November 2012 Open Thread

It’s a new month!

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    November 22, 2012

    Griselda can’t comprehend that use of the verb ‘will’ (the future tense of the verb ‘to be’) is available only to clairvoyants and to megalomaniacs. Scientists, being human, deal in empirically based prediction, hence the use of ‘could’ and ‘may’, not absolute certainties. Only charlatans deal in those.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    November 22, 2012

    Ah, so here we have GSWs strategy: the “wait until it happens and only respond then” strategy. I assume GSW also opposes US-UKisNATO wars and proxy wars fought on grounds of being ‘preventive’ or ‘pre-emptive’. Using this analogy countries no longer need to invest billions of dollars in military hardware for so-called defense; only after they are attacked is this feasible. So how to exaplin the trillions of dollars spent arounbd the globe every year on ‘defense’? Glad to know you aren’t a hawk, GSW. I assume you also don’t have car insurance or home insurance either. Why do so if the chances of being burgled or in an accident are tiny? They could happen but probably won’t.

    What a risible clown you are, GSW. I assume you think we should keep cutting down tropical forests until all of the data are in on the effects; keep dumping toxic wastes into rivers until we really know how they will affect human populations downstream; keep pumping out that C02 until a causal link with recent warming and its effects – such as the all time record low in Arctic sea ice – is 100% established.

    But of course by the time we arrive at this level it is always far too late. Science is rarely absolute. What you are suggesting is that the precautionary principle has no place in science. Then it should not have any other basis in our lives, either, using your twisted logic. Why insure our homes and businbesses if the risk of them being robbed or damaged by fire is < 1%? If there was only a 10% chance that GW was primarily due to human actions, and that inaction could be serious, then I think we ought to take that seriously. We are talking about a process which could have profoundly serious consequences on the health and vitality of natural systems that underpin human civilization. And the prevailing view amongst scientists – meaning people who actually do the research, GSW – is that the human fingerprint is a lot bigger than that.

    Talk about powder puff arguments. Its hard to understand how anyone can take people like GSW seriously. But those only thinking about short-term proftis apparently do.

  3. #3 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Lotharsson

    Your assertion that you have a “handle” on future climates because it is in some way like a car, is a revellation! Rather than me go thru it with you personally, perhaps you could contact the climate modellers at NASA directly with this newly discovered wisdom, they could do with some alternative insights by all accounts.
    ;)

  4. #4 chek
    November 22, 2012

    Its hard to understand how anyone can take people like GSW seriously. But those only thinking about short-term proftis apparently do.

    Nah Jeff , they just pay a few gangmasters who then get a few hundred global morons like Griselda to squawk loudly about that which they know less than zero, on their behalf.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    November 22, 2012

    GSW throeing his toys outa da pram ranted thusly:

    Also this amused me ” look up heat capacity and latent heat”, we did it at school when I was about 12, but thanks for the pointer to what passes for “Leading edge Physics” in your part of the world.

    So why did you avoid answering my question repeated below?

    Consider ice and water at the same temperature – there is a big difference in calorific value between the two. Do you know how to quantify this? Come on do you?

    As for ‘could’ not being empirical, so you can go into the future and see what happened eh but cannot answer questions.

    As for the extent of that could, it could warm to less than 7F but then it could, and very probably will if we burn all the fossil fuel especially a large proportion being coal as implied in my next reply, it could get a whole lot warmer and those projections have been made.

    Now I know not if you have children and grandchildren, if you have then perhaps they should be informed that this example of the ignoratti, you, is happy to consign them to a future of danger, misery and even squalor.

    Of course you could be one of those pinning your hopes on a place in that ecologically preserved lifeboat (the one being partly underpinned by the Svalbard collective) and artificially preserved ‘normality’. But, even if you are lucky, after all I suspect ducky Delingpole is ahead of you in that queue, how long will that last?

    Not long, if we burn all that fossil fuel, apart from most of ecology being toast, what are James, and you, going to use for make-up and shower gel?

  6. #6 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @chek
    ;)

    @Jeff,

    You were the one who brought up “empirical evidence”, not me. Although I get the impression you say it because it sounds good, rather than knowing what it actually means. It’s observations.
    When we start going thru it together, and the claims of it being “alarming” drop away, you then high tail it to; conspiracys by “Transnational elites”(?) controlling “many of the so-called[your words] ‘democracies’ in the west”, placating “the masses through the media”(?) [BBC slow to catch on here also]
    ,assumptions that I don’t “have car insurance or home insurance”(?),I’m in favour of “cutting down tropical forests”(?), “dumping toxic wastes into rivers”(?). That’s all just empty ideological posturing when you ran out of arguments, i.e at the beginning – anything to avoid addressing the real world as it is.

    Also, your other “imaginings”, my education/background is in the sciences (not Zoology), and a darn sight more rigorous than the day trips to Formby point to visit the squirrels, siting round the camp fire singing kumbaya with prizes for the best “imploding foodweb” story that you seem to have undergone.
    ;)

  7. #7 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Lionel

    Your question,

    “there is a big difference in calorific value between the two. Do you know how to quantify this? Come on do you?”

    Yes I do.

