*Well physics is a science, population ecology appears to be more of an environmental movement*
It beggars belief that you actually *wrote* this GSW. And you wonder (but never understand) why we laugh at you.
Bill McKibben discusses his new book, The Global Warming Reader (NPR podcast). Nice.
More Karenspot classics:
>From Their Own Mouths: AGW is a LIE.
>”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
>SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 33
>Coldest autumn for Australia since at least 1950.
>yep, so we have higher CO2 and lower temperatures, the climate must be scared of the new tax.
>i reckon there is a few in here wondering where and why the climate models failed, even the most diehard alarmist warmer trolls in here would be starting to doubt their own sanity.
>thoughts of of a diehard warmer
>”the IPCC has fooled us, and the real problems have gone unheeded”
>suggestion, never trust the UN or a government funded climate scientist !
>i suppose that you have noticed that now your mob of alarmist’s are trying to tell the world that the reason for the “missing heat” is sulfur from chinese coal emissions, or now aerosols are having a greater cooling influence.
>As for the weather reports, if you look at the weather reports and then cross reference those with the GISS Temperature Anomaly Chart for that period, you will see that GISS indicates warm, when the fact is the local reporting states it’s cold.
>ps, pinocchio has been shown evidence that arctic ice has been less in the past, greenland has been warmer and the antarctic hasn’t melted indeed it is still gaining ice
>I don’t suppose that the CO2 freak’s in here have heard of THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION !
>Did you read that fella’s ? “not an exact science”, he should’ve added “especially where tax grabbing governments are involved”.
But, you see, this heatwave is just *weather*! NOAA say so! They must be right! Their science agrees with my opinion for once!
>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.
I have not trying to make a bet with you – I am trying to get you to stump up some evidence of belief in the material that you claim as your ‘science’.
>Hey, didn’t some guy want to make a bet about model precipitation forecasts with you? what happened there, you two contracted?
Every chickenshit denialatus to whom I have offered my wagers has run away wimpering. It seems that not a single one of them have the courage of their convictions to enter into a legally-binding wager with me, blog entity or otherwise, that would take my money from me if they are correct and consensus science is wrong.
>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.
Ah, but the basis for my wager is very much a profound alteration of hundreds of thousands of years of stable climate in a region of the planet sensitive to human-caused warming.
I’m not talking about weather. I’m not talking about a “hot event” or a “cold event”. I’m talking about an irreversible change that would absolutely falsify your denialism, that will occur this century, and that you seem to deny is possible. All I want you to do is to put a specific number on the lack of warming that you perceive, but so far, wagers or otherwise, none of your crowd has the guts to actually stand by their propaganda.
>Well physics is a science, population ecology appears to be more of an environmental movement.
Heh. So you’re more-than-tacitly admitting that you know nothing of population ecology.
Fair enough. Admission accepted.
>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.
Hah, not only are you incapable of analysing your data correctly, you can’t even logically interpret your flawed analysis.
The sad thing is that I doubt that you even understand where you go off the rails. I guess that’s just an inevitable consequence of not knowing anything about that on which you’re ignorantly pronouncing.
Oh, and if you really want to know what discipline of science I’ve trained and worked in, UTFSE. If even that’s beyond you, then your’re a piss-poor fact-finder indeed – although we knew that a long time ago…
>Either way it’s of no interest to me.
Yes, it seems that actual science never has been of interest to you.
So, once more from the top, are you able to quantify the reliability of the ‘science’ on whch you purport to rely, by providing a minimum (summer, if you like) Arctic sea ice extent for the 21st century? If this is really just too scary for a Foulspot/GSW answer, you cissies are welcome to go over to the Scandinavian Troll Collective and ask them for their answer, and report back here.
>Um, I don’t get it; why is anyone arguing with these meringues?
Sometimes it’s just fun to rub their noses in their obvious willful ignorance. Don’t worry Bill, once their ‘intellectual’ feedback loop is properly re-established (as it always is) I’ll stop picking at the scab.
Wot ? Cat go my tung again tim ?
So much for ‘free speech’.
Yes, GSW, you moron, you got it right — the m does indeed stand for “moron”. Something else that, unlike you, I am not — I am not a troll. Being a troll, you cannot win any debates here, even if you were to happen to be right about the facts … it’s a matter of sociology. So go ahead and attack me, it just makes me look good.
So, Karenspot, suddenly you’re all for the NOAA when the science agrees with your opinion.
While we’re all enjoying this spasm of argument from authority by the pair of feces stains, let’s note this part of the NOAA statement that Curry quoted but they didn’t:
There is no doubt that there exists an influence of human-produced greenhouse gases on evolving weather and climate conditions, as the IPCC reports have clearly enumerated. Yet, while acknowledging that climate change plays a role in every weather event …
Well physics is a science, population ecology appears to be more of an environmental movement
Shades of David Duff!
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.
It’s worth nothing, because it’s coming from someone who just proved (yet again) that he is an ignorant imbecile. What you call “experience” isn’t, it’s interpretation, the same sort of interpretation that a Creationist has of what he hears from evolutionary biologists (who, according to your co-moron David Duff, are also not scientists).
Bloody physicists, they’re in on the scam as well: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
Thanks spottedquail for that.
But you know what the deniers on Deltoid will do? They will demand to know how the American Physical Society reached that conclusion. If you can believe it, they (meaning the usual suspects) have been hounding me over the same thing when confronted with statements released by *every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth* with respect to the human fingerprint on the current warming.
They – or shall I say he – says that, unless I can vouch for how these academies reached their conclusion on AGW, then this conclusion is meaningless. This is like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. You’ve got the most prestigious scientific bodies making statements of consensus on the one hand, and you’ve got a small coterie of non-scientist deniers on the other hand screaming foul. They want us to provide absolute, detailed evidence of every members vote. Lacking this, their escape valve is that the decision was poissibly made by only a few members and does not reflect the academy body as a whole. Yes, I know this is crazy, mad, ridiculous, plainly nutty, but this is what our little band of fecal deniers does. This is their debating style. Its a tried and trusted tactic of the anti-environmental lobby, and our Dunning-Kruger acolytes have honed it to a tee.
So yes, SQ, this is the level of intellectual discourse with which we are dealing, the same people who claim to be ‘wiping the floor’ with the rest of us in the debate over AGW. I wonder why we bother with these ninnies. They are like annoying gnats that need to be swatted.
John, I had a look at the Sunspot thread and the only mention of a free energy machine was from you and chek ?
I found your post fascinating, the one above where you say that GISS reports it is hot in an area but the news reports from that area are reporting that its colder than normal ? It makes you wonder how a big fangdangled organization like that can continually get it wrong ?
Bernard, do you hear voices in your head ? There is no one here called Foulspot, poor thing Bernard.
