THE General Circulation Models that underpin the theory of anthropogenic global warming, have, for a very long time, since at least the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (AR2), predicted that atmospheric warming would be most obvious as an observable hot spot in the troposphere. In particular, the climate models predict an increased greenhouse effect, a hot spot, about 10 kilometres into the atmosphere directly over the tropics. 
Measurements from weather balloon radiosondes have found no hot spot. Satellite MSU sensors have found no hot spot.
So, should we toss out global warming theory? Not necessarily.
According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the apparent absence of a hot spot is because of likely errors in all the existing measurements of troposphere temperatures relative to the surface.
Now we have the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Have the errors in the measurements been found?
No comment in this report.
P.S. But no shortage of funds to look for the Hot Spot: according to published reports by the US government, the total Federal funding of climate change activities is greater than US$150 Billion since Fiscal Year 1993.
P.S.S. Image from Bob Carter’s book ‘Taxing Air: Facts & Fallacies about Climate Change’… visit http://www.taxingair.com. Click on the image for a larger/better view.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen should read a more serious discussion on the topic between Sherwood, Mears and Christy.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
Interestingly it’s not the issue that Sherwood would raise as a model issue. There are more important issues.
According to http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/#more-18392, the latest IPCC report concedes the discrepancy between models & observations.
What they don’t do is concede, (if they followed the scientific method), that this discrepancy refutes their AGW theory & thus the whole house of cards falls down.
Back in 2008 when I was a believer in the AGW alarm stories and the tropo-
sphere signature of greenhouse warming predicted by the models, I read a
letter, ‘The Missing Hotspot’, in The Australian written by Dr David Evans who
had been a consultant to the GreenHouse Office, 1999-2005, but was now a
skeptic. This letter made me aware that the science might not be settled and
sent me on a journey on the internet, Steve McIntyre et al, here and later on
Judith Curry as she began her open forum on the debate. Of course I was very
careful ter avoid the oil shills and I already knew about the old left shoring up
in the Environmental Movement.)
This is a pdf similar ter the letter by David Evans in The Australian.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/sep/21/isaac-newton-scientist-sorcerer
Oops Apologies Jennifer,The pdf got lost and Newton came from an url at
Climate Etc. Do not ask me why, I am jest a serf. I will resend. (
The Missing Url.
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Beth – David Evans is Joanne Nova’s husband. He has 5 degrees including a PhD from Stanford.
Tonight’s Mediawatch was a disgrace. They accused Alan Jones of all kinds of errors yet, as Graeme M correctly pointed out, they were the ones making errors. In fact tonight’s half hour of TV had more errors than Alan Jones produces in 3 1/2 hours of live radio, 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year!
I hope Alan sues them for defamation!
Who’s David Evans – has he published anything on climate ? Beth if you’ve been on a journey it’s been down the rabbit hole of grunge. Try thinking. Compare what he writes with my cite above – you wouldn’t have to Einstein to work out that while smart enough these people are far from having any serious domain knowledge. But he can probably do you a gold quote.
But why have any standards – John thinks Alan Jones is “source”. Good lord. I guess people believe anything.
Yes Luke – look at what you believe. OMG!
Now what were those degrees you have and what papers you have published?? chirp chirp!
“Perhaps the most remarkable and puzzling thing about the “hot spot” question is the tenacity with which climate contrarians have promoted it as evidence against climate models, and against global warming in general…If I were looking for climate model defects, there are far more interesting and more damning ones around.”
Steven Sherwood pulls Luke’s Nairobi defense! Don’t say this sucks, because there are other things which suck even worse.
It’s safe to say that these infantalisers will always have a smart comeback, because they do not feel confined by sense or evidence but only by the reach of their spin. Sack the Klimatariat. Just sack ’em with a big sack. Spend many more billions on researching atmosphere and oceans…but not with these turkeys on the payroll.
Well the big big problem for Anecdote lovers, and let’s face it every datum point is a player, is how to know if you’re onto something.
As usual not an intelligent comment here form anyone. What a bunch of drongos.
Reality is that data aren’t good enough to tell whether there’s a hot spot or not.
The whole hotspot scam is PURE sceptic bullshit. Not Jen’s graph has model error bars but but no data error bars.
WHAT A CROCK and you all fell for it (Again!)
Alan Jones lovers – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And Serf-girlie – was into AGW alarmism in 2008. Well that’s was a bit silly wasn’t it. And now she’s found salvation in the arms of scepticism. Oh pullease.
Licence people who are called Robert not guns !
John Sayers, yes, that was a bit over the top. I don’t know how the blogosphere debate panned out but by my reading the IPCC did predict a rate of .2C/decade and obs show that to have been wrong. So their modelling was (and is?) wrong.
But hey, maybe I have misread the SPMs…
I left a comment at the Mediawatch website, if I got it wrong I am sure someone there will point it out to me! 🙂
Graeme, Jones was referring to the draft report that was leaked – the reference to getting it wrong by half was in that report, they then dropped it in the final release last friday.
I doubt that our Supercell reads everything he links to, but I guess it’s more about achieving the right haughty tone. Appeal to authority is a weak enough ploy, but in Luke’s case it’s just an appeal to rank snobbery.
Anyway, better not excite him further. In spite of my great fondness for Supercell, a post like the one above makes me suspect he can go a little crazy…and not like a fox!
Well Robby we are talking about science not penis length or fishing stories.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/misinformationBlitz_1024w_med.jpg
Calmer now, Supe?
Casting doubt, attacking consensus, denying data…these skeptics have been reading Pascal! Could lead to the collapse of scientism and a flowering of (gulp) science.
Not likely as Pascal is yet another dead language loved by obscurantists.
We don’t need no stinkin’ Argos or radiosondes.
“Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, said that since 1980, climate models had on average overstated the extent of warming by between 79 and 159 per cent.”
With models like this, who needs enemies?
Time to change the subject Luke.
IF THE HOT SPOT IS HIDING then why can’t it be found? I mean the weather balloons and satellites have been recording temps in that area of the troposphere for decades.
But at least the IPCC has come clean on their lie of more extreme weather events and promoted endlessly by that fool Garnaut, Fairfax and their ABC etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_dials_back_the_fear_of_extreme_weather/#commentsmore
BTW Luke has nothing to be snobbish about. He doesn’t even have the maths understanding of an average 5 year old and thinks that just about everyone is a climate criminal.
But his reasoning????? is completely illogical and he isn’t even game enough to tell us how to fix his frightful CAGW. What a dunce.
I say that we must get rid of susidies on renewables and invest in more R&D and of course adapt to any future emergency. AND definitely NO CO2 TAXES or ETS ever.
Because they can’t make a scrap of difference, but new energy sources and technology may offer us an alternative to fossil fuels in the future. Who knows? And if we even think that is desirable.
Spangled as usual you are correct. Lomborg had a guest post on WUWT with a very clear graph that clearly shows the failure of the models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models-are-running-way-too-hot/ You can follow his link for a more comprehensive column.
Judith Curry is right, the IPCC should be put down and thrown in the bin. After the Canada backlash, the Aussie backlash and German backlash perhaps we may have an ongoing electoral revolt against this nonsensical IPCC extremism and the parties that promote it.
Source for Neville is Bolt and Wattsup. Neville they’re crap. Puerile rot but you love it.
In his full article Lomborg has a link to a new study that finds that some climate models have exaggerated warming by 300%.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
This was published online in august 2013. But it’s behind a paywall worse luck.
