February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    As should be very obvious, I would be happy to discuss K13 with you (especially now my brain has started working properly). So why are you ignoring my comments?

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon,
    I’ve already repeated 2, or was it 3? times now –
    – you’ve made no comment on the paper you referenced
    – you haven’t explained why you think it relates to Church et al.

    But, invited to comment and explain, you have now posted 5 times without either commenting or explaining.

    Why is that?

    What is your comment?
    What is your explanation?

    Can you even answer the very simple question, how was this paper brought to your attention?

  3. #3 Wow
    February 28, 2013
    Vince?
    I did comment on the paper.

    Where?

    Chubby is just doing a Joan.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon,

    What I want to know is where do you find these denier papers? You clearly glean them from some source, and not from the primary literature. Methinks you do this by visiting denier blogs, and not from the Web of Science or Scopus. Given that there are only a very small number of these studies, why don’t you link to some of the 13,950 pro-AGW papers and ask to discuss them?

    I really don’t have the time for this kind of pseudo-academic wankery I am afraid.

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    A denier paper?

    It says that the acceleration of sea level rise can exceed the accelerated rate we are currently seeing, and that the sea level rise corresponding to that accelerated rate is in the region of 6-9m.

    The IPCC is predicting 1m.

    Clearly this is an alarmist paper of the 1st degree!!!!

  6. #6 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Kopp et al. (2013):

    Despite these caveats, the record of LIG sea level variations suggests that the ice sheets currently extant are likely capable of sustaining rates of melting faster than those observed today for at least a millennium.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Oh, I see – so we have at least 1,000 years to figure out how to reduce the human population by 85% so that the land remaining after a 9m rise in sea level will support us.

    So we don’t need to spend money on cheap energy from wind power, we can continue to fuck up the environment by spending our money on the more expensive fossil fuel energy sources, or the insanely highly-expensive nuclear option for boiling water to make electricity.

    Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

  8. #8 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    I provided the link, the summary and my assessment of the conclusions.
    Do you think they’re incorrect?

    I see no assessment of K13’s conclusions. I have quoted the final sentence of K13 again above (# 7).

    What is your assessment of the conclusions in K13?

  9. #9 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon’s hiding out on the other thread, seeing as she hasn’t got anything intelligent to say about this paper.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Vince?
    I did comment on the paper.

    Where?

    Chubby is just doing a Joan.

    Is that what he does?

    I musty say, I’ve never understood what anything on the Jonas thread was about – his grasp of the language is clearly worse than my 9-year-old’s, which never helps either.

    (At least Chameleon writes as well as a 12-year-old).
    (A 12-year-old with a brain injury, that is).

  11. #11 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    We can continue this tomorrow folks.
    I live in NSW Australia. I need my beauty sleep :-)
    B4 I go however,
    JeffH?
    Why are you calling a peer reviewed paper a ‘denier paper’?
    I find that an incredibly odd comment.
    Also? What do you mean by where I found it?
    I linked it up thread.
    That’s where I found it.

  12. #12 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    We can continue this tomorrow folks.

    I hope you do better than today.

  13. #13 bill
    February 28, 2013

    I live in NSW Australia. I need my beauty sleep

    Gee: all rested up so tomorrow we can do non sequiturs

  14. #14 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    BBD?
    If you genuinely want to discuss this paper tomorrow, you could try avoiding the sneering. It might help :-)

  15. #15 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    Stuff your false victimhood.

    See you tomorrow.

  16. #16 bill
    February 28, 2013

    …and Passive Aggressive 101.

  17. #17 bill
    February 28, 2013

    While we’re all holding our breath awaiting the return of the Golden One –

    ONE climate domino has fallen, and it may start toppling others. A recent study outlined an interconnected web of climate tipping points, some of which make the next ones more likely. Now, an analysis of data from the last 23 years suggests we passed the first of these tipping points in 2007, when Arctic sea ice flipped into a new, less stable state. That may speed the world towards the next tipping point – the thaw of a vast expanse of Siberian permafrost.

  18. #18 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Chubbie crowed earlier “Unlike Bernard, I don’t post here all night”.

    Yet this is posting from chubbie who is only going to bed now, at somewhere between 4AM and 7AM.

    But lying from a denier like chubby? Not unexpected.

  19. #19 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    bill

    See Vaks et al. (2013).

    Soils in permafrost regions contain twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, and permafrost has an important influence of the natural and built environment at high northern latitudes. The response of permafrost to warming climate is uncertain and occurs on time scales longer than has been assessed by direct observation. In this study, we date periods of speleothem growth in a north-south transect of caves in Siberia to reconstruct the history of permafrost in past climate states. Speleothem growth is restricted to full interglacial conditions in all studied caves. In the northernmost cave (at 60°N), no growth has occurred since Marine Isotopic Stage (MIS) 11. Growth at that time indicates that global climates only slightly warmer than today are sufficient to thaw significant regions of permafrost.

  20. #20 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    # 19 wow

    In the interests of accuracy and fair representation, chameleon accused *me* of posting all night. Unfortunately, chameleon (not given to analytical reasoning) forgets that the world is not Australia, nor Australia the world.

    I am in the UK ;-)

  21. #21 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    To be fair, Duffer has the same problem with the UK cf The World.

    It seems to be a denier thing.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    Chammy,

    Why do you insist on discussing one published study downplaying the human fingerprint when there are some 14,000 that support the theory? Let’s see you go through some of the massive literature in support of AGW before we discuss a paltry few that don’t.

  23. #23 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 28, 2013

    Oh! You mean, all that global warming is for the common people outside the UK!

    Well, it’s not good enough, I WANT my share of global warming! Warming is GOOD, freezing is BAD.

    So, Deltoids, when the hell is going to start warming?

