RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Mar 2018

Filed under: — group @ 28 February 2018

This month’s open thread for climate science related items. The open thread for responses to climate change is here.

408 Responses to “Unforced variations: Mar 2018”

  1. 1
    Thomas says:

    #260 UV Feb. nigelj asks: “What is that, if it’s not irrationality?”

    It is irrational and also Anarchy.

    Mr KIA is not a Conservative nor politically a traditional social or economic Right Wing leaning person.

    #262 UV Feb.

    #262 says: “…winter still prevails & the bits that sit at the edge of the Sea Ice are presumably on average not so anomalous as those being reported in the press (eg here) because Sea Ice Extent is still showing a bit of growth.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/02/unforced-variations-feb-2018/comment-page-6/#comment-695367

    That comment is not accurate and misrepresents the news report’s content. More info here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/02/unforced-variations-feb-2018/comment-page-6/#comment-695390

  2. 2
    Everett F Sargent says:

    Thomas,
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/02/unforced-variations-feb-2018/comment-page-6/#comment-695349
    (February 2018 Unforced Variations #261)

    ESRL February monthly will be 408.35 ppmv. The final 2017 year-over-year (or annual rate) for 2017 will be 1.95 ppmv/year (versus 2.11 ppmv/year in their January preliminary or 2.13 ppmv/year in their December preliminary).

    In October 2017, I saw this possibility (sub 2 ppmv/year in 2017), didn’t believe my analysis and thus settled on a SWAG of 2.2 ppmv/year for 2017 at that time.

    This should be considered normal behavior given the Nino/Nina sequence.

  3. 3
    MA Rodger says:

    Thomas @266(UVFeb).

    Your pedantry (which I see you attempt to repeat @1) is entirely unfounded. I do appreciate that you dislike messages that do not reflect your personal ultra-doomy version of AGW, but if you do feel like a bit of a swipe at something, do try to pick on things within your understanding.

    You complain that there was no mention of Arctic Sea Ice Extent in the Guardian article reporting exceptional warm temperatures up in the high Arctic yet I contrasted that report of exceptional warmth with JAXA Arctic SIE values of recent days. This seems to be too mercurial for you, so you brand my post as misrepresenting the content of the Guardian article.
    So if the winter sea ice continues to grow (another 50,000sq km SIE yesterday, 25% of the gap to the 2017 record disappeared in a day), how do you suggest this be contrasted with the recent reports of exceptional warmth in the Arctic?

    A slightly more interesting point with that Guardian article was the final quote from one of our hosts:-

    Although it is too soon to know whether overall projections for Arctic warming should be changed, the recent temperatures add to uncertainty and raises the possibility of knock-on effects accelerating climate change.

    “This is too short-term an excursion to say whether or not it changes the overall projections for Arctic warming,” says Mann. “But it suggests that we may be underestimating the tendency for short-term extreme warming events in the Arctic. And those initial warming events can trigger even greater warming because of the ‘feedback loops’ associated with the melting of ice and the potential release of methane (a very strong greenhouse gas).”

    I’m assuming this quote doesn’t apply to the 4-day record warm which reached +22ºC above climatology in the high Arctic. I’m assuming this is more suggesting that we could be looking at exceptionally warm seasons or years within an already fast-warming Arctic, events yet to be factored in to AGW impacts. Yet the two consequent feedbacks mentioned are rather poorly juxtaposed within such comment; ice an amplifier of short-term Arctic warming, methane an amplifier on far broader scales. There does seem to be a lot of unreported context.

    ..

    And Thomas @261(UVFeb).
    Your description of annual MLO CO2-rise is entirely wrong. You write:-

    As is more usual at this time of year, the CO2 growth rate has eased below overall yearly rates. March readings typically increases a little more, but it is April when things take a leap upward.

    Any long-term variation in annual CO2 growth rates in different months would soon reflect in the shape of the annual cycle. There has been only small changes in the annual cycle. So the difference in CO2-rise for different months is tiny. 0.01ppm/yr, 0.02ppm/yr. The extreme is for March which shows the lowest annual CO2-rise – 0.03ppm/yr below the average, hardily a leap either up or down. So correcting your comment “March readings typically decrease a little less, but it is April when things return back to average.”

  4. 4
    Killian says:

    Ruh-roh. More permafrost documented to be turning to goo. Can CH4 and CO2 increases be far behind?

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

  5. 5
    Killian says:

    From Feb UV thread:
    256 Thomas said
    253 Killian, the amazon is quite a concern for sure. But the “pseudo-journalist” CHELSEA GOHD… I cannot stand liars.

