wow, Max'es wikipedia article is hilarious. That anyone would think its even vaguely useful is hilarious-er. That anyone would even consider going to wikipedia on climate issues after the Connelley debacle is hilarious-est. Poor poor Max.

Let's look at the article he has placed his faith in.

First it says the RWP started in approximately 250BC. I think most people would put it closer to 200BC but let's go with 250BC.

They then quote from Theophrastus who died in 287BC...ie BEFORE the supposed start of the RWP. So whatever he writes is immaterial as concerns the RWP.

They then advise that the temperatures in the 5th and 4th century BC were "basically the same as it was around AD 2000" So BEFORE the start of the RWP, temperatures were the same as now. So, by deduction, temps IN the RWP were higher than now.

And then, to prove it was just a regional phenomena they talk about Florida!!. Sure they make the usual claim that it was just regional, but that's wikipedia for ya.

Then poor poor Max, who clearly didn't understand what all those pesky dates meant says " if you haven't even bothered to read the WIKI in the subject then your credibility is shot." That's fall of your chair funny. Max is quite the comedian.

Dear mhaze,

It really does piss me off that I have to type so slowly for you to wrap your head around this stuff.

Here is what I said;

Quote

He said no such thing. This is pure distortion from an interview done in 1988 which the reporter describes as thus;

“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

Since then various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.

End quote.

Since when? Since the bloody quote I referenced from 2001. He corrected the record, WUWT also retracted their position.

Since that time “various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.” as evidence by a repeat of it on this very forum.

How about you explain why is still has currency 20 years later?

Dear Lgo,

Still not prepared to vouch for any one of the other 'climate scientist alarmist' quotes? Come on buddy, there should be at least one.

SR,

You don't need to type slowly. Just type honestly and all will be well.

"How about you explain why is still has currency 20 years later?"
Well clearly there are a lot of people just like you who see a half truth they like and run with it. So they see the 20 years story and don't bother checking it.

Care to explain, SR, how it is that the story that the 20 year number was the result of denier websites and chinese whispers (when it was the result of a supposed error by the original author) has currency among those of a certain leaning...like yourself. Was it the caused by alarmist websites spreading false rumour? Or just the result of bozos not bothering to check beyond what they want to be true?

You said the 20 year number came from denier websites. In fact it came from the alarmist author's 'error'. We all know it...why not just admit it and move on?

OK SR...I'll do you a favour and let you change the subject. Doubling of CO2 ie from 280ppm to 560.
In 1988, when the interview took place, there was general agreement that a doubling would occur within the next 3 or 4 decades. Note that Hansen doesn't demur when the interviewer talks of a doubling. But we're not within cooee of a doubling.

Your claim that "We are marching toward a doubling of CO2 levels" is true in the same way as my walking to the corner shop is marching toward Peking. Current CO2 levels are 413ppm..so not even half way in 160 years. Even at current rates it'll be ~2100AD before we get a doubling...assuming no new technology.

So Hansen accepted the likelihood of a doubling by 2028. Only out by 150%. Which makes it one of the more accurate alarmist predictions.

Hi Steelie, back for another beating? I see that you have deliberately avoided addressing the last post I directed at you. You really do not want to address the fact that the climate is changing because it has always changed. Roughly every thousand years it warms and cools, warms and cools. Our present warming period is right on schedule and is obviously a continuation of the same cycle.

Now, is any person with an IQ in double digits, (which obviously does not apply to you) would make the logical connection, that any phenomena which continuously repeats in regular cycles must have a common reason to do so. But not you. The earth can warm and cool roughly every thousand years since God Knows when, but whatever factors have caused this to happen could not apply to the latest manifestation of the recurring event.

Would you apply the same logic to tidal changes and the phases of the moon?

Great logic, Steelie. No wonder you are a HIGW believer. And I think BELIEF is the operative word here. You do not want to focus upon easily verifiable facts which you know will blow your silly little cultish belief system right out of the water. You want to believe. You need to believe. Your entire self image as a morally irreproachable being with above average intelligence would be smashed if you realised that you have backed the wrong horse. Worse still, it would mean admitting that your opponents are not as dumb as the peer group you aspire to join tell you we are, and that would be a particularly rotten piece of crow to eat.

Sorry, Steelie. You obviously have a problem with the fact that the climate changes in regular cycles and you will do anything to avoid it. It is your weakest link and you can bet I am going to keep sawing away at it.

Your fixation with my quotes I know is simply a misdirection from what you do not want to discuss. But here are some links to shut you up.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/news-story/032676cb0c4bd1ba0e1e99bda904bca2?sv=b88b53b3a64b900159375cfe7ddb486b

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-says-it-again-the-dams-wont-fill/news-story/fc39cd244faba3e29b842e09e5b4dd5c

http://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/news-story/032676cb0c4bd1ba0e1e99bda904bca2?sv=b88b53b3a64b900159375cfe7ddb486b

For those who care but can't follow Max's convoluted screams about climate probabilities etc...a quick explanation.

A few years back Max was running around claiming that the 350.org people had done the maths and concluded that humankind could only burn a further 565gt of fossil fuels before something bad happened. He was ridiculing anyone who failed to understand the maths.
So I looked into it and found (1) no maths had been done and that (2) had it been done the result wouldn't have been an exact number but a rather wide range of potential answers.

Max spent the next two years trying to wriggle out of his error, meanwhile making a range of further errors, some rather comical.

And then finally he came up with the IPCC SPM report (http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf) which showed...
((1) no maths had been done but instead a series of climate models ran various scenarios and that
(2) the result wasn't an exact number but a rather wide range of potential answers...somewhere between 100Gt and 1000Gt.

So after two years Max finally reached the conclusion I'd original offered to him. And now, having found that what I original said was true, he claims vindication. Two years after saying I was wrong, he proves that I was right and thinks that makes him right.

Strange fellow is our Max.

Hi LEGO,
ROMAN WARMING?
I think you missed it: “Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that South Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were WITHIN A DEGREE of modern temperatures.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

SKIING
You have an example of bad reporting. Something went wrong with the BCC, not the IPCC. They should have reported it like this: “In the late 1990s, this was possible in the Alps with natural snow in areas above 1200 meters of elevation. This level is expected to rise to a minimum altitude of 1500 meters with a warming of two degrees.”
http://www.downdays.eu/articles/climate-change-future-ski-resorts/

What do we expect from global warming? Less snow generally speaking. But remember a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour, which if it wanders into the RIGHT AREA can increase LOCAL snowfall over previous norms because there’s simply more water in the air.
http://skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

I read the 2001 projections in 9.3 and can’t find any real projections for snow fields or ski slopes. It did, however, say: “Snow cover extent has decreased by about 10% since 1966.” Page 102.
Also note page 124 shows an INCREASE! “In recent decades, snowfall has also been heavier to the lee of the North American Great Lakes than earlier in the century (Leathers and Ellis, 1996). These findings are in line with observations from Canada and the former Soviet Union, reflecting a trend towards increased precipitation over the mid-latitude lands in the Northern Hemisphere (Groisman and Easterling, 1994; Brown and Goodison, 1996; Ye et al., 1998).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

Finally, what’s actually happening?
“The amount of snow in the western United States has seen an average drop of 41 percent since the early 1980s, according to research just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. As a result, the snow season shrunk by 34 days.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/climate-change-is-taking-a-toll-on-the-20-billion-ski-industry.html

Lost skiing revenue has already cost America a billion p96
http://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf