OPEN THREAD

This page is for anyone with new links or off-topic comments or anything else that doesn’t fit in with the post relevant comments.

129 responses to “OPEN THREAD

  1. john byatt

    This animation is slow but watch the ice just melt (not transport) before your eyes.

    http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017616f656ff970c-pi

  2. john byatt

    Out of the mouths of babes. love it

    Rogelio Escobar says:
    August 2, 2012 at 10:03 am
    You can Bet NATURE, Elsevier Publishing will not be happy with this. It is of course the way to go re publishing. BTW interpreting climate is mainly statistics, plus a knowledge of most basic sciences not to hard. I Think meteorology/forecasting demands a lot more specialized knowledge.

    well exactly, predicting the global temperature projections based on emissions and CS is not as hard as predicting weather for next month, give or take a feedback

  3. john byatt

    Another great comment

    grant foster open mind

    The impact of global warming is getting clearer, and will soon be obvious even to the hard-core deniers. Arctic sea ice continues its death spiral. Sea level continues to rise. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continue to lose mass at an alarming pace, and glaciers worldwide keep shrinking. Species continue to migrate to higher latitudes and altitudes. We’re also seeing more and more signs that the “man in the street” can’t ignore. Since the amazing heat wave in Europe in 2003, we’ve seen amazing heat waves in Australia, Russia, the USA (twice). We’ve seen enhanced drought and record-breaking floods. And to the statisticians at re-insurance giant Munich Re, the increase in weather-related disasters is both huge and certain. This is not normal — and it’s not natural.

  4. john byatt

    shame this was not posted before your talk

    cop this

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas.gif

  5. john byatt

    Geoff’s latest post is a
    post from that vincent gray reposting a post from john daly re Karl 1998 , seems upset re russsian temps 1997/1998
    here is abstract of Karl 2000 re that

    During the time between May of 1997 and September of 1998, for sixteen consecutive months, each month broke the previous monthly all‐time record high temperature. Using autoregressive intervention moving average (ARMA) models in a series of Monte Carlo experiments the probability of such an event was analyzed for various rates of temperature change. The string of record‐breaking global temperatures could not be readily explained by the best fit linear increase of temperature since the late 1970′s (2°C/Century), although the event was not implausible (probabilities slightly less than 5%). The 1997–98 event could signal yet another change point in the rate of global temperature increase, but the warming rate over the past few decades is already comparable to that projected during the 21st Century based on IPCC business as usual scenarios of anthropogenic climate change (Kattenberg et al., 1996).

  6. john byatt

    Gale moving into the Arctic, this could be a game changer (not good)

    will see affects in a few days

    • The irony is, Obama is giving the deniers what they want but they will now crucify him for flipflopping. Talk about a putting yourself in a lose-lose situation.

      ________________________________

  7. john byatt

    Geoff brown (TCS) trumpeting Tim Ball as a great climatologist,

    then again geoff tells fibs

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

  8. john byatt

    There seems to be some bets being laid on how the deniers will spin this year’s Arctic minimum.

    wait until the percentages come out then declare a huge increase of one year old ice,?

    blame it all on a freak storm.?

    Wait til after minimum and then declare Arctic recovery or short melt season?

    They still have four weeks to get there nonsense together,,,,,,,

  9. john byatt

    Climate dice, discussion paper James Hansen hot off me email

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120811_DiceDataDiscussion.pdf

    • Thanks John

      It won’t shut the idiots up but at least it comprehensively addresses their main complaint. Now they’ll just revert to form and say the temperature record can’t be trusted. They’ll probably cite Watts’ blog-reviewed, mistake ridden and co-author rejected manuscript.

  10. john byatt

    Pick of the day from WUWT Arctic thread

    “The Arctic Ice melt is nothing but a diversion from understanding the complex factors that influence the climate”

  11. john byatt

    The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.
    The debating jargon term for this is spreading. You can hear some mindboggling examples here. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time.

    This week’s Gish Gallop award goes to James at Watching the deniers.

