Jonas Thread

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 pentaxZ
    June 17, 2013

    A question for the deltiod zealot: where in the world has it got unberable hot in the last decades?

  2. #2 chek
    June 17, 2013

    Well, since you ask PantieZ the 2003 heat wave killed nearly 35,000 in Europe

    “The European heat wave of 2006 was the second massive heat wave to hit the continent in four years, with temperatures rising to 40 °C (104 °F) in Paris; in Ireland, which has a moderate maritime climate, temperatures of over 32 °C (90 °F) were reported. Temperatures of 35 °C (95 °F) were reached in the Benelux and Germany (in some areas 38 °C (100 °F), while Great Britain recorded 37 °C (99 °F). Many heat records were broken (including the hottest ever July temperature in Great Britain) and many people who experienced the heat waves of 1976 and 2003 drew comparisons with them. Highest average July temperatures were recorded at many locations in Great Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Germany”.

    With many other records falling in later years:
    “A record-breaking heat wave hit South-western Asia in late July and early August 2011, with temperatures in Iraq exceeding 120 °F (49 °C),[56] and an “asphalt-melting, earth-parching, brain-scrambling heat of midsummer” in Tbilisi, Georgia.[57] The Iraqis were further challenged by pressure to fast during Ramadan, despite heat of 124 °F (51 °C) in Baghdad and 126 °F (52 °C) in Diwaniya on 4 August.[56] The extreme heat inspired conspiracy theories of the government corruption in Iraq and retaliation from the United States government;[56] and, in Georgia, the Apocalypse, mutant locusts caused by Chernobyl, snakes imported by unseen enemies, and sun spots.[57]
    Most parts of the United Kingdom experienced an Indian summer between September and October 2011. The heat wave resulted in a new record high temperature for October at 30°C.[58]
    Land surface temperatures of March 8–15, 2012. Land surface temperatures are distinct from the air temperatures that meteorological stations typically measure. In March 2012, one of the greatest heat waves was observed in many regions of North America. First very warm air pushed northward west of the Great Lakes region, and subsequently spread eastward. This air mass movement was propelled by an unusually intense low level southerly jet that stretched from Louisiana to western Wisconsin. Once this warm surge inundated the area, a remarkably prolonged period of record setting temperatures ensued.[59] NOAA’s National Climate Data Center reported that over 7000 daily record high temperatures were broken over the U.S. from 1 March thru 27 March.[59] In some places the temperature exceeded 30 °C (86 °F) with anomalies up to +22°C. Temperature records across much of southern Canada were also demolished.[60]
    In March, 2012, the United Kingdom experienced a heat wave with temperature anomalies of +10 °C in many places.[61]
    In late June 2012, much of North America began experiencing a heat wave, as heat spread east from the Rocky Mountains. During the heat wave, the June 2012 North American derecho caused violent storms that downed trees and power lines, leaving 3 million people in the eastern U. S. without power on June 30.[62] The heat lasted until Mid-August in some parts of the country.
    The Australian summer of 2012-2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period, including the hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole, the hottest January on record, the hottest summer average on record, and a record seven days in row when the whole continent averaged above 39° C.[63][64] Single-day temperature record were broken in dozens of towns and cities, as well as single-day rainfall records, and several rivers flooded to new record highs.[63] From Dec 28th, 2012 through at least January 9th, 2013 Australia has faced its most severe heatwave in over 80 years, with a large portion of the nation recording high temperature reading above 40°C to 45°C or greater in some areas, a couple spots have also neared 50°C. This extreme heat has also resulted in a ‘flash’ drought across southern and central areas of the country and has sparked several massive wildfires due to periodic high winds”
    Culminating in new colour being required in the Australian BOM temperature maps in 2012 to cope with the excessive heat”.

    That you don’t know any of this is completely unsurprising for someone as pig-ignorant as you, PantieZ.

  3. #3 Wow
    June 17, 2013

    Fuck, the only zealots on Deltoid are the fucking idiots playing denier-bingo, like panties here.

  4. #4 chek
    June 17, 2013

    Still, it keeps them busy and stops them from adding yet more pollution to the Heartland Chinese scandal and Ed Snowden threads elsewhere.

  5. #5 pentaxZ
    June 18, 2013

    Oh gosh, chek, 35 000 you say? And of course their death certificate says ” killed due to AGW”? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a heat wave weather? Old people about to die anyway, dying a little sooner due to a weather event isn’t by a long shot proof of AGW.

    So, rephrasing so you perhaps will understand, where in the world has the climate got unbearable hot?

    And for the record since you are unable to comprehend, the link at Climate Depot contains a long list of peer reviewed science, since I know you put such a value to that kind of things. A long list pulling the ipcc pants down to the ankles.

    “Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic”.

    One fault in that sentence, no need to wait a few years. If you want to see the misanthropic idiots just google “deltoid” and you will find them.

  6. #6 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    PentaxZ, the world changes, but not the mindset of a deltoid. Hans von Storch is not a Deltoid though, but he is a scientist;

    “Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so.”

  7. #7 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    “Oh gosh, chek, 35 000 you say? ”

    Ah, I see, you are a psychopath who has absolutely no care if tens of thousands die.

    Your pretend that you care about the welfare of others is a complete sham, panties. You absolutely do not care about anyone other than yourself.

    You have just proven it.

  8. #8 pentaxZ
    June 18, 2013

    Proven what, wow? You claim people have died due to AGW. Where’s the proof? Where in the world was the humans which AGW supposedly killed? Where on earth has it become unberable hot? You make these stupid claims. Put your money where you mouth is!

  9. #9 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    I’d said, panties. But you’re unable to read anything that isn’t conformant to a personal rapture state, aren’t you?

    You’ve proven you’re a psychopath who doesn’t give a shit when tens of thousands of people die.

  10. #10 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Where’s the proof???? Did you REALLY say that?

    Died of heat stroke.

    Anthropogenic Global WARMING.

    The connection is that warming == more heat.

    And dying of heat stroke means that it was very hot.

  11. #11 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    How tiny do I have to make the logical steps before you can make the connection? Or are you a YEC and every single step from ape to man doesn’t bring more evidence for evolution, but brings up more transitionals that aren’t there?

    You’re definitely retarded enough for a YEC.

  12. #12 pentaxZ
    June 18, 2013

    Since when is a weather event AWG? And why does it only goes in one ( the warm) direction? Does the death sertificates on those 35 000 say ” death by AGW?

    And again, where in the world has it gotten unberable hot? Simple enough to answer, wouldn’t you say?

  13. #13 chek
    June 18, 2013

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a heat wave weather? Since when is a weather event AWG?

    Like the blind men each trying to describe an elephant from their limited perceptions, the self-imposed blindness due to your beliefs cannot let you see the AGW elephant in the room.

    While it is a truism that individual weather events can’t be ascribed to AGW, you were presented with a collection of events all occurring within a relatively short space of time. Focussing on one and insisting the elephant is a snake is due to your own blindness PantieZ. It should also be superfluous to add that AGW manifests itself as weather events.

