Planet Under Pressure last week
“The conference brought together nearly 3000 leading experts and decision-makers to discuss global challenges and offer new solutions.”
The end result – [State of the Planet Declaration](http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf)
GSW – what gives? Have you had a change of heart?
The declaration echoes everything i have been saying in other threads. I know several of the authors personally, and their conclusions show that a suite of human activities are simplifying ecosystems, reducing their resilience and undermining key ecosystems services that sustain humanity. In particular, they emphasize that anthropogenic climate change is a part of the mix, as I and others have been saying. For instance, they want to build on the foundations of other major programs:
*In support of this, the international scientific community calls for a framework for regular global sustainability analyses that link existing assessments that build on the foundations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and other ongoing efforts*.
Leaving aside the broad range of issues raised by Monster’s fascinating kick off, I can only assume that GSW’s monstrous, gloating cynicism automatically categorizes something as inherently thoughtful, rational and constructive as that declaration – thanks for the link! – as a self-evident absurdity, hurr hurr, pertectin’ plants’n’shit, as if! hurr hurr, and hence further mockery is superfluous, as well as being a mental strain, and all…
Do I win?
Can I suggest we don’t let the troll hijack the thread? The paper’s great as a subject, but GSW’s asinine critiques of it – once they’ve been neurally-outsourced from a suitable outlet – will assuredly scarcely be worthy of consideration.
Just in case it’s not obvious to some, #1 by Monster is link spam.
It’s not April yet, so I’m not joining this thread.
Just lettin ya’ll know I did by bit for : Human Achievement Hour 2012.
Cheap abundant energy is my friend 🙂
It’s been April for 12 hours here, and that’s no foolin’.
GSW @ #2 Your linked to document is more evidence for the loonies push for “global governance”.
The tin foil hatters in here think it’s a conspiracy !
It seems that they now recognize that most of the world isn’t swallowing the CO2 speculation, evidenced by the lack of mention of it so now they are going to broaden the scope of the fearmongering.
Mind you I do feel that there are many environmental issues that need to be dealt with, most of which have been put on the back burner while the big CO2 propaganda push has been the main focus, nothing in the human world works without energy and the extortion scheme is failing, as is the science behind it.
I found this a bit unsettling, on pg 10
“Regulate open access to knowledge in all arenas of business, policy, and science”
What is your educational background that allows you to question over one hundred years worth of research by thousands of scientists with integrity?
Karen, you have zero intellect and even less credibility.
*evidenced by the lack of mention of it so now they are going to broaden the scope of the fearmongering*
It seems like Karen-Spotty has had their head stuck up their you-know-where for the past 30 years. The areas covered in the State of the Planet Declaration have been the focus of empirical research since the 1980s – and perhaps even earlier. None of their conclusions are remotely controversial. It is a well established fact that humans are altering ecosystems across the biosphere at an alarming and increasing rate and that the ability of these systems to function effectively is being compromised. Read Stanford ecologist Peter Vitousek’s Robert MaCarthur prize essay in the journal Ecology in 1994 and one should get a picture that was well known then.
Climate change is an important part of the Anthropocene in which we now live. Certainly human assaults across the biosphere are diverse, and, in spite of the bile spewed out by Karen and other deniers on Deltoid, a wide range of other threats to biodiversity are equally well studied but just do not get the same media attention as climate change. Threats posed by deforestation, over-harvesting, invasive species and other forms of pollution are also intensively studied and very well represented in the scientific literature. Climate change works in synergy with many of these other threats. Its just that the non-scientists who are driven by their own personal political ideologies and who hardly ever read any scientific journal promulgate their profound ignorance by suggesting that other environmental threats have been on the back burner. They most certainly are not.
Deltoid has been very tight lipped about the new IPCC report ?
FAQ 3.1 | Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […] None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here
( http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf )
Important breaking news at RC: the [wrong sign paradox](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/) appears to have been resolved. It looks like solar, cosmic ray and PDO influences have effects much closer to the “skeptic” position than previously thought, or at least they can’t be trivially rejected any more. No word yet on what implications this might have for climate sensitivity.
So, do we finally have to admit it’s all been a scam all along then? I have to admit it was all getting a bit tiring – and being paid in lentils wasn’t all I’d hoped it would be – but I really thought we’d achieved out maximum aim of a total global Socialist empire ruled by behalf of Lord Gore and the Wind Farm industry for a moment there. Oh well, next time. No hard feelings I’m sure. We sure had you going, didn’t we, ‘Karen’?
Breaking, [Gillard Repeals Carbon Tax](http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/breaking-julia-gillard-repeals-carbon-tax/).
Did you notice, GSW, that while that first link was witty, the other was merely f’witty?
I see how GSW has used the Planet Under Pressure declaration to issue his usual, fanatical nonsense about left wing conspiracies and the like on the thread of his hero (seriously, methinks GSW has set up a closet shrine to you-know-who; scary thought, that). What is remarkable is how three deluded idiots write as if they have some sort of monopoly on wisdom when just about everybody else who contributes to Deltoid thinks they are a bunch of clowns. Talks about wearing blinkers!