  24. #24 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    All you’re doing is demonstrating that deniers don’t ever learn, Duffer.

    No, is the answer to your allegation.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    “Warming is GOOD, freezing is BAD.”

    Pop into your oven and turn it on.

  26. #26 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    I wouldn’t say that K13 ‘downplays the human fingerprint’ [of AGW] at all. The authors specifically state that the Eemian [LIG in their terminology] is not a direct analogue for the Holocene, and are careful in their wording:

    While the ∼130 m GSL change between glacial low stands and interglacial high stands is determin-
    istically related to climate, the few metres of difference between interglacials may or may not be.

    I think that the Hockey Schtick blog (almost certainly where chameleon got this from) *misrepresents* K13. We should be careful not to be influenced by this. Perhaps it’s worth repeating the final sentence of K13 once more, as it counters the misrepresentation the author of THS blog neatly:

    Despite these caveats, the record of LIG sea level variations suggests that the ice sheets currently extant are likely capable of sustaining rates of melting faster than those observed today for at least a millennium.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Oh, if chubby ever turns up with a different location for her source other than the HokeySchtick, check the wayback machine for when this second source got it.

    I reckon you#ll find it was a too late to be chubby’s source.

  28. #28 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Calumny seems to have been born with a head chock-full of denier memes. Or maybe they appear to her in dreams or visions. Because she doesn’t do denier blogs, not no way not ever, no sir, not no how, not in a million years, God strike her dead, Lawdy no, not her.

    Apparently, she considers that position believable.
    Or that those who accept the science of AGW are total fools born yesterday.
    Given the aversion of deniers to honesty, I’ve made a decision which is most likely.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Word has come to me from the minor threads that a palindromic putz wrote:

    Or faux-erudite “consensei” which [Brad] has managed before.

    Citation please, liar.

    What is it with deniers and pretend education?

    Since just about the only thing you’ve never pretended to be is educated, may I suggest going to college, where you may be exposed to such life-changing realities as the 2nd declension of Latin nouns (winklevoss, pl. winklevi), and who knows—even the 4th declension (consensus, pl. consensus)?

    Meanwhile I’m pretty sure I’ve adhered to the Englished-down inflection (consensuses, or if you’re a molecular biologist, consensi). Google corroborates that “consensei” is a figment of your dyslexia.

  30. #30 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    You really have nothing but contempt for private property, do you, Bray.

  31. #31 mike
    February 28, 2013

    Hy Dltds!

    Fr brf mmnt n tm hld th fnd mprssn tht FrnkD ws smthng mr thn ths blg’s typcl hv-tdy, n-n-th-rp-ff, plyng-dmb-whn-t’s-cnvnnt, mmmy’s-lttl-vr-chvr mmbr-n-gd-stndng f th Dltd, Brn-dd, Bbb-pd Brthrhd. n rrr n my prt.

    Sffrng n “SS” (nt-Smrtypnts Syndrm) ttck, FrnkD, wllflly n mgns, mks t tht h cn’t rlt th cncpt f “cp d’l” t th “lttl-gy” (hs cmmnt #92 n th prvs pg). Wll, FrnkD, lt m hlp y t, l’ sprt.

    Th Wk ntry fr “cp d’l” s gd smmry f th cncpt n th mltry cntxt. Hwvr, ll f th dscssns f th trm, n th Wk rtcl, sffr, n my hmbl pnn, frm n xclsv pplctn f th cncpt t “gnrlshp”.

    Rthr, th “cp d’l” fclty–th blty t nstntly, t glnc, sz p cmplx, cnfsng sttns, n whch vlbl ntl s lmtd, bt mmdt dcsn-mkng nd ctn s nvrthlss rqrd–s ftr f mltry ldrshp frm th fr-tm ldr-lvl n p.

    nd nc ntrdcd t th “cp d’l” cncpt (rlly lrnng “nm” fr smthng hd prvsly ntd), rlzd tht ths wsm “lttl-gys” f my hmbl rgns (‘m stll f th “lttl-gy” clss, ncdntlly–rthr nlk Dltd’s mny stts-nxty-rddn, nscr-nrd prvns tryng dsprtly t dsgs thr slf-htng, prl/ptty-brgs rgns), whm dmrd nd dptd s rl-mdls s yth, sd xctly tht “cp d’l” lgc t rnt thmslvs mdst th hstlrs, scms, nd cns tht bst dly lf t tht lvl f scty. (Crsly, hv nvr mt smrty-pnts, crdntls-flshng, mmm’s-by, whny-snt, cn’t-gt–dt, zts-n’-bgrs-cntrc, gk-bll tnr-prkr wh cld d “cp d’l” fr sht.)

    t ts mst bsc, thn, th “lttl gy” vrsn f “cp d’l” s n blty t sttly ct thrgh th “bllsht” whn ndr th sslt f tl-mrktr; hgh-prssr sd-cr slsmn; lf-nsrnc hstlr; pltc-hck; r, vn, sm tmc-brn, vry-twr-slck, prst, d-s–sy-nt-s–d, gd-dls-fr-m-bt-nt-fr-y, grnshrt shystr, wth frsh, hgh-crbn swll stll drppng frm hs flshy, hypcrt, fll-prfssr, trgh-dptd sck-snt, rnnn’ hs C2-spw, “nk-nk” rfc nd bsy lyng hs scr-mngrng, “crbn-tx”/crbn-strty ptch n y.