    The correct question to ask is: ‘are these type of events predicted by AGW theory’? To which the answer is ‘yes’, and vague generalisations bordering on the inane by Von Storch don’t alter that one whit.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    June 18, 2013

    chek, you are rambling as much nonsense as the other Deltoids here. Rarely ever any sunbstance. So far, the possible AGW-signal among the noise of fully natural variations and fluctuations has not been identified and observed.

    As you might know, the IPCC in the 2007 AR4 made a terrible overreach on how certain and how much it was and could be attributed. You guys here are still licking your (intellectual) wounds over that, pretending that nothing except the unfaltering faith matters. But that’s you problem, not ours.

    As so many here, you seem unable to distinguish between AGW and temperatures (mentally thinking that any warming also must be AGW, which it is not, not even in your ‘theory’ or the unvalidated hypothesis you rather should call it).

    Further, the hiatus and the longer it lasts, very quickly diminishes the likelihood of that hypothesis, especially for the mor CAGW-leaning versions.

    Deltoid has hosted commenters like you, Jeff, Bernard, Stu, Lionel, and a variety of others and whatever your hopes might have been for that period, they don’t alter reality. Rather I’d say, it has provided a forum for the decreasing number of hard faithers who cannot function in the real scientific community where facts and observations are the standard to be measured by.

    In some way it’s tragic, but this kind of behaviour has been around and manifested itself in other utopian and often totalitarian beliefs too …

    It’s good that the rest of the world is starting to sober up from all this climate madness …

  15. #15 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    “Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a heat wave weather? Since when is a weather event AWG?”

    When AWG is happening, all weather is AWG.

    Fucking moron.

  16. #16 chek
    June 18, 2013

    Further, the hiatus

    There is no ‘hiatus’ moron.
    Arctic melting accelerated from 2007-2012. That requires heat and lots of it. You need some new talking points Jonarse.

  17. #17 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    A 0.22C trend is NOT a haitus, asswipe.

  18. #18 Jonas N
    June 18, 2013

    chek

    Moving the goalposts somewhere completely different now?

    The hiatus has lasted for 1½ decade or more or more. And you know it! You also know that atmospheric CO2 is supposed to heat the atmosphere, and as the faithers believe there furthere amplify its moderate effect through large positive feedbacks.

    Sorry chek, but we won’t let you off the hook that easily. And you are still conflating AGW with (previous) warming. As do so many of you!

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    chek, like you I agree with professor Curry’s observstion that the hiatus seem to catch less interest at the moment. The “cooling since 2002″ is “hotter”:

    “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”

  20. #20 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    chek, like you I agree with professor Curry’s observstion

    Like curry, you’re making shit up.

    Again.

  21. #21 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    Curry, von Storch, Lindzen, etc. ;-)

    Regarding the Arctic, here some science from 1930:

    “1. Receding of glaciers and “melting away” of islands….all the Greenland glaciers which descend into Northeast Bay and Disko Bay have been receding since approximately the beginning of the century. On Franz Joseph Land during recent years several islands have appeared as if broken in two. It turned out they had been connected up to that time by ice bridges. …I noted a great decrease in the size of (Jan Mayan and Spitzbergen) glaciers. Ahlman terms the rapid receding of the Spitzbergen glaciers “catastrophic”.”

  22. #22 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    “Curry, von Storch, Lindzen, etc”

    yup, agree, like them you’re making shit up.

  23. #23 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    Wow, more 1930′s Arctic science for you: ;-)

    2. Rise of air temperature. (Over the last 20 years) the average temperature of the winter months has steadily increased…(in the last 10 years) in the whole Arctic sector from Greenland to Cape Chelyuskin there has not been a single (negative) anomaly of average annual and monthly winter temperatures, while the positive anomalies have been very high….

    3. Rise in temperature of Atlantic water which enters the Arctic Basin…the temperature of surface water and of Gulf Stream water has steadily risen…

  24. #24 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    Wow, can’t be easy to be you. ;-)

  25. #25 chek
    June 18, 2013

    Give it up Olap. Your stupid piddling anecdotes are as tiresome as your attempts to make them seem relevant.

  26. #26 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    And, yes, that location was retreating from the post-LIA cold period.

    Just like at the turn of the 19th century, the global temperatures were rising from the LIA norms.

    This is called “Changing climate”.

    But it has warmed MORE than it was before the LIA.

    You can’t “recover” to a level higher than you had before the event here.

    Likewise, the retreat today is more than the advance the LIA engendered in its climate change. Therefore the retreat is NOT a recovery from the LIA.

    You agree that melting ice and retreating glaciers are indications of a changed climate, but ONLY as long as it isn’t AGW doing the changing.

    This is why you’re called a denier and a blithering incompetent and malign idiot. Rightly so.

  27. #27 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    “Wow, can’t be easy to be you”

    Not with fuckwits who prefer the easy option of “make shit up all the time” and decide to go the harder route of actual genuine cogitation and truth.

    Liars ALWAYS have an easy time of it and those constrained to the truth and facts are ALWAYS having a hard time in the liars’ and criminals’ presence.

  28. #28 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    “Wow, more 1930′s Arctic science for you”

    Really?

    Then you need some geography lessons.

    The arctic isn’t just one bay.

    Devastating to your case, yes, but true.

  29. #29 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    Dear Wow, I don’t make shit up, I just point you in the right direction. No harm in that, is it? By the way, here is some more Arctic science from the year 1930:

    4. Decrease in ice abundance….15% to 20% (over 20 years)….In earlier times, polar ice often approached the shores of Iceland and interfered with fishing and navigation. For the past 25 years ice has not appeared in significant quantities.

    5. Increase in speed of drift ice.

    6. Change in cyclone routes. There is no doubt that the increase in air temperatures, increase in Atlantic water temperatures, intensification of ice drift, etc., are closely connected with an intensification of atmospheric circulation, and in particular with a change in cyclonic activity at high latitudes. Vize shows that Atlantic cyclones are now shifting considerably north, by several hundred km, from their courses in the period before the warming of the Arctic.

  30. #30 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    No, olap, you do completely make shit up. There’s no “only” about it. And it’s fucking obvious as hell.

    Only you think it works because you’re so used to denial, fantasy becomes the norm for you.

    You’re an ignorant asshole shitting over everyone and everything because facing reality is far too much for you to handle.

    I feel sorry for your parents.

  31. #31 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    And that 20% was the overabundance caused by the LIA, fuckwit.

    Therefore, now that we’ve lost 80%, three quarters of that loss IS NOT “recovery”.

    Fucking simple maths, but you deny the shit out of it because you’re a cunt.

  32. #32 GSW
    June 18, 2013

    @wow

    “but you deny the shit out of it because you’re a cunt.”