Never mind, here are a couple of science professionals predictions.
Jay Zwally he would tell you that the arctic ice would be melted in 2012, ( http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071211/NEWS/71211031 )
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, reckons it will be gone in 2013.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
“Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. ”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm )
Now Bernard, could you please tell me how much ice was in the Arctic ocean at the height of the MWP ? The real MWP not the new, adjusted, mangled, hide the MWP MWP.
That’s “quoll” Jeff, cute, furry, sometimes poor tempered Australian marsupial (well, I do get 2 out of the three).
Here’s a question, or at least a thought for you, I’m interested in the other effects of increased CO2, I do a lot of work with (Australian) native grasses. C3 grasses (which include wheat, barley, oats) evolved relatively early under high CO2 concentrations, C4’s (the summer or “tropical” grasses – of which over 60% of Australan pastures are composed) which include rice, corn and sugar cane evolved under relatively low atmospheric CO2 (around 200ppm)and have developed mechanisms to concentrate it for more efficient photosynthesis. I’ve found some, though not a great deal of, literature which suggests that as CO2 increases C4 grasses start to struggle (putting paid to the claim “it’s only plant food”). Though water and nutrient availability have quite a bit to do with it as well. Have you heard much on this particular subject?
Climate is only one aspect of increased atmospheric CO2, acid precipitation and effects on crops (and weeds) are things we often neglect.
Anyway, as I said, just a thought (and the effect of climate change and increased CO2 on Hordeum vulgare and Humulus lupulus is of particular concern to me).
A brilliant nonsense answer from GSW.
WHich leads naturally to the question, what is a science? What are the processes of science?
Does GSW know? Stay tuned for the answer!
..could you please tell me how much ice was in the Arctic ocean at the height of the MWP..
Probably more than now:
[Arctic sea ice in longest decline seen over past 1,450 years: study](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/arctic-sea-ice-in-longest-decline-seen-over-past-1450-years-study/article2246787/)
Unless you can come up with a photo of a nuclear “allegedly” sub surfacing at the north pole circa 1200AD.
Sorry, last sentence should read:
Unless you can come up with a photo of a nuclear sub “allegedly” surfacing at the north pole circa 1200AD.
Sorry SQ for getting your name wrong. My mistake!
Thanks for your questions. A lot of my research involves plant secondary chemistry ie. chemistry that is not involved in metabolism but in defense. Before I get to your questio directly, one area that is currently under investigation is how increases in atmospheric C02 will affect plant stoichiometry, with particular attention being paid to C, N and P. As I ahve said before, we know that plant defense chemisty in different plant families is N- or C-based. Thus plants with C-based defenses are likely to become more toxic as N and P are shunted from plant tissues, whereas the opposite is true for plants with N-based allelochemistry. Moreover, given that N is usually the limiting nutrient for insect herbivores, we can expect (and are finding) that insects do increase the amount of plant tissues they consume when reared in high ambient C02 conditions. This means a likely reduction in plant biomass and reduced fitness (seed set). All kinds of scenarios are going to be played out in natural and managed ecosystems as a result of the atmospheric experiment humans are conducting. And this is based only on the rapid and unprecedented increase in C02. Your question is an important one, because many of the most noxious weeds are C3 plants. They will certainly benefit from increased C02, whereas the fate of C4 plants is much less certain. You are right that the ‘its plant food’ argument is ridiculous, especially when speices-specific responses and consumers are factored in. Bazzaz and colleagues have worked in this area a long time and its the center of a lot of contemporary research. When we explore aspects of global change on plants, we have to incorporate a range of biotic interactions that are critical in determining the effects on communities. The deniers never do this. One of the reasons is that very few if any of them are ecologists, and thus they have no clue about systems. Instead, their ranks are dominated by people who appear to think that primary production is controlled exclusively by abiotic factors and primarily C02. This is, of course, kindergarten level science. But then again, in dealing with climate change deniers, we have to realize that most of them have little if any scientific pedigree, and, of those that do, its not in the life sciences.
Look at their arguments with respect to Polar Bears. Their take is so abominable that its actually embarrassing. The denialtwits apparently think ecological systems are in stasis. But of course, the current warming, if it continues at the current rate, will certainly lead to a meltdown in the Arctic as Bernard and others have posited here. The bears thrive under certain ice conditions, and the current amount of ice is probably at or only slightly below optimal for their survival and reproduction. But the extent of ice in the Arctic is expected to decrease precipitously over the coming 50 years. If it does, then the bears are doomed. Finito.
A similar analogy to the deniers arguments is this. Its like saying that the species inhabiting a 100,000 hectare forest are doing fine, when that forest is slated for destruction by a logging company in 10 years. Of course, the species are doing fine so long as the forest remains largely intact; however, as soon as the forest begins to get cut down, then the wild inhabitants will be anything but safe. The deniers are playing this kind of game. A hundred years ago there were 100,000 wild tigers. There are now less than 1,300. I am sure that deniers back in 1910 would have said that the tigers were doing just fine, that there was nothing to worry about, and Josh at Bishop’s Hill would have drawn a childish cartoon showing a smiling tiger standing over India. But since 1910 the country’s human population has increased by many factors and much of the tiger’s wild habitat has been destroyed. The polar bear faces a similar fate if projections about the loss of Arctic ice are anywhere close to accurate.
Bernard, here is an arctic sea ice prediction from an ecologist, lol, are they all that loopy ?
Now, scientists believe the summer Arctic could be open ocean as soon as next year,(2013) “ecologist” Jim Porter told a crowd of more than 100 on the UGA campus.
( http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-01-19/global-warming-movng-faster-uga-ecologist-says )
Here is another one, he he thinks that it is going to melt in 2008, ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm )
Bernard, I think this next guy may be a relation of yours.
Arctic specialist Burnt Balchen reckons it will be gone in 2000, ( http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zmI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=L5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5376,3200988&dq=ice+free+arctic&hl=en )
The New York Times predicted the same thing for 1970 ( http://www.real-science.com/berwyn-thinks-arctic-disappear )
and 1947 – “ARCTIC PHENOMENON Warming Of Climate Causes Concern LOS ANGELES, May 30.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climatic phenomenon was discussed yesterday by Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a noted Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute.
A mysterious warming of the climate was slowly manifesting it self in the Arctic, Dr. Ahlmann said, and, if the Antarctic ice re gions ahd the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the sam. rate as the present melting in the Arctic, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions and people living in the lowlands along their shores would be inundated. He said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10deg. Fahren heit since 1900–an “enormous” rise ‘from a scientific standpoint.
The waters in the Spitsbergen area in the same period had risen three to five degrees in temperature and one to one and a half millimeters yearly in level. “The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis.” he added. He pointed out that whereas in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months it now lasted eight months.”
