Someone broke the thread again.
Okay CH, I will say it for you:
You were completely wrong about what S&T says about the implications for C21st warming. This statement is incorrect and misleading:
S&T are not actually predicting warmer
Wrong and misleading.
You misrepresented S&T over the course of several threads in the promotion of a specious argument about the likely frequency, duration and significance of cooling episodes during this century.
The very scientists you quote ad nauseam do not agree with your conclusions. And although I showed you the relevant quote from S&T more times that I can count, you were utterly incapable of reading/understanding the words in front of your nose. You have completely discredited yourself. All you had to do was *listen*, but no.
What is actually worse is that despite being exposed as being entirely wrong, you haven’t got the decency to admit it and accept that this largely demolishes your position. You literally *cannot* say ‘sorry, I was wrong’. It’s *pitiful*.
Which brings us to the appropriate and final absurdity. Here’s you, being your usual unpleasant blog crank self earlier:
‘The ability of space cadets to ignore evidence is constantly astonishing.’
You have proved yourself to be a perfect space cadet and more besides, haven’t you? Nice work, CH. BBD – Booger Brain Dead
Passive aggressive when not actually being aggressive and abusive. The cooling episode is fairly obvious – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703 – and should last another decade or three. The Tsonis papers are about climate shifts. Chaotic bifurcations in the instrument record.
For those unaware – Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication. I am as I keep saying a climate catastrophist (in the sense of Rene Thom) and refuse to predict past the current cool state. These states are inherently unpredictable.
Swanson and Tsonis stated in their 2009 paper that these shifts imply sensitivity and that warming may well be greater than predicted in this century. It may well be cooler. There is no theoretical justification that these spontaneous reorganisations of the climate system – and of cloud cover especially – will be to cool or warm. S&T09 did not predict warming because as they are well aware – unlike BBD – this mechanism they are talking about (A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts) is in principle deterministic but practically incalculable.
So my calm reply prompted this tirade of millennialist cult of AGW groupthink space cadet outrage. Simply because dynamical complexity leads to uncertainty. I keep suggesting that he Google the relevant terms and educate himself. But perhaps there are people who are unable to grasp this idea. The ill-informed arguments of the webster with Tomas come to mind.
BBD is obnoxiously stupid and opinionated and has such a facile approach. This is definitely a pattern with the space cadets. As an unpleasant blog crank – the ability to ignore anomalous information is great and the toleration of dissention from the groupthink memes before descending into absurd hand waving tirades is negligible.
As for saying it for me – thanks but no thanks