    NASA get back to you yet on your insight that the Earth’s climate is like a car?
    ;)

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    November 22, 2012

    GSW, The proof of the pudding ius in the eating. Where are your scientific bonafides? The publications? the lectures? The university stature? Your background hardly makes you a scientist. If you were, you wouldn’t spout so much of the piffle you do on Deltoid. And the clincher is your utter reliance of web sitges like Bishop’s Hill, WUWT, CA and other comedy venues for many of your opinions. All this illustrates is that you can’t think for yourself. You couldn;t stand in a room with me or any of my colleagues and expect to be taken seriously with much of the garbage you spew out. F’rinstance, your take on polar bear population demographics and global amphibian declines. Or suggesting that it hasn’t warmed since 2000. This is grade-school level histrionics coming from you, GSW. What seems clear to me is that you think a lot off the top of your head. You clearly don’t read much of the scientific literature, that is certainly obvious to me and should be to most others who contibute here. As I said earlier, you clearly don’t have a clue about the difference between stochastic and deterministic processes. You are certainly in good company there with most of the intellectually challenged deniers.

    And while you, in your scientific diapers, claim that ecology is puff-pastry science, the reality is quite different. Ecology is the study of non-linear dynamics. In other words, cause-and-effect relationships are often impossible to predict or elucidate. Physics is a day at the beach by comparison, and since you are hardly an academic in the first place, then that makes you look even worse than you are. If you did real science you’d crawl out from behind your monicker and tell u what contributions to science that you have made. But you on’t because you are anonymous whatever you tell us.

    What I say about transnational corporations I am happy to be quoted on. Of course they have a huge influence on democracy, especially in the US. You are more of a fool than I originally thought if you are suggesting otherwise. And the media has been shown time and time again to be hardly ‘independent’, given its ownership or dependence on corporate advertising for much of its revenue. Just because you are plainly ignorant of this doesn’t make it wrong.

    As for predictions,you stepped in it again by arguing that projections aren’t science and therefore can be ignored. This is wilfull ignorance on your part, but hardly a suprise coming from you. Its par for the course.

  9. #9 chek
    November 22, 2012

    Usually The Rabett is spot on, but I think in this case he’s wrong. You’d have to knock at least thirty or forty points, not ten, off your IQ to even begin to get down to Griselda’s level.

  10. #10 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Jeff,

    It’s the lack of rigor in you Jeff that’s the tell. I think I’ve posted this link for before, I’ll do so again, you didn’t get it the first time, but

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJFsnyvprKc

    It’s Feynman, talking about those who push “facts” without actually knowing- because it’s hard to know, some rigor is required. Maybe you’ll get it this time. From your showing today, it’s hard to imagine he wasn’t talking specifically about you.

    Enjoy!
    ;)

  11. #11 Lionel A
    November 22, 2012

    GSW

    Feynman has a description of the kinda science that is going to be increasingly coming from the likes of this GOP example of ignorant and proud to be who will be increasingly confounded by the workings of the every day things that they rely on. Can you tell me what that name is? Can you tell me the title of a book in which Feynman describes this brand of science.

    So don’t start throwing Feynman into the ring on your side, he wasn’t and never would have been. He would, I am certain, had strong words to describe the antics of such as Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, Spencer and Plimer although in public he may just have ignored them as so much fluff. But given the gravity of the developments here, to which they have given the PTB ground cover, I think Feynman would have been very outspoken.

    Bringing up Feynman in this way is a disgrace and shows in stark relief the poverty of your intellect and bankruptcy of your decency.

    Have you read and understood Chapters 35 and 36 of ‘Lectures on Physics’ Vol. 1’? I suggest you do and then go read ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ by Richard Dawkins.

    On pseudo-science then Dawkins ‘The Devil’s Chaplin’ has some good chapters and Ben Goldacre has much more to say especially on ‘Double Blind testing’. Do you even know what this is and where it is used?

  12. #12 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Lionel

    I’m perfectly happy throwing Feynman into the ring, especially when he’s perfectly clear on what constitutes science and what does not. Assertions as fact of theorys without empirical evidence is not, and neither is “expert” opinion.

    The bad news for your side is that the CAGW orthodoxy relies heavily on “endorsements” and “unsupported” extrapolations.

    So staggered that a) you would presume to speak on the behalf of the man and b) you think that Fenyman would throw aside a lifetimes worth of scientific principle just to endorse CAGW.

    He was never an institutional/establishment figure, questioning the orthodoxy was more his style, statements to the effect that the “Science was settled” would not go down well.

    You could have spent a little more time getting the know the man, or put some thought into the principles of what he was actually saying, it’s worth the effort.

    Apologies to Feynman, (I can do it too)
    “CAGW theory doesn’t make predictions, just excuses”

    (doesn’t mean it’s not true, just that it doesn’t pass the test, you’ll either get the joke or you won’t)
    ;)

  13. #13 Lionel A
    November 22, 2012

    GSW trapped by faulty logic again.

    So staggered that a) you would presume to speak on the behalf of the man…

    I didn’t, I was surmising what his reactions might have been. That you didn’t comprehend this is once again an indicator of your simplistic parsing and thinking.

    Still avoiding questions too.

    You are a waste of space.

  14. #14 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Lionel,

    Got it Lionel, you give in. (I’d do the same, your on a hiding to nothing on this one)
    ;)

  15. #15 Wow
    November 22, 2012

    “Assertions as fact of theorys without empirical evidence is not,”

    Which is why you don’t get to call him on your side: THAT IS ALL YOU EVER DO.

