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 bill
    June 20, 2013

    Pentax seems to be indulging in an ‘O Lordy, where be mah warty-melon’ racist stereotype and all…

  2. #2 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    No answers then? Laughing stock you are, greater and greater by the minute. Absolutely priceless!

    Ok, let’s make it easy for you, one question at a time. Starting with:

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

    Shouldn’t be to hard for you hard core warmistas. Shoot!!!

  3. #3 chek
    June 20, 2013

    No answers then? Laughing stock you are, greater and greater by the minute. Absolutely priceless! Ok, let’s make it easy for you, one question at a time. Starting with:
    1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
    Shouldn’t be to hard for you hard core warmistas. Shoot!!!

    See #2, #13, #98

    Hey PantieZ, whatever happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? He couldn’t do it, I suppose, although he has collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, so maybe that was the whole point.

  4. #4 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    That’s the way.

  5. #5 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    PentaxZ

    Read the words. If I can, you can.

  6. #6 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    chek, whatever Jonas and you are up to is hardly my business. If you want quick answers from him I suggest you tell tim to not obstruct his comments by delaying them.

    Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to hard for you?

  7. #7 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you?</strike)

    See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page

    Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.

  8. #8 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you?</strike)

    See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page

    Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.

  9. #9 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Now, to the fun part. Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you? </strike)

    See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page

    Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.

  10. #10 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you?

    See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page

    Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.

  11. #11 GSW
    June 20, 2013

    @Jeff

    Your #90 and #91, where you claim “black is white” and “white is black”. Your “re analysis” of what has been discussed is quite breath-taking. IT IS YOU THAT IS ACCUSED of oversimplifing/misrepresenting every ecological concern as being due to CAGW, no one else!

    Pointing out to you, in your biodiversity armageddon rants, that the”primary literature” as you call it, doesn’t support your “we’re all doomed because of CO2″ claims. Whether it be 4 dead Polar bears, declining frog populations, problems with Bees, or any of the other “warnings” from “soothsayer Jeff”, CO2 has never been more than a bit part player, there have always been more pressing, more dominant, contributing factors; pathogens, land-use changes, farming practices, over-fishing, ENSO events, the list goes on ..

    It’s like pentaxZ keeps going on about, every extreme eather event you lot attribute to CAGW. You’ve done the same with biodiversity, but it’s all balls! the evidence just isn’t there. Evidence for claims Jeff, Evidence! (in case you still haven’t grasped it, you can’t pass of your crap prejudices as being “science”, and therefore evidence, by referring to your CV)

    Sure Jeff, “black is white” and “white is black”, anything you say Jeff.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    June 20, 2013

    “IT IS YOU THAT IS ACCUSED of oversimplifing/misrepresenting every ecological concern as being due to CAGW, no one else!”

    One thing is for certain GSW: you are a bald faced liar. Show me in any post In have ever made where I misrepresented every ecological concern as being due to CAGW. Just one! I even disagreed with one poster (Ianam) who claimed that I was downplaying AGW in overemphasizing other anthropogenic threats to the environment. Now we have you claiming just the opposite. I have always said that AGW is a major stressor along with several others. But I have never, ever misrepresented every ecological concern as being due to AGW. That you make this absurd claim totally guts everything else you claim. And I am supposed to be the one suffering ‘pathological symptoms’. Look in the mirror, pal.

    The fact that you say this suggests very strongly that you are in dire need of medical assistance. Therapy – whatever. In an earlier post you suggested that I attributed global amphibian declines to increased atmospheric C02 concentrations. Another pure and utter lie. Either your reading comprehension skills are way out of sync or you lie and make things up on the spot.

    If this is your style of ‘debating’, along with your ‘we have established’ nonsense, then all I can say is that you and your hero belong together. IMHO you are totally and utterly bonkers.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    June 20, 2013

    I will agree with one thing you say GSW: I certainly am in need of medical help for lowering myself into the primordial ooze to engage with hacks like you and Jonas. No wonder my colleagues make fun of me for doing it. Wasting my valuable time is how they put it. And you know what? They are right. You aren’t worth the effort. You’ve got some equally quacky supporters here – PentaxZ, Olaus and the grandmaster himself, Jonas, along with some other dimwits on other threads. Nary a one of you has a clue about anything remotely linked with environmental science, and yet I punish myself by trying to engage with you clowns. Self-flagellation.

    I suppose I just cannot help it. But I have to admit that some of the gems you and your brethren write really take the cake.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    June 20, 2013

    Jeff … Grossly misrepresenting reality again?

    You have not been engaging in any relevant debate about anything. Not even in your own field are you capable of distinguishing betwen GW and AGW. Mostly you assume/pretend that all has to be the A of GW, even locally!

    And you think you are ‘engaging’!?

    I on the other hand have engaged with not only the very few honest debaters here, but even tried to educate you about the very basic and first steps regarding real science. For instance that you don’t get to make up your own ‘facts’, or that irrelevant arguments are the antithesis of science. As for example believing your CV has anything to do with how large positive feedbacks there are wrt to CO2 levels, or whether the IPCC just fabricated (opined about) that infamous claim of certainty and attribution, that has chek still frothing in renewed attempts of denial above ..

