By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Sorry old chap. I am neither stupid nor do I need to be disingenuous in my arguments.
I of course know very well what the UHI issue is and was about.
You however, made some very stark claims you never could substantiate, and followed them up with some even stranger statements (about ‘energetically insufficient’). You were at it for quite som time, mothing off but not getting anything relevan right.
Everything I said about the UHI effect is still correct and there to read. Everywhere where you contradicted any of that you were wrong or just desperately hoping …
And BTW, re: “you aren’t by any means as clever as you think you are. You don’t fool me or anyone else here into believing that you understand the science .. ”
Do I need to remind you where you 1st claimed that the winter to summer temperature differences showed the alleged large positives from CO2?
And that you afterwards claimed that this (nonsense) was just due to ‘too fast typing’?
Well, at least and to your (only) you managed to step back from that nonsense. There were multiple other quite bad mistakes you made in reading that paper. But I don’t think you even understood what I said there.
You are on the ‘scientific’ level of after the fact (NB) realizing that the CO2 content does not change so much from january to july that you can infer any effects from it on any system. But it needed to be pointed out to you first. And by me!
Have you yet grasped that because something has the term ‘oscillation’ in its name, this does neither mean that its net contribution therefor must be zero over any given time period, nor that it must be zero over long enough time frames because of its label!?
Well, there is no meaning in reminding you of all other instances. You are obviously not familiar with physics or other real fields of science. Hence you lengthy orating about ‘published’ words whose meanings you rarely understand.
As I’ve said before: This is the right place for you!
PS How was you ‘vacation’ in the ‘Open thread’ ?
You however, made some very stark claims you never could substantiate, and followed them up with some even stranger statements (about ‘energetically insufficient’).
Nope. Proof positive that you never understood what I said, even though it was very simple. Worse, I’ve just re-explained this on the previous page of this thread and you *still* don’t understand.
You are stupid, and this exchange is a pointless as all the previous ones have been because you cannot understand what people are saying to you.
This is why some commenters have taken to referring to you as “Jonarse”.
The latter comments in this exchange serve as *proof* of this, and will remain here, for all to see, for the foreseeable future.
BBD, you are delusional …
I don’t even need to call you stupid. But you’ve made many really stupid claims about processed of physics in the physical world, demonstrating that you don’t grasp the topics (or only have very very superficial understanding of the terms)
This is of course true for everybody who here who has tried mouthing off, and ‘Jonarse’ is just a cruder way of demonstrating such shallowness.
And that you now openly participate in their stupidity is your choice. (Frankly, I thought you were smarter than relying on or referring to such stupid support)
Regarding the UHI-effect:
Everything relevant was already said (to you) by me, almost ttwo years ago. Back then, you started with som very strange claims, followed up with some equally confused ‘arguments’ not really relevant, and the only thing you (kinda, halfway) got correct after som time was the reasonable agreement between surfacestateions and satellite record.
But even wrt to that agreement, your point was moot. The agreement is not that good that it could demonstrate your claims (if only for the last three decades)
Sorry kid, you may want to believe that you are very smart anda knowledgable. But if you had been, your claims, your arguments, and your behaviour would have reflected that …
BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions? You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors, and at Judith’s I’ve only seen you rarely. Here however you seem to fit in, and thrive …
When the posturing is set aside, we are left with one simple fact. You aren’t saying anything at all. Your argumentative technique consists of asserting – but never demonstrating – that your correspondent is wrong and claiming – but never demonstrating – a superior level of understanding.
You might *think* you are conducting a successful argument, but you aren’t. Because you aren’t saying anything.
When you do, you will get nailed.
But you’ve made many really stupid claims about processed of physics in the physical world
Everything relevant was already said (to you) by me, almost ttwo years ago. Back then, you started with som very strange claims, followed up with some equally confused ‘arguments’ not really relevant
BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions?
