September 2012 Open Thread

Time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    What about them?

    Just because science doesn’t work by consensus, doesn’t mean consensus cannot happen or is indicative of nothing.

    97% of scientists didn’t get round and agree that AGW was real then made it.

    97% of scientists got round to the evidence and disovered AGW is real.

    You really are a retarded little oik, aren’t you?

  2. #2 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    And what about the 100% of deniers who believe AGW is wrong?

    Are you going to say that they aren’t doing science? Or that they’re wrong?

  3. #3 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘And from what period is this shift asserted?’

    It has already begun and I’ll be keeping a close eye on the NAO and AO index this winter.

  4. #4 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “It has already begun”

    That isn’t a date. It is in contravention to the fact that you’ve been bleating on about this for years.

  5. #5 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    Michael Mann on the LIA…just so we know what to look forward to.

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf

  6. #6 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘That isn’t a date. It is in contravention to the fact that you’ve been bleating on about this for years.’

    Climate change is a slow process, yet by joining the weather dots we might see what is happening more clearly.

  7. #7 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    A par from that link….

    ‘The increased variability of the climate may have led to alterna- tions between unusually cold winters and relatively warm summers. A severe winter preceded the hot summer that precipitated the Great Fire of London in 1666. A harsh winter followed by a warm summer may have added to the discontent of peasants who stormed the Bastille in Paris during the summer of 1789.’

    Damn… the weather blows hot and cold.

  8. #8 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    Here is a bit of info for the numpties that think Antarctica is losing mass

    GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass

    Antarctica is home to 90% of the world’s ice mass. Although Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high and recent research predicts Antarctic land ice will continue to grow during this century, some warmists continue to believe that Antarctica is melting down. Additional evidence shows that the “most vulnerable” portion of Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, has gained up to 45 meters of ice over the past 155 years. Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.html

    Gwowbull warming ain’t Gwowbull :)

  9. #9 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “Climate change is a slow process”

    So why do you keep wittering on about “cooling in the past 12 years” or whatever when you’re trying to prove something about the change in climate, you buffoon?

  10. #10 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass”

    Says a denier site…

  11. #11 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    “cooling in the past 12 years”

    Plateaued before the tipping point.

  12. #12 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    The fact that Antarctica is gaining mass while the Arctic is losing it …suggests the ‘saw tooth’ is operating normally.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2012

    I see the idiot undeducated denier brigade is trying to take over Deltoid. What a travesty.

    The latest comes from Karen’s cutting and psting of b* from a denier blog, and, as usual, not from the primary literature. Thus it is to be patently ignored. The scientific community will, even if idiots like Karen wallow in this bilge.

    Then from El Fatso:

    “Damn… the weather blows hot and cold.” Try then explaining why there are several times as many warm temperature records being broken relative to cold temperature records at present. Its at a ratio of more than 3 to 1 now. So its blowing mostly hot.

    What’s embarrassing speaking as a scientist is to see so many idiots pontificating as if they have the same skills in the field as researchers who studied climate science at the undergraduate, doctorate, post-doctoral and tenured academic levels. When I make one of my rare forays into a denial blog (or reluctantly engage with the cartoon-level brigade here) what strikes me is that they think they know a lot about fields in which they are imbeciles. This is why the Dunning-Kruger stduy is so appropriate in describing them. When he was confined to his own sad little thread we had Jonas pleading over and over with the weasel words that ‘he knew what he was talking about’. That he knew more than anyone else on Deltoid about climate science. That he could tell a ‘real’ scientist from a fake, and that he could adjudicate on the status of scholars like Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, Schmidt and others (including me). When asked what his special qualifications were in any scientific field: SILENCE. AVOIDANCE. The same applies here to Karen, El Gordo and the other self-proferssed experts who can’t tell their asses from their feet. They aren’t interested in science that they know nothing about. Its all about politics. Lewandowsky’s study has made such a spalsh amopngst deniers for the simple reason that it’s true.

    Another of el Gordo’s idiotic response to my psoting:

    “Really? What about the 97 percent of atmospheric scientists who believe in AGW?”

    Fatty, there is difference between science and public policy. The fact that well over 90% of climate sciedntists agree that humans are forcing climate is remarkable. In very few fields of endeavor would there be such strong agreement. The only reason that any controversy exists is because measures to deal with climate change will affect the way we do business. It will mean that major changes will have to be made to the ways people live in the rich overconsumptive world, as well as affect the profit making capacity of a suite of transnational corporations. Hence the hostilty aimed at climate science and scientists for producing conclusions that are at odds with a prevailing tenet of our rapacious economic system. But the point is for a dingbat like you (because you can’t see the wood from the trees) is that public policy cannot be diluted: it must be based on consensus.