  12. john byatt

    I see that TCS blog is advertising the rational environmentalist gabfest

    David Stockwell will address ” is the global temperature rising?

    here is a nasa graph for mr Stockwell to present

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

    .

  13. john byatt

    I know that I am a big softy but I cannot help feeling sorry for this little girl and what she will go through in twenty years time or sooner

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/big-lies-2nd-anniversary.html

  14. john byatt

    This is worth a read about the postponement of Olympic .

    Always good to get different views

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4219382.html

    • It is refreshing. Don’t go to the comments section though. Some of the pro-mining proponents are more frustrating to read than some of the looniest deniers.

      ________________________________

      • john byatt

        Most of them are the looniest deniers

        John :
        24 Aug 2012 3:45:45pm
        Please do a bit of research before posting the very silly comments.

        Global warming has nothing to do with our economy – or any other country’s economy – and has virtually nothing to do with human activities in any other regard. It is a celestial, inevitable, cycle and will happen whether we like it or not. Then it will get cooler until we are in another little ice age, whether we like it or not.

        Celestial ? that’s a newbie

  15. john byatt

    It appears that geoff has made up his mind how to handle the incredible loss of arctic ice this year.

    still with two weeks to go

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/sea_ice_N_min_to_date.png

    Deny it of course,

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/science-haters-and-ice-loss.html#comment-form

  16. john byatt

    Without going down the alarmist track, I do keep a close watch,
    problems
    paleoclimate papers have revealed that we may already be at an atmospheric level of CO2 that was accompanied by a 2 to 3 DEGC temp rise in the past.

    papers that show that the globe is more sensitive to increased GHG’s than it has been for millions of years.(ocean currents)

    the cat being let out of the bag last year, though most missed it.
    A paper showed that past climate may have had a CS less than 2DegC and some aussie scientist said to effect, “thank goodness for that, as many scientist had been voicing concern that CS may have been much higher than 3DegC”, problem was that when paper, southern ocean data was looked at in depth, It possibly understated THE CS at the time.

    2010 revealed that Hansen model would have been very close to fact if he had of used a CS of 3Deg,C and Gavin while just doing a back of envelope calculation on the IPCC model showed that it would have been consistent with 3.3DegC CS.

    My point being that there is no physics that constrains CS, it purely depends on what feedbacks beyond water vapour and clouds that are available at the time. none of which gives me cause to rejoice.

    All we can do is stick with the science that the best estimate of CS is 3DegC and not decide to test that out.

    .

  17. john byatt

    just received my first elec bill after carbon price, has gone from 21 cents per KWH to 22.2 cents per KWH, Wrong again Mr Abbott

  18. john byatt

    Cherry pick of the day
    which temp station did Goddard post to tell us that greenland was below -27DegC , updated since

    http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html

    • The point that really needs to be laboured with this year’s ice is the fact that in 2007, everything was perfect for a big melt and it actually met expectations within the science community. This year was relativley benign in terms of providing the perfect conditions for a big melt and yet here we are. Can you imagine what it will be like next year if the same conditions as 2007 are replicated? Our media is sadly lacking when it comes to scientific literacy because I am certain that if they really understood what this year’s arctic melt really means, it would be the lead story every night……although maybe not on Channel Ten.

      ________________________________

      • john byatt

        WUWT Comments, one of a few from Julienne

        Julienne Stroeve says:
        August 27, 2012 at 9:48 am
        Anthony I think you are missing a key point, it doesn’t matter too much what the weather does anymore. Whether you have persistent unusually high pressure over the Beaufort coupled with low pressure over Eurasia such as in 2007, or this summer that didn’t have as favorable weather as in 2007, but had an early August storm, the ice cover continues to be anomalously low in summer. The ice is thinner than it was 20-50 years ago, so that it melts out more easily in summer.