( http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46315410?searchTerm=global%20warming&searchLimits= )
Maybe you can read the future in a snow globe Bernard ?
that was kinda alarmist deja vu
Maybe you can read the future in a snow globe Bernard ? The crystals balls don’t seem to be helping.
Excellent research Karen.
You have shown how science works. Gradual increase in knowledge and better predicitons about global warming.
Bravo, or did you not realise you just shot yourself in the foot?
“He pointed out that whereas in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months it now [in 1947] lasted eight months.”
The navigable season along western Spitsbergen now lasts [all year round](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20120331.jpg), you complete fuckwit.
For home viewers, Spitsbergen is the island just below dead centre on the linked image, to the right of Greenland. Note the west coast is all open water, despite this map being done just about the annual maximum.
Yes the 1940’s were quite warm. It’s a lot warmer now. Crap, its almost like, you know, it’s warming or something…
Are we sure “Karen” isn’t Sunspot? This level of self-defeating argument isn’t easy to imitate.
For clarity: “the annual maximum” above = the annual maximum of Arctic Sea Ice extent. If Spitsbergen isn’t iced in now, its not going to be.
“Yes the 1940’s were quite warm. It’s a lot warmer now. Crap, its almost like, you know, it’s warming or something…”
And, since the sun is less active than it was in 1940, it can’t be the sun that’s caused the change.
Your co2 fingerprint for Spitsbergen is imaginary frank, do you know what the Little Ice Age was frank ?
I’ll give you a clue, its the thing that made da ‘ice’ frank.
Here is a doc. from noaa, NOVEMBER, 1922
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un-
heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface……..
The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional.
In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far
north its Sl0 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81′ north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.
Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold
current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen off the south cape.
In connection with Dr.Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted wanner conditions in 1915, that since
that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same
re ion of 1868 to 1917.
Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared………..
He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitsbergen were about 3C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15C, and last winter the waters did not even freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.
( http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf )
So there you have it frank, did learn something ? Like GW started a long time ago without CO2
“No Co2” in 1922. This is a novel new argument.
Sadly, arguing that sensationalist articles about cold weather are more accurate than the actual data is the same old for Karenspot. That is unless the data agrees with his opinion. Only then does he accept it.
Not even GSW buys your argument Karenspot. And he’ll swallow anything.
Oh, now you don’t believe free energy conspiracies? I am on my phone now, but I look forward to more embarrassing cutting and pasting tomorrow. Can you look worse? I haven’t even scratched the surface!
Karen takes aim at her own foot, unloads a full clip into it, reloads.
And then asks breathlessly of GSW “Did I get it?!?!”
>Bernard, do you hear voices in your head ? There is no one here called Foulspot, poor thing Bernard.
Eh?! Total non sequitur, imbecile.
I’ve pinged you repeatedly for being ‘Sunspot’, and I listed the evidence for this. Ironically, you fall victim to [your own tell-tale idiosyncracies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/wegman_heartland_update.php#comment-6235079) even in the quoted sentence above.
>Now Bernard, could you please tell me how much ice was in the Arctic ocean at the height of the MWP ? The real MWP not the new, adjusted, mangled, hide the MWP MWP.
Ah, so desperation has set in, and the straw man gambit has been resorted to…
Foulspot, no distractions, no “look, over there!”, no “where’s the pea?”. No disembling by pointing at other people’s opinions, no matter that you’re yourself slowly creeping toward acknowledging what consensus science has for decades been telling the world, even if you don’t understand that you are doing so.
Just answer the question. What’s your opinion? What do you believe the minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be in the 21st century?
Wait wait wait. “Karen”, when did you think AGW started?
Obviously when Al Gore invented it in 2006 to assume control of the Earth through one world government, Stu.
Got a question. I just got through reading a summary of the science for why the last Ice Age ended in Scientific American. The article substantiates its narrative with multiple links to peer reviewed research to Nature.
The article summaries recent findings that appeared in Nature and found that Co2 levels preceded the rise in temperatures. That is all well, but what I want to know is how is this reconciled with the 1990 article by Lorius, et al that predicted that initially temperatures would rise prior to Co2 levels and be further increased by the warming ocean releasing more CO2? Irrc, that prediction has been confirmed.
I am too much the amateur to know if I am misreading the science or if Scientific American has got it wrong somehow.
And yes, I do recognize the third possibility that new findings and and analysis have simply supplanted the earlier works.
I want to in advance thank all commentators.
The earlier work on this looked only at Antarctic temps, this one looks at both Antarctic and global temps. The temp leading CO2 relationship still holds for the Antarctic, but globally CO2 leads temps.
Guys, read Chris Mooney’s ‘The Republican Mind’. You cannot possibly alter what approximates ‘thinking’ inside the heads of GSW and ‘Karen’. There really is no point in geting stressed about it. You’d be better served – and more likely to succeed – spending your time teaching the cat to play Tchaikovsky.
Back in what passes for ‘reality’ in contemporary Australia, this piece describing an instance of the ABC’s ‘balancing’ themselves into oblivion – with a little help from the IPA – is of interest.
So, free energy. Karenspot said:
>John, I had a look at the Sunspot thread and the only mention of a free energy machine was from you and chek ?
You mean you clicked the bookmark to your own thread? How nice for you. In case anyone wonders what I am referring to, Karenspot has previously expressed his belief that a lack of funding is keeping free energy down:
>and maybe the other moron’s in here would prefer the working class to pay for this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqa this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqb and this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqc stealing resources requires massive funding, admit it, you all are only glorified bean counters that need dysfunctional computer models to see the future, Madam Harvey uses tea leaves.
>If Bearden, Tesla, Meyer and others had been given the budget for this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqd then you all wouldn’t be suffering from aGw phobia’s now. Not one of you has the foresight to look for real solutions.
Yes, Karenspot is a true sceptic.
There is fun to be had at Carbon Brief where commentators – including Monckton of Brenchley – are leaping to Richard Lindzen’s defence:
[“A disservice to the scientific method”: climate scientists take on Richard Lindzen](http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/04/climate-scientists-take-on-lindzen)
An interesting article from The Drum that seems to shoot down severawl skeptical memes (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/05/3471948.htm?topic=enviro&WT.svl=healthscience0)
Brenard, so you want a wager do you ?
Brenard @ 104
“Ah, but the basis for my wager is very much a profound alteration of “hundreds of thousands of years” of “stable climate” in a region of the planet sensitive to human-caused warming.”
Desperation Brenard ? stable climate ? for how long ?
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg )
That deluded spiel is now called jumping the shark Bwernard.
The experts said the Arctic would be ice free in 1947, 2000, 2008, 2012 & 2013, no doubt there
are many more similar expert predictions but I can’t be bothered looking.
