The warmists blame poor little CO2 for all the worlds evil, but it is a failure.

They tell us it will cause the biggest droughts, or the biggest floods, anything they hope they can load on to the poor innocent molecule & us by inference.

It did try to do it for them this year, but just couldn't make it. Yes it tried to make this year the wettest in history but failed. The results are now in, & 1893 is still the wettest year in my district, south of Brisbane, since records began. 1726mm still holds the record.

It didn't fail by much, but this year was still 13mm, [half an inch] lower that the before SUV era. The scammers will have to look for something else to blame us.

It's the same with drought. Driest year here was pre SUV 1919 at 434mm. CO2 tried valiantly to help the scammers with 453mm in 1994 but missed by almost an inch.

Back to the drawing board fellers, nature just aint cooperating.

Well, Ian Plimer still insists that nobody has actually proved that that CO2 is the villain. The gullible, the believers, are always shrieking about proof for everything, but they don't seem to be interested when society and the economy is being wrecked by hysterical reactions to something not proven.

As far as I know, none of the 'scientists' have come up with anything to rebut Plimer's claim. He has said it often enough. He is still saying it. A deadly silence prevails. Plimer is not some nutter: he is a geologist with expertise in, and proof of what the climate has done over a very, very long time. Their is nothing peculiar or particular about what is happening now.

Hi Hassie,

I don't know where you get your data from but it
doesn't match with mine and there's plenty out there
that does not confirm what you're saying. On the contrary.
There are plenty of reputable organizations that contradict
your claims from CSIRO to the Bureau of Meterology.

http://australian.museum/learn/climate-change/

Ian Plimer has been a director of numerous mining
companies owned by Gina Rinehart who's a key
funder of climate science denial efforts including
Queensland Coal Investments. Ian Plimer has written
many articles the most recent in The Australian
and the errors in it would embarrass any decent
scientist. But the man knows on which side his bread
is buttered and he'll continue to stand together with
such luminaries like Andrew Bolt.

Hassie,

Here's another link for you:

http://nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

Ho-hum,

More of the nonsense from a couple of the 'Usual Suspects' when it comes to climate change. With their "Its not real... its not happening..scientists are all communists" rubbish. There is no argument, climate change is real and its happening now, not tomorrow, or next week, now.

Why are a couple of conservative old men so in denial, when the truth is so obvious, it beggars belief, in the extreme. But then again, these guys will go to their graves believing, the Earth is flat.

Hasbeen

Isn't it pathetic how the drones, the joiners, the people who rely on other people to do their thinking for them, can't separate actual climate change - a periodic occurrence - from the the invented causes of the masters of their little minds.

Don't confuse weather with climate change.
There's a big difference between the two.

Not sure who the people are who rely on other
people to do their thinking for them. When you're
sick you go to a doctor and heed his/her
advice - unless you're mentally unstable. We take the
advice of all sorts of experts in their fields during
our life's journeys - for obvious reasons. It would be
nuts not to.

There is unequivocal evidence that the earth is warming
at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal
cause.

While the earth's climate has changed throughout history
the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the
past 10,000 years.

The following link explains:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hi Hassy and ttbn,

I imagine your old coal fired brains take a bit of firing up in the mornings. Immersing them in a bucket solution of Ian Plimer overnight and then believing its giving you independent thought is ridiculously. Hassy at least you have your old geriatric mate (is he still alive) up the road with his trusted thermometer in his chook shed to disprove climate change.

Hi Foxy,

I can't believe Gina Rhinoceros would have any vested interest in wanting to denying climate change. Surely not, can you think of any, but she does have lap dog Plimer to allay any unwarranted fears she might have.

The fact that qualified people like Ian Plimer, Judith Curry and many others get virtually no coverage in the mainstream media and are never asked for advice by one-eyed bureaucrat-driven governments, means a great deal to anyone not a religious climateer or Left ideologue - people who simply have to be in with the mob; terrified of being different; terrified of being ostracised.

It is a good rule of thumb to be sceptical whenever everyone in a position of authority starts to say the same thing; and when they do the same thing.

People's claims have been peer-reviewed and those like
Plimer have been found wanting. The only place where
his work has been published has been in the Murdoch
press. No surprises there. His books have also been funded
by the mining companies - again no surprises there.

I see our the useful idiots are still preaching from the lefty hymn book.

Sorry Foxy, but if you chose to be a useful idiot, & believe what ever you are told to believe, that is what you become.

I have given you nothing but straight evidence that the thing is a fraud, but you chose to ignore it, & the chief idiot becomes abusive as usual.

Time to look through the propaganda & see what the actual data says.

"When you're sick you go to a doctor and heed his/her
advice - unless you're mentally unstable"

If your doctor told you 30 years ago you had 12 yrs to live,and you're still with us, you might seek a new doctor.

If that same doctor told you 20 years ago you had 12 years left and nothing happened,you might seek a new doctor or you might independently check what the doctor said.

If your doctor told you 12 years ago you'd be dead within 12 years if you didn't completely change your ways and,having failed to change your ways but we're just as healthy as ever, you might look askant at your doctor.

But some people are so anxiously gullible that they continue to believe their constantly erroneous doctor. It's almost like they thrive on bad news and are incapable of independent thought.

WTF?
ttbn: States "Well, Ian Plimer still insists that nobody has actually proved that that CO2 is the villain."

I have posted this before but here we go again:

That fact that Plimer's views are not supported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States Geological Survey, the United States Environmental Protection Agency nor the American Geophysical Union would suggest that his opinions are very much outside of current scientific research.

Plimer is ,however, an outspoken critic of creationism which is a good thing and that would indicate that there is room for his scientific understanding to shift in the future.

WTF?

In 2006, the US Scientist, W.F.J. Evans must have known he would upset the feelings of the delusional alt-right deniers at his presentation to the 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change.

When presenting his experimental data on greenhouse gases he states:

"This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

This was 16 years ago.

Experimental data has been available for that period of time but because it hurts the feelings of deniers they choose to ignore it and still claim no data exists.

Hasbeen

The idiots here are about as useful as a cheap Christmas stocking filler that nobody wants. They are not even original: Google and bandicooted bits of doggerel from who knows what other idiots; an Australian Professor is wrong because some unknown Yanks say so - if indeed they did say so: there is no proof (just like there is no proof that CO2 is responsible for anything except nourishing plant.

Ah well. Such is life. Perhaps it's the education system, which is no longer based on the search for wisdom and truth. Education is now dominated by neo-Marxist critical theory, postmodernism, deconstructionism, radical feminism and identity politics - and anything else that will oust rational thought and reason.

It's all about totalitarian control and 'group think'.

Politicians have seen to it that universities and schools are filled with failed communists who, to hide the rapid decline in education standards, now elicit praise for raising ‘responsible global citizens’ (who cannot add, spell, or reason). Not only have political movements capitalised on Millennials, they are pushing to lower the voting age to prop up their regimes.