    Aside from this, its heartening to go to conferences and to discuss these issues with acadmeics who know what they are talking about, not dolts like Karen and el Gordo who think they know a lot. El Gordo makes a flippant remark about the state of pollinators. He does a cursory search on google,. finds one study in an innocuous journal that draws cautious conclusions. He ingores this, and then paints broad conclusions on the basis of it. I log into the Web of Science and can find sozens of studies showing negative effects of various human activities on the abundance of pollinators.

    The the silly twerp makes a flippant remark about biodiversity benefitting from climate warming. This, on the basis of a single modelling study by Peter Mayhew. Again, log into the Web of Science and check out the number of studies showing negative effects on species and species-interactions as a result of climate change. There are many hundreds. And bear in mind that Peter was not making a point about climate warming being a good thing – this is a conclusion drawn from the reader who has a pre-determined world view. This isn’t science.

    Karen is a master of that. (S)he pastes a study up here without actually reading it, except for a few snippets from the abstract. The papers often state that human-induced warming is an unambiguous reality somewhewre in the discussion. This kind of distortion and mis-interpetation of the work of scientists is something the denier/anti-environmental crowd is good at. Lomborg did it. C02 Science does it. The deniers on Deltoid do it. Perhaps because none of them have any relevant expertise and have never been near a science lab in their lives, combined with their pre-determined views of the field, they think that it fine to cherry-pick data, to misquote scientists and to distort the findings of their work to bolster their own views. The truth is that this kind of behavior is reprehensible.

  14. #14 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html

    If that cyclone hadn’t smashed the sea ice to bit’s then no doubt the area of ice melt would have been less than 2007. If only they could produce an actual ice melt graph, lol

  15. #15 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    Many many times Jeffery you have been given links to studies that prove that the planet has been warmer in the past, has warmed quickly in the past and also you have been given peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural.

    read this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941200110X

    Now put all of your crappy papers on a nail in the dunny, they will serve a useful purpose there. :)

  16. #16 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “Plateaued before the tipping point.”

    Whenever you get a local maximum, you have a decrease.

    You’re STILL wibbling on about something too short for climate.

    Apparently you don’t understand a word you say. Just trotting out stock phrases from your masters.

  17. #17 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “The fact that Antarctica is gaining mass”

    No such fact exists.

  18. #18 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “links to studies that prove that the planet has been warmer in the past, has warmed quickly in the past”

    You haven’t yet managed to do that once.

  19. #19 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural.”

    And you’ve been given dozens that prove that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than human caused.

    http://www.ipcc.ch

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2012

    I have written to the author of the paper that was discussed on the denier blog Katen posted. My guess is that she will distance herslef from those abusing science to promote their onw agendas.

    As for Karen’s links, they don’t exist. Most proxies support Mann’s results, hence why the NAS has supported the IPCC position. What Karen does here is to either paste links to climate change denial sites misinterpreting (or selectively citing) the results of study, or else pastes only the abstract, where the conclusions as written by the scientists who did the study generally differ profoundly from her interpretation.

    Karen writes as if the scientific community, by-and-large, is indifferent to the empirical evidence for AGW. Only someone typing away in a closet or in their basement could write such twaddle.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2012

    “peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural.”

    .. except that is was predicted decades before by Revelle and Keeling on the basis of increases in atmospheric C02 levels, as well as in a congressional study commissioned by the Johnson adminstration in 1965.

    Just more inconvenient facts that the deniers ignore. They write as if AGW just jumped intot he academic arena after 1998.

  22. #22 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    Remember, Jeff, to the libertarians and far right, truth is an acceptable casualty if it is sacrificed to ensure that liberals, lefties and people who have long hair are made out to be wrong by lying.

  23. #23 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    Here is the latest Jeffery dear, this clearly tell’s you that what you are seeing today has happened before.

    You are in denial, you just can’t face the fact that climate is cyclic and you can’t see any further back than your last pay cheque.