No. And I never see you anywhere, Jonarse, doubtless because *you* have been widely banned elsewhere.
You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors,
Lie. I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again. Which is why the cowardly little liar Montford banned me. I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well – for a year, until bored.
This response is to illustrate that you are a liar. Lying about your correspondent’s ability and knowledge is a large part of what you do. See #4.
What you *never* do is advance a coherent argument of your own. I suspect that this is because you know that as soon as you do, it will be shredded and you will be revealed as the posturing and ill-informed blowhard that you are.
Note, Jonarse, that *you* are the one confined to a remedial thread here, not me.
Enjoy the silence.
But even wrt to that agreement, your point was moot. The agreement is not that good that it could demonstrate your claims (if only for the last three decades)
Bollocks. More lies, Jonas.
And what of the earlier data? Well, if UHI had biased the surface temperature reconstructions warm pre-1979, then the effects of the sharp increase in GHG forcing beginning in the 1960s have been *under-represented*.
As ever, it is you who hasn’t thought things through or understood the implications of your own bullshit.
“BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions? You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors, and at Judith’s I’ve only seen you rarely. Here however you seem to fit in, and thrive … ”
Is this true BBD? have you been banned from everywhere else?
Reading comprehension issues are rather prevalent amongst deniers.
Read the current #5 again, carefully this time.
Thanks BBD, from your #5
” I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again.” and
” I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well”
Do you have any idea why you were banned? I imagine you’d be as welcome as a dose of clap on most blogs BBD.
I wonder… what would it say about a person if they were banned at blogs run by proven shills, but not at blogs run by scientists?
What would it say about a person if it were the other way around?
As a random aside, I’d love for “Boris” to make it to this thread and have a duel with Jonas over non-existent credentials. I’d pay to see that, actually.
Sorry BBD, your accomplishments are mostly just you imagining things, about other things you don’t understand too well. I have rarely ever seen you address an issue properly. Just shallow or ill-informed rumbling about about what you think ‘the science’ says and therefore ‘must be accepted’.
But worry chap, it doesn’t work that way. Never did. Real science is evaluated when and where it meets with reality.
Stu, I know somebody who (OK, alledgedly) ‘studied physics for six years’ and went off the deep end over a hand pushing a box …
You too are mostly imagining things. And those pro-CAGW blogs have essentially nothing to do with science. And all of them need the delete button and other similar methods to maintain the faith.
Why do you think that is? Why do you think that those of you who only navigate based on faith and rumored ‘authority’ need so much ‘protection’ from people far more knowledgable than you? And why are the places where you ‘enjoy’ that kind of ‘protection’ loitered with types like yourself and the other crowd here.
C’mon, it’s not exactly science any of you is discussing. Not even those who repeatedly say that their CV says ‘scientist’ on it (why anybody ever would argue such a stupid stance!?)
Why do you think that your belief-system is laughed at and mocked more and more in increasingly wider circles?
Or are you in denial of that? Because among lamestream media and politicions (the true leaders and champions of truth and integrity. Nt!) the vast majority still toes the line?
Is that why?
So would I!
What Stu said, really.
Your definition of “most” is problematic. AFAIK I am welcome on all science blogs and unwelcome on all denier anti-science blogs. I’m very happy with that situation.
Sorry about the typo in #5 which I only now see. That should be
I made fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well – for a year, until bored.
Getting sloppy. Tut tut.
Fellas, von Storch has some scary science words coming your way. It’s nothing new for the open minded though:
“In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period
that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third would.”
“AFAIK I am welcome on all science blogs and unwelcome on all denier anti-science blogs” (*)
Circular argument has no place in science, even you should know that!
Falsification however has: You are (apparently) welcome and very active on this blog.
Now, the key question is: What do you make out of that fact?
Pssst: If you are right in (*) there are two possibilities! (If you are wrong, there are more, but you’d be wrong regardless … )
HvS isn’t saying anything new. Mystery forcings of the invisible and unmeasurable variety need to be demonstrated. Supposed model over-sensitivity needs to be considered in terms of decadal variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake and the rate of OHC increase at depth. He is clear about this:
Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out.
