) (drilling into sediments under the ice).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antarctica-andrill-ice…

So I guess the key question here is if the ice free (west) Antarctica in pliocene is caused by the continental position of Antarctica or the general warmer climate in pliocene. As far as I can see the climatic models for the pliocene pretty much ignores the continental positions (appart from calculation ocean circulation due to continental positions as you mention), so I guess you are correct when you state that Antarctica was pretty much in the same place (although it seems to move some on the link I presented). It would be really cool to have an new idea on climate transition in the pliocene, so I'm sad to understand it's not very likely! Thanks anyway!

I agree with Gordo. When mass migration in Africa caused by global warming begins, they should all go to Western Europe (especially England, where they will grow grapes and people will live in happiness).

291 EG,

Why not? Money doesn't have to be involved. It could just be about the loser making a statement.

But the money would go to a charity anyway.

TrueSceptic

If it doesn't get 1.5 C cooler over the next decade I will accept that its folly trying to predict climate without a super computer. The trend over the last 30 years has been towards slightly warmer temperatures, but I believe that has come to a close and now we will experience cooler weather.

Greenland's climate had become dryer during the 14th century and Lamb thought it likely that the winds were more easterly, whereas the winds were predominantly from the west between 1000-1100. Natural variability is much stronger than you imagine and its hubris to think otherwise.

There is little between our different viewpoints, just a degree either way, so let's try and predict what may happen over this NH summer or next year's winter. It's only weather, but as global cooling kicks off I don't want to miss a minute.

By the end of June and again in late August we should have a better idea of what is happening with Arctic ice. September will tell us if it's becoming depleted again or whether we can expect a buildup of multi-year ice.

308 EG,

IOW you will admit that your claim was a wild guess and that the experts' *did* know what they were talking about?

308 EG,

What is it with Greenland? It's only a small %age of the planet's surface.

Sure, we know that natural variability swamps trends in the short term, otherwise this discussion wouldn't exist.

I'd say it's more than a degree: you expect a drop of 1.5 and I expect an increase, so it's nearer to 2. But we need to define this. A 1.5 drop for a whole year average or the whole decade? Compared with what? The 2009 average, the 2000-2009 average, the 1951-1980 GISS baseline, the 1961-1990 HADCRU baseline, or the 1901-2000 NCDC baseline? Some other?

Or a downward linear trend of 1.5 from 2010-2019?

Which dataset will we use?

Do you realise what a large change 1.5°C is?

Duh. Apparently the economic crisis and the BP oil spill are "acts of God". Duh.

TS

The 1901-2000 baseline is probably the best and fairest, but any other suggestions will be appreciated.

The latest temperature data is up at Roy Spencer and its down slightly, so I'm thinking that will continue and a trend should become obvious within a year.

I'm aware that a 1.5 C fall is large, but I can't hide the decline.

I'm loving the predictions, El Gordo!

Little surprised that you went for the 20th century average though, since to get to 1.5C below this, we'd actually need a drop of about 2.0C.

And why are you still incapable of answering all the questions posed in a comment? TS also asked which data set you'll use to determine this, and what the criteria for determining the winner is.

I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average. TrueSceptic is clearly capable of proposing his own criteria for victory, but I suggest it could be that no year in the coming decade averages less than the 20th century average. Any result in between is a draw.

I will also be taking bets. Odds are 1500/1 on a Gordo victory.

Saw somewhere that Archibald is predicting a drop of 2.2 C and it may have something to do with the length of solar cycle 23.

And you believe him because...??

Somewhat different topic: GM crops that are pesticide resistant have led farmers to use more pesticides, and now [pesticide-resistant "super-weeds" have evolved](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.ht…)...

Stu

Archibald is predicting 20 years ahead, which as we all know can be a bit risky.

http://climatepolice.com/Climate_Outlook_2030.pdf

Prof. GO once suggested we try and predict five years in advance and build on that. The idea has merit.

In the seminal work of Phil Jones and Mike Hulme - 'The Changing Temperature of Central England' - they make an interesting observation.

The warming last century was larger in the south, than the northern half of the islands. 'The warmth has occurred in all four seasons, but is most pronounced in the twentieth century in summer and Autumn.' Yeah, but is that what we should expect in a warming world?

They have completely ignored Hubert Lamb's previous work which pointed to a 50 year periodicity in the incidence of blocking highs. A major influence on UK weather totally ignored.