Here’s a little something to share with deniers.
Global-avg temp results that show the same warming that the official NASA “meteorological stations” index shows — calculated via straightforward anomaly averages of raw temp data from just a few dozen *rural* GHCN stations scattered around the world.
Bonus kml files that show station locations in GoogleEarth included at no extra charge.
Linky here: http://forums.utsandiego.com/showpost.php?p=4657024&postcount=86
Results were the product of very rudimentary processing of raw data. Compute temp anomalies for each station/month ref the NASA-standard 1951-1980 baseline period and just average ’em together for each year. That’s it.
Don’t need very many stations at all to see the warming trend jump right out. No UHI or “homogenization” required. Just raw data from a small number of rural stations will do the trick.
Drive deniers crazy by asking them why they aren’t able to figure out how to compute straightforward averages in all the years they’ve been attacking NASA/GISS.
Grammar boo-boo correction:
Drive deniers crazy by asking them why they **haven’t been** able to figure out how to compute straightforward averages in all the years they’ve been attacking NASA/GISS.
Karen, you have zero intellect and even less credibility.
And GSW demonstrates the same by approvingly quoting Karen’s conspiracy idiocy in a nearby thread.
Drive deniers crazy by asking them …
That would require intellectual integrity, which they lack. Deniers are psychologically incapable of accepting fault in themselves or acknowledging error, so while there are things that you or I “can’t deny”, they always can.
The wittiest thing about it is that the graphs are real, and the sign being wrong goes against denialist explanations, a point that an f’wit like GSW is incapable of grasping.
I found this a bit unsettling, on pg 10
“Regulate open access to knowledge in all arenas of business, policy, and science”
That’s because you’re too stupid to understand what it means.
This guy has to be a serious contender for idiot of the millenium.
Karenspot has been very tightlipped about the worldwide heatwave that has, by his own argument, proven global warming.
>This guy has to be a serious contender for idiot of the millenium. (link snipped)
Courtesy of CEI
Two things for you. First, a big ‘thank you’ for all that global warming you sent to southern England for the last ten days. Loved it! Send more – and more!
Second. This from Reuters:
“During a decade as head of […], C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for […] development.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.”
Remind you of anything?
Actually, that story concerns a really scary subject, cancer research, as opposed to global warming which isn’t the slightest bit scary – just boring! And here’s a bit more that strikes me as particularly apt for this blog:
“On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent.
Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, speaking to the panel, said he blamed a hypercompetitive academic environment that fosters poor science and even fraud, as too many researchers compete for diminishing funding.
“The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high-profile journal,” said Fang. “This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior.””
Well, who’da thunk it?!
I think I just heard the sound of a long bow snapping.
Of course Duff much prefers to get his science (which is so *boring* he obsessively blogs and trolls this website with froth mouthed religious fervour) from fraudulent dowsers in the pages of The Spectator.
Send more – and more!
The aphorism “be careful what you wish for” springs to mind here.
David Duff is an idiot and not worth responding to unless you are concerned he might influence people.
After the low impact PlanetUnderPressure week, Matt Ridley has posted [17 Reasons to be cheerful](http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader%27s-digest.aspx).
Josh produced the accompanying [graphic](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/2/optimistography-josh-159.html).
Matt Ridley? The son of the late Nicholas Ridley, a former Conservative politician whose only green credentials were the nicotine stains on his fingers? (He was a chain smoker). And Bishop’s Hill? Objective discussion? Give me a break. Neither of these sources has one scintilla of credibility. Ridley disqualified himself years ago, when he made some rather ridiculous assertions about environmentalists. Trust a nobody like GSW to dismiss the contributions of many of the world’s leading scientists for a has-been and a web site that is a laughingstock.
Mark, your description of Duff also applies largely to GSW. The only difference is that his kind if willful ignorance most certainly will not influence anyone here. The opposite is true.
One aside: note that Halpern’s kindergarten level illustrations depicted biodiversity on the basis of one species: the Polar Bear. And the only remotely similar comment was ‘environment better than you think’. Not even an approximate description of what Halpern means by environment; but what would one expect from someone who clearly has no relevant expertise. Just write up some basic shite and paste it up on a blog. No wonder the deniers hang out there.
This kind of crap is so utterly vacuous that its almost – I emphasize that – hilarious. And of course the empirical evidence paints a very different picture. That evidence, gleaned from thousands of peer-reviewed studies, appeared in the recent report and in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006).
What, when there’s Cory Bernardi to consider?
Speaking of which – Duff’s best ignored; let’s leave him to his toy soldiers, re-enacting the Battle of Stalingrad to get it to come out right.
Duff and Dumber @ 26
Jeff@32: you sure you meant to refer to “Halpern”? Me thinks you gots a different Josh in mind there!
You areright. Sorry!!!!!! I meant whoever the mug was who drew that awful picture on the Bishop’s Hill site.