    I do not share your view. The piece is essentially an update on thinking on the tipping point of the Amazon because…

    In recent decades, new forcing factors have impinged on the hydrological cycle: climate change and widespread use of fire to eliminate felled trees and clear weedy vegetation. Many studies show that in the absence of other contributing factors, 4° Celsius of global warming would be the tipping point to degraded savannas in most of the central, southern, and eastern Amazon. Widespread use of fire leads to drying of surrounding forest and greater vulnerability to fire in the subsequent year.

    We believe that negative synergies between deforestation, climate change, and widespread use of fire indicate a tipping point for the Amazon system to flip to non-forest ecosystems in eastern, southern and central Amazonia at 20-25% deforestation.

    This is a “What if?” thought experiment. Is it a study in the sense you mean it? It does not appear to be so. Is it two climat scientists looking at the literature and saying, “Hmmm things sure have changed. My BOTE guess us we’re close to 20-25 now with the additional forcing.”

    And, do you think they did not analysis whatsoever? I do not.

    I have no problem with this. We need more of this, not less. See my comments in Aug 2015 WRT ASI and El Nino, then go count the number of days or months ASI has shown record lows of one form or another. (We are still in that 2 year window.)

    I was dismissed. Should I have been?

  6. 6
    Sander Clement says:

    In addition to last months discussion by Nemesis #183 and my response #189:
    I share his deep concern, my feelings are heavy about where the current changes are leading us.
    Still (and maybe because the situation is so serious) i believe humanity can get its hands back on the rudder again. And with humanity i mean: those that are able and in the position to enforce the changes that are needed, as representatives of any living and yet-to-live human.
    I do believe that the changes needed are huge and far-reaching – much more then just greening our economy. Interests of people, groups of people, communities and corporations will have to be violated. What is needed is the power of a global authority on this subject.
    First: the message of the science has to be clear and undisputed, and communicated well. Secondly, global authorities like UN and cooperating scientists (IPCC) deserve and need much more respect and mandate. Too often UN is judged by failures it is not culpable for. We (humans) should be very grateful to have such an institution, that can operate above the mundane interests and conflicts of nations, region and localities. What is needed is to enforce its authority, by supporting it locally, by handing over policy making and guidance from national level to the international community. The Kyoto protocol was a first try to manage emissions globally, be means of free market. Sadly, it failed. The financial incentive failed short. I believe we need more unity of authority. I know, naturally the resistance against this is strong. But at any point, this resistance will meet the consequences of being divided, being idle. We do not want it to get that far. The changes that are in the making are too serious and irreversible to let sentimental arguments be an obstacle.

    In some way, we have to find a brake, and finally gradually transform the underlying forces to brought us where we are now:
    – unreserved capitalism (by redefining what capital is and who it belongs to)
    – freedom of personal development,
    – juridical and financial autonomy of corporations (every action or inaction by a corporation must be accounted for by real people
    – consumerism,
    – nationalism and regionalism,
    – confiscation of communal resources by economic parties, juridical and political support for any of those above)

  7. 7
    MA Rodger says:

    UAH prompt again, are reporting a TLT global anomaly for February of +0.20ºC, a small drop from +0.26ºC in January. It is =8th warmest February on record (following the 10th warmest January last month) tied with Feb 2015 and behind Feb 2016, 1998, 2010, 2017, 2002, 2003 & 2004, the warmest of these years boosted by an El Nino.
    Feb 2018 sits as =98th highest UAH TLT anomaly on-record for all-months.

  8. 8

    On sea ice: I think Al–sorry, I mean ‘MAR’–was guilty of an uncharacteristic lapse of logic in his ‘bits of sea ice’ comment: the fact that the sea ice is growing is certainly not ‘anomalous’, but the fact that we’re looking at extents better than 100K lower than last year’s record low extents equally certainly is.

    He’s absolutely right about temps, though–they are pretty shocking.

    Then there’s this:

    And the levels of SIE through the coming melt season will probably reflect those record temperatures. So maybe we can look forward to a melt season as exceptional as the early months of the 2016 melt.

    It could certainly play out that way. Or, we could have a repeat of last year’s coolish and cloudy summer, which could save the fall minimum from reaching a new record low. At some point, though, the dice will line up and we’ll get another ‘perfect storm’ of melt such as was seen in 2007 and 2012, but starting from a lower extent. And the perfectly predictable result will be a new fall record. It’s ‘when, not if’.

  9. 9

    Meantime, let me slightly scoop MAR* I see that UAH has February at a slightly cooler 0.20 C anomaly.

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

    Meh.

    *On second thought, I bet his usual excellent discussion is already awaiting moderation!

  10. 10
    Mr. Know It All says:

    New scientific paper on how AGW hysteria became popular explained in plain engrish:

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

    Don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger.