    That’s a new one wow! Usually you claim it’s because he spends all his time on “free market think tank” blogs. You need to get your story straight wow. It’s doesn’t look credible if you keep inventing new “reasons”. Some consistency from you would go a long way!
    ;)

  33. #33 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    More Arctic science for you, dear Wow. Remember that it is the year 1930:

    “7. Biological signs of warming of the Arctic. …fish have ranged further and further to the north…cod in large quantities have appeared along the shores of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya…also mackerel, dolphin where formerly were not found…during recent years fishing has gradually shifted into the Arctic waters, and this unquestionably must be ascribed in considerable degree to the warming of these waters….many heat-loving bottom organisms are now found in regions these organisms were not found (30 years ago). Knipovich says: “ In a matter of fifteen years…there occurred a change…such as is usually associated with long geological intervals”.

    8. Ship navigation. …a number of ship voyages (were made) which could hardly have been accomplished in the preceding cold period.

    Still more remarkable is the fact that the warming of the Arctic is not confined to any particular region.”

  34. #34 chek
    June 18, 2013

    Both are not inconsistent with each other. Surely even a fuckwit like you can deduce that Griselda.

  35. #35 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    GSW, so you noticed it too. Wow’s problems go far beyond his science impotence. Now the “cunt” is to blame.

    A true Lord Byron… ;-)

  36. #36 chek
    June 18, 2013

    Olap, cease the wanking with factoids and get to when to the first trans-polar voyage in a single season occurred. That is the measure that smashes apart your stupid implications as being anything like modern conditions.

    You, of course, being more used to gobbling then spewing up the chum chump chunks you’re fed rather than applying thought, won’t have thought of that.

  37. #37 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    One more time for you dear chek:

    “Still more remarkable is the fact that the warming of the Arctic is not confined to any particular region.”

    ;-)

  38. #38 GSW
    June 18, 2013

    @Olaus

    I was thinking more Wilde than Byron, Olaus. Oscar had an ear for the witty “Bon mot” as well. I think wow’s post is a keeper,

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-61/#comment-158002

    Perhaps Lloyd Webber could try setting it to music, who knows, “Wow the Musical”, showing in sewers across the country.
    ;)

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    June 18, 2013

    GSW, anyone that cun’t write poetry like wow is a true word smith. ;-)

  40. #40 chek
    June 18, 2013

    #35 already predicts your expected expression of stupid at #36 Olap.

  41. #41 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Usually you claim it’s because he spends all his time on “free market think tank” blogs

    BULLSHIT you lying sack of crap.

    Prove it or retract it, you whining arselick.

  42. #42 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Yeah, olap, I figured that even the simplest fact about the earth if it wasn’t within your physical reach was beyond you.

    Well done, you’ve just managed ULTRA retard level.

  43. #43 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    And anyone who can’t understand simple facts is a moron, gitter and olap.

    Keep fiddling in your pants, though.

  44. #44 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    Surely even a fuckwit like you can deduce that Griselda.

    No, check, they’re morons. Moreover, as seems to be common among the libertards (especially Merkin Libertards), not only are they moronic and ill equipped to think, they’re damn well PROUD of how monstrously dumb they are. Even to the extent of back-slapping each other over how dumb they’ve managed to be.

  45. #45 Jonas N
    June 18, 2013

    Wow – are you really unaware of that your written comments can be seen by others and for time to come?

  46. #46 chek
    June 18, 2013

    The most amazing thing about these Swedish murkin wannabees is how they’re not ashamed of their rectal swab level of intelligence (intelligence by one measure being the ability to integrate facts and not cling to anecdotal factoids.

    And yet they push themselves forward as the flagship case against the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project, while expecting to be taken seriously.

  47. #47 Jonas N
    June 18, 2013

    chek

    “the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project..”

    You really have absolutely no clue about science either, do you!?

    And nobody expects you to manage anything here. Don’t try to flatter yourself! I usually ask people what their best arguments are for their case. Here people mostly aren’t even capable of putting their case to coherent words. Certainly you aren’t!

    Heck, most of you already derailed over that (infamous) AR4 claim …. and never recovered from there

  48. #48 Wow
    June 18, 2013

    the World Meteorological Organisation said on Thursday that during the August to September melting season, the Arctic’s sea ice cover was just 3.4 million square kilometres. That was a full 18 per cent less than the previous record low set in 2007.

    And the retards here are crowing about “15-20% reduction over 20 years” as if it somehow proves AGW doesn’t exist.

    This, however, is entirely why their petulant demands for information are given the way they are (i.e. if at all): they don’t fucking read a thing. They run a script internally on what they WANT to be said, then parrot that as if it were true.

  49. #49 freddy
    June 19, 2013

    wow, you are unfortunately completely devoid of critical assessment of scientific methodology, i.e. it is totally ridiculous to think that arctic sea ice extent in the first decades of the 20th century could be estimated with ANY accuracy (have you heard WHEN the first humans reached the north pole, hein??)

    there are no reliable data until 2002, basta, everything else is your usual cherry-picking of what your ideology forces you to believe. period.

  50. #50 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    So the question remains, where in the world has it gotten unberable hot due to AGW?

  51. #51 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    Funny how the deltiod zealots claims that AGW is to blame for a weather event like a heatwave, but a -50 deg C blizzard is just weather (which it of course is, exactly as a heat wave is). How come this double standard and moving of goal posts?

  52. #52 GSW
    June 19, 2013

    @Jonas #95

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-60/#comment-157889

    Missed this earlier Jonas, won’t make too big an issue of the site policies, all things in moderation eh? ;)

    Happy with the expanded “phases” of jeff’s pathology that you’ve charaterised.

    “It is indeed very difficult to extract what at all he might be trying to say and accomplish here. It looks mostly just like frustrated angry barking at a world he does not understand.”

    Yes, “a world he does not understand” is quite a good way of putting it. It’s not just the lack of math or physics education (that’s visible anyway, there may have been six years of the stu type stuff), but more struggling to come to terms with the real world as a whole that he finds “challenging”; references to “transnational elites” and Obama being a right-wing stooge(?).

    Your,

    “He does not understand major parts of the world, of reality, of why people don’t share his utopian nonsense fantasies about neither world, politics, nor other people. He does not know what (real) science is, how it works and how it may accomplish advancement, and what such may be.”

    also correct, and I don’t think he is aware of the effect it has on the simple folk either; the chek, wow and BJ s of the world, what about these poor wretches? Forever doomed to wander around blogs thinking that if a paper doesn’t end with the words “the End is Nigh, Amen.”, then it’s not been properly “peer reviewed”! I’ve lost track of the number of times one of them has congratulated him on how “sciency” he is and how much they appreciate his various misrepresentations. It’s not good.

    “I think that is why he is shouting so much, and here. Where most of the others are in the same situation. Meaning (amonst others) totally incapable of articulating and argument worth listening to …”

    Yes, no arguments, just shouting. It’s how you can tell it’s over apparently, as in “All over bar the..”.

    Cheers Jonas!
    ;)

  53. #53 chek
    June 19, 2013

    The projection of deniers would be fascinating if it wasn’t such a common event.