Britain is not the world, but if we add Greenland, Iceland and the rest of Europe, it offers a reasonable test bed for predicting future climate.

>*Prof. GO once suggested we try and predict five years in advance and build on that. The idea has merit.*

For those who want to hide trend behind short term noise. What a surprise to find el gordo as one such.

315 EG,

Errr, you do know that Archibald is an incompetent fantasist (or liar, who can tell?).

You still need to define your 1.5°C drop. Reread 311. I don't mind how we define it; we just need to agree.

Tim,

Here's a heads up on an interesting story that surfaced on Politics Daily:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/05/fox-news-refuses-to-air-climate…

Faux News is refusing to air an ad that links the climate bill in the US to national security interests.

And on the Vet Voice website (the people trying to place the ad):

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=FBD608866D627DCF1FA851E…

I actually donât believe men of honour publish correspondence without permission. Nor do I believe men of honour would select portions of the email that donât correspond to the entire message

So posted Tom Fuller on this very blog. In case the name is not familiar, here is Mr Fuller's latest publication: http://tinyurl.com/369mvlk

Hat-tip to MarkB posting at DeepClimate.

Open letter: Climate change and the integrity of science

Full text of an open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences in defence of climate research

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-…

"We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option."

Stephen Goddard overturns established science once again.

Discuss :)

Actually, I'm only interested in your opinion on the following:

Is this post by Goddard more, less, or equally stupid than his post in which he insisted there's CO2 snow in antarctica?

325 dhogaza,

I can only say that Goddard's posts would fit in quite well at Denial Depot.

Stu says 'I suggest it could be that no year in the coming decade averages less than the 20th century average. Any result in between is a draw.'

I like it.

327 EG,

You only quoted half of it. Do you agree with

I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.

?

I haven't yet agreed to the half that you did quote, but let's start with the above.

'I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.'

Agreed.

Might be fun to keep a visual running.

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

> I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.

I have little interest in weather; far more in climate trends.

Frank Lansnear has a guest post at Watts, illustrating the difference between NOAA and UNISYS over the European theatre.

'Europe is not the only area where NOAA has warmer temperatures than UNISYS. NOAA appears markedly warmer than UNISYS on the Northern Hemisphere â but a little colder than UNISYS in areas of the Southern Hemisphere.'

[Chinese criticism of Australia's pace on carbon emissions management](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/chinese-lash-pm-on-emissions-inaction…) - along with reports of Chinese programs to slow emissions growth and become more carbon-efficient.

331 Lotharsson,

Same here, I'd prefer a trend stipulation, such as a -1.5 linear trend 2010-2019 as it's more meaningful, but the one-year drop is simple and EG will lose either way. ;)

334 me,

Actually, this is still not "climate" is it? We need 30 years, so how about -1.5 linear trend 1990-2019?

I'm away for a few days. I'll follow up on the "bet" next week.

'Not one of the IPCC climate models behaves like the real climate system does when it comes to feedbacks during interannual climate variationsâ¦and feedbacks are what determine how serious manmade global warming will be.'

Roy Spencer

Spencer - and el Gordo - conveniently forget there are quite a number of other lines of evidence for climate sensitivity besides models. Spencer is hoping his readers won't know that he's apparently unable to demonstrate that the conclusions based purely on those lines of evidence are false.

All of Spencer's efforts have been busted several times over. <10 minutes trawling Deltoid, RC, Deep Climate, Eli's place and Tamino's site throw up dozens of threads, all of which drive holes in his approach, assumptions and analyses big enough for a bus.

Yet el gordo and the WTFUWT groupies continue to genuflect in Spencer's presence. Go figure...

Testing italic testing

A paper by Matsueda et al. on 'atmospheric blocking' gives support to the theory that as 'global warming proceeds, the more the Euro-Atlantic and the Paciï¬c blocking frequencies decrease. The number of the Euro-Atlantic blocking decreases in all durations, whereas that of the Paciï¬c blocking decreases in especially long duration.'

Does this mean the opposite will happen if the world begins to cool?

Just one other point, the CSIRO have done some work on blocking and found that they occur most frequently in certain geographical locations: the north-east Atlantic and north-east Pacific, the Tasman Sea, south-east of Tierra del Fuego and south-east of South Africa.

They say blocking pairs form mostly in winter and 'can profoundly affect the weather and climate because they obstruct the normal passage of meso-scale weather systems.'

More proof that global warming offers a better outcome than a cooler regime.