As an aside, note who has returned…. the dreaded PentaxZ. I thought this dork had gone forever…
Facts aren’t jeffs thing it would appear, Matt Ridley is not Nicholas Ridley’s son either. Even if he was, you can hardly make a ‘credibilty’ assessment of someone based on their fathers smoking habits, so much for empirical evidence.
A suggestion jeff, why don’t you get your facts right before you start mouthing off. I know it has never stopped you in the past and likely won’t stop you in the future, but it does say something about your ‘credibility’. Incorrect ‘Facts’ and bizarre ‘Reasoning’ and very much your stock in trade I’m afraid.
Some trolls are so stupid that they forget that their nonsense has been refuted countless times past. It’s the goldfish bowl all over again.
I usually refrain from expletives, but… once a fuckwit, always a fuckwit.
You might hear the slamming of Jeff Harvey’s mind if he could actually find it. Warning: don’t hold your breath waiting! He writes with breathless, doting admiration of “thousands of peer-reviewed studies” upon which he would stake his life if put to it.
So he didn’t actually read the article to which I linked above where his life might have really been staked but for the fact that biotech companies actually *test* scientific assertions and claims despite them being checked by peer-review and the standards (heh!) of high falutin’ scientific journals. Thus, 47 out of 53 claims for new cures for cancer made by so-called scientists could not be replicated. (Even Al Gore’s pathetic little claim on TV could not be replicated either!)
So, Jeff, what makes you think climate scientists are any better?
By the way, it’s suddenly turned chilly round here, could you please arrange for some more global warming. – thanks!
John @ #24 “Karenspot has been very tightlipped about the worldwide heatwave that has, by his own argument, proven global warming.”
Here is the “Meteorological March Madness”
assessment from NOAA, if you follow the links you will find that they couldn’t find AGW anywhere ! I fact they only mention CC because it’s a prerequisite to do so for continued funding and for the ongoing membership to the “consensual climate cause cult”.
1. What were the meteorological conditions associated with the heatwave?
It is first useful to place the heatwave into a Northern Hemisphere context (Fig. 1). The heatwave was clearly regional in scope and was not part of a pervasive hemisphere-wide warm regime. Rather, widespread cold conditions at the same time occurred over the western U.S., western Canada, Alaska, eastern Asia, and southeast Europe. In a similar context, it is useful to recall that the prior month of February 2012 which was generally very warm over the U.S., was very cold over Europe, and global land temperatures ranked 37th warmest in over a century, representing the coolest February since 1994………… ( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2012/marchheatwave/meteorology.html )
2. What physical processes contributed to the heatwave’s magnitude? ( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2012/marchheatwave/physical.html )
3. Was this extreme March 2012 U.S. heatwave event anticipated?
Here noaa anal yzes the tealeaves and scrutinizes their crystal balls.
( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2012/marchheatwave/anticipation.html )
See John, it was only weather again, I note that your padded cell mate Jeff still thinks that the Russian heat wave was caused by CO2 ?
This needs to be repeated for all in here to see.
“and global land temperatures ranked 37th warmest in over a century, representing the coolest February since 1994″…………
I’m sure Matt Ridley was similarly optimistic about the propects for the Northern Rock bank back in 2007. BTW, is don’t think he is related to ex-MP Nicholas Ridley. Matt Ridley’s father was Matthew White Ridley, 4th Viscount Ridley. Matt Ridley is now the 5th Viscount Ridley. Being in the top echelon of the UK class system does go hand-in-hand with the conviction that ‘we know best’.
Oh my grovelling apologies, GSW. Ridley is the elder Ridley’s nephew. Big difference. His background is still the British aristrocracy and the right wing ‘establishment’.
And you digress. That doesn’t make his or Bishop’s Hills crap any more legitimate. There isn’t a whole lot of credible science in there. The cartoon by Josh is pure and utter bulls***. And I have seen no proof from you that polar bears, frogs or coral reefs are doing fine. More hollow pontificating from you, GSW. Make things up, then run away when challenged. Your brainless hero makes similar accusations against me, but of course my views are at least held by most mainstream scientists. Yours and his aren’t. The reason he’s targeted me is because I am a ‘real’ scientist, a term he uses like a bad schoolboy. And the reason I don’t take the bait directly is because I find it amusing more than anything else. Very few people read his rants, with the exception of a few self-minded idiots on denier blogs (you included). I can live with that.
Duffer: Before you open you big empty gob again I want to see proof of studies published in envrionmental science that are fraudulent. Its no use using an article on cancer research as fodder for your empty cannon. If you have examples, then cite them. And explain where the authors have ‘made up data’. If you don’t, then go away. Put up or shut up.
Like other deniers you grasp at any straws to support your profound ignorance and biases. Tomorrow you will cite (and probably misinterpret) a study that appears superficially to support the denial line but which, when read in more detail, doesn’t. The deniers are a bunch of hypocrites.
Beg your pardon, Nicolas Ridley and Matt Ridley are related in the way Jeff states.
“And the reason I don’t take the bait directly”
It’s not because everytime you ‘engage’ with Jonas, you get your arse handed to you then! ha!