    Gt th d nw, FrnkD? nd, h by th wy, Dltds, whn y gys gt rnd t ctlly blvng n yr wn hstl (nt mch chnc f tht, knw) nd ctlly dpt lw-crbn lfstyls fr yrslvs (y mght strt wth smthng smpl lk vd-cnfrncng ths bqts, wst-f-tm, ttl-bndggl, crbn-Chrnbyl c-cnfbs f yrs) wk m p. mn, lk, th “lttl-gy” s mghtly mprssd by LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL, y knw. thrws, Dltds, th lttl-gy’s “cp d’l” stmt f th sttn whn dlng wth sm drkd-p, ss-hl wh dmnds th “lttl-gy” d th “rght thng fr th kds” bt dsn’t prctc wht h prchs–y mght b srprsd t lrn–s BLLSHTTR! Y knw, lk FrnkD.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    ‘course, you’re only succeeding in displaying the vapid vitriol of deniers (and their double-standard on same).

  33. #33 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    This constant strawmanning about personal carbon footprints is a bore.

    1/ You *assume* that all or most climate scientists and Deltoid commenters are acting in bad faith – big footprints; no personal effort to reduce same. But you do not have this information.

    2/ You ignore the *core* issue which is the emissions profile of nations which is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies.

    3/ Growing from that are the emissions trajectories of nations, which are predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.

    FFS stop foaming at the mouth and have a sensible conversation. You are giving me a headache.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    “FFS stop foaming at the mouth and have a sensible conversation”

    He can’t.

    It’s all he’s got.

    “You are giving me a headache.”

    This only encourages them. Since you hurt their feelings (pointed out when they are wrong), they want to hurt you.

  35. #35 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    # 30 Brad Keyes

    If you keep this up, eventually our host will notice that you have breached your restraining order and you will be banned outright. I’m fairly sure TL doesn’t look in very often, but that’s the point – keep this up and you *will* get spotted out of your cage eventually, and that, I suspect, will be that.

    Mind you, if you were looking for an exit mechanism which would allow you to escape the mess you are in here apparently involuntarily… ah. Perhaps now it makes sense.

  36. #36 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Nah, he wants the martyrdom.

    I say let him have it.

  37. #37 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    wow

    If only they did it the old-fashioned way. With a stake, and bundles of firewood.

  38. #38 mike
    February 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr: “Bt y hv n prsnl nfrmtn.”

    Y knw, BBD, y knd hv pnt thr. . K., lt m tk lttl srvy:

    !. ll ths Dltds nd thr “clmt scntsts” wth crrnt “crbn ftprnt” tht s “sstnbl”, f dptd s th nrm fr ll f rth’s crrnt nd prjctd ppltn, dntfy yrslf. Pls ls dscrb, n sm dtl, yr nsprng, lw-crbn lvng nd wrkng crcmstncs, f y wld b s knd. ‘ll ssm, f crs, f gt n rspnss– mn crdbl rspnss–tht y Dltds r jst bnch f crp-t, crbn-hgg hypcrts.

    nd, h by th wy, “clmt hwks” f Dltd-lnd, BBD’s “prsnl ffrt t rdc crbn” dsn’t ct t. Shv yr tkn, slf-rgrdng, crbn-rdctn gstrs, Dltds! thr y wlk-th-wlk nd lv th xmplry, “sstnbl” lw-crbn lfstyl y prch r y dn’t–nd f y dn’t tht jst mks y tw-fcd bnch f rp-ff, crbn-strty cn-rtsts, wh prbbly fncy yrslvs s cnnssrs f fr-fr, stnk-bmb chss, mprtd t ppllng crbn-xpns.

    2. ls, ll ths Dltds nd “clmt scntsts” wh rfs t ttnd ny c-cnfbs, n ny thr mnnr thn thrgh vd-cnfrncng–bcs f yr cncrn tht th bscn crbn-ftprnt f sch drks-gn-wld, prty-tm, txpyr-rpff, bng-bng blw-ts mprl th “kds”–pls stnd-p nd b cntd by nm! Hmnty pprcts yr prncpld stnd nd y dsrv pblc rcgntn fr yr LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL n bhlf f mnknd.

    Rdy t cpy, c-wrrrs: Ww (Ww s Mm; Mm s Ww)? Chk? FrnkD? bll? BrnrdJ? ndy? thrs? nd, f crs, y BBD?–whn y’v rcvrd frm tht nsty mgrn f yrs, mn.

    Stll wtng, gys…(crckts)

  39. #39 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    Thought you’d carry on ranting about strawman (1). Wow appears to be right: you haven’t got anything else, have you?

    Prove me wrong by attempting a serious discussion of the major issues – which I notice you ignored completely:

    2/ You ignore the *core* issue which is the emissions profile of nations which is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies.

    3/ Growing from that are the emissions trajectories of nations, which are predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.

  40. #40 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    I’ve already discussed my modest attempts to keep my carbon footprint low. Once at JC’s and once, more recently here. If you actually care, you can hunt down the recent comment here yourself.

    Arguing that we should all suffer for the good of mankind is a stupid, even ludicrous strawman.

    Arguing that a handful of scientists attending conferences means that they are hypocrites and/or AGW is a scam is stupid.

    May the vowels desert you.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Arguing that we should all suffer for the good of mankind is a stupid, even ludicrous strawman.

    No, he’s arguing that EVERYONE ELSE should all suffer for the good of mankind.

    He’ll keep going as long as even one person uses up any carbon.

    Oddly enough, he’s the sort of opinionated toerag that proclaims that he should do nothing “because China will just increase their output” as if there were some sort of “correct” production of CO2 and everyone wants to keep that value.

    Which, oddly enough again, is a strawman this type of fool trots out when they have nothing better to do with respect to global temperatures.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    In case you are too lazy to keep track of your conversations or too stupid to conduct the required search, the Deltoid comment you need is here.

  43. #43 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    # 43 @ mike, obviously

    # 42 – yes. Same spiel at JC’s.

  44. #44 mike
    February 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Lt’s kp ths ll smpl-lk nd t th “lttl-gy”, “cp d’l” lvl f dscrs, BDD. . K.?