Luke you’re a real donkey. At the Copenhagen Consensus Lomborg has pick of a team of the best economists, maths profs and statisticians.
A number of them are Nobel prize winners and Lomborg himself is a maths and stats expert as well.
You just haven’t got a clue have you? I think Lomborg’s team could read reports plus data and plot and draw graphs etc with the best of them. Certainly better than your mob who don’t understand stats and even use data upside down to plot and draw a graph. What a joke.
And Mann is still claiming his fraudulent HS is okay. But even the IPCC has abandoned him and his stupid study to the dustbin of history.
Luke thinks is “science” and worse still, he believes what they write without thinking.
Says a lot when you get Skeptical Science to do your thinking for you!!!
Luke even provides links to Skeptical Science – I assume he thinks its worth reading?
Poor Luke thinks Skeptical Science is “science” and worse still, he believes what they write without thinking.
Says a lot when you get Skeptical Science to do your thinking for you!!!
Luke even provides links to Skeptical Science – I assume he thinks there is something there worth reading?
Skeptical Science is very “sciencey”, for the serious alarmists only.
Luke?
It appears your definition of intelligence is suffering from terminal and increasingly narrow tunnel vision.
Since when was it only people who have a PhD or science degree AND work only in something like a University the Public Service or an NGO who are deemed ‘intelligent’ by you and/or the final authority on these matters?
SP is correct that linking to SKS is really no different to linking to WUWT…there is PLENTY of drivel at that SKS site…just drivel from what I guess you would call the ‘other side’ ?
As with WUWT there are also some interesting posts and thoughtful comments by lots of people who are OBVIOUSLY HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and also OBVIOUSLY WELL INFORMED.
I am totally sick of dismissive and sneering and rude comments made about people based on ridiculous stuff like their age or where they have been employed throughout their career.
Those are thoroughly reprehensible schoolyard bully tactics.
As Beth points out above, people look at and weigh up the evidence re the ‘settled science’. David Evans (among others who Luke has recently sneered at) is far from a lightweight or lacking intelligence or qualifications or credibility.
Just because he no longer works for the Gummint means absolutely SFA!
It’s actually more likely he is now free to speak from his personal experience, his personal qualifications and from his heart.
It’s amazing how Luke’s heroes, the doomer, alarmist, catastro axe grinders like Suzuki, Hansen, Ehrlich, Mann etc manage to go on forever regardless of how stupid they progressively become at the taxpayer’s expense, yet he doesn’t get that astute sceptics that hold down a REAL day job can asses the situation for what it really is.
Have you ever had an income other than the public bosom Luke?
C’mon, just a simple yes or no.
And I am happy to take silence as assent.
Jo and some other mug look at the missing THS:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
The ‘consensus’ about the THS here at section 1:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html
Figure 9.1 from AR4:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg
The original Club Troppo debate with David Evans and sundry loons from the alarmists:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/#comment-337361
I would love to have a good chat about the THS and why it is essential for AGW and why its absence in itself disproves AGW.
Evans and Nova – hah ! Gold diggers. Any publications – nope – so it’s not worth a cracker. Just more sceptic noise from fools.
You have to know they’re hurting with the degree of biting going on.
Hotspot is not even critical for AGW.
Heroes – Suzuki, Hansen, Ehrlich, Mann – nope – it the REAL authors of WG1
All hail and bow down.
Drafting Authors: Lisa Alexander (Australia), Simon Allen (Switzerland/New Zealand), Nathaniel
L. Bindoff (Australia), François-Marie Bréon (France), John Church (Australia), Ulrich Cubasch
(Germany), Seita Emori (Japan), Piers Forster (UK), Pierre Friedlingstein (UK/Belgium), Nathan
Gillett (Canada), Jonathan Gregory (UK), Dennis Hartmann (USA), Eystein Jansen (Norway), Ben
Kirtman (USA), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla (India), Peter Lemke
(Germany), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Gerald Meehl
(USA), Igor Mokhov (Russia), Shilong Piao (China), Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland), Qin Dahe
(China), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), David Randall (USA), Monika Rhein (Germany),
Maisa Rojas (Chile), Christopher Sabine (USA), Drew Shindell (USA), Thomas F. Stocker
(Switzerland), Lynne Talley (USA), David Vaughan (UK), Shang-Ping Xie (USA)
Draft Contributing Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Olivier Boucher (France), Don Chambers (USA),
Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen (Denmark), Philippe Ciais (France), Peter Clark (USA), Matthew
Collins (UK), Josefino Comiso (USA), Viviane Vasconcellos de Menezes (Australia/Brazil), Richard
Feely (USA), Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), Arlene Fiore (USA), Gregory Flato (Canada), Jan
Fuglestvedt (Norway), Gabriele Hegerl (UK/Germany), Paul Hezel (Belgium/USA), Gregory
Johnson (USA), Georg Kaser (Austria/Italy), Vladimir Kattsov (Russia), John Kennedy (UK), Albert
Klein Tank (Netherlands), Corinne Le Quéré (UK/France), , Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Tim Osborn
(UK), Antony Payne (UK), Judith Perlwitz (USA/Germany), Scott Power (Australia), Michael
Prather (USA), Stephen Rintoul (Australia), Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland), Matilde Rusticucci
(Argentina), Michael Schulz (Germany), Jan Sedláček (Switzerland), Peter Stott (UK), Rowan
Sutton (UK), Peter Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Donald Wuebbles (USA)
Unlike blog fools and faux scaptics these people are real scientists not blog whingers.
Give cut-and-paste to an uncontrollable snob and you get something very like the credits at the end of an SBS movie.
There are many papers in the links I provided luke; go back to the Jo Nova one and read them. Let me ask you, why isn’t the THS not essential for AGW and is a THS a product of first order forcing?
I’ll take that as a NO then Luke?
Thanks for posting on the tropical troposphere, Jen.
Back when I first started reading stuff about global warming (as it was called then), the “settled science” was that the extra heat man-made CO2 was causing was going to manifest as increased temp at the tropical troposphere. No ifs nor buts from our always-questioning ABC and Fairfax correspondents.
This made sense to a layman like me at he time – hot air rises, and all that.
But now I see we’re sidelining the troposphere and vesting all faith in the extra heat taking up residence in the deep oceans. This is the new settled science it seems ( but how extra CO2 got to radiate its heat-trapping magic miles down into the oceans is a tad hard for me to grasp).
Why do I feel as if the old “bait and switch” scam has just been tried on us punters by this latest IPCC report?
Many of those in Luke’s list come from this gravy train. This is really what is at stake in the AGW business.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/academic.html
the word ‘model’ appears 78 times in this page!
More lies and deception from the IPCC. Thanks Steve McIntyre.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#more-18425
Meanwhile it’s the hottest 12 months on record in Australia. LOL ! Fools ….
No its not luke!
Mention of heat records (thanks Luke) reminds me – why don’t we have an extra new categorization of temp movements – “in-detectable by mammals in their natural state”?
Just to put those 0.003C increase type “records” into perspective?
“Meanwhile it’s the hottest 12 months on record in Australia.”
“Records have been kept since 1910.”
Nobody live here before that.
What a dill you are Luke.
What a joke poor Luke is. But why are we fools and what could we do about it even if it was true? And it’s not.
