September 2012 Open Thread

Time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “so attack his words and not the man”

    Except the only “proof” this “man” puts forward is that he’s smart.

    Then refutation of his proof is refutation of the man.

    PS how come you’re all so worried about attacking the words not the man but you STILL post bollocks without qualm about Jeff?

    Oh, that’s right. Rules are only for OTHER people.

    Typical self-centred bigot.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2012

    El Poco Gordo:

    Assuming CO2 doesn’t cause warming…

    Ah, so you’re either a poe, or a rabid extreme right-wing fantasist, or uneducated, or mentally disabled.

    Or some or all of the above.

    Whichever, you absent of any and all credibility.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2012

    …you are absent…

  4. #4 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    Nick,

    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.

    and that is precisely why I have dubbed him ‘Cardinal Puff’.

    Also there are echoes of ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’ the meaning of which was well known in 1970s and 1980s and which may explain much of the nonsense coming from that quarter. Additionally used to describe the ‘Gooney Birds’ (C47s a DC-3 variant) equipped with Gatling multi-barrelled cannon (canon-bishop – get it) which patrolled the skies around Formosa (TaiWan) during a Chinese confrontation and later in Vietnam.

  5. #5 Jonas N
    September 21, 2012

    Jeff H

    The only thing you’ve ever managed consistently wrt to me is inventing your own ‘facts’, distorting whatever is said or discussed (even your own previous claims), switching the topic, and loads and loads of the most puerile childish attempted insults.

    This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at.

    Let me repeat to you (for the umpthteenth time) what I am saying about you:

    You invent your ‘facts’ when trying to argue a position! You just make things up merely because you want them to be true. You navigate by believing things, conjuring them up.

    And real science and real scientists do not operate that way. Conducting real science is an entirely different endeavor.

    And I don’t think it’s coincidence that you put your faith in Lewandowsky’s junk to be ‘science’.

    It’s not! It’s the kind of junk activists would like to replace reality with. You seem to suffer from similar problems …

  6. #6 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Joan, your bestest pal doesn’t like it when people play the man not the ball.

    You’ll make him sad.

  7. #7 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    You invent your ‘facts’ when trying to argue a position! You just make things up merely because you want them to be true. You navigate by believing things, conjuring them up.

    And of course you have tracked down and studied every paper that Jeff has been involved with and also every other link to which you have been sent I suppose?

    I very much doubt it.

    And real science and real scientists do not operate that way. Conducting real science is an entirely different endeavor.

    OK. Einstein, let us see your definitions for science and description of scientific research methodology.

    Fair chance, let us see if you can deliver. No links allowed, no phone a friend, in your own words only so don’t do a Wegman.

  8. #8 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘….post bollocks without qualm about Jeff?’

    You must be confusing me with someone else, I said Jeff may rank among the elite.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at”

    Really Jonas? Says who? You? As it turns out, in the world of science I am taken VERY seriously .Hence why I get a lot of invites to many different universities, research centers and conferences, often as keynote speaker or plenary speaker.The topic I am often invited to speak on is economics, politics and environmental advocacy. I can assure you that the audiences and students to which I lecture don’t ever roll over the aisle in hysterics during or after my presentations. In fact, most tend to see the world through the same lens that I do. Meaning they think that people like you and many others with similar perspectives are the deluded ones, those to be laughed at. And they tend to support the majority view that humans are altering the chemical and physical characters of the planet, as well as atmospheric properties, and that our species is indeed responsibel for most of the recent warming. What this shows is that you are living in an intellectual vacuum. You have no idea what people are thinking. You are about as arrogant and self-righteous individual that I have encoutered in my scientific caree, and that is saying a lot. Congratulations fo this (non) accolade. You’ve earned it.

    As it turns out, the people who matter don’t laugh; only idiots like you who also make up their own facts (i.e. which scientists are ‘real’ and which aren’t; Lewandowsky’s paper is ‘junk’ etc.). I can live with that quite easily. If my peers were not takeing me seriously, then you’d have a point. But they do take me seriously. Very seriously indeed. As they take the words of many scholars whom you routinely impugn very seriously. The fact is that I cannot tell if academics or the public at large take you serioulsy at all Jonas. That is because you are a complete unknown.A nobody. But, if Deltoid is any kind of barometer, the people who take you seriously are, for the most part, a bunch of cranks. Those who take me seriosuly arequite intelligent, thoughtful people.