  11. 11

    #8, KIA–

    Uh, dude, anybody with a passing acquaintance with scientific papers can tell you that that GWPF piece ain’t one. It’s an historical essay–which, I suppose, is appropriate in that at least Christopher Booker, the author, actually does have history credentials.

    https://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker

    And not only is it an historical essay, it’s one strongly characterized by unsubstantiated assertion–the central one, that ‘warmists’ haven’t bothered to examine the evidence, being easily falsified by, among other things, the existence and popularity of this very blog.

    Which means that, whereas this piece has the *form* of an historical essay, it really *functions* as a pretty crude piece of propaganda.

    Which is what the GWPF customarily does.

  12. 12
    jb says:

    Knucklehead In America at 10: Shouldn’t a “scientific paper” be written by a scientist? And published in the primary literature?

  13. 13
    Digby Scorgie says:

    KIA @10

    If you insist on acting as messenger for “Gentlemen who prefer fantasy”, you deserve to be — figuratively — shot.

  14. 14
    Thomas says:

    Wow, “group-think” … cutting edge science from a “group” of liars and thieves. At least KIA learned a new word today.

  15. 15
    Thomas says:

    5 Killian, my point had nothing to do with the science/evidence/concerns about the amazon.

    When a journalist (sic) and writer (sic) reporting on agw/cc issues draws on a single page in “prestigious” and “popular” and well know “science” magazine but they cannot tell the difference between a “comment” (little different than one made on a blog forum or letter to the editor) and a STUDY BY SCIENCE aka the AAAS then HOuston we have a problem.

    I was simply pointing that out.
    Why?

    because some other well meaning pro-agw/cc action person, wiht good intentions will naively use the “source” as being “credible science” and post that url as reply to a dumb-ass on wuwt, the guardian or some Murdoch news portal, and they they will be attacked by idiotic deniers who will see the ERROR in a flash, and then this merely gives them another Bullet to fire at those “crazy scientists” etc.

    Other naive not-knowers abotuthe science will see this and will their doubts confirmed that “science” is untreuctworthy and misrepresetns itself here and there and everywhere, and that those who BELIEVE in it are dumb twits who cannot be trusted either or listened to.

    So this kind sof crap keeps happening because some douche bag who owns a website wants to pretend they are a genuine “news site” when really they are just lowlifes copying other material in order to make either $ Buck or massage their over-inflated egos ….. it’s called fake news in some circles, I call simply call it garbage by losers and tossers. :-)

    Now, by all means address the science of amazon veg loss – and recognise I was addressing the serious problems in “the Media” across the board by another example of it. (media inlcdues fake news sites, blog sites, websites, crass marketers, and hey look at me psychos with big mouths, like Breitbart and those far more obscure.

    Cross purposes K — we are talking about 2 different issues.

    I then added in that Science Mag and the AAAS also have serious problems even publiushing that “artcile” they called an article. IT’s highly inept and didn;t say much at all that hadn’t already been said.

    It lowered the “prestige” (?)of their whole operation and their declared reason of being — therefore I question their HONESTY and ETHICS from Board level down.

    They are NOT helping the Amazon by being so incredibly slack and incompetent, imho. YMMV

    Have a good one ….

  16. 16
    Killian says:

    #8 Kevin McKinney said On sea ice… the fact that we’re looking at extents better than 100K lower than last year’s record low extents equally certainly is.

    MAR and others have a great weakness in this regard. The stats are all they are willing to consider. If it’s not in a study or fits roughly within error bars, well, it just isn’t much important. I am playing it over a bit, but only a bit. This causes two things to happen here regularly: They treat others like imbeciles when they have no cause to and their own analysis is too conservative.

    The latter is no sin, the former creates most of the negativity on these fora.

    But onto the science. The extremes are the canaries, imo. They are too often dismissed as noise or outliers, but I believe they often tell us much about the future mode of whatever system we are looking at. Those dismissive of this year’s anomalies, when combined with the many days/months of record ice in ’16 and ’17, are making a major mistake, IMO. I have very little doubt this will prove out as we move forward.

    So maybe we can look forward to a melt season as exceptional as the early months of the 2016 melt.

    It could certainly play out that way. Or, we could have a repeat of last year’s coolish and cloudy summer, which could save the fall minimum from reaching a new record low. At some point, though, the dice will line up and we’ll get another ‘perfect storm’ of melt such as was seen in 2007 and 2012

    Yes. One thing that has become clear is the “new” Arctic is notoriously difficult to predict. After 2012 it was understandable people were fearing a rapid melt out, but another byproduct of the changing regime is this long string of mild summers. But, yes, that cannot and will not last forever. And, more importantly, even with these mild summers the ice keeps fading away. That is what is frightening: Even with perfect summers, the melt continues.

    My theory is still that El Ninos impact the ASI for up to two years after. We’re still in that window and I believe at least part of the melt in the western AO may be due to warm El Nino-related Pacific waters. Let’s not forget that generally 2/3 of melt is water temps.

    The rebound is also not surprising as ASI has consistently continued to grow into the first half of March in recent years. That doesn’t make the big melt in Feb. unimportant. Is it a canary? I believe so because in the past the ice was thick enough that such a Feb. melt was not *possible.* Now it is. The overall condition of the ASI is super fragile.

  17. 17
    nigelj says:

    Mr KIA @10, the paper on agw climate change claiming its all group think is rubbish. Open your eyes, and look at recent arctic temperatures and decades long drop in sea ice extent and thickness. Its obvious now, and doesn’t need fretting about whether its group think. This is one example of many global warming trends, correlating increasingly well with CO2 emissions.

    The paper you reference is also based on the so called pause since 1998 and alleged excuse making for this. But all recent data sets show temperatures increasing since 1998, so the group think paper is blatantly dishonest.

    There is far more evidence that the denialist position is group think, given it comes from a few political echo chambers, and is based largely on ideology, cherrypicking and pseudo science.

    Or to put it another way, the group think paper is old batts droppings.

  18. 18
    Thomas says:

    3 MA Rodger, I told you before I am not interested and do not care what you think about anything.

    You still need to learn how to read what is written, not only by me but also in The Guardian.

    That’s 100% your problem.

    In the meantime, know I never read your screeds above. Not worth reading as nothing you say is reliably accurate. I have better things to spend my time on than your imaginary fantasies spinning round inside your mind space.

    Sorry that’s the truth of it. The evidence goes back years. Go back to complaining about Sheldon and beating your head against a brick wall. Fits your skill set perfectly imho.

    Bye!

  19. 19
    Thomas says:

    2 Everett F Sargent, yes and thank you for your comment. I could see a few weeks back now where my error was, and it;s been subsequently confirmed. I was placing too emphasis some potential drivers and less on others, eg the current La Nina. And I missed something else far more obvious being about the historical pattern Jan to Feb pppmv numbers historically. Had I seen that in January and not being “distracted” ………. live and learn. I was very wrong and admitted it recently.

    ESRL February monthly will be 408.35 ppmv … agreed. Thanks for pointing it out anyway. That’s a good thing to do because I listen more then the average wood-duck, imho. :-)

  20. 20
    CCHolley says:

    Mr. KIA @ 10

    New scientific paper on how AGW hysteria became popular explained in plain english

    Scientific paper? ROFLMAO.

  21. 21
    Hank Roberts says:

    > KIA … thegwpf

    Snicker. Catch many with that kind of bait?

  22. 22
    Marco says:

    KIA refers us to a piece written by a “journalist” for a ideologically-biased organisation.

    KIA is not “just the messenger”, he’s deliberately trolling. Why does RC still tolerate this behavior?

  23. 23
    Hyperactive Hydrologist says:

    A new study in an actual scientific journal showing future impacts of droughts, heatwaves and floods to 571 European cities. Good timing considering the IPCC Cities Conference

    Cities are particularly vulnerable to climate risks due to their agglomeration of people, buildings and infrastructure. Differences in methodology, hazards considered, and climate models used limit the utility and comparability of climate studies on individual cities. Here we assess, for the first time, future changes in flood, heat-waves (HW), and drought impacts for all 571 European cities in the Urban Audit database using a consistent approach. To capture the full range of uncertainties in natural variability and climate models, we use all climate model runs from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) for the RCP8.5 emissions scenario to calculate Low, Medium and High Impact scenarios, which correspond to the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of each hazard for each city. We find that HW days increase across all cities, but especially in southern Europe, whilst the greatest HW temperature increases are expected in central European cities. For the low impact scenario, drought conditions intensify in southern European cities while river flooding worsens in northern European cities. However, the high impact scenario projects that most European cities will see increases in both drought and river flood risks. Over 100 cities are particularly vulnerable to two or more climate impacts. Moreover, the magnitude of impacts exceeds those previously reported highlighting the substantial challenge cities face to manage future climate risks.

  24. 24
    Ray Ladbury says:

    And Mr. KIA@10 brings out the weapons grade stupid.

    Dude, you know the only reason you are permanently consigned to the borehole is that you provide comic relief, right?

  25. 25
    Killian says:

    #15 Thomas,

    We’re just going to have to disagree on this. I simply do not care that the writer overstated the nature of the “paper.” I care that the “paper” is logically tenable, and it is. The far more important issue is, are there ways of knowing that are hard to quantify, but should be paid attention to? TEK, e.g., is proving the answer to be yes.

    I just don’t care about the pedantics on this. (Did I just make up a new word?) I don’t think they matter given the context and import of the suppositions if proven correct. You worry about their reputation; I’m focused on their accuracy.