    “and neither is “expert” opinion.”

    ROFLMAO.

    You’re using Feynman as expert opinion to pretend more weight to your idiocies than it has.

    And expert opinion of a scientist who has investigated the subject IS SCIENCE.

    What a frigging moron.

  16. #16 Wow
    November 22, 2012

    “CAGW orthodoxy relies heavily on “endorsements” and “unsupported” extrapolations. ”

    Hrm.

    Isn’t that an example of “Assertions as fact of theorys without empirical evidence is not,”?

    Yes, it is.

    What a frigging moron.

  17. #17 Wow
    November 22, 2012

    “statements to the effect that the “Science was settled” would not go down well.”

    If some fruitcake nut like yourself were to ask “CO2, a greenhouse gas: Settled science or not?” he’d say “settled” because you have 150 years of investigation into it.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    November 22, 2012

    I am sure, were Feynman alive today, he’d know to distance himself from quacks like the climate change denier army of intellectual wannabes. Besides, GSW, you have yet to explain why pretty well every prestigious scientific body on the planet has supported the findings of the IPCC. Seems pretty weird if the science is hardly settled. This is a real thorn in your side, innit? Trying to fob off such consensus by distorting the views of a man who is dead.

    Furthermore, you’ve already shot yourself in the foot enough times with your vacuous musings about ecology. Today at work we discussed a recent Science paper which shows that predator-mediated stress responses in insect herbivores can affect their internal stoichiometry (C:N ratios) via changes in feeding and physiological stress-induced physiology and that these effects can concomitantly have a profound effect on nutrient cycling via soil microbial activity (which is very sensitive to inputs of biotic matter from above-ground biota). This in turn affects plant responses and ultimately on plant community hierarchies and assembly rules during various successional stages. Essentially, the Science paper pointed to the importance of context-dependency and indirect trophic cascades that work their way through entire ecosystems. Know anything about trait-remixing, context- and trait-dependent processes and of the importance of bottom-up and top-down forces in regulating the function of communities and ecosystems GSW? How about metabolomic responses of plants to herbivore-induced damage? But of course you don’t. Yet you think all population ecologists do is look at birds through binoculars and count bunnies in fields.

    As I said, physics is a picnic compared with ecology. Take some advice: don’t start throwing stones whilst living in a glass house with very thin walls.

  19. #19 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    Ah Jeff, transnational elites[your words] not hunted you down yet and turned off your internet connection yet? Slipped up there then didn’t they.

    Let’s see what drivel your espousing now;

    “predator-mediated stress responses in insect herbivores can affect their internal stoichiometry (C:N ratios) via changes in feeding and physiological stress-induced physiology and that these effects can concomitantly have a profound effect on nutrient cycling via soil microbial activity”

    Sounds interesting.

    ” Know anything about trait-remixing, context- and trait-dependent processes and of the importance of bottom-up and top-down forces in regulating the function of communities and ecosystems GSW?”

    Absolutely nothing and, at guess, based on past performances neither do you. You might feel it, but you don’t actually understand the difference between knowing and not knowing do you?:

    Cheers,
    ;)

  20. #20 chek
    November 22, 2012

    It never takes long for Griselda to settle into his favouirite role – fluffing for Jonarse, no matter what level of idiocy must be stooped to.

  21. #21 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @chek

    Wondered where the puppy had wandered off to.

    No “Jonarse”, as you call him, has been banned. Apparently an understanding of High School physics, coupled with a desire to see the “empirical data” in support of irrational claims, makes you “persona no grata” on deltoid (by that I mean you get your own thread;) )

    If only he were allowed to post here now. You lot would be forced to rejoin reality that much sooner.
    ;)

  22. #22 Lionel A
    November 22, 2012

    Ah! More from the twerp:

    Got it Lionel, you give in. (I’d do the same, your on a hiding to nothing on this one)…

    Those are your words and do not reflect my intentions – another example of poor thought processes from you.

    Please provide your analysis of one paper that unequivocally refutes the actuality of global warming, else it is you with a hiding to nothing.

  23. #23 chek
    November 22, 2012

    Griselda, a waiter has not successfully refuted Relativity Theory by failing to comperhend it – or not being able to see its poster claim, as he so cutesie-wootsey-pie puts it (presumably for your own dumbed-down idiot benefit). But your devotion to your guru is comically noted, as is your desperation to believe any clown such as Jonarse and the other sources of unscientific drivel you prefer.

    p.s. a denier quoting Feynman is like wearing an I’m with stupid’ hat, that’s pointing down at yourself.

  24. #24 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @Lionel

    Abuse Lionel? Whatever your “intentions”, surely you can do better than that.
    ;)

  25. #25 GSW
    November 22, 2012

    @chek,

    No idea what “waiter” you’re talking about. But Michelson–Morley made Einstein’s work almost “derivative” (joking). It’s not obvious though whether the “I’m with stupid’ hat” was worn by you or Jeff? the smart money is on on the ” I’m with stupidest” for you both though.

    Aren’t you the “bod” that asserts that Einstein wasn’t a patent clerk because he didn’t fill in forms or hand out invoices? Priceless!
    ;)

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    November 22, 2012

    I don’t understand why GSW wants to call other people “stupid”, or suggests they might want to “rejoin reality”, when GSW is clearly living in a fantasy-world of denial, which can only be made possible if he were both stupid and in avoidance of reality.