WTF?
ttbn - I assume you are referring to W.F.J. Evens as your "unknown yank".

W.F.J. Evens has 158 publications available for review on Researchgate - you know the place you go to get the latest reviewed research.

You may not have known about him before but now you do.

Further to his studies, he has empirically shown that the downward radiation flux of greenhouse gases has increased by
over 3.5 Watts/m2 since pre-industrial times.

Deniers are usually very critical of the use of models.

In Evens' case he states " This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 Watts/m2"

He showed, therefore, that the models at that time where underestimating the effects of greenhouse gases.

Were you deniers all dropped on your heads as kids, or somehow bypassed any high school science?

What CO2 does is old science, something you look up in a text book. Good luck to any conspiracy theories trying to lie about what CO2 does. This next test can be replicated in any decent physics lab on the planet! https://youtu.be/SeYfl45X1wo

Do a little maths - and the CO2 is trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat every second. Of course that's spread out across the entire planet. The basic physics of how CO2 traps heat is known.

Where that extra heat goes is still being measured and modelled - but those models broadly speaking are getting more and more accurate. We know the majority of the heat goes into the oceans - so we really should call it "ocean warming" not "global warming". But the oceans have such a huge influence on our weather systems that "global warming" is fine, really.

Generally speaking the picture we get is that it is melting the ice, changing the seasons, making bird eggs hatch before the insects they eat, and making the atmosphere carry 4% more moisture. (Warmer air carries more water vapour - it's a physics thing.)

That means dry areas dry faster, and rainy areas dump deluges. More famines and floods. It also moves weather patterns, with many rain systems moving out to sea and missing the land. It interacts with ENSO weirdly - sometimes throwing Australia into a freakish drought like the 2019 fires, and other times throwing us into years of La Nina - with freakish floods. Sydney had more rain in one weekend than all the other capital cities get in a YEAR! This is not normal. But people try to deny it's happening. But what's new? There have always been backward fools denying the newfangled knowledge - until they die off and the newfangled thing is just the new norm.

"It's all about totalitarian control and 'group think'"

The Trumpster, ttbn is full of conspiracy theories about antthing and everything, democratically elected governments, Covid 19, climate change etc, etc, you name it and ttbn has a conspiracy theory for it. Then there's Hassy, the guy who really wants climate change with his forum call for the nuclear annihilation of 200 million people in Pakistan, I don't know what he has against the Pakistani's, it must be a Muslim thing. Hassy has the World's greatest scientist on the job, good old Cecil up the road in his chook pen, gathering the eggs and crunching the data on all relevant matters at the same time, and feeding it to both the chooks and Hassy, good old Cecil, 98 years young! What a pair of geniuses!

Dear Hasbeen,

1893 was indeed a big wet given cyclone Buninyong really hammered Brisbane.

But you seem to have your figures screwed up as usual. I doubt any station close to Brisbane have a yearly total of just 1726mm in 1893 given there were gauges south of Brisbane getting over 4000mm.

How about a station number so the rest of us can see if you are pulling figures out your backside.

Sorry Steele, Cecil's chook pen doesn't have a number, but the eggs are fresh, does that help?

Just because Iam Plimer, worked, was a director of a mining company
does not prove he is wrong, I wonder how many jumping on him have actually read his book ?
He has over 1000 references to scientific papers etc in his book to
support his claims.
It is not like we do not know why the temperature has risen over the
last 300 years or so, it is no secret except to closed minds.
Another question not answered is why does the temperature rise and
then the co2 increases ? Could it be that higher temperatures cause
more rain and more plant growth ?

The preachers have been crying "The End is Ni !" of the world for years
and it just keeps plodding on.
It is now getting boring !
Where do you lot park your sandwich boards ?

"He has over 1000 references to scientific papers etc in his book to
support his claims."
It does have links to things ripped out of context and with no actual understanding of CLIMATE science. Geologists are prone to getting money from the very industries that have been documented funding anti-science campaigns. Plimer is a fraud. There are good geologists. Plimer is not one of them.

“Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.

Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes.

When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.”

http://www.desmog.com/2009/12/16/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud/

hi Armchair,
Your video was about a carbon tax. (Yawn.)
We're talking about the science. Especially, bad scientists like Plimer that some here seem to worship as a denier-in-chief.

Never before have so many wanted to read so much anti-science crap produced by so few.

"Canadian broadcaster John Moore said it was "widely criticised by fellow scientists as just another collection of denier hits."[24] The Adelaide Advertiser stated that among other scientists, "Plimer is all but out in the cold".[14]

Barry Brook of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, who is at the same university as Plimer and has debated climate change issues with him,[25] described the book as a case study "in how not to be objective" and accused Plimer of using "selective evidence". Brook said that Plimer's "stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self-interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view, and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science."[26] He said that Plimer's assertions about man's role in climate change were "naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted."[27] Brook also suggested that many of the scientific authors cited by Plimer actually support the consensus view and that their work is misrepresented in Plimer's book.[27] Susannah Eliott, the chief executive of the Australian Science Media Centre, encouraged colleagues to read the book and comment on it, but took the view that "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments".[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)

We're talking about the science.
- Yeah well I was talking about the science of robbing the general public Max and making them slaves to this stupid global agenda

Waaaaaaaa,
Armchair hates the nawty science...
waaaaaaa!

Dude - when you want to talk about something sciencey and adult let me know. But please hold back the whining - it's not a good look.

You can always go and glue yourself to a road mate, dont let me stop ya.
Good baby impression by the way.

Hasbeen - did you catch the bit that the scientists may not KNOW if Australia beat 1999's wettest individual patch record, because there was so much flooding some of the official rain gauges were knocked out of action!? Details after headlines:
---

Australia’s record-breaking weather in 2022: a very wet and sometimes very hot year

The country set new records for rainfall and maximum daily temperatures this year, according to the Bureau of Meteorology...

...In some areas, rainfall totals had to be assessed based on partial data after flood waters wrecked the monitors. The rain gauge at Lismore, which has had repeated floods, was knocked out during the record floods in February and wasn’t restored until August...

...The Murray Darling Basin, home to much of Australia’s food production, was unusually wet with an average rainfall total of just over 295mm in spring alone. Which was more than double the previous spring average of about 120mm and easily exceeded the previous record of 251mm set in 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/30/australias-ninth-wettest-and-20th-hottest-year-looking-back-at-the-weather-in-2022

Hasbeen - don't hate me I'm just the messenger.
---

LONDON — For the first time on record, Britain suffered under temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius — 104 Fahrenheit — on Tuesday, as a ferocious heat wave moved northwest, leaving a trail of raging wildfires, lost lives and evacuated homes across a Europe frighteningly ill-equipped to cope with the new reality of extreme weather.