    The fact is that you are such a dork that its easy to counter your silly posturings. You set yourself up each and every time you metaphorically open your mouth. Your last posting is a supreme example that you don’t live in the real world, and certainly not one with any academic connections. You are like an annoying fly. As I like insects, my advice is for you to buzz off.

  10. #10 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    Antartica follows solar cycles.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMCa.htm

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    Lionel and Wow, Thanks for the support. But be prepared for the idiot brigade (Olaus, GSW, PentaxZ) to roll in here in defense of their arrogant, pompous hero.

    Jonas routinely makes things up as I said above. He just doens’t appear to see it. And I’d like him to see if he can take any of my 124 papers (this far)published in the peer-reviewed literature and then find where I ‘made things up’. True, he won’t understand one thing about the science I do, given he has no background at all in any scientific fields, but he can certainly have a go.

    I am not exactly quaking in my boots.The guy wouldn’t last for a second in a lecture hall or conference room.

  12. #12 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘…the people who take you seriously are, for the most part, a bunch of cranks.’

    Hope you aren’t including me in that bunch…after all the flattering things I’ve said about your social standing.

  13. #13 Turboblocke
    September 21, 2012

    “Antarctica hasn’t been warming.”

    And then links to a plot of Sea Surface Temperature. Antartica is a land mass. The plot that El Gordo linked to doesn’t show land data.

    Here’s GISTEMP for Feb 2012 (Antarctic Summer)
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=02&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
    and the latest data Aug 2012 (Antarctic Winter)

  14. #14 Jonas N
    September 21, 2012

    Lionel A, you seem to think (and argue?) that its OK sometimes to just make things up. As long as you also keep some real facts, or not cheat everytime? If so, I disagree ..

    But if you read the first sentence (above) carefully, you’ll se what I am accusing Jeff of. And for said reasons, you cannot trust Jeff’s account of what I have said about or to him. He invents his own facts in almost every comment, poor thing.

    And if you are interested in discussing real science, you don’t need my approval or definitions. There is plenty of ‘weeding out’ to do here long before you’d need my help. In other threads there have been discissions (with me) on a higher levels than Jeff can accomplish, but I don’t remember you participating or trying to contribute …

    Wow: FYI, it is the words of Jeff I am attacking. A large portion of them is utter garbage

  15. #15 el gordo
    September 21, 2012

    ‘Antarctica is a land mass. The plot that El Gordo linked to doesn’t show land data’.

    Apologies… anyway on land it has been getting cooler.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/16/alfred-wegener-institute-neumayer-station-iii-antarctic-cooling-over-the-last-30-years/

  16. #16 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    Lionel A, you seem to think (and argue?) that its OK sometimes to just make things up.

    They were you words you twerp. Now stop avoiding the questions.

    The remainder of that diabolical obfuscation is totally dishonest.

    Wriggle worm, wriggle.

  17. #17 Mack
    September 21, 2012

    You’re beginning to sound like wow old fart.

  18. #18 Jonas N
    September 21, 2012

    Lionel, wich part of the words “wrt me” were too difficult to understand?

  19. #19 Jonas N
    September 21, 2012

    Jeff, how many comments have you so far written to (or about) me without your infantile insults? How many have you written where you have refrained from inserting your own fantasies about me? And just addressed the topic. As if you you were a mature, grown up man, with an education and a standing among other grown ups?

    Maybe there have been some (I don’t really remember) but at what percentage? At best ~1% I would say.

    And no Jeff, I don’t make things up. That’s your department. Routinely! But accusing others of your own deficiencies is typical. Most funny is that you seem tho think you are not treated with sufficient reverence or civilty …

    In short: Why is is so exceedingly difficult for you to behave like you were a professional (as you claim to be)?

  20. #20 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    ““Antarctica hasn’t been warming.”

    And then links to a plot of Sea Surface Temperature. ”

    What? You think that deniers have the intelligence to check what they’ve been given to post for veracity?

  21. #21 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Jonas routinely makes things up as I said above. He just doens’t appear to see it.”

    Not just Joan.

    ALL of the deniers do it.

    It’s because they haven’t got a shred of evidence, but have discovered that if they make assertions that they are easily ignored if not accompanied by a link.

    However, since evidence for their latest orders haven’t turned up yet, they have to point to SOMETHING. So they start pointing to denierblogs and wannabe journalists.

    When those are ignored for much the same reason as the non-link-accompanied assertion, they realise they need to post to some REAL science.

    However, since no such science exists, they point to something and lie about what it says.

    Poptart picks up that meme and takes it screaming over the idiot event horizon.

    But all the deniers do it.

    It’s all they have.

