By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
ATI Environmental Law Center Seeks NASA Records on Dr. James Hansen
Today the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request with NASA, seeking records detailing whether and how ‘global warming’ activist Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has complied with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and NASA Rules of Behavior.
See ATI’s Freedom of Information Act request to NASA seeking James Hansen’s records relating to compliance with ethics and financial disclosure laws.
( http://www.atinstitute.org/uploads/File/ATI_NASA_Hansen_Ethics_FOIA.pdf )
look what happened to the only warm spot left in the world !!!!
OTTOWA, Ontario, Jan. 24 (UPI) — Ottawa’s cold spell smashed a weather record Monday when the thermometer plunged to a bone-chilling minus 19.5 F, Canada’s weather office said.
Environment Canada said the mark reached at 5 a.m. broke the previous record of minus 18 F set in 1970 and became the coldest Jan. 24 since records have been maintained, the Ottawa Citizen reported.
pinocchio will be so upset !
It used to be at least somewhat amusing when spots hurled factoids of weather at people but it’s just getting desperate and rather sad.
1970 15094 Weather Stations
1990 9475 Weather Stations
2000 5265 Weather Stations
Where did all the stations in China, India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia, Antarctica, and Australia go?????
Whole continents “just disappeared” and most of the landmass of Earth is now NOT COVERED.
And how do you compare the “average” Global temperature when they dropped 9829 stations between 1970 and 2000??????
9829 stations that where part of the “average” global temperature????
This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.
Spotty has his chain yanked.
Spotty doesn’t understand sampling.
So spotty doesn’t stop to find out if it the claim is [true](http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/)
Which is exactly what his chain yankers were hoping for.
Interesting that they used Jeff Harvey as a poster boy.
Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.
A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing.
The document, an interview transcript, will put an end to the foolish talk of anything resembling a ClimateGate “inquiry” having taken place. It will also invite a real inquiry into the affair. Expect fireworks, as the one such effort, by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is being fought hysterically by Big Science and Big Academia.
Critically, it also begs questions of Penn State University, which conducted one of the three supposed inquiries into ClimateGate.
The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.
burnie (Bernard J hand waver) no doubt will be blaming Japans earthquake on CO2, as he foolishly did with
the Queensland floods.
[Bernard J] no doubt will be blaming Japans earthquake on CO2, as he foolishly did with the Queensland floods.
Sunspot has joined the usual suspects in trying to breathe life into this rubbish.
As far as I can tell the meme pretty much originates with a handful of tweets and this rather poorly timed article.
As for Tim Blair’s article, the young woman responsible for his first twitter quote puts it down to “idiocy” … a “blonde moment” and says: “Today I received over 20 hate comments on Twitter and one super creepy message on Facebook.” A young uninformed person tweets before they think – and this is news?
Blair’s “warmist idiot” Christopher Mims refers to this 2009 article discussing the potential geological implications of climate change, and explicitly says “It’s important to note that this response has nothing to do with Friday’s tsunami, which is a ‘subduction zone earthquake,’…”. The timing of his article is insensitive, yes, but it’s hardly an attempt to attribute a causal link between the Japan quake and CO2.
Which is patently ridiculous.
It’s well known this, a CO2 tax won’t cool the sun !
Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences – about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
LOOK’S LIKE GOOOOOOD NEWS
The pro carbon tax labor government of NSW is about to be thrown on the scrap heap by the disgruntled voters.
bye bye NSW CO2 Labor party
more and more of the public are waking up !
….here’s something for those of you that are still so obviously fooled by the (hahaha) consensus.
Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France. In the recent lecture below he explains how solar cycles control the climate by influence on cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and via influence on ocean oscillations and length of day. Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions). He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.
On the carbon tax, Mr O’Farrell revealed that he felt the mood of the election campaign switched on the day Ms Gillard announced the carbon tax, undercutting NSW leader Kristina Keneally’s argument that Labor would be better able to manage cost of living pressures.
Ms Gillard’s “amazing announcement” was “certainly an issue” in the stunning election result, Mr O’Farrell said.
Mr O’Farrell led the Liberal/Nationals coalition to its first election victory in NSW in 16 years, with a swing of 17 per cent.
The coalition has secured 65 seats in the 93-seat parliament and may also hold a majority in the upper house.
…here are a few picture’s of just a few of the massive snowfalls in the NH this year.
Mr O’Farrell revealed that he felt the mood of the election campaign switched on the day Ms Gillard announced the carbon tax…
…as opposed to the opinion polls which showed no effect on state polling after the carbon tax was announced.
Don’t get disillusionment with inept government confused with approval of the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense you peddle here, Sunspot.
LOL. Poor old sunspot – no good at science, even worse at [political analysis.](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/abbott-omitted-after-ofarrell-gibe/story-fn6t2xlc-1226029130707)
NSW Liberal Party strategists told candidates during the campaign internal polling had revealed Mr Abbott would lose them votes in marginal electorates because he was a polarising figure.
Sunspot @ 297
By fluke, Bolt has got the the heart of AGW problem. As Flannery correctly explains, the C02 that we have already added to the atmosphere guarantees continued warming even if we stopped emitting tomorrow. If reducing C02 emissions resulted in an immediate (say within 5-10 years) drop in temperature, we would still have a big problem but one that we could deal with.
Here is a question for you. If you were the captain of the Titanic and you saw a iceberg straight ahead, would you
(a) speed up
(b) slow down
(c) phone Andrew Bolt
Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”
spoze it must be something to do with all that snow and ice that has been occurring because of all the “missing heat”
posted for that dimwit burntard j, the arm waver.
CSIRO shows cyclone (hurricane) frequency down, contradict Gore and many others who claim Global Warming will increase them
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month.
Yep, thats a nose dive !
UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world’s media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.
But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: “It is not a UNEP prediction,” a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP’s website.
Official statistics show that the population in areas threatened by global warming is actually rising. The expected environmental disasters have yet to materialize.
In October 2005, UNU said: “Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of ‘refugee.'”……………………………………………………………………….. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,757713,00.html)
Coldest March On Record In Australia : Government Calls For New Taxes To Reduce The Heat
Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record. This was partly due to increased cloudiness across most of the country associated with the above average rainfall recorded throughout the month. March 2011 included some contrasts between the majority of Australia and the west and east coasts, which were the only areas that experienced above average daytime temperatures. Temperatures were coolest in the central part of Australia where rainfall was most abnormal, with maximum temperatures more than 3°C below average Similarly, drier conditions matched up with areas of above-normal maxima in western WA.
Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record
…yet the minimum temperatures were above average and the diurnal temperature range the lowest recorded for March.
Not surprising given the record March rainfall nationwide.
What’s your point, spots? You somehow don’t think this fits with the scientific consensus?
“…yet the minimum temperatures were above average”
yeah gaz…..the minimum temperature was a whopping .02C above average. WOW !!
but….Maximum Temperature −2.19C
= Lowest on record.
China Post – 28 Mar 2011
This March has been the coldest March in 40 years (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2011/03/29/296483/CWB-reports.htm)
WJON News – Jim Maurice – 1 Apr 2011
It was our coldest March since 2002. We also had 12.3 inches of snow last month — that’s nearly four-inches above normal, and ranks as the 19th snowiest …
….actually there are cold temps right across the planet, trenberfff’s missing heat statement stands correct.
gaz, CO2 output has accelerated, the temperature has decelerated, I suppose that el neno wasn’t the cause of warming, so then la nina isn’t the cause of the global cooling we are seeing now.
More CO2, Lower Global Temperature.
Judging by the polls it appears that there are more ex-warmers than there are ex-skeptic’s.
I thought spothead had disappeared into the black hole of his own profound ignorance. Yet, like effluent, he floats back to the surface.
Mistaking weather and climate. Again, And again, And again. And again. For the millionth time. And then, we someone else does it, he screams that the short-term variation is due to La Nina or some other event.
We all know what sunspot is. A pure and utter hypocrite.