    Cheers

  26. 26
    Killian says:

    #19 Thomas said I could see a few weeks back now where my error was, and it;s been subsequently confirmed… I missed something else far more obvious being about the historical pattern Jan to Feb pppmv numbers historically.

    Been watching the 2-year graph at Keeling for years. That little flattening at Jan-Feb is obvious as sunlight on that one.

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png

    Also noted we popped up to 411ppm Feb 26-27. Hmmm… crunchy bits.

  27. 27
    Killian says:

    My eyeballed BOTE calculation for peak CO2 this year is @ 413, +/- 0.5 based on current levels and a very eyeballed average rise from Feb to peak of roughly 4ppm in the past.

    For some reason I’m feeling the need to hedge with @ 412 to 413, but may as well play the numbers and let the chips fall where they may. I reserve the right to claim latter range if it comes in under 412.5. LOL…

  28. 28
    Victor says:

    #10 Mr. KIA: “New scientific paper on how AGW hysteria became popular explained in plain engrish:

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

    Equally devastating: “CIRCULAR REASONING IN CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH” ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3130131 )

    Quite a one-two punch!

    Skeptics would do well to concentrate on the content of these essays rather than the qualifications of their authors. The usual ad hominems and crass dismissals won’t do you any good as they serve only to reinforce the thesis expounded in the groupthink essay.

    P.S. Can’t resist including the following bit from Chapter Eight of “The Unsettled Science of Climate Change,” by my favorite author, Polar Vortex:

    In order for Cook to produce the necessary “correlation” between CO2 emissions and the various warming and cooling trends of the last 100 years or so it is necessary to see CO2 as “the dominant forcing.” But the only evidence offered by Cook is a “correlation” made possible only by assuming ahead of time that CO2 is in fact “the dominant forcing.” In other words, the intended correlation can be posited only if we assume ahead of time that the rise in CO2 emissions is actually having a major affect on global temperatures. But that’s precisely what his presentation is designed to demonstrate. (with reference to “The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html )

  29. 29
    jb says:

    Marco at 22. I think there is value to allowing Knucklehead in America (KIA) to remain. He is an accurate proxy for the views of a large number of misinformed/disinformed americans – almost to the point of being a caricature. As long as you don’t take anything he says seriously, his presence allows you to at least maintain a sense of what those views are.

  30. 30
    MA Rodger says:

    RSS are reporting a TLT global anomaly for February of +0.48ºC, a small drop from +0.55ºC in January. It is the 7th warmest February on record (UAH was =8th) following the 7th warmest January last month (UAH was 10th) Feb 2018 sits below Feb 2016, 1998, 2017, 2010, 2015 & 2002, the warmest of these years boosted by an El Nino.
    Feb 2018 sits as 68th highest RSS TLT anomaly on-record for all-months (UAH was =98th).
    The regional data shows since last month a cooling in northern latetudes, no change in the tropics and a warming in southern latitudes. A graph of the last several years of monthly anomalies (surface & TLT) is here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).

  31. 31

    Victor @28 citing some incredible ass: In order for Cook to produce the necessary “correlation” between CO2 emissions and the various warming and cooling trends of the last 100 years or so it is necessary to see CO2 as “the dominant forcing.” But the only evidence offered by Cook is a “correlation” made possible only by assuming ahead of time that CO2 is in fact “the dominant forcing.” In other words, the intended correlation can be posited only if we assume ahead of time that the rise in CO2 emissions is actually having a major affect on global temperatures. But that’s precisely what his presentation is designed to demonstrate. (with reference to “The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century”

    BPL: Another one, besides Victor, who has no Earthly idea what a “correlation” is. Except, Victor, that I’ve explained this to you before, so you have no excuse on God’s green Earth for continued ignorance. You’re just trolling.

    For everyone else besides Victor: a correlation is a number, calculated by a statistical equation, and has no assumptions behind it whatsoever other than the existence of two groups of numbers. That’s it. That’s all you need.

  32. 32

    BTW, it’s having an “effect,” not an “affect.”

  33. 33
    Thomas says:

    Recent scientific observations of the Polar Vortex

    And then there were Two

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/03/06/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-359.46,89.40,349

  34. 34
    Thomas says:

    28 Victor quotes pure Sophistry gullible unintelligent illogical fools latch onto as meaningful.

    In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

    Even wiki readers know this
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage

  35. 35
    Thomas says:

    23 Hyperactive Hydrologist, the paper was posted here two weeks ago. No harm in repeating it though. Some here are intent on ignoring such links to genuine scientific papers in a scientific journal lest it undermines their flawed and faulty ego based opinions. And I am not talking about the resident agw/cc deniers either.