    And now you accuse GSW for exaggerating your stance just a tiny little bit!? Well Jeff, show me one of your comments where you did better? Where you refrained from (not just slightly slanted, but) nonsense claims about me or others?

    The description of you as ‘black is white’ and ‘white is black’ is quite apt. Because you are really terribly terribly unaware of that essentially everything you t ry to accuse me and others for is what you do and we don’t.

    You started you insults in your second comment. And they were as stupid then as they have been since! Don’t blame me for your embarrassment when all your nonsense and inconsistencies are pointed out.

    I have asked you for 1½ years to state even what my “earth shattering views” would be, which you derride so much. And you can only come up with stupid strawmen and even worse moronic drivel. Don’t blame me for that either!

    My observation, long long ago, that everyone who feels compelled to use the term ‘denier’ as an argument has zip to conbtribute, and mostly zip understanding of the issues too. And most certainly this has been true for you.

    A ‘scientist’ who is incapable of even gettting simple 2-3 paragraph blog comments halfway correct and coherent …

    If you had listened to me instead of that random barking up imagined trees, you could have learnt somethin Jeff …. but I take it your fragile ego wouldnt allow you to learn anything new from me.

    Hence you are stuck with moronic assertions like: “Stu nailed it” in (yet another) field where I know far more than you!

    But don’t blame me for that either, it’s your own doing!

    ;-)

  15. #15 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    Hehe, are you falling back to your last resort, chekboy?

  16. #16 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

    Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: In under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

    SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

    Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

  17. #17 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    wow says

    “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.”

    0.06 degrees Celsius is hot. It’s very, very hot. What a clown.

  18. #18 chek
    June 20, 2013

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not Jeff, but not just here with this clown contingent (and Brent was a similar case, as is Williwatts) but also elsewhere in the deniersphere, they place a great deal of faith in some imagined general level of * ahem * intelligence and education * cough * magically bestowing a competence sufficient to see them through whatever science is thrown at them.

    The arrogance is that their stance is not even like going to a gunfight with a knife, but more like armed only with a paper hat.

    God only knows what double-digit morons liker PantieZ, Olap and Griselda think they’re achieving on their quixotic quest.

    Speaking of which, it’s moderately interesting that The Great Jonarse has had zero impact on any aspect of climate science with his Great Insight in all these years (and it has been years now), apart of course from cultivating the double-digit harem he drags around with him.

  19. #19 chek
    June 20, 2013

    0.06 degrees Celsius is hot. It’s very, very hot.

    Where did you get that idea PantieZ? We need to know because you have the comprehension skills of a flatworm

    What a clown.

    Obviously, so why do you do it anyway?

  20. #20 pentaxZ
    June 20, 2013

    17 years without warming, the last eleven even cooling at tiny bit. How is the CAGW armageddon going, check? Oh, perhaps that’s why you don’t have any answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW? Right so, zealot?

  21. #22 chek
    June 20, 2013

    Oh wait…. PantieZ thinks that a global average climate temperature is merely added to a local weather temperature to produce a death certificate.

    I wonder what Idso think tank thought that one up and passed it for moron consumption? Almost as much as I wonder why Jonarse has had zero impact in all these years with his Great Insight.

  22. #23 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    # 17 pentaxZ

    OHC 0 – 2000m

  23. #24 chek
    June 20, 2013

    17 years without warming

    I guess knowing nothing means that you don’t have to even think about explaining the accelerating Arctic melt from 2007 to 2012, although my theory is that even basic arithmetic to calculate the years is beyond PantieZ

  24. #25 GSW
    June 20, 2013

    @Jeff

    Your Biodiversity Armageddon rants are legendary, there’s thousands of posts on Deltoid (over 6,000 of those on Jonas’ thread, a record? ;) ) Here’s a random excerpt from you,

    “Please tell us all here – we wait with baited breath – examples of species that have been harmed by even small losses of habitat, and those that have not or have even benefitted, then place these findings in a broader ecophysiological and life-history related framework. Tell us why climate change will not be a major driver of extinctions. ”

    What did you mean when you posted this? let’s see, “climate change”..”major driver of extinctions”. Don’t get me wrong Jeff, now de emphasising CO2 as a “major driver of extinctions” as you do now, in favour more direct (as we’ve listed) causes, I see as a good thing, more inline with the primary literature. i.e. There’s some fricking evidence for the other things.

    We’ve been thru Polar Bears, links to Alan “Climate Change killed the Frogs” Pounds papers (we worked out eventually that it didn’t), Coral Reefs, you’re perfectly happy pushing any old crap. Please let us know when you think we might not all be Doomed!

    Thanks Jeff, Enjoy!
    ;)

  25. #26 chek
    June 20, 2013

    “Please tell us all here – we wait with baited breath – examples of species that have been harmed by even small losses of habitat, and those that have not or have even benefitted, then place these findings in a broader ecophysiological and life-history related framework. Tell us why climate change will not be a major driver of extinctions.”