    Or, he doesn’t believe the crap he writes and is just trolling you.

    Either way, he’s a waste of space.

  27. #27 chek
    November 22, 2012

    It’s not obvious though whether the “I’m with stupid’ hat” was worn by you or Jeff?

    Once you’ve had the chance to get a few more basic comprehension lessons under your belt,the first two words (“a denier” – that’s you, that is) will clarify the meaning no end. Or likely not, as it’s clear you have merely an inkling of what form a pithy riposte would take, but don’t have the wit or wits to carry it off.

    And yes, as I recall pointing out to your fellow traveller Brent, (complete with reference) the meaning of the post of ‘clerk’ has changed over the past century from an Einstein to a bored, biro-chewing teenager.

    But then you and he probably also labour under the similar illusion that a Secretary of State does the and typing and makes the tea also.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    November 23, 2012

    Your assertion that you have a “handle” on future climates because it is in some way like a car, is a revellation!

    This Epic Comprehension And Logic Fail from the poster who – Curtinesque and apparently completely unaware of it – suggested that a graphical extrapolation of current sea level rise sans any understanding of underlying mechanisms, was sufficient to ward off concern arising from understanding those underlying mechanisms.

    Note, of course, that the underlying point of my very simple analogy was not grokked, perhaps for reasons already suggested.

    but you don’t actually understand the difference between knowing and not knowing do you?

    Damn, there goes another irony meter.

    Your background hardly makes you a scientist.

    I seem to recall s/he once claimed to be a science teacher, which if true would explain the evasive dance about her/his “background” rather than his/her research record.

    And what Wow and Vince said, while we’re at it.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2012

    GSW.

    No “Jonarse”, as you call him, has been banned. Apparently an understanding of High School physics, coupled with a desire to see the “empirical data” in support of irrational claims, makes you “persona no grata” on deltoid (by that I mean you get your own thread;) )

    If only he were allowed to post here now. You lot would be forced to rejoin reality that much sooner.

    Jonah showed no tested and verified science that I recall. Heck, he even refused to detail which papers he had (apparently) read in order to make the claim that the IPCC had fabricated the confidences of the attribution to human activity of planetary warming.

    He and his Scandinavian Troll Collective even scarpered away from demonstrating their conviction in the denialism of climatology when they were too afraid to take my money from me in a wager about the future trajectory of the Arctic sea ice.

    Still, on that last I remain ever hopeful. I have an offer open with Kai at A Few Things Ill Considered, valid until the end of this month.

    Perhaps you’ll be brave enough to prove that you actually believe in the crap that you spout, and take me up on the offer.

  30. #30 bill
    November 23, 2012

    GooSeyWuh ain’t interesting. Or relevant. This, on the other hand…

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    November 23, 2012

    Vince, Bernard, Bill, Chek, etc.

    Agreed. GSW is a major waste of space. Now he’s employing his hero worship again, in a desperate attempt to defend his pithy views.

    He certainly ain’t interesting or relevant.

  32. #32 GSW
    November 23, 2012

    @Jeff

    Of course you don’t find it interesting Jeff. You weren’t interested enough to learn the basic principles of the Scientifc method you were an undergrad, so you’re hardly likely to have had a change of heart now.

    There’s a bit more to it than peppering bits of text with the odd scientifc name for things, pushing your “imaginings” to those who know no better and waving your CV as defence against almost anything.

    In short, you’re about as “sciencey” as my daughters pet Cricetinae.

    Take care!
    ;)

  33. #33 chek
    November 23, 2012

    Griselda still trying to give Jonarse a hard-on, I see.
    Pathetic really.

  34. #34 GitSez'What?'
    November 23, 2012

    Hurr Hurr. You people are like stoopid ‘n’ everything hurr hurr because we know, like, we know, right, that real science is done by real proper scientists ‘n’ everything like Lord Monckton and Andrew Montford who is, are, the bomb, right, ‘n’ not shit watermelons like the AGU, NOAA and NASA, and the BoM and CSIRO ‘n’ the Met and NIWA, and all those phoney phoney made-up science guys in, like, The Academies, who are all like, you know, Communists, along with their red-Socialist buddies the IEA and the World Bank. Oh, and The Economist. Hurr hurr. Stupid Science Socialists.

  35. #35 Chris O'Neill
    November 23, 2012

    GSW:

    Global temp anom increase, from the turn of the century is indistinguishable from bugger all.

    It’s no surprise that denialists like GSW try to make a big deal out of something statistically insignificant like the temperature record just since 2001. Denialists’ position is that the “red Marxist socioeconomic” action required to deal with global warming will NEVER be worth whatever benefit it will bring because electing a government that performs any sort of “red Marxist socioeconomic” action is the beginning of the end and carries the risk that we will succumb to “red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine”. To them, that is worse than any climate catastrophe.

    So denialists like GSW don’t care that their arguments are dishonest and wrong. It’s just a smokescreen for what they really think. That’s why they will never change their minds regardless of the facts.

  36. #36 bill
    November 23, 2012

    Has there ever been a greater plague of mouthbreathing dreck than this lot?