    Abstract

    Most glaciers in the British Columbia Coast Mountains reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age. Early- and late-Little Ice Age intervals of expansion and retreat fluctuations describe a mass-balance response to changing climates. Although existing dendroclimatic records provide insights into these climatic fluctuations over the last 400 yr, their short durations prohibit evaluation of early-Little Ice Age climate variability. To extend the duration of these records, submerged coarse woody debris salvaged from a high-elevation lake was cross-dated to living chronologies. The resulting chronology provides the opportunity to reconstruct a regional June–July air-temperature anomaly record extending from AD 1225 to 2010. The reconstruction shows that the intervals AD 1350–1420, 1475–1550, 1625–1700 and 1830–1940 characterized distinct periods of below-average June–July temperature followed by periods of above-average temperature. Our reconstruction provides the first annually resolved insights into high-elevation climates spanning the Little Ice Age in this region and indicates that Little Ice Age moraine stabilization corresponds to persistent intervals of warmer-than-average temperatures. We conclude that coarse woody debris submerged in high-elevation lakes has considerable potential for developing lengthy proxy climate records, and we recommend that researchers focus attention on this largely ignored paleoclimatic archive.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941200110X

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    September 20, 2012

    Try then explaining why there are several times as many warm temperature records being broken relative to cold temperature records at present. Its at a ratio of more than 3 to 1 now.

    Last I saw, at least in the US, this year was running at 10:1 but I haven’t checked again lately.

    And “loading the climate dice”, if it increases variance (as it seems to) can increase the probability of extreme low events as well as extreme highs.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    September 20, 2012

    If that cyclone hadn’t smashed the sea ice to bit’s then no doubt the area of ice melt would have been less than 2007.

    Wait, wait, don’t tell me – you have a model that’s accurate enough to determine that?

    Pray tell, what does your super-accurate model tell you about the distinctly negative multi-decadal trend and the future prognosis for Arctic sea ice?

    And given that you have such a super-accurate model, but are not taking Bernard’s bet, why should anyone believe that it says anything other than what Bernard says about the future of Arctic sea ice?

  26. #26 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘You’re STILL wibbling on about something too short for climate.’

    Could we agree at this juncture that a decade is climate, as opposed to the standard 30 years so loved by the warmists?

  27. #27 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “Most glaciers in the British Columbia Coast Mountains reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age.”

    And if this is supposed to tell us that the retreat of THESE SPECIFIC glaciers is due to “we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age”, then what was their extent before the LIA?

    Because a RETURN to pre-LIA lengths is all you would get if the retreat is ONLY because the glaciers extended during the LIA.

    PS given the Arctic Ice wasn’t anywhere near this reduced for measurably 14,000 years and the LIA was a lot more recent than that, your proposition is proven false.

  28. #28 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland

    “Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.”

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html

  29. #29 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “Could we agree at this juncture that a decade is climate”

    No.

    You’re like saying “OK, how about agreeing that THREE rolls of the dice can show whether it’s loaded or not?”.

    You are completely clueless as to how to determine statistical significance and additionally clueless about electrical (or other engineering) signal to noise ratio consequences.

    HINT: Why do you think that in a noisy 2.4GHz environment your WiFi point drops down to a lower data rate?

  30. #30 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland”

    This, now, is the world? I thought it was ONLY Central England.

    Or USA!USA!USA!

    Now, apparently, it’s a small part of Greenland.

    PS what does greenland have to do with arctic ice?

  31. #31 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    To eliminate year-to-year variations they chose 30 years as climate…I thought with the new technologies we might be able to fast track.

  32. #32 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    Why on earth did you think that better measuring technology would change the signal to noise ratio in the weather???

  33. #33 Nick
    September 20, 2012

    Karen confuses ‘intervals’ for ‘cycles’….not relationship whatever technically, K….you might keep searching for papers. Look for the one on Canadian glaciers that demonstrates that they are at the lowest level in 5-7000 years- that is,since the Holocene climate optimum. Or similar on NW USA glaciers. Or similar on European ice.

    Give us a real literature review,dimwit.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    September 20, 2012

    To eliminate year-to-year variations they chose 30 years as climate…I thought with the new technologies we might be able to fast track.

    Dunderhead or dissembler. I figure both.

    What do you think a 30 year, a 17 year or any other period <=10 is used?

    Whatever that is not what defines climate. A I indicated above follow those tenets that I suggested should be stamped on your forehead.

  35. #35 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    The hot money is on an early winter in the US…read the natural signs along with the models.

    http://blog.sfgate.com/ski/2012/09/13/bird-migration-forecasts-early-winter/

  36. #36 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    So you don’t know why you think that better instruments reduce the noise in the weather systems which are UNAFFECTED by the instruments used to measure it?