Shorter el gordo:

Global warming is better than global cooling, and the globe is cooling, therefore everything's fine! There's absolutely no contradiction here.

* * *

Meanwhile, here's a useless fact about HARRY_READ_ME.txt and other files in the Climategate SwiftHack .zip file.

Global warming is better than global cooling, and the globe is cooling, therefore we can expect profound affects.

For example, the CSIRO says these 'persistent and recurring blocking pairs in the Tasman Sea during the southern winter of 1982 caused abnormally low night time temperatures and severely reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia. The drought, and its effects on agriculture and water supply were still being felt in mid-1983.'

There is too much concentration on temperature in this debate, when we should really be more focussed on the physical dynamic of the atmosphere.

>*There is too much concentration on temperature in this debate, when we should really be more focussed on the physical dynamic of the atmosphere.*

Trolling moron.

It's a long shot, but if the high slips under the low we will have a stable pair in the Tasman.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/nmoc/latest_MSLP.pl?IDCODE=IDY00050

Glad to see you back in good health, Janet.

Sorry to see you your still trying to confuse weather with climate.

But that what trolls do, they think confusion is their friend.

Piers Corbyn of the Great Global Warming Swindle infamy is predicting a wet summer for the UK. "Most of the theories surrounding climate change are complete nonsense. The earth has been cooling since 2002. Itâs the opposite of what they say."

Isn't it strange that he won't discuss his methods?

I suppose his seaweed has come back from the National Physical Laboratory after calibration.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/174037/Weather-Expert-predicts-wet-…

Jackerman, the CSIRO say the phenomenon of 'blocking' is both climate and weather because it's been around longer than homo sapiens.

Climate sensitivity is low, that's why the Indians stood behind the Chinese at Copenhagen and scuttled the Europeans.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692861-2,00.html

El Gordo,

>Climate sensitivity is low

So the denialati argument that climate has always changed - strong climate sensitivity - you've dropped that one now, yes?

>Climate sensitivity is low

Yes, it must be, otherwise the climate might cool 1.5C over the next ten years in response to a relatively modest forcing such as another inactive solar cycle.

CSIRO say the phenomenon of 'blocking' is both climate and weather because it's been around longer than homo sapiens.

The greenhouse effect has been around longer than the homo sapiens, and it is changing, care to to show how "blocking" is driving current climate change?

>*Climate sensitivity is low, that's why the Indians stood behind the Chinese at Copenhagen and scuttled the Europeans.*

Trolling moron.

el gordo writes:

>*CSIRO say the phenomenon of 'blocking' is both climate and weather because it's been around longer than homo sapiens.*

Please provide your source material, you've demonstrated many times that your interpretation of other's work is not reliable.

el gordo
I don't know where you get the "global cooling" meme from, but it's getting tedious. You "quote" the CSIRO and BoM frequently, but somehow forget to provide links to where these statements were made. Either provide the sources of these quotes, or I will assume you've not got the courage of your convictions, and furthermore assume you may well not have accurately conveyed the sense of those statements.

What exactly do you mean by "low" climate sensitivity? Is this something from your own research? If not, provide sources for this assertion.

El gordo is [asked for some evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2501…) then disappears [off to another topic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres…) to push his propaganda.

SteveC

Apologies, laziness is no excuse, it was on page 24 of 'CSIRO Research for Australian Weather & Climate' and published 1986.

It has been argued that a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1°C increase in average temperature. So what is the big deal? Looking back over paleoclimate history, there is broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.

...and published 1986.

Of course it was.

>The greenhouse effect has been around longer than the homo sapiens, and it is changing, care to to show how "blocking" is driving current climate change?

And

>Please provide your source material, you've demonstrated many times that your interpretation of other's work is not reliable.

el gordo's response:

>*it was on page 24 of 'CSIRO Research for Australian Weather & Climate' and published 1986.*

What was "it" el gordo? Was "it" the answer to my question? Will you state what "it" is?

Perhaps this should go into the Monckton thread but anyways ...

Abbott declares it was hotter in Palestine at the time of Jesus

It's the quote at #344 on atmospheric blocking and I don't have to answer your questions.

El gord writes:
>it's the quote at #344

>*For example, the CSIRO says these 'persistent and recurring blocking pairs in the Tasman Sea during the southern winter of 1982 caused abnormally low night time temperatures and severely reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia. The drought, and its effects on agriculture and water supply were still being felt in mid-1983.'*

I.e. weather.