I might just as well add that much of western Europe is experiencing its warmest April on record, with temperatures right now 10 C above normal. That we are a full 2-3 weeks ahead of the normal spring growing season. That biotic indicators are in some instances 3-4 weeks ahead of schedule.
But heck, its weather. The fact is that the planets surface, is warming if we take into account longer term spatial and temporal scales. No ifs or buts.
I can see why spotty is consigned to his own thread. His ignorance is confined here, thankfully.
G/day pinocchio, I hope the frostbite on your ever lengthening nose is abating.
In spring wheat areas of the US and Canada, “some regions still have over 100mm of snow cover and, with below-average temperatures forecast for the next month, the spring wheat crops in these regions could be planted two-to-four weeks behind schedule”, Australia & New Zealand Bank said.
14 April 2011
Fresh snow in Europe
Resorts in Europe have experienced a late season burst which is good news for anyone heading to the mountains this month (14 April)
All the resorts that we report on in Austria which have not closed for the season have reported fresh snow in the last 48 hours – as much as 35cm in Lech on Wednesday 13 and 30cm in Kaprun on Thursday 14. Kaprun, Schladming, Solden, Hintertux and Ischgl are all currently reporting powder conditions on piste and there are fresh conditions to be found elsewhere….(http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/story.aspx?storyID=8126)
Snow report…..LOWER temperatures have returned across Europe, along with snowfall. Austria fared well and most resorts reported fresh snow.
Switzerland also had good snowfall, though in France it was not so widespread. It is colder in Italy, too, and snow is forecast.
The riding at Cairngorm, Scotland, is better, with lower temperatures preventing the snow from becoming wet and heavy.
Utah is still the place to be in America, where all resorts have had good snowfall.
Fernie, Kicking Horse and Revelstoke, in Canada, are all preparing for reopening.
yep…cooling is beating warming, pinocchio is still searching in vain for a CO2 signature, hahaha
You rely on John “moonbeam” O’Sullivan for your worldview then spotty?
That explains so much.
Try getting your information from [a reputable source,](http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/map-blended-mntp-201103.gif) just for a change.
The problem with the above map: data quality and data manipulation.
The following sections provide some spot checks on the areas of the world exhibiting the most warming according to NOAA. The gridded historical data graphs shown in these sections are from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for January – June. (CRUTEM3 uses a 1961-1990 base period whereas the NOAA data above is for a 1971-2000 base period. This simply shifts the anomalies on the vertical scale, but does not affect the relative trends.)
It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data.
so much for your noaa propaganda chekie.
Remote Sensing Systems has released their satellite measured temperature data for the month of March 2011.
March 2011 ended up as the coolest March globally since March of 1994. The actual global temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere last month was negative 0.026 C.
This is also the first month since June of 2008 that the global temperature anomaly was in the negative.
Spotty’s deceptions are getting ever more desperate. He is relying on the usual hacks to spread his gospel of garbage.
Check out the ‘weather’ over pretty well all of central Europe, sunblot. Temperatures have been at late July means and are expected to remain so for at least the next week. April will turn out to be one of, if not the warmest since records have been kept over much of the continent. Couple that with the record lack of rainfall. I heard my first singing willow warbler here on April 3 – a full 3-4 weeks earlier than normal. Some of my experimental plants, which usually flower from mid-April or later, first flowered in late March. Its too bad that the biotic indicators around the world are showing up the denialists for the liars and deceivers that they are. Spotty can rant on all day about data manipulation, but nature doesn’t lie. It just *responds*. Temporally and spatially. And we know beyond any doubt that flowering times, egg laying dates, activity patterns, distributions, and life-cycles of plants and animals have changed rapidly in much of the temperate biomes as a result of warming since the 1980s.
Blotty’s reduced to writing puerile nonsense like this: *The problem with the above map: data quality and data manipulation*.
Yawn. This is the standard refrain of those in denial. When all of the empirical evidence vanquishes them, then they are left with no recourse but to cry out, “It ain’t true! Lies! All lies!”. When the next record high year temperatures are recorded, probably next year or in 2013, they will dig into their brainless little bag of tricks with the latest garbage.
Spotty, the correct answer to the suggestion to use reliable data sources rather than blogshite “science” from the likes of O’Sullivan is not to counter with yet more authorless blogshite “science” from the likes of “applied information systems”, however grand their name may sound to you.
If you go away and have a good, long little think about it, you may one day work out why that may be.
Trolls feed on attention. If they are ignored, they shrivel up and go away. Just sayin’.
pinocchio said, “but nature doesn’t lie. It just responds. Temporally and spatially”
27 Aug 10 – During the Southern Hemisphere’s recent winter, unusually low temperatures in part of Bolivia’s tropical region killed an estimated 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins, says this article in Nature magazine.
Scientists say it’s “the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known,” says author Anna Petherick. As an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, “it is unprecedented in recorded history.”
global warming just aint’ global !
murf, you are one of the troll’s in here
This influx of arctic air appears to have brought a few more arctic birds south. An influx of Snowy Owls (I received a report of at least half a dozen different birds) and Redpolls in the Duluth area, and maybe a Great Gray Owl or two. I have yet to hear any reports of any Boreal Owls in that area. Farther west in South Dakota, a large falcon was spotted by one birder but flew by too fast to determine whether it was a Gyrfalcon or just a Peregrine. Also in South Dakota, a Dipper appears to be spending the winter in Rapid City at Rushmore Lions Nature Park.
Apparently the big news on the east coast this week is the amazing numbers of Alcids. Four birders in Northern New Jersey on Sunday morning counted numerous flocks of Razorbills and came up with an astounding total of nearly 3000 birds including the flocks too far out to properly count. Long-time Jersey birder Bill Boyle commented that he’s never seen anything like it before. Interestingly enough, a pelagic trip the same day off Cape Hatteras, NC set a state high count record for Dovekie. An amazing 871 birds during the day-long trip. They also noticed many Razorbill with over 300 seen.
Next up on the list is a rather interesting find in Boyle County, Kentucky. This dates back into January a little bit, but was only posted just this week. Coming to a feeder for a few days was a yellow Northern Cardinal. Apparently this is due to a rare genetic mutation. Photos can be found here: http://www.biology.eku.edu/kos/yellow_NOCA.htm
In Illinois, birders were still getting superb views of the Snowy Owl in Ogle County as of Wednesday morning (2/9). A male Barrow’s Goldeneye was reported on Feb 5th by an Iowa birder on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River just north of the I-80 bridge on Pool 14 near the Quad Cities. A Black-legged Kittiwake that has been hanging around Montrose Harbor in Chicago was last reported on Feb 8th. Chicago bird and NAB Blogger Amar Ayash has posted an excellent summary of Kittiwake Sightings around the Lake this winter: http://anythinglarus.blogspot.com/
In Pennsylvania, the Anna’s Hummingbird from last week was last reported on Tues, Feb 8th. Quite the hardy little bird there, attempting to outlast the New England winter……………
Its too bad that the biotic indicators around the world are showing up the arm waving warmers for the liars and deceivers that they are.
Get real jeff hardhead, you have not produced one single proof that CO2 is affecting the climate ! Both the IPCC & their peer review process look like swiss cheese.
As for your biotic indicators, you are cherry picking ! Rotten cherries i might add.
NOAA NCDC bends the truth big-time in release
I hate to keep feeding the nincompoop troll here, but…
Read the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles showing the biotic effects of warming, spotty… instead of relying on contrarian garbage and a few press releases. That ain’t science; its cherry picking. I am talking about long term trends and not one-off events here and there. And there are plenty of studies showing biotic responses to warming, not single events where a short-term cold snap killed some plants and animals.
The problem spotty is that you do not read the primary empirical literature, at least not in ecology and environmental science. That it is warming over much of the biosphere is beyond doubt, as demostrated by an array of biotic indicators. Case closed. Evidence that C02 is the primary culprit behind the recent warming is large and growing.
Every time you write some of your comic-level book material here, spots, you just exhibit more of your wilful ignorance. Science has moved on, even as you sit in your shrinking little corner and continue to bluster. Your views have long been dispensed with here; go somewhere else where for some innane reason you are taken seriously. I would like anyone who takes spotty’s views seriously to respond here now.