    Maybe “they” might read it the 10th time it’s been posted and have something worth saying about it a few years later.

  36. 36
    MartinJB says:

    Victor (@28) quotes from his favorite author, without mentioning that Polar Vortex is himself writing under a pseudonym. But of course, that’s not the first time he’s played fast and loose with your identity. At last in this instance, he’s found someone in KIA who knows even less about climate change he does.

  37. 37
    Hank Roberts says:

    jb said: “… He is an accurate proxy for the views of a large number of misinformed/disinformed americans – almost to the point of being a caricature. As long as you don’t take anything he says seriously, his presence allows you to at least maintain a sense of what those views are….”

    Also see the Borehole.

    Our hosts are tolerant of trolling, but I agree with jb, KIA and his ilk are useful for their copypasting and rebunking of stuff that has captured their attention, especially when they identify where the meme caught them. And it’s interesting to watch folks come here, start off with the oldest bunk (“… CO2 is too heavy to mix ….”) and progress through the increasingly sophisticated bunk (“… saturated …”) learning a bit with each cycle.

    One can only hope. Eventually they might read Spencer Weart’s history, which they’re recapitulating.
    First link under Science, in the sidebar: http://history.aip.org/climate

  38. 38
    Killian says:

    KIA caught 11 flies, so far. 12 out of 30 posts dedicated to garbage. As the crazy Sheen might say, KIA is WINNING! Denial dominates the the month so far.

    Good job, “Good guys.” You’ve made B.S. the #1 topic.

    Make it 12 of 31.

  39. 39
    MA Rodger says:

    Victor the Troll @28.
    Any denialist nonsense that drags you out from under your bridge is going to be a laugh a minute, and so it is with the abet-turged “content of the essay” provided here @10 by the chain of shites; alleged journalist Christopher Booker who read a book four years ago and so is now expert in the psychology of ‘Groupthink’, those Gentlemeen Who Prefer Fantasy and who masquerade as an Educational Charity (Charity no. 1131448) and so obtain monies from the public purse to spread their lies, the troll @10 who calls himself “the messenger” although he fails to say who sent him.

    So what does this 100-page revelation tell us?

    There are two conflicting take-aways to be had.

    One take-away is that, apparently, this whole AGW thing is the product of Groupthink. Booker isn’t the first to make such claims – head-moron Pater Lilley (now stepped down from parliament and promoted to Trustee of the Lies by GWPF) made similar claims back in 2009.
    Booker tells us AGW was a deluded dream of Prof Bert Bolin who single-handedly sold it to the WMO’s World Climate Conference in 1979, quite a feat given the conference was more than a set of plenary sessions.
    Following this impressive achievement and further success at the 1985 Villach conference, Bolin with the assistance of influential scientific ally Sir John Houghton and the conspiring “strongly left-wing” Maurice Strong got the IPCC created and it was all down-hill from there.

    The alternative take-away is that Booker understands less about Groupthink than he does about AGW or its history. 100-page revalation simply shows that it is possible for misguided AGW deniers to rewrite the history of AGW as completely as they do the actual science.
    It appears there wasn’t much serious work done by Booker reading up on the actual development of AGW as a political agenda-item. (So likely he never read Franz 1997.) The short description of Booker’s account of the history above is pretty-much the sum of it, followed by a long tirade against the IPCC. (He does manage to mention elsewhere within his account the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment but only to suggest that Maurice Strong had perverted its purpose, and this before Strong had been won over to Bolin’s delusions, apparently.) He throws no light on the operation of this Groupthink exercise but, as he doesn’t properly understand the concept, this is no surprise.

  40. 40
    Victor says:

    “Victor @28 citing some incredible ass”

    “28 Victor quotes pure Sophistry gullible unintelligent illogical fools latch onto as meaningful.”

    “At last in this instance, he’s found someone in KIA who knows even less about climate change he does.”

    “Victor the Troll @28.
    Any denialist nonsense that drags you out from under your bridge is going to be a laugh a minute, and so it is with the abet-turged “content of the essay” provided here @10 by the chain of shites; alleged journalist Christopher Booker who read a book four years ago and so is now expert in the psychology of ‘Groupthink’, those Gentlemeen Who Prefer Fantasy and who masquerade as an Educational Charity (Charity no. 1131448) and so obtain monies from the public purse to spread their lies, the troll @10 who calls himself “the messenger” although he fails to say who sent him.”

    From Booker’s Groupthink essay:

    “Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it.”

    “This sorry episode was a further graphic illustration of how those caught up in any form of groupthink are likely to respond to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. As Janis showed, because the only evidence they are willing to recognise is that which confirms their own mindset, anyone who dissents must be discredited, stereotyped and caricatured as only doing so from some ignoble motive.”
    Rather than attempting to address the points dissenters are raising, these are routinely countered by ad-hominem attacks on their character.”