    Spot the moron who got over-excited and had a Freudian slip over what he meant to say.

  26. #27 chek
    June 20, 2013

    … but aside from that Griselda, I know from your previous here that you are a staunch advocate of the theory that a home-baked education is all any denier needs

    Imagine my disappointment then when you fail to correct and berate your fellow traveller PantieZ when he goofs and adds a global temperature average to a local weather temperature!
    How you must have laughed!! And yet you said nothing, perhaps because you knew no better.

    That’s likely why your pal Jonarse hasn’t overturned IPCC attribution yet either. It must be distressing producing nothing after all these years.

  27. #28 bill
    June 20, 2013

    Pentax is stupid even by Denier standards. Why bother?

  28. #29 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    And OHC.

    Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected. As it must.

    Physics doesn’t care what we think.

  29. #30 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    # 24 bill

    Because it’s there?

  30. #31 Craig Thomas
    June 20, 2013

    Pentax, I looked at your trend, and I thought you used too few years, considering your time period is not much larger than the known El Nino cycle.
    SO I added a few years.
    And I get:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/trend

    Oh dear. Your trend was an artifact of choosing too short a period.

  31. #32 pentaxZ
    June 21, 2013

    “Oh dear. Your trend was an artifact of choosing too short a period”

    Oh dear, you choose a starting point to confirm your religious CAGW belief. Plotting a linear trend to a chaotic system is totally pointless. But since you zealots are so fond of straight lines, let’s continue the game.

    Your trend is an artifact of choosing a to short period. Let’s add one year, craig.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend

  32. #33 GSW
    June 21, 2013

    @chaps

    Has wow been banned?

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-61/#comment-158045

    I think his posts could with a cooling off period, or time delay with a bleep.

    BBD’s not doing much better,

    “You have nothing, which is why you lost the argument, you fucking buffoon. ”

    “If they can answer, they they can just fuck off and stop lying.”

  33. #34 chek
    June 21, 2013

    But since you zealots are so fond of straight lines, let’s continue the game.

    Pitiful, isn’t it Craig?
    Given the correct period to discern a trend, PantieZ misunderstood idea of a ‘trend’ can be seen tagged on <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/trend&quot;.the arse end here.

  34. #35 chek
    June 21, 2013

    I think his posts…(snip)

    Whatever you think has never carried any weight here, Griselda.

  35. #36 pentaxZ
    June 21, 2013

    “:::adds a global temperature average to a local weather temperature!”

    And yet that’s exactly what you do when you claim 35 000 people has died due to AGW. Double standards and moving goal posts, that’s your game, chek.

    Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    Some healthy reading only for you, zealot.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/trenberths-missing-trends/

  36. #37 chek
    June 21, 2013

    And yet that’s exactly what you do when you claim 35 000 people has died due to AGW. Double standards and moving goal posts, that’s your game, chek. Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    Comprehension of anything really isn’t your stong point, is it PantieZ?
    See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page

  37. #38 pentaxZ
    June 21, 2013

    “See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page” wich is all about weather and nothing more, despite what your wet dreams tells you it is.

    The fact, FACT, is that there has not been any warming the last 17 years and the last decade or so had in fact cooled. Deal with it!

    And I would really appreciate an answer to Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?

  38. #39 pentaxZ
    June 21, 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!

  39. #40 chek
    June 21, 2013

    The fact, FACT, is that there has not been any warming the last 17 years and the last decade or so had in fact cooled. Deal with it!

    Your ‘facts’ actually aren’t, they’re denier lies.
    To whit the accelerating melt of the Arctic between 2007 and 2012. Do the math.
    Whoops I forgot, you can’t even do that simple arithmetic.
    Hilarious.

  40. #41 chek
    June 21, 2013

    wich (sic) is all about weather and nothing more, despite what your wet dreams tells you it is.

    It’s now patently obvious that you cannot understand plain English even when NASA put it in layman’s terms.

  41. #42 Jonas N
    June 21, 2013

    Chek … Sorry, but no! You can’t come here two years late to the party and demand ‘Do the math’ after all your nonsense rambling, especially when you are so poor at doing the math by yourself

    It is entirely correct to state that it hasn’t warmed for some decade and a half and even cooled during some part of that.

    And (as I’ve told you many times before) it is not the exact date or definitionen or choice of dataset that is the crux. No, it’s the deviation from all the model prediction, and which is increasing the longer it lasts. Models is all the climate scare had to start with, and has been relying on. And the poorer the models describe reality, the poorer they are.

    It’s that simple!

    Regarding ice (or OHC) you are both moving goal posts, and you are wrong.

    As I (also!) told you before: The enhanced atmospheric GHG-effect if it exists is to bee seen in the atmosphere. (where it is hard to detect with stalling temperatures and missing hotspots). It cannot chose to go and hide somwhere else instead! Secondly, you can’t just pick arctic sea ice. If at all, you need to look at all the earth’s ice.