Your ‘means’ of making a credibility assessment is quite fluid don’t you think? First, if someone’s dad is a ‘chain smoker’ that tells you everything you need to know, when you find out he isn’t, you move onto something else. Can’t you see everything you ‘believe’ is based on a prejudice? No facts required. Scientist? in what Universe is that the behaviour of a ‘real’ scientist?
Come on jeff, your ‘I’m a Scientist’ just doesn’t play anymore, it’s a “credibility” thing, you just, well, don’t have any.
You’re still full of hot air, but are you willing yet to take me up on one of my wagers?
I’m a patient man, so the time frames don’t phase me, and I can think of nothing better than parting you from your money.
You know the terms – all you need to do is to accept them.
If you pissants have the courage, that is…
Wasn’t this anus banished to Swedeland?
why don’t you get your facts right before you start mouthing off
Judith is onto it now,
“As shown by our analysis of observational data, an explanation that this heatwave was an outcome of a strong nonlinear feedback associated with a climate change induced reduction in snow cover or dry soil conditions must be rejected based on evidence and physical understanding regarding conditions associated with this particular heatwave event.
First, as noted above, much of the region which experienced record heat does not normally have snow cover in March, thus this mechanism does not apply for most of the area that experienced record March heat.
Second, the North American trend in March snow cover has been upward, not downward. The principal decline in snow cover extent emerges in late spring, when the climatological snow extent pushes well north into Canada. March and May snow cover changes have been materially different from each other over North America, and indeed of opposite sign in recent decades.”
( http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/02/meteorological-march-madness/ )
Hands up all those in the “cause cult” that think NOAA should have covered up this assessment.
If you are so clever, why are you not a professional scientist?
And if Curry actually believes her guff, why is she not formally publishing it in the peer-reviewed literature?
And I take it that your ignoring of my re-offering of my wager is a tacit concession that you are too scared to accept it.
Your cowardice is duly noted.
*First, as noted above, much of the region which experienced record heat does not normally have snow cover in March, thus this mechanism does not apply for most of the area that experienced record March heat*
Garbage. The heat wave extended over much of central and southern Canada – records were broken in Winnipeg, northern Ontario and Quebec as well as in all of the northern tier of states which normally have snow cover well into late March. For heaven’s sake, the snow depth in Manitoba and northern Ontario is normally 30-40 cm even then! Curry is speaking out of her butt. Not a nice thought.
*It’s not because everytime you ‘engage’ with Jonas, you get your arse handed to you then! ha!*
In pig’s eye. Jonarse couldn’t debate his way out of a soaked paper bag. I’ve met better debaters in primary school. Your objectivity is crap – blinded by your ideology and your adoration for him. But I won’t go there – he seems to have a fanatic obsession and hatred for a large sector of the scientific community. Saying that Trenberth and Hansen aren’t ‘real scientists’ is beyond the pale. This coming from someone who has refused categorically to say what their day job is, despite being asked a million times. Its not as if his identity would be outed telling us all what he does because he uses a pseudonym. He just doesn’t want to do anything to shred his already fragile credibility.
Who is Foulspot ?
Are you having a chook raffle Bernard ?
Have you contacted Beyond Blue Bernard ?
Anyway onto a more important subject –
Bob Brown’s “Global Government” voted on at the Global Greens Congress | Dakar 2012
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FmFOGnf10&feature=player_embedded )
Jeff @ #51 said “Curry is speaking out of her butt. Not a nice thought.”
Your having problems with your analysis Jeff, this seems to be a common theme with you.
The text was a quote from NOAA, you should take it up with them, I’m sure that they are used to dealing with cranks.
You’re not another jeff are you, what is it this time, base your judgement on the colour of someone’s socks?
“why don’t you get your facts right before you start mouthing off
Either jeff gets his facts right, or he doesn’t -and we know he doesn’t. Jeff’s flag waving for the cause over the US March weather looks misplaced, at least according to NOAA (pentaxZ’s post above). Are you similarly afflicted ianamoron?
Can’t you get anything right? the statement you strongly disagree with is from NOAA, not judith curry. It’s just an endless stream of being wrong about everything for you isn’t it!
Anyway, I thought you said you didn’t understand this stuff, defered to the experts I think you said, but you know better than NOAA now do you? “Garbage” was how you described their statement.
What a clown.
The average February and March snow lines in North America:
Look at the map, Karen-Foulspot. Study it. Absorb it. The March line is well into the northern United States.
You are full of waste. A full-blown idiot. Go away.
Boy, the idiots are about tonight. Have another vat of wine, David.
Bill, you are correct. Its a bad day.
Its a shame that good scientific discussion is being marred by the dimwit brigade: PentaxZ, Karen and GSW. Why they come here is anybody’s guess. They are full of it.
Jeff you are rambling on like an old derro.
It’s already been pointed out to you that I did not write that, NOAA did, take it up with NOAA.
I would like to try to help you Jeff, click on the blue text here –
( http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx? )
If you want someone to support you I’m sure Berntard will accompany you.
Apols, the Curry post was yours not pentaxZ’s.