  37. #37 bill
    November 23, 2012

    Alright, since my other bit has apparently gone west, I’ll point out directly to Git Sez’Wha-?’ that all we have on our side is NASA, NOAA, the NRC, the CSIRO, the BoM, the Met Office, NIWA, the AGU, and all the worlds’ Academies of Science. Not to mention such well-known neo-Marxist institutions as the IEA, the World Bank, the US Military, and even The Economist.

    But, hell, you have Lord Monckton, James Delingpole and Andrew Montford… And your beloved Kochs, of course. Oh, and the BNP. And lots and lots and lots of… money.

    I repeat, has there ever been a more pathetic rabble that’s managed to cause so much harm?

  38. #38 GSW
    November 23, 2012

    @bill

    Ah bill, you’re back! Made the mistake of clicking on the link you gave, got as far as the first slide. A claim of 3.5C increase in Global temps by 2040, by no less an authority than the IEA! (I know how this figure is derived, the context is missing, but ignoring that for now )

    The simple fact is, we are just not observing anything like the near 1C/decade increase in temp anomaly that would be required for this even to be plausible. Past decade performance is around the “bugger all” mark ;)

    Irrespective of who else is “on my side”, real world data trumps everything, right? (See Feynman)
    ;)

    Irrespective

  39. #39 chek
    November 23, 2012

    Luckily for us though Griselda the people who matter wrt these things, understand trends a lot better than the cherry-picking, blinkered, short term cretins you rely on to quack your drivel.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    November 23, 2012

    God’s Sorrowful W***** spewed forth:

    A claim of 3.5C increase in Global temps by 2040, by no less an authority than the IEA! (I know how this figure is derived, the context is missing, but ignoring that for now )…

    You clearly missed my reference to system inertia in an earlier post. Not a surprise for I guess that more than one sentence in a para’ causes you to go blind. That is what you are suffering from ‘big picture’ blindness.

    Once again you have wasted space and it is to that I was referring earlier but it seems to have hit one of your sore spots. Shame. Mummy make it better and send big brother round to kick hell…! I think now that I’ll leave your toys on the floor, continuing to abuse Feynman as you have.

  41. #41 joni
    November 23, 2012

    Bill

    Don’t forget Munich Re.

  42. #42 GSW
    November 23, 2012

    @Lionel,

    The data is the data Lionel. You can’t talk it up by being abusive or asserting that the earths climate is “like a car”.
    ;)

  43. #43 chek
    November 23, 2012

    You have to be able to understand data, Griselda. You clearly do not.

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    November 23, 2012

    GSW,

    Yawn. At least I have a reasonable scientific CV to wave. You don’t. Put up or shut up.

    And of course I find climate science and other areas of science interesting. I am a scientist after all. It is you and your tiring musings that I find tedious and boring.

  45. #45 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    “The data is the data Lionel.”

    Yup, that’s about all you’re capable of saying.

    Pity you don’t seem capable of understanding.

    Data is this:

    http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

  46. #46 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    “A claim of 3.5C increase in Global temps by 2040, by no less an authority than the IEA!”

    Since it isn’t 2040, there’s no DATA to claim this incorrect.

    And they have predictions that support their assertion. All it takes is us going to 650ppm CO2 by 2035.

    Do you have any DATA that says that 650 isn’t possible? Or that there’s less than 3C per doubling of CO2?

  47. #47 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    “(I know how this figure is derived”

    Apparently not.

    You know how you’re going to CLAIM you know how. But you evidently do not.

  48. #48 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    “we are just not observing anything like the near 1C/decade increase in temp anomaly”

    We ARE observing a 3.2C per doubling of CO2 and are observing a trend in CO2 production that will lead to 650ppm by 2035.

    We ARE observing a 2.2C per century trend in the past. But the reason for that increase is increasing, therefore the trend will increase too.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    November 23, 2012

    GSW

    The data is the data Lionel. You can’t talk it up by being abusive or asserting that the earths climate is “like a car”.

    I didn’t raise that analogy you twerp. Once again you display your lack of comprehension and critical thinking skills. As for abuse, you are the one who continually abuses Feynman.

    Whatever, there are more important things than arguing with a fool like you. That isn’t abuse but a statement of fact and we have had numerous data points to support that fact.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    November 23, 2012

    Colorado Bob is a frequent poster at Climate Progress and gets a mention in the comments thread here:

    Climate Denial Crock of the Week

    That link to Colorado Bob’s site is worth a visit and the video embedded in that thread post Pickaxe – The Cascadia Free State Story is worth a watch and harks back to that discussion of ‘old growth forests’ early on in an earlier topic thread here.

  51. #51 chek
    November 23, 2012

    I have to say at this point , would any of the Jonarse Collective (of whom GSW is but a minor carbuncle), if they were asked to swallow a pill with a >95% confidence in the probability that it would kill them, do so?

    I strongly suspect, if they were rational ( a major assumption) they would not. Yet Curry says hey, it’s maybe not 95% and they swallow that willingly. Problem is, she’s never produced the work to back up her assertions so they can only be relying on their blind faith in her and wishful thinking.

    Unlike informed folk.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    November 23, 2012

    I didn’t raise that analogy…

    I did.

    And GSW couldn’t even manage the relatively simple task of relating it correctly.