>*I don't have to answer your questions*

You do if you want to show yourself to be anything but trolling propagandist. But you also need to change you approach if you want to show yourself as anything but that.

el gordo @357

Where do you get the 1.1°C (per doubling of CO2) figure from?

IIRC, it's 1.1°C/2ÃCO2 without taking into account feedbacks.

Selective quoting again?

P Lewis (364) - that's what I was wondering about. So what's it to be el gordo? Gonna come clean about this magical 1.1°C figure? Or did you expect us to forget the feedbacks?

The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.

> The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C...

...for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? I recall it being more like 2-4.5 Celsius, most likely around 3 C. Or are you talking about CO2 doubling ignoring feedbacks? You seem a bit ... imprecise... regarding what you're talking about at various points on this thread.

> ...but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.

Disregarding the "cross my fingers and hope it's the extreme value of the range", this is really sloppy thinking.

We **know** there are *multiple* positive feedbacks, and we **know** there are *multiple* negative feedbacks. And they all have different strengths and operating regimes and variations in feedback strength. It's just not as simple as saying we have "either one or the other".

Oh, and we can certainly have positive feedback without "hell on earth". I suspect you're confusing total positive feedback with a feedback factor of less than unity (which merely amplifies any independently driven change) with (say) positive feedback with a feedback factor of greater than unity (which increases without limit until the feedback factor drops below unity again).

el Gordo: "The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback."

Unfortunately, there's a new paper out placing sensitivity at a possible 4 to 4.5C (Lunt et al, 2010) with slow feedbacks, backed up by another recent paper (Pagani, 2010).

What were you saying about Hell on Earth? Enjoy reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Estimating-climate-sensitivity-from-3-m…

But just to emphasise the point which you may not be getting..

Palaeoclimate: Global warmth with little extra CO2. Birgit Schneider & Ralph Schneider (2010).
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo736.html
(3 - 4C once thought to be associated with CO2 at 500 - 600 ppmv therein put at 385 ppmv)

The rest are truly scary as well....

"Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Tripati et al (December 2009)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (December 2009)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html

Hereâs a chart:
http://www.paleo.bris.ac.uk/~ggdjl/conferences/egu2009_ess.pdf

High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations. Pagani et al (December 2009)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100. Breecker et al (October 2009)
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576

So, isn't it time the so-called "sceptics" started taking this **** a bit more seriously?

>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C*

El gordo, please cite the page for this best estimate figure. I think you are telling porkies.

[AR4 SFPM](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf):

>*a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded*

el gordo, caught making stuff up again.

Stop using science everyone, you're confusing Gordo.

JB

Going through that list I can see why you're concerned, but I don't take it seriously. Even when, as janet says, it's very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C increase over the coming century.

We are basing the future on a theoretical construct, which will never happen. On the other hand, we know already that temperatures can fall 1.5 C in a decade because it has happened in the past.

el Gordo: "We are basing the future on a theoretical construct, which will never happen."

Everything we project about the future is a theoretical construct, warm or cold. The links I provided suggest that one must be particularly dense not to take the subject seriously, especially when we see CO2 levels matching both then and now.

You and your denialist mates are welcome to behave like lemmings, but kindly cut that rope from the rest of us and find your own planet to conduct your CO2 experiment on.

The PDO has been declining for the last 5 years and it went negative or cooling since 2007.

Environment Canada records show that Canada is annually 1.8 C degrees cooler and
various regions of Canada can be annually 1 to 2.4 C degrees colder during some phases
of negative PDO.

The monthly negative PDO levels are close to the early 1970âs levels - 1.55 in Feb 09 and the annual 1971 PDO was -1.29 when very cold winters happened. The west coast of Canada had its 10th coldest winter during 2008/2009 winter.

Picked this information up from Matt Vooro.

Concern trolls at it again, I see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10106362.stm

I once met Gwyn Prins, and nothing in this changes my opinion of him.

Gah! Begone, foul markdown:

Try this.

I spotted that last night too. "Prins report" link fixed.

The reason Kyoto failed (not that it really "failed") is well known.

And the link with the Lawson "think" ;-) tank says ...

El gordo writes:

>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.*

Lets not just move on el gordo, where did you find this rubbish? Or did you simply make it up?

Do you beleive in setting record straight and thus enabling learning from mistakes?

Ah! You got there afore I!

Doing a Sunday browse looking for weather anomalies and I came across this.

http://www.otoemlak.com