    But don’t bother chek. You’ve had two years trying to make a point (or even only simple math) and ‘Jonarse’ is about the level you reach …

    And very few reach further. (But the absence of Wow’s usual word diarrhea is intriguing ;-) )

  42. #43 BBD
    June 21, 2013

    @ PentaxZ #32

    Oh dear, you choose a starting point to confirm your religious CAGW belief. Plotting a linear trend to a chaotic system is totally pointless. But since you zealots are so fond of straight lines, let’s continue the game.

    I disagree with your claim that a linear fit to a climate time series is “totally pointless”. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion.

    If you cannot do so, please acknowledge your error and withdraw the claim.

    * * *

    At #38 you make an incorrect claim:

    The fact, FACT, is that there has not been any warming the last 17 years and the last decade or so had in fact cooled. Deal with it!

    This is not a “fact, FACT”, at all.

    You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive – even with your cherry-picked starting year.

    So much for your “FACTS”.

    And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above (“chaotic”). That’s why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature.

    * * *

    You are still ignoring the increase in OHC:

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology:

    – The troposphere ≠ the climate system

    – Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans.

    Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.

    And your unamusing, racist pastiche at #39 *still* contains a mis-spelling of “hilarious”.

    All in all, a miserable showing, pentax. Miserable.

  43. #44 BBD
    June 21, 2013

    @ GSW #33

    The terms “you have nothing”, “lost the argument”, “fucking buffoon” and “lying” were carefully selected for accuracy.

  44. #45 chek
    June 21, 2013

    I wonder if the likes of PantieZ et al will ever twig that denier sites don’t set out to educate or inform their faithful flocks, but instead to fool, mislead and lie to them?

    The sheer coprophagy of their whacky beliefs about what should be empirical evidence suggests they’re fully invested in whatever their chief liars tell them.

  45. #46 Jonas N
    June 21, 2013

    Another spectacular own-goal by chek.

    First, there exist no such thing as a ‘denier’. Its a word only used by those who really cannot argue their stance, most often don’t even understand it, and even less understand what objections are raised … In short, it’s a word, that frequently used on sites like this, and by commenters like chek.

    Secondly, how can one even come up with the notion of “sites [that] don’t set out to educate or inform their faithful flocks, but instead to fool, mislead and lie to them” while commenting on Deltoid!?

    It’s like viewing into fantasyland reading some of the la-la-claims made here by the regulars.

  46. #47 GSW
    June 21, 2013

    @BBD

    I’ll take it from your #43 that you at least accept the “they can just fuck off” was Iill judged.

  47. #48 chek
    June 21, 2013

    God, how I loathe the stench of prissy hypocrite in the afternoon.

  48. #49 BBD
    June 21, 2013

    GSW

    Not at all. It is the final response to all serial liars.

  49. #50 BBD
    June 21, 2013

    GSW, since you are going to be our Mary Whitehouse this afternoon, why have you said nothing about the racist parody repeated, verbatim at #39?

    Personally, I find racism infinitely more offensive than the odd “fuck off”.

  50. #51 chek
    June 21, 2013

    why have you said nothing about the racist parody repeated, verbatim at #39?

    For the same reason that there are no raging arguments between ‘it’s cooling’ enthusiasts and ‘it’s warming but it’s the sun’ groupies. They’re all liars who don’t step on other liars toes.

  51. #52 Jonas N
    June 21, 2013

    I’d say that BBD has nothing, nothing at all. Just a repeat-function of various stated claims he most often doesn’t understand the underlying meaning of.

    This has been established numerous times at several other more serious blogs. But according to himself he isn’t even aware of what is lacking. He just raises his voice and repeats: ‘Because I say so … ‘ believing that he has grasp of physics which he really doesn’t.

    As I said above: This is the right place for him. The remaining faithers might believe that he says something knowledgable, just as they think that Jeff knows how real science is conducted and speaks for it …

  52. #53 pentaxZ
    June 21, 2013

    bbd

    Yawn. I disagree with your. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion that there is any point in linear trends in climate predictions.

    “You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive – even with your cherry-picked starting year.”

    Ah, you mean that the even more massaged data from Had CRUT4 is better? I see. So u
    You have a problem with me cherry picking a starting point? But it’s ok for you to do so? I call it double standard.

    And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above (“chaotic”). That’s why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature.”

    I wonder, will you make the same claim when the present temperature stand still has continued for 13 more years, or will you once again move goalposts to fit your beliefs to your dogma? The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years. Even your high preast pachauri says so. Who are you to question his word?

    “This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology”

    Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly
    Critical in any way.

    Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? No one of the deltoid culprits seems to have an answer.

  53. #54 pentaxZ
    June 21, 2013

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    bbd

    Yawn. I disagree with your. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion that there is any point in linear trends in climate predictions.

    “You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive – even with your cherry-picked starting year.”

    Ah, you mean that the even more massaged data from Had CRUT4 is better? I see. So u
    You have a problem with me cherry picking a starting point? But it’s ok for you to do so? I call it double standard.