    Y gys rn’t wllng t prctc wht y prch. Rght? Y gys wllw n yr C2-spw, crbn pg-t, sncr gd dls. Rght? Bt–lt’s s nw–y mk–grn-wshd-bck/mk–glg, bld-sckng, slth-bckt lfty-prsts wnt t cm ftr my chp-gs, my bb-mgnt mnstr-trck, nd my mdst, czy, dtchd, sngl-fmly bd. Rght? Wll, BBD, cll BLLSHT! BCK FF Y MTHR-FRCKR, C-RTRD, HV-BZ, RP-FF HYPCRTS!

    S, BBD, ‘m cpbl f “srs” dscssn. mn, lk, rlly “srs” dscssn–nt prtnd-“srs”-dscssn tht s, n rlty, jst wst-f-my-tm, grnshrt snw-jb rsmblng nthng s mch s n nnyng, pstrng tl-mrktr ptch ll drssd-p n smrty-pnts flm-flm.

    n th thr hnd, ht m p, BBD, wth sm LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY XMPL nd y’ll prbbly hv m nd mny nthr “lttl-gy” tng t f yr hnd (ftr w chck thngs t, f crs).

  45. #45 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Wrong.

    then

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Liar.

  46. #46 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    … and yawn.

  47. #47 mike
    February 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Gv m brk, gy! Y ct fw stntts, slf-cngrtltry, crbn-rdctn “scrfcs” (bt y vn gv p cnnd-spnch fr Lnt) y’v md whl rtnng, n n-yr-fc, crbn–g-g, C2-spw lfstyl tht wld mbrrss Rmn mprr (nd dn’t mn Mrcs rls). nd ‘m sppsd t mprssd by tht? mn, lk, s ll tht rzzl-dzzl , frlss-crbn-phb “strt-crd”, y mprbbly clm, sppsd t wn frm m nd thrs prmssn fr y t snk s “lttl-gys” nt dsprt, lw-crbn pnry (whl, jst myb, y mk fw bcks/glgs n th dl). Ft chnc, BBD! nlss, f crs, w s y nd yr hv-bz pls gng frst.

    BBD, dn’t y s hw rdcls y lk ptchng ths tkn, ncnsqntl, crbn-rdctn gstrs f yrs s sm srt f prf f yr gng-h cmmtmnt t th grnshrt-cs. Slf-wrnss, BBD. mn, lk, tsd th “c-bbbl” y nhbt th whl wrld sn’t sm grp-thnk spprt-grp fr trnsprntly phny-blny, nvr-hypcrt prtnsns, y knw. mn, lk, s nrml ppl cn s thrgh ll yr B. S., BBD–n prblm. Thnk bt t.

    n lst thng, BBD, s njyd yr lst f ths h-s-prcs, rlly nrs, tghn’-t-t-bg-tm crbn-scrfcs y’v md, nd ll, bt, thn, t my vry dp dsppntmnt, whn lkd, n trn, fr yr lst f ths hgh-crbn, lfstyl prps y’v dcdd t rtn, cldn’t fnd t–fncy tht!. S, BBD, cld y prtty-pls prvd tht lst, gn, BBD?–lng wth ll ths gd rsns why rlly spcl gy lk y, BBD, wh s fthflly spts th hv’s prty-ln nd srvs s sch snppy mdl fr ll th ltst n hv-fshns dsrvs ll ths rtnd, hgh-crbn tys nd plsrs f yrs. ‘ll bkmrk th lst, dn’t wrry, BBD.

  48. #48 chek
    February 28, 2013

    li’ll mike – how long have you been deluding yourself that you’re “normal people”?

  49. #49 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    And I’m supposed to impressed by that?

    No. Please click the link to the comment referenced at # 43. Please re-read all recent comments above wrt STRAW MAN ARGUMENTATION by yourself.

    This with specific reference to points (2) and (3) at # 34 and # 40.

    You are making a poor fist of this.

  50. #50 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    As you are proving resistant to reason, this is a straw-man argument:

    BBD, don’t you see how ridiculous you look pitching those token, inconsequential, carbon-reduction gestures of yours as some sort of proof of your gung-ho commitment to the greenshirt-cause. Self-awareness, BBD.

    The *core* issues do not demand privation. Hair shirts are not mandatory. That is a purely contrarian (inactivist) construct (aka straw-man).

    The serious discussion centres on (2) and (3) serially ignored by you above.

    Are you capable of upping your game or am I going to be forced to write you off as a foaming crank?

  51. #51 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    What ‘high-carbon toys and pleasures’? An energy-efficient computer? An old-school mobile phone? A few clothes (quality over quantity), worn for years? I suppose books are probably the greatest indulgence. Okay. Too many books. Call the headsman.

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2013

    “See, BBD, I’m capable of a “serious” discussion. I mean, like, a really “serious” discussion–not a pretend-”serious”-discussion that is, in reality, just a waste-of-my-time, greenshirt snow-job resembling nothing so much as an annoying, pestering tele-marketer pitch all dressed-up in smarty-pants flim-flam”

    The Mike writes this vacuous bunch of shit which totally undermines his claim. He’s had to resort to the same kinds of smears coming from the pseudo-fascist far right corporate funded advocacy groups; calling scientists and environmentalists everything bad under the sun and linking them with ex-communists. This has been part of the anti-environmental repertoire ever since the Berlin Wall came down (see Rowell, ‘Green Backlash’, 1996).

    The guy is a nut best left to his own sordid devices.

  53. #53 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Hello again Jeff

    It’s a funny thing – some might call it an irrational prejudice – but when I see the term ‘greenshirt’ I immediately think the worst of the author.

    Earlier, I described mike’s use of this and related language as false equivalence, but ‘vacuous bunch of shit’ would do equally well.

    This is why I suggested to mike upthread that he ups his game and engages at a serious level. He never has before (elsewhere) but hope springs eternal.