    (And I note Elgey here isn’t worried about Joan playing the man not the ball here. Guess it’s only intended to be a hamstring for those on the side of truth, to slow them down while a like gets its act together…)

  22. #22 Richard Simons
    September 21, 2012

    Jonas: since you have reappeared here, all you have done is to complain about the (imagined) failings of other people and their supposed inability to address the science. How about demonstrating your own capacity for science and actually presenting some? After all, even el gordo and Karen make some sort of attempt. As it is, you are coming across as an obsessive dolt.

  23. #23 Turboblocke
    September 21, 2012

    El Gordo: You gave a link showing cooling at one station in Antarctica. The station director said, “Our weather data shows that the part of Antarctica where our station is located is increasingly influenced by high pressure. We have clear skies more and more often. And wherever cloud cover is missing in polar regions, heat gets radiated out and the lower air layers cool.”

    This was in the article that you linked to. So what was your point in mentioning it?

  24. #24 Turboblocke
    September 21, 2012

    BTW El Gordo, instead of having the story pre-digested for me, I then went to the original story by the Institute. Another pertinent remark is: He adds, however, that this development is a regional change and the values measured at Neumayer Station III are by no means representative for the global climate changes. “Just in the centre of Antarctica it has not become warmer. On the Antarctic Peninsula, by contrast, the average temperature has risen by up to three degrees Celsius. We also observe a similar warming in the Arctic,” says Gert König-Langlo.

  25. #25 pentaxZ
    September 21, 2012

    Turboblocke

    “You gave a link showing cooling at one station in Antarctica”

    How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick?

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    September 21, 2012

    After all, even el gordo and Karen make some sort of attempt.

    Ooooh, snap!

    (That’s gotta hurt.)

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “As it is, you are coming across as an obsessive dolt.”

    No kidding. Notice how, since he’s crawled back here from the prikmordial ooze, Jonas has gotten bolder and is trying to derail the thread again with his blather. Pure lies froth from his mouth, such as, “He invents his own facts in almost every comment, poor thing”.

    Really? I made up stuff about pollinator declines and negative impacts of warming on biodiversity did I?

    Liar.

    And what about you, Jonas? (Made up comment # 1: People are laughing at me [Jeff]). No evidence need be procured. This Jonas ‘law. (Made up comment # 2: I[Jeff] make up my own facts. Read above. Nothing I wrote in response to El Gordo was ‘made up’. Its empirically based. Just because Jonas doesn’t happen to agree with it (quite remarkable, given his puny knowledge base) isn’t proof of his position. Moreover, I’d advise him to go to my publication list and please document all of my ‘made up’ facts. Go ahead, smarty pants.

    Essentially, given my support for the vast majority of my peers in climate science who forcefully argue that there is strong evidence for a human fingerprint on the recent warming, by simple logic of conclusion these people, by Jonas’ law, must be ‘making things up’ to support their position. But of course he will dispute this and say, “AHA! He’s made that up!!”Not at all. It is just that his view as an outsider of how science works is very different from mine as an insider. But now expect him to accuse me of waving my CV in his face. The guy is as slippery as an eel. See Richard’s point above.

    I actually responded to Jonas using one of his own silly quotes: ““This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at”….

    …and then he begs Lionel to believe his perspective that I am ‘making things up’. I cut and pasted the quote. I asked Jonas who and what he means by the ‘real world’. It certainly is not the academic world, My guess its the right wing denial blog-world. This is what Jonas means by the ‘real world’. Because in the ‘real world’ of academia the debate over the causes of climate warming are largely agreed upon. What has yet to be fully understood is the effect of AGW on natural and manged ecosystems. That is what I and many colleagues around the world are studying. We accept AGW as proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Do I really care that a coterie of mostly pseudo-academics and right wing idealogues are bitterly opposed to the broad scientific consensus? Only insofar as they are muddying the division between causes and consequences. But this has been their strategy all along. They will never win the scientific debate, but as long as they can sow enough doubt as to the causes of the recent warming, then they will obstruct meaningful actions to deal with the oncoming crisis.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick”

    There we go. Supports my point above to a tee.

    Thanks PentaxZ for this pearl of idiotic arrogance. PentaxZ is one of Jonas’s biggest fans by the way. Note the ad hom levied at Michael Mann. Don’t expect Jonas to bitterly denounce this. He needs all the support he can get. But the academic worldwould truly laugh at this outrageous behavior.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    Jonas:

    Lionel, wich part of the words “wrt me” were too difficult to understand?