    And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above (“chaotic”). That’s why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature.”

    I wonder, will you make the same claim when the present temperature stand still has continued for 13 more years, or will you once again move goalposts to fit your beliefs to your dogma? The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years. Even your high preast pachauri says so. Who are you to question his word?

    “This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology”

    Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly
    Critical in any way.

    Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? No one of the deltoid culprits seems to have an answer.

  54. #55 chek
    June 21, 2013

    Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly Critical in any way. Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?

    You’ve been answered, but you’re too unbearably stupid to understand that answer. Neither do you understand that statistics are for providing illumination and clarity, rather than abused as a crutch for the parotted, hand-me-down lies of liars like you.

  55. #56 BBD
    June 21, 2013

    @ PentaxZ #32

    Oh dear, you choose a starting point to confirm your religious CAGW belief. Plotting a linear trend to a chaotic system is totally pointless. But since you zealots are so fond of straight lines, let’s continue the game.

    I disagree with your claim that a linear fit to a climate time series is “totally pointless”. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting this assertion.

    If you cannot do so, please acknowledge that you were mistaken to say this.

    * * *

    Ah, you mean that the even more massaged data from Had CRUT4 is better? I see. So u
    You have a problem with me cherry picking a starting point? But it’s ok for you to do so? I call it double standard.

    The improved reconstruction using more stations is better. Yes. You are implying that HadCRUT4 is using falsified data, which is tinfoil territory. You are not in a position to witter about double standards.

    And you cherry-picked. Don’t deny it. Worse, you were *wrong* and you are still repeating your rubbish despite being corrected:

    The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years. Even your high preast pachauri says so. Who are you to question his word?

    This is a false claim. Here are the data that disprove it:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    As for this “cooling over the last decade” stuff, you are reading *far* too much into an uninformatively short period. Here’s the unvarnished truth: there are two strong La Niña events in the second half of the period (2008 and the “double-dip” LN of 2011 – 2012). This inevitably depresses the trend. Nobody serious would attempt to go any further than that. It would be a blatant, deceitful cherry pick, as is instantly obvious from any clear presentation of the data.

    * * *

    I wonder, will you make the same claim when the present temperature stand still has continued for 13 more years, or will you once again move goalposts to fit your beliefs to your dogma?

    ENSO is an oscillation (the clue is in the name). Oscillations cancel out over time. They do not create long-term trends. A few La Niña aren’t going to halt AGW in its tracks and only liars and fools would claim otherwise.

    The best way to look at climate data is to take a long period and smooth it to remove monthly and some inter-annual noise. The underlying behaviour becomes immediately – and undeniably – evident. No trend-fitting is required:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means

  56. #57 Jeff Harvey
    June 21, 2013
  57. #58 Jonas N
    June 21, 2013

    Fascinating, physics- and science-ignoramus BBD tries the ‘oscillation’-spiel again. On top of that as a method to counter the very obvious temperature hiatus for 1½ decade by now.

    And as everybody should (but probably doesn’t) understand is that the hiatus and the consequences for the pet climate threat theory do not depend on the exact definition of ‘no rise’ nor the choice of dataset. It is the pause which is the elephant in the modelled room …

    No wonder that the believers come up with the funniest crooked new goalposts somewhere completely different ..

    Priceless is also the notion that if you smooth things sufficiently, you don’t even need a trend .. What did these people smoke instead of attending school and paying attention?

  58. #59 chek
    June 22, 2013

    But Jeff PantieZ has gone been given the perfect defence, yessir. All AGW manifestations is ‘weather’, y’see. An’ weather don’t count. NASA can show all the bell curves they like an’ critters can migrate wherever they damn well please. Just as long as it’s understood it’s all due to weather, nothin’ more.

  59. #60 chek
    June 22, 2013

    Jonarse pooped sorry popped up at #99 on Page 61 to whine:

    You demand that non-existent science should be overturned or refuted, and that otherwise you will continue to belive (sic) that the non-existent science still holds.

    Then it should be easy to demonstrate the errors. But as your two year campaign has shown, you can’t. Not even page one, paragraph one, the first sentence.

  60. #61 FrankD
    June 22, 2013

    @Pentax: The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years.

    Wrong. Warming has most likely continued over the last 17 years. It is not distinguishable from flat at the 95% confidence level, but it is at above 90% confidence. Put it another way, “it has continued warming” is about 15 times as likely to be right as you bald assertion that “termperature hasn’t risen”.

    Either you understand statistical significance, in which case you are a liar, or you do not understand statistical significance and you should shut the fuck up.

    @Pentax: Even your high preast [sic] pachauri says so.

    Wrong. Pachauri was verballed by a reporter. The fact that he immediately tried to get that misquote withdrawn doesn’t register on Pentax’s radar, because it doesn’t suit his agenda.

    If you are going to lie, Pentax, try to find lies that are less easy to disprove.