Karen’s right, if you have problem with the NOAA statement take it up with them, don’t go blaming everyone else just because it doesn’t fit in with your prejudiced views. Love to know how you get on, a third rate activist zoologist telling NOAA they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to weather. As karen says “I’m sure that they are used to dealing with cranks.”- In that respect you are in a super league of your own, Good Luck!.
GSW have you noticed that Arctic ice extent is not declining ? It is more than one million km2 higher than 2007, and is right at the 1979-2006 mean.
( http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png )
“On March 18, 2012, Arctic sea ice extent reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the melt season for Northern Hemisphere sea ice. [This year’s maximum extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record.](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)
“Multi-year sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008. That is when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since the late 1970s, when satellite measurements of the ice cap began. Multi-year sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, [to its second lowest extent ever.](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html)
The problem for ‘Karen’ and GSW is that they bandy words about that they don’t know the meaning of in pursuit of their denier lies.
They would have us believe everything in the arctic is just hunky-dory, but once you peel aside their facade of confident ignorance, things there most definitely are not.
I did see something on that, not sure what conclusions can be drawn from it though, other than perhaps sea ice extent is highly variable depending on the ocean circulation and ‘weather’.
There are many charts from many data providers here ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ )
click on the charts to go to the originating data providers, and don’t whine about the messenger.
GSW, currently the obvious conclusion is that the polar bears house is not on fire, as the doomsdayers in here would portray.
So, Karenspot, suddenly you’re all for the NOAA when the science agrees with your opinion.
I don’t know why you’re saying it’s the “weather again”, because you previously blamed the “COLD CLIMATE !!!” for cold weather during winter. Why are you lying?
I stand by my claim that by your own argument, global warming has been proven by hot weather. This is the argument you made.
And Jeff, I respect your work but you have to stop being wound up by these clowns. They prod you because they always get a good reaction.
“GSW, currently the obvious conclusion is that the polar bears house is not on fire, as the doomsdayers in here would portray.”
Agreed. Their hyping of every arctic variation into a Co2 induced armageddon is purely for political gain. They’re running out of plausible fear stories to tell however. The more we learn, the more it all looks like bollocks.
“I stand by my claim that by your own argument, global warming has been proven by hot weather. This is the argument you made.”
Don’t be such a cabbage john.
You gotta love this from GSW (gormless stupid wan***),
He calls me *a third rate zoologist*.
Tell me dimwit. How would you be able to tell a first from a second from a third rate *anything* in science? On the basis of your own right wing lunacy? If an idiot like you calls me ‘third rate’ then I take that as a compliment. Many thanks. It means I am doing well. Besides, I let my REAL peers in population ecology decide my standing in science, not some dork on the academic fringe. You qualify in the latter category. Now go back to the simpletons at Bishop’s Hill where you belong.
As for NOAA, I showed mean data for the snow line in February and March. As expected, the latter averages the northern USA in March. All of Canada has snow on the ground well until late in the month on average, or even early April. The March heat wave extended up as far as Hudson’s Bay. Temperatures were some 20-25 C above average for two weeks. Records were not only broken but smashed to pieces. The deniers can fart about all they want, but they are lost in their own pit of ignorance.
The only person here who thinks that you have been successfully hiding behind a dress is yourself. Your pretense in the face of universal awareness is purile.
And if you’re going to play with my name, you should be attentive to not repeating stylistic spottisms.
Seriously, does your mother know that you’re staying up past your bed time and being silly on the internet?
Jeff, get someone to explain to you the difference between wevva and climate !
Posted Monday 2nd April 2012, 9:30 am by Dunx
Western Canadian ski areas are reporting extended seasons – meaning they now have up to two more months of skiing and boarding, record breaking snowfalls and lower lift ticket prices for spring.
Blackcomb Mountain’s operations have been extended to May 28, 2012, meaning there’s still two months of the season left to allow skiers and riders to take advantage of what Whistler says are incredible conditions on the mountain.
“We are in the midst of another fantastic winter season here in Whistler so spring will have to wait just a little bit longer,” says Doug MacFarlane, Whistler Blackcomb mountain operations manager.
( http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk/news-11558.html )
I have another challenge for the trolls.
If you genuinely believe that there will not be an ice-free Artic pole at any time this century, explicitly state so on this thread.
So there’s no doubt or wiggle room, I meant of course “Arctic”…
Whistler is one small resort in British Columbia. The last time I checked an atlas, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec covered a much larger area and were much farther east. Check the status of most of their ski resorts. Closed. Over. Note also that lakes in the region melted completely a month earlier than normal.
You really are a moron.
Bernard, you seem like a nice chap, although grossly conspiratorially misguided, so how much for the chook raffle dear.
For pity’s sake, it’s been explained to you, the statement was not from “deniers” as you call them, unless of course NOAA are now also “deniers”.
Your last sentance should read.
“NOAA can fart about all they want, but they are lost in their own pit of ignorance.”
Take it up with them.