  54. #54 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    It’s practically the only event on show, chek.
    There’s nothing else on the box.

  55. #55 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    “So the question remains”

    And the answer remains given, panties.

  56. #56 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    funny how the libertard zealots can’t read or think.

  57. #57 Jonas N
    June 19, 2013

    GSW

    The fascinating thing would be that he is totally unaware of how bad it is. Not even in the glaring face of evidence that his claims are utter nonsens is he able to get his story straight … and he fancies himself to be an ‘important scientist’ too.

    Well there are enclaves in the real world (in academia, byreaucracy etc) where delusions like his may susrvive and even thrive, where defying reality is part of the jobdescription. But even those cases rarely get as bad as our compulsive ranter here ..

    His followers/on-cheerers are of the same kind: Shunning every part of substance, just shouting out what ought to be believed in faith, and more and more in glaring contrast to evidence from the real world.

    Look at chek for instance, has he ever managed to even present an argument in a coherent string of words and sentences? (If yes, it must be extremely rare). And Wow … well, nothing needs to be said, his comments (individually) often suffice to make the point.

    But admittedly, those few commenting here who (at times!) exhibited som signs of actual thinking, of knowledge and capability to actually argue any substance, or only address such … have always been few in numbers and receding. I can’t see those hanging here some years back, at least trying to put forward an intelligabe position and arguing it (like a grown-up) still doing so.

    As you say, the hysteria has peaked, and the belief-system is coming apart, the ‘smarter’ among them are jumping ship as the gravy traind is drying up, and those more ‘professionally’ invested in the cause are shifting their positions, trying to make as little noise as they can. Only the mislead faithers are still standing and shouting on the barricades … and not understanding what is happening around them.

    Just look at chek’s: “.. the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project ..”

    You just can’t make these guys up. Chek (whom I suspects holds a (soft) PhD does not know what a scientific theory is)

    Well, it’s good of Tim to have them all on display here, and (albeit mangled and misnumbered) keep a record of all their fantasy claims and stated beliefs … don’t you think?

    ;-)

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    June 19, 2013

    Just thought I’d add to my CV for the benfit of GSW and Jonas: I will likely be appointed Professor soon, and have just been offered a position as co-Editor in Chief of a new journal in a major series. Gee, I must have duped a lot of people, or else my qualifixations are recognized by those who matter.

    Guess what? Your views mean diddly squat, Jonas and GSW. One of you (Jonas) is a legend in his own mind, and the other (GSW) is his fawning little puppy dog.

    Talk about pathology eh? I was wondering when you two dolts will be invited for Professorships and what journals you both are at least Associate Editors on….

    We all know the answer to thse questions.

    Noe and None. And when it comes to ‘hard science’, you both are stuck in your nappies. If you weren’t you’d be publishing with the big boys. You aren’t, and again we all know why.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    June 19, 2013

    As an addendum, its funny that the only people I have encountered who think that I possess some kind of ‘pathology’ and that I don’t have the necessary education are a few science-hating climate change downplaying/denying non scientists on Deltoid.

    Stu and I have asked the self-profesed genuis on his won thread (Jonas) innumerable times what special educational qualifications he possesses and the answer is always the same. No response. Or, if one wants to be polite, “None of your business”. Translated for the rest of us mere mortals that means “self-educated; no professional qualifications.” Put another way, Jonas is saying that university education doesn’t matter when one is a brilliant without one as he is.

    And all along he is egged-on by his alter-ego sidekick, GSW, who also thinks he is some kind of science wizard and therefore compentent is commentng on any fields. When dressed down on his incorrect comments environmental science or ecology (e.g. Polar Bear demographics, C02 ferilization effects or global amphibian declines), he either stands his ground (by not replying at all to substantive arguments) or more often by belittling the field of ecology and the people who work in it.

    So utterly predictable. Betula has mastered the art on the open thread. He also spewed out the C02/plant food nonsense and then went on to claim that eastern NA ecosytems were in good shape on thew basis of three piss-poor examples: Wild Turkey re-introduction programmes, booming white-tailed deer populations and the eastern range expansion of coyotes. When I shot these summarily down, he said nothing except to retreat back to an old meme about my ‘lies and embellishment’ over a trek I made across an Ontario Park in January-February of 2012.

    GSW does much the same.

  60. #60 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    ““So the question remains”
    And the answer remains given, panties.”

    Not in a long shot. You claim 35 000 people have died due to AGW. Prove it, if you can. A heat wave is a weather event, nothing else.

    17 years and counting, no armageddon to be found anywhere. Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW? Let’s hear it!

  61. #61 chek
    June 19, 2013

    blockquote>Prove it, if you can. A heat wave is a weather event, nothing else.

    PantieZ re-read #13 again.
    Then when you think you’ve understood it, get someone proficient in English to explain it to you again.

  62. #62 chek
    June 19, 2013

    Congratulations Jeff.

    Well done on the appointments, and well done on presenting something to stick in the craws of the idiot denier trolls who couldn’t match either achievement in a thousand years.

  63. #63 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    And still no answer. But hey, it’s deltoid.

  64. #64 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    ““So the question remains”
    And the answer remains given, panties.”

    Not in a long shot.

    Just because you deny the answer is an answer does not mean it wasn’t answered.

    You just don’t like the answer.

  65. #65 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    panties, you DO know that Armageddon is a religious term, right?

    This is science. Even if you don’t do it, that’s what this is about. Science.

    Not faith.

  66. #66 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    “And still no answer”

    Nope, the answer is still given.

    You’re just denying reality.

  67. #67 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    But then again, you’re a fuckwitted arselick denialist.

    That’s all you do: deny reality.

  68. #68 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    “panties, you DO know that Armageddon is a religious term, right?”

    Exactly! And what then does it imply that you zealots promote it so furiosly?

  69. #69 Wow
    June 19, 2013

    Tim, fuck you.

    Seriously, fuck you.

    You put this up here, but don’t give a fucking shit about what happens on it.

    YOU clean up if you care,but if you don’t give a shit about it, why the fuck should I?

  70. #70 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    Nop, no answer anywhere to be seen!

    1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  71. #71 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    Screaming for daddy now, are you wow? Screaming for censorship when you can’t answer relevant questions! Such a loser.

  72. #72 chek
    June 19, 2013

    1) Where has it become unberable (sic) hot due to AGW?

    PantieZ, comprehension isn’t something that you do, or even can do. You can only help yourself with that, it can’t be done for you.

    Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    In your strawman collection, just as causes of deaths due to hypothermia aren’t ascribed to ‘poverty’.

    Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

    That’s another load of bollocks solely due to your spectacular failure to comprehend, yet again. Stick to voting on TV reality shows or whatever your miniscule IQ can cope with PantieZ.