    It almost goes without saying that he missed the point entirely – his whole position critically depends on doing that day in, day out…

  53. #53 Lionel A
    November 23, 2012

    Aye chek, and then there is Lindzen ever searching for that ‘Crock at the end of the rainbow’ that would support low climate sensitivity. Of course apart from the other SFUDs (spreaders of fear, uncertainty and doubt) mentioned up thread, who at present are organising their escape from public scrutiny or worse, there are always the Pielkes to entertain us with their comic tragedy acts. Comic arguments but with tragic consequences. It read that Snr has withdrawn his blog seemingly to prevent others upturning his apples and spoiling his pie.

  54. #54 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    “asserting that the earths climate is “like a car””

    So you’re saying that there is no such thing as an analogy, git-boy?

  55. #55 chek
    November 23, 2012

    To be fair, Griselda has told us they’re a ten-a-penny denier “science” specialist, whereas understanding analogies could be said to stray into the fields of philosophy and literature, and I’ve never, ever mistaken them for a polymath.

  56. #56 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    They don’t seem to manage monomath…

  57. #57 Wow
    November 23, 2012

    What would “negative dozens”-math be?

    Imaginary?

  58. #58 Anthony David
    November 23, 2012

    On the topic of analogies, how drunk would you be with a blood alcohol content of 0.0391%? How could a trace chemical could never have an appreciable effect on a human.

  59. #59 Lionel A
    November 24, 2012

    Good one Anthony I found this description, which could go far to explain GSW’s attitude and behaviour:

    0.04-0.06 BAC: Feeling of well-being, relaxation, lower inhibitions, sensation of warmth. Euphoria. Some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution. Your behavior may become exaggerated and emotions intensified (Good emotions are better, bad emotions are worse)

    here which value range is close to your 0.0391 BAC with the explanation of BAC

    Your BAC is a measure of the amount of alcohol you have in your blood. The measurement is the number of grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood

    here .

  60. #60 Lionel A
    November 24, 2012

    And now for something completely different, cue a Python .

    Yesterday evening on Virgin Media Channel 230 National Geographic was screened an hour on the origins and effects of Hurricane Sandy. Unfortunately I was sidetracked whilst on and only managed the first five minuets and the last five. But then much of the story has become familiar in the time since.

    The point is that the narrator narrated near the end these memorable words, ‘Not all scientists agree on what causes climate change.’

    Sheeesh! I have never heard that line before, I don’t think.

    It seems that the media cannot help themselves. This could be the National Geographic’s War on Science.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    November 24, 2012

    And another thing.

    Well it looks like ‘the fix’ is in as announcements are made that consumers are to foot the bill for a move to renewable power sources, thus making an essential technology move unpopular with the public at large. I wonder what all those NIMBYs who fought against the modern wind pylons feel about their views now hat it is under water?

    It is high time people joined the dots and realised that more warming and ‘climate weirding’ (Ugh!) is in the pipeline even if we stabilise atmospheric GHG levels at today’s values. This is the part of reality that the likes of Lindzen has tried to wave away with his low-climate sensitivity malarky. It is notable that Peter Lilley was in Lindzen’s audience earlier this year he and Lawson’s GWPF are pushing this ball along I am sure.

    Here, according to Roger Harrabin at the side of this article Energy Bill: Households to fund £7.6bn green investment:

    But beyond 2020 Mr Osborne has refused to commit. He doesn’t think the UK should be taking a global lead on cutting emissions while competitor economies are not following. And he thinks gas may be a cheap power source in future.

    If Osborne thinks that gas prices in the future are going to be cheaper in the future, how is this going to happen? If he is considering fracking then he is fracking deluded and has missed the studies revealing the problems surfacing, literally in some cases with methane seeping from the ground in sizeable amounts around workings, in North America.

    Of course he could be considering reviving the ancient processes of getting ‘town gas’ from cheap coal from e.g. Australia (thanks Gina ‘no-heart’ Rinehart). I am old enough to remember ‘gas-works’ in every conurbation indeed followers of cricket still have a memento from that period with that famous ‘Gas-works end’ at The Oval.

    Fracking, Town-gas or both it will be good bye to Britain reaching mandatory GHG targets – what then oh George ‘Wizard-of-Oz/Machiavelli’ Osborne.

    PS. It looks like Gina Rinehart has launched a book.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    November 24, 2012

    Just to add emphasis to my post above Climate Denial Crock of the Week has a must watch video up:

    Climate Change: Do the Math .

    And your answer to all that GSW & Co. is…?

  63. #63 Lionel A
    November 24, 2012

    And another underline for the points in the two posts above, another bill falls due as Gulf oil platform West Delta Echo explodes and is captured on video .

  64. #64 chek
    November 24, 2012

    And your answer to all that GSW & Co. is…?

    With an inconsistency and contradictory logic that doesn’t so much as ripple their cognitive dissonance, their argument will be that the warming is not anthropogenic. When they’re not swearing blind it’s cooling globally.

    They’re entirely consistent in evading admission of responsibility.

  65. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    November 25, 2012

    GSW: “…real world data trumps everything, right?”

    I’m thinking he isn’t referring to ALL the real-world data, but instead to carefully cherry-picked snippets of it.

    GSW: “…The simple fact is, we are just not observing anything like the near 1C/decade increase in temp anomaly that would be required for this even to be plausible. Past decade performance is around the “bugger all” mark”

    Yes, indeedy. Let’s base our projection on a decade’s data that is convenient to our contention.

    I could get the hang of this “real world data” thing.