    I take it then that you agree to use 30 years.

  37. #37 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    Didn’t you just say yesterday that it was the UK going to have a cold winter? And by the USA, you DO know it extends quite a long way. When the last snowstorm was making headlines along the west coast, the east coast was roasting their nuts off. Remember that?

    Overall, even though the headlines were all on about how cold it was in Florida, the average temperature for the USA that winter was higher than the 50 year average around 1970.

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    September 20, 2012

    Still not even reading what is actually said?

    He just can’t help himself.

  39. #39 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    I wonder why people bother buying expensive thermometers when they can get a pigeon instead and use that to measure the temperature…

  40. #40 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    Jeff Harvey
    10:10 am
    “Karen is a master of that. (S)he pastes a”

    Hey Jeffery, when are you “coming out”?

    and I don’t mean with me :)

  41. #41 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    So, having gotten nowhere with false claims of having given any proof at all of AGW being false, you return to chatting up your betters?

    What a bimbo…

  42. #42 Karen
    September 20, 2012
  43. #43 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    No.

    Is it you?

  44. #44 Karen
    September 20, 2012

    no doubt you use tweezers, lol

  45. #45 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    I don’t have tweezers.

    What is your obsession about now?

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2012

    Karen,

    For all I know you’re a hermaphrodite. Certainly a shape-shifter. One thing is for certain: you aren’t particularly intelligent. Deceptive yes, as you are pretty good at distorting the conclusions of a few peer-reviewed studies, but lacking in acumen whan it comes to reading the entire studies to the end. Especially the parts where the authors acknowledge the human fingerprint over the recent warming episode.

    But don’t fret. Most science-hating climate change deniers aren’t the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree. What is ironic is that they THINK they are clever. But it takes a lot of gall – or stupidity more like – for people who have never studied a particular field at all to honestly think they’ve mastered it. And even more gall or stupidity to think they have stumbled onto something that has eluded the scientific community writ large. You see, that’s what you, El Fatto, Jonas and your sad lot have in common. The belief that your wisdom trumps the scientific community including people with many years of pedigree in the field of climate science. That you all know more as individuals than Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, and hundreds of others who have invested years in their professions. I suppose that you may be a dedicated blogger, or have read a few books by Plimer, Milloy and Carter, but I am afraid that if you were to apply for an academic position at a university or research institution, your application would be summarily dismissed. Of course it would, because you’ve not done the mileage (any mileage, as it turns out). But this doesn’t stop you and the other deniers from wading into the blogosphere like silverback gorillas pounding your chests with confidence of your knowledge and wisdom. Jonas may hate the truth, but this is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.

    Thankfully, science by blog is more of a forum for discussion than a platform for deniers to be taken seriously. Certainly Watts, McIntyre and others who don’t do primary research have an audience amongst the faithfully deluded, unfortunately including people with power and priviledge. This is because, as I have said, their message resonates with a small but powerful lobby which despises any form of government regulation that might just limit their profit-making capacity. But most scientists worth their degrees don’t listen to them or take them at all seriously. If the blog-deniers would get off their backsides and do some of their own primary research they might make a bit of a splash, but instead, like creationists who are challenged empirically, their only strategy is to sit behind their keyboards and to try and pick holes in AGW theory.

    Its too bad that corporate PR has been successful enough in taking some of the general public along for the ride.

  47. #47 FrankD
    September 20, 2012

    “If that cyclone hadn’t smashed the sea ice to bit’s then no doubt the area of ice melt would have been less than 2007. ”
    Perhaps Karen could explain how that is possible when 2012 was 500,000 sq kms below 2007 before the storm formed, but lost ground to 2007 during the storm? 10 days afted the storm first hit, 2012 was only 300,000 sq km’s below 2007. That storm helped stop 2012 breaking the record by even more, that much is obvious.

    “If only they could produce an actual ice melt graph, lol”
    So what is Karen saying, that this ice that the cyclone “smashed to bit’s” [sic] didn’t melt, but just … I don’t know… vanished?