Points two and three have not been demonstrated. Point one is indeed the plausible candidate. And it won’t make any difference to the centennial trend, which is what this is really all about.
More content-free blather from the house fuckwit.
No response to his hideous mess over the UHI stuff – no response to #7.
Exactly as predicted. This wanker knows nothing and never says anything because he will get shredded and he knows it.
Instead he honks and drones about his supposed – but nonexistent – superior knowledge.
What a pillock. What a fantasist. What a Jonarse.
I don’t expect you to take notice, but things are really not going your side’s way. IPCC is scembling to pull off a media stunt here in Stockholm, and the believers will report dutifully.
But what worked in 2007 will not work again, and the inconsistencies are now glaring and easy for everybody to see.
Slowly, also media has shifted as has the interested public and its perception of MSM.
Regarding the UHI stuff: You never understood this properly and you ar still taking gibberish and in denial. But that’s another story
And comments are disappearing too, not only delayd for days anw weeks … in my own thread!
Today, there was a (nah, maybe not so) big event in Stockholm, when the IPCC presented their negotiated SPM for the AR5.
Not suprisningly, they’ve jacked up their ‘confidince’ further, now claiming 95%, but quitely watered down the message in various ways using weasel formulations ..
And of course, this was the (this week) politically negotiated SPM, presented only by bureaucrats and IPCC apparatchik
Of course also, the message was that the heat now is hiding in the deep oceans, quite sure, but anyway, one shouldnt heed such short time spans as 15 years or so. At least not when its not warming.
Another gem was that the last 30 years, have been the warmest in the last 150 years.
Well then, there you have it!
Anyone taking bets on if a possible AR6 will top that?
Thought you would post on this The 95% is clearly political as others have commented, nothing to do with the “Science”.
Also there’s a great deal of uncertainty about there ever being an AR6, at least in it’s current format! Glad you are being entertained by it all Jonas.
GSW … oh, my comment made it through while there still was at least some media hype?
One of the previous ones needed more than a week to pass ‘pee-review’
But on a more serious note. The media hype even in Sweden almost was a non-event. And the usual suspects of greenies and lefties had some ‘manifestations’ gathering a few dozens, but only very few politicians even approached the subject. And looking around among the alarmist reservations, it’s hard to see any enthusiasm.
I think slowly slowly the world is gradually getting saner again. Admittedly from a very ungreen/unsustainable-policy darkness. And even the faithers are starting to sense it, or at least that it’s not like before, that the party is over … and are worrying what that nagging sense of emptiness might be.
Regarding what tie AR5 SPM said, it is almost comical. I gather you have read Ross McKitricks summary:
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Pretty much sums it up, wouldn’t you say? Not even overstated …
Well glad to see some sanity on this blag again … its an endangered ‘species’ … locally, that is!
Apologies Jonas, had to tend to some other things since the weekend so haven’t had a chance to respond. And yes, McKitrick’s summary was good makes the point to rational folk, (deltoid regulars will probably need it explaining)
PS. Briefly caught your post at Climate Audit and I agree, the IPCC/alarmist “case” has always been about achieving a “perception”, there’s a steady stream of mugs like “unscientific Jeff” that’ll buy into any half arsed catastrophe theory. – Has anyone told him about the killer mutant penguins yet?
I am so ‘unscientific’ that you and Jonas combined couldn’t even reach up to my shoelaces. You see, a person’s scientific pedigree is based on what they’ve done, not what they say. And let me put it this way – you and Jonas say a lot, but do nothing.
Oh, the politics of envy. I love it.
You’ve so far had more than two years, and all the space in the world here …
So why dont you put your shoelaces on top of that impressive CV of yours, climb on top of both of them, stand on your toes, straighten your back and start addressing what is actually discussed here!?