“I let my REAL peers in population ecology decide my standing in science”
Peers in population ecology? How low is it possible to set the bar before you think you could get over it? It’s like, not a bar at all, dream on Space Cadet.
Aren’t you a “population ecologist”? Apologies if I’ve remembered incorrectly, no offence intended. I’m not taking a swipe at you, merely enquiring.
Bernard @ #70
The arctic sea ice extent may get as low as it did when USS Skate visited.
( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/ )
But then it will most likely freeze over again as it has in the past after it has melted, its a cycle Bernard.
*Peers in population ecology? How low is it possible to set the bar before you think you could get over it? It’s like, not a bar at all, dream on Space Cadet*
Since when would you know how high to set the bar in science dickhead? Uh – never? Given that ecology is a decidely non-linear science, that bar is set way, way over your simple little head. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a room with systems or population ecologists, sunshine.
By the way: in 2010 Watts wrote an article claiming thyat the snow line was ‘moving south’. Strange he hasn’t returned to that theme now. Well, not so strange at all. And the snowline graph I presented comes from NASA. So the next time you masticate science then take it up with them, as well.
From the NOAA website with respect to the March heat wave:
Our current estimate of the impact of GHG forcing is that it likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave during 12-23 March. *And the probability of heatwaves is growing as GHG-induced warming continues to progress*. But there is always the randomness.
This says it all. In their opinion GHG were a contributing factor that will probably increase in magnitude. End of story.
In case anyone is interested in USS Skate referred to by Karen the Credulous, here is something factual:
Rather than open water, the Skate surfaced through ice in a frozen lead. And as Patrick Lockerby has chronicled over at The Chatter Box, in ‘Surface At the Pole’ Calvert (the commander of the Skate at the time) details how they didn’t find any open water on their 1959 cruise until several days *after* they surfaced at the North Pole – and when they did it was hundreds of miles from the pole and the ‘open water’ was a hole in the ice about two-feet in diameter!
There was lots of ice at the North Pole in 1959.
This shows how IMHO Judith Curry has lost the plot:
When she starts straying well outsdie her own little field, and writes some of the nosnense she does, then no wonder she is not taken seriously by many anymore. Same goes for Mark Lynas.
Watts tries the USS Skate/thin ice gambit every so often, and is always smacked down for it: [Tamino took care of the task when Jeff Condon tried it recently at WWWT](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/how-fake-skeptics-fool-themselves/). For educational purposes, search the thread for references to the USS Skate, and learn how your Denialati mates like to misrepresent the image of ’57…
That aside, your answer is disingenuous, because it doesn’t actually address the question. And I’m not interested in a winter re-freeze – all I want to know is whether or not you think that the North Pole will be ice-free at any time in the 21st century.
Perhaps I need to make it easier for you and your buddies. What do you think will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent, for any season, during the 21st century? And answer using a number in millions of square kilometres; not some guff about submarines popping up at locations where they did not in fact surface.
This is basic stuff. You’re all hoity-toity about how your bunch of non-professionals all understand climatology better than the real climatologists and physicists, so tell us how much of the Artic ice will remain in the face of the lack of global warming that you claim is the case.
*You’re all hoity-toity about how your bunch of non-professionals all understand climatology better than the real climatologists and physicists*
This is the crux of it Bernard. Its what the denialati/academic fringe-sters are pushing all the time. That a bunch of layabouts who don’t do science seem to think that they know more than professional climate scientists. Several of them contaminate the Deltoid threads. We know who they are.
Earth calling jeff #79.
“Given that ecology is a decidely non-linear science, that bar is set way, way over your simple little head. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a room with systems or population ecologists, sunshine.”
Too right I wouldn’t jeff, all that non empirical, doomsaying, huddled round the camp fire, who can tell the best CO2 biodiversity armageddon story would do my head in. Your speculative (non linear) scare-mongering is best targeted at the NGO’s, the rest of us like to see some evidence. The NGO’s, hopefully, won’t laugh at you.
You just don’t get it do you, although I assume you now know the statement you said was “Garbage” earlier was from NOAA and not Judith Curry -there was a NOAA bit you liked
“the impact of GHG forcing is that it likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave”
So what? They are clear the heatwave was not caused by CAGW and 5-10% is down amongst the noise, hardly ‘Catastrophic’ as you would have us believe. Got to pin your hopes on something though, only marginally better than whether someone’s dad was a chain smoker, which is your usual, non-linear, fayre.
“What do you think will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent, for any season, during the 21st century? And answer using a number in millions of square kilometres;”
What difference does that make to anything? who can guess the best sea ice extent? Population ecologists, more village fete “Guess the pennies in the jar”, than a balance of wisdom based on the evidence.
>What difference does that make to anything?
For one thing, it will illuminate the degree to which you stand by your own anti-science nonsense…
And disparage population ecologists as much as you like – they are still far and away better able to assess the veracity of their climatological colleagues’ research than are a motley band of disparate lay ideologues and vested interests, who can’t stump up a coherent chain of empirical evidence to save themselves.
So, a number please. What do you think the minimum 21st century Arctic sea ice extent will be?