While the heat’s effects cascaded from Greece to Scotland, the greatest damage was in fire-ravaged France. More than 2,000 firefighters battled blazes that have burned nearly 80 square miles of parched forest in the Gironde area of the country’s southwest, forcing more than 37,000 people to evacuate in the past week...

...At least 34 sites broke the old British record on Tuesday, according to the Met Office, the national weather service, including at least six that reached 40 Celsius. Scotland blew by its old record of 32.9, with a reading in Charterhall of 34.8 — 94.6 Fahrenheit.

The heat continued a global pattern in recent years of leaping past records rather than breaking them in tiny increments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/world/europe/europe-uk-heat-record-wildfires.html

"Hasbeen - don't hate me I'm just the messenger."

"Hasbeen - did you catch the bit that the scientists may not KNOW if Australia beat 1999's wettest individual patch record, because there was so much flooding some of the official rain gauges were knocked out of action!? Details after headlines:"

Max you are not a messenger, just a brain washed dill, repeating every bit of propaganda you are fed. I certainly won't bother to hate you.

Oh you must have missed that the record was 1893, not 1990 something. Not many SUVs or coal fired power houses back then.

You may find this hard to believe, that just just like the farmers & postmasters of the late 1800s I can read a rain gauge, & like them, have more interest in doing it accurately than some bureaucrat "scientist" in an ivory tower somewhere, who's next grant depends on misreading it. The record I mention was taken just 1.5Km as the crow flies from me, but is backed up by readings from near by, & from hundreds of kilometers away in every direction but east, it is too wet out there.

You should know that the highest floods in Brisbane since settlement were either side of 1900, way higher than more recent levels, if you bothered to look at the records yourself.

Yeah, you grab that little cherry and pick it out of context!

What a hero - you know how to cling to the one data-point that confirms your theory and ignore the 99% that don't.

Fortunately stubborn deniers of reality such as yourself are dying out, and the next generation is full of Greta's.

Fortunately the economic reality of solar panels and wind and PHES are starting to disrupt the energy market, and coal is collapsing.

Fortunately clean electric cars are selling fast and getting better.

And fortunately, every teething issue you deniers bitch about is gradually getting fixed. Because innovation. Because the market. Because we learn.

But you just cherrypick your little rain gauge and make assertions without evidence! Truly, rationally sceptical people ask questions, seek data, and then change their minds with the data. You just ignore what you don't want and go hell-for-leather straight into confirmation bias!

Sorry Max I have to agree with Hassy,

Your evidence is nothing like Hassy's, you have your scientists, Hassy has Cecil.

I bet you haven't made even one visit to Cecil's chook pun, up the road from Hassy's hobby farm, to get the real facts on CC. Cecil at 97 years young is still pumpn' it out, well figurative if not actually. Take this overwhelming evidence supplied to me by Hassy, Cecil's favourite, and number one layer, 'Betty' the Road Island Red, went off the lay last week during a thunderstorm, well surprise, surprise, Betty's back on the nest and pumpn' em' out! What more evidence do you require that CC is noting more than a Commie plot hatched by that bloke in China, Xi. Remember CHOOKS NEVER LIE! or Lay, take your choice.

Ha ha ha - I hear you Paul. I hear you!

Oh but it's sad.

Hasbeen - some science for ya! My chook beats your chook.

The temperatures were still high DESPITE being in a La Nina!
---
National mean temperature for January to November 2022 was 0.56 °C above the 1961–1990 average.
2022 is on track to be between the 25th and 15th warmest year since national temperature records begin in 1910, with the final value anticipated to be similar to last year.
Temperatures for January to November were above average to very much above average for northern Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and south-east South Australia, Western Australia's west coast and southern interior; but below average for some pockets of inland Australia.
For January to November, national rainfall was 24% above the 1961–1990 average.
The national year-to-date rainfall is the ninth-highest since 1900 when analyses commenced, and has already exceeded the 1961–1990 annual average.
Year-to-date rainfall was very much above average for the south-eastern quarter of the mainland, but below average for western Tasmania, the eastern half of the Top End of the Northern Territory, and far south-west Western Australia.
Persistent rain falling onto saturated catchments saw significant flooding affect large parts of eastern Australia multiple times during the year.
For 2022 as a whole, Australia's annual rainfall is likely to be in the 20 highest annual totals, but not likely to rise into the top 10.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a042.shtml

Thanks Max, that's conclusive evidence, and it should read Rhode Island Red, not Road Island Red, different chook! I refuse to argue with the deniers, its lunacy, its like trying to argue with the flat earth people wearing their tin foil hats. I'm sure when it comes to denying climate change is real, there are a few on this forum wearing the same hats.

Dear Hasbeen,

Come on old cock, put up or shut up as they say in the classics.

You tell people "if you bothered to look at the records yourself".

Well just give me the station number you got your figures from and I will do just that.

Easy.

Hassy,

I wouldn't concern yourself too much. Here we have people who preen themselves that they follow the science when in fact that have very little understanding of the actual science and effectively no understanding of the societal implications of their ignorance.

They've been told to believe a certain story about the climate and they, being used to follow-the-leader type thinking, just accept that it's true. Let's remember that Max is the bozo who fell hook, line and sinker (and perhaps the anchor too) for the claims about a carbon budget of 565gt while in fact having no understanding of how the figure was derived and how invalid it was. He just wanted it to be true and that was good enough....for some that is following the science!!

Or ask him about RCP8.5! His misunderstanding of that most important of modelling scenarios is still the funniest thing I've ever seen on these pages.

The fact is the science is no longer the issue. The warmists have moved beyond trying to make their case since they can't. Instead they are just steam-rolling their desired changes irrespective of the science.

BTW, has anyone noticed that according to most temperature records, world temps have declined in the last 7 to 8 years while CO2 continued to rise? Best ignore that, heh?

Dear Hasbeen,

Didn’t think you would cough it up and a quick google search has revealed why.

Your weather station was BEAUDESERT CRYNA, Bureau of Meteorology station number: 040014.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=040014

Its records go from 1887 to 2012.

And indeed they do show a figure of 1726.5mm of rainfall for 1893 and 434.2 for 1919 just as you said.

There is a slight problem though. A more modern station was installed 6kms to the north to replace the old one. It is called BEAUDESERT ALERT, Bureau of Meteorology station number: 040939.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=040939

Its records go from 2002 until current which meant there was 10 years of cross over data to calibrate the two. The data is still italicised as BOM have yet to quality control it.

But as it stands the driest year on record was 2019 with 426mm and the wettest was this year at 1755mm.

Yet you had claimed: The results are now in, & 1893 is still the wettest year in my district, south of Brisbane, since records began. 1726mm still holds the record.”

Sure there might be a correction once the BEAUDESERT CRYNA data goes through a quality control procedure and calibration, but as it stands it seems you have been caught with your pants done and left looking like a bloody muppet.

Any explanation?

Dear mhaze,

The above was following the science and the data rather than Hasbeen’s earlier attempt to corrupt it.

Look and learn old chap.