BTW even more fraud and deception by IPCC lead authors. This bloke knowingly lied to Judith Curry, just proves what scum they are.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/marotzkes-broken-promise/#more-18416
Maybe because there are simply waaaaaaay tooooooo many people involved in /qualified in/ employed in/ lecturing in Climate Change & Climate Science & Science Communication & Environmental Politics etc ect. . . is why the messages and the data have become so mixed up and increasingly vitriolic?
Also Luke, why is the claim that it’s the hottest 12 months on record in OZ so important/relevant or lol – able?
What’s funny about that claim. . . which is:
a) Only weather and
b) Just a stat with narrow start/stop datum points
??????
No way of telling for sure, of course, but here in Eastern Oz we probably have just had the hottest twelve months on record…a mere ninety eight years ago. Less than nothing in climate terms.
Be interesting to know what this “weak” El Nino did to temps:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/190203/190111-190210.gif
No way of telling, of course. But even Kidman couldn’t work his way round that one. Maybe some rain in the west helped cool what stats there were for the whole continent.
Anyway, you don’t need an El Nino to get baked half to death in a place like Oz. Think 2012 spring-early summer. Think 1939, 1960.
And I’m not too pleased with the weather right now! Maybe the period from 2007 to 2012 was a bit of a fool’s paradise for bamboo lovers. They say that sort of thing about Oz, don’t they? But we forget.
In fact, now we have a paid professional class of forgetters.
Oh yes it it is the hottest – since 1890
So think about it – a neutral year and it’s going gang busters – but but but you clowns are sitting around in DENIAL ! It’s classic.
And I just saw this too – http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-has-hottest-12-months-on-record-20131001-2upap.html
One can only agree
And of course the temperature not rising pause stuff is rubbish anyway 100% stats artificat.
In fact all NH seasons except winter are up up up !
Did know that did ya’s?
Stupid stupid stupid sceptics.
A warmer world? That medieval warm only affected North and South America, Africa, Asia and Europe. To think this warming is global!
Gangbusters heat in a neutral year? My, that’s an anecdote to put right alongside 1939. (How did those 30s make such a mess all over the world without El Nino?)
Hey, Supercell, “stupid stupid stupid” sounds a bit girlie. Why not frankenskeptics? As in, we’re worse than you thought. Just helping out here, Supe. Love your work.
We’re past 1939 Bobbit
Luke – you really should get out of your cocoon and travel a bit – no one here or in Europe cares a damn about global warming – here in Dubai they burn gas for power at over twice the rate per head that we do.
Apparently there is a gas pipe out on one of the offshore islands with a permanent gas flame powering away – been going for the past 10 years – too much trouble to go and tap it and close it down.
Hottest September here in the “allowed” record is 1965. Hottest in the naughty record occurred between 1910 and 1920. Right now I’m spewing over the drought, but I need to remember that no rain fell here at all in September 1907 and our lowest fall for October was a measly 4.3 in 1908. It’s worse than I thought! Or used to be worse than I thunk. Or something.
Don’t try to line all that up with ENSO, by the way. ENSO’s a rough but handy observation set. Doesn’t work like a computer game. And I suppose adults shoudn’t have to be told that.
David Evans, Lukey, has multi qualifications and was a consultant to the
GreenHouse Office, but hey, Luke, if it’s all based on qualifications ,then
yer gonna hafta demonstrate why I should be guided by you.
You could also clarify why we should listen ter those with more certainty than
Socrates, who KNOW that the science is settled and we-must listen-ter authority
but don’t like ter show their workings. . If yer study history, Lukey, yer’ll see that
listenin’ ter the great leader does not always work out well. We should always
regard our theories as provisional and open ter criticism and testing, Luke. (ref
David Hume, Karl Popper and NassimTaleb) See me First Edition of Serf Under-
ground , (or not.)
beththeserf.
Hope the gentle rain from heaven falls on yer soon, Robert.
A serf who understands about vicissitudes in weather,
Beth – philosophy isn’t climate science.
Serf, when you have enough bamboo a drought is just a break from shoot gathering or a chance to do other things. That’s possibly why forestry was so good around here in the drier first half of the 20th century: easy access to mature timber.
I still need to expand the acreage and I’ve only just started to get 90′-100′ poles. Spring drought is everything I don’t need. In three years time, fine. Right now, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge. Air is like soup tonight, but no bloody rain. Whinge, whinge etc…
Hey Cohenite, I hadn’t read that Club Troppo debate before. Too many comments to wade through – do you know how Evans went in defending his claims? He seemed to be giving Lambert as good as he got.
What’s the world’s wisdom about hotspots these days, I know that Jo Nova still claims its a central weakness of AGW theory.
Well Graeme M – don’t slum it – try http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
Hi Graeme David Evans more than held his own.
Luke won’t discuss the THS; either that or he is still peddling around trying to get an answer to my question earlier about whether a THS is a product of first order forcing or not.
As I linked to before, Jo did a good overview of the papers about a THS:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
The Unleashed link I provided earlier looks at the Thorne paper which sums up the official position, that is, a dog’s breakfast.
But…but….Professor Karoly on sky on Sunday night said the atmosphere was cooling with altitude as expected…he said…so much for solidarity with the IPCC.
Oh Cohenite wants to play. Excuse me, I was just playing a game of dickheads with my mates here and didn’t notice.
The data are not good enough to determine the existence if a THS. The end.
Thanks for that link Luke, I haven’t been to Climate Dialogue for a while but I enjoyed the Arctic sea ice discussion of some time back. I’ll have a read when i get a moment tomorrow.
It’s true the data is all over the place but is always less than the model predictions which to a chip predict a rate of warming in the troposphere greater than on the surface.
I only read Mears and Christy; Sherwood I wouldn’t give the time of day to. Mears says this:
“Because the MALR decreases with temperature, this means the any temperature increase at the surface becomes even larger high in the troposphere. This causes the so called hot spot, a region high in the troposphere that shows more warming (or cooling) than the surface. Note that at this point, I haven’t said a thing about greenhouse gases. In fact, this effect has nothing to do with the source of the warming, as long as it arises near the surface. Surface warming due to any cause would show a tropospheric hotspot in the absence of other changes to the heating and cooling of the atmosphere. Never the less, the tropospheric hotspot is often presented as some sort of lynchpin of global warming theory. It is not. It is just a feature of a close-to-unstable moist atmosphere”
That doesn’t make sense; if your surface is warming then evaporation increases and puts more moisture into the atmosphere and your MALR decreases; he can’t have it both ways; and with solar supposedly constant or decreasing according to AGW, that surface heating is coming from AGW.
Well, it isn’t.
Interesting that a claim of lack of data on the THS will not allow the warmers to say it doesn’t exist but 15 years of data on no warming doesn’t rate.
Looks like the US govt “shutdown” could have some advantages:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/noaa-places-a-moratorium-on-data-tampering/#comments
Good point Spangled. Roy Spencer has a new post that covers much of the above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/the-global-warming-they-fear-is-not-based-upon-physical-first-principles/#comments
In his conclusion he seems to say that feedbacks may be positive for a short time and become negative later on????
At least that’s what I think he says. Sort of like less clouds causing warming and the extra warming then causing more evaporation and more clouds and rain? Or have I got that wrong?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/the-global-warming-they-fear-is-not-based-upon-physical-first-principles/#comments
But haven’t Lindzen and Choi shown that more heat is escaping to space anyway? And isn’t that a sign that AGW theory is wrong perhaps?