  73. #73 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    Written by Robert G. Brown. Read and ponder:

    “Saying that we need to wait for a certain interval in order to conclude that “the models are wrong” is dangerous and incorrect for two reasons. First — and this is a point that is stunningly ignored — there are a lot of different models out there, all supposedly built on top of physics, and yet no two of them give anywhere near the same results!

    This is reflected in the graphs Monckton publishes above, where the AR5 trend line is the average over all of these models and in spite of the number of contributors the variance of the models is huge. It is also clearly evident if one publishes a “spaghetti graph” of the individual model projections (as Roy Spencer recently did in another thread) — it looks like the frayed end of a rope, not like a coherent spread around some physics supported result.

    Note the implicit swindle in this graph — by forming a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection and the variance as representative of the range of the error, one is treating the differences between the models as if they are uncorrelated random variates causing >deviation around a true mean!.

    Say what?

    This is such a horrendous abuse of statistics that it is difficult to know how to begin to address it. One simply wishes to bitch-slap whoever it was that assembled the graph and ensure that they never work or publish in the field of science or statistics ever again. One cannot generate an ensemble of independent and identically distributed models that have different code. One might, possibly, generate a single model that generates an ensemble of predictions by using uniform deviates (random numbers) to seed
    “noise” (representing uncertainty) in the inputs.

    What I’m trying to say is that the variance and mean of the “ensemble” of models is completely meaningless, statistically because the inputs do not possess the most basic properties required for a meaningful interpretation. They are not independent, their differences are not based on a random distribution of errors, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the errors or differences are unbiased (given that the only way humans can generate unbiased anything is through the use of e.g. dice or other objectively random instruments).

    So why buy into this nonsense by doing linear fits to a function — global temperature — that has never in its entire history been linear, although of course it has always been approximately smooth so one can always do a Taylor series expansion in some sufficiently small interval and get a linear term that — by the nature of Taylor series fits to nonlinear functions — is guaranteed to fail if extrapolated as higher order nonlinear terms kick in and ultimately dominate? Why even pay lip service to the notion that or for a linear fit, or for a Kolmogorov-Smirnov comparison of the real temperature record and the extrapolated model prediction, has some meaning? It has none.

    Let me repeat this. It has no meaning! It is indefensible within the theory and practice of statistical analysis. You might as well use a ouija board as the basis of claims about the future climate history as the ensemble average of different computational physical models that do not differ by truly random variations and are subject to all sorts of omitted variable, selected variable, implementation, and initialization bias. The board might give you the right answer, might not, but good luck justifying the answer it gives on some sort of rational basis.

    Let’s invert this process and actually apply statistical analysis to the distribution of model results Re: the claim that they all correctly implement well-known physics. For example, if I attempt to do an a priori computation of the quantum structure of, say, a carbon atom, I might begin by solving a single electron model, treating the electron-electron interaction using the probability distribution from the single electron model to generate a spherically symmetric “density” of electrons around the nucleus, and then performing a self-consistent field theory iteration (resolving the single electron model for the new potential) until it converges. (This is known as the Hartree approximation.)

    Somebody else could say “Wait, this ignore the Pauli exclusion principle” and the requirement that the electron wavefunction be fully antisymmetric. One could then make the (still single electron) model more complicated and construct a Slater determinant to use as a fully antisymmetric representation of the electron wavefunctions, generate the density, perform the self-consistent field computation to convergence. (This is Hartree-Fock.)

    A third party could then note that this still underestimates what is called the “correlation energy” of the system, because treating the electron cloud as a continuous distribution through when electrons move ignores the fact thatindividual electrons strongly repel and hence do not like to get near one another. Both of the former approaches underestimate the size of the electron hole, and hence they make the atom “too small” and “too tightly bound”. A variety of schema are proposed to overcome this problem — using a semi-empirical local density functional being probably the most successful.

    A fourth party might then observe that the Universe is really relativistic, and that by ignoring relativity theory and doing a classical computation we introduce an error into all of the above (although it might be included in the semi-empirical LDF approach heuristically).

    In the end, one might well have an “ensemble” of models, all of which are based on physics. In fact, the differences are also based on physics — the physicsomitted from one try to another, or the means used to approximate and try to include physics we cannot include in a first-principles computation (note how I sneaked a semi-empirical note in with the LDF, although one can derive some density functionals from first principles (e.g. Thomas-Fermi approximation), they usually don’t do particularly well because they aren’t valid across the full range of densities observed in actual atoms). Note well, doing the precise computation is not an option. We cannot solve the many body atomic state problem in quantum theory exactly any more than we can solve the many body problem exactly in classical theory or the set of open, nonlinear, coupled, damped, driven chaotic Navier-Stokes equations in a non-inertial reference frame that represent the climate system.

    Note well that solving for the exact, fully correlated nonlinear many electron wavefunction of the humble carbon atom — or the far more complex Uranium atom — is trivially simple (in computational terms) compared to the climate problem. We can’t compute either one, but we can come a damn sight closer to consistently approximating the solution to the former compared to the latter.

    So, should we take the mean of the ensemble of “physics based” models for the quantum electronic structure of atomic carbon and treat it as the best predictionof carbon’s quantum structure? Only if we are very stupid or insane or want to sell something. If you read what I said carefully (and you may not have — eyes tend to glaze over when one reviews a year or so of graduate quantum theory applied to electronics in a few paragraphs, even though I left out perturbation theory, Feynman diagrams, and ever so much more:-) you will note that I cheated — I run in a semi-empirical method.

    Which of these is going to be the winner? LDF, of course. Why? Because theparameters are adjusted to give the best fit to the actual empirical spectrum of Carbon. All of the others are going to underestimate the correlation hole, and their errors will be systematically deviant from the correct spectrum. Their mean will be systematically deviant, and by weighting Hartree (the dumbest reasonable “physics based approach”) the same as LDF in the “ensemble” average, you guarantee that the error in this “mean” will be significant.

    Suppose one did not know (as, at one time, we did not know) which of the models gave the best result. Suppose that nobody had actually measured the spectrum of Carbon, so its empirical quantum structure was unknown. Would the ensemble mean be reasonable then? Of course not. I presented the models in the wayphysics itself predicts improvement — adding back details that ought to be important that are omitted in Hartree. One cannot be certain that adding back these details will actually improve things, by the way, because it is always possible that the corrections are not monotonic (and eventually, at higher orders in perturbation theory, they most certainly are not!) Still, nobody would pretend that the average of a theory with an improved theory is “likely” to be better than the improved theory itself, because that would make no sense. Nor would anyone claim that diagrammatic perturbation theory results (for which there is a clear a priori derived justification) are necessarily going to beat semi-heuristic methods like LDF because in fact they often do not.

    What one would do in the real world is measure the spectrum of Carbon, compare it to the predictions of the models, and then hand out the ribbons to the winners! Not the other way around. And since none of the winners is going to be exact — indeed, for decades and decades of work, none of the winners was even particularly close to observed/measured spectra in spite of using supercomputers (admittedly, supercomputers that were slower than your cell phone is today) to do the computations — one would then return to the drawing board and code entry console to try to do better.