I expect a blank slate.
Ah yes pinocchio, but what you singularly fail to grasp is that everyone on this board is a troll.
Except me, obviously.
Surely you can see that the shittyblogs and shitURLs of corporate sponsored drivel I frequently link in loco < -(N.B. fancy latin) having an actual argument are an actual barometer of understanding amongst the advertising category D – F classes and those barely able to type using the deliberately confusing QVERTY keyboard layout, that are mainly targetted by the previously mentioned new media corporate apparatchik nobodies.
And as you would know, if you paid attentiuon to details, barometric measurements collected over time contribute to the understanding of climate … something
The puppet master’s are still pulling your string’s pinocchio.
It really is about time that you learn the difference between climate and weather.
Surely one of your students could get into your dense wooden head, the fact that climate change’s, and has done even before the Mesozoic era,(think Fred Flinstone).
Because of this,(climate change), the little critters have to move north or south to get into their comfy and tucker zone’s, humans have heaters and grocery stores now, so they don’t need to move anymore.
Get them to show you a temp chart of the last 3 thousand years, hot cold hot cold hot cold………
Cut the strings pinocchio, you are helping the real threats to the environment to be hidden behind the CO2 facade !
maybe you should give your PhD badge back to Kellogg’s.
Our resident hypocritical troll, spotty, says (apparently with a straight face),
“It really is about time that you learn the difference between climate and weather”.
This is the same troll who continually pastes links to short term cold snaps in various parts of the Earth in his feeble attempt to downplay the overwhelming scientific consensus on large-scale warming. Spotty appears to think its OK for him to continually mistake weather and climate, but when others play the same game he screams foul.
As I have said repeatedly, there is overwhelming evidence from biota covering an enormous phylogenetic spectrum that species are moving polewards or to higher elevations in response to recent anthropogenic warming. Unlike previous warming episodes, most of which were much more gradual than the current event, and against the background of other human-mediated alterations across the biosphere, the current warming will certainly exacerbate the current extinction spasm.
Given that spotty’s English and grammar are so poor that I can barely understand many of his musings (see post 324), many here may wonder why I respond to his infantile rants at all. I fully realize that spotty exists in an intellectual abyss that falls well below the usual discourse on this weblog, so those questioning my decision to respond may well have a point. One thing is clear: the fact that he has been banned from all except his own thread should tell him how much of an imbecile he really is.
pinocchio still believes giss, what a dud.
As I have shown you many times pinocchio, the temperature that you are told by giss is a lie ! All you have to do is look at the news from the area that they are lying about, and bingo.
You keep telling me how it is so hot in Canada ? yeah ! sometimes it is !
But not this winter…….
VANCOUVER, April 21 (Reuters) – Harsh winter weather that helped knock down Canadian Pacific Railway’s (CP.TO) (CP.N) first-quarter profit by 67 percent will not set back long-term efforts to improve efficiency, the company said on Thursday.
This winter, avalanches buried its mainline in British Columbia and heavy snow snarled switch yards in the Canadian Prairies and U.S. Midwest, driving up costs in a quarter when revenues were nearly flat from a year ago.
The carrier had warned in March that quarterly profit would be down sharply. It said operations and revenue are recovering, although spring flooding has caused problems in recent weeks and remains a threat. [ID:nN20170778]
The railway, which operates across Canada and in the northern United States, said the culmination of weather events in January and February was an “anomaly” that did not reflect a weakness in its operating model.
“I’ve railroaded a long time, and in all 40-plus of my years of railroading I have never been through a winter like the one we’ve just gone through,” chief operating officer Ed Harris told analysts. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/canadianpacific-idUSL3E7FL2GQ20110421]
Answer me this pinocchio.
When the global temperatures were rising towards the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, far warmer than today, were you there to catalog the movements of the biota ? Have you any accurate records of this ?
Was the MWP more detrimental to the biota than the LIA ?
How did the biota survive these two events ?
Do you realize that your brain is static, unlike the biota ?
> the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, far warmer than today
The only people that say the MWP was “far warmer than today” are liars like Easterbrook who knowingly conflate “a century ago” with “today”, and idiots like you who believe them.
There are quite a few other studies dave,
scallywagscience won’t tell you about these !
Medieval Warm Period Project
Study Description and Results
MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials
MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials
Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot
To view this feature, your computer must be configured to run applets that use Java technology. To download and install free Java software, we recommend Sun Microsystems’ Java Runtime Environment, which is available at http://www.java.com. Instructions on how to operate the map’s features are located under the map. Scroll down after clicking on the link above to view them.
List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite
List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite.
Sunspot, you might show us you are actually capable of understanding science if you select seven of the studies cited at CO2Science, one for each continent, and show us that it showed the MWP was warmer than today. With “today” I mean the last decade (2001-2010), and not the “BP”, where “present” generally is 1950.
Are you capable of performing such a simple excercise?
Sorry Marco, it’s getting so cold that I’m too busy cutting firewood, so you will have to wait until the IDSO’s have finished.
What is it?
Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.
and Marco, if you think you know something that they might of missed…..
How can you help?
You can help by alerting us to new (and old) research papers documenting the Medieval Warm Period that have not yet been posted on our website. When doing so, please send us a copy of the paper either by email (preferably in pdf format) or by post. Our contact information can be found here.
When do you think the Idso’s will finish? I’m guessing “never”.
Of course you already know the results of my challenge will not be to your liking (if you actually are capable of doing anything constructive at all; I’m not holding my breath on that one!).
These I assume are the same Idso’s who have links with Western Fuels Association through their web site? A coal industry lobbying body?
And I am supposed to believe that their views on C02 and climate change are based solely on the ‘science’? Come on spotty, even someone with your shallow understanding of science can do better than that. They should rename their little study, “Project Profit for the Coal Industry” (PPCI). That would be IMHO be far more appropriate. And again, only a few contrarian shills, as well as dupes like spotty, actually believe the MWP was warmer than today.
Furthermore, note how the denialists only latched onto the MWP nonsense AFTER the first Mann et al. study was published in 1998. What were they doing before this? Denying that there was any warming at all! Since that argument has been quashed (e.g. the current warming has been proven), their next tactic has been to argue that the current warming is not exceptional by recent historical standards. In my view these people are cretins who will cling onto any meme so long as nothing is done about climate change.
There’s lots of information about “C02 Science” and the Idso’s on the internet, but this one sums it up in a nutshell:
Spotty really has to dig the bottom of the barrel to get his information. What a joke.
so pinocchio, your saying that all those peer reviewed papers, about the MWP, are now null and void because you don’t like the people showing them !
You sure are a crank.
There is a filthy gang of people that are pushing to proliferate the planet with many more Fukushima’s.
You have swallowed the CO2 bullshit from the U.N. and you only think you know about Geo Politics, dupe.
UNIPCC and UNIAEA are joined at the hip
Where are all those mongrels in here that have been spruiking about the safety of nooklar power ?
How did deltoid go ?
Willis Eschenbach said:
OK, so I was right. The Boyce paper was nonsense, the claimed trend was spurious, plankton biomass is holding somewhere near steady or even increasing, and a number of independent records show that the Boyce et al. paper is garbage built on bad assumptions.
I bring this up for three reasons. The first is to show the continuing shabby quality of peer-review at scientific magazines when the subject is even peripherally related to climate. Nature magazine blew it again, and unfortunately, these days that’s no news at all. It’s just more shonky science from the AGW crowd … and people claim the reason the public doesn’t trust climate scientists is a “communications problem”? It’s not. It’s a garbage science problem, and all the communications theory in the world won’t fix garbage science.
I notice that in your latest dumb ripostes you do nothing to defend the Idso’s, their links with WFA and the blatant double standards that this illustrates. And I note that you also ignore the fact that the MWP only became the latest denial mantra when the Mann et al. paper was published in 1998 and when the evidence that it was warming and warming rapidly became insurmountable. The very fact that you ignore these salient facts should tell everyone reading here how utterly disingenuous you are. The denialists have been switching tactics for years as the evidence for AGW has grown. To be honest, if it was not so sad, it would be quite amusing to see how they clutch at any straws that pass their way in an effort to downplay warming.