  19. john byatt

    Check out arctic ice concentration two days ago, FUCK

    https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

    • Don’t worry John, it’s just a matter of weeks before the retards start proclaiming a bounceback and of course everything will be ok then…..until next year

      ________________________________

  20. john byatt

    Nova and Goddard are on about being called conspiracy theorists,

    found this, now removed it would appear, wonder why

    06 | August | 2012 | Real Science
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/6 Aug 2012 – Posted on August 6, 2012 by stevengoddard. Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate It was archived on June 27, 2004, the date of the

    and this
    Really Sciency: Steve Goddard Bullshit Alert
    reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/02/steve-goddard-bullshit-alert.htmlSteve Goddard tells us there has been no warming in the Arctic in the last 7 years … I may have mentioned on here before that Steve Goddard is a ‘Birther’ in that .

  21. john byatt

    Rasmus at RC

    It is not every day that I come across a scientific publication that so totally goes against my perception of what science is all about. Humlum et al., 2011 present a study in the journal Global and Planetary Change, claiming that most of the temperature changes that we have seen so far are due to natural cycles.

    same journal

  22. john byatt

    Believe it or not post at TCS

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/

    “Although we have persistently pointed out that temperature rise precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 (and not the other way around as claimed by the falsified AGW hypothesis) and most recently with the peer reviewed paper of Humlum et al,”

    a few paras down

    “The warming has stalled and, although atmospheric CO2 continues to rise (currently around 394ppmv) there has been no global temperature increase in 15 years”.

    • I’ve come to the conclusion that Geoffrey is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Nothing he types now surprises me. I had toyed with the idea of looking for all his contradictions but quite frankly it just irritates me. It’s actually quite sad. What saddens me the most is that he doesn’t seem to have any clear motivation for peddling bullshit. At least with Watts you can see the motivation is to collect money from Heartland. Geoffrey’s only potential benefit is to see some mates get into politics but judging by previous tilts at it and the obvious lack of credibility or professionalism they don’t ever stand a chance of getting more than 1% of the vote, so what is the motivation? Does he get some perverse enjoyment out of thinking he is influencing people to be stupid? I don’t get it John. If his only motivation is that he honestly believes all the garbage he cuts and pastes then that is the saddest thing of all because it means he is even less intelligent than I suspected and doesn’t realise he is being used. It’s sad. I used to get angry and frustrated at the constant stream of crap but now I just feel sorry for him. His own descendents will look back and curse him and other idiotic members of his generation because it is they who are rsponsible for the lack of movement on climate change.

      ________________________________

      • john byatt

        let me put it this way,
        If geoff was not busy with climate change denial then he would be busy with creationism. Creationist’s gain self confidence by others accepting their own world view. It makes Geoffrey feel important to be part of the “god will not allow it to happen campaign” while some are very careful not to give their motivation away, having dealt with them before, you pick up on the “dog whistles” that make it through

  23. john byatt

    Cop this for a reply,

    We see that John Byatt has certainly bought the hoax of climate change and will pay dearly for it in reputation, he obviously has read well on issue as we all have via force feeding of loaded and selected propaganda as exposed by The Inconvenient Truth released by East Anglia University in the wake of the Copenhagen spend-a-thon by Rudd and Co. But use of the matter between our ears in basics, sets the confusion mill spinning apace.
    However, he releases no science but reprints of the ‘maybes’ so prevalent in the entire history of the argument and may himself have not lived long enough to experience heat waves before the balloon went up on carbon. According to the crude basis of this hoax that carbon floats on air, it has no weight, thus we could fill balloons with it and watch them rise as though filled with helium, I wait for Mr Byatt to explain how carbon tax is levied without weighing it or is it yet another wet finger estimate. Conversely should it actually be weightless – how is it weighed??
    In reality, carbon, as is regularly quoted as the rogue element in this problem, does have weight and does not rise far on air but returns to earth where plant life depends on it and the plumes of vapour shown in every TV lie belching from cooling towers at power stations is as pure as that rising from any domestic kettle, steam vapourising upon contact with atmosphere.
    John, dear writer, do any of your informers dare to estimate the extent of ice mass at both poles as being sufficient, when totally melted to raise sea levels by the 7 metres first announced to launch the scare campaign? Under those circumstances much or your cosy cove could be threatened by sea flood.
    Are we supposed to believe that the sea will continue to rise from flood precipitation from the fountain in the skies and not be slightly drained by successive drought years of scorching sun and evaporation? C’mon John “age doth not weary nor the years condemn”.
    Yes, smog is very real and we living in this district hardly realise how superior is air quality here. I have travelled to far North China on business during snow periods to see how the tops of low rise buildings are invisible, long before the vehicle density was as high as recently.