    Can we apply this sort of thoughtful reasoning the spaghetti snarl of GCMs and their highly divergent results? You bet we can! First of all, we could stop pretending that “ensemble” mean and variance have any meaning whatsoever bynot computing them. Why compute a number that has no meaning? Second, we could take the actual climate record from some “epoch starting point” — one that does not matter in the long run, and we’ll have to continue the comparison for the long run because in any short run from any starting point noise of a variety of sorts will obscure systematic errors — and we can just compare reality to the models. We can then sort out the models by putting (say) all but the top five or so into a “failed” bin and stop including them in any sort of analysis or policy decisioning whatsoever unless or until they start to actually agree with reality.

    Then real scientists might contemplate sitting down with those five winners and meditate upon what makes them winners — what makes them come out the closest to reality — and see if they could figure out ways of making them work even better. For example, if they are egregiously high and diverging from the empirical data, one might consider adding previously omitted physics, semi-empirical or heuristic corrections, or adjusting input parameters to improve the fit.

    Then comes the hard part. Waiting. The climate is not as simple as a Carbon atom. The latter’s spectrum never changes, it is a fixed target. The former is never the same. Either one’s dynamical model is never the same and mirrors the variation of reality or one has to conclude that the problem is unsolved and the implementation of the physics is wrong, however “well-known” that physics is. So one has to wait and see if one’s model, adjusted and improved to better fit the past up to the present, actually has any predictive value.

    Worst of all, one cannot easily use statistics to determine when or if one’s predictions are failing, because damn, climate is nonlinear, non-Markovian, chaotic, and is apparently influenced in nontrivial ways by a world-sized bucket of competing, occasionally cancelling, poorly understood factors. Soot. Aerosols. GHGs. Clouds. Ice. Decadal oscillations. Defects spun off from the chaotic process that cause global, persistent changes in atmospheric circulation on a local basis (e.g. blocking highs that sit out on the Atlantic for half a year) that have a huge impact on annual or monthly temperatures and rainfall and so on. Orbital factors. Solar factors. Changes in the composition of the troposphere, the stratosphere, the thermosphere. Volcanoes. Land use changes. Algae blooms.

    And somewhere, that damn butterfly. Somebody needs to squash the damn thing, because trying to ensemble average a small sample from a chaotic system is so stupid that I cannot begin to describe it. Everything works just fine as long as you average over an interval short enough that you are bound to a given attractor, oscillating away, things look predictable and then — damn, you change attractors.Everything changes! All the precious parameters you empirically tuned to balance out this and that for the old attractor suddenly require new values to work.

    This is why it is actually wrong-headed to acquiesce in the notion that any sort of p-value or Rsquared derived from an AR5 mean has any meaning. It gives up the high ground (even though one is using it for a good purpose, trying to argue that this “ensemble” fails elementary statistical tests. But statistical testing is a shaky enough theory as it is, open to data dredging and horrendous error alike, and that’s when it really is governed by underlying IID processes (see “Green Jelly Beans Cause Acne”). One cannot naively apply a criterion like rejection if p < 0.05, and all that means under the best of circumstances is that the current observations are improbable given the null hypothesis at 19 to 1. People win and lose bets at this level all the time. One time in 20, in fact. We make a lot of bets!

    So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren’t using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of “average” claim for future warming. Maybe they could hire themselves a Bayesian or two and get them to recompute the AR curves, I dunno.

    It would take me, in my comparative ignorance, around five minutes to throw out all but the best 10% of the GCMs (which are still diverging from the empirical data, but arguably are well within the expected fluctuation range on the DATA side), sort the remainder into top-half models that should probably be kept around and possibly improved, and bottom half models whose continued use I would defund as a waste of time. That wouldn’t make them actually disappear, of course, only mothball them. If the future climate ever magically popped back up to agree with them, it is a matter of a few seconds to retrieve them from the archives and put them back into use.

    Of course if one does this, the GCM predicted climate sensitivity plunges from the totally statistically fraudulent 2.5 C/century to a far more plausible and stillpossibly wrong ~1 C/century, which — surprise — more or less continues the post-LIA warming trend with a small possible anthropogenic contribution. This large a change would bring out pitchforks and torches as people realize just how badly they’ve been used by a small group of scientists and politicians, how much they are the victims of indefensible abuse of statistics to average in the terrible with the merely poor as if they are all equally likely to be true with randomly distributed differences.

    rgb"

  74. #74 chek
    June 19, 2013

    Screaming

    Another fantasy you suffer from PantieZ.
    Text cannot ‘scream’.
    What you’re experiencing is the internal noise inside your own pointy head.
    Your arsebuddy Jonarse suffers from a similar malady.

  75. #75 chek
    June 19, 2013

    PantieZ @ # 68.

    You’d think after the humiliation of suffering the indignities of having McIntyre’s prolific ignorance exposed over the years, the deniers would be wary of having mere number crunchers apply their craft with complete ignorance of climate science.

    But you’d be wrong, because here they go again.

  76. #76 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    Who is a denier I wonder?

    And yet again:

    1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?
    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?
    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  77. #77 chek
    June 19, 2013

    “unberable hot” (sic) “Why does (sic) warm mongers allways” (sic)

    Try a remedial course in English PantieZ.
    It’ll help you enormously.
    We’re not here to pander to your self-chosen ignorance.

  78. #78 GSW
    June 19, 2013

    @Jonas,

    Are you back to something approaching “realtime” for posting? ;)

    Yes, “Just look at chek’s: “.. the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project ..”” I wondered about that, be interested to know what particular “theory” chek thought that was a milestone for, and No he does not have a (soft) PhD in anything. It’s impossible to be that inarticulate and get thru university (hopefully).

    @Jeff

    You just don’t get it do you? In response to criticism that your only argument to date is your CV (and that is not an argument), you come back with “Guess what? my CV might be even better soon!”. So Jeff’s impressed with Jeff, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
    ;)

  79. #79 chek
    June 19, 2013

    Well, lookee who just appeared at # 57.

    How’s that paper on overturning attribution going?

    No, I don’t think it’s gone anywhere either.
    Truth be told, I don’t think it even got started.
    Anonymous blog comments are the zenith of your achievement, Jonarse.

  80. #80 GSW
    June 19, 2013

    @Jonas

    That was a response to your #57 and you managed to get thru on #47 and #45 as well, v good! The Manhattan Project, come on chek explain, where did that gem come from?

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    June 19, 2013

    GSW, oh I geddit alright. Clearly. You guys are easy to understand. Hit and run. Say something, and the rest of us minions must swallow it hook, line and sinker. It doesn’t matter how scientifically shallow or just plain wrong it is, the opinions of you, Jonas, Betula et al are not to be questioned. Its just inconvenient that a very large majority of scientists would question – or downright ridicule – your views. Its just that most sensible researchers would find your ideas on environmental science to be comical at best and downright ludicrous at worst. Since 99.999% wouldn’t respond to your bull**** with a barge pole, you do have one point: I must be crazy to waste my time on dolts like you and Jonas.