    In response to this:

    J wrote: ‘ Lionel A, you seem to think (and argue?) that its OK sometimes to just make things up.

    They were you words you twerp. Now stop avoiding the questions.

    The remainder of that diabolical obfuscation is totally dishonest.

    Wriggle worm, wriggle.

    Were you, or were you not, accusing Jeff of making stuff up?

    Hence my responses.

    More wriggling from the worm.

    Now I will no longer bother to trade with an obviously dishonest broker such as yourself.

  30. #30 chek
    September 21, 2012

    From day one here, Jonarse has had nothing to say other than his tedious belief that Jeff wronged his BFF (the idiot economist/fake ecologist Lomborg) somehow by exposing the prettyboy’s immense ignorance.

    Despite being awarded his own megathread, I can’t recall any substantive case for his natural variation schtick either from the chief or his support tribe of morons..Neither does it look like anything’s changed since.

  31. #31 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick?”

    12.

    That would be twelve times the number that Elgey thought was acceptable. McIntyre didn’t have a problem with around 8% of the data MBH had either. Nor did Watts find it abhorrent that only one station was used.

    It seems their problem is that Mann used more than one cherry picked station to produce a graph.

    Oh, and have you ever read the graph?

    It lists several proxies. There’s not just trees.

    Epic.
    Fail.

  32. #32 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Oh, and in 1998 the count was increased to over 300 tree cores.

    Since you cannot record an average of one, the average of two is possible but has indefinite (i.e. unbounded) error bars and if you are MOST generous, 300 tree cores give you around 17x the accuracy of just one.

    Apparently, your problem is that the MBH paper is too statistically robust.

  33. #33 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    You really are a stuck up cnt, aren’t you, tampax.

  34. #34 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “And why did he massage the data so the MWP and LIA dissapeared?”

    And why did you stop beating your wife?

  35. #35 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    I wrote this in a post above aimed at Jonas.

    Now I will no longer bother to trade with an obviously dishonest broker such as yourself.

    I will ad just one proviso to the above and that is unless you provide unequivocal and valid proof that Jeff Harvey has made stuff up as you claim.

    Come on, ‘let’s be ‘aving you’, as the GIs of the old navy used to shout on the parade ground.

  36. #36 Lionel A
    September 21, 2012

    I have one for you Pentax, that jerk one with the dodgy aperture mechanism that is not letting any light in:

    A man walks 5 miles due South, turns and walks 5 miles due East, turns again and walks 5 miles due North and arrives at the place from which he started.

    What colour was the bear?

  37. #37 chek
    September 21, 2012

    Poor PantyZ. All McIntyre’s efforts and all the shill’s men and Bishops can’t make the Hockey Stick go away – so pretending it has and believing the self-invented denier myths about it is all that’s left for those who find reality an inconvenient truth.

  38. #38 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Look, a twat!

    Typical brain-dead trolling, but that’s to be expected by the teabaggers who believe that anyone who isn’t selfish is evil.

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2012

    So far on this page we’ve seen:

    1) CO2 doesn’t cause warming

    2) It’s not warming

    3) Warming is good for us

    4) It would hurt our economy and our freedoms to do anything about it.

    All we need now is:

    4) You nasty scientists didn’t tell us it was warming, and

    5) It’s too late to do anything.

    Isn’t it curious how the human-caused climate change denialists can’t mange to sing from the same songsheet?

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    September 21, 2012

    …”thread”, not “page”…

  41. #41 chek
    September 21, 2012

    Occam’s razor dictates that Jonarse isn’t capable of understanding attribution, not that the studies don’t exist.

    Here’s a list of papers for you Jonarse.

    Now, why don’t you print them out and throw handfuls of your own shit at them? Obviously pretending to read them didn’t register with you the first time around, and at least you could then claim to have paid some attention to them.

  42. #42 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “1) CO2 surley cause warming. How much?”

    1.2C per doubling. We’ve increased CO2 to 140% over baseline, do the maths. Then the feedbacks add up to 3.2C per doubling of CO2. 140% again, do the maths.

    “Not measurable at all,”

    Nope, we can see a change of 0.9C easily.

    “especially the AGW signal”

    No, we can see a change of 0,9C easily.

    “There are way greater forcings out there”

    Yes, they increase the effect of CO2 from 1.2 up to 3.2 per doubling, that means an effect of nearly 2x greater effect. That means bigger.

    “CO2 is mere a microscopic player in the forcing league.”

    Nope, it’s number 2. The number one spot, being held by water vapour, which has increased 4% because of the warming brought on by CO2’s blanketing effect.