    Do we really have to take these people back to primary school, I blame The Bjelke Peterson government that allowed creationism to be taught in QLD schools, a whole generation of ignorance was the result,

    • Was that a response to your letter to the editor? I love the “carbon has weight, therefore it can’t float” argument. What a moron! Actually, John can you email me a link or screenshot or scan? That is sooo much stupid in one place, I’d like to give it to my students to disassemble.

  24. john byatt

    My letter is at the bottom “way is clear”
    this letter above was “buying into a hoax”

    http://www.theweeklyobserver.com.au/wordpress/?cat=7

    where would you fucking start,,,,,,

  25. john byatt

    that would be a con that I was buying into

  26. john byatt

    Yesterday WUWT “Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 – has Arctic sea ice started to turn the corner?”
    sure, Anthony

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

  27. I saw thatand when you get into the comments it just makes my head hurt. I’m reminded of Youtube video of a faith healer “healing” a toothache. The top comment was “They’re not even trying anymore.” The same can be said for the commenters talking about a “rapid refreeze”.

    • john byatt

      i was going to comment on the comments there but it was so disheartening to read, this tells me that when the Arctic sea ice reaches zero, nothing will change, It will just be “boy this is going to be the biggest refreeze in history,
      but how the fuck do they do that, what is wrong with them,?

      • It’s a mental disorder. They will ignore some things and then go to extraordinary lengths to justify others. I remember arguing with a Bible literalist once who was trying very hard to justify that rape was a consensual act if the female didn’t “cry out” and it was perfectly fine to force a rape victim to marry her attacker. I thought he was a troll but turns out he was fair dinkum. He would rather justify that than admit that some parts of his precious Bible were abhorent. Deniers are the same.

        ________________________________

  28. john byatt

    Comment reposted from RC,

    “In a January 4th post on “Real Climate”, David Archer addressed those who are raising concerns about the speed of ice loss in the Arctic and the resultant potential for warming water temperatures to thaw frozen methane and release it as gas to the atmosphere. In essence, he dismissed such concern as a form of unfounded alarmism making “much ado about nothing”. In this rebuttal, I would like to respectfully challenge this dismissive stance and assert that severe dangers are arising in the Arctic which call for the full attention of humanity.

    The present thinning and retreat of Arctic sea ice is one of the most serious geophysical consequences of global warming and is causing a major change to the face of our planet. A challenging characteristic of the behaviour is that both the rate of retreat (especially in summer) and the rate of thinning in all seasons have greatly exceeded the predictions of climatic models. The sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean, particularly in summer, has been in retreat since the 1950s at a rate of about 4% per decade which has recently increased to 10% per decade. More seriously, the thickness of the ice has diminished.

    Satellites can track ice area, but ice thickness distribution is most accurately measured by sonar from underneath the ice. Since 1971, I have been going to the Arctic in UK nuclear submarines, mapping the ice thickness using upward-looking sonar along the vessel’s track. U.S. submarines have also allowed such availability. Opening these submarines to scientific work has been a marvellous service to climate research. It was thanks to submarines that I was able to show for the first time that the ice in the Arctic is thinning (in a 1990 paper in Nature [2], showing a 15% thickness loss in 11 years), and recent work from UK and US submarines now shows a loss of more than 43% in thickness between the 1970s and 2000s, averaged over the ocean as a whole [3]. This is an enormous loss – nearly half of the ice thickness – and has changed the whole appearance of the ice cover. Most of the ice is now first-year rather than the formidable multi-year ice which used to prevail.

    The thinning is caused by a mixture of reduced growth in winter (because of warmer temperatures and more heat in the underlying water column) and greater melt in summer. A change in the direction and speed of ice motion has also played a role, with the ice departing quicker from the Arctic Basin through Fram Strait rather than circulating many times inside the Arctic.