    I mean, if it did melt thats what the graph is showing. And if it didn’t melt, what happened to it? NASA need to distinguish melting ice from magically disappearing ice, is that what Karen means? Belongs in the same bucket as all Karens other notions about maths and science…

  48. #48 Ian Forrester
    September 20, 2012

    Here are links for the Dunning Krugerites who think Antarctica is gaining mass:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208bot.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/GRACE-and-glaciers.html

  49. #49 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “So what is Karen saying, that this ice that the cyclone “smashed to bit’s” [sic] didn’t melt, but just … I don’t know… vanished? ”

    Sank.

    Obviously, it sank. Or was dragged down by the polar bears who are in on the whole AGW scam so they can eat libertarians for lunch in their New World Order.

  50. #50 Richard Simons
    September 20, 2012

    To eliminate year-to-year variations they chose 30 years as climate…I thought with the new technologies we might be able to fast track.

    I think this is the most revealingly clueless comment el gordo has come up with (although there have been many other close contenders). El gordo: you are a shrimp with aspirations to be a shark.

  51. #51 Richard Simons
    September 20, 2012

    Karen: warmer temperatures –> more moisture in the atmosphere –> more precipitation –> more snow if the temperature is low enough –> more ice in Antarctica. You’ve been told this many times. Do you suffer from Alzheimer’s?

  52. #52 Lionel A
    September 20, 2012

    Karen if you have a shred of intelligence then the SkS article that Ian pointed to above (thanks Ian I was looking for that too):

    Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas

    should frighten you silly.

    Ooops! Was forgetting. You are already silly. Perhaps I should have written witless, but heck you beat me to that too.

    Don’t worry Jeff, with every post these idiots make they make themselves look progressively more thoughtless in more senses than one.

    The stupid is very strong in this one though.

  53. #53 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “The stupid is very strong in this one though.”

    It is definitely testing Einstein’s theory of Universe vs Human Stupidity quite effectively.

  54. #54 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    It’s definite. The blog owner can reroute comments from users to /dev/null automatically.

    The appearance and continued existence of the trolls is therefore due to the owner of the blog letting them.

    They may not be pulling the trigger, but they’re giving the shooter tea and biscuits and a helpful little stand.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    September 20, 2012

    Wow

    I have a feeling that the blog owner has other more important things on his mind right now. I don’t know any of the details but there was a message of sympathy from:

    joni
    September 14, 4:31 pm

    See page 2.

  56. #56 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    I’m not saying that this is more important (unlike if he were spending his time posting under the nom de plume of karen, for example), but that this system does allow dumping of posters and that we can hope that the karens can be got shot of.

    I don’t hold much hope because of the differing psychologies and self-perceptions in the current neocon right and right-leaning left paradigm ensures that (much as in the old days among the EXTREMELY wealthy and old families), the rightwing trolls will be given much more leeway to “prove” that the owner isn’t a bad guy, whereas the right give short shrift to “the enemy” and banhammers away knowing that they’re doing the “right thing”.

  57. #57 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    Didn’t you lot just insist that some “proof” of AGW being over should be accepted because of the author’s CV?

    I take it that CVs are only acceptable if you use it to prop up the facist libertarian ideals, right?

  58. #58 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “You really really really want to believe this, don’t you”

    You really really really want to believe it’s false.

    Except you can’t. Deniers have been unintentionally proving the premise.

  59. #59 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    Do you know what I’ve just realised is really weird about the Muslim rioting over depictions of Mohammed?

    Despite this being an attack (and moreover an attack with NO OTHER PURPOSE than to attack) religion and a god that is THE EXACT SAME GOD as the christians believe in, they don’t complain about this attack against religion.

    Indeed they insist that the outrage these few muslims feel is wrong and indicative of how broken and incorrect their faith is.

    Yet they complain loudly about atheists and secularists attacking christianity (alone. For some reason they think that islam is not treated so because of fear of reprisal, the closes they get to approbation of the rioting).

    And when it comes to the imams exhorting with inflamed rhetoric and loaded words to kill infidels and/or become suicide bombers, the christians (like most of the west) say that this is wrong and that these men are the cause of the riots by their words. Yet the same people (most of the US, really) insist that hate speech being banned is evil and wrong, that the exhorttions, inflamed speaches and loaded rhetoric of the Hannitys, Becks and so on are NOT responsible for the deaths that result, but that these people were acting alone and no blame should be apportioned to the rightwing nutjobs telling these dumb sheep that Obama is out to take their guns and kill their grandmothers so that the Black Panthers can take their money.

  60. #60 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    Channelling the Bolter…

    Record ice melt in the Arctic – 5040 mentions in Google News overnight.