Trust you and the shills to dishonestly switch tactics. And your rant about “all those peer reviewed papers about the MWP” is further nonsense. Most of these papers do not deny that the current warming is primarily based on human forcing, and most do not question the fact that the WWP was either (1) localized, or (2) less pronounced than the current warming. Most importantly, the MWP has nix to do with what is happening now, where the evidence of a human fingerprint on the warming is immense and growing.
Given your penchant for mangling the facts, no wonder most on Deltoid ignore this thread and why they think that you are a complete and utter troll. You can call me waht you like, spotty, but it does not hide the fact that your views carry absolutely no weight in science. You should therefore be flattered that actual, bonafide scientists – like me – respond to your bilge. The only reason that I do it is to ensure that laypeople who might be reading this realize how deceptive and hollow your arguments are. Otherwise I would not give your vacuous points the time of day.
It’s also worth noting that CO2″science” takes any regional increase in temperatures in those papers between about 600 and 1500 and say “See! MWP!” In the papers I’ve looked at there, there is little evidence for a simulataneous global period of warming.
Naturally over a 900 year period, local fluctuations occur, and confirmation bias leads the rejectionists to conflate the many different peaks into a single MWP when in fact some regions are warming while others are cooling.
The project site defines Medieval to refer to the period 800 – 1300 (which is still leaves a lot of wiggle room), but they still cherry pick peaks outside this range: their one quantitative study from Australia / New Zealand shows a peak in temperatures in ~1400, after cooler conditions during the actual medieval period. The fact that the peak falls outside their own broad definition does not stop them putting a big red “MWP” next to the peak.
Given equal ineptness and wiggle room, you could conflate the troughs from all those studies to show a “medieval” cool period.
And in a faux-science moment Don Easterbrook would appprove of, they suggest that a dataset that ends in 1950 is representative of “today”. But if you factor in the warming for the last 60 years that isn’t on that graph and we are now warmer than this not-quite-Medieval Warm Period anyway.
That’s just one example, but errors of interpretation abound.
Like Marco, I think they will never finish – it’s like the giggleworthy Surface Stations project. The more they dig, the more they’ll reveal the robustness of the science they quibble with.
As with all of Melanoma’s “science” links, there are several levels of fail.
pinheadio @ 337 blathered
“The only reason that I do it is to ensure that laypeople who might be reading this realize how deceptive and hollow your arguments are.”
Notice how he shoot’s the messenger, the truth hurt’s his busted ego.
The continuing exposé of the CO2 scam
If you do a search at (http://www.ipcc.ch/) for “medieval warm period”,
you won’t find it !
WHY ? BECAUSE IT EXPOSE’S THEIR DATA FABRICATION’S !
Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.
What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.
In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.
But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.
In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.
The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal. Epic cherry-picking!
Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…
It was an audacious fraud.
If you do a search at (http://www.ipcc.ch/) for “medieval warm period”,
you won’t find it ! They don’t move the goalpost, they delete it !
It was an audacious frawd.
If the laypeople do their own research they will find that the “CO2 trolls” that haunt my thread are nothing but idolater’s of a dying cult.
Good God, I haven’t checked this thread for ages and sunspot is still posting MWP conspiracy theories!
Sunspot, you’re still exhibiting credulous idiocy on this topic.
> Notice how he shoot’s the messenger,…
…says sunspot, of Jeff Harvey’s rebuttals to arguments. Saying it does not make it so, nor does it buttress the flawed arguments you quote, nor rebut the ones Jeff Harvey made.
> If you do a search at (http://www.ipcc.ch/) for “medieval warm period”, you won’t find it !
What do we find if we [bother](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1) to look for ourselves rather than gullibly swallow any claim that suits our position?
> The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal.
Er, dude, there are now dozens of hockey sticks from different combinations of data sets. They’ve even published some comparisons specifically excluding and including data that McIntyre and his incompetent cronies complained about – and the shape of the graphs with and without are very similar. McIntyre’s criticisms are unsubstantiated in the face of a mass of other evidence. The fact that you don’t point this out means you’re either incompetent or uninformed – or both.
> …showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten.
If, by “the same” you mean “much much smaller and equally likely to be upside down as right side up“.
Never mind that McIntyre made a much worse error in his “correction” than Mann did in his original reconstruction.
And never mind that newer reconstructions don’t use the method McIntyre complained about any more. You’re repeating criticism of something that is no longer done in the hope that you can successfully ignore the new data and methods which provide results you’d prefer didn’t exist. That alone suggests you are incompetent to make the kinds of claims you are making.
And these facts don’t go away because you or someone else lies by omission. All of which makes your proclamation that:
> …they will find that the “CO2 trolls” that haunt my thread are nothing but idolater’s of a dying cult.
rather grimly and ironically amusing. Google Psychological Projection (and Dunning & Kruger) sometime.
Oh, and if laypersons – such as myself – do my own research, they tend to find that the kinds of sources that you quote are the ones propagating scientifically unsupported claims, even after they have been pointed to the source of their own errors.
> WHY ? BECAUSE IT EXPOSE’S THEIR DATA FABRICATION’S !
Speaking of Messrs Dunning and Kruger: dude…if the MWP was warmer than scientists currently think, then climate sensitivity is implied to be higher than they think which means warming is a bigger problem than they currently think. Whether or not it was slightly warmer or cooler in “the MWP” is not what drives concern about climate change – it’s a brightly coloured flashing bauble hung out by certain parties to distract those who are gullible enough to be distracted from the real science. The climate sensitivity is what matters.
You’re arguing that they fabricated evidence that undermined their claims. Seriously? That’s the kind of conspiracy you hang your hat on?! Or are you merely confused about the implications of your argument? I hope so because I’ve got this great bridge I need to sell, but you have to get in quick as there are these other guys who are seriously interested…
I predict you’ll slander and misrepresent my comments in your usual attention-seeking fashion, but that won’t make your arguments any better. I don’t monitor your thread, and I’m confident that anyone who’s even mildly logical and methodical can make up their own minds about the kind of claims you make.
Stephen MacIntyre? Suspicious?
I’d say suspicious. That’s the run 10000 datasets, order them in ‘hockey stick shape’, choose the top 100 hockey stick shapes Stephen MacIntyre, isn’t it?
Or is there another Stephen MacIntyre I’ve not heard of?
Fantasitc post. Demolishes all of spotty’s puerile nonsense in one fell swoop.
To reiterate: first, as Lotharsson says, pretty well every proxy published thus far supports the original from Mann et al.
Second, whatever the temperatures were in the MWP, this has nix to do with the current warming, which virtually every Academy of Science on Earth attributes primarily to huamn actions. This, along with >95% of the scientific community.
Third, most of the dissenters spotty relies on in support of his wafer-thin views appear to have very strong vested interests in denial. No need for me to shoot the messenger: with the sordid company they keep (along with the generous financial support they provide) most of spotty’s ‘messengers’ have turned the metaphorical gun on themselves. This is why most are laughingstocks amongst the scientific community. Only right wing politicians on the corporate payroll, as well as hacks and pundits appear to suggest that these sources are ‘indepenent’. Nobody else does.
Aw bless, Spotty has lapped up every last drop of McIntyre’s self-aggrandising, self-audited blogsploodge.
Why of course a mining finance exec. with some facility for numberwork and a first stage degree trumps actual scientists who’ve earned doctorates and worked a career in the field – he fits right on in with the existing network of pseudo-scientists spotty invariably trusts. Blog “scientists” after all are free to make up stories of conspiracy and conflict and associated tabloid-style tales that appeal to those of spotty’s persuasion.