    The summer (September) area of sea ice reached a record low in 2007, almost matched in 2011, but what is most serious is that the thinning continues. It is inevitable that very soon there will be a downward collapse of the summer area because the ice will just melt away. Already in 2007, measurements indicated that during the summer there were 2 metres of melt off the bottom of ice floes in the Beaufort Sea, while the neighbouring first-year floes had only reached 1.8 metres during winter – so all first-year ice was disappearing. This effect will become more important and will spread throughout the Arctic Basin.

    There is currently disagreement about when the summer Arctic will become completely ice-free. It depends on which model is being employed. My own view is based on purely empirical grounds, that is, matching the observations of area from satellites with observations from submarines (combined with some modelling) of thickness to give us ice volume. If we think in volume terms instead of area terms, the downward trend is more than linear, in fact it is exponential, and if extrapolated it gives us an ice-free summer Arctic as early as 2015 or 2016.

    Others have talked of later dates, like 2030-2040, but I do not see how the trend of summer ice volume can possibly permit this. Those who agree include W Maslowski, a leading ice modeller (Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey), and the PIOMAS project at University of Washington which generated the data shown below [4].

    The figure shows the minimum volume of Arctic sea ice in midsummer, based on areas observed from satellites and thickness trends inferred from submarine observations. Extrapolation leads to a zero volume in 2015. It must be pointed out that this perspective stands in direct contradiction to very complacent statements about the Arctic sea ice from the IPCC in the AR4 report of April 2007 saying the sea ice was very likely to last beyond the end of the century.

    The ice retreat is having major impact on the planet. The Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on earth (warming at 3-4 times the rate of low latitudes). It has become widely accepted that Arctic amplification of global warming is due to the albedo effect of sea ice retreat. The increased open water reduces the albedo (fraction of solar radiation reflected into space) and causes warming at high northern latitudes to be much faster than the tropics, with enormous implications for climatic instability. Secondly, the summer retreat of the ice from the wide Arctic continental shelves (particularly the East Siberian Sea) allows the shallow surface layer to warm up, bringing temperatures of up to 5 degrees C right down to the seabed.

    Quantification of this effect has only very recently been attempted, in a paper to the 2011 AGU by Hudson [5]. The startling conclusion is that the rate of warming of the Arctic from the sea ice albedo effect could double or worse, once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in September. And it could double again, once the ocean is ice-free for half the year. But the timescale makes this all the more worrying.

    The scientific community has drawn attention to the risk of dangerous climate change if the world does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions – a worthy and critical objective. However, I wish to point toward a much more immediate problem that does not seem to be recognised among the climate change community at large: This is the problem of rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice, and likely consequence of catastrophic methane feedback.

    These rapidly warming temperatures are accelerating the melt of offshore permafrost, releasing methane, trapped either as methane hydrates or as free gas beneath the permafrost, and causing large plumes of methane to appear all over the summer Arctic shelves (observed for the last 2-3 summers by Semiletov and colleagues on joint University of Alaska – Far Eastern Research Institute cruises). Methane levels in the Arctic atmosphere have started to rise (measured by Dr Leonid Yurganov, Johns Hopkins University) after being stable for some years. As methane is a very powerful, if short lived, greenhouse gas (as much as 105 times as powerful per as unit weight of CO2 over a 10 year time horizon, though only lasting about 8 to 12 years in the atmosphere), this will give a strong upward kick to global warming.

    According to research crew leader Igor Semiletov, “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before…. This is the first time we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 meters in diameter.” [6] He has also described how warmer temperatures are making their way down to the bottom of the shallow sea in the Arctic continental shelf areas: “When ice has gone, there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of water which causes the comparatively warm upper layer to mix with water at deeper levels. There are already studies which confirm that in some areas, bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3 degrees above zero Celsius (freezing). As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost will thaw.” [7] There have been warnings that a major methane outbreak may be imminent.