As to world temperatures declining over the last 7-8 years do you have a source for that or are you going to do a Hasbeen and try and wing it with bulldust?

I shouldn't bother with you brain washed clowns but my 1893 record is from Tamborine House, which is very similar to Beaudesert. This year is from my very own rain gauge, just 900 meters from Tamborine house.

I gave up bothering with BOM when they started "corrections" it alter old records, & delete old records that don't suit the narrative.

This year is from my very own rain gauge, just 900 meters from Tamborine house, in Cecil's chook pen!

Getting down to tin-tacks....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yYn-ATFF-k&t=715s ("you hate capitalism")

There's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/a-controversial-us-book-is-feeding-climate-change-in-australia-its-central-claim-is-true-yet-irrelevant-162922

MHAZE my boy - just because you didn't understand the difference between "Resource" and "Reserves" in our peak oil chat doesn't give you grounds to exaggerate the discussion around how they estimated the carbon allowance.

It's been a few years, but I remember that being with another forum member - not yourself that much - and led to NASA's probability curves within their many repetitions and variations of their climate model based on the known radiative forcing of CO2.

Which can be demonstrated in any decent physics lab on the PLANET!

But it seems like you fell for your little echo chamber's mantra of "They can't estimate a carbon budget" that your accomplice in crime just repeated 20,000 times. That level of repetition MUST mean it's true, hey?

Your political presuppositions are making you hate on science.

Grow up, and learn to accept the world the way it is.

Dear Hasbeen,

Oh no you don’t old cock.

All three of your stated figures exactly match the Beaudesert Cryna record. You are now trying to claim that you took one of them from “Tamborine House” instead. Risible nonsense.

If you are referring to Mount Tamborine then it gets nearly a third more rainfall than Beaudesert so it isn’t “very similar” at all now is it.

As to you now claiming it was YOUR gauge which showed the rainfall did not reach that of 1893 by just 15mm, utterly laughable I’m afraid.

Come on mate you have gotten right royally found out, just live with it and stop trying to dig your hole any deeper slinging bulldust. Sometimes you just have to wear these things on the chin and live to fight another day. Continuing to embarrass yourself is not the answer.

Just to confirm, the highest recorded annual rainfall at Beaudesert was 2022 with 1755mm and the lowest was 426mm recorded in 2019. Live with it old boy.

Dear mhaze,

Ah a Lex Fridman fan I see. So am I.

Unfortunately his guest has become a frustrating and frustrated ideologue who is difficult to listen to and who speaks with great certainty well outside his level of expertise.

You could even see Lex getting a bit exasperated with him during the clip.

I much preferred Lex's interview with Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin. http://youtu.be/5Gk9gIpGvSE

As to your non answer regarding increasing global temperature you lot have again latched on to a peak in the record like you did with 1998. This time you are doing it with 2015 to try to claim global temperatures are decreasing over the last 7 years.

It was pathetic and utterly disingenuous back then and it is so now.

Give it away.

Hi Steele,

As a local in Brisbane I can confirm Mount Tamborine is the wettest location in this area, by far. I was joking when giving Hassy the razz about dear old Cecil having a thermometer in his chook shed, I was wrong, not only does he have a thermometer in there, he's also got a rain gauge as well, probably one of those cheepy Chinese plastic models, that Hassy gave him for his 97th birthday, I think he got it from the Reject Shop for $2.

p/s I've got one of those cheepy units in my yard, rain gauge (measures up to 35mm, after that it overflows and thermometer -40C to 120C. Last 24 hours in Brisbane we had 457mm of rain (my rain gauge overflowed so I'll estimate 457mm) and the current temp in Brisbane is -40C, in fact the temperature hasn't risen above -40C for more that a year. Doesn't that put the mockers on global warming. Using my gauges I'm able to accurately forecast the weather in Brisbane. Over the next 24 hours there will be a snow blizzard headed our way from the direction of Tahiti, followed by a tropical cyclone from Antarctica.

Steele, get yourself one of these marvellous units from the Reject Shop, only $2, then like Hassy and me you'll be an expert on the weather.

Max,

Still trying to salvage some self-respect by pushing that semantic nonsense about reserves v. resources, a debate you had with yourself alone and convinced yourself you won out against yourself.

Meanwhile a little reminder of the carbon budget moronosity you once engaged in... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

And just because I enjoy it so much, the RCP debacle.... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295403

from that post.." I'm sorry Max, but it shows that you really haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about."

After these two debacles, Max, wisely, took a year's sabbatical from OLO.

_______________________________________________________________-

SR,

"Ah a Lex Fridman fan I see. So am I."

Nup.... a Jordan Peterson fan. Who is interviewing him is rather immaterial.

"As to your non answer regarding increasing global temperature you lot have again latched on to a peak in the record like you did with 1998. This time you are doing it with 2015 to try to claim global temperatures are decreasing over the last 7 years."

Oh dear, SR, you never did understand those issues about trends did you? D'ya me to dig up the hilarious post you put up about the so-called pause?

Oh, and you wont be able to find anywhere where I used 1998 as the start of a declining trend analysis.

Oh, and I wasn't using 2015 as the start here. I said 7 to 8 years. I was using June 2014 as the start.

Oh, and I didn't "latched on to a peak in the record". 2015 wasn't a peak year, that was 2016. Do try to keep up.

Struth, SR, how many errors can you make in one post? But as we all know, as soon as numbers are involved, SR starts to struggle.

About what I'd expect. I said "Here we have people who preen themselves that they follow the science when in fact that have very little understanding of the actual science and effectively no understanding of the societal implications of their ignorance."

They are trained to follow the politics and part of that training is to regurgitate the follow-the-science mantra.

But when faced with using the science to gain the point they hurry to use the ad hominem (Max) or utterly tortured figures (SR).

As I said, the science is no longer important. The warmists and their flying-monkeys no longer care that the science doesn't prove their case and intend to steamroller they political agenda through irrespective.

But we are already seeing the strains that this false science is causing to society and the inevitable push back. Germany reverting to fossil fuels to keep warm. They say its temporary but we'll see. Italy returning to nuclear. The beginnings of sanity around Ev's. China offers to buy more coal from us and the government cheers.

When people are warm and well-fed they will tolerate the green fantasies. But lack of heating/power, rising inflation and scare calories and sacrificing to Gaia becomes less attractive.

Oh Mhaze - why are your powers of comprehension so poor?
You obviously still think you scored some point or other in this post - and it's just so pathetic it's sad! Yours is a child's taunt, a semantic game - nothing more. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

At the time the world's politicians were saying we had 565 gigatons to 2 degrees. So I was quoting that, referencing the urgency that even the politicians were quoting. But at the time I didn't think we should hit 2 degrees - and guess what? Later the politicians finally admitted the climate science and shifted to 1.5.