If a blanket isn’t thick enough on a cold night your body heat soon leaves the bed? Probably not a good analogy I know.
Sorry for the double link above . Too much on at the moment for a very tired brain.
Golly, SD, with NOAA shut down how will 2014 become the hottest year evah? The BoM might contribute fancy colour ideas for weather maps – but, after Rudd and Carr, everyone just groans, blocks their ears and averts their eyes as soon as they see an Aussie stride on to the international stage. Can’t blame ’em.
Good column from Lomborg in today’s OZ.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-world-is-warming-but-theres-no-need-to-panic/story-fni1hfs5-1226731120767
Robert, US money printing causing AGW?…Hmmmm, ya might be onta something there.
A good quote frpom that Lomborg column in the OZ.
Quote.
“A good example is the so-called EU 20/20 climate policy. The average of the top economic energy models shows that this policy costs $250 billion annually, mostly in reduced growth. Across the 21st century it will cost about $20 trillion. Yet, on a standard climate model, by the end of the century, it reduces the temperature rise by a trivial 0.05C. In other words, for every dollar spent, it avoids 3c of global warming damages.
Depressingly, I debated Bryony Worthington, who has helped implement this policy in Britain. She claimed she had worked in this area for decades and had never seen such high costs for the policy, or such low impacts. I actually had to direct her to the peer-reviewed research because the EU has never made analyses of its cost-benefit or effectiveness”
Incredibly this woman was interviewed by Bolt about 2 years ago on a similar matter and she claimed ignorance then as well.
Yet they can imploy these fools that involves the waste of a quarter of a TRILLION $ a year over the EU for zip return until 2100.
87 years X by 0.25 = 21.75 trillion $ for a saving of 0.05c. What a load of crap.
Neville, no wonder the public breast feeders love it.
Old age is a bastard ain’t it Luke?
Pity some one couldn’t work out a way to shut down Euro printing.
Very tough hard hitting column by Judith Curry. Go Judith.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/
Here’s Wet Blanket Larry’s stooopid question of the day:
In the past, the missing Hot Spot was supposed to be mid-tropospheric. Now it’s up around 10km. That’s either UPPER tropospheric or lower stratospheric. What gives?
Larry I’ve only noticed that the troposphere mid point is said to be 10 to 12 klms in most written info. Perhaps it refers to volume and not just height? Who knows?
Here’s another barking mad claim from CBS news supporting Hansen’s boiling oceans idiocy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/02/climate-craziness-of-the-week-climate-boiling-point/#more-95005
Neville proves that he’s a halfwit – the graph under the video in your Wattscrap link puts climate sensitivity at 3C – hahahahahahahahaha
He was clearly talking about Venus. HE SAID – “WE have never had a runaway greenhouse effect”
Please apologise and withdraw your gross error !
Neville joins the ever dwindling band of ranters holding up the decline in sceptic blog numbers – http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/readership-of-all-major-sceptic-blogs-going-down.html people are awake up to the shrill screehing of twits like Neville.
Hansen – the oceans will boil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8
I suggest you read it with the captions ON – it makes more sense (than Hansen) that way – even funny, or more sense than Luke for that matter
“What? Yes that’s right. The real story may not be in the IPCC rowback on temperature ranges, or its cack-handed “explanations” for the stalling temperatures. It may in fact all be in this table. Be sure to look for yourself. Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of “Very unlikely” or “Exceptionally unlikely” and/or has “low confidence”. The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is “Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice”, which itself has a ‘likely’ rating and liable to occur by mid century with medium confidence. As the litany of climate disasters go, that’s it.
”
View IPCC Table 12.4 and more at
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/2/a-report-from-the-royal.html
“…the ever dwindling band of ranters holding up the decline in sceptic blog numbers…” Hmm, wonder what’s been happening since variable-var’s claims last May. I’m not a big reader of WUWT, though I find it a handy site at times.
Hmm. Now, Alexa page ranking is just more trashy stats, I suppose, but since Alexa ranking is all I can get without subscribing for other trashy stats…
Oh no – a hockey stick!
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
Still, Luke’s mates at variable-var will show you how to fix it with NoFollow. (Or try). And I’m sure GetUp or MoveOn have some ideas on the subject of traffic control. Don’t think of it as tuning reality. Think of it as more climate science. It’s like when you say “spiral”, mean “decline”, and the “decline” is actually this:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow_files/BIGglobal_snow_and_ice.gif.gif
Hey, a home grown hockey stick, good West Australian timber!
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/joannenova.com.au#trafficstats
Meanwhile, Tammy can’t make it into a graph…but at least his bounce rate is soaring!
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tamino.wordpress.com
DIY hockey stick:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/ipcc-if-the-data-doesnt-fit-the-theory-change-the-data/
Robert, as you already suggest yourself, Alexa is not reliable. There is reliable information available, for example the counter in the right menu (site meter) of WUWT itself. It shows no growth in readership.
The hockey stick is probably an artefact of the new WUWT Alexa browser toolbar.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2013/08/anthony-watts-WUWT-web-traffic-success.html
The WUWT readers with the Alexa toolbar probably also read Nova. This may explain the hockey stick of Joanne Nova. The counter in the menu of Joanne Nova does show a little growth the last month, but no hockey stick.
I’m still kacking that Neville shot himself in the toe. And they had to trawl around chasing my rabbit. Leadership gents. Leadership. BTW Robert – I don’t read your links as they’re inevitable time wasting denier fabrication.
Pity there is a verifiable statistically significant decline in snow cover – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/snow-2/
hahahahahahahahaha tools
Luke I’ve only read your silly rubbish in the last half hour. Too much work on at the moment. Who do you think you’re kidding?
Hansen isn’t talking about Venus when he says that the ice sheets could melt in a century. Then he states that there could be a runaway greenhouse effect in a couple more centuries.
And earlier he is definitely talking about the earth and venus is only added to further project his his boiling oceans garbage.
The climate sensitivity might also be as low as 0.5c, who knows. You’ll believe whatever your fanaticism dictates I guess.
But you must be joking about the reality of the sceptic blog’s superior numbers. They lead by a long way and at least they have the decency to allow everyone to have their say, whether they agree or not.
The extremists won’t tolerate a number of bloggers from the sceptic side, even refusing some of the most prominent people the chance to refute their lies, distortions and omissions.
I dunno, Supercell. I thought Rutgers-NOAA might be right up your alley for global snow and ice. And those Alexa results? Result of clicking on the graphs of the link YOU provided. (You should read one or two of your own links. They can be funny.)
Speaking of Luke’s very own links, if you press on the graph for Climate Audit – on the link that LUKE provided – here’s how McIntyre is declining:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climateaudit.org
But look out for Goddard and RS. It’s a hockey stick that’s all whopper head and no handle!
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/stevengoddard.wordpress.com
I’m guessing you won’t want to look at how Curry is cooking, Supe. Yep. A hockey stick with a very long head. From YOUR link.
As Supercell might say when in in his village commissar mode: Please apologise and withdraw your gross error ! Or as he might say in his ABC naughty manboy mode…actually I think I’ll skip that mode.
On the other hand
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/fort-collins-summers-getting-shorter/#comments
Neville – people but a lot of shit rags like celebrity magazines to read gossipy trash about movie stars and royals. Good to read on the dunny. Same thing in climate – there’s a market for tools like you and Robert to get your fill of climate porn. It’s infotainment not to be confused with reality or science. Every day there’s another dose of crap from climate pornographers for Neville to get excited about. Oh the addiction and faux range, But he loves it. It defines him.