    My intention was that you guys think you know more than you actually do. When your arguments are summarily shot down – as with your Polar Bear/frog decline/C02 fertilization nonsense – you simply ignore the ripostes and move on to something else. You must actually think you know what you are talking about – and that everything you say MUST be accepted as gospel. Forget the fact that your wafer-thin arguments have little empirical support. The rest of us here are supposed to swallow your nonsense and when we don’t the knives come out. Not in the form of arguments with scientific underpinning, but in the form of insults, smears and innuendos.

    I don’t need to defend my CV to you any way, It speaks for itself. Your idol refuses to tell us his bonafides, except to intimate that he is clearly light years ahead of us mortals intellectually. And on the basis of what? His own self-perception, egged on by you and a few other deluded souls. Out in the big, bad world he’s as anonymous as you are. A nobody, nothing, less than a blip. If Deltoid allows him (and you) to massage your egos, so be it. But this little innocuous corner of the blogosphere is where you are forever stuck. At least I don’t have to say that, hence why I like to rub salt into your wounds.

  82. #82 chek
    June 19, 2013

    The Manhattan Project, come on chek explain, where did that gem come from?

    Coming from the same stable as PantieZ, you seem to suffer similar inadequacies with understanding plain English. But let’s ignore your difficulties with language and get to the heart of the issue here.

    Why – after all; these years of pseudo-scientific posturing – hasn’t your fellow traveller Jonarse been able to refute AGW attribution as published in AR4 in even the most minor of vanity publications? Nearly six years to write his paper and yet, nobody has heard anything. It’s almost as if he is completely unable to, yet holds out a lie to you climatescam knuckle-draggers like a dog-catcher offering a rubber bone to a pack of rabid, frothing mutts..

    Do you also think that Jonarse is – at best -merely a bag of piss-drenched wind and incapable of delivering what he appears to promise, even if only to you and your fellow moribund conspiracy theorists?

    I rather think you’d be correct if so.

  83. #83 pentaxZ
    June 19, 2013

    jeffie, “And on the basis of what?” On the rubbish coming from your mouth.

    chek, I understand, you are so out of arguments that misspellings is all you have left (if you are unable to comprehend a sentence because some misspellings, perhaps you shouldn´d ride that high horse of yours). Or is there another reason why you won’t answer the questions?

    1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  84. #84 chek
    June 19, 2013

    You have been answered, but unfortunately you can’t comprehend the answers PantieZ, hence your parrot with a wrung neck routine.
    You’re done now.
    Next.

  85. #85 GSW
    June 19, 2013

    @Jeff

    Much to your disappointment, we established that Polar Bears aren’t going anywhere in a hurry (from the limited data available there are as many now as there’s been in the last 100yrs), frog population decline is due to “pathogens” not CO2 (one of your beloved, but unsupported “stressors”), and unfortunately CO2 fertilisation of plants is well known, they teach it at school, even those in the “Ecology” community have arrived at a concensus on this.

    ” The rest of us here are supposed to swallow your nonsense and when we don’t the knives come out. Not in the form of arguments with scientific underpinning, but in the form of insults, smears and innuendos.”

    There’s evidence for everything that’s been claimed, that’s all that matters Jeff, not your CV. We even referenced the the papers for you, whether you and BJ swallow it or not is up to you. Evidence Jeff, Evidence!

    @chek (the simple folk)

    The Manhattan Project, genuinely interested in your take on this and the “coherent theory” you mentioned. They way you said it gave the impression that you didn’t really understand, I may be wrong, but some explanation would help. It comes across in the same way that if you’d refered to the Moon landings as being the “defining proof” for the “Theory of Gravity”. The statement itself hints at a complete lack of understanding of the science, and “history of”. But I’m happy for you to elucidate if you wish. In isolation your statement ” the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project” is just bizarre. Jonas picked up on it too.

    “But let’s ignore your difficulties with language and get to the heart of the issue here.”

    I’m guessing this is an Oh, Oh, lets move along, nothing to see here statement. It was, again, just bizarre, but I’m happy for you to pursue if you wish.

    ” at best -merely a bag of piss-drenched wind”

    Is there a Poet Laureate for alarmism? close run thing between you and wow, I would have thought.
    ;)

  86. #86 chek
    June 19, 2013

    So quit dancing Griselda – why hasn’t Jonarse the great pierced the heart of AGW theory with his ideas on attribution?

    I’m leaning towards this actual mission is fucking with a simple-minded bunch of shit-for-brains conspiracy theorists and the reason his – ahem – killer hypothesis has not gone anywhere is that he’s got nothing to back it up.

    On the other hand he’s collected a rabid bunch coop of kooks, so maybe that was the whole point.

  87. #87 chek
    June 19, 2013

    Wow, Jeff, Stu et al.
    BBD is right, it’s time to hold these asswipes to account.

    I propose striking through every comment from hereon in
    from the troll collective and asking why Jonarse The Incredible hasn’t published his refutation of attribution studies.

    No more, no less. From now on.

  88. #88 GSW
    June 19, 2013

    @chek

    There’s no need to publish a “refutation” of the attribution studies, they’re little more than conjecture (opinion formed on incomplete information). They are what they are, they’re not proof of anything (Although you lot interpret them as though they were, god knows why). Jeff et al refuse to read the papers, I assume due to an aversion to maths. Others have to read them for them, and something inevitably gets lost in translation. You read the papers youself chek? or just follow the rest of the activist mob?
    ;)

  89. #89 chek
    June 19, 2013

    There’s no need to publish a “refutation” of the attribution studies, they’re little more than conjecture (opinion formed on incomplete information). They are what they are, they’re not proof of anything (Although you lot interpret them as though they were, god knows why). Jeff et al refuse to read the papers, I assume due to an aversion to maths. Others have to read them for them, and something inevitably gets lost in translation. You read the papers youself chek? or just follow the rest of the activist mob?

    So why can’t Jonarse kill AGW theory with his counter to attribution? You make it sound so easy.

    I think it’s because he can’t, and his real interest is in cultivating a rabid bunch of kooks like you and Olap and PantieZ, Griselda.

  90. #90 Jeff Harvey
    June 20, 2013

    “Much to your disappointment, we established that Polar Bears aren’t going anywhere in a hurry (from the limited data available there are as many now as there’s been in the last 100yrs), frog population decline is due to “pathogens” not CO2 (one of your beloved, but unsupported “stressors”), and unfortunately CO2 fertilisation of plants is well known, they teach it at school, even those in the “Ecology” community have arrived at a concensus on this”

    Who do you mean by ‘we’????? You?!!!???? In truth, ‘we’ never concluded what ‘you’ did at all. Again, its exactly as I said: you say something, make an assertion base don your own limited understanding of the ‘facts’, and accept everyone else to swallow it.