Ok, I understand if you’ll get a little dizzy at such unfamiliar heights; But you could at least try, couldn’t you? I mean, at some point you have to start dealing with the reality outside your echo-chamber?
Haven’t you been paying any attention at all? The allegedly settled IPCC-style science, with its high confidence attributions, its positive feedbacks and claimed high sensitivities, and dire predictions about this and that!?
Well, I forgot. You have no means to determine whether or not anything in the AR5 SPM reports is based on science or is just politically negotiated diversion.
Well, at some point in the future you will have to deal with the fact that essentially all problems with both IPCC and climate science in general had been pointed out long before, and mostly by the skeptics and those capable of understanding real science …
Heck, by now you should have noted quite a few things only pionted out here in this thread. But we know, Jeff, you are a slow learner …
Is that 4 days in moderation Jonas? An unsophisticated form of censorship
Looking forward to seeing what unscientific, bitch slapped, slow learner Joffrey and his “shoelace” worth of science can come back with as argument this time.
….”mostly by the skeptics and those capable of understanding real science”….
of which you and your slavish hero-worshipper Gormless are not included, given the fact that neither of you has any scientific pedigree whatsoever.
Jonas, you can haunt the blogs all you like but you are a complete nothing, a nobody. Heaven only knows where you got your massive, bloated ego. Certainly not from doing any science.
jonas, werent you saying that you had seen no attribution work prior to AR4? if so you should be able to say which paper was the first in the history of climatology to calculate the human contribution to global warming. or is the latest work also made up?
and what do you think that the new climate sensitivity range really means?
You really are no competition at all. I have been telling you about science here for years. And you neither knew, nor have you learnt ..
But the the level here, on which your you’ve been bitch-slapped, hardly qualifies as science. It’s high school basics of logic and handling simplest physics.
As I’ve said: You are no competition. You would be laughed out of the room, But as you would be laughed out of the room, would you ever dare venturing into one with scientists.
And that is also the reason why you where one of the first to demand that I d be banned here.
But still, even with your wish fulfilled you have not been able to land one single blow. Only your own fantasies completely irrelevant to anything.
Why do you think that is?
Well the reason is that you are no competion at all! You cannot even speak the language of educated people … mostly it’s just frothing of the mouth!
Your last comment indicates that you still are not aware of how badly IPCC-style climate science really is. Well … that’s your problem: You really don’t understand the message even when your own side spells it out for you.
Bu I forgot: You really have no means to assess anything. You can’t even formulate highschool-level arguments on a blog!
And you think you are a scientist!? Well, that doesn’t speak well of the others in your lunch room or those meetings you boast about! But then again, you start running away already in the comment section of an activist blog!
Simply amazing what the deluded nutcases can conjure up!
One of the (not so) prominent ones in this thread made the following claim about the medieval warm period:
The MWP was only ‘generated’ after Mann et als. 1998 paper in Nature.
Try guessing who, but without peeking …
Again … one working week later and comments are still ‘awaiting moderation’!?
Why is it so hard for the (C)AGW to be honest about almost anything?
Strange notion …
What I’ve said is that I have seen plenty of so called ‘attribution studies’ who however fail to make the case proclaimed in the AR4 SPM.
AFIK also AR5 SPM makes quantitative statements about alleged ‘certainty’ wrt to attribution that are not based in proper and published science …
Further, those Climate sensitivity-pdfs are mostly poorly interpreted simulation runs. Ie not based on proper science, and shouldn’t be regarded as such either.
I hope this answers you (curious) question
“What I’ve said is that I have seen plenty of so called ‘attribution studies’ who however fail to make the case proclaimed in the AR4 SPM.”
I think that’s a fair summary Jonas. Deltoid regular’s (including Joffrey) have hand waived at there being 1,000′s of papers, that they hadn’t read and didn’t say the things they thought they did.