You guys don’t read McIntyre – it’s above your grade level. How is your R Robbie and Nev? Parlez vous R? hahahahahaha
Luke you’re wrong again about BOs Hansen because he was talking about the earth you dummy. Don’t forget that Pearman one of the most senior CSIRO scientists teamed up with Gore and Hansen to advise them on their Looney AIT.
When it ( AIT) was released the CSIRO and BOM stated that the science was about right. What a standing joke all these scientists are.
To get the sort of collapse in the Greenland ice sheets that these fools projected Lomborg’s team estimated that we would need an extra 120 mm a year increase in SLR until 2100. That’s nearly 5 inches a year until 2100, good luck with that.
BTW the IPCC estimated SLR from Gland until 2100 would be 3cm and that’s from 2006 until 2100. TOTAL SLR from Gland melt. Geeezzzzz.
The Gore , Hansen etc estimate over the same period is 609cm or 174 times as much as the 2006 IPCC estimate. Don’t forget according to your CSIRO, BOM and Pearman they think AIT was about right. Pearman has to agree because he was an expert consultant.
Climate porn is out there for sure but it’s all coming from your side. These people are the real celebrities that you fools listen to, not us thank garrwwwd. What a joke you and your celebs are, a real giggle.
Luke those other OZ celebs Flannery and their ABC’s Williams put Hansen and Gore in the shade when it comes to SLR estimates.
Poor Robyn better get a move along if he hopes to see his 100 metres by 2100. For the next 87 years he’ll need a rate of about 1.1 metres average every year.
Since he made his projection in 2009 he sure has lost a lotta metres. This is real hard core climate porn that seems to have become an addiction for Lukey and his celebs.
Try and give it a rest Luke, it can’t be good for ya.
Good post from the Bolter and BOM graphs to look at AGAIN. More of Luke’s climate porn I suppose?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/heaviest_rain_in_a_century_in_the_last_place_in_australia_where_warmists_pr/#commentsmore
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/climate-council-reports-warmest-september-on-record-20131003-2uv76.html
I guess this must be another example of what Luke claims or describes as:
” It’s infotainment not to be confused with reality or science. Every day there’s another dose of crap from climate pornographers.”
????????????
There is now little evidence for extreme weather events link to AGW. Top marks to Pielke jnr. It should now be a dead issue.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/pielke-jr-agrees-extreme-weather-to-climate-connection-is-a-dead-issue/#more-95040
Looks like abrupt CC isn’t going to be much of a problem for the 21st century.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/03/did-the-ar5-take-the-dangerous-out-of-agw/#more-13233
Our Supercell. He didn’t say it and even if he did say it the dog ate his homework and the cheque’s in the mail and moreover he’s been taken out of context by skepticists. Skepticism and homework-eating dogs…every day in this parliament…nothing but skepticism and homework-eating dogs from these pornographers…
Hansen didn’t say the oceans will boil. He said the oceans will boil. If you people can’t see the difference between “oceans will boil” and “oceans will boil”…
It’s no wonder the readership of skeptic blogs is declining. All you have to do is turn the ranking graphs upside down and you can see it so clearly.
Hmmm… had a read of the Climate Dialogue article about THS. Bit over my head but I think I followed the gist of it. By and large the view seems to be as Luke says – measurements aren’t good enough to be confident one way or t’other. Depends a little on who’s telling you what they say, I think.
However, my layperson’s take on that is the old “if it looks like a dog it probably is” type of thing. If a THS is thought to occur due to surface warming from any cause, and the surface is warming due to CO2, why then the THS should be pretty clear. If it isn’t, doesn’t that call into question the extent to which the surface is actually warming? Or, that a THS should follow surface warming?
And that’d be my take on the whole for AGW. If it’s occurring then the projections/predictions/claims etc of those who are certain it’s occurring must become evident. To date they simply have not. Yes, we can say it’s warming, but then it has warmed at other times.
I also think the fact that so much anecdotal evidence is swept under the carpet is telling. For example, and I know this is a dumb way of looking at things, but what would today’s commentary say about the Noachian flood in California back in the 1800s? The Federation drought? The failure of the monsoons for over 10 years. And so on. Taken in today’s context, they’d all be evidence of drastic climate change. And perhaps they were at the time. Briefly. But mostly, they were probably just… weather.
As best I can tell from what I read, the changes we see caused by warming are moderate at worst, and not at all clear in many cases. The sense that we have a major catastrophe looming any time soon just isn’t there, and even the IPCC seems to be echoing that fact in some respects.
I also note some interesting comments in the latest post at Curry’s in regard to Luke’s suggestions about paleo evidence for sensitivity which I think are excellent counter-points, or at least, points of consideration rather than blind agreement.
Gotta say, I’m still in the 60-70% sceptical camp.
Has Clive Hamilton ever been correct about anything?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/is_clive_hamilton_an_anto_anglo_racist/
Bob Tisdale has six questions for the IPCC.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/bob-tisdale-six-questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc/#more-31039
Bob and Jo need to ask them because the MSM will not.
That would be the self-confessed stats nong Bob Tisdale would it. ROFL !
Entertainment for idiots with no tits.
luke, you are the itinerant loon of the climate blogs with the best/worst case of ODD I have seen.
Your link to Climate dialogue with Christy, Mears and some other idiot is worth a look; but again I ask you is the THS a first order forcing or not?
Willis has found that clouds have a strong negative feedback.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-cloud-radiative-effect-cre/#more-95082
Willis ! Willis has …. right ….. fuck a duck
Thanks Neville. Willis is a hands on, seat of the pants, real world scientist.
He may not have got it right but he has made a big effort in the right direction and his explanation makes sense. I have never read anything like this from anyone else on this pivotal feedback except a mild statement that low clouds were neg and high clouds were pos. Quantitatively SFA.
But all our darling Luke can utter is shrill derision and SFA.
A bit of catching-up to do in the west:
http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/09/wettest-september-over-100-years-20139308514391441.html
Willis stuff is a conflated mess of nonsense – see the comments. Neville loves bilge. Illustrates why peer review IS ESSENTIAL. To save doofers from themselves. Neville will jump on anything.
The more Luke realises the warmist cause is lost the more his language and behaviour deteriorate.
Supercell, the oceans will boil, the dog ate my heat, hahaha
Now hush yer mouth Luke… say, where is that lye soap?
Remember this? The people that heralded the THS also claimed Al’s Inconvenient Truth was really the truth.
How inconvenient:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-or-gores-opportunism-you-decide/2006/09/08/1157222329040.html
Willis may not have it right but I doubt he is any worse than the “clueless on clouds” brigade.
OK, I read Willis’ post and there’s some comments that I’ve seen on other discussions,. so lemme ask the dumb question. What’s all this stuff about clouds warming the ground? People seem to presume that when clouds are around they warm the earth, when they aren’t the earth is colder. But isn’t that an arse about view?
Clouds are a meteorological phenomenon – they form in response to certain conditions. Generally speaking, in cool weather warmer wetter conditions will cause clouds while dry cool conditions do not. Isn’t it the conditions causing the clouds, not the other way round? In fact, I am guessing there is some sort of temperature point at which clouds warm because the conditions are warmer, but eventually they do cool because the ground is hotter than the temperature of the air and the shade effect outweighs the warming..