    Record ice in the Antarctic: 962 mentions.

  61. #61 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘I take it then that you agree to use 30 years.’

    That’s fine, it was merely a technical suggestion before the game begins.

  62. #62 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘And by the USA, you DO know it extends quite a long way.’

    West and central west will be cooler and longer.

  63. #63 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘Indeed they insist that the outrage these few muslims feel is wrong and indicative of how broken and incorrect their faith is.’

    Wow, drop into TDT and we can have a discussion on the subject…doesn’t seem appropriate at Deltoid.

    http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/carry-on-muhammad/#comment-7994

  64. #64 Nick
    September 20, 2012

    El G,some simple reasons why the Arctic gets more interest than the Antarctic: the effects of polar amplification are being felt there,as predicted,more rapidly than in the south. And more rapidly than modelled. And hundreds of millions of people are in reach of weather system perturbation facilitated by the massive change of net ice presence.

    Arctic has lost 75% of its sea ice volume in 30 years,50% of its summer extent,and 15% of its winter spread. Shows decline in all seasonal areal averages. Massive rapid change in albedo,ocean temperature and Arctic shoreline erosion is widespread. Polar jet stream is flapping around like a fire hose. Big consequences for northern agriculture,and infrastructure.

    Antarctica sea ice by contrast pretty much trendless.

    So Bolt can compare two events in terms of google counts?
    He’s bright,isn’t he?

  65. #65 chek
    September 20, 2012

    Jonarse said:”I mean you are really pinning all your hopes to that Lewandowsky’s study is real science and holds any and at least some tiny bit of water!?

    The really really azmusing part (though obviously not from you and your fellow cranks perspectives) was that Lewandowsky’s study started off holding, sa,y a notional litre of water. But by the time the all-superstar crank denier team had added their collective penniesworth it had grown to a veritable Olympic sized swimming pool. Of course, confirmation bias will prevent you from ever recognising that.

    But rest assured, we know it’s there. It’s been self-demonstrated multiple times by McIntyre and on down.

  66. #66 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “West and central west will be cooler and longer.”

    Than what?

  67. #67 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘Polar jet stream is flapping around like a fire hose. Big consequences for northern agriculture,and infrastructure.’

    It’s natural, Nick. Its why we get these ‘cold air outbreaks’ (CAO) over Europe.

    The Bolter is simply illustrating confirmation bias, which keeps the masses ignorant and compliant. Excellent propaganda, congrats.

  68. #68 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘Than what?’

    Than otherwise may have been the case in a warm PDO.

  69. #69 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    So that would be four floodleduffers or six?

    Jeezus, can you get any more content free?

  70. #70 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    “It’s natural, Nick. Its why we get these ‘cold air outbreaks’ (CAO) over Europe.”

    Of course it’s natural. The Weather Organisations don’t have weather satellites that make the weather like they depict in Superman 2.

    However, why is it happening? And why so long? Everything has a REASON, Elge.

    The reason for this one is the warming of the arctic.

    Caused (naturally) by CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans (naturally).

  71. #71 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘However, why is it happening? And why so long?’

    Its natural and there is nothing we can do about it.

  72. #72 Wow
    September 20, 2012

    The fact is that it’s the natural consequence of AGW.

    Naturally, you resist this acknowedgement because you cannot let those hippies win.

  73. #73 MikeH
    September 20, 2012

    “Antarctica sea ice by contrast pretty much trendless”

    While the deniers are busy squirrel spotting, Tamino does the analysis.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/

  74. #74 bill
    September 20, 2012

    Lewandowsky’s study started off holding, say, a notional litre of water. But by the time the all-superstar crank denier team had added their collective penniesworth it had grown to a veritable Olympic sized swimming pool.

    Absolutely. These idiots, like the fundamentalists they so closely resemble, managed to turn a relatively minor paper, saying something no-one on either side of the debate – if they’re honest* – was surprised by, into a cause célèbre, in the process confirming its findings to the nth degree.

    *again, this is a very big ‘if’.

  75. #75 el gordo
    September 20, 2012

    ‘deniers are busy squirrel spotting’

    It’s a game, relax and enjoy.

    Does anyone know when we can expect to see icebergs off Margaret River?

  76. #76 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    On January 2, 1868 the 1326 ton clipper “Mermaid” arrived in Lyttelton after an 89 day passage from GB and it was reported that, ” When in the vicinity of Cape Leeuwin, Captain Rose and his officers had an anxious time avoiding 30 huge icebergs.”