    In a piece Archer co-authored in 2009 [8], he acknowledged both the significant warming power of methane and the fragile and “intrinsically vulnerable” nature of hydrates: “There are concerns that climate change could trigger significant methane releases from hydrates and thus could lead to strong positive carbon-climate feedbacks. …. Methane hydrate seems intrinsically vulnerable on Earth; nowhere at the Earth’s surface is it stable to melting and release of the methane.” In this same piece, Archer affirms another key factor: “Rapid warming well above the global average makes the Arctic hydrates particularly vulnerable to climate change.”

    Archer clearly acknowledges the vulnerability of methane hydrates to thawing in response to rising Arctic temperatures. Accelerating ice loss can only accelerate that temperature rise through the albedo effect, so we should be regarding the potential loss as an imminent and urgent crisis. Ira Leifer, from the Marine Science Institute at UCSB, describes the mechanics of a “runaway” methane feedback: “A runaway feedback effect would be where methane comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere leading to warming, leading to warmer oceans and more methane coming out, causing an accelerated rate of warming in what one could describe as a runaway train.” [9]

    Given that this “train” would be one way and feed upon itself in a way that might well be unstoppable by humanity, it would seem to be a classic case where the precautionary principle should be invoked as a justification for action.”

    ….

  29. john byatt

    sorry the piece posted at RC was reference to statement from P Wadhams

  30. john byatt

    old geoff is contradicting himself again trying to copy WTD denier post

    The MWP was warmer
    and then
    CO2 follows temp

    sorry geoff they both cannot be correct

    CO2 hockey stick –http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc502/technophile50/CO2_last_millenium.jpg

    If it was warmer in the MWP, and “…CO2 follows temps…” why is there no bump in the CO2 hockey stick graph referenced above

  31. john byatt

    All liberal governments will follow NSW and Vic, Vic has made 200mm the 2040 SLR cut off for development within existing communities,

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/09/warmism-s-ebbing-tide

    they quote the old 2007AR4 as their reason but did not read the caveat.
    current research would be in the range up to 2 metres by 2100,

    waiting for AR5 to see the official forecast, by then developments will have proceeded within the zone of inundation, Who will pay? state govs or councils because sure as hell they will not be able to buy SLR insurance.

  32. john byatt

    QLD gov 6 months plan july dec 1012

    commence work to amend the queensland coastal plan

    under “improve infrastructure”

    http://tinyurl.com/9z6p3kk

    ,

  33. john byatt

    at TCS

    john byattSeptember 18, 2012 3:14 PM
    Warning, sceptics may find the following image disturbing

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration.png

    Reply

    john byattSeptember 18, 2012 3:20 PM
    Where is the cause for celebration?

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

    Reply
    Replies

    Geoff BrownSeptember 18, 2012 3:26 PM
    See, John, provided you are polite (and not spitting vitriol) we will publish your comments.

    Unfortunately, your deniers mates don’t publish my comments.

    Still, thanks for your contribution.

    I will ask the reason geoff

    • Ask him who doesn’t publish his comments. See if he’ll even mention my blog. I’ve published every single comment he made way back. He however still has me blocked. That said, I actually couldn’t care less about Geoffrey. He is juvenile and beyond help.

    • Schlomo Wahl

      You alarmists are constantly and imperceptibly allowing your graphs to drift in the warmist direction. Every time you redraw or reproduce or update the graphs the more distant past temperatures are getting lower and more recent past temps are inching upwards. If you are not careful, soon you will have only a vertical line to work with. The actual satelite temperature graph is here : http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. from UAH. You guys can go on with the crazy explanations of where the heat has been ‘hiding’ for the last 15 years, but the fact that you carry on with such arrogance and certainty when clearly nobody knows what’s going on now, let alone in 100 years, really scares ME.

      • Don’t bother coming here if you are only going to cite non peer-reviewed nonsense from the likes of Spencer. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. When one has a good understanding of scientific convention, the importance of peer review becomes apparent.

        • Schlomo Wahl

          You know who else is arrogant and is supremely confident in his opinions?

          SNIP: Trying to compare honest hardworking scientists to despots won’t earn you any points here. It is juvenile beyond belief and adds no value to the discussion. If that is all you have to offer than you are not welcome here. Your comments will now be sent to moderation. Unless you come up with something intelligent to say, you will be moderated out.