That spotty damns the paleo-dendro science community because of McIntyre’s red noise red herring (without having the faintest clue what red noise is) and without realising that whole tale is based around an astonishingly brazen cherry-picked sample size of ~0.001% indicates all too well how easy it is to push spotty’s buttons. And so Stevie gives spotty and his ilk soap opera kindling which is a post modern web entertainment form of a kind, I guess.
In the end I don’t believe anybody, anywhere takes the second-hand opinions of spotty and those like him seriously for a nanosecond. But it does emphasise the need for Wegman’s disgrace, when it becomes public knowledge, to be irredeemably tied to McIntyre’s part in the fr@wd.
Repeato, If the laypeople do their own research they will find that the “CO2 trolls” that haunt my thread are nothing but idolater’s of a dying cult.
A chart that destroys the CO2 lie.
Most glaciers around the world (alpine and Greenland ice-sheet glaciers) have been melting as part of the long-term warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s (although some are actually increasing). The recession of glaciers started long before anthropogenic CO2 levels rose. Since the IPCC says that anthropogenic CO2-based warming has only had an effect since the 1970s, the recession of glaciers cannot be due to anthropogenic CO2-based global warming. In fact many non-alps glaciers have either been increasing, or have had a decrease in the rate of retreat in recent decades.
A book published in 1926 (C.E.P.Brooks: “Climate Through the Ages”) stated: “the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the “Little Ice-Age.” There were minor maxima of glaciation about 1820 and 1850; since then the glaciers and ice-sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world.” [http://www.archive.org/details/climatethrouchth033039mbp]
When examining claims made about glaciers, it is important to have historical data back to at least the early 1900s – otherwise the information is out of context for a climatic assessment. Statements about changes over the last few decades are meaningless without a longer term context.
I need not mention the IPCC Himalayas joke
Spotty’s alleged “C02 trolls” represent more than 95% of the scientific community. And many of those in the other 5% are either paid-for corporate shills or disgruntled far right libertarians.
As I have said, spotty, take your vapid stupidity elsewhere.
Dltds! Gt lttl bzz n nd thght ‘d r-vst m l’ Dltd pls. Dltds, pls d m fvr. Gggl: “Jcksn VC lncstr fck wlf tlgrph”. Pls d. knw mm’s rl prd f hr lttl Dltd–bt Sgt Jcksns y gys r nt. S wht th hck hppnd t y Brts? mn, wht frkn’ hppnd t y gys? P. S. B th w, cld y Dltds pls cln ff th mrrr ftr yr mtnl, hgh-prssr, zt-shft vctn dvtnls t G? mn, ll tht zt-crd bld-p s nt nl dsgstng, bt t’s hrbrg fr FLSH TNG BCTR!
Are you still touchy about those wars you Yanks turned-up to 3 years late, Mike?
Jz Vnc, nt tch t ll. Lt’s s nw–rn’t ths wrs y’r rfrrng t th ns y gys strtd nd thn whn thngs “wrn’t gng s wll” y skd s pc-lvng Ynks t bl y t? Bt ths wrs wr fght b th Brt gnrtn f Sgt Jcksn nd hs mmdt frbrs. S gvng gys lk tht hlpng hnd s n hnr. nd, f crs, thr r stll Brts tht r wrth f Sgt Jcksn’s lgc. Nt s mn Dltds n ths rnks thgh. Rght? nd b th w, Vnc, whn mrcns r th ns t wr r y th srt f Brt tht Ynk cn cnt n fr spprt nd sldrt. r s tht srt f thng nl n w ffr fr y. Lt m rll pss y ff. Thr r Dltds tht hv sd sch trms s “dhmnzd kllrs” t dscrb mrcn srvc mn nd wmn. Prtt lw-lf cmmnt dn’t y gr? r nt.
No Mike, those wars were wars started by Germans (bankrolled by the likes of the American Bush dynasty) that we Australians immediately joined, *on the right side*, and did our best to help put an end to.
In the first one of these wars you yanks were 3 years late to, the ANZACS were instrumental in destroying the Ottoman empire, as well as being key players in the successful battles in North-Eastern France.
In the second one of these wars, the ANZACS were once again the pivotal force that won the war in the middle-east, as well as being the first Allied army to inflict defeat on the Japanese army. The Yanks were swanning around Brisbane at the time, being characteristically careful to ensure they turned up after the tide had been turned. A wise move, considering the chronic lack of competence and professionalism available in any of the Yank armed forces, then as today. At DDay, despite being given the easy beaches furthest from German armoured counterattack, the Yanks were barely able to take the beaches let alone offer any significant support for the battles by British forces against the technically superior Germans South and East of Caen.
You may have noticed you have me at a disadvantage. My remarks are disemvowelled while yours are not.
But I’ll take another chance. The charge that the Germans started the First World War, I believe is a little bold. That war was a long time in the making with various powers spoiling for a fight–include the British Empire. The precipitating event was a series of mobilizations, which, in turn, set in motion military operations, on the use it or loose it principal.
In World War II Great Britain declared war on Germany not the other way around. I carry no brief for Hitler and think it a good thing that Great Britain (and France) went to war against him. However, technically, the Brits started that one. And the casus belli presented by Germany’s invasion of Poland is not compelling since the Soviet Union also invaded Poland and war was not declared on the Soviets. But I acknowledge the Brits have bragging rights in first standing up to Hitler, however belatedly.
As far as Bush et. al funding Hitler. Well, a whole lot of folks, including Brit bankers, had a hand in that deal and some senior members of the British establishment were more than a little sympathetic to Hitler during his rise.
I’ll let you investigate that angle further–some surprises await you, Vince.
The decisive event that won WW I for the allies was America’s entry into the war. Not to take anything from the ANZACs but their contribution pales in comparison to America’s. And it certainly wasn’t America’s fault that thousands of ANZACS perished at Gallipoli through incompetent British generalship.
ANZACS inflicted first defeat on the Japanese Army? Not sure what you’ve got in mind here. Milne Bay perhaps? Kokoda trail? Seems you’re not counting the defeat of the first Japanese assault of Wake (unless you’re making the trivial objection that the Japanese forces were SNLF not IJA forces (same for Milne bay, for that matter).
-Milne bay was a decisive defeat of the Japanese, though it was not an exclusively Australian victory, though the bulk of the fighting was performed by the Australians (the Australians were sent reeling by the initial Japanese assault). But it was two American units–an engineer unit and an anti-aircraft unit, as I recall–whose heavy machines guns cut down the majority of the Japanese in the decisive phase of the battle. And their weapons were not firing from Brisbane as you have apparently been encouraged to think by the lefty, anti-American bigots that have brain-washed you.
The Kokoda trail does not count, for sure, as the first defeat of the Japanese Army. Again, not to take anything away from the heroic fighting by the Australians–especially the awesome 39th Battalion. But defeat may not be the right word for the ultimate conclusion of the Kokoda trail fight. Unlike the 39th Battalion, the Australian 7th division units were roughly handled by the Japanese (as in Malaya, the Japanese showed they could turn a flank in jungle terrain) and the South Seas Detachment was only brought to a stop when the Japanese lost the Battle of Bloody Ridge to U. S. Marines, not in Brisbane, but at Guadalcanal. Sound familiar? That Guadalcanal defeat of the Japanese (which followed a previous Japanese defeat–a battle of annihilation known (mistakenly) as the Battle of the Tenaru River) caused the Japanese high command to abandon the attack on Port Moresby via the Kokoda trail in order to concentrate ija forces on the Guadalcanal fight.
And of course, it was predominantly American air and naval forces that preserved Australia from invasion (every hear of the Battle of the Coral Sea?–Port Moresby was a stepping stone). But again, your anti-American bigotry prevents you from acknowledging, or possibly even knowing, such things.
Unlike you, Vince, I don’t harbor bigotries towards those English-speaking nations that were comrades-in-arms during WWII. In that regard, I hold in the highest respect the brilliant and tough fighting performed by Australian troops at Buna and Gona and in the largely Australian take-down of the Huon peninsula and the critical Markham-Ramu valley system. And the above fighting was performed in co-ordination with American actions in the Solomons/Bismarks and side-by-side with Americans in much of the fighting in New Guinea (Salamaua, Nazdab, Saidor, and Buna/Gona, and the air campaign against Japanese forces at Rabaul and seaborne units there and transiting the Huon Gulf (especially the so-called Battle of the Bismark Sea). Not to mention the great carrier battles in the Solomons that were sufficient to keep the main units of the Japanese fleet at a distance through mid-1944.