I was trying to explain this to you when you just cut in with...
"He believed it before he didn't. He believed it yesterday and he'll believe it tomorrow but today, since he's asked to justify it, he doesn't believe it. Even I'm embarrassed for him."

Gosh! Well, I hang my head in shame. But - then the world moved to 1.5 degrees, confirming what I was saying at the time. Your petty little semantic game is just so much old man self-congratulatory armchair slapping – but utterly disconnected from reality.

Oh, and the next link? Not even semantics – just downright weird assertions plucked out of thin air. It’s not my fault you’re like this. I just hope you wake up to yourself one day, and shudder at how utterly dense your posts here are. But in case you’re still having trouble comprehending this: I’ll repeat what I wrote back then.

In summary, global warming is real, is us and is serious. Deny any of these and you have become EXACTLY the kind of irrational tinfoil hat, alternate reality conspiracy theorist I thought you were.

The main reason I left OLO? It's boring. Pointing out how utterly childish and fallacious and retarded Denier arguments are is a waste of time. But sometimes sheer morbid curiosity brings me back. Are they still so overwhelmed by their Dunning-Kruger's syndrome that they cannot see reality? The answer it seems is yes.

Tell yourself what you need in order to salvage what you consider self-respect. But the fact is that you spent close on 20 posts pushing the claims about a mathematically proven CO2 budget.

Rather than saying it was a political calculations you were touting it as a scientific fact and were deriding anyone who doubted it.

Until.....

I demonstrated that not only was the number invalid but that it had no mathematical support and wasn't even based on any science. Instead it was a propaganda piece that you'd fallen for - much like your 4 Hiroshima rubbish.

Anyone who cared could go back and read the thread which contained the post I linked earlier and see the truth of the matter. Its revealing that you're prepared to simply concoct an alternate story to try to hide your embarrassment.

"But the fact is that you spent close on 20 posts pushing the claims about a mathematically proven CO2 budget."
Oh seriously Mhaze - this is just so DENSE of you!
Yes I did! I said that! Now, what you have failed to understand is what that MEANS that I said that. This is where your comprehension fails you - where you truly have some kind of learning difficulty. It actually makes me sorry for you!
That was the legitimate SCIENCE. An extra 565 gt from that date would cause 2 degrees.
I never said that wasn't TRUE - that I didn't believe that SCIENTIFIC MODEL of what carbon would do to us! Did I? Please - show me where I said I disbelieved the science?
"I demonstrated that not only was the number invalid"
Well there's some self-congratulatory bullcrap and you demonstrated no such thing.

"but that it had no mathematical support and wasn't even based on any science." Crap. The physics of CO2's radiative forcing equation is demonstrable, and NASA's clever models running the earth climate system repeated under many variations demonstrated that would be the outcome. Is I still accept that science.

I'm not taking science lessons from some old dude on the internet that can't tell the difference between an oil resource and a reserve!

I just said I didn't accept that it was a good idea to get to 2 degrees! And low and behold, the pollies eventually decided at later climate talks that 1.5 should be the new maximum.

Yeah, look, you're right Mhaze. All the world's physicists in every physics lab were bought out by THEM. THEY also broke every Fourier Device and massaged the readings, just in case a physics student should happen along.

THEY made the bugs hatch before the birds hatched, altering vital seasonal responses in various ecosystems. THEY melted the glaciers and ice caps with huge space-lasers. THEY warmed our nights - consistent with the atmosphere trapping more heat - but did so with giant earth-changing space-radiators. THEY wet the atmosphere with giant invisible sprinklers to make our atmosphere wetter (consistent with global warming physics.)

THEY raised the sea levels, THEY changed the seasons, THEY increased wildfires in some areas and deluges in others, and THEY added 4 Hiroshima bombs of energy per second.

THEY created the greatest global conspiracy in the history of the human race - and only brave little Mhaze and his buddies on OLO can spot what's happening!

Ha ha ha ha

"Ha ha ha ha"

Pretty sad you think that's funny..... or relevant.

Also rather lacking in grey matter to think that these are the only options.... fully accept that we're all gunna die or reject all science. You know what? Some of us understand that we can accept the science AND realise that the catastrophists are wrong.

Just to be clear, my policy is to mock those who make egregious idiotic errors due to their pomposity but who refuse to acknowledge or accept their error, or even, as in your case, lie to hide it.

I find it amusing to mock them every now and then to prick the pomposity they exude.

But those who accept and acknowledge their error (565gt anyone?) I respect and leave alone.

"Some of us understand that we can accept the science AND realise that the catastrophists are wrong."

Yeah, you want to have your cake and eat it to. Weasel words.

I accept the science. Climate change is serious.
I think we can beat it. I'm not a 'catastrophist'. Even recalcitrant Tony Abbott and ScoMo have not stopped the market forces at play here - forcing us to become 80% renewable in just 7 years.

But climate change would be truly terrifying if Deniers like yourself were in charge! I'm the one who accepts the science. You are not. So take your silly assertions about your 'science' and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Anyone notice that Max becomes increasingly deranged the more foolish he is made to look?

He thinks he follows the science while actually following the politics. He's shown over and over that he doesn't understand the science.

For 3000 of the last 12000 years temperatures have been higher than the current temperatures. Do 'followers of science' agree with that science. And if its true, what caused it and why suppose that whatever caused those previous higher temps isn't causing the current high temperatures (if indeed they are high)?

But 'followers of science' ignore that type of science because it doesn't suit the politics.

Mhaze,
more weasel words from a weasel. You are only singing HYMN NUMBER ONE from the Denier's hymnal, "The climate's changed before." It's top of the Denier charts - so of course YOU are singing it!

"Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)"

But the short version of the peer-reviewed response to Lindzen - a known contrarian, is:

"Previous climates can be explained by natural causes, while current climate change can only be explained by an excess of CO2 released by human fossil fuel burning. Records of past climates indicate that change happened on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it."
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Max,

So that a no to following the science? Pretty much what I expected!

I wasn't talking about the previous ice ages. I was talking about the Holocene - the past 12000 years.

The science shows that temperatures for a quarter of that time (ie 3000 out of 12000 years) were higher than the present. I'm not surprised you want to ignore that....but you ignoring it is rather my point.

And despite the claims from skepticalsceince and Realclimate and your other go-to gurus, there is no evidence that the recent warming is unprecedented, primarily because the paleo record isn't detailed enough to know what happened in specific 150 yr blocks. Again, that's what the science tells us although the followers-of-science prefer to ignore that.

Mhaze,
your scientific method is flawed.

Science is about evaluating data.

Your 'method' is about evaluating who can just sit there in pig-headed stubbornness and ASSERT over, and over, and over again.

It's as boring and disappointing as discovering New Year's Day vomit on your front doorstep.

Be better.

Charming

WTF?

mhaze states: "The science shows that temperatures for a quarter of that time (ie 3000 out of 12000 years) were higher than the present."

This is presented as some "got ya" type statement as if it is somehow a rebuke of much of the Science that has been presented of threads relating to climate change.