There’s no way of gauging whether 5% is a significant factor or not. As ecologists well know (meaning real scientists) critical thresholds for habitat loss on a range of important ecological processes such as nutrient cycling and other services can be as small as that or even smaller. Anyone disparaging an estimate of 5-10% does so out of profound ignorance of non-linear processes. Hence why polar bears are far from secure. If estimates of ice retreat in the Arctic are remotely accurate, then the species is pretty well doomed. And their demise will be rapid – a blink of an evolutionary eye.
And your belittling of thousands of ecological studies in some of the most rigid scientific journals is noted, along with your other routine quips that reveal a lot about your blinkered right wing views.
>Don’t be such a cabbage john.
Ok. I’ll just quote Karenspot verbatim:
>The IPCC is being proven wrong by the cold “CLIMATE” almost everywhere !!!!
>akerz, don’t you read the world news, here’s some headlines for you. I could find quite a few for the Southern Hemisphere for you if you like.
>Monster Storm to Strike U.S.
>Germany Brought To Near Standstill By Snow, Cold
>UK Big Freeze Could Last Until Mid-February
>European Deep Freeze – 2 Dec 10 – Thousands of homes lose electricity and heat.
>Will it be even colder than the winter of 1962-3?
>Near emergency-level snowfall in Ontario Shatters previous record
>Record-setting snowfall brings Paris to a standstill
>Scotland braced for three feet of snow
>Coldest in central England since 1659
>Hundreds Of New Cold And Snow Records In US
>Worst storm this century traps 300 motorists in Ontario
>Six straight days of record low temps in Cancun – more coming
>Freezing temps expected most of South Florida – 13 Dec 10
>Record cold tonight for FL, GA, SC and AL –
>Snow and storms cause chaos US midwest
>Helicopters Used To Warm Florida Crops
>Hard freeze in Tampa Bay area forecast for next two nights
>The Bitter Bite of Winter, Food Shortages Coming
>Cold snap hits Turkey with a vengeance
>Cold kills 8 in Poland – 1 Dec 10
>delayed flights across Europe, forced thousands of passengers in Germany to spend the night in trains, and left thousands of motorists stranded overnight in freezing temperatures.
>In Poland, the cold claimed 10 more lives, bringing the overall death toll to 18, and thousands of homes lost electricity and heat as temperatures hovered around -10C (14F).
>Several Romanian villages suffered a similar fate.
>In Denmark, the Danish army used tracked armored personnel carriers to help ambulances and other emergency vehicles cut their way through mounds of snow.
>In Lillhardal, Sweden, the mercury plunged to -29.6C (-13F).
>The Longest & Quietest Solar Magnetic Minimum in Recorded History
>mike, I often post things that destroy the aGW CO2 hypothesis and timmy just deletes them, so you should think yourself lucky to only get a disembowelment.
>’Guess what – heavier snowfalls may actually be a symptom of climate change. And this has been known for some time.’
>yes pinocchio, the loons started with that bullshit when All their crappy predictions started failing !
>Storm Woes Continue Western Canada the latest to feel effects of Old Man Winter Last Updated: Thursday, December 16th, 2010 | 7:46am PST
>why is the CO2 in the atmosphere making it snow ? Weren’t we told that the world would only get warmer ?
>So now as the ocean’s cool, what do you think will happen to those warmer night time temperatures ?
>Heavy snowfall, bitter winds and temperatures dropping to -4F (-20C) have made road travel treacherous in Sweden, where meteorologists say the start of winter has been the coldest in more than a century.
GSW, if you are in any doubt that Karenspot ran the argument “It’s cold therefore AGW is a hoax!”, then please read this thread. I know you won’t, but it’s full of goodies, such as Karenspot claiming the government is supressing free energy.
Most importantly, it goes on and on and on and on with Karenspot claiming cold weather is proof that AGW is a hoax. Now the cold weather has been replaced with hot weather and suddenly it’s just that – weather! Meaningless!
Maybe you want to back this losing horse, but remember – *I never forget*.
At this point I say let’s all point and laugh at the denialists. When you get down to it, that is the only response possible when they reach the level of denial I’ve seen.
For instance, one denialist I know had his trailer heavily damaged due to a tornado. Of course he didn’t believe it was a tornado, just a tree that happened to fall. Then again he didn’t notice the two paths of destruction going off in opposite directions from his trailer. Each bit of damage was just individual incidents that just happened to occur for no particular reason. All the flooding last year was each an individual occurance to him and in no way associated with the fact that the local dam was overflowing, flooding areas downstream.
I doubt he has noticed that the leaves had been coming out on the trees and the Spring flowers were blooming while it was still Winter. The Winter tornadoes South of us this year certainly haven’t made an impression on him.
I have to laugh.
What did the suddenly trusted and reliable NOAA have to say about 2010’s “Snowmageddon”?
>This is the second consecutive very wintry winter in the eastern United States. Last year, NOAA climate scientists concluded the record-breaking snowstorms most likely resulted from the combination of two natural climate patterns: El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation.