  61. #62 pentaxZ
    June 22, 2013

    Hahahahahahahahahaha…….yor panic is shining through. The world isn’t collaborating with your models and your dogma, so you make more and more imaginative and unworldly explanations up along the way. Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts. Why would you othervise defend your religious CAGW dogma so furiosly?

  62. #63 FrankD
    June 22, 2013

    “Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts.”
    Real world facts furnished and ignored by PentaxZ.

    Illuminating, but not surprising.

  63. #64 Jonas N
    June 22, 2013

    Chek #59

    It is really hard for you and your ilk, isn’t it?

    If there is no published (and proper) science behind that claim, then there aren’t even any errors to be seen or demonstrated to be wrong.

    The error, which I’ve been pointing out for many years now, is that the alleged science is nowehre to be found!

    And that has been demonstrated over and over again. For the last two years here, by you and by many more!

    So no, you’d probably be bettar off wrinting things like ‘Jonarse’ and ‘pooped’

  64. #65 BBD
    June 22, 2013

    @ # 57

    The world isn’t collaborating with your models and your dogma, so you make more and more imaginative and unworldly explanations up along the way.

    Is this tripe supposed to be a response to #42 and #52?

    Because if it is, you haven’t admitted that you were wrong to make that silly claim about linear fits, nor have you admitted that the “17 years no warming” guff is wrong.

    So you need to try again, this time honestly and in good faith.

    Or I will have to conclude you are a liar and a pitiful excuse for a human being etc.

  65. #66 BBD
    June 22, 2013

    Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts. Why would you othervise defend your religious CAGW dogma so furiosly?

    No. You are the one denying the “real world facts” pentax.

    You continually refuse to acknowledge the increase in OHC:

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    Real world fact.

    Your hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology – a discipline grounded in real world facts:

    Real world fact # 1: the troposphere ≠ the climate system.

    Real world fact # 2: most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans.

    Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.

    These are real world facts that *you* are apparently unable to deal with. Hence the standard display of shut-eyed denial and convulsive projection.

  66. #67 chek
    June 22, 2013

    Ha hahahahahahahahaha…….yor your panic is shining through. The world isn’t collaborating with your models fake, self-appointed “experts” and your dogma, so you make more and more imaginative and unworldly explanations up along the way. Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts. Why would you othervise defend your religious CAGW anti-AGW dogma so furiosly furiously?

    It becomes apparent after correction that PantieZ subconscious awareness and projecting skills are quite stunning.

  67. #68 pentaxZ
    June 22, 2013

    “Because if it is, you haven’t admitted that you were wrong to make that silly claim about linear fits, nor have you admitted that the “17 years no warming” guff is wrong.”

    Why should I admit to something being wrong when it isn’t? All you zealots keep yemling about this and that being proof of AGW and that the temperature is rising (a clear lie of course), but yet no one of you can point out a location where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW? You clowns don’t think that’s at least a little bit odd?

    Computer models and straight lines isn’t and hasn’t ever been proof of anything. In the real world, when the reality and the map doesn’t match, the map i concidered flawed. In the CAGW world it’s allways the other way around. Massagong data untill it fits the dogma. I don’t know what you call it, but in my world that’s called a religious dogma.

  68. #69 FrankD
    June 22, 2013

    @Pentax: “and that the temperature is rising (a clear lie of course)”

    Of course, being a clear lie you will find it easy to disprove. Please feel free to do so. Failure to demonstrate its falsity will be noted for what it is. Put up or shut up Pentax.

  69. #70 BBD
    June 22, 2013

    @ #62

    Why should I admit to something being wrong when it isn’t?

    Astonishing. The data contradict you flatly and still you lie:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    Look at the graph, pentax. You are lying.

    You cannot back up your tripe about linear fits with a reference because you are wrong and no such reference exists. Which is why I asked you for it in the first place. Yet you will not admit that you are wrong. Instead, you lie.

    the temperature is rising (a clear lie of course)

    Another lie directly contradicted by the data:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; 1979 – present

    And:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means

    but yet no one of you can point out a location where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW? You clowns don’t think that’s at least a little bit odd?

    Who has *ever* said that it should be “unbearably hot due to AGW” anywhere on Earth NOW? Who? This is one of the most blatantly stupid strawmen I have ever seen. Truly moronic.

    I’ve had some weak responses before, but your display of desperate, childish mendacity here is absolutely jaw-dropping.

    You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

  70. #71 Jeff Harvey
    June 22, 2013

    “Massagong data”

    Sound like Pentaxz is reverting to his pigeon English here. Which is hardly surprising since his scientific education is straight from a comic book.

    The number of record warm temperatures recorded over the globe exceeds cold weather records by a ratio of about 5 to 1. This ratio has been increasing every decade for the past 60 years. That is proof that it is certainly warming. And although a single heat wave cannot be attributed to AGW, many recent heat waves in combination are part of a multi-faceted ‘smoking gun’ of evidence that it is warming.

    But our Swedish meatball is not interested in empirical evidence, not when they are mangling science in support of alternate agendas.