The Scientific data and explanation of why this has happened can be found in many studies taken at many places around the world.

If you visit the repository Sciencegate you will find a wealth of the latest research on this topic along with relevant explanations.

When you analyse this Scientific research you will get a better understanding of the evidence that indicates the recent warming is, in fact, unprecedented.

One particular study gives an explanation of a specific 200-300 year cold event - close to a 150 year time block but then don't forget that the Holocene epoch is ongoing.

Hi WTF,
"When you analyse this Scientific research you will get a better understanding of the evidence that indicates the recent warming is, in fact, unprecedented."

He doesn't care about that.
He KNOWS better than NASA, the UN's IPCC, and the top 4 weather and temperature databases on the planet.

See, science died because "they" took over the world.

Also, Moonfall is a documentary - didn't you know?

(Winks. I wish more people here had your attitude to science!)

WTF?

Thanks Max Green.

What mhaze is essentially saying is: I know of some data that is the result of research conducted by climate Scientists. I can use this now to show that climate Scientists do not know what they are talking about.

It is a classic example of "feels before reals".

Will climate change cause these denier snowflakes to melt into the background? We'll have to wait and see.

"This is presented as some "got ya" type statement..."

Well actually it was presented as the type of science the follow-the-science crowd refuse to follow. How about you address my actual opinions rather than make them up and then ridicule the non-opinion.

"When you analyse this Scientific research you will get a better understanding of the evidence that indicates the recent warming is, in fact, unprecedented."

Oh good. Show it to us.

The fact is the science shows that paleo data is insufficiently precise to make any claims about particular 150 year periods. Under those circumstances it is impossible to say whether it is or isn't unprecedented. Show me differently.

Now if you want to look at my opinions rather than make them up for me, you'll see that I do accept that the current temperatures are increasing, that the dreaded CO2 is a partial cause and that the increase may continue for some time. What I don't accept is that the current temperatures are unprecedented and that, therefore, think the claims of climate emergency are rubbish.

Equally what I don't accept is the claim that the increases will be catastrophic or that 'the science' has proven that to be the case.

From that I don't accept that there is any validity in uprooting our society to fight the assumed emergency and most definitely there is no validity in denying modernisation to the still developing peoples so as to fight an unproven threat.

"How about you address my actual opinions rather than make them up and then ridicule the non-opinion."

Yep - there it is again.
We must address his OPINIONS rather than not address his OPINIONS.

And there I was thinking science was about data?

Hey, Mhaze - give us the years you think we have to deal with? Which 3000 years? Which block? One block? A few blocks? When to when? And who says they're a problem? What's your source?

But hey - if we're just discussing your OPINIONS then why don't we just sit back and listen to you count the various colours of your navel fluff as you navel gaze the day away?

(I'm getting bored. Try a more adult post soon or I'm going back to Reddit and a thousand other places where at least there's an interesting challenge now and then!)

The dill who wrote "It's as boring and disappointing as discovering New Year's Day vomit on your front doorstep" wants "a more adult post"!

" What's your source?"
In previous threads I gave you the sources for the periods of higher Holocene temperatures. you refused to even look at them. So pass.

Waaaa - they're ganging up on me and asking me to show my sources that I'M CURRENTLY banging on about. Waaaaa!

I mean, if you're going to be a sulky little baby about showing your own sources - then we know not only that your sources are BS, but that YOU know your own sources are BS.

Go away then.

WTF?

mhaze states: "Well actually it was presented as the type of science the follow-the-science crowd refuse to follow. How about you address my actual opinions rather than make them up and then ridicule the non-opinion."

My response was initially to this statement: "For 3000 of the last 12000 years temperatures have been higher than the current temperatures. Do 'followers of science' agree with that science. And if its true, what caused it and why suppose that whatever caused those previous higher temps isn't causing the current high temperatures (if indeed they are high)?

I followed up by saying that scientists do know what caused it. I even named the repository where you could go to verify this.

I am not going to do the academic heavy lifting for you but in summery it is a combination of the Earth's orbital forcing, solar activity, volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.

All of these are measurable today and therefore can be compared to other time periods.

When all factors are considered it is the increases in greenhouse gasses since 1750 that is identified as the major cause of temperature increase.

I don't understand your fascination with a 150 year time block - it seems arbitrary and therefore unscientific.

I did mention that scientist could explain changes for a specific 200 -300 year period.

If anthropological increase in greenhouse gases are contributing to this then it is unprecedented.

As for your opinions: "From that I don't accept that there is any validity in uprooting our society to fight the assumed emergency and most definitely there is no validity in denying modernisation to the still developing peoples so as to fight an unproven threat."

I do not know of anyone (apart from you) who is discussing uprooting society and denying modernisation.

"I don't understand your fascination with a 150 year time block - it seems arbitrary and therefore unscientific."

Max first raised that as a relevant period. I was merely responding to him. Tell him how unscientific it is.

"I do not know of anyone (apart from you) who is discussing uprooting society and denying modernisation."

Well you should get out more. The notion of nett zero is uprooting society.

"I am not going to do the academic heavy lifting for you "

Pretty much what I expected. Make unsupported and unsupportable claims and then refuse to provide even a skerrick of evidence.

BTW Max, check Marcott et al 2013. I checked....this is now the 4th time I've pointed you to that paper. I've pointed you to about a dozen papers on the higher-than-present Holocene papers and you've ignored them all.

BTW WTF?, that's how you do it. If someone disputes your claims you offer proof.

WTF?

mhaze just for you.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279976756_2_Climate_Change_During_the_Holocene_Past_12000_Years

This is just one of many articles on the topic.

Dear mhaze,

You admitted: "Nup.... a Jordan Peterson fan.".

Wow. I wasn't sure there were too many left outside the male 25 - 35 demographic.

Well good for you.

I get he messaging would be pretty appealing given he has drunk the URW Koolaid in great quantities. His tweets nowadays are far more parody than anything substantive.

Even in his area of expertise the fact that he so spectacularly dove into a substance addiction and entertained serious suicidal thoughts kind of disqualified him as the guru of self help and actualisation don't you think.

Also the fact that he was so supportive of his daughter dating the now disgraced sex trafficker Andrew Tate speaks to his parenting skills or lack thereof.

But if he remains your guru well have at it. You look good together old boy.

Same old SR. Shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

You probably won't watch it, almost certainly won't understand it and most definitely won't learn from it but what the heck....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/22/the-world-is-not-ending-bjorn-lomborg-and-jordan-peterson/

WTF?

Well I read the article you linked but I'm unsure if you did since it in no way offers support for your claims above. The word "unprecedented" isn't used. Indeed it shows that the current temperatures around the Baltic are near to the lowest of the whole Holocene.

Interestingly it spends a bit of time talking about a cooling event around 8000 yr BP which was resolved by a rapid warming over a very short period, not unlike the warming following the Little Ice Age. Unprecedented?