    Natural variability rules.

  77. #77 Vince Whirlwind
    September 21, 2012

    And Wow manages to find an equivalence between the spittle-flecked calls to murder by imams at Friday prayers world-wide that regularly lead to many murders, with the derisory nonsense emitted by shock-jocks to wind up the cranky pensioners and which have perhaps been linked to the odd murder here or there by people mistaking correlation for causation.

    You were the appeasers in the 1930s. Will you stick with the same term for the 21st century or find a new one?

    It didn’t matter how nice some Germans were in the 1930s and it doesn’t matter how nice some muslims are now – ignoring the conflict that exists between our values and the unacceptable values of those who oppose us does not solve the problem and never has.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    September 21, 2012

    Asking people at Deltoid, Tamino and SkepticalScience how the ‘deniers’ really really are …

    Stupid troll stupidly misrepresents study methodology and draws stupid “conclusion”.

    News at 11.

  79. #79 bill
    September 21, 2012

    Anti-Muslim flaming is OT. There are plenty of other places to rabbit on about it. Seriously.

  80. #80 ianam
    September 21, 2012

    To eliminate year-to-year variations they chose 30 years as climate…I thought with the new technologies we might be able to fast track.

    So invention of micrometers made mountains flatter?

    The trolls are imbeciles, Wow is an ass, and Vince is channelling Terry Jones. At least people like Loth, Bernard, Lionel, and Jeff are always worth reading.

  81. #81 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    Assuming CO2 doesn’t cause warming, natural variations could be accessed earlier, but I’m not unhappy with 30 years.

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “…but I’m not unhappy with 30 years.”

    OH! That is comforting news, Gordo. If a sage of wisdom like you is comfortable with 30 years, then our species can collectively breathe a sigh of relief.

    Really now. Since when are you in any position to pass a meaningful judgment on any aspect of Earth or environmental science? Since when have you been in the position to elucidate upon the importance of scale? We all know the answer to these questions. You aren’t. But, in the true tried-and-tested D-K fashion, you think you are. You try to give the impression with every post that you understand exceedingly complex areas of scientific endeavor.

    I am exhausted asking the same question to the climate change deniers who contaminate the internet, but I will ask you Gordo: what are your professional scientific qualifications?

    We all know the answer to that one, because it won’t be answered. The same question that has been routinely ignored by Jonas, Karen, Mack etc. It means they are ‘self-taught’. No formal education necessary.

    Sheesh.

  83. #83 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘…in the true tried-and-tested D-K fashion’

    Can’t resist bringing up D and K, but you’re wasting your breath. The Bish has something to say about Antarctica.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/20/antarctic-ice.html

  84. #84 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    Antarctica hasn’t been warming.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    I see Jonas is trying to insert his usual brand of insidious stupidity into this thread. Sigh.

    This clown once accused me of not being a scientist. I provided proof – via my web site and CV that I very much am a scientist. The Jonas gets all huffy and puffy and claims that I am waving my CV is his face. He’s been running with this crap every since. Its his only recourse from the fact that he hasn’t got a CV to wave. And, more importantly, it shows what an utter hypocrite he is.

    Several times from his own padded cell (from which he has temporarily escaped) Jonas told us all here on Deltoid that he is an expert who knows what he is talking about. That he knows certainly more than anyone else here. Then in the next breath he goes back to accusing me of waving my CV. This from a guy who clearly has no professional scientific qualifications at all. A guy whose sole purpose apparently in life is to haunt the blogosphere, inserting what he perceives as his own genius into various sites. He refuses to share this self-taught wisdom with the broader scientific world. He refuses to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals or to attend conferences and workshops where these issues are debated and discussed. He’s never explained that, either. But the reason is clear, or should be. Same goes with the other denier dolts who write in here who similarly are stuck behind their keyboards. Because on the internet, they can swell their tiny egos up, say what they like, and never be exposed for their garbage in front of a broader scientific audience. They are anonymous. In a journal or at a professional conference they would be exposed for the dimwits they are. So they will continue to hide and maintain their hit-and-run tactics.