    “The past 15 years there has not been any warming at all”

    There have been LOTS of warming during that period.

    “are drawing trend lines”

    Oh, you mean TREND, well, what are the error bars on your trends of zero? Do they preclude 0.17 per decade? No? Oh, then you haven’t proven the models wrong yet.

    “Life on earth has always thrived when it has been warmer. Always”

    PETM.

    Always? Oh so foolish.

    “how would windmills and carbon taxes have an effect on the climater”

    By reducing the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, which, since you said “if it was an issue”, we would take as being an issue.

    You really are quite dense, aren’t you.

    “See point 4.”

    See reply to point 4.

    “Well changing ones mind is quite normal”

    And since you’ve never changed yours, we’ll call you “abbie”.

    Hello abbie normal.

  43. #43 Olaus Petri
    September 21, 2012

    I see some apocalypticons are still active at Deltoid fighting down the well funded fossil fuel illuminati obstructing the holy word…sorry….climate science. :-)

    The Yellow Loopaper comes to mind. ;-)

  44. #44 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    It seems the slug horde has been released.

    They’re a little slow, but disgusting…

  45. #45 Olaus Petri
    September 21, 2012

    Dear Wow, any news from the portents front that you would like to share?

  46. #46 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    You’re not able to handle the truth, dear.

  47. #47 Olaus Petri
    September 21, 2012

    Yeah,its out there, right. ;-)

  48. #48 Olaus Petri
    September 21, 2012

    The truth, that is, ;-)

  49. #49 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    The truth doesn’t fit into your tiny little worldview, therefore you reject it.

    That is, you can’t handle the truth. Because it upsets you. Poor ickle ting.

  50. #50 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior

    Passive aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.

  51. #51 Olaus Petri
    September 21, 2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult

    Doomsday cult is an expression used to describe groups who believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism, and can refer both to groups that prophesy catastrophe and destruction, and to those that attempt to bring it about.[1] The expression was first used by sociologist John Lofland in his 1966 study of a group of Unification Church members in California, Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization, and Maintenance of Faith. A classic study of a group with cataclysmic predictions had previously been performed by Leon Festinger and other researchers, and was published in his book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.[2][3]

    Some authors have used “doomsday cult” solely to characterize groups that have used acts of violence to harm their members and/or others, such as the salmonella poisoning of salad bars by members of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh group, and the mass murder/suicide of members of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God group. Others have used the term to refer to groups which have made and later revised apocalyptic prophesies or predictions, such as the Church Universal and Triumphant led by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and the initial group studied by Festinger, et al. Still others have used the term to refer to groups that have prophesied impending doom and cataclysmic events, and also carried out violent acts, such as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway and the mass murder/suicide of members of Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple group after similar types of predictions.

    Referring to his study, Festinger and later other researchers have attempted to explain the commitment of members to their associated doomsday cult, even after the prophesies of their leader have turned out to be false. Festinger explained this phenomenon as part of a coping mechanism called dissonance reduction, a form of rationalization. Members often dedicate themselves with renewed vigor to the group’s cause after a failed prophesy, and rationalize with explanations such as a belief that their actions forestalled the disaster, or a belief in the leader when the date for disaster is postponed. Some researchers believe that the use of the term by the government and the news media can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which actions by authorities reinforces the apocalyptic beliefs of the group, which in turn can inspire further controversial actions. Group leaders have themselves objected to comparisons between one group and another, and parallels have been drawn between the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy and the theory of a deviancy amplification spiral.

  52. #52 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Aye, there IS a doomsday cult.

    “If you don’t cut taxes, the jobmakers will leave!”

    “Obama wants to kill your grandmother in his Death Tribunals”

    “If we have a carbon tax, we will be forced to live in caves!”

    “All the politicians are agreeing to AGW because they want a New World Order!”

    And, of course, Anders Brevik.

  53. #53 chek
    September 21, 2012

    All that’s left for you to do Jonarse, is refute them.
    All.
    In the literature, where your glib assertions don’t cut it.

    Which is exactly where we left this exact argument the last time. Now toddle off like a good troll and do so, if you can.
    It of course goes without saying that I believe you never will.

    P.S. Don’t forget to take your baying pack of morons with you.

  54. #54 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    chek, the Slug Horde don’t bay.

    They ooze.

  55. #55 Jonas N
    September 21, 2012

    Wow

    Usually you comments look as if you are trying to emulate a poorly programmed spam-bot. But @ 4:13 pm you are actually trying to engage. Congratulations!