Until anti-American bigots like you Vince, showed up, starting in the 70’s, Americans and Australians felt a special bond, and still do for the most part. I can see you’re doing your best to discredit that special comradely feeling. Your youth masters would be proud of you.
You live in a tough neighborhood, Vince. Some folks in the neighborhood might even seen Australians as an offensive relic of a discredited colonial era–a European population best sent packing back to its countries of origin. And, unless things have changed recently, Australia has only a single Division to defend its vast territory. So you might want to appreciate a proven friend–even an anti-American bigot like you might someday like having a loyal friend covering your back.
Of course, Vince, you remain a minority among Australians. You’re a shabby anti-American bigot while your countrymen are, for the most part, not. This blog attracts such marginal types and you, Vince, and the other Deltoids are not to be taken seriously.
Incidentally, the military history above is off the top of my head. I’m sure it’s pretty accurate though.
*Until anti-American bigots*
Oh no. Here we go again. Anyone who dares criticize appalling and abhorrant US foreign policy agendas instantly becomes an ‘anti-American bigot’. Forget the volumes of evidence showing that US planners and corporate elites have hidden behind a facade of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘human rights’ in hiding their real agendas for decades. Once Mike resorted to this *ad hom* smear, he lost all credibility. And to top it off, claiming the moral high ground, he then has a go at most of the other posters on Tim’s thread. No wonder his gibberish was scrambled.
Besides, what the hell has this got to do with spotty’s thread?
Like you say, here we go again. Good faith and accurate criticisms of the U. S. are not anti-American bigotry. Criticisms featuring your typical lefty anti-American double standards are bigotry, however. But regardless, this discussion between Vince and me was on the subject of the “good war.” So your comment is little OT, Jeff ol’boy. Pick a neutral blog and I’ll be glad to re-engage our last discussion, but this blog is not where I want to discuss the matter of your lefty anti-Americanism, thank you (I get disemvowelled a little too often for my taste).
I didn’t get to the Normandy critique in your comment. I don’t seem to have Wilmot’s study of that campaign, at hand, but as I recall, Wilmot noted the Brit commanders were critical of the American landing sites precisely because they were so formidable. Otherwise, the actions at Caen were a stalemate–though the Brits had a good shot at a quick victory in their sector but rather ignominiously blew it (Google Michael Wittman for a German counterpart to Sgt Jackson). The breakout was in the Western, American sector, of the beachhead, and following that breakout American armor raced to Paris and then on to the border of Germany. The Germans fled, as best they could, through the gauntlet of the Falaise Gap. While German heavy tanks had an impressive advantage in the hedge rows of Normandy, in open terrain, American medium tanks left those gas-guzzling, maintenance-intensive German behemoths behind and decisively won the 1944 battle of France.
As far as the competence of American generalship, I’m of mixed feelings on that score. Both the Brits and Americans (and Soviets) had problems with their generals until the war sorted out the winners from the losers. Australians not so much and, of course, tactically, the best were the German generals, on average. On the other hand, I like to think the Marines did pretty well. Compare the fiasco of Gallipoli with the successful Marine Corps amphibious operations in the Pacific, for example. And I think the Marine Corps has done pretty well since then, too.
But, of course, Vince, no one takes your little arm-chair and toy-soldier military “expertise” at all seriously. I mean like you are a competent judge of military leadership? You lefties are an improbable bunch.
*I want to discuss the matter of your lefty anti-Americanism*
Grow up Mike. You write like a ten year old having a tantrum. If you have one iota of intelligence – and that is debatable, given your writing ‘style’ – you’d refrain from making such childish smears and engage in a much more intellectual discourse. I certainly don’t need to debate with a wannabe who claims anyone who criticizes US foreign polcy agendas – and their is a helluva lot to criticize – is a ‘lefty-anti American’. As long as you write such bilge you can expect others here to ridicule you. And rightly so.
Jeff–a master of invective you are not. Bite me zip-popper!
Septic Mike: touchy little bastard aren’t you? Compensating for something, perhaps…and you wonder why we think all you Teabaggers are pathetic military fantasists.
Bragging about war by little girls, who here has been hunted by men with guns ?
Most people that proudly and boastfully speak of war are usually, or always, never to be seen on the battlefield.
I personally think that any person that glorifies war should put their hand up. If they return, they usually discover that their mates have been blown to bits because of lies, greed and propaganda.
Bankers, yes follow the money, they enjoy to immerse the pawns into the sea of stupidity.
These military men have my respect, they researched and became aware.
It will be interesting to see what this does over the NH summer.
What’s the deal rhwombat? You and Jeff some sort of tag team? Me have something to compensate for? Well let me see. I didn’t have any trouble getting dates, in my youth. So that couldn’t be it. The other kids didn’t call me a booger-eater, geek-ball in school. Again, nothing there. I’m not a vegan so I don’t have vegetable-matter derived zits and gas. So not that either. I’m not some wimpy lefty dork-lick. So I couldn’t be compensating for anything there. And I’m not a useless-eater tenured parasite with a cushy spot on the public tit. So once again nothing to compensate for there.
No rhwombat, my problem is not one of compensation. My “problem” is that I admire, am grateful for, and find instructive the incredible bravery and sacrifice of the young men who fought the toughest war of them all–WWII and especially the War in the SW Pacific. Of course, my “problem” tags me a “military fantasist” (I love the term “military fantasist”–it has such an ear-cathing, retro, micro-waved comintern-cant ring to it)in certain circles. But you know rhwombat, I’d rather have my problem than yours.
Hey zitoids! I know you have an inexhaustible supply of idiot comments. But my real life calls. So for this thread, I’ll just end with a general purpose “Yo mama!”
Sordid Mike must have a serious problem. Why does he suddenly pop up on this thread? What the hell has WWII got to do with climate change and what is being mulled over here?
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – A record number of big-game animals perished this winter in parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from a harsh season of unusually heavy snows and sustained cold in the Northern Rockies, state wildlife managers say.
“Elk, deer and moose — those animals are having a pretty tough time,” said Wyoming Game and Fish biologist Doug Brimeyer.
Snow and frigid temperatures in pockets of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming arrived earlier and lingered longer than usual, extending the time that wildlife were forced to forage on low reserves for scarce food, leading more of them to starve.
Based on aerial surveys of big-game herds and signals from radio-collared animals, experts are documenting high mortality among offspring of mule deer, white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope.
This comes as big-game animals enter the last stretch of a period from mid-March through early May that is considered critical for survival.
Wildlife managers estimate die-offs in the tens of thousands across thousands of square miles that span prairie in northeastern Montana, the upper Snake River basin in Idaho near Yellowstone National Park and the high country of northwestern Wyoming near the exclusive resort of Jackson.
Brimeyer said the estimated death rate doubled among deer fawns in the Jackson area this year, rising to 60 percent or more from 30 percent.
He said many thousands more elk have crowded the feeding grounds of the National Elk Refuge near Jackson, yet another sign of the toll winter is exacting…………………
Jeff, Mike still has the [same chip](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/sunspot_thread.php#comment-3004604) on his shoulder.
He seems to still be trapped in his own twilight zone. I liked [Dominion’s response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/sunspot_thread.php#comment-3005488) to Mike’s drivel.
I know you have an inexhaustible supply of idiot comments.
How thoughtful of you to post yours on this particular thread.
I’d like to apologise to SupSnot for derailing his thread with my crude, off-topic irrelevancies.
And thanks to Mike for offering such good sport. Not quite Marlin, though, more like Sailfish.