And while I’m at it, I saw someone suggest that in the future solar would be cheap enough for us to drive all the grid by solar. Stick solar cells on roofs and in deserts. Now, I don’t know how solar cells work, but I assume they use the sun’s radiation. If we covered the ground with enough cells, worldwide, to drive our energy needs, would we change the radiative balance? Rather than heating the earth, the radiation would be absorbed and turned to electricity. Or do solar cells use something other than the sun’s SW radiation? This is a hypothetical question to some extent, I have no idea how much energy a solar cell absorbs/converts…
Graeme, on cool clear nights sudden cloud cover does cause warming but it is a bit like the global warming that warms the Tundra. It has it’s uses. It’s all good.
When it cools the earth through the day, likewise.
But, IMHO, the energy radiated down during the night is much less than the energy radiated up during the day.
A classic Freudian from Julia Slingo at the Royal Society meeting to discus WG1 of the IPCC:
“There was a palpable air of many having been rattled by “the hiatus”. Excuses ranged from aerosols to soot to natural variability. One of the latter invocations caused an intervention from the Met Office’s Julia Slingo – she pointed out that the PDO could lead to no further warming for up to 30 years, “so we’re not out of the woods yet”. I thought that was a particularly curious turn of phrase given how so many dedicated alarmists tell me they would be overjoyed if no global warming came to pass.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/2/a-report-from-the-royal.html
If that’s not as good as Climategate for showing the true attitude of these professional alarmists and public tit suckers, I dunno what is.
But even Luke doesn’t drop clangers like that!
Graeme,
Despite appearances otherwise. . . it isn’t rocket science
🙂
Spend some time out here away from ‘other’ influences like roads and buildings etc and simply observe how cloud cover influences every different minute 24/7/365 & 1/4.
The easiest ob is that at night clouds conserve heat and during the day they keep heat out.
However there are of course numerous permutations after observing the basics.
Numbers of cloud free days over the summer cropping season also directly affect yields in crops like corn and cotton.
Rice just likes it hot and doesn’t care as much about direct sunlight.
But despite all that CAGW stuff. . . . the basic principles and the basic functions of the influence of clouds is not particularly difficult to observe or understand.
I hope Willis and others read this from Roy Spencer. It seems great minds think alike and on the same day.
Geeezzzz Spangled it looks like Slingo is showing her slip. They are all feeling the pressure just like our Lukey. YUK YUK ya gotta luv it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/oceanic-cloud-decrease-since-1987-explains-13-of-ocean-heating/#comments
Debbie yes, but what I was sort of getting at is more that clouds are caused by the weather at the time. If you have a cold clear night in winter, it’s because you have a high pressure system usually with low humidity. Clouds don’t then spontaneously occur. They come along because the weather changes, usually because a moist warm airstream brings the clouds. Alternatively you can have a mild night which becomes cooler as a cold front blows through, in that case the clouds aren’t warming anything – rather the weather system is cooling things.
I’m not trying to make it harder than it seems, I just would have thought the effect of the weather system is more often than not the reason the air changes temp, not because clouds are radiating anything or preventing radiation escaping… I’m sure they do that, it just seems to me that it’s the weather that is the determining factor.
I can see that in high summer the shading effect of clouds would help cool things, but on the whole clouds per se would mostly be a cooling factor, warming would be more to do with the weather that gave rise to the clouds.
Graeme, Joni explains it beautifully:
“I can see that in high summer the shading effect of clouds would help cool things, but on the whole clouds per se would mostly be a cooling factor, warming would be more to do with the weather that gave rise to the clouds.”
Exactly right; hot weather, more evaporation, more atmospheric WV to form clouds; clouds form; on balance clouds cool, weather cools less evaporation, less clouds, warms again, and so on. For technical details see Ramanathan; here is a good place to start:
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~sagnik/Albedo.pdf
Just deleted 25 comments back to something that could be vaguely related to missing hot spot. If you want to just chatter… please go to ‘Open Thread’.
This thread is meant to be about atmospheric temperatures and in particular missing hot spot.
Sorry, my bad, Jen.
The hotspot? Nobody can find it.
‘Troposheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by
historical increases in greenhouse gases. (1-3.)Maximum warming is predicted
to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.’ Santer, Wigley, Meares
et al ‘Science.’ May 13, 2005.
Here’s a falsifiable prediction that Santer et al made that seems ter have been,
well, falsified by the Team’s and the satellites’ failure ter come up with the missing
‘CAGW signature’ as stated in SAR. Going quiet on this or being in ‘denial’ is not
an honest scientific option. Bts.
Beth – you have to the brains for the debate and actually read what you’re mindlessly citing. If you had read the actual paper and you clearly haven’t you would know about the tremendous difficulties with the quality of the data sets involved (well discussed in Santer et al) and noted Jen’s sleight of hand of only presenting obs with no error bars. Hey haven’t we been over this? Try harder Beth and speak English.
Exactly right Beth; luke needs to man up and fess up to the fact that the bullet-ridden carcase of AGW did predict a THS with nary to be found. Remember Figure 9.1:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg
Just compare the different images for the different heating sources; is anthropogenic atmospheric heating the same as the other natural sources? No, it isn’t.
But what about the big NATURAL sources of co2. In the satellite images these main sources are found in the Amazon basin, tropical Africa and SE Asia, all areas where there is little human population and development.
BTW there is zip satellite evidence of major co2 emissions in the world’s big industrial centres like the USA, Europe, China etc.
See here at 38mins on Salby’s Hamburg video. If THS does exist perhaps we should be asking why it can’t be found after decades of searching and keep asking for an answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
It’s a pity we haven’t as yet got good satellite source images of co2 from the world’s oceans.
Neville – take your off topic denialist stupidity on CO2 and general rat dirt to the Open Thread. You’ll note his drivel is not published. I wonder why. Ho hum.
Luke the satellite image sketches are not Salbys. Do you have another image that disputes those natural sources of co2?
You always shoot the messenger because it doesn’t suit your argument.
“Neville loves bilge. Illustrates why peer review IS ESSENTIAL.”
and this indicates why pseudo science, wrapped up as science due to “peer support” remains a massive exercise in group think and human gullibility and tendency to catastrophism….http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/04/sting-operation-the-stunning-percentage-of-science-journals-that-accepted-a-completely-bogus-study/
it says; “Science magazine wanted to figure out just how legitimate open-access, peer-reviewed journals are. So, it set out to dupe them with a completely fake study…
More than half of the journals John Bohannon submitted his paper about the fictitious, anticancer properties identified in a lichen compound were accepted for publication.
The first and easiest clue that could have been picked out by the journals was that the study’s author, Ocorrafoo Cobange, does not exist as a real person, nor does his research institute, the Wassee Institute of Medicine.
But beyond that, Bohannon wrote in Science that “any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s short-comings immediately.”…
The experiment was testing so-called “open-access” journals — those that are not subscription based…
Of the 304 submissions of the fake study during a 10-month timeframe (only 255 submitted received some sort of response from editors) 157 seemed to miss the study’s “fatal flaws”… Of the 106 submissions that did undergo review, only 36 recognized the scientific problems with the study. Sixteen publications, even with “damning reviews,” still accepted the paper.”
peer review…mmmmmmm wonderful stuff if its done properly, but given the crap offered up as science nowadays you’d have to be pretty gullible to believe in it. Wouldn’t you??!
“Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right,” former IPPC reviewer Professor Ross McKitrick.
says it all really.
And they say sceptics should be locked away and charged with crimes against humanity…oh the irony!!
Yeah Luke, deal with the subject but not like Bill McKibben:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/mckibben_plastic.jpg
Cohers, that combined feedbacks THS as generated by the models looks HOT to within at least 95% of confidence.
I wonder where it went?
Luke!
Shooting the messenger is poor form. It belongs in places like Deltoid.
The THS as proposed in that Santer et al 2005 paper that Beth refers to… along with other ‘peer reviewed’ papers in that same time frame…. is indeed still MISSING and missing OUTSIDE of… to quote you:
“the tremendous difficulties with the quality of the data sets involved”
… and also OUTSIDE of the error bars.
A collection of off topic trash. Will Jen snip the drivel. Now Debs you have penchant for the mindless. If you don’t read Santer et al and stop being too stupid for words I’m not going to discuss your need to hand wave. It’s within the error bars you silly person.
SD, I don’t know where the heat went but I’m 95% certain it was never there.
Luke is getting preoccupied with off-topic trash; I’m still waiting for his response to my question whether a THS is a first order forcing or not.
Cohers, yes, he loves to let you know his on-topic POV.
After all these years I don’t think he trusts us.
“The bureau had to add dark purple and magenta to its colour-coded weather forecasting map”
It’s the colours that give you confidence.
Theory innoculation by advocacy climatologists isn’t scientific method. Luke.
Just as ad hominum obfuscation in place of specific evidence, by you Luke,
isn’t critical argument.
Jest-a-serf.
“Theory innoculation by advocacy climatologists isn’t scientific method.”
I’m trying to stay out of the sin bin, so I’ll just point to comments which interest.
Yes Beth, 🙂 🙂 🙂
said perfectly.
“Theory innoculation by advocacy climatologists isn’t scientific method” What does that even mean Beth ?
First of all who are the relevant advocacy climatologists in this context ?
And how are they innoculating what theory?
Why? I think you’re full of shit – so I’m really looking forward to an exposition.
Jest spittle Luke.
You serve out challenges like a Wimbledon champion – but – you – don’t – deliver.
Phtt! Missing hot spot, mechanisms and measurements regardin’missing heat,
lost in the Marianas Trench maybe? Climate sensitivity positive feed backs, again measurerments and mechanisms. You never checked the counter argument, ter
critically examine the oh so selectively sampled Hockey Stick, the antimonies
with the cross referenced historical record. You try to shout down and block out
counter arguments and I hafta say I find you a tad mean spirited. I do not think
I care ter read yr future posts or respond further to yer bludgeoning tactics.
Lucky Luke yer jest lucky that I’m no longer a cow girl or I might have come
after yer with me lasso. You have been spared. Live well and prosper and
open yer mind.
Beth-the serf-who-used-ter-be-a-cow-girl.
There you go luke, I bet you’ve got nothing like that on your CV:
“Beth-the serf-who-used-ter-be-a-cow-girl.”
Yes, pull your head in Luke and keep it civil.
I haven’t got a greenhide rope to lend you these days Beth but I got a stockwhip.
So essentially Beth as I suspected you can’t prosecute your argument. So you’re full of it. It’s just a gatling gun burst of bunk on THS !
“So who are the relevant advocacy climatologists in this context ? ” (Reason for non-answer is that you don’t know – it was just mindless dribble)
“And how are they innoculating what theory?” (answer – you don’t even know what you’re on about – it’s just pseudo-political discourse isn’t it)
Obviously you don’t know or you would have hit me for six !
BTW – if you’d like to lasso me and whip me – I’m into that stuff (you have to be, to love sceptics as much as I do). I’m not mean spirited – I found your comment an offensive slur and ask you to substantiate.
But if you took it personally I’m sorry http://www.tauyanm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/img_0136.jpg?w=300
Thx fer the offer , SD, the green hide would have been nice.
b-t-s.
(Me last words ter u, Lukey re yr puzzlement about innoculating theories.
To innoculate a theory from falsification when it does not agree with
empirical observations is to subvert the scientific method of conjecture,
test, tentatively validate or refute. It is to add epicycles when things
are not working out, making post adjustments, splicing records to hide
the decline, applying revisionism, ‘Oh, the THS wasn’t so important’, or,
I’ts a travesty the heat we predicted hasn’t turned up, er, the ‘missing’ heat
must be hidden away in the ocean depths,’ mechanism unexplained, …
even changing the theory from ‘global warming’ in a period of cooling and
calling it the all inclusive ‘climate change,’duh. )
So your point is what Beth? There’s some global multi-institutional conspiracy. Ho ho ho ! Projection !
Amazing Beth how you ignore the 95% of massive global effects in front of your nose to dwell on the 5%. But that’s what deniers do I guess.
Give him away Beth, afterall he doesn’t even understand kindy maths.
Another good post from Willis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/06/evidence-that-clouds-actively-regulate-the-temperature/#more-95213
And neither do you understand anything stupid – you’ve admitted it. You commended Willis’s previous post to us and it had a gross error. Self-admitted. Why did you mislead us Neville? Now you’d like to try again. Don’t be such a low life utter fraud Neville. You are the most uncritical parrot – that regurgitates on demand. You’re an idiot – a twit ! “Dang … so my post was wrong.” rambled Willis – well isn’t that great.
Instead of dining on pig slop – get yourself some critical analysis.
In fact Watts is such utter utter crap – there’s now a plethora of blogs unblogging the bilge that spews forth.
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
http://wottsupwiththat.com/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com.au/
It’s wonderful entertainment to watch stupidity being debunked day after day Neville. how’s your “R” course going !
And and and more from “Dang … so my post was wrong” – obviously doing a Tisdale (whoops sorry about the stats) …
Now the guy is lambasting the editor of Science. http://wottsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-dr-marcia-mcnutt-new-editor-in-chief-science-magazine/
“So Willis Eschenbach, a trained masseuse, blowhard blogger and unpublished 1975 psych major, tells Dr. McNutt, a PhD geophysicist with direct research credentials in environmental topics, that “people laugh at the bumf that passes for climate science in your pages”? There’s laughter take place Willis, you got that right.”
Neville’s mate!?
Luke,
It must be dependant on one’s definition of ‘conspiracy’?
Beth IMHO has very simply pointed out that much of what was earlier hypothesised re CAGW and CC has since proven to be not evident….the THS being the hypothesis discussed at this particular blog post.
That would be just a failed hypothesis IMHO, not a conspiracy.
Why would you try to claim Beth has ‘projected’ and is advancing an argument about: ” some global multi-institutional conspiracy”?
Of course Willis and others like Tisdale have made errors…as you often rightly claim it is a highly complicated data base that is being used…BUT!!!…the difference IMHO is that they are happy to admit to their errors when they’re pointed out and try to correct them.
Those blogs and links of yours above are no more ‘peer reviewed’ and/or credible than WUWT and they regularly indulge in petty, cowardly, schoolyard bully tactics, ‘shooting the messenger’ and protecting the theory of AGW rather than actually looking at updated empirical observations and/or directly engaging with people such us Watts.
I remember reading you berate the deltoids for remarkably similar behaviour a month or so ago.
Luke: “Amazing Beth how you ignore the 95% of massive global effects in front of your nose to dwell on the 5%.”