    However, already on the first point you lose the plot again:

    “1) CO2 surley cause warming. How much?”

    Wow answers:
    “1.2C per doubling. We’ve increased CO2 to 140% over baseline, do the maths. Then the feedbacks add up to 3.2C per doubling of CO2. 140% again, do the maths.”

    Yes, I’m sure you’ve picked that up on those sites you frequent. But its not quite true. The ~1.1 °C doubling refers to calculations under the assumption ‘everything else equal’. Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative.

    I don’t doubt or question those calculations. But the (underlying) assumption that only radiative heat transfer occurs, ie that no other mechanisms of energy transport are at play is not true for the atmospheric system.

    Ignoring that fact means ignoring obvious (negative) feedback mechanisms.

    In the next sentence you assert large positive feedbacks. But such have not been established (only hypothesized). Thereafter you try to attribute 0.9 °C to your previous claimed attribution. Which is plainly wrong. A major part of this maybe ~0.7 °C cannot possibly be caused by CO2.

    Point is: If you want to build a large tower, you cannot cheat with the foundation. But at least you are/were now repeating the commonly used pro-AGW claims out there. Only not really knowing what part of them is valid, and at least technically, could be proffered as a viable hypothesis.

  56. #56 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “The ~1.1 °C doubling refers to calculations under the assumption ‘everything else equal’”

    If by “everything else equal” you mean “Without feedbacks” then yes.

    You seem to be jumping the gun, because with the feedbacks you get 3.2C per doubling.

    And if you already knew the answer, why did you ask it?

    Did you have to ask daddy what the grown up said?

  57. #57 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative.”

    Specifically, this is wrong.

  58. #58 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “no other mechanisms of energy transport are at play is not true for the atmospheric system. ”

    Which is why the grown ups who did the calculation didn’t make that assumption.

  59. #59 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Thereafter you try to attribute 0.9 °C to your previous claimed attribution. Which is plainly wrong. A major part of this maybe ~0.7 °C cannot possibly be caused by CO2.”

    Did you not get an adult to do the calculation?

    How many doublings is 1.4? Multiply that by 3.2 and you get a little over 0.9C.

    Oh, look.

    The answer has been seen IN REAL EVIDENCE.

    (oh, and if you knew that the 0.9C was measured, why did you say it wasn’t measurable?)

  60. #60 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “You cannot use temperature rise prior to CO2 rise in an attempt to attribute it to CO2.”

    Oh, that’s good. Because I didn’t.

  61. #61 Turboblocke
    September 21, 2012

    I’m always amused when the denialati claim that there’s a MWP. First of all it reveals how easy they are to fool as most of the so-called evidence that shows it was global also shows that it wasn’t at the same time.

    Secondly they never ask what could have caused it. There is no evidence for anything that could provide a sufficiently large change in the Earth’s temperature so if you believe in the MWP, then you must also believe in high climate sensitivity…

  62. #62 chek
    September 21, 2012

    Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative

    Did Jonarse really just try to assert that scientists actually think that radiation is the sole manner in which heat energy is transferred withiin a planetary atmosphere?

    Either a complete bozo, or a sly liar. Although neither one is exclusive of the other.

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    Hey Jonas, I have a few questions for you, our resident untrained genius of all things science (no formal training required). You wrote this rather amusing line above -: “And no Jeff, I don’t make things up. That’s your department”.

    Really?

    Q1. As I have said, every academy of science on Earth has agreed that the human fingerprint on the current warming is the major forcing. As expected from someone with your innate brilliance, you summarily dismissed this by suggesting that the rank-and-file members of said organizations may have been excluded from the decision making process. Have you any evidence for this or ……..ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [You see, your dismissal of these bodies with such a flippant wave of the hand won't win any arguments in the academic world. If this is the best you can do to downplay such an important consensus then you are very, very desperate indeed].

    Q2. Above you wrote this: “This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at”.
    Do you have any evidence for this, or… ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [Note: support from your baying pack of hell-hounds does not count).

    Q3. You wrote, “And real science and real scientists do not operate that way. Conducting real science is an entirely different endeavor”.
    Given you have very strong opinions about what and who constitutes real science (and scientists) and what or who doesn’t, from exactly what scientific pedigree are you, of all people, able to pass judgement on the qualifications of scientists and what constitutes ‘real science’? Do you possess some prestigious scientific qualifications that have trained you to know real from fake, but you are too humble to tell everyone here, or…. ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP?