…”But as you would be laughed out of the room, would you ever dare venturing into one with scientists”
More evidence of Jonas and his mental affliction. Heaven only knows what I have doing the past 20+ years – or 18 if you count my PhD. I’ve been to dozens of conferences, met literally thousands of scientists, and spoken in front of even more.
I haven’t heard a single snicker or guffaw in all that time.
By contrast, Jonas, consigned to his own sad, lonely little thread on a single weblog, owing to his obnoxious behavior, still opines as if he alone can determine what makes a scientist. And get this – he isn’t one himself. He’s got no degrees relevant to any scientific field. His only qualifications are in his head and the praise heaped on him by one slavish admirer.
Are you still repeating this lie? Empty noise.
Deal with the substantive. Deal with the horrible mess you have made and which I exposed for the nth time at #7.
Except we both know you can’t, hence the serial lying.
You are a clown, Jonas.
BBD, Fail again! Repeating your beliefs won’t make them come true!
Your #7 is giberrish, as was your ‘energetically insufficient’ UHI effect argument before that. Repeating nonsense arguments does not improve them, you’re rapidly becoming another Joffrey and the “science wot he does”.
The Deltards seem to have gone into meltdown Jonas.
Strange … my answer to Jeff has ‘disappeared’
Well anyway, there in part I reminded Jeff that he is the one needing and constantly demanding ‘protection’
BBD … I don’t even know what it is you are trying to say. Regarding the issues, you lost long time ago. Regarding whatever else you produce, Deltoid most certainly is the place for you! And of course for the compulsive fact-fabricator Jeffie … that goes without saying.
I think BBD, true to form, has run away Jonas which is some admission at least that he knows he was talking bollocks.
They’ve all retired to the open thread “safe zone” where those with dissenting views have been banned and the regulars compete to out “village idiot” each other.
And nothing else than open threads on Deltoid. One may wonder why.
GSW and others ..
I don’t think BBD knows when he knows something and when he doesn’t. Usually he seems convinced of one thin or another, based on some appeal to authority, like phrases in a ‘publication’ or the like … but when challenged to its actual contents, or more often to his understanding of it, he often seems completely clueless. Even after one explains things in detail.
Thus, I would never assume that he has realized his mistakes … especially since he keeps repeating them even after they are picked apart for him.
Wwll, you guys here have known this for more than two years. But just the other day the British parliament learnt about it too:
”The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case.”
But as I’ve told you guys repeatedly: this has been obvious since the AR4 SPM in 2007 (when they just claimed 90% confidence)
(posted early on 12/22)
Merry Christmas to you Jonas!
I think the point’s been made Jonas; what regulars claim to be “The Science” is somewhere between flawed and non-existent. Doesn’t stop them trying to push their own peculiar political beliefs though and they seem to get more bizarre as things move on – I think they are done!
Have a good New Year Jonas!
Yes indeed, the point has been made by no other than the IPCC itself openly displaying that what they peddle is alarmist activism. And to top it off, they made the same point once more even more fervently so that nobody (in their right mind) can miss it.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too …
and to all of those who will really need some cheering up the coming year and years
Especially when they’ll see that the hot air they’ve produced doesn’t warm anything at all, and neither can be used to pay for their runnaway energy bills
(posted on 12/23)
Again, my comments are ‘held in moderation’ för a week.
Good thing the quality and level of the discussions is so high in the recent threads. Where ‘Wow’ is at it again in full bloom …
(posted Jan 19)
Wow’s not on his own Jonas, there’s a whole new generation of loons arrived to join in.
Really? When I check in occasionally, I don’t see to many new names. Wow and BBD take turns spamming the latest ‘open thread’
(Poster Jan 27)
Sorry Jonas, it was a reference to cRR Kampen. He may not be entirely new(?), but on a blog inhabited by some very special people already, he’s pushing the bounds of incoherence.
P.S Your comment stuck in moderation for 2 weeks Jonas?
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.