          • Please check the blog rules before commenting again.

          • Schlomo Wahl

            It is not meant to be an insult. It is an illustration of a point. And I hope that some similarities can be gleaned from this comparison. Clearly you are supremely convinced of your correct analysis of a phenomenon which has a huge amount of influences. In the arrogance of conviction built on a house of cards of assumptions, you then embark on a global campaign to change in one fell swoop institutions people have built over centuries ‘organically’. In the conviction that it has to be done to ‘save’ the planet from the scourge that is people and people from themselves.

            But just like the idealistic communists, who had wrought on the people the Marxist ideology in a huge experiment, it is likely to go horribly wrong. In their save-the-masses zeal of supreme confidence, the communist have brought untold misery onto hundreds of millions and direct death from starvation or forced influence to an estimated 100,000,000 people.

            Unintended consequences of your warmist zeal are likely to be similar, i.e. energy starvation, totalitarian government, carbon cops, imprisonment for non compliance, neighbour spying on neighbour and so on.

            That’s why I used the analogy.

          • Lewandowsky loves you. Allow me to add a couple of things to your list…

            “Unintended consequences of your warmist zeal are likely to be similar, i.e. energy starvation, totalitarian government, carbon cops, imprisonment for non compliance, neighbour spying on neighbour, one world government run by illuminati overlords, secret use of alien mind control technology……”

        • Schlomo Wahl

          Sorry, I forgot that my comments must be qualified

          SNIP: Irrelevant. Trying to link peer review to communism is stupid beyond belief as I suspect you are.

          • You are warned. Please check the blog rules.

          • Schlomo Wahl

            Let’s laugh about aliens ha, ha but it is Bob Brown who talks about aliens. It is David Attenborough and David Suzuki who lament the plague that is human race presumably in the process of raping Gaia like Bob’s aliens their planet.

            No. Your actions have very real consequences on people’s lives. Why do you not heed the lessons from history ?

            Totalitarians over and over and over (ad nauseam) try the grab for control with the same consequences. And that is human misery and of course the exact opposite that you claim to seek to prevent , and that is environmental degradation.

            You, climate zealots must not be allowed any significant degree of control because invariably, things will go terribly wrong. A whole bunch of incompetents will take control and we will not have any power to unseat them. We will just suffer and then die. All for nothing. This is what it was like in East Germany where I grew up (I was lucky and come here).

            The danger of this happening is very REAL, it has happened countless of times before and you climate catastrophists are pushing us all in that direction again. Having learned nothing from history.

            What would I choose as a rational person ? An ‘impending climate catastrophe’ (yeah right) or 100% certain misery under the Green-Industrial-Political regime ?

          • non sequiter backed up with no evidence starting from a logical fallacy ending in a false analogy. Start providing evidence (real eveidence) that there are plans afoot to bring about a ….what do you call it?….. Green-Industrial-Political regime. Make sure your evidence is sound and not some conspiracy ideation blog. Otherwise, fuck off, put your tinfoil hat on and wait for the drones.

          • Schlomo Wahl

            That’s a bit low to call me stupid. Am I stupid because I am worried about your total conviction of something, having looked at the same evidence as you, that to me seems unconvincing ?

          • “seems unconvincing”

            So, passing your critical untrained eye over complicated peer reviewed scientific evidence makes you feel unconvinced. Hmmmm. Since you are so fond of analogies, try this for size. My oncologist has just told me that if I don’t have the treatment that the vast majority of cancer specialists recommend, there is a high likelihood that I will die. I don’t understand everything and feel unconvinced, so instead of undergoing treatment, I seek advice from the unqualified retired veterinarian down the road, and as he speaks in much simpler terms that I can understand, I accept his advice to do nothing because, not only do I understand him, I accept his comparison of oncologists with the NAZI scientists of the 1930′s and we all know what happened there.

            I designed a poster some time ago that applies to you. Here

          • If you have criticism of Lewandowsky, provide a relevant peer reviewed rebuttal. My blog rules ask for real evidence. Denier dens are not real evidence. Final warning.