I’m sure you would be in good league with those conjuring cultists, are you an Arctic oracle Barnerd ?
Enlighten me with your prophetic prognostication of arctic armageddon.
Barnerd you look at 30 yrs of satellite data and shit your pants like a little baby, why do you ignore the
historical temperature record ? Is it the inconvenient truth that during the previous warm spells there
may have been less Arctic ice than today ?
My prediction for arctic ice is, more then less then lesser then morer and morer and then lesser ect.
Heres an easy one for you Barnerd, what will be the population of Tuvalu in 2056.
Where did you post your offering of the wager ? I must have been out getting my legs waxed and missed it.
Lowell Stott says Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age.
( http://www.physorg.com/news110121579.html )
but you believe anything you want
John your very preoccupied with sunspot, so is Barnerd, but I think you might secretly be in love with him, I don’t why your stalking me ? I’m a girl.
SunSpot was quite right when he said “Not one of you has the foresight to look for real solutions.”
Are you just a follower John ?
But Karen, I didn’t mention CO2. You said that Spitsbergen went from 3 months of ice free to 8 months over a period of 37 years as if that meant something and I simply pointed out that Spitsbergen is now ice free all year round along the west (and incidentally the north) coast. I just added simple context to you context-free posturing. Since the situation has got worse since 1910 and 1947, your claim of “alarmist deja vu” is pure bullshit.
So did YOU learn something by getting some context? Apparently not, since you respond with the tired old article from 1922. Again, only seems “wow” went stripped of context, so let me put that back in for you.
The article refers to an expedition that sailed as far north as 81º29 in ice free water. 81 Degrees! Good gravy! Oh, hang on – its been possible to beat this record for each of the last six years (probably more, but I didn’t look), and in 2007 you could find open water above 86º N.
More context free but impressive sounding crap on temperatures. Yep 1922 was a hot one, at the time probably the hottest year ever recorded on Spitsbergen. Since the article was datelined October 1922, lets consider October 1921 to September 1922 – in that 12 month period, the average temp anomaly was 1.54 degrees above the 1912 to 2012 average. Impressive…or is it?
What does the Norwegian Bureau of Meteorology tell us about how that compares to today? Again comparing October to September for consistency, we find that since 1998 – you know, when global warming “stopped”- EVERY year has been hotter than that then record 1921-22. In the current 6 month period period – October 2011 to now, we are 7.82 degrees above average.
Yes 1922 was quite warm. It’s a lot warmer now. Crap, its almost like, you know, it’s warming or something…
And no, I didn’t learn anything from your idiocy, one because it was idiotic and two because I’d read your link years ago. All you’ve done, in that special self-defeating way of yours, is show that Arctic amplification effects started to show up before warming in more temperate regions, exactly as the science says. Well done – on emptying the second clip into the other foot!
Seriously, trying to use Spitsbergen to deny accelerating climate change might actually trump the previously-stupidest thing I’ve ever read on Deltoid – when someone tried to say that the water level in a canal near them, but several kilometers from the ocean, somehow disproved sea level rise…just desperate…
And a little bit sad…
Karen @ 136: why do you ignore the historical temperature record
Me @ 139: we find that since 1998 – you know, when global warming “stopped”- EVERY year has been hotter than that then record 1921-22.
teh irony, how it burns…
>The experts said the Arctic would be ice free in 1947, 2000, 2008, 2012 & 2013, no doubt there are many more similar expert predictions but I can’t be bothered looking.
Put your straw men aside. It’s just embarrassing for you.
You have a stance – one that you maintain however incoherently – that human-caused global warming is no more than a conspiracy amongst the world’s professional climatologists and physicists to perpetrate a scientific fraud on the planet’s lay population.
You don’t believe that our emissions of CO2 resulting from the combustion of fossil carbon affect the planet’s climate: you certainly don’t accept that the effect is significant at the ecological/biological level.
You don’t acknowledge or accept that the planet is warming as consensus science describes it.
Ergo, you must by extension place limits on the degree to which a static, essentially equilibrium climate will be reflected by the variation of Arctic sea ice extent.
And yet you refuse to quantify your stance by putting any sort of limit at all to it.
You dodge and weave, dissemble and distract, but you don’t ennumerate the strength of your apparent conviction that you – an anonymous and uncredentialled internet troll – are right and that thousands of professional scientists a re wrong.
Your Scandinavian mates exhibited the same cowardice. Your Denialist mates on this thread are as singularly unable to substantiate your anti-science claims as are you.
You have nothing. You can put forward nothing.
You’re a lot of noise, trying to stop the world from changing the way it fast-burns through a once-off wonder of energy density, all because you don’t want the truth to be true. You don’t want to stop believing in the Easter bunny or in Santa Claus, and you’ll spit and scratch at the big kid who’s telling you that it’s time to grow up, that at your age you should be getting a constructive job and not playing in the sandbox with the babies.
>John your [sic] very preoccupied with sunspot, so is Barnerd [sic], but I think you might secretly be in love with him, I don’t [sic] why your [sic] stalking me ? I’m a girl.
Keep telling yourself that Foulspot, even with the employment of predictable repetitions of your many and varied signature illiterate tells. The only person you’re fooling is yourself.
But if making a fool of yourself in public is your thang, then by all means continue to do so. The only person harmed by such behaviour is you.
Stott writes, *I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change*.
Nowhere does Stott argue that the current warming does not have a human fingerprint. Karen, or whoever the hell you are, you might as well be Sunspot. Your are as ignorant, and saturate (or should I say contaminate) this thread with nonsense. You say that you are a ‘girl’ – so what’s your background in science? Like the other deniers who spread their gospel of stupidity here, there doesn’t seem to be much more than a basic science-level education or less. If the situation was different, we’d sure as heck know all about it. Deniers never hesitate to blow up the credentials of the puny number of scientists in their ranks, but when it comes to the infinitely larger number of scientists on the other side, it always comes down to arguments like ‘they aren’t REAL’ or else their funding sources are cited as a feeble excuse.
The fact is, as climate scientist David Cromwell explains to day on Medialens, there are very, very, very few statured scientists with relevant expertise who are climate change deniers. He was in the field for 20 years and said that during that time he met hardly any colleagues who denied the human fingerprint over the current warming. This profound ignorance is mostly confined to the blogosphere, as for example at Bishop’s Hill, where GSW actually pasted a link to a drawing that was so execrable that it was hard to know which of the many nonsensical claims to demolish first. Everything on it was wrong, whether it was future projections for Polar Bears, poverty in Africa, the basic state of wild nature, etc. Essentially the artist, ‘Josh’ made things up as he went along. Poverty in Africa for example. In 1983 Africa contributed a measly 4% to the global economy. Twenty years later, as a result of economic globalisation, described through free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism, that figure had shrunk to a nearly invisible 1.3%. Economist Patrick Bond explains why in the book, “Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation”.
