Hot, apparently

© Copyright ronnie leask under CC licence. Click for link.So the stove is on, and outside the snow is starting to melt a little. It looks as though a thaw will set in by this evening.

Meanwhile Twitter and the newswaves are awash with tales of warmest years, although I have to say most of it has passed me by. I did pick up this interesting exchange on Josh's feed though.

Which does seem to throw a fairly large bucket of water on all the excitement, doesn't it?

Comments

[Richard Betts]

thinkingscientist

Phil Clarke had already replied by the time I came back and saw your comment. No point me repeating him.

[JamesG]

Giss delivered the same BS press release in 1998 and 2010. It changed nothing then and it changes nothing now. All is does is confirm once again that the pair should not be trusted with compiling temperature datasets. We'll know the real effect of el nino versus nature in a couple of years time after the la nina drop. We'll also know if this Giss peak is true or false by the extent of Coral bleaching - and by that proxy Giss is already wrong in having 1998 lower than 2010.

Lastly, true scientists would use all the data, including Satellites, and should not highlight an obvious el nino year. Both these points were recently made by Carl Mears when criticising 'denialists'. Would that these shameless shamens practiced what they preached!

Meantime the BBC's Harrabin pulled 1.5K as the new tipping point apparently straight out of his posterior.

[thinkingscientist]

Hi Richard,

That's a pretty eyebrow raising answer from you. I address a series of polite questions directly to you and you now state that Phil Clarke has answered them on your behalf? Is Phil Clarke approved to answer questions on your behalf?

My specific questions to you were (broken out and numbered in case they are not clear):

1. Would you like to contact them and ask them to correct that statement to say, in addition, that it is also partly as a result of the natural warming phenomena known as El Nino?

2. Also, could you give the appropriate information so they can correctly report whether the statement "hottest year ever" is statistically significant compared to the previous "hottest years ever" (say the top 5)?

3. Is part of your job to properly communicate the science to the media, or is that someone in else in your organisation?

4. If someone else, please can you tell me who that is and how I contact them please?

Clearly Phil Clarke did not answer any of these questions, as they were about the BBC news NOT other sources of information. And its particularly hard to see how anyone other than you can answer (3) and (4).

Look forward to hearing from you.

[timg56]

Some people (are you listening Salopian?) really need to relax. Making unseemly accusations against folks who are simply engaging in honest discourse cheapens the site. Richard Betts has always been in the latter group. That some twits jump all over a simple comment, reading their own interpretations into it should be cause for embarrassment.

[Salopian]

timg56;

I have to disagree. I do not consider that making incorrect off-the-cuff 'simple' comments is 'engaging in honest discourse'.

[...and Then There's Physics]

Salopian,

I do not consider that making incorrect off-the-cuff 'simple' comments is 'engaging in honest discourse'.

Well, of course. You're a regular here. You prefer intentional incorrect comments, not off-the-cuff ones.

[kim]

You, too, Ken; drop the alarm and we can all get along. It isn't the physics, it's the politics.
==========

[Salopian]

ATTP;

Ken, as Kim says; you,too. You post here far more than I do, but I don't get snipped as much as you do, and when I do get snipped, it is usually to do to frustration with the likes of trolls such as you.

I bow to you as the ultimate producer of 'intentional incorrect comments'. you expel more bullsh and flatulence than the cows in our field. Your diatribe against me this morning (7:31am), simply highlights your own self-arrogance.

[...and Then There's Physics]

Salopian,

Your diatribe against me this morning (7:31am),

My goodness, you are sensitive. Have you been involved in the online climate debate long?

simply highlights your own self-arrogance.

I'm assuming you think your comments are humble, thoughtful and measured. If so, maybe you (with your many degrees and expertise in the public sector) should read them again.

[Stephen Richards]

Money quote

science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time

[nicholas tesdorf]

Hot year or not, they still have not provided proof that CO2 causes rises in temperature and not the other way round. In several senses they are putting the cart before the horse. They could stop cooling the past and warming the present until they have the answer to question No.1.

[ThinkingScientist]

Note that Richard Betts has (once again) ignored my questions. Sigh.

[kim]

TS, the alarm is passing, but they're still shrieking.
===============

[ThinkingScientist]

Thanks Kim. Somehow soothing!

[hunter]

Phil
The Australian drought of the mid-2000's was not particularly extreme, but was rather typical for Australia.
Thanks for playing.

[...and Then There's Physics]

I cannot recall him ever responding to a direct question that I have put to him.

It's almost as if you think you're entitled to answers to your questions.

[Radical Rodent]

“I cannot recall him ever responding to a direct question that I have put to him.”

It's almost as if you think you're entitled to answers to your questions.

You do have a point there, aTTP. Let me correct ThinkingScientist’s comment: “I cannot recall him ever responding to a direct question that I have anyone has put to him.”

While no-one is actually entitled to an answer to a question, surely it is necessary within a discussion for questions to be answered? Especially when the one ignoring questions from others also happens to be one who asks a lot of questions of others – often demanding answers.

[...and Then There's Physics]

RR,

I cannot recall him ever responding to a direct question that I have anyone has put to him.

That might suggest that you either have an extremely bad memory, or weren't concentrating.

[kim]

In between shrieks Ken cranks.
====================

[Joseph Sydney]

Notice how the alarmists never move to correct the impression which many of the public have that 'ever' means as far as anyone knows - including geologists who have studied the geological records.

[kim]

You can still hear the echoes of the shrieking, but of the screamers, only ghosts of their agonies remain.
==============