What “95% of massive global effects in front of your nose”? What does that rubbish mean?
I too am waiting for your response to Cohenite: “whether a THS is a first order forcing or not”
Just answer the question Luke:
IS THS A FIRST ORDER FORCING OR NOT?
Luke I have never ever tried to deliberately con anyone or behave in a fraudulent manner. And at WUWT they always behave in a decent way and correct their mistakes, as they should.
A lot better than your mob who have to be corrected by the two Mcs and can’t even use data in a correct way. Upside down is preferred sometimes and they don’t even acknowledge their mistakes.
But how are you going with your C crims lately and have you started your kindy maths course yet?
Also your stupid blogs won’t even allow comments they disagree with, what a sick joke.
And apart from getting rid of the THS and the MWP, here’s another thing we gotta get rid of:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/06/we-must-get-rid-of-the-carboniferous-warm-period/#more-95217
And watts more Luke, they’ll even let you comment.
Neville – nope – why do you continually source stupid material from a stupid site known for stupid disinformation where the lead writers suddenly are writing “oh I screwed that up” – your standards are pathetic. And you have the temerity to suggest that this is some substitute for science. And the gall to not even have a basic grounding in stats yet want to deliver stats arguments from people who are clearly twits. You’re a fraud. Your links are bogus.
Spangled – they snip you at Watts ! And why would you want to slum it with people that enjoy reading posts that we be revealed to be wrong in the next thread? Seems moronic.
“IS THS A FIRST ORDER FORCING OR NOT?” – uh no and sp – “what’s the difference between a duck”
Debs – ” and they regularly indulge in petty, cowardly, schoolyard bully tactics, ‘shooting the messenger’ ” – yes sums up Watts blog totally. I agree.
Debs – Beth failed to substantiate her smear. “Updated empirical observations” – you haven’t a clue what that even means. In fact there’s virtually no such thing. Pretty well everything is a model of something or a calibration of some sort.
But back to the THS topic post
Jen says “THE General Circulation Models that underpin the theory of anthropogenic global warming” – errrr not really – the main arguments would be from basic physics and paleo.
Then “Now we have the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Have the errors in the measurements been found?” what a silly statement. The errors aren’t missing?!? The data simply have wide error bounds.
Mears at Climate Dialogue sums up the issue “Taken as a whole, the errors in the measured tropospheric data are too great to either prove or disprove the existence of the tropospheric hotspot. Some datasets are consistent (or even in good agreement) with the predicted values for the hotspot, while others are not.”
Virtually no such thing?
As updated obs?
Pardon?
And sorry Luke. . . .While I agree that behaviour at WUWT is not perfect, my criticism was aimed at your links and the prevailing behaviour there.
And perhaps a bleeding obvious question. . . 🙂
It begins this way. . . .
IF the error bars are so great then why . . . . . . ??????
Maybe this wont be deemed irrelevant by JM it relates to Luke’s last post mentioning measurements.
And Luke I do not code (but I can if need be), coding is easy and incredibly boring! any fool can learn it
hoping
Oh forget it!
Luke you have zip logic and reason all the time. Tisdale and Eschenbach are posting nearly every week and of course they’ll sometimes make mistakes, even Einstein made mistakes.
But the likes of Briffa, Gergis, Karoly Mann etc have been found with substantial errors and have had to withdraw papers in some cases. And that’s after peer review in the case of Gergis Karoly SH HS study.
But all of the above were exposed by sceptic bloggers you silly fool. Gore, Hansen and Pearman made a mess of AIT and yet you have the hide to deride unpaid bloggers who are only trying to find the truth?
They don’t make any money from their hours of work and we should be grateful that they are exposing these people on a regullar basis.
The Gergis and Koroly study was feted by your ABC and even my local rag extolled it’s virtues. Yet McIntyre and his bloggers wrecked it in a matter of hours.
Still no retraction by your ABC and some of the MSM who wildly covered it. Of course the Fairfax media fell for it HL and sinker.
Do you ever think before you write your nonsense? The CC headed by that fool Flannery had a charmed existence under the Labor party, yet Flannery’s forecasts on just about everything have been made to look ridiculous.
Don’t forget the poor bleeding taxpayer has had to pay dearly for their mistakes, yet Bob and Willis etc work for nothing and put out posts on a weekly basis. And cost us zip.
Nearly always they are using actual data to draw their conclusions, not failed C models.
We should be grateful for their work, I know I am.
“And why would you want to slum it with people that enjoy reading posts that we be revealed to be wrong in the next thread?”
What a dumb, arrogant statement!
When you’re trying to quantify something no one’s ever quantified and you make mistakes that you admit to and try to fix, that’s fundamental science.
If you had already done it in a peer-reviewed journal and got it perfect, you might have cause to crow but when no one has and no one knows, let alone you, you should just get back in your box and pull your head in as I said before.
Good coverage of the IPCC report from the GWPF.
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c6a443f94c&e=f4e33fdd1e
A very good roundup and this is just the start of the exposure.
Debs – the data apologise to you for not being good enough. The also apologise for not knowing the winning Lotto ticket. The data are sorry.
Neville take your fossil fuel industry rat dirt to the open thread or discuss the THS. Only a fraud like you would have the temerity to even cite the GWPF http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation Fossil fuel money all over it. Dripping in tar.
What total rubbish Luke.
The data is just data.
The most recent data available does not support the hypothesis that there is a THS developing and/or developed from increasing GHGs.
ie. . . It’s missing 🙂
Why would there be a need for ‘the data’ to apologise?
How silly!
Data are plural Debbie. Have some standards pullease.
So are satellite data just data Debs? Are they? are you sure?
Well the data do need to apologise as they aren’t good enough for you.
“It’s missing ” no it’s not – why do say that ? So Debs is my cat missing? (we know Neville’s brain is missing – indisputable fact from observable evidence – no doubt)
More nonsense & rubbish Luke.
If the THS is NOT missing. . . Where do you suppose it is?
And yes. . . Data is data.
Of course it’s ‘good enough’ it’s just effing data FFS!
PS. . . Nowhere was the word ‘data’ used deliberately as singular by me or anyone else (except of course in your own singular comment). More nonsense and irrelevant distraction.
Stop trying to be the ‘grammar police’ . . . You make as many unimportant grammar and spelling errors as anyone else.
It’s boooooooorrrrrrrrrinnng and irrelevant commentary. . . . Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
The word “data” is okay both as a plural or as a mass noun (singular). That’s why even pedants are happy to say “much data” rather than “many data”. Usage has prevailed over Latin origins. On the other hand…
“It’s missing ” no it’s not – why do say that ?”
Supercell him do talk like Red Cloud in John Wayne movie. Big snob like Supercell him need have some own own standard pullease. Maybe him plenty angry can’t find THS.
I bet if you asked them the IPCC would still have 95% confidence in the THS that they got wrong.
Don Keiller observes:
Take these excerpts from Chapter 2, of the latest IPCC report. (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf) which deals with “extreme” weather. Among the findings:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
95% confidence = they don’t know.
Well Robbie – I thought Debs might have been confused that there may have only been a datum point and not data. Regrettably in this post-modernist world I believe some are even sanctioning use of data as a singular collective noun in IT (some bounder like J Wilkes perhaps?).
But feel free to sledge away on grammar and spelling. I know Robbie would like a go.
But anyway Jen has given Neville a high up open thread so he can ply his vile trade.