But I digress. Whoever you are, ‘Karen’, you write utter bilge. Your posts do not convince anyone other than the already converted right wing nincomoops on Deltoid who are a sad fixture. In the 10 or so years I have read threads at Deltoid, I have yet to encounter here one bonafide scientist with any relevant expertise or publications in climate science who is a denier. I am prepared to be viciously attacked by the usual morons for this but the point is that this is a telling statistic. Sure, there are contributors amongst the deniers who think they are world-class experts and who regularly denigrate the credentials of peopel who have worked in the field for decades. But these are Dunning-Kruger acolytes.
I have been attacked as a working scientist for daring to stand up for the vast majority of other scientists in climate science who are in broad agreement – like it or not – that the current warming is largely human-mediated. That is my big crime in their eyes. The deniers spend a lot of time citing ridiculous petitions (the Oregon Petition comes to mind) when it suits their purpose but when far more legitimate organizations and scientific bodies release statements of consensus over the warming, all hell breaks loose.
I really shouldn’t give a damn what the deniers think anymore. I can see why James Hansen, Michael Mann and many other esteemed scientists are fed up to the teeth with them. This is a concereted attack on science in support of a nakedly political agenda. As long as I am a scientist I will continue to try and defend it from the likes of those who wish to mangle it in pursuit of short-term private profit. I’ve learned in the past 10 years since entering the public arena that one will be attacked, denigrated, smeared and more for speaking out. This goes with the territory. But I commend those scientists who are fighting back. More kudos to them.
“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”
No-one ever argued that in the first place. The only question is, why is this strawman brought up? I can only think that it is to suck-in brain-dead people like Karen.
Did you have to link to that carbon brief piece?
I’ve read Monckton’s bibbling and now I feel physically sick.
The denialati are currently in executive session, trying to decide whether to deny this or not.
Karen, or whoever the hell you are, you might as well be Sunspot.
Karen is in fact Sunspot … the stylistic resemblance is unmistakable and overwhelming. And while I argued in the past against the assumption that Sunspot is male merely because anuses like Sunspot are usually male, his recent comments about leg waxing and “I’m a girl” are rather strong evidence that he is in fact male.
…and, in themselves, rather a strong case for getting his own call-out box in the DSM 6, I’d have thought. 😉
Of course I periodically read our resident idiot’s latest attack on me. His last is a feeble attempt to denigrate the projections of polar bear demographics in future:
Regarding polar bear demographics:
So much for his latest attack. Demolished again. Sadly enough, polar bear populations are under immense threats from the loss of sea ice and pollution. If trends continue as they are expected to do, then their future is indeed bleak.
So much four the master debater. No wonder he’d in his own padded cell.
They must be on vacation at Nunavut
Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers “stable,” Government of Nunavut survey shows
( http://www.canada.com/technology/Western+Hudson+polar+bear+numbers+stable+Government+Nunavut+survey+shows/6412813/story.html )
This [article](http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/04/03/1) on ecologist Paul Kareiva is doing the rounds at the moment. Dot Earth article and [video](http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/peter-kareiva-an-inconvenient-environmentalist/).
This ecologist actually seems to be a ‘real’ scientist, numbers and facts count, not ‘tall-tale’ doomsayer stories.
“We love the horror story,” Kareiva said. He was dressed in New Balance running shoes, a purple sweater and rumpled tan trousers. “We just love it. The environmental movement has loved it. That, I think, is … [a] strategy failure. And it’s actually not supported by science.”
“Kareiva was at home in partial differential equations and fieldwork, a rarity in the 1970s. He was struck by how ecology had built up 40 years of theory on how animals and plants spread, while rarely bothering to test it. His experiments, limited to two dimensions by plant rows, were among the first to ever test these theories.
‘His papers are still classic today,’ Levin said.”
“He is never vulnerable to orthodoxy, even his own orthodoxy,” said McCormick, the conservancy’s former president. “He’s constantly challenging himself, and therefore it gives him legitimacy in challenging those he works for.”
Some (we know who) appear to think there is nothing but concensus/orthodoxy, What a guy!
Frank here is a paper that will demonstrate to all that you speak total crappola and like most/all in here you know very little/nothing about Spitsbergen the variable sea ice or the variable temperatures of the Arctic.
Two ice-core d18O records from Svalbard
illustrating climate and sea-ice variability
over the last 400 years
( http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spitsbergen%20%22sea%20ice%22&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farcticcentre.ulapland.fi%2Fdocs%2Fjmoore%2Fisakssonholocene.pdf&ei=rqZ-T6qmEqyTiQeHgJG7BA&usg=AFQjCNHp0EhXEMiCYGvXVRWzr00C1jyxfg&cad=rja )
Here is a 100 Year Arctic Temperature chart from,
James E. Overland; 2006, “Arctic change: multiple observations and recent understanding”, Weather, Vol. 61, p. 78-83.
If you still think that the current Arctic ice levels are unprecedented then maybe you need to do your own studies on the subject. You are expected to believe that the 30yr satellite record is an accurate record, it is short and cannot give a true average of the Arctic Sea Ice extent.
Fact, Arctic Ice Extent was lower 70yrs ago than now.
1/ What caused the big melt off 1920 -1940 ?
2/ Are the same mechanisms involved today ?
3/ Will the Arctic refreeze as it did after 1940 ?
4/ Given the high temperature anomaly currently in and around the Arctic, why is it that Arctic ice extent is not declining and is more than one million km2 higher than 2007, and is right at the 1979-2006 mean. ?
6/ Why won’t Branerd give me the link to his blathering rant about some form of arctic ice wager ?
inaman @ 146
are you male, female or wot ?
now give me the twoof
Innumerate as well as illiterate.
very witty riposte Bernerd.
Have you gone cold on the ice gamble ?
I was thinking about passing the hat around and really sticking it up you.
More a lie than a fact.
Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
Chris your study – “and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain”
that was pretty poor, where is the full study ?
read the links from my post @ #151
I might return for more welcome and informed abuse on [Climate officials and climate provisionals](http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/climate-officials-and-climate-provisionals/) sometime but this concerns a possible rejection on Joe Romm’s Climate Progress, which I often read and sometimes comment on.
I find it difficult to get through the moderation process when I mention that the “rebound effect” on energy efficiency – Sometimes energy efficiency will cause an increase (rather than a decrease) in energy consumption.
Is there an American problem here? One of the leading economists on the rebound/backfire effect told me they will not go to another conferences in the US because over there they can’t stand the truth.
Now I have another rejection. I believe that Bill McGibben is wrong on one particular point in his excellent [How You Subsidize The Energy Giants To Wreck The Planet](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/04/05/458893/bill-mckibben-how-you-subsidize-the-energy-giants-to-wreck-the-planet/). But it looks like it’s going to be difficult to tell him. Here’s the posting.
