.

## An open interlude

Sou | 8:40 AM

For a pleasant change, here is a photo of a regular visitor taken in my backyard.  Feel free to treat this as an open thread.

 Satin Bower Bird eating a fig

1. Sou, thanks for the opportunity to thank you for one of the very best climate change blogs on the web. The 'device' of using WUWT as a stepping off point for posting some of the best researched, wise and witty explanations of climate change, and the fact that you are saving so many people like me the pain of having to trawl through that execrable site, is a major service to humanity.

Thanks so much

2. The vertigo-inducing depth of the ignorance at WUWT can clearly be illustrated by this post, where they think it's news that CFCs cause warming.

3. My twitter account was suspended yesterday for bombarding another user with tweets. I have only ever sent 5 tweets in the history of my account. Three of those were to WUWT (although one was a two-parter). How is that a bombardment?

PS - none of them were abusive or used bad language.

Louise

1. Louise.

Copy, save, archive! It may be interesting to follow up on this...

Bernard J.

2. I've just had a look at your twitter feed Louise and I can't see any reason why it would have been suspended. Did they give you a reason?

3. It looks as if it's back up again Louise. And you've got a new follower :)

4. I had to promise to amend my wicked ways to get my account reinstated - very frustrating as I didn't think I was being unpleasant.

Louise

5. How does Watts have a glass jaw?

Let me count the ways...

Bernard J.

6. Louise, that would have been an awful experience for you.

It looks like it was an example of bullying by whoever reported it. Either that or someone made a mistake in reporting.

I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but there are millions of tweets each minute so it would be hard for the response from Twitter to be anything but automated, at the outset at least. I've seen similar happen to others without any rhyme or reason.

If it ever happens again, and I can't think why it would, let us know and we'll agitate with Twitter on your behalf.

7. I agree that it was an automated suspension and 'telling off' but whoever reported my tweets to cause it has had their ends met in that I haven't tweeted since and would definitely think way more than twice before I replied to a tweet by Anthony Watts.

I tweeted under my full name and used my regular e-mail address to sign up and so now feel intimidated about the whole Twitter experience. I've seen other Twitter exchanges between 'opponents' who presumably aren't suspended for 'bombardment' - the whole episode has left me uneasy.

I know that's a puny response but I suspect that if I complained to Twitter I'd come off worse in that debate.

Louise

4. (deleted from the Polish thread because ot there)

The payback is but a dime, but this is one small step for a country though a huge pace for mankind and more:
Climate Deniers Must Pay $80,000 For ‘Not Acting Reasonably,’ Court Rules Sou, but this is harm :) 1. Now the link disappeared, old fashioned again: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/13/2934861/climate-deniers-pay-80000-court-fees/ "A New Zealand group dedicated to downplaying the existence of climate change has been ordered to pay$80,000 in costs for bringing a “faulty” lawsuit that had sought to invalidate data that proved the country’s temperatures were on the rise."

2. The NZ Climate Education [sic] Trust [sic] may well simply declare itself without assets and disband, to re-emerge under a different name with the same personnel. Watts will whine about judicial bullying and the demise of the First Amendment (yes, I know, NZ, but I'm talking about Watts) and we'll all have a good giggle about it.

5. I posted this recently in a stale thread. And I was wondering why it is not used more often to address the "Pause". Clearly the standard errors are highly correlated but it is clear that the underlying trend is very robust.
------

FWIW, to demonstrate how things have not really changed consider splitting things in the following manner at SKS (GISTEMP, 12 month)

1986-2006 0.206 +/- 0.102
1991-2011 0.201 +/- 0.101

This clearly demonstrates that their has been no significant change in the underlying trend... You can play around with the ranges but as long as your fitted interval is 15-20 yrs the trend is quite robust...

1. The "pause" is likely due to ocean cycles - of the real kind, that is, which come back to where they started. When the cycles return to their warm phases there's going to be quite a surge in temperatures, but I don't doubt we'll continue to hear that there's been a 17-year pause for the following 15-20 years.

2. The latest thing now is that there is no pause - http://planet3.org/2013/11/13/thie-disappearing-hiatus/

3. Well that about wraps it up for the pause, then.

4. I am well aware of the role of ENSO, TSI, etc... and am familiar with the basics of the recent Xie and Kosake paper...

The issue is the "rolling" 15 year trend shows no evidence of GW abating, similarly, using a 60 (48) month MA show no evidence of the trend turning over in 1998...

5. I think they have to use HADCRUT3 to get a pause, but for all I know they're depending on a hand-drawn Monckton graph.

6. A new steaming pile by Tim Ball at WUWT: "Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information"

It even includes E Beck's historical CO2 curves.

1. Oh wow, that thread is filled with the usual conspiracy idiocy times three. I distinctly also remember Willis Eschenbach once explaining the WUWT denizens that all this criticism of the CO2 increase and measurements at Mauna Loa ("active volcano!") are complete humbug. One or two try some objection, but it doesn't last long...

BTW, I really need to meet this Maurice Strong. He appears to be some enormously powerful (and rich) person, being able to run this supposed scam for so long already, involving these thousands of climate scientists all over the world.

Marco

2. "Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG."

Small concentrations cannot possibly matter. The revisionists are invited to try a little over 20 grams of HCN for every 70 kg of body weight to check this out.

Btw notice how they suggest [ CO2] never really increased, up to 400 ppm being considered 'natural'...

7. BBC Question Time: Please give scientists proper representation on Question Time.