          • Schlomo Wahl

            Thank you for the lovely poster link, here is my offering in kind:

            SNIP: Congratulations. Childishness and refusal to follow the rules has earnt you the reward of being only the second person to be spammed. Well done. Claiming a conspiracy of tens of thousands and citing Lindzen as a reputable source, as well as raising the denier canard “climategate” also constitutes a Gish Gallop. See ya, don’t come back.

          • Mk

            Hey dude, what happened to this schlomoo wall character ? Why are you snipping his stuff ? I wan’t to see the poster he/she linked to.

          • Hi Mk and welcome. Repeated breaches of my blog rules earned him the honour of being only the second person here spammed. If you want to see what he posted, just go to any denier propaganda site that invokes Godwin’s law when discussing climate scientists.

  34. Deniers being hypocritical? That makes up half my posts. They’re worse than religious fundies.

  35. john byatt

    Came across this blog while reading about Micheal spencer, like me Duggy also received one of spencers DVD’s

    may be link up with him when he gets back from the north, blog reads well.

    http://duggyvans.blogspot.com.au

    Spencer
    http://duggyvans.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/rising-tide-of-climate-change-denial.html

  36. john byatt

    Thanks to john cook we made it into both letters and top stories in regional rag.

    http://www.theweeklyobserver.com.au/wordpress/?p=1003

    • That’s a good letter John. Spells it out quite clearly. It amazes me that people don’t accept the basic physics. CO2 absorbs and redistributes long wave radiation heating tha atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere increases its water holding capacity. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas therefore…….. it ain’t rocket science, yet these idiots just don’t get it.

      ________________________________

  37. john byatt

    Remember Edward Pearson the QLD LNP, “stop teaching climate change in QLD schools’

    time to give him another nudge in the local paper, still has not responded to my call to debate the science,

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-science-denier-debunks-greenhouse-theory-two-fish-cooler-boxes-and-roll-cling-film

  38. john byatt

    C: ‘Ello, Miss?

    Owner: What do you mean “miss”?

    C: I’m sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

    O: We’re closin’ for lunch.

    C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Arctic what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

    O: Oh yes, the, uh, the north pole…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?

    C: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!

    O: No, no, ‘e’s uh,..its recovering.

    C: Look, matey, I know a dead arctic when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.

    O: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s recovering ‘! Remarkable place, the north pole idn’it, ay? Beautiful ocean
    C: The ocean don’t enter into it. It’s supposed to be ice .

    O: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s recovering

    C: All right then, if he’s recovering , I’ll wake him up!

    (shouting at the cage)

    ‘Ello, Mister arctic I’ve got a lovely fresh polar bear for you if you show…(owner hits the cage)

    O: There, he moved!

    C: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the cage!

    • Yep, I know. In Vic and NSWand of course Queensland the governments are making all sorts of ridiculous environmental decisions. In NSW, they have passed a law allowing hunting in National Parks.On the surface sounds like a good way of dealing with feral deer and whatnot but the impact of 4WD’s on the soil, particularly in sensitive wetlands and alpine bogs is devastating. Also the trophy hunters taking heads and leaving bodies increases the number of corvids, foxes and feral cats. In Victroria they are also allowing cattle grazing in Alpine National parks as well. The conservatives are all nuts.

      ________________________________

  39. john byatt

    The QLD govt, is looking what Vic and NSW has done and will possibly follow,
    Under the six month plan July/Dec 2012

    Improve infrastructure

    Commence work to amend the Queensland Coastal Plan.

  40. Sou

    unknowispeaksense, would you consider showing more comments under ‘recent comments’ (ie a longer list than the current four – say ten or more)? I suspect I’m missing a few gems.

  41. Sou

    Now that’s what I call a ‘rapid response’ :)

    Many thanks.

  42. john byatt

    commented at Open mind
    awaiting reply
    John byatt | March 3, 2013 at 7:12 am | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    OT

    Tamino, would this make the trend value even higher than F & R or in line with your conclusions ?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130301123048.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s