    First, polar bear demographics reveal that the bear populations are dominated by older animals; natality is down and thus once the aging population is gone, then the effects of this skewed age structure will become manifest. Second, your pathogen hypothesis in explaining a global pandemic of declines of many frog species is way too simplistic, and many herpetologists would say exactly the same thing. Certainly few will attribute it to one factor; several are likely involved, of which climate change is one, particularly when it is exacerbated by other factors. Finally, 02 fertilization in no way is a way of estimating the qualitative effects of atmospheric C02 increases on natural and managed ecosystems. In other words, non-linear increases in plant biomass ignore other changes – such as in plant secondary metabolism, intra- and inter-specific competition, interactions with consumers and their nutritional ecology etc. In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the structure and functioning of communities and ecosystems linearly, as you and other non-experts do. I have explained these complexities in detail elsewhere and although they were probably well ver your layman head, they do not make them wrong.

    But I have to come back to your opening. “We established”… So this is the way you debate. You say something, even with little empirical support, and although many of us including people who know a lot more about it than you (including me) disagree, these disagreements are to be ignored.

    You care clueless, GSW. And clearly you cannot respond with any kind of sense to logical arguments. Saying ‘we’ on the basis of your own opinions is proof of that.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    June 20, 2013

    One final point: GSW is playing the ‘now’ game. Deniers do it all the time. I am used to them meddling with data or selectively interpreting it to draw their own conclusions.

    With respect to Polar Bear populations, he is basing his exceedingly limited comments on the current numbers of bears, but not on important demographic and fitness related parameters that will tell us much about their future prospects. Perhaps this is over his layman’s head, but if one studies more detailed aspects of natality, per capita fitness, and other physiological parameters the prognosis for bears is bleak.

    His amphibian argument is so plainly simplistic and incorrect and I don’t need to respond in detail to it. He has profoundly oversimplified a complex scenario. But again, deniers do this all of the time.

    With respect to C02 fertilization, again I have never said that some – certainly not all, though – plants will grow larger as atmospheric C02 concentrations increase. But this is a less than cunning diversion. What other physiological traits of plants will change? How will this affect secondary and primary metabolisms? In turn, how will rapid changes in this affect plant-plant competition, and also plant-consumer interactions?

    The fact is that deniers like GSW are intellectually dishonest. they try and give the impression that some global changes inflicted by humanity on complex adaptive systems have negligible effects or may even be beneficial by either greatly oversimplifying the conclusions or else basing them on one or two simple parameters. As I say above, basing Polar Bear prospects on current populations is meaningless unless one takes a more decidedly ecophysiological approach. Similarly, saying that plant biomass will increase as a result of C02 fertilization is nominally correct, but it ignores a vast array of other changes in plant traits that will not necessarily have positive effects on ecological communities and systems.

    These are salient points, but are always overlooked or ignored by those who have pre-determined agendas to support. Nature is greatly oversimplified by people like GSW who have no expertise at all of the more complex processes involved in global change scenarios and who think they can wheedle their way through debates by espousing the most simplistic arguments. Jonas does it. PentaxZ does it. Betula does it. All they demonstrate to me is how little they know about non-linear complex processes in the environment.

  92. #92 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    jeffie

    “In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the structure and functioning of communities and ecosystems linearly, as you and other non-experts do.”

    Correct. and the same goes for the climate and weather:

    In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the climate and weather linearly, as you and other non-scientists do.

    Since nor chek or wow can answer my questions, perhaps you can:

    1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  93. #93 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    # 87 chek

    That’s the spirit! We know it works. The proof is for all too see on the open thread.

    Here, let me get you started with this broken record moron:

    jeffie

    “In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the structure and functioning of communities and ecosystems linearly, as you and other non-experts do.”

    Correct. and the same goes for the climate and weather:

    In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the climate and weather linearly, as you and other non-scientists do.

    Since nor chek or wow can answer my questions, perhaps you can:

    1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  94. #94 Jonas N
    June 20, 2013

    BBD … the selfproclaimed AGW-commenter with his ‘energetically insufficient’ UHI effect, and who believed that the summer to winter temperature difference ‘proves the high CO2-feedbacks’ …

    He most cdertainly has come to the right place here (somewhere where his blatherings still may be thought to contain substance, by a crownd that is generally oblivious to real and physcial sciences)

    He has been shouting in the open threads for quite som time now: ‘Accept the faith, accept the faith! … nobody else questions it anymore’

    And I said, oblivious to what real science is …

  95. #95 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    Real funny, you zealots don’t seem to know that you are becoming the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/

    And still, no one of you obviosly have the answer to three simple questions. And no, chek, a report of some weather events isn’t a proof of AGW.

    1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  96. #96 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

    Hillarious!

  97. #97 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    Real funny, you zealots don’t seem to know that you are becoming the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/

    And still, no one of you obviosly have the answer to three simple questions. And no, chek, a report of some weather events isn’t a proof of AGW.

    1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?

    3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?

  98. #98 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

    Hillarious!

    And yo cannot spell “hilarious” either, you moron.

  99. #99 Jonas N
    June 20, 2013

    chek, you really really haven’t come off square one yet? Or probably haven’t even entered the game ….

    Or is it in sheer desperation you try nonsense like:

    How’s that paper on overturning attribution going?

    Ponder your (stupid) question for a second: You ask for “overturning attribution”, while it has me who has asked for where that alleged attribution/certainty science that nobody has seen, is to be found. Because that would, if it existed, be the proper starting point questioning,scrutinizing, checking and if found wanting possibly överturning what is claimed there. If it existed, chek! Don’t forget that: If such science exists at all, and can be found and read.

    There is no way, chek, that even a foul mouthed Deltoid-ranter-regular can be entirely unaware of that fact: That so far there is nothing to be ‘overturned’ wrt to that AR4 claim, and you know it, and have known it for close to two years.

    That’s why you try supid inanities like:

    hasn’t your fellow traveller Jonarse been able to refute AGW attribution as published in AR4 in even the most minor of vanity publications? Nearly six years to write his paper and yet, nobody has heard anything. It’s almost as if he is completely unable to, yet holds out a lie to you climatescam knuckle-draggers like a dog-catcher offering a rubber bone to a pack of rabid, frothing mutts

    This is how low your level is chek: You demand that non-existent science should be overturned or refuted, and that otherwise you will continue to belive that the non-existent science still holds.

    Well chek, if you had been paying attention, this is what I told you from the start! Blind faith is all you have, and when challenged you demand ‘Prove to me that my faith is wrong!’ while holloring, clsing your eyes, covering your ears, and shouting the stuff that you shout …

    Jeffie is in the right company there!

  100. #100 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Real funny, you zealots don’t seem to know that you are becoming the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!(sic)
    More projection from deniers.

    And no, chek, a report of some weather events isn’t a proof of AGW.

    NASA has a different verdict, which I’ll believe rather than your malformed opinion anytime.

    Hey PantieZ, whatever happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? He couldn’t do it, I suppose.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!