    If I were a liar, that is.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    November 25, 2012

    I’m thinking he isn’t referring to ALL the real-world data, but instead to carefully cherry-picked snippets of it.

    You can see that in GSW’s implied position that “past sea level hasn’t risen fast enough to be a concern, because the only prediction I will countenance is the future extrapolation of past trends – and the fact that taking into account all the other data leads to a very different prediction shall not be spoken of to me”.

    Hence my analogy about the folly of the car driver ignoring all the other data and only extrapolating from past trends…

  67. #68 Lionel A
    November 25, 2012

    As I sit here awaiting the next onslaught from the energised weather systems that have been battering and flooding large parts of the UK (I wonder how Duff is fairing in Bath, Somerset UK IIRC from a comment of his recently) I came across this post at Climate Central As Sea Ice Declines, Winter Shifts in Northern Alaska. Weather it may be but most certainly not the sustained weather we are used to and considering the record over the last decade this IS Climate Change.

    Anybody who is still refusing to see this is either deluded or mendacious and Arthur C Smith III in the first comment at the above makes the point clear.

  68. #69 Bernard J.
    November 26, 2012

    Marine scientist warns we’re living on borrowed time

    As world leaders gather in Doha for the latest round of United Nations climate talks this week, one of the world’s top marine scientists is warning that several boundaries affecting life on earth have already been crossed and that we’re living on “borrowed time”.

    The director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, Professor Terry Hughes, will deliver his warning to the Australian Academy of Science conference in Canberra tomorrow.

  69. #70 Bernard J.
    November 26, 2012

    Findings reveal world’s major river systems remain under pressure

    New research into four of the world’s major river systems, including the Murray-Darling has found that too much water is being taken out of them and the problems that’s causing are expected to increase with climate change. The findings published in the journal Nature Climate Change reveal that environmental flows are not being met in the Colorado and Orange-Senqu Rivers and the Murray-Darling and Yellow Rivers remain under pressure despite government’s attempting to intervene.

  70. #71 Bernard J.
    November 26, 2012

    lExtensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean

    The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities. In the upper layers of the Southern Ocean, aragonite—a metastable form of calcium carbonate with rapid dissolution kinetics—may become undersaturated by 2050. Aragonite undersaturation is likely to affect aragonite-shelled organisms, which can dominate surface water communities in polar regions. Here we present analyses of specimens of the pteropod Limacina helicina antarctica that were extracted live from the Southern Ocean early in 2008. We sampled from the top 200 m of the water column, where aragonite saturation levels were around, as upwelled deep water is mixed with surface water containing anthropogenic CO2. Comparing the shell structure with samples from aragonite-supersaturated regions elsewhere under a scanning electron microscope, we found severe levels of shell dissolution in the undersaturated region alone. According to laboratory incubations of intact samples with a range of aragonite saturation levels, eight days of incubation in aragonite saturation levels of 0.94–1.12 produces equivalent levels of dissolution. As deep-water upwelling and CO2 absorption by surface waters is likely to increase as a result of human activities, we conclude that upper ocean regions where aragonite-shelled organisms are affected by dissolution are likely to expand.

  71. #72 Lotharsson
    November 27, 2012
  72. #73 chek
    November 27, 2012

    Just got round to reading the links in your posts Bernard.

    I can’t help wondering how deniers explain this as a ‘natural variation’ in acidification, or what possible mitigation strategy there can be to even attempt to decelerate let alone prevent ecological damage on such an unprecedented scale.

    Ignore and pretend it isn’t happening would be my guess.

  73. #74 Lionel A
    November 27, 2012

    An increasingly worrying trend is that the ecological web of the oceans is breaking down as evidenced by the increasing numbers of jelly fish and micro-organism blooms producing expanses of ‘slime’ where once healthy reef systems supported the nurseries of those larger oceanic organisms on which much of the diet of the world relies.

    If you are into sushi then I hope you won’t mind the substitute of the box jelly or three.

    I recall reading some time ago (Naomi Klein perhaps, or Colin Tudge) of the unsustainable harvesting practices for prawn. With bottom dredging literally ripping the heart out of other spawning and breeding grounds and prawn farming that is ever on the move along Indian Ocean coastlines as each area in turn becomes too toxic through the farming methodologies used on grounds of maximising short term profits. Rather like the way that slash and burn farming in tropical forests destroys the fabric of the ecologies there.

    Humanity surely has developed the Midas touch with a vengeance gold tomorrow no food thereafter.

    And yet the troll collective don’t see this.

  74. #75 Lionel A
    November 27, 2012

    The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification…

    But we should be pleased as this clearly means that sea water will become more potable as it reduces its salinity.

    BTW That is Curtin raiser sarcasm if you didn’t grok that GSW & Co.

  75. #76 Wow
    November 27, 2012

    Maybe Curtains thinks it goes like seaside chips from the chippy: they taste much better if you put *vinegar* on them as well as salt.

  76. #77 Lionel A
    November 27, 2012

    Coral degradation, crown-of-thorns is a big problem on the GBR which should be controlled but The 27–year decline of coral cover on the
    Great Barrier Reef and its causes PDF

    Such strategies can,
    however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as
    losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.