New Paper: Greenland ice sheet didn’t melt despite temperatures much hotter in the past
A new paper from the 2011 Antarctic Science Symposium presents new ice core data from Greenland and finds that not even the southern portion of Greenland was ice-free during the Eemian period, despite temperatures much higher than the present (5°C or 9°F) lasting for 16,000 years (from 130,000 to 114,000 years ago). Meanwhile, alarmists such as Richard Alley (buddy of Michael Mann at Penn State) and James Hansen claim “The entire ice mass of Greenland will disappear from the world map if temperatures rise by as little as 2°C.” Note global temperatures have recovered by a mere 0.7°C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 and have been flat to declining since 1998.
Sunpsot. You aren’t convincing anyone with your reliance on denialist web sites. You don’t write like a scientist, you don’t think like a scientist, and you don’t publish like a scientist.
Hockeyschtick blogspot? Where on Earth do you get the time to dig up this crap? My advice is for you to keep hanging out with the Flat Earthers, and go away from here. You are metaphorically ‘farting into the wind’.
A note to any layperson that might floating through here, Jeff doesn’t know how to use the links that are provided in articles on websites, certainly the sites that don’t conform to his deluded world views. He likes to shoot the messenger and ignore any science papers that are contrary to his narrow field of vision.
So……to make it easy for Jeff, we’ll go straight to the source…..
The role of the Greenland Ice Sheet in future sea levels – Based on palaeorecords from ice cores and present observations
A new Greenland ice core has been drilled. The first results from the NEEM ice core are presented and then combined with results from other deep ice cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet.
All of the ice cores drilled through the Greenland Ice Sheets have been analyzed, and the results show that all contain ice from the previous warm Eemian period near the base. Is it thus clear that the Greenland Ice Sheet has existed for over 120,000 years, going back to the previous warm period, when it was 5 deg C warmer over Greenland?
The difference between Eemian and Holocene stable oxygen isotope values has been combined with an ice sheet flow model constrained by the ice core results and internal radio echo sounding layers, to estimate the volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet 120,000 years ago.
The results show that South Greenland has not been ice-free during the Eemian period, and that the sea level contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet has been 1 to 2 meters.
(also try clicking on some links Jeff, they are the blue ones, you need the practice).
hmmm….. this one say’s “that the period was 5 K warmer”, If Jeff knew how to use the internet then he could have had a go at me about that ! He like’s blame me for other peoples mistakes.
“It can be concluded that the there was an significant ice sheet covering Greenland during the warm Eemian period and that the reduction of the Greenland ice sheet at most contributed with a sea level rise of 1-2 m of the observed 5 m.”
So… was it 5C or 5K ?
You know, SupSnot, I haven’t said this for years, but reading what you’ve posted, not once, not twice, but three times, I am still left with my initial impression: “so what?”.
What thesis are you making, precisely?
Your a bit slow twirlybird,
“According to the IPCC, a global temperature increase of more than about 2°C would see Greenland’s ice-sheet eventually melt completely. And its projections show this degree of temperature change is now very likely by the end of the century.”
Toniazzo et al. (2004) further show that in UKMO-HadCM3, the complete melting of the Greenland Ice sheet is an irreversible process even if pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 are re-established after it melts. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-3-3.html)
Figure 10.38. Evolution of Greenland surface elevation and ice sheet volume versus time in the experiment of Ridley et al. (2005) with the UKMO-HadCM3 AOGCM coupled to the Greenland Ice Sheet model of Huybrechts and De Wolde (1999) under a climate of constant quadrupled pre-industrial atmospheric CO2. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-38.html)
I’ll spell it out for you twirlybird,
IT’S BEEN HOTTER BEFORE AND GREENLAND DIDN’T MELT
I spoze that Hansen will be letting the air out of his rubber duckie now.
dunno why i bother putting links in my posts, the feeble minded CO2 trolls in here look at them and say, ummm….der…
> What thesis are you making, precisely?
I believe the thesis is “LOOK AT ME!!!!”.
Where does the IPCC publish the first bit you are “quoting”?
I’ve got 10.3.3.3 where they mention the Ridley modelling.
10.7.4.3 where they mention Huybrechts, Gregory and others as well as this:
“climate of Greenland would be much warmer without the ice sheet, because of lower surface altitude and albedo, so it is possible that Greenland deglaciation and the resulting sea level rise would be irreversible. Toniazzo et al. (2004) find that snow does not accumulate anywhere on an ice-free Greenland with pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, whereas Lunt et al. (2004) obtain a substantial regenerated ice sheet in east and central Greenland using a higher-resolution model. ”
I think you’re just exposeing a flaw common to all deniers: you don’t know what the IPCC is or what it does.
As if the Freckle would quote the IPCC!?! That quote comes from a website called climatechangecorp.com, a climate change website for business. The article he quotes talks at some length about how the rapidity of change seen in the real world constantly surprises those cautious and conservative scientists, and the specific sentence he quotes is followed by: “But while there is no doubt about the final outcome [ie that the IPCC projection is correct], the uncertainty for the IPCC is over how fast Greenland’s ice-sheet will melt. The rates of all the melting processes are still very uncertain…”
The tenor is “There is uncertainty about the timing, but not about the outcome.”
No F Wank, it came from here,
and it followed on to say……
“But while there is no doubt about the final outcome, the uncertainty for the IPCC is over how fast Greenland’s ice-sheet will melt. The rates of all the melting processes are still very uncertain, nor are they properly represented by conventional models for predicting melting rates (see Extras: the science below).
” With the scientific community divided, such an uncertain forecast will leave policy makers struggling to plan ahead.”
Given this uncertainty, the IPCC in its report declined to make any quantitative estimates of sea level rises that might result, even within wide error bounds. What it did give was estimates of the smaller but much better understood effects of thermal expansion as the oceans warm, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6m by 2100.”
“Uncertainty”, this means that they haven’t got a clue !
Anyway, as you can see from post 367
IT’S BEEN HOTTER BEFORE AND GREENLAND DIDN’T MELT,
in other words, there are many doubt’s, the science is not settled, nor is there a consensus.
The Great Peer-Review Fairy Tale
Almost Half Non-Peer-Reviewed
The evidence does really does make a mockery of the IPCC and the cult followers.
Spotty said: “IT’S BEEN HOTTER BEFORE AND GREENLAND DIDN’T MELT”
Even Hammett might be stumped to exactly count the number of lies, misleading assumptions and misdirections that could be found in those eight words.
Your weekend homework spotty is to find at what depth the eemian samples were found, look up what a Milankovitch cycle is and get your head around the fact that the [Greenland ice sheet is losing mass](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JB006847.shtml)
that has accumulated during the holocene.
FrankD, say it ain’t so! You mean sunspot’s own reference refutes his claims about it? The sunspot curse strikes again?!!!!
Speaking of uncertainty about timing, there’s also [this news article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-climate-report-confirms-arctic-melt-accelerating-sharply-raises-sea-level-rise-projection/2011/05/03/AFQQGufF_story.html) about recent work on Greenland (and other ice cover). It reports (amongst other things) that Greenland’s melting faster than the AR4 predicted, in part because the AR4 noted that the science of various types of melt dynamics at the time was too uncertain too include so they left them out of predictions – and noted the fact. Now the research has advanced, and the melt is clearly accelerating, and the forecasts are being updated accordingly.
I’ll leave sunspot to find some dubious source to tell him what his misconceptions of this research should be.
slothy, it looks like a typical arm waving funding drive to me, would that melting, if true, be weather or climate ?
Just around the corner from Greenland, there is currently a huge problem with all the critters dying from the long and very cold winter, is that weather or climate ?
I know, Loth, it’s uncanny! The spotster is such a card, he doesn’t even read the first line on his own link, which confirms it’s a reprint of the article I cited.