The article also talks of rapid warming phases ("At the beginning of the Late Preboreal time, between 11,270 and 11,210 cal year BP, there was a sudden shift to a warmer and more humid climate, and forest vegetation expanded once more.").

So I'm not sure how you think this article supports your claims. Indeed it wouldn't have been out of place for me to link it as support for my claims - current temperatures low as compared to the rest of the Holocene, periods of rapid warming quite usual.

Yes - climate science NEVER said "All climate change is caused by humans - always has, always will be!" That's such a childish strawman that it hardly needs unpacking.

Precession operates in 26,000 year cycles. Marcott analyses roughly this length of time in his 2 papers - Mhaze is just looking at the second paper. But NASA shows that while Precession had an influence back then, it's not responsible for today's warming.

To try and invalidate climate science on Precession is like saying you can't burn your hand on a man-made stove because natural volcanoes are hotter. I mean, duh!

http://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

Also - this is what Marcott says about the future. He's quite happy with the IPCC. Why isn't Mhaze, hmmmmmm? (winks).

"A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Max,

"Yes - climate science NEVER said "All climate change is caused by humans - always has, always will be!"

Well neither did I...or anyone else for that matter so I've got no idea what you're raving about. Since no one said it, why did you put it in quotes? I don't know and I suspect that makes two of us.

"To try and invalidate climate science on Precession "

Well since I did no such thing I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us. BTW Marcott13 doesn't mention prescession so I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us.

As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning.

Max wanted evidence that the current temperatures aren't exceptional as I'd previously told him. I (and, perversely, WTF?) have provided that evidence. A better man might have acknowledged that. But Max? Not likely

Dear mhaze,

I certainly don't mind Bjørn Lomborg. I don't agree with a chunk of what he says and he has been caught out a number of times but his perspective is worth noting.

Peterson on the other hand is a shocker, both as a person and as an interviewer. His 5 minute long questions to Bjørn were both typical and painful. He is one of those who is so opinionated that he hogs the time in all his interviews.

Go look at the link I sent you and you will see how much better Lex's interview with Bjørn Lomborg was.

Mhaze,
“Well since I did no such thing I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us. BTW Marcott13 doesn't mention prescession so I don't know what you're raving about.”

Awww, paw widdle diddums couldn’t click the scawy NASA science link that expwaines Pwecession.

"that he added the 20th century data inappropriately.

Aww, paw wittle Mhaze wants to take the big man’s words out of contwext. Aawww, da poor Mhaze can’t undewstand big mans’s words like “temporal resolution of ~120 years” and that the pewiod in discwussion wiff modewn climate has much maw fine wesolution than that.

Awww, paw wittle Mhaze’s swiencey linkey thing don’t dispwove climate theory the way he weally weally wants it twoo.

Well Max has finally gone of the deep end. This always happens when he finally (FINALLY!) realises he's talked himself into a corner.

My work is done.

Mhaze pretends he accepts the science, but it turns out he’s made a simple category error – something equivalent to not knowing how to read the legend in a map!

Mhaze said: “And despite the claims from skepticalsceince and Realclimate and your other go-to gurus, there is no evidence that the recent warming is unprecedented, primarily because the paleo record isn't detailed enough to know what happened in specific 150 yr blocks. Again, that's what the science tells us although the followers-of-science prefer to ignore that."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342819

That didn’t sound right – so we pushed further. Mhaze finally admitted his source was Marcott et al. This study is part 2 of climate research that covers over 20,000 years. It intentionally studies long time frames with longer basic units of time in mind. Other studies cover millions of years in even larger units. Others are more frequent, down at the 30 year level.
http://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-data-monitoring

But Mr “That’s what the science tells us…” can’t be bothered to even exercise High School level English Comprehension – let alone respect science. There’s this thing called context. The context here is longer time spans. That’s Marcott. That’s what Marcott is doing.
Guess what? Other climate studies operate differently. Not all RED on maps is bushfires!

But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale. His error is as basic as reading RED on one map – a bushfire risk for example – and then insisting RED ALWAYS means bushfire on every map! Even maps of the ocean!

And the guy smugly congratulates himself in his Dunning-Kruger’s syndrome without realizing how utterly retarded this is? I guess that’s the whole point of Dunning-Kruger’s – but man it’s frustrating as hell when you come across it.

What to do about all this? I guess we could take a leaf out of Mhaze’s own book.

“my policy is to mock those who make egregious idiotic errors due to their pomposity”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342791

Pawww wittle Mhaze cawnt even wead a map!

WTF?

If anthropological activity increases greenhouse gasses and that increase has an effect on climate then it is "unprecedented".

"But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale."

Rubbish. That's almost as funny as your RCP8.5 cock-up.

I've show you a dozen or more papers that show temperatures in the last 12000 were often higher than now. You've not shown a single one that shows anything different - not even MBH98.

So show us a few papers that "burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale" for periods prior to say 1750. (Prediction - he'll move on to some other moronosity or use the WTF? excuse of I'm not going to do the searching for you).

What a bozo!

"Mhaze finally admitted his source was Marcott et al. " That was one of many sources. I've shown you plenty of others over the years. What a bozo!

It occurred that I didn't explain why Max's claims were so funny and that he so misunderstands things that he'd never get it.

He linked to a NOAA page showing how that they reset global averages every 30 years and thought (for want of a more Max-appropriate word) that meant they were looking at paleo-climate in 30 year increments. What a bozo!

Hi Mhaze,
I said:"But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale."

It's true - especially since they invented these things called temperature stations and instruments.

I mean, I COULD just blindly brain-fart my way into the intellectual oblivion that is dumbarse Mhaze's denial of science - cherrypicking only what I WANT to be true.

Or I could just read the modern definition from a more respectable organisation than "Some Dunning-Kruger's bloke I met on the internet."

What is that definition - you ask? (I'm being ironical here - you never ask about anything you didn't make up inside that thick skull of yours.)

"More formally, climate is the long-term average of temperature, precipitation, and other weather variables at a given location. Every 30 years, climate scientists calculate new averages. The normal high and low temperatures reported on your local weather forecast come from these 30-year averages. Although climate describes conditions in the atmosphere (hot/cold, wet/dry), these conditions are influenced by the ocean, land, sun, and atmospheric chemistry. NOAA monitors these factors to understand and predict changes to local or global climate."

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-data-monitoring

I mean - I'm not a mathematical genius or anything - but last time I checked 30 years had 5 times the resolution of your 150 year claim. So take your magical words and shove them where the sun doesn't shine you Dunning Kruger's weirdo? Or are you just a troll?

Or is it more sinister - do you actually think you have influence here over the dumbasses that can't TELL how dumb you are or guess what you're doing?

Mate - turn off the computer - go out into the world - and make some real friends. You'll feel a lot better.

Also, your demands for 1750 etc are invalid - I've shown you the definition above

Now let me get this straight.