  41. 41
    mike says:

    Ray at 24 says: weapons grade stupid

    Man, I like that. Did you just come up with that? I will shorten up to WGS as a way to classify some of the troll work that happens here and elsewhere.

    CO2 levels? Going the wrong way. Not slowing down, not getting flattish, just looking like they are under 2 ppm because of the past year EN bump. Background rate? as in annualized decadal rate based on current year, plus and minus five? I think 2.4 or 2.5 ppm. I would love to be wrong. Check back in 2023 for the results. What do I think about increase levels of 2.0 and above? WGS.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  42. 42

    V 40, lying his tail off: Rather than attempting to address the points dissenters are raising, these are routinely countered by ad-hominem attacks on their character.”

    BPL: I have addressed what a “correlation” is at length. You know what a correlation is, or you should. How many times do I have to spoon-feed you the same damn information? If you haven’t got it by now, you never will. But to claim I didn’t address the point is a damned lie, and you know what that makes you, don’t you?

  43. 43
    Thomas says:

    29 jb says:
    2 Mar 2018 at 1:43 PM

    Marco at 22. I think there is value to allowing Knucklehead in America (KIA) to remain. He is an accurate proxy for the views of a large number of misinformed/disinformed americans – almost to the point of being a caricature. As long as you don’t take anything he says seriously, his presence allows you to at least maintain a sense of what those views are.

    REPLY not to jb personally but to the Group/Tribe in general.

    Herew’s a few facts to think about or seek guidance about from others more expert and astute than current posters to this forum.

    No trolling agw/cc denier posting here is required for supposedly high intelligence weapons grade scientists, PhDs & Academics to comprehend wtf “those views are.

    Have any of you ever heard of Market Testing? Or things like Focus Groups? Sure you have.

    Have any of you ever heard of internet based Data Mining and the use of Algorithms to scour the web for key words, phrases and User IDs?

    Have any of you ever heard of using Algorithms that advanced marketing tech heads use to PUSH beliefs and views and political MEMES across multiple web-based platforms?

    Have any of you ever heard that agw/cc Denying Billionaires like the Koch brothers and the Think Tanks/Institutes use to promote denial globally can afford and DO USE 24/7/365 days a year and have been for YEARS already?

    Probably never ever thought of it.

    Have any of you ever heard BOTS that first appeared on Usenet in the late 1990s? Or heard of the much more sophisticated BOTS being deployed for YEARS now across Facebook, Twitter, News Org BTL Comments portals, and Google Groups, Youtube, Pinterest, and of BOTS posting to independent Web-Based Fora across the internet in particular Political Ideological Fanatics of every stripe from Russian Troll Factories to the BREXIT Referendum to the latest Neo-Nazi anti-Muslim anti-immigration Front Group in the EU, and how the hell ISIS operates online?

    Do you really think that Gina Reinhart and Heartland and IPA and GWPF and such groups/tribes with the deepest pockets on Earth do not avail themselves with such Technologies no matter how many $ Millions it might cost them all?

    You really imagine you are all so smart and All-Knowing that you can compete against that?

    And how many of you know WHO exactly is Victor, or KIA, or Titus or DDS et al are and why they post what they post and who is monitoring those responses they get from others here, noting precisely which TOPICS really push The Irrational believers in Agw/CC science and then USE THAT information in the next BS article/screed manipulation they then go and launch online everywhere else???

    You really think that RC climate is this utterly isolated untouchable remote Island of Intelligence and Wisdom and Genius on the Planet?

    Really, do any of you ever once think about WTF you are doing both allowing such TROLLS to post here in the first place and then endlessly responding to them … and then talking GARBAGE utterly disconnected from the real world?

    NO, not only here but on every web-based forum online and that these highly funded TECH HEAD geniuses they employ are actually USING YOUR NAIVETY and GULLIBILITY and IGNORANCE of the REAL WORLD against yourselves

    … while they all ROTFLTAO at all the agro and disagreements this builds up between those on the SAME TEAM … and that THEY THEN USE THAT DATA INFO against all of you and all of Climate Science and Environmental groups, and Legal Groups and other activists and the VERY Politicians who want to support AGW/CC science and urgent action

    That they then take that info and create even more DISRUPTIONS and MEMES using the knowledge and tools they have gained in the Media, on Twitter, on Facebook, Flickr, Reddit, Instagram, and PLACED INTO SPEECHES in parliaments and the Congress, used at House/Senate Committee Hearings live on CSPAN for the world to hear and be published via their OWNED & CAPTURED NEWS MEDIA CONGLOMERATES.

    You really believe you are smartest people in the room?

    As we say in Australia: Fair Dinkum – Get a Grip!!!

    You know why the US Intel could kinda understand a little of what russian trolls and hackers might have been doing?

    Be cause Americans with very deep pockets and inside info and the highest access online have been doing this to every other nation including re issues about AGW/CC and UNFCCC Treaties since GW Bush was PRESIDENT … like DOH! Please do wake up one day and get real for once.

    Like Educate yourselves about the REAL WORLD – you may not be able to beat it but at least you’ll know about it.

    “Most people will be stupid, it’s just the way it is.”

    Learn something about the Tip of an Iceberg here, and THINK for a change, please?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/ipcc-communication-handbook/comment-page-3/#comment-695568

  44. 44
    Thomas says:

    Do you all really still think that only thing to note about http://www.realclimatescience.org was just an irrational dweeby stupid dumb long term egotistical narcissistic agw/cc denier who just thought it was FUNNY????

    And so what did Scooter Libby say again to the “journos” about their total delusion that they did not make current affairs or make the News, because it was his TRIBE who were creating the only reality that counted live 24/7/365???

    Bloody hell, it’s out there staring you all in the face yet your blind and or some are totally stuck behind locked doors of your preferred Ivory Towers falsely believing you are actually making a positive difference to the world … Judas Priest and God-almighty and holy mary mother of god please save us!

    Talk about living in DENIAL and DELUSION. sheesh

  45. 45
    Thomas says:

    The Tail Wags the Dog!

    No not the graph tail, an actually dog’s tail.

    How much sceintific respurces, money, time and effort has the Climate Science Community spent and wasted trying to “prove” that the False Meme of the Warming Hiatus was, well, False?

    And then how much time and energy and pixels have been wasted over that False Meme by those who support agw/cc science and the urgent action to required to logically address the obvious implications of that very Science that preexisted even the Hiatus Meme the first time it was trotted out?

    Does anyone really know what they are doing in this Field and how to act Logically based on Evidence and reason?

    Anyone?

  46. 46
    Thomas says:

    Definition of Ignorant

    adjective: ignorant

    1.
    lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

    Ask any Dictionary.

  47. 47
    Thomas says:

    [repost]

    “The Global Restructuring of Science as a Marketplace of Ideas” Trust in Science workshop CBC Conference Centre, Toronto, Ontario 2007
    in over a decade only 3,608 views, as usual, becuase it is too hard to comprehend and verify the already known evidence piece by piece, and besides that, it’s too hard for “scientists” to swallow, basically it is NOT in their Field.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J13SDqmaNw

  48. 48
    Thomas says:

    Do you want more? Of course not. Might have to look at it and yourself.

    This isn’t a new idea either ….. Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

    Don’t like wiki? Fine, try Google Scholar yourself instead.

    Doh~! (smile)

    This was around DECADES before Dr John Cook – the climate science communications expert – was a first year undergraduate.

    Double Doh~!

  49. 49
    nigelj says:

    Victor @40

    Victor states….”From Booker’s Groupthink essay:” “Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it.”

    Clearly AGW theory is not subjective. And Victor you say such silly things at times, even The Pope would get short tempered with you.

    And what about this from the Guardian? “Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty”

    Is this not group think from the climate denialist “group” by your own definition?

    What is group think really? Here we are from the originator of the idea :

    http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

    “Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.”

    As to reality testing. Climate models are tested all the time against reality and are tracking reality well on the whole.

    And consider climate change, where hundreds of research papers have been published on “alternative theories” for climate change. This is obviously not “ignoring alternatives”. Eventually the IPCC have decide on the most compelling theory.

    So theres not much group think when you get down to it.

    Now compare this with the climate sceptics and their church of scepticism The Heartland Institute. What an echo chamber of talking heads who never admit that their denialist ideas could be wrong, and they never put any probability of correctness beside them. That is real group think.

    You want to be rational about the group think issue? Any group can be susceptible, but the nature of scientific research and publishing creates a pretty good way of at least minimising it, where economic, political and social think tanks are entirely more susceptible, because they don’t have such rigorous scientific disciplines.

    And you know what? At the end of the day after all the accusations of group think, you have to find specific evidence it has lead to the dismissal of alternative ideas, or bribing of individuals etc, and you provide none of this. Nobody has.

    Really group think is just psychobabble. Ultimately you have to look at the published science and what the weight of evidence says. Nothing more, nothing less.

  50. 50
    MartinJB says:

    Victor (@40) follows up a post (28) in which he misleads about sources with a post in which he fails to mention that his dissenting viewpoints in fact have received far more attention than they deserved and that the hostility with which he is treated is a function of his own history on these boards. I am inclined to add a demonstrated lack of integrity to the lack of climate change he has already exhibited.