  54. #54 mike
    February 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr: #52

    I can see there’s been a misunderstanding–and I take responsibility. I mean “toys and pleasures” in the broadest sense and if you, BBD, want to provide a list that is responsive to my request, please do so in this form, as a start:

    –what is the square footage of your familiy’s accomodations and work-spaces, if any? And how does that work out in terms of sq ft/full-time resident?

    –what is the nature of your climate controls (e. g. do you use Air Conditioning/Heating for your abode)? Indeed, what are the powered devices used in your home, in total, by all of its permanent residents–fridge, stove, stereos, video-games, etc?.

    –what foodstuffs do you consume that are not produced within a 50 mile radius of your home?

    –what travel by fossil-fuel conveyances do you and/or your family undertake?

    –what goods do you and your immediate family own that are imported and your estimate of the carbon-expense of their importation?

    –what services do you and your immediate family consume and their carbon-footprint

    –what are your and your family’s hobbies and entertainments and their carbon footprint (and yeah, I mean, like, takin’ the kids to play soccer even).

    Again, a responsive answer to the above would provide me a meaningful understanding of your carbon-reduction ardor–and detect any “fudging” of the issue by claiming your own, possibly very limited carbon consumption, while excluding from mention a “family” lifestyle that is high-roller and carbon pig-out in character.

    I anticipate that my above inquiries will provoke a certain outrage (they would me, if the situation were reversed), but you’ve put yourself, on record, BBD, as LEADING FROM THE FRONT AND PERSONAL EXAMPLE in matters of carbon-reduction, and, on that basis, I just want to inquire a little bit further before I go gently into that good, Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch hell, you and your hive-bozo buddies have planned for me, on the basis of your hive-hero say-so.

    And please don’t misunderstand, BBD, I don’t begrudge you a materially prosperous lifestyle–just don’t come after mine. Cheap gas. Cheap utilities. Detached family-home with some yard for the kids. A gas-guzzler with sex-appeal. That’s all us “little-guys” are lookin’ for, BBD. And, you can, in turn, keep all your fancy-pants imported wines and cheeses and trips to see real-live polar-bears in the wild and your special “party-funds”, set-aside for your after-hours, eco-conference bacchanales- (as long as you don’t fund your good-deals with taxpayer dollars ripped-off from the “little guy”, that is) and the like. At least, as far as I’m concerned.

  55. #55 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    but you’ve put yourself, on record, BBD, as LEADING FROM THE FRONT AND PERSONAL EXAMPLE in matters of carbon-reduction

    No, I have not. Ever. Disagree? Demonstrate by quotation.

  56. #56 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    You continue to ignore the core issues:

    2/ The emissions profile of nations is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies or lack thereof.

    3/ The emissions trajectory of nations is predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.

    4/ Strawman argumentation has nothing to do with (2) and (3).

  57. #57 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Li’ll mike, do you really think (you remember what thinking is, right?) that a walking, meme-spouting, fuck-witted, denier-greatest-hits troll is relevant to anything? Anywhere?

    You’d do a good sorry-Monckton-can’t-be-here-but-here’s-li’ll mike-and-his-full-blown-ignorance routine-at-a-Heartland-gig-providing-you-agreed-to-suck-Joe-Bast’s-cock-if you-carefully-check-the-rider, but otherwise you’re somebody else’s second-hand-collect-your-coat-and-leave-your-visitor’s tag-at-reception-on-the-way-out clownshoes.

    But what kind of life is that? Yours, presumably.

  58. #58 mike
    February 28, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr: “N, hv nt.”

    Wll, BBD, f “nt” thn wht ws th pnt f yr hgh-ddgn strn-rprmnd drctd my wy bt ll yr prvsly-rprtd crbn-rdctns tht, y fnd, ddn’t chrsh n my mmry prprly. r, wht ws th pnt f tht bg-scn “Wht hgh crbn tys nd plsrs?” ndgntn-bgr qp f yrs, n tht p-thrd cmmnt f yrs, tht ls ncldd yr pltry, pr-l’l-l’-lw-crbn-m nvntry f yr hrmt’s-cll, gd-lttl-grnshrt, lw-crbn gdgtry?–by th wy, BBD, spclly lkd tht ptght, Mr. c-Prtn-Fghts-C2 , “nrgy-ffcnt cmptr” prt f yr rff. Gd stff!

    Bt, . K., BBD, y sy nn f tht ws ntndd t rprsnt yrslf s prgn f crbn-rdctn nd n thrttv crbn-rdctn dvct wh lds by xmpl (nt tkn gstrs). . K., BBD, ‘ll cncd, pr y sy-s, tht y’r rght, thn, nd ‘m wrng. Y r nt nd d nt cnsdr yrslf t b smn wrthy f mltn whn t cms t mttrs f lw-crbn lfstyl. ndd, plgz fr my rlr mstk n th mttr. Hppy nw?

    S, gss, BBD, ‘ll jst hv t sttl fr y s slf-cknwldgd, crbn-hgg, sfl-tl hypcrt trgtng th lttl gy wth yr hv-pprvd mk–bck/mk–glg crbn-rdctn dvccy whl sprng bth yrslf nd yr hv-bz pls ny mnngfl crbn-rdctn brdn. Whtvr wrks, gy.

  59. #59 chek
    February 28, 2013

    That’s li’ll mike – the claim-to-know know-nothing.
    The pride of denialism in its self-revealed glory.

  60. #60 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    Well, BBD, if “not” then what was the point of your high-dudgeon stern-reprimand directed my way about all your previously-reported carbon-reductions that, you found, I didn’t cherish in my memory properly.

    My point was that you were misrepresenting me and indulging in straw-man argumentation. As you continue to do with clunking lack of subtlety.