    Q4: You have come full circle to the place you began with last year, that is attacking the AR4 claim. Have you in the interim written to any of the world’s leading climate scientists with you concerns about this or are you stuck in the blogosphere where you are anonymous, anything goes and… YOU CAN MAKE THINGS UP.

    Q5. Some time ago you dismissed concerns about the loss of Arctic ice on tundra biota e.g. seals, Polar Bears etc. Population demographics appears to be showing a skewing towards older animals (i.e. less recruitment, lower natality) as a result of warming. This has been the subject of several studies and models. Given you clearly don’t know the first thing about population or evolutionary ecology, do you draw your conclusions on sound science or… ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [Note: if the Arctic ice continues to retreat the bears are doomed, along with a large chunk of the regions endemics]

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “What I’m really scared of are hating extremists – guys like you and Jeffie – that fully belive in doomsday, conspriacies, direct action, scape-goating, etc.”

    Bold words said by someone who has never checked up on the funding practices of Exxon-Mobil, Texaco-Chevron etc. Andrew Rowell (2007) investigated just 40 organizations to which Exxon-Mobil alone has donated millions of dollars since 2000. His article, entitled “Exxon’s foot soldiers” is well worth a read. Leaving aside the right wing think tanks and public relations firms to which Exxon invests heavily, there are loads of astroturf organizations such as the International Policy Network (IPN) which are very influential as lobbyists. Of course their aim is to influence public policy. And they are winning, of that there is no doubt. Largely because they can take people like you, Olaus, along for the ride.

    But hey, Olaus, if this doesn’t fit in with your libertarian political slant, that’s not my problem. Just because you refuse to read up on the topic, doesn’t mean it ain’t so. Clearly you don’t like to read up on things that shed doubt on your political views.

  65. #65 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Neither, Joan.

    Get a grown up to help you with the difficult passages.

  66. #66 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Either a complete bozo, or a sly liar.”

    There’s no slyness in his lying.

    Just bare faced cheek.

  67. #67 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “You are a fanatic religious buff, and I’m not.”

    I’m an atheist. You’re a Randian.

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    September 21, 2012

    “Jeffie, you sure are something extra”

    At least my guitar teacher thinks so…. well, maybe my parasitoid wasps might think so too…

  69. #69 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    You call me a fanatic religious buff, on what grounds?

    Hey, let me guess: you haven’t got anything better to think of.

    Brains: Use it or lose it, bitch.

  70. #70 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “chek, No that’s not what I claimed”

    So someone is coming on here with your name and writing stuff on here?

    And everybody knows that there’s no point answering your questions because you never believe ANY answers to your questions unless they are ones you like.

  71. #71 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Joan, why do you obsess over the AR4 claim of “Very likely”?

  72. #72 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “Wow, I ‘obsess’ about that claim because it was made”

    Well, live with it.

    Many claims have been made. So what.

    “which claims to be the pinnable of scientific investigation about that topic.”

    What? The topic of “Very Likelyness”?

    What is the problem with the claim that makes your knickers knot?

    What if it were “Near Certainty”?

    What if it were “Octopus underpants”?

    How on earth does the claim change the attributes of CO2 in the atmosphere?

  73. #73 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “belief in assertions made by commenters who cannot argue their case is not how I navigate”

    Because you’re always doing it?

    Mind you, it would explain why you’re going nowhere fast, and with a lot of pointless crying.

  74. #74 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Come on, Joan, you’re quick to demand stuff, but seem unable to tell us what point there is to it.

    Don’t you know?

  75. #75 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “I call you a religious buff because you subscribe to the very same conspiracy garbage that Jeffie screams about”

    First of all, that’s not a definition of a religious buff.

    Secondly, you didn’t call me a religous buff.

    Thirdly there is no conspiracy garbage in what Jeff says.

    Fourth, stop smoking dope, you hippie and CONCENTRATE. If you can’t even keep your story straight for five minutes, you’ve been on the whacky baccy for too long and rotted your brain.

  76. #76 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    “So far nada to prove your right wing illuminati crap”

    That’s because the proof is in your words, spouting the same neocon crap that the randians insist you kowtow to.

    But the one in the cult thinks its normal.

  77. #77 chek
    September 21, 2012

    chek, No that’s not what I claimed

    It was a direct quote from you, bonehead. Directly related to your inclusion of the word ‘all’. And also a rhetorical question to boot.

    Look Jonarse, you’re shamanesque bollocks routine might work on your flock of gullible Rovian chickens, but we’re not them.

  78. #78 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    What’s your point.

    I didn’t ask what you think my point was.

    I asked what the point of your obsessing over the AR4 claim is.