Do they have a problem with “subsidies” too? If so, why?
My “rejected” CP comment:
“2. Don’t subsidize people forever.”
Why not, if it’s good for society? We subsidise schools so we are subsidising education in the early years of our lives. Shouldn’t we do this forever?
Similarly we should subsidise labour when there is unemployment. We should subsidise employment because it is good – and do this forever.
But we should tax carbon because it is bad for the world.
As many economists say “Tax bads. Subsidise goods”.
See [Tax Carbon Subsidise jobs](http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/jobs-and-carbon-taxes/)
“and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain”
that was pretty poor
Another ignoramus who thinks uncertain means unknown.
Sorry, I don’t waste my time reading cartoon graphics from science-denial websites. BTW, what was the Impact Factor of “Weather”? My microscope isn’t handy.
Can’t you see this site is much like the movie Groundhog Day. It’s the same dribble by the same unhappy people day after day,year after year…only more doom and gloom.
You should be more like the Polar Bears and just ignore them…
Chris, just for a laugh I’d love to read your study with “extensive uncertainties”.
Have you got the link to the study ?
Did you notice the level of confidence in the extensively referenced study that I provided the link to ?
Yes Betula thats fantastic news, here is a link to the study.
I think the people in here will be very sad that the polar bears are not heading towards extinction.
Trying to change the subject, Karenspot? Shucks! I was having a lot of fun ridiculing your contradictory views on weather and conspiracy theories about free energy!
Another topic of discussion might be why you are terrified of having your previous opinions tied to you. Then again, I’d be embarrassed if I’d ranted about cold weather in a year that turned out to be the hottest on record.
Tomorrow – back down the rabbit hole of your kooky predictions!
Betula and sunspot are complete idiots. I debunked this crap just last week, and then they cite a right wing Canadian paper that wears its corporate arm on its sleeve by using the term ‘doomsayer’.
You two sad sacks don’t understand the terms ‘transient’ and ‘dynamic’. As I said last week, the bears would be expected to do well *under ice conditions that are probably slightly less than occurred 30-40 years ago*. Clearly, a slight reduction in ice benefits these apex predators because it provides better conditions for catching their main prey, seals. But get this through your Pachycephalosauran heads (same goes for you, Jonas, whose thread I do not read anymore, but whenever I see your name ‘pop up’, I know it’s a long winded rant in reference to me, because (1) I am a bonafide working scientist, and (2) as such I actually reach many people through my research, through my science whereas you don’t; on Tuesday I am presenting an invited seminar at Free University, Amsterdam; in August I present an invited seminar at the Ecological Society of America Conference in Portland, Oregon; in December at the British Ecological Meeting in Birmingham, UK. You don’t speak anywhere except to spew out your crap on right wing blogs. Stick that in your craw).
But of course the ice is expected not to remain in stasis but to descrease rapidly over the coming several decades. When that happens, its curtains for the bears, except for those hanging on in zoos. You two twerps would have probably said that tiger populations were doing fine a century ago when more than 100,000 roamed the forests of the Indian subcontinent. Now there are only 1,300 left. Their demise could easily be projected from the impending habitat loss, much as it can for the Polar Bear. The fact is that scientists make projections for species demogrpahics on the basis of projected conditions for their habitat. The continued loss of tropical forests will doom many species which are so far doing OK.
If you two want to argue at kindergarten level, bugger off to WUWT or Bishop’s Hill. And for heavens sake take the legend in his own mind with you. His audience is down to three, and that includes himself, marvelling at his own ‘brilliance’. Its too bad only a few sad schmucks are around to bolster his bloated ego.
If we are to estimate the relative health and fitness of a population, we need to know these facts: what are the age demographics of the bears? How much recruitment is there? What is their *per capita* physiological state? What is their realized fitness? Note that the article, in keeping with the usual trash spewed out by deniers and anti-environmentalists, says nothing about this. They estimate the health of the polar bear on the number of extant animals. But this is meaningless unless the above criteria are evaluated.
In some national parks in tropical regions, cattle are allowed to graze. The cattle are generalist herbivores, and in some parks they preferentially graze young shoots and saplings on the ground. This means that there is little recruitment for some of the trees in late succession. One could enter a mature forest in which there are stands of massive trees and be very impressed by their size and number. But the destruction of the lower shrub layer under the canopy by overgrazing turns the forests into the ‘living dead’ by removing the next generation of trees. If current projections of Arctic ice loss are anywhere close to accurate, then the current generation of bears, no matter how numerous they are now, represents the ‘living dead’.
‘Karen’ and Betula are the intellectual equivalent of the ‘living dead’.
For instance, in the journal Ecology (Hunter et al., 2010):
This the real science lacking in the G & M trash. Enough said.
For the viewers at home, please give due appreciation to the effort Karen is putting in dragging those goal posts around. First its the navigability of the west coast of Spitsbergen in the 1940’s. When that turns out to be fail, its temperatures in 1922. More fail and suddenly its a 400 year proxy record (wait…so Karen supports paleoclimate reconstructions as valid? Well thats something at least).
To spare the need to read at length, the executive summary is that Karen’s latest is just a faily as the others. But if you want to know more, ask me how!
The Overland paper you “cite” can be found in full [here](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/wea.206.05/pdf), and does not contain the cartoon graph you lnked to. Nor does it contain any information that would allow the creation of such a cartoon. It does contain some graphs though, such as the one that shows that the Arctic was 0.3ºC warmer in 1999 than it was at the hottest point of the 40’s, and of course, it has got warmer since.
Here’s a suggestion Karen, if you are going to link to sources, you should read them first, rather than assume some denialist site got it right. Cite papers that refute your own argument and you run the risk of been seen as some sort of floppy-shoed clown who is only trolling for the lulz. It’s like you meant to hit yourself in the face with that cream pie, but the crowd isn’t quite sure yet…
The other paper convinces me that it was intentional though. The first line of the conclusion: “The d18O records from both Lomonosovfonna and Austfonna ice cores suggest that the twentieth century was the warmest century, at least during the past 600 years.”
Nothing in either paper supports the claim that “Arctic Ice Extent was lower 70yrs ago than now”. And as we have seen in post 120:
>”He pointed out that whereas in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months it now [in 1947] lasted eight months.” The navigable season along western Spitsbergen now lasts all year round, you complete fuckwit.
Simply repeating your mistake (or lie) doesn’t make it true, Karen. It just makes you look like a bigger fuckwit.
1922 was quite warm. 1940 was warmer. But it’s even warmer now. Crap, its almost like, you know, it’s warming or something…
In answer to your grade 1 questions: Heat, yes, no, spreading, can’t count I see, ask him.