You think that it can be shown that temperatures rising in the last 150 years are unprecedented by comparing the last 150 years to the last 150 years. I think even you can work out the illogicality of that.

But finally we agree. I agree that the temperature rises in the last 150 years are unprecedented as compared to the temperatures rises of the last 150 years. OTOH the temperatures rises of the last 150 years are really very similar to the temperature rises of the last 150 years.

You say the rises are unprecedented. Compared to what?

What a bozo!

Hi Mhaze,
Your Dunning-Kruger's is so bad you wrote off modern climate science because you can't read a simple "key" in a study. You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! (Great Caesar's Ghost that's dumb!)

Now you're flapping your gums about 150 years again. D'uh! Yeah - I should REALLY listen to old uncle dumbass instead of NASA! (Slaps hand to forehead.)

You know - the guys that put man on the moon. (But hey - who knows what brand of tinfoil hat you wear on THAT subject - I don't know and I don't care!)

150 years? They can study a lot of that with the instrument record - pre-that there are proxies.

NASA:-

"The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

...Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century.2 Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age."

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! "

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect that makes two of us.

I'll ask again....You say the rises in temperatures are unprecedented. Compared to what?

Mhaze: Don't worry - your general lack of comprehension is apparent to all!

"You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! "

D'uh! If you are sincerely asking that you're (sadly) really dumb or you are a troll seeking negative attention. Because negative attention is better than no attention - right?

What have we been discussing this whole time? Aren't YOU the one who raised Marcott and then ripped his time period series out of context to try and condemn all modern climate science? Aren't YOU the one who tried to argue that because Marcott used a 150 year statistical method with his proxies, ALL modern climate science was suspect because units tighter than 150 years are not possible? (Or something - I have no idea what's really going on in your brain.)

What scale? What key? What legend? Why the climate study unit of time! EG: A billion year study might break it down into million year blocks,
study into Precession might break it down into 150 year blocks, and a study on modern climate science might break it down into decade long blocks with 30 year revisions. Each is valid in their own way.

"I'll ask again....You say the rises in temperatures are unprecedented. Compared to what?"

I'll answer again. Read NASA! Compared to all findings in paleo-climate!

Oh dear Max...

You're the one who started talking about 150 years. You raised it and now claim it was my idea! What a bozo!

Marcott confirmed that the paleo records he used weren't detailed enough to break it down into 100 year periods for the recent past and 200-300 year periods for the early parts of the Holocene. Do I really need to provide the exact quotes again?

And of course, Marcott isn't the only study to confirm that the paleo record isn't detailed enough to show temperature changes in time scales of less than a coupla hundred years.

What is even worse, is that more research is showing that the paleo records are even less detailed than previously thought with unexpected contamination of the record due to environmental factors making detailed temperature approximation even more problematic.

"Compared to all findings in paleo-climate!"
So you are now claiming that ALL findings of paleo-climate is detailed enough to discern temperatures on scales of less than 150 years. Good.
Show me some examples of this from the Holocene.

Is that so Mhaze?

Gee, what does all this mean then?
Your own words:

"As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342907

Mhaze, when you're in hole - stop digging.
But I guess the question is whether your Dunning-Kruger's is so bad you recognise the general downward slope of the land around you being this thing we call a 'hole'?

Again Max, you raised the 150 year claims and now that you know they're wrong want to pretend it was me. What a bozo!

And just in case you missed it (heaven forbid that you just wanted to avoid it)....

So you are now claiming that ALL findings of paleo-climate is detailed enough to discern temperatures on scales of less than 150 years. Good.
Show me some examples of this from the Holocene.

Mhaze - you know what you said.
Everyone here can see it.
It was dumb.
You were caught off guard by your own big mouth.
Now you're floundering around asking questions that attempt to make you sound smart and pretentious - but we all know what's happening.

It's called a diversion.

If you have a concrete argument you think can save you - actually just say it. Otherwise, I just don't care what you think - you're just a sad old climate denier trying to pretend you have a clue. The fact that you won't honestly admit what happened here just makes you an annoying little gnat of a man. Go away. Bzzzz.

Wow Max your chutzpah is impressive. You first raised the notion of 150 year time scales...."The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it."

Yet here you are, ON THE SAME THREAD, brazenly denying it.

Then you claimed that the last 150years temperature rises are unprecedented and that the paleo-record proves it. But when asked to provide even a skerrick of evidence for the stupid claim, you run a mile. I know that as a good loyal alarmist you are required to repeat these unproven claims, but claiming they are proven and then failing to find even the slightest evidence is pretty dumb, even for you. Even WTF? earlier on had a crack at backing up the seriously flawed claim. But you can't even do that.

So we've reached the point where you know you've talked yourself into a corner but haven't the balls to admit it. Its therefore hardly worth pursuing the matter. I trust you've learned something, but I somehow doubt it.

“But when asked to provide even a skerrick of evidence for the stupid claim, you run a mile”
See – that’s where you are an annoying little gnat of a man.
I’m not the target you’ve decided to deride. NASA is. The IPCC is. Every National Academy of Science on the planet is. Basically – you’re the one asserting that only YOU follow the science. You’re the one that used Marcott to try and discredit the basic physics behind the Radiative Forcing Equation that the IPCC stands behind. You’re the one that is apparently dubious that the recent rise in RECORDED TEMPERATURES is faster in the last 150 years than what has occurred over the paleoclimate record. You follow the ‘real’ science.
But when push comes to shove, your application of Marcott is a category error! It’s friggin embarrassing to watch!
EVERYONE – Mhaze actually said:

"As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342907

Hi Mhaze - I quoted Skeptical Science to show that yes, indeed, the climate has changed before - they know why - and it’s not responsible for the last 150 years of *unprecedented* warming. We’ve caused this, there’s no natural events or Milankovitch cycles to blame, it’s fast, and it’s serious.

So of course something I quoted first happened to raise the last 150 years. But that was without once DREAMING that you would say something as absurd as this:-

“…primarily because the paleo record isn't detailed enough to know what happened in specific 150 yr blocks.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342819

That’s where you tried to import paleo climate time-chunks over modern climate science. Now that I’ve shown modern climate science measures changes in decades - you’re just pointing to paleoclimate and saying “But that’s the climate scale I like.” You’re like a kid with your fingers in your ears chanting “Not listening, not listening” and you basically bored me off this list for the last week or so.

And then this: “The fact is the science shows that paleo data is insufficiently precise to make any claims about particular 150 year periods. Under those circumstances it is impossible to say whether it is or isn't unprecedented. Show me differently.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10016#342862

Duh! It’s like I’m trying to discuss the nano-scale of computer chips - and you’re the snarky kid in the class saying “Well I can’t see that on my CM rule - and it goes all the way down to millimetres!” Yeah - good on ya. You have fun convincing yourself you’re a hero, fighting all this science - just don’t think anyone else is falling for that.