  79. #79 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Come on Joan. What is your point in demand.

  80. #80 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Joan, a sentence that says what you wrote doesn’t stop saying it because you kept blithering on.

  81. #81 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Now, Joan, where is your answer? Or did you make demands for no reason you feel able to express at all?

  82. #82 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    No, I’m asking your point of you.

    It seems you can’t say.

    Why is that?

    Is it because it was a petulant demand by a self-obsessed idiot?

  83. #83 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Was that your point? That there was no point to your demand and obsession?

  84. #84 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    That must have been the point, Joan. You’ve been unable to say what it was, which would be efficient if I’ve just said what the point was: no point, just wasting everyone else’s time.

  85. #85 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    So is it clocking off time for the hard-working denialist soldiers? They’re unable to post because they’re sitting in their car going home?

  86. #86 chek
    September 21, 2012

    I find myself suddenly brought to the conclusion that the only required responses to the flood of deniershite that constantly flows is either a simple ‘so?’ or ‘and?’

    Let them choke on their own petards of explanation, because treating them as good-faith sceptics hasn’t worked, isn’t working and will likely never work. Not while the web is characterised by the likes of the Scandinavian troll soviet.

  87. #87 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    Its like that born again idiot who keeps crowing about how no atheist has ever answered his question (to his satisfaction) on “Where is the proof and evidence that atheism is right?”.

    Asked once “Why do you need proof and evidence of the nonexistence of god?” and hung up.

  88. #88 Wow
    September 21, 2012

    No, I found it weird that you couldn’t remember what you’d said.

    But I’m still an atheist, you’re still a neocon Rand follower and all-round idiot. And no amount of smilies will make you seem anything other than an over opinionated brat.

  89. #89 chek
    September 21, 2012

    Olaus/Oluas, it’s very clear you’re a class A idiot in your own language. It’s doubly clear when you try to use English. Please stop, it’s embarrassing.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2012

    It seems that someone has been recruiting the Scandinavian Troll Collective plus sundry other idiots. They’ve all manifested synchronously – perhaps there is some phenological relationship with the annual post Arctic ice minimum…

    Tim, if you’re happy to consider a moderator for comments, I’ll put my hand up. It might reduce the traffic here, but at least it would keep the threads cleaner.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2012

    In other words, you’re a complete waste of time.

    I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

    Tim, if you’re happy to consider a moderator for comments, I’ll put my hand up.

    It’s clearly time for a moderator to deal with trolls who violate the terms of their participation on this site, even if that is someone other than Tim.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2012

    Trolls are usually off topic, this is an open thread.

    Certain posters including yourself and the Scandinavian Collective have been banned from all threads bar their own. Basic logic dictates that the ban covers the open threads.

    Then again, basic logic is sorely lacking in most of our trolls.

  93. #93 MikeH
    September 22, 2012

    It might reduce the traffic here

    Or it might not. Moderating the toxic trolls may allow a return to a discussion of science which is what generally attracts people here in the first place.

  94. #94 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “Trolls are usually off topic,”

    Trolls are toxic, dumbass. Open thread or not.

  95. #95 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “Yeah…its regional and natural.”

    See, this is how you’re a class-A nimrod.

    Man says: This is a local measure.

    You then “hear” this as “it’s regional and natural”.

    The “it’s regional” is pretty hard to read into the statement, especially if you know about microclimates and so on, and if you don’t, you really have no standing to make any statements about weather, records or climate.

    But there’s ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get “it’s natural” from it. That is entirely fromy your own anus, the only thing that comes close to an activity that could be considered thinking.

  96. #96 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “Wind power becomes a wedge issue in the US election.”

    Seeing as two thirds of people approve of renewable energy being employed, this should ensure the Party Of No (Niggers), previously known as GOP, nee Republican Party, fail this hard.

    If it weren’t for the fact that there IS NO left wing in US politics any more, Obama wouldn’t be winning either, he’s busy wooing the republicans who loathe the direction the GOP is persuing (courting the nutjobs) whilst his base stop turning up. If it weren’t for the obvious inability of the current PoN(N) to govern, Obama’s attempts to garner Republican voters would not see him gaining enough right wing support to maintain his substantial lead.

  97. #97 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Making wind power a wedge issue will merely ensure an Obama win.

  98. #98 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Olaf, when reality intrudes on your delusion, maybe you’ll

    a) make some sense
    b) be worth responding to

  99. #99 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Well, if you’d prefer not to know how to get responses, fair enough.

  100. #100 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    It’s like talking to a four year old, somtimes.

Current ye@r *