Did you notice the level of confidence in the extensively referenced study that I provided the link to ?
I’m sorry but once you made your “Fact, Arctic Ice Extent was lower 70yrs ago than now” crap statement, I lost interest in any of your other goal posts.
And so the latest denier tactic (as if we’re to have forgotten all that has gone previously) is that the arctic has always been ice-free.
And in breaking news Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia.
To deal with Karens Q4 in more detail
>4/ Given the high temperature anomaly currently in and around the Arctic, why is it that Arctic ice extent is not declining and is more than one million km2 higher than 2007, and is right at the 1979-2006 mean. ?
Firstly note that it contains several false assumptions so its worth breaking down.
>Arctic ice extent is not declining
It is, on any scale that could reasonably be descibed as climate.
>is more than one million km2 higher than 2007?
April 2007 was lower than April 2012. But then January and February of this year were both lower than 2007. So unless you can prove a climate trend with a month of data, the claim is meaningless. In any case the margin is about 700,000 km2 and falling.
>and is right at the 1979-2006 mean
It isn’t. It is 350,000 below the mean for 1979-2008 (can’t even get the baseline period right!) and falling. That is higher than any point last year, but lower than 2010. How typical of deniers to call “recovery” when it is the highest in two whole years. “OMG! we’ve almost climbed all the way to zero! Shhh, don’t mention that we’re falling again.”
Setting aside all of the above errors that Karen copy-pastes from people who don’t know much more than “she” does, the question of why we have a higher ice extent than last year is an interesting one. Of course, weather comes into play, as does interannual variability, just like with global temperatures. But having looked a a lot of satellite images, I consider that part of the reason is what might be described as “spreading”.
When thick ice is pushed together by wind and weather, one slab will raft over the other making it even thicker (its a bit like a group of deniers that way). When thin ice is pushed together, it has no mechanical strength and simply shatters, leaving a slurry of crushed ice.
So think about it, if you throw a 1 ton cube of ice into a pool it will have a 1 sq metre extent. If you throw 1 ton of crushed ice into a pool it will spread out over a much wider area. Of course, that wide area increases the expanse over which heat can be exchanged with the water its in, and it will melt faster. My tip for this season is when the melt gets underway, it will drop like a stone.
>maybe you need to do your own studies on the subject.
I did, some of which were recently included in a submission to a parliamentary enquiry. Tired of looking like a dickhead yet, “Karen”?
Data on Arctic Ice extent from 1870 onwards as determined by Kinnard et al. (2008) was graphed in an easily accessible paper by Polyak et al. (2010).
Given the high temperature anomaly currently in and around the Arctic, why is it that Arctic ice extent is not declining
Because physics is a UN conspiracy! They’ve tried to pull the wool over our eyes, but wily folks like Sunspot know that heat does not melt ice!
Either that or the moron scores another own goal.
Notice how the dog answers when called…?
Thanks for those links they will come in handy.
I am finding evidence of shenanigans ongoing at Skeptical Science. Apparently someone is giving bogus citations to the skeptical papers categories found on their Interactive History of Climate Science. Some slug has been double counting skeptical citations by placing decades old papers in 2011, citing non-peer reviewed sources, and opinion articles found in unrelated professional journals such as Law journals.
I have notified SKS with about a dozen examples, but I have not received any response yet.
Here’s an example of what Trent1492 noticed. The following paper is in the “skeptic papers published in 2011” category:
“Climatic change in Britain: Is SO2 more significant than CO2?”, Balling, R. C.; Idso, S. B., Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp.251-256, 1992
Is the [list of contributers](http://www.skepticalscience.com/stats.php?Action=peerreviewlinks) illuminating? I see one infamous individual has added 5 papers, for example…
OK, to be fair, I don’t think that particular paper appears in the 1992 category. It’s therefore only been counted once. Even so, it’s sloppy at the very least.
I’m just wondering how many of these trolls here are paid. I mean we know some of them are professional deniers but how many are (unknown because undeclared) paid troll labourers? If you haven’t listened to [this program on the ABC on astroturfing from last September](http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/dont-trust-the-web/3582912) it’s actually very good.
I really admire the scientists who take everyone on here. And I have watched growing media savvy. Yet sometimes the problems lie elsewhere than the science (which is of course, already resolved). It might be great to have more engagements between climate scientists and media specialists around this. Or maybe this is already happening?
Harvey @ 163…
Jeff, you spent half of your post writing about how brilliant you are, only to end it with this brilliant statement…
“And for heavens sake take the legend in his own mind with you. His audience is down to three, and that includes himself, marvelling at his own ‘brilliance'”
Of course, you would never be talking about yourself, so I suspect (with an audience of three) this must be who you were referring to:
ON #177’s point: Yes, I too appreciate that real scientists turn up to explain the case, even to the denialist morons. It may be a case of ‘pearls before swine’ as the denialist morons will never listen to evidence or change their tune, but I hope that Jeff Harvey etc. can take heart knowing there are a lot of lurkers who appreciate the efforts you go to.
As for the ‘media savvy’ of scientists, I’m in partial agreement. As professionals, scientists do have some measure of responsibility to maintain a professional reputation among the general public, but, and it’s a BIG but…there is also an even bigger responsibility for journalists to become ‘science savvy’, since if they want to call themselves “reporters”, then it’s their job to know when someone is bullshitting them, and a lot of these journalists appear not to know their job very well…certainly not as well as the scientists know *their* job, which is to do, and to publish, real science!!
Long time no see.
You’re another denier of human-caused global warming. As it seems to be beyond the capacities of your mates, are you interested in quantifying the strength of your believe in the anti-science that you expound, by providing a value for minimum Arctic sea ice extent during the 21st century, or perhaps by taking up one of the wagers that so scared your denialist mates?
Or are you yet another denialatus who happens to be willing to gamble with the security of the biosphere, but who is too morally upstanding to engage in the vice of a little flutter?
Right on cue, “Betula” shows up driving a clown car of fail.
Please explain the relevance of Keith Olberman getting the boot from a US Cable channel, to global warming? No, wait, don’t bother, there isn’t any. But I’m sure that won’t impact on how pleased you feel with yourself for pointing out…something.
Betula, do you have anything to offer besides irrelevant shite?
The relevance is something something Al Gore.
The level of hatred and obsession for Gore these clowns have is quite amusing. It was only last week Karenspot told us that we should stop listening to Gore when it came to the great Tungsten/gold bar conspiracy, seemingly suggesting Gore was knee deep in it despite never having made a public statement on it.
John you should add links so that everyone can see the lies you spew forth.
Thanks for the link to that study Chris, I will read it shortly.
Frank there was less ice than now in 1985 on the west coast of Spitzbergen, and elsewhere.