  77. #78 Lotharsson
    November 27, 2012

    Emissions from thawing permafrost – this feedback effect is not included in the IPCC AR4 modelling (or they say even AR5) but probably already happening on a larger scale and faster than anticipated and the feedback is “irreversible on human timescales”.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    November 28, 2012

    Uh oh

    It’s been mentioned many, many times before, but now it seems that this particular elephant is starting to take up more space in the room than previously acknowledged.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    November 28, 2012

    Ha! Beaten by Lotharsson.

    Refresh, refresh, refresh.

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    November 28, 2012

    Is it just me, or is the flow of climate science news the last few months almost entirely on the downside? I can’t recall too many “good news” surprises, but there have been a number of “that’s not good” revelations.

  81. #82 Wow
    November 28, 2012

    It’s because there is no good news.

    Whilst the media have painted several ecological disasters in places their readership doesn’t live or care about (coral reefs, russia, asia) as nothing indicative of a problem, they’re not able to do the same when it comes to tribulations of places their readership lives.

    11/9 bombers? In the scheme of things (cf Israel, Spain, Germany and UK/EIRE), nothing unusual. But hyped up to galactic catastrophe.

    Now that the same place is being battered with storms and the businesses are now finding that they are now facing a huge bill of clean-up, the weather is NOW a catastrophe.

  82. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    November 28, 2012

    “Good news” takes the form of this sort of thing:
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-launches-island-wind-farm-plan-20121128-2aecd.html

    Only about 20 years too late, but at least we’re finally making a start.

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    November 28, 2012

    Just more evidence that the dimwits on the denial thread have their heads well and truly stuck up their ar***:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/26/1219981/new-scientist-7-reasons-climate-change-is-even-worse-than-we-thought/

    Its also been revealed that autumn temperatures along the Alaskan Arctic coastline are 8-15 C above the long-term average; hardly surprising given the record minimum ice recorded in the Arctic this year. And for the first time in recorded history, the entire Arctic coastline of Alaska was ice-free at the beginning of November. This is incredible. Shocking. And its even more shocking that the denier dregs write their prurient nonsense about the ‘science being settled’ (in their favor). Actually they are correct: in reverse.

  84. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    November 28, 2012

    “prurient”?
    They’re weird, but not that weird, surely?

  85. #86 bill
    November 28, 2012

    I dunno, they’re pretty weird! ‘Onanistic’, perhaps? ;-)

  86. #87 Vince Whirlwind
    November 28, 2012

    Speaking of which, GSW hasn’t given us any output yet today.

  87. #88 Lotharsson
    November 29, 2012

    …GSW hasn’t given us any output yet today.

    Be thankful for small mercies ;-)

  88. #89 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    I think they’re beyond weird personally… given that’s transpired across the planet this year we have these goofs writing, “The science is settled [in their favor]”. Talk about denial; these clowns give the word a whole new meaning.

  89. #90 Lionel A
    November 29, 2012

    Lotharsson

    Emissions from thawing permafrost – this feedback effect is not included in the IPCC AR4 …

    And then there is this On the Edge of Permafrost Crash .

    They are going to have to factor this in RSN (real soon now) (Ap’ Jerry Pournelle in BYTE) before it is game over.

    What a sink-hole ‘That Thread’ is, they need a dose of this Whitby landslip houses to be demolished happening to them. Probably will RSN.

  90. #91 Wow
    November 29, 2012

    In some ways if it collapsed today it would be a better thing than if it collapsed in 30.

    30 years is too short to change enough to undo the damage and at least we’d be able to take these denialist arseholes and shove them in a boat to Pakistan to house-swap with the refugees from flooding there.

  91. #92 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    I agree with Wow. Norman Myers argued several years ago that, given the reticence of our species to act until there are massive systemic disruptions (by which time it will be late to do anything), perhaps all we can hope for are regional effects that become so frequent that they can’t be ignored, but leave a sliver of time for some hope that we can avert the worst repercussions.

  92. #93 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    More for the deniers to chew on:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/shrinking-ice-rapid-rate-of-polar-melt-revealed

    These dolts are being vanquished by the empirical evidence, yet for some strange reason their heads are still firmly stuck you-know-where…

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    November 30, 2012

    David Duff.

    Please do share – what’s the climate doing right now in your corner of the world?

  94. #95 bill
    November 30, 2012

    If this were a just world he’d be too busy sand-bagging to answer your query, Bernard.

  95. #96 lord_sidcup
    November 30, 2012

    In this letter to the editor Monckton claims:

    I am an appointed review editor for the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the UN’s climate panel.

    http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/1138635/letter-allegations-or-implications-false-unfounded/?cs=150

    I know he has misled about being APPOINTED (in reality registering) as an IPCC expert reviewer, but a “review editor” is a quite different thing I believe, and is a genuine appointment is it not?

    Claiming to be a “review editor” is a bare-faced lie isn’t it?

  96. #97 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “If this were a just world he’d be too busy sand-bagging to answer your query, Bernard.”

    As opposed to Jonas tea-bagging GSW?

  97. #99 lord_sidcup
    November 30, 2012

    Just looked at the list of AR5 review editors and Monckton is definitely not there.

    Not sure why I’m surprised at Monckton lying, I suppose I’m surprised that having been caught out lying about being ‘appointed’ as an expert reviewer, he goes and tells an even bigger whopper about being a review editor.

  98. #100 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Monckton is clearly following the Hitler-Goebbels dictum (attribution?) ‘…people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one…‘.

Current ye@r *