>So what about this year? Last winter’s El Niño has flipped to La Niña, as temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific have been cooler than normal. But the Arctic Oscillation seems to be in a repeat pattern, with conditions this December and January very similar to last winter, according to Deke Arndt, Chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Could they be *short term forcings* and not proof of no warming as Karenspot claims?!
Could Karenspot be *cherrypicking* and perhaps *lying* to us?
Ironically, the year Karenspot pointed to is now the warmest year on record. But whatevs! It’s all Al Gore! Something something politics! Look over there!
So you are a population ecologist?
“And disparage population ecologists as much as you like – they are still far and away better able to assess the veracity of their climatological colleagues’ research than are a motley band of disparate lay ideologues and vested interests, who can’t stump up a coherent chain of empirical evidence to save themselves.”
Jeff doesn’t even read the Climate Science ‘primary’ literature (it has numbers in it, jeff don’t do numbers, duh!), his ignorance of even the most basic facts has been demonstrated again and again (see the Science thread). I don’t think you faired any better?
Some of us actually have a proper ‘Physics’ education certainly enough to read and understand the papers, which are not remotely demanding. So forgive me, but I think I’m in a better position to evaluate than either you or “Irrational Pessimist” jeff.
“So, a number please. What do you think the minimum 21st century Arctic sea ice extent will be?”
Bernard, it’s a blog, but I’ll tell you what, if I wake up one morning and decide that I would like to make a bet with some idiot on a blog, I’ll come looking for you, promise.
Hey, didn’t some guy want to make a bet about model precipitation forecasts with you? what happened there, you two contracted?
Hey, it’s pile on GSW for being an ignorant moron time.
So, GSW, tell us what your theories are again? Why is physics different from population ecology?
As expected GSW is full of boasting about his comprehension (which he has never demonstrated), yet strangely silent when it comes to backing up his views with predictions.
If the papers are so easy to understand and the science so obvious, what are you afraid of?
It couldn’t be that you’re just here to troll and snipe about topics you don’t understand becuase you’re a politcal hack, could it?
“then please read this thread. I know you won’t”
You’re right, I won’t. It’s of no interest, whether we have Hot or Cold events, “proof” is claimed for or against. You guys are the past masters at it – see jeff’s flag waving on the March thread. It’s all bogus, for all I know karen was making the point that you lot cheer each Hot event as climate change and each Cold event as weather, which you do. Either way it’s of no interest to me.
You a population ecologist too?
“Why is physics different from population ecology?”
Well physics is a science, population ecology appears to be more of an environmental movement.
Physics is about understanding how things work. Population ecologists seem to accept they are unlikely to ever understand anything, so they fill the gaps with fear and a belief in Catastrophic non-linear phenomenom. That’s my experience with you guys here anyway for what it’s worth.
“If the papers are so easy to understand and the science so obvious”
Who said the science was obvious? I said understanding what is being claimed, and the basis of those claims, in the papers is undemanding. Which it is. Some just scan the text looking for something that sounds bad, jeff’s 5-10% above for example, he has no context to it, it’s just the worst thing he could find.
A final tip, if you read that there is a high degree of uncertainty about something, it is Ok sometimes to interpret that as “we just don’t know”. I only mention this as many of you seem to struggle with difference between know, and don’t really know.
*Well physics is a science, population ecology appears to be more of an environmental movement*
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Gimme a break. GSW, you are one funny dude!!! No wonder nobody takes you seriously with this kind of asinine remark!!! Keep it up. The more you spew out this kind of trash, the more isolated you will be.
No need to take it personally jeff. Amongst your many failings, being a population ecologist is the least of your worries.
I don’t take it personally, at least from you. If you were a well known scientist with a good reputation in any field, then, yes, I might be a little concerned. But you? A schmuck with a basic degree in physics? No.
Unless I am mistaken, of course. How many peer-reviewed articles do you have in the scientific literature? Last time I checked it was zero. Is it still a big zilch?
GSW, you denied Karenspot made the argument at all. Suddenly you admit he did, but the argument is meaningless. I agree. However, it’s the argument he set up, and by his own definition global warming has been proven.
Um, I don’t get it; why is anyone arguing with these meringues?
By remarkable chance I just received a 2045 wikipedia entry through a wormhole in spacetime. I looked up ‘inconsequential’ and found:
The opinions of extreme science deniers; for example GSW, ‘karen’, and various Scandinavian nutbars that formerly infested Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog. All of these ‘trolls’ were eventually located and institutionalised in the mid-20’s for their own protection. They afforded ample opportunities for studying the psychology of extreme and ineradicable Denial and led relatively comfortable lives, which in itself led to considerable controversy; perhaps unsurprisingly many felt their conditions to be far too luxurious given the chaos in the world outside they had helped to bring about. In what many see as a great irony, they all died during the Great Crop Failure of the early 2030’s, and hence were duly converted to Soylent Green, making, many argued, a one-off positive contribution of a kind that they had never managed to achieve during their lifetimes. See also ‘Dunning-Kruger’ and ‘wanker’.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.