( http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19850305.png )
Now there is also much more ice in the Bering Sea and elsewhere.
( http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg )
So much for unprecedented melting !
I will get back to you soon, seems I have other more important duties.
‘Karen’ and Betula are the intellectual equivalent of the ‘living dead’.
When he first started commenting here, I was entertained to see that Betula is so clueless that he used a Latin feminine noun for his name, then got upset because everyone thought he was female.
It seems that Betula and Foulspot have more than a little in common – beyond a mutual intellectual failing in the realm of physics.
In Foulspot’s case though their shared transvestitism is based on deliberate sockpuppetry: Betula is probably just a fan (understandably so) of the genus, and who doesn’t realise the difference between masculine and feminine Latin forms.
Lies? Karenspot, I’m insulted!
Bill ridiculed ranting about tungsten filled gold bars on a denier website. You responded by quoting reports of tungsten filled gold bars and finished by saying “Try getting your info from someone other than fat Al.”
I still can’t work out what Al Gore has to do with the tungsten/gold bar conspiracy. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Maybe chief One World Government conspirator Al Gore is stealing the gold to fund his free energy machine, another of your conspiracies?
You’re a laughing stock, Karenspot. Even GSW has abandoned you, although I encourage him to return to this thread so I can ridicule your nutty beliefs at the same time.
BJ@185: Does that make Betula a fellow traveller of the Joan Birch Society? The Koch brothers will be so pleased.
Note that Betula’s response was, as expected, not to challenge the science I put in front of his face but to make a witless denigrating comment. You see, when confronted with irrefutable scientific questions the deniers run for the hills, leaving in their wake a few smears and rebukes. GSW did it after he posted a similar moronic comment about the status of coral reefs, frogs and Polar Bears. Challenged on this point, he responded as Betula did, then fled to the asylum thread. Be prepared fro pouty little Betula to do the same.
On the you-know-who thread I challenged the tiny coterie of deniers to explain the demographics of Polar Bear population within the context of an eco-physiological and evolutionary framework. I asked them to estimate bear populations using the predictions of models of exponential decay (originally postulated from the theory of island biogeography from MacArthur and Wilson, later refined by Soule and Terborgh). The Arctic bear habitat makes an excellent model system for testing this because its dynamics are being clearly affected by a warming climate. The area-extinction models have been tested elsewhere (Puerto Rico, The Mata Atlantica Forests of coastal Brazil, Singapore, Eastern North American Carolinian Forests and West Africa) and have been shown to be quite robust in estimating extinction rates for habitat specialists. In fact, they often *underestimate* extinction rates because they exclude other factors that drive extinctions, such as pollution and invasive organisms. Polar Bears are habitat specialists, so the loss of Arctic ice will certainly test the veracity of these models. Moreover, since the health of the bear population is directly related to the availability of their main prey, seals, then the models should also be tested in relation to the important trophic interactions between the bears and the seals.
I asked these and other relevant questions earlier (ie. pertaining to the effects of habitat change on r- and K selected species and with respect to other models of biodiversity – for example Hubbell’s neutral model – in testing the effects of habitat loss). And the response from the ‘master debaters’ (no pun intended)? Nil. Nix. Well, at least in scientific terms, Instead, I was personally attacked with the usual smears. Now Betula wades back in here, his posting is shredded, and off he goes. These guys are a real hoot.
Yeah , “nutty beliefs” John
Like a trace gas wafting around in the air above the ocean waves by means of some “back-radiation” (a term you won’t find in any physics textbooks) warming the water beneath more than otherwise by the sun.
Those sorts of nutty beliefs?
Are you now denying the greenhouse effect Karenmackspot? Are you denying basic physics that are agreed upon by everyone, from Singer to Lindzen to Spencer to Monckton?
No, I’m sure to you the idea that scientists are fraudulently inventing a science to assist governments force a new world order makes a lot more sense. You are a kook. Every other “skeptic” has abandoned you. You are embarrassing yourself, ans every sockpuppet you create is only worsening the embarrassment.
I, however, am enjoying this immensely.
Richard (Dick) @184…
Dick, I have never been upset that you would believe I am a female (apparently gender is an issue with you), however, it is a bit frightening that you believe I’m a female tree…
‘Mack’, even Monckton and Fred Singer now label people like you as unhelpful loonies.
What you have – just like SunsKaren, another ‘person’ with some coincidentally quite bizarre , punctuation , habits – is an advanced case of Dunning-Kruger. Which means, of course, that you can never know you have an advanced case of Dunning-Kruger.
Seriously, you’d be out of your intellectual depth in a sponge bath…
Who is this alarmist?
>Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
>Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.
>Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.
Denier Fred Singer.
Is he part of the scam Karenmackspot? Has Fred Singer been fooled into believing the horrible lies of that nasty conspirator Al Gore?
Good show, Mack, packing so much ignorance of science into one sentence.
karen@183. Spitzbergen, huh? Western side of Svalbard? So that’s the Greenland Sea.
Just in time, Cryosphere Today now shows long term graphs for all the individual areas of the Arctic. Here’s the Greenland Sea. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
I’m quite happy to believe that there were several occasions when Spitsbergen had a bit less ice than usual in 1985. Doesn’t matter really. But do have a good look at that anomaly graph. You don’t need any fancy equipment to see the differences in the Greenland Sea over the last 3 decades.
adelady thank you for the chart, it does show a slight down trend, pity the data doesn’t go back to 1880.
Bernerd may be able to see for himself from the chart that the melting ice is not at an “unprecedented low”, at least for that part of the Arctic.
Bernerd says “Ah, but the basis for my wager is very much a profound alteration of “hundreds of thousands of years” of “stable climate” in a region of the planet sensitive to human-caused warming.”
In other words adelady, Bernerd thinks the climate has never changed and he denies the LIA and the MWP, it’s people like him that give climate science such a bad image.
Here is a look at the separate Arctic sea ice region’s in relation to the 1979 – 2008 mean.
The Arctic Basin, on the mean.
Bering Sea, 350000 klm2 above.
St. Lawrence, slightly below the mean but rising.
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay, just dropped below the mean.
Greenland Sea, slightly below.
Barents Sea, 3000000 klm2 below.
Kara Sea, slightly below.
Laptev Sea, on the mean.
East Siberian Sea, on the mean.
Chukchi Sea, on the mean.
Beaufort Sea, on the mean.
Canadian Archipelago, on the mean.
Hudson Bay, on the mean.
Sea of Okhotsk, slightly above.
No doomsday scenario is happening here.
adelady thank you for the chart, it does show a slight down trend, pity the data doesn’t go back to 1880.
As if you don’t know there is Arctic ice data back to 1880 after I told you there was. At least you demonstrate the level of intellectual dishonesty that is required to deny climate science.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.