  71. #72 pentaxZ
    June 22, 2013

    “Sound like Pentaxz is reverting to his pigeon English here. Which is hardly surprising since his scientific education is straight from a comic book.”

    Typos is all you have left, jeffie. Real arguments was never your game.

    “The number of record warm temperatures recorded over the globe exceeds cold weather records by a ratio of about 5 to 1. This ratio has been increasing every decade for the past 60 years.”

    And I suppose you have thermometer data for the last couple of milennia? What a clown you are.

    “I forget where I read this but I just posted this at huffpo

    Environmentalism, in the form of Climate Change Alarmism, is a religion.

    Note the structural and behavioral similarities:

    Monk = Scientist – They provide the articles of the faith

    Priest = Journalist – They spread the faith and convert the faithful

    Sin = Carbon Emissions – How an individual’s acts hurt the community

    Salvation = Energy Reduction – How an individual can redeem oneself

    Indulgences = Carbon Credits – Buying forgiveness

    Church = IPCC – Organisation in charge of the faith

    Bible = IPCC Reports – the official guidebook to the faith

    Evangelists = Activists – aggressive promoters of the faith

    God = Gaia – the ”superhuman” who will ”judge” us

    Lovelock = Judas – the betrayer of the faith, the apostate

    Hell = 2 degree temperature rise – hot/cold/dry/wet whatever is bad will be worse

    Signs from God = Any Storm or Drought

    Tithes = Carbon Taxes – every religion needs money”

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/22/lilley-in-huffpo.html

    As I said, nowadays you zealots are nothing but the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!

  72. #73 pentaxZ
    June 22, 2013

    “You cannot back up your tripe about linear fits with a reference because you are wrong and no such reference exists.”

    I claim that the weather and the climate change as it always has. You claim CAGW. The burden of proof lays on you. And so far no proof of CAGW is anywhere to be seen.

  73. #74 pentaxZ
    June 22, 2013

    “And although a single heat wave cannot be attributed to AGW, many recent heat waves in combination are part of a multi-faceted ‘smoking gun’ of evidence that it is warming.”

    Then, what about Europe? Four out of five of the last winters was eceptionally cold and snowy. With your own logic that’s a sign of cooling. The same goes for other parts of the world. Hush, don’t say that out loud. People can lose their CAGW faith.

  74. #75 chek
    June 22, 2013

    I’m hoping that at some point in the future that this thread can be held up as an example of the result of Corporate Sponsored Ejucashun..
    That this is what they produced when they had their chance and thought nobody was looking; PantieZ, Olap, Griselda and Jonarse.

  75. #76 BBD
    June 22, 2013

    @ #66

    Hillarious!

    This is getting worrying.

  76. #77 chek
    June 22, 2013

    This is getting worrying.

    It’s how they circle-jerk in the denier bubble, to their dearest fantasies..

  77. #78 BBD
    June 22, 2013

    On present form, that would be “circlle”. Despite repeated correction.

    Teh Stupid Rides Out.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2013

    PentaxZ.

    Over on the Open thread your buddies Betula, Olaus Petri KarenMackSunspot and other numpties are struggling (and consequently failing abysmally) with the answers to questions pertaining to this issue of detection of warming. Perhaps you could help them by addressing over there the questions posed.

    There are also some supplementary questions begging answers. Your aforementioned Denialati mates seem to be unable to find the testicles with which to brave these matters, so perhaps you can show the world that you’re made of sterner stuff, and actually respond… preferable with working demonstrated.

    If Jonas is here I invite him to answer the questions too. They’re not difficult (heck, a denialatus could even cheat and ask Dr G00gle) so it’s baffling as to why these questions remain steadfastly unaddressed by the anti-science crowd.

  79. #80 pentaxZ
    June 23, 2013

    “I’m hoping that at some point in the future that this thread can be held up as an example of the result of Corporate Sponsored Ejucashun..”

    Please, point out to me where I can get some of the corporate money. It would be very nice to have some of the milions. Of course, if I wanted money I would be better of lying and promoting CAGW. Then I could have a bit of the billions!

  80. #81 pentaxZ
    June 23, 2013

    bernie, if you give me a straight answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW, maybe I will look at it. But only then.

  81. #82 chek
    June 23, 2013

    Please, point out to me where I can get some of the corporate money. It would be very nice to have some of the milions.

    Then all you need do is trace back every lie and distortion that constitute your ‘knowledge’ of AGW to it’s source, all of which has been devised to further the interests of corporate entities. Multiplying it by your native stupidity may or may not be the effect they were looking for, but you’d have to ask them about that.

    Of course, if I wanted money I would be better of lying and promoting CAGW. Then I could have a bit of the billions!

    Nobody “promotes” AGW, it’s the aggregate findings of thousands of researchers across the world, most of whom earn less than the headmaster of your local neighbourhood secondary school.

    “Promote” is what corporate PR do, ideally to morons like you who suck it up like an over-revved Dyson..

  82. #83 FrankD
    June 23, 2013

    PentaxZ: “I claim that the weather and the climate change as it always has. You claim CAGW [sic].”