    Come on mike. You once said ‘poetaster’. You can do better than this.

  61. #61 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Duff asks, “Where’s the warming”?

    Silly Duffer, did you miss this, which I posted yesterday:

    This one’s for the silly Duffer:

    Alaskan community faces supply problems due to unusual warm weather:

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/early-ice-road-melt-threatens-cut-albertas-arctic

    Early ice road melt threatens to cut off Alberta’s Arctic

    Many are welcoming the above average temperatures in the province this winter — except those in Fort Chipewyan who say the unseasonably warm days are threatening to cut the northern community off from the rest of the Canadian province of Alberta.

    Usually the ice road that connects Fort Chipewyan to the community of Fort McMurray is busy with truck traffic this time of year.

    However, warm weather has taken a toll on the road, causing the province to close it to heavy loads during the day.

    “We were supposed to have a truck today, and now it’s stuck in Fort McMurray,” said Donna MacKay, who manages a general store in the community.

    “I’m out of my fresh fruits and lettuce, tomatoes and a few things like that.”

    MacKay said this is when many retailers stock up for the rest of the year, which means melting ice roads now cause long-term problems.

    William Tuccaro, who works at Fort Petrol, says there’s a chance of rationing his fuel if reserves aren’t topped up.

    “We’ll have enough until late fall and then we’re in trouble,” he says.

    The community may rely more heavily on supplies flown in to Fort Chipewyan, with at least one aviation company considering shipping in twice as much cargo.

    However, items brought in by air are generally more expensive than those brought in by ground.

    People are holding out for colder temperatures, but it looks unlikely. Environment Canada is forecasting warmer weather all week and into the weekend.

  62. #62 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    mike

    So, I guess, BBD, I’ll just have to settle for you as a self-acknowledged, carbon-hoggie, useful-tool hypocrite targeting the little guy with your hive-approved make-a-buck/make-a-gulag carbon-reduction advocacy while sparing both yourself and your hive-bozo pals any meaningful carbon-reduction burden

    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

    I’ve been arguing about arguments on Deltoid. Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies and misrepresentations and, occasionally, scientific references.

    Where you get your characterisation of me from is a mystery.

    Disagree? Demonstrate by specific quotation.

  63. #63 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind

    Perhaps Duff is confused by the cold weather in Blighty. Blighty is not the world, after all.

    Shall we have some fun with WfT ;-)

    He should have a look at the UAH satellite data. UAH (Spencer & Christy) recently reported that *globally*, January 2013 was the second-warmest January in the entire satellite record, with a 0.506C positive anomaly over the UAH 1981 – 2010 baseline. Across the whole record, only January 2010 was warmer, but it came at the the peak of the strong 2010 El Niño.

    There is no El Niño now yet here’s UAH TLT with January 2013 right up there, leading from the front. Weird, eh?

    Jan 2013 really is leading from the front. Only *six* months since 1979 were warmer. All occurred either during the 1998 ‘super’ El Niño or the strong El Niño of 2010 – but there is no El Niño now.

    Never mind, reasons Duff. Get a bloody grip. It’s chilly in Blighty, and be damned to Johnny Foreigner and his El-Whatsits.

    ***

    Months warmer than January 2013, UAH TLT:

    1998.08 0.651 Feb (‘Super’ El Niño)
    1998.25 0.662 Apr (‘Super’ El Niño)
    1998.33 0.562 May (‘Super’ El Niño)

    2010 0.581 Jan (Strong El Niño)
    2010.08 0.542 Feb (Strong El Niño)
    2010.17 0.577 Mar (Strong El Niño)

    Months equal to Jan 2013, UAH TLT:

    1998.42 0.506 Jun (‘Super’ El Niño)

  64. #64 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Ah, but Duffer’s immune to the step change in progress as Steve Goddard has farted all across the blogosphere about the ‘record growth in Arctic sea ice, so in Duffer’s view there’s ‘nothing amiss’. Any flooding in the UK later this year as all that evaporated water rains out will be due to ‘bad town planning decisions’ – anything but climate change.

    Of course what Stevie doen’t tell the drooling Duffer ignorati is that his ‘record growth’ in thin, easily melted come summer first year ice is still below the 1979-2001 baseline average for the time of year. Mainly because he knows that Duffer et al are too stupid to understand simple graphs anyway and wilfully have no conception of the consequences for weather in the northern hemisphere.

    Because as long as his Bar-B-Q is rusting in his garage and news reports refer only to Johnny Foreigners and “Brads” and Jonases and Alders (ineffectively) argue otherwise’, Duffer and his toy soldiers see no reason to be alarmed.

  65. #65 bill
    February 28, 2013

    Yep; a deacde and a half later we’ve now reached a situation where ‘average’ conditions are pretty-well equivalent to the super el Nino – a 1/200 year event, IIRC – of 1998.

    This is touted as evidence of ‘cooling.’

    Sadly, I’m beginning to believe that The Stupid is truly the most powerful force in human affairs.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Only for stupid people, bill.

  67. #67 bill
    March 1, 2013

    By the end of the year Tony Abbott will be the Prime Minister. Stupid is everywhere.