    Gordo is no different. He writes above about ‘natural variability rules’ without the slightest understanding of the importance of scale and the gradient between deterministic versus stochastic events. This is critical if we are to evaluate the rapid reduction in ice cover in the Arctic that has occurred over the past 33 years in which it has been measured. The truth is, that any scientist worth his or her degree realizes that some major, external forcing would be required to result in such a precipitous decline in ice cover in such a short period of time. There’s no way at all that, given the time scale involved, this can be attributed to ‘natural variability’. None. Scientists, at least most of them, understand this. Lay en don’t. They think that 30 years is a long, long time. BNut in the contest of largely deterministic systems, it is not. It is a fraction of a second. Humans have evolved as a species to respond to what we perceive as instantaneous threats to our welfare: an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, landslide, or a predator on the path in front of us. Changes we perceive as gradual or incipient are not in the case of large-scale systems. Brian Maurer has written about this in my field (ecology). He tackled the aspect of teasing apart processes that shift from unpredictability to determinism in ecological systems as the spatial and temporal scales increase. Its too bad that the D-K brigade do not understand this at all.

  86. #86 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    Gordo,

    I wish you’d bugger off. BH is not a science web site. Its a travesty. Let’s see the primary literature.

    And yes, you are a prime example of D-K. Or, as Charles Darwin once said, “Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge”. You’ve joined the club. Congratulations.

  87. #87 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Antarctica hasn’t been warming.”

    My gosh. How could that be true:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html

    Oh, that’s right. Science. It works, bitches.

  88. #88 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Assuming CO2 doesn’t cause warming, natural variations could be accessed earlier”

    No it couldn’t, the effect of CO2 on climate change has nothing to do with the need for 30 years.

    Do you have ANY idea what “Decadal Oscillation” means?

    It means, every roughly 10 years there is a cycle. So, unless you want to measure the variation in the decadal oscillation, you need a few such oscillations included in your dataset to average that out.

    You were wibbling on uneducatedly about PDO, so you know they exist.

    But did that make you unhappy?

    It should, since that’s the reason you need 30 years.

  89. #89 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “with the derisory nonsense emitted by shock-jocks to wind up the cranky pensioners”

    Yes.

    Because they’re the same. Inflammatory rhetoric to ensure that you have deniability for your culpable involvement in any subsequent crime.

    PS was it a pensioner handing out anthrax letters? Or who shot a Democratic senator at a public meeting? Or shot two police officers because he thought they were coming to confiscate his guns? Or any of a hundred other offenses..?

  90. #90 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Natural variability HAS rules.”

    FTFY.

    They don’t just appear. They have causes.

    And the natural cause of this variability is AGW.

  91. #91 Nick
    September 21, 2012

    ‘The Bish has something to say about Antarctica’ ….handwaving is all it is. The only ‘interesting’ thing about your link,El G,is it shows ‘the Bish’ is too gutless to directly challenge Steven Goddard’s foolish assertion,so clearly stated in ‘The Bish’s own link, about equivalence in northern and southern sea ice trends.

    All the oily Bish ever does is attempt to place himself in some kind of real discourse with science and scientists. It’s pretentious and delusional.

  92. #92 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    ‘The Bish has something to say about Antarctica’

    So does my dad.

    A mate of mine says he visited there.

    They both have something to say about Antartica.

  93. #93 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘…It means, every roughly 10 years there is a cycle.’

    Best check your facts wow, its 20 to 30 years but you raise a good point. The PDO fits in very nicely with what we regard as climate.

  94. #94 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘…attempt to place himself in some kind of real discourse with science and scientists. It’s pretentious and delusional.’

    No, he’s a writer expressing a point of view. There are only kitchen scientists on Deltoid and the arrogance is stultifying.

  95. #95 Nick
    September 21, 2012

    Only kitchen scientists? Patiently dealing with your questions dressed as assertions, and caringly expanding your knowledge is ‘arrogance’? Aw,sweetie…

  96. #96 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Best check your facts wow, its 20 to 30 years”

    Yup, 10 year average between up and down.

    So, you realise that LESS than 30 years and you’re cherry picking.

    So are you no longer unhappy?

  97. #97 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “No, he’s a writer expressing a point of view”

    And this doesn’t mean it’s correct.

  98. #98 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘And this doesn’t mean it’s correct.’

    True, so attack his words and not the man, go on his blog and question the post.

    Nick would never go there because the Bishop is ‘pretentious and delusional’.

  99. #99 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘Only kitchen scientists?’

    Well… Jeff may rank among the elite.

  100. #100 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    He does.

    Bishop Hill not only isn’t a scientist, not even educated about science, not even interested in the truth about science, but also isn’t a Bishop.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Current ye@r *