    So you claim the warming we’re seeing is just normal variation, is that right?

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    June 23, 2013

    “Please, point out to me where I can get some of the corporate money. It would be very nice to have some of the milions”

    No, Pentax, even YOU are too dumb for them. They try and get deviously intelligent people to join their ranks, not numbskulls. You wouldn’t even make their grade.

    As for the billions, I’d like to see some evidence of this. It is never procured; simply put, said enough times by the willfully ignorant, it becomes another of their ‘facts’ that in reality is pure and utter fiction.

  84. #85 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    pentax

    Still waiting.

    When are you going to admit that you were wrong to claim that fitting linear trends to climate temperature time series is “totally pointless”? You are, after all, totally wrong.

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 – present; OLS linear fit

    * * *

    When are you going to admit that your repeated claim that there has been no warming over the last 17 years is false? You have seen the data which flatly contradict you, so where’s you admission that you were wrong?

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    Come on. You were wrong on both counts, so have the the common decency to admit it.

  85. #86 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    You seem to think you can just lie like fuck then walk away without acknowledging the reaction – eg #64.

    Wrong-o.

  86. #87 pentaxZ
    June 23, 2013

    Bla bla this, bla bla that. But still no single one of you can answer where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW.

  87. #88 pentaxZ
    June 23, 2013

    And you will continue to wait. There hasn’t been any warming the last 17 years. The “projections” and the hard facts diverge more for each day passing. Deal with it, zealot!

  88. #89 chek
    June 23, 2013

    unbearably hot

    Define ‘unbearably’, moron. Then you’ll discover it’s a subjective term, which will make it very difficult for you to locate the IPCC reference for it. (Hint – it doesn’t exist, except as a shiny diversion for the cretinous. Which is you.)

  89. #90 pentaxZ
    June 23, 2013

    Oh look, I managed to tweak it to your opposite, bbd. Ain’t it fantastic what you can do with wood for trees?

  90. #91 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2013

    PentaxZ:

    …if you give me a straight answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW, maybe I will look at it.

    You’re engaging in a child’s level of logical fallacy.

    The temperature of the planet does not need to become “unbearably hot” for global warming to be profoundly serious.

    Do you actually believe otherwise?

    Now, your turn. Answer those questions. And in doing so explain why your comment above:

    There hasn’t been any warming the last 17 years.

    is a clear-cut demonstration of ignorance of even basic scientific analysis. In particular, answer the question – “what would mean long-term minimum rate of warming need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years”?

  91. #92 chek
    June 23, 2013

    There hasn’t been any warming the last 17 years.

    Then how is the arctic ice melting in record amounts? Where is the increasing heat coming from? Surely even a moron like you can see the disconnect between what your preferred liars are telling you and real events out in the real world?
    Or perhaps that’s it, you’ve retreated from the real world into a fantasy land where you’re the smart kid on the block.
    LOL, as they say.

  92. #93 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    And you will continue to wait. There hasn’t been any warming the last 17 years.

    Stop fucking lying.

    Bla bla this, bla bla that. But still no single one of you can answer where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW.

    Dealt with this horse-shit already. Read the words:

    Who has *ever* said that it should be “unbearably hot due to AGW” anywhere on Earth NOW? Who? This is one of the most blatantly stupid strawmen I have ever seen. Truly moronic.

    Now, instead of repeating your lies about no warming for 17 years, look at the evidence that disproves your claim and admit that you are wrong:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

  93. #94 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    This pentax idiot is unbelievable. How can *anyone* be so childishly, stupidly dishonest as to keep repeating the 17 year lie in the face of the actual data?

    Even by buttock-stupid denier standards, this is a new low.

  94. #95 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    Oh look, I managed to tweak it to your opposite, bbd. Ain’t it fantastic what you can do with wood for trees?

    No link, fuckwit.

  95. #96 chek
    June 23, 2013

    That’s the denier method – repeat, repeat and repeat again. Perhaps do a little dance and visit an echo chamber web site for reinforcement, and repeat again. That’ll surely make it come true, if you only have the faith to persist and damn the inconvenient facts.

    That PantieZ hasn’t structured an argument, let alone a coherent one, since kindergarten doesn’t help either.

  96. #97 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    Repeat the lies.

    It won’t do, chek. Not at all. I can’t be doing with all this dishonesty and bad faith. Makes me want to kick an arse.

  97. #98 chek
    June 23, 2013

    I understand that BBD, but when there’s no intelligence, no honour, no common decency and not even basic social graces, I don’t know what’s to be done other than what our masters at 10:10 planned. Oh dear did I type that out loud?

  98. #99 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    ;-)

  99. #100 Jonas N
    June 24, 2013

    Todaya is June 24, and I see that there are still many comments of mine ‘in moderation’ (meaning delay) from june 21 and onwards. In my own thread. Tim L must have a very low opinion of what the climate faithers here can take and handle …

    May that is to be expected. Climate faithers usually are incapable of handling debate … and it doesn’t even require my presence to prove that.

Current ye@r *