  68. #68 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    JeffH @# 23 and BBD @#27,
    Good morning from NSW Australia.
    JeffH,
    I am not insisting any such thing, nor do I think that this study DOWNPLAYS the human fingerprint.
    This study is just attempting to gain some perspective on SL with updated data.
    BBD, I did not find this study at the Hockey Shtick site, nor was I influenced by it (as I didn’t read it)
    I have however now visited the hockey schtik for the first time this morning and I agree that my summary of the paper is not disimilar to the summary there although (unlike the summary there) I have not credited the paper with any other conclusions other than what the paper concludes.
    I’m not surprised that my outline is a bit similar considering that it was the SAME paper that was being outlined.
    I also noticed at the Brad K thread, BBD, that you wanted to sneer a little at Kopp?
    Here is a rundown of his quals and experience:
    http://www.bobkopp.net/
    I do not see any reason to sneer at this person BBD?
    Also, Vince is asking why I mentioned the Church et al Paper?
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    This peer reviewed paper also finds that 20th century SL is not exhibiting anything out of the ordinary but does go further than the Kopp et al paper and concludes thus:
    The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

    So if anything, I suppose the Church et al paper would fit more into JeffH’s idea of a ‘denier paper’ (??????) than the Kopp et al paper.
    But John Church, Neil White etc are also well qualified people.
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine–Atmospheric-Research/JohnChurch.aspx
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_about_us.html#white

    However, unlike JeffH ,I don’t believe these papers are attempting to do anything other than objectively study SL with updated data sets.
    The more recent peer reviewed published research (and I don’t think it has anything to do with numbers of papers JeffH) is indicating that recent SLR is not unprecedented.

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    UAH (Spencer & Christy) recently reported that *globally*, January 2013 was the second-warmest January in the entire satellite record, with a 0.506C positive anomaly over the UAH 1981 – 2010 baseline. Across the whole record, only January 2010 was warmer, but it came at the the peak of the strong 2010 El Niño.

    There is no El Niño now yet here’s UAH TLT with January 2013 right up there, leading from the front. Weird, eh?

    Jan 2013 really is leading from the front. Only *six* months since 1979 were warmer. All occurred either during the 1998 ‘super’ El Niño or the strong El Niño of 2010 – but there is no El Niño now.

    My prediction for Duffer’s considered response:
    Yeah, but where’s the warming

  70. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    This peer reviewed paper also finds that 20th century SL is not exhibiting anything out of the ordinary but does go further than the Kopp et al paper and concludes thus:

    That’s what I thought – you don’t know the difference between the 20th Century and the Eemian.

    Kopp says nothing about 20th Century sea level rise.

    Church says nothing about sea level rise being “out of the ordinary”.

    recent SLR is not unprecedented.

    So, we have a precedent for a 6m to 9m sea level rise.

    The IPCC is telling us 1m is on its way.

    Do you think the IPCC are underestimating the scale of the problem, again?

  71. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    I think that’s what Chameleon’s trying to tell us – we now have a precedent for what happens when sea level rise accelerates to over 3mm/year – a 9-metre sea level rise.

    Chameleon is predicting a 9-metre sea level rise.

    And they call the IPCC, “Alarmist”.

  72. #72 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Vince?????
    “Church says nothing about sea level rise being “out of the ordinary”.
    From Church et al:
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.
    and VINCE?
    “Kopp says nothing about 20th Century sea level rise.”
    From Kopp et al:
    http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/21/gji.ggt029.full.pdf+html
    Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    So, Australia’s just had its hottest summer ever, and this with no El Niño:

    http://theconversation.edu.au/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505

    Perhaps the Denialati here would care to explain how many (more) record hot years are necessary before global warming can no longer be denied…

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    Just to follow up on my last post, the previous summer heat record occurred during the 97-98 ‘super’ El Niño – in fact 6 of the 8 previous records were during El Niño years.

    I wonder what the next few El Niño will bring to Australia…?

  75. #75 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    BJ?
    You do realise that these figs only take into account since the start of satellite recordings don’t you?

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Chameleon (once more!) repeats claims about “Church et al.” (which is actually Gregory et al.) that were widely circulated in certain circles including The Australian. Those claims were rapidly debunked on publication, including a post about the paper that pointed to this article explaining why one cannot infer sea level acceleration rates by fitting a quadratic to the data. There was even a rare correction in The Australian that quoted Church himself:

    “Sea level has already increased the rate of rise from the 18th and 19th century. The instrumental record would indicate an acceleration during the 20th century and the projections will indicate a further acceleration during the 21st century.”

    Chameleon repeats the debunked claims a month or two after the corrections were pointed out to her. Either she can’t take on board new information (entirely plausible, given her record) or hopes no-one will notice that she’s repeating claims shown to be false.

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    You do realise that these figs only take into account since [sic] the start of satellite recordings don’t you?

    This has to be one of the most brain-dead silliest – one of the most profoundly ignorant – things I’ve ever had the misfortune to witness on Deltoid.

    Have you even read the reports on the 2012/2013 Australian summer, and to which data records the Bureau of Meteorology referred?!

    Or are you trying to tell us that the first meteorological satellite was launched and operational by 1910 – one hundred and three years ago?

    Seriously, Chameleon, whichever state school system was responsible for your lack of education should be hit up for your parents’ share of the taxes that went in to not teaching you basic comprehension skills.

  78. #78 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    BJ,
    The hottest official records for OZ and the southern hemisphere was in 1960 and there were also hotter ones than 2012/13 in 1939 and 1896.
    There were also equally hot late summers/early autumns in the 1950’s and 1980’s
    The coldest record in the northern hemisphere however is dated 2013.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Another day, another load of BK cobblers.

    Brad narrowly defines “peer review” to eliminate the most important part of the process – hey, I thought he claimed to have a superior understanding of how science works?! – and then attacks the Lewandowsky strawman of his own creation as (oh, the irony!) “incoherent”. This leads BK to appear to argue that certain improvements to the scientific method are superfluous, or at a minimum “not necessary” – a rather odd claim given merely what we know about psychology and things like “confirmation bias”, let alone the occasional episode of deliberate mendacity and any of dozens of other issues that peer review strongly mitigates. BK even cites Feynman without any sign of understanding that Feynman would be all for (the full process of) peer review because trying not to fool oneself is nowhere near sufficient to routinely succeed at not fooling oneself, and the full peer review process does a much better job of meeting that goal.