This thread has been a revelation on troll psychology – at first I thought spotty was just another annoying idiot, but I’ve gradually came to appreciate the latent humour, which I now assume is deliberate. He’s like watching Christopher Monckton in whiteface and big floppy shoes. I look foward to every new post he makes, just for the lulz…
But mostly I’m looking forward to his next weather update from the Old Dart. He hasn’t given one for a while. [I can’t imagine why](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-04/europe-grains-wilt-as-england-has-hottest-april-in-352-years.html)…
*Just around the corner from Greenland, there is currently a huge problem with all the critters dying from the long and very cold winter*
Speaking as an ecologist, this is utter drivel. In northern Quebec, December was one of the warmest recorded, meaning that the winter was certainly not a ‘long’ one. Certainly boreal and tundra species are well adapted to short-term cold weather events. Longer term warming, however, poses a real threat to their persistence and survival. Just as longer term warming is disrupting phenological interactions amongst oak trees, winter moths and pied flycatchers in Europe. This year, in keeping with a long-term trend, we have had one of the earliest and warmest springs on record in The Netherlands. Along with that has been a crippling drought, meaning that early growth and flowering has been offset by a lack of rain. If this year was a one-off event, it would not be so serious, but there has been a significant onset of (1) earlier springs, and (2) milder night temperatures since the 1970s. The rate of change has apparently exceeded the ability of many species to ‘track’ the warming either behaviorially or physiologically. Add to that that many of these species-related traits are based on interactions with other species, and the extent of the predicament becomes clearer. As I have said before, and in contrast with the nitwits who post gibberish up on non-peer reviewed weblogs that spotty cites, there is plenty of biotic evidence for warming. This alone vanquishes their stupid refrains of ‘it stopped warming in 1998’ and other such childish crap.
And yes, spotty, you are, as you always do, mixing up weather and climate. Whenever I play your game you chastise me for confusing the two. Then you past a few scraps from articles reporting a cold snap is occurring somewhere. The truth is that there have been more than twice as many high temperature records set since the 1990s than low temperature records. The trend towards more record high temperatures has been increasing decade by decade since the 1950s. This is statistically significant, and therein lies one of the truths underlying the current warming. It IS warming, at different rates at different places, and at different time scales. You can huff and puff and pout all you like, but the science is IN. The question left is to what extent this will affect natural and managed ecosystems.
> …I’ve gradually came to appreciate the latent humour, which I now assume is deliberate…
I had assumed that sunspot was determinedly aiming to snag a worldwide Poe championship…but after he was banished here and still continued to post the same type of incohesive and largely incoherent “argument” to an apparently tiny and inconstant audience, I have come to believe that the humour is unintentional and sunspot is sincere in his determined incomprehension of the science. I leave the thread alone for months at a time and then drop in and it seems the same as it ever was…so whatever’s driving him seems to be internally generated rather than external validation.
I don’t suppose that the CO2 freak’s in here have heard of THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION !
“The cause for the dry spell now was a high pressure ridge over western and central Europe, deflecting Atlantic wet weather, say experts who forecast wetter conditions in late May.”
“Longer term forecasts beyond seven days were not an exact science, cautioned a spokesman for the German weather service, declining to predict that far ahead.”
Did you read that fella’s ? “not an exact science”, he should’ve added “especially where tax grabbing governments are involved”.
Has anybody in here noticed the faltering rising sea levels ?
Arrrrrrrrr……..ALL THE ICE IS MELTING !!
but the sea levels are going down,
The unintentional humour continues I’m fairly confident sunspot doesn’t even know what’s funny – let alone how many different things are – about his post.
Most widely used climate computer model exaggerates global warming by 67%
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate announces a new version of the computer climate model most widely used by climate scientists and the IPCC, called the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) version 4. The creators claim their program is
“a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth’s past, present, and future climate states.”
The abstract, however, contains a remarkable admission that the model exaggerates the global warming from 1850 to 2005 by 0.4°C more than observations. The observed global warming from 1850 to 2005 was only 0.6°C, thus the computer model predicted ~ 67% more global warming than actually occurred. This exaggeration alone could account for all of the claimed “heat trapping” from the increase in man-made carbon dioxide over that same 155 year period. IPCC projections for future global warming based upon this model may be similarly greatly exaggerated. (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/most-widely-used-climate-computer-model.html)
For those that don’t know how to use the internet, here is the abstract.
“Scientists from Stanford and Columbia Universities said Canadian and U.S. temperatures since 1980 have changed, but are still within the range of “natural variability” in weather. So in North America, the effects of climate change are practically invisible”
It’s obvious that they haven’t studied the rest of the planet, only IPCC rubbish. No doubt similar studies will start popping up from other countries.
This one for chekie @ 373
Coldest April On Record In The Capital Of Greenland
Again, Lotharsson, I have to disagree, the humour must be intentional. Surely, having provided a link for “those that don’t know how to use the internet”. the spotty one must have actually read the abstract, no?
But once again, the next sentence of the abstract shows what bilge the hockeyschtick’s write up is: “The CCSM4 ensemble mean increase in globally-averaged surface temperature between 1850 and 2005 is larger than the observed increase by about 0.4°C. This is consistent with the fact that CCSM4 does not include a representation of the indirect effects of aerosols, although other factors may come into play.”
That 0.4 discrepancy is easily accounted for by aerosols, the absence of which from the CCSM4 might come as a revelation to “those that don’t know how to use the internet” (a clade in which rejectionists are overrepresented), but is well known to those with an interest in climate.
One more denialist who is either ignorant or a liar. That Krusty Spotty quotes without reading the source is classic pie-in-the-face, seltzer-bottle clowntrolling.
> That Krusty Spotty quotes without reading the source is classic pie-in-the-face, seltzer-bottle clowntrolling.
I’ve got to admit I can’t rule out your hypothesis with any confidence – self-refuting reference after self-refuting reference is certainly consistent with deliberate clowntrolling. If that’s true then sunspot hasn’t twigged that too much slapstick loses its humour value and becomes just sad.
But if you are right, then sunspot should be able to list the ways in which his “you guys haven’t heard of the NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION” post was intended to be humorous – but I guess a performer doesn’t want to call attention to his tradecraft 😉
Is spotty’s comment at #383 about a cold snap in Greenland supposed to somehow detract from or counter the GRACE data, or major visible events only a few short months ago like [100 sq. miles breaking off from the Petermann Glacier?](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/08/view-cracking-115875-22473003/)
As the link shows, even the lowliest tabloids relayed that piece of news, so it’s not like it was buried in some obscure NASA journal.
In coulrotaxonomy (the classification of clowns), the classic dynamic exists between the whiteface, thrower of creampies [“all-knowing (even if not particularly smart), bossy and cocky. He is the ultimate authority figure” (sound familiar?)], and the auguste, the victim of the whiteface’s bullying. However, when there are more than two clowns, it is common to involve a subtype of the auguste, the “contra-auguste”, a designation that fits the typical clowntroll.
“The contra-auguste plays the role of the mediator between the whiteface character and the auguste character. He has a lower status than the whiteface but a higher status than the auguste. He aspires to be more like the whiteface and often mimics everything the whiteface does to try to gain approval.”
In practice, the contra-auguste is a kind of Wile E. Coyote figure, constantly hoist on his own petard. Between sucking up to the whiteface he aspires to be and trying, but usually failing, to victimise the “everyman” auguste, the contra-auguste is both ineffectual and self-parodying, face-pie-ing or seltzer-spraying himself, derided by the whiteface and only serving to reinforce the audiences liking for the plucky auguste.
While the arrogant and untouchable whiteface is typically the subject of children’s nightmares, and the source of coulrophobia, it is the contre-auguste who is the truly sad clown, the one that adults find unsettling due to his pathetic and fruitless surrender of any self-respect. The whiteface laughs on the outside while crying on the inside, and the auguste the reverse, but the contra-auguste ends crying on the outside and the inside, leaving the stage with a pathetic “parp” of his bicycle horn and whipped cream dripping from his face…
Quotes from Wikipedia for convenience.
Chek – that chunk of ice (now split into two large pieces) will become news again in a couple of months. After a rapid transit down the coast of Baffin Island, the two massive bergs will become a major shipping hazard in the area where the Titanic went down when they clear the Labrador coast. I’d guess that will be in about six weeks or so if they don’t run aground in the interim.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.