    Ironically this constitutes part of “defending [what passes for] the scientific method” in his mind. Dunning and Kruger are calling BK and they’d like to book a timeslot for an extended chat…

    (Taking a wider perspective it is no longer amazing how much verbiage he can generate whilst not answering straightforward questions about the genesis of his beliefs with respect to various scientific propositions.)

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    An article on more research on Rossby waves.

    Duff could profitably note this part (but past evidence indicates that he probably won’t because this has been pointed out multiple times before):

    Major declines of Arctic summer sea ice as in 2011 and 2007 have been linked to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe, Francis said. The record ice loss in 2012 has been followed by a cold and stormy winter over much of Europe.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    This Watching The Deniers article looks at the conspiracy theories propagated by Malcolm Roberts, the Project Leader for The Galileo Movement. (Might be useful reading for those who don’t understand references to conspiracy theories put forth in certain “skeptic” circles about “banking families”.)

    Don’t forget to click through to the linked article by Graham Redfearn (which points out there are 19 appendices(!) one of them running to 135 pages – it’s all a fraud to establish global socialist governance by international bankers who in the past “enabled and drove communism”- who knew the bankers were such capitalist communist pigs? ;-) ).

    This loon has also sent letters to PM Gillard, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and Shadow Minister for Broadband and Communications Malcolm Turnbull demanding they resign from parliament immediately. He has also sent “lawful notices” demanding that various journalists withdraw any past claims about CO2 damaging the climate.

    In response to the report, the Galileo Movement has distanced itself but Alan Jones has apparently “fawned over” Roberts and his work – and the response from SMH journalist Ben Cubby is quite appropriate.

    It’s also well worth reading to the end sections of the Watching The Deniers article:

    Sceptics will see this as merely another attempt to besmirch their good name. Thus I stress I do not equate climate scepticism with antisemitism or holocaust denial. However, I would argue that much of the climate sceptic narrative is framed in terms of conspiracy.

    Many will see this as an opportunity to laugh at Roberts expense. But honestly, I’m not laughing.

    What terrifies me is the new life given to some of the worst ideological excesses of the last century. Roberts and his patron Alan Jones are helping – inadvertently or not – to inject the ugly intellectual baggage of the twentieth century into contemporary politics.

    Conspiracy theories are toxic to democracy: they are not merely the product of the fringe. They distort public debate, and even worse lead to the scapegoating of individuals and groups.

  82. #82 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    “Banking families” – yep – it’s all coming out…..

    LaRouche.

    To be fair – Alan Jones may just be way too dim to have read the subtext there.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Vince?????
    “Church says nothing about sea level rise being “out of the ordinary”.
    From Church et al:
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

    So…you agree they say nothing about current sea level acceleration being “out of the ordinary”, then?

    and VINCE?
    “Kopp says nothing about 20th Century sea level rise.”
    From Kopp et al:
    http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/21/gji.ggt029.full.pdf+html
    Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.

    So…you agree that Kopp says nothing about 20th century sea level rise?

    It’s nice to see you admit that your assertions were wrong, thanks.

  84. #84 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    So nice to see Chameleon finally doing her homework, reading her sources, and admitting they don’t say anything like what she said they say.

    I think we’ve turned a corner here – Chameleon is obviously approaching her education in good faith. She isn’t afraid of learning new things and admitting that they prove her previously held beliefs were wrong.

    Good for you, Chameleon!

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Oh dear, ocean acidity looks like it could be worse than the scientists’ conservative predictions:

    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20132702-24102.html

    Shallow reefs facing increased acidity
    University of New South Wales
    Thursday, 28 February 2013
    offaxisproduction_acidity_shutterstock
    Increases in CO2 levels may change the pH around shallow coastal reefs and ecosystems, accelerating corrosion.
    Image: OffAxisProduction/Shutterstock

    Shallow coral reefs may be even more susceptible to increasing acidity caused by heightened levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans than previously recognised.

    In the same way that small increases in global temperature can lead to more extremely hot, record-breaking days, new research reveals small increases in overall ocean acidity can lead to extreme localised changes in ocean pH around shallow coastal reefs and ecosystems.

    “Our study shows organisms residing on shallow coral reefs and in other shallow marine ecosystems will be exposed to far more extreme and variable acidity in the future than deeper ocean organisms. This will be caused by a combination of heightened background carbon dioxide levels and the natural cycles found in shallow ecosystems,” says lead author, Emily Shaw, from the UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre.

    “We are beginning to understand how the pH of shallow reef waters can vary dramatically according to tidal situations, seasonal conditions, diurnal cycles and the responses of biological communities to each of these. If we continue to add carbon dioxide at our current rate the increased background CO2 will not simply add a little to these extreme events but will have a multiplying effect that will amplify them considerably more.“

    The scientists used observational data from coral communities on the shallow offshore reef around Lady Elliott Island, Great Barrier Reef, as their baseline. There they looked closely at how certain conditions in concert have a powerful amplifying or diluting impact on carbon dioxide levels at local levels in shallow reefs.

  86. #86 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    The hottest official records for OZ and the southern hemisphere was in 1960 and there were also hotter ones than 2012/13 in 1939 and 1896.
    There were also equally hot late summers/early autumns in the 1950′s and 1980′s
    The coldest record in the northern hemisphere however is dated 2013.

    Two questions Chameleon.

    1) Where are your references to primary sources?

    2) How is it, in your bizarre model of the universe, that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does not understand its own databases when it says that the summer ending yesterday was the hottest on record?

    Seriously, you’re crackers. Bat-shit crazy. Read the Bureau’s own report on the summer just ending*. They specifically mention the 103-year period, and interestingly it appears that the reporting on the radio today was wrong when it said that the previous record was the 97-98 ‘super’ El Niño – the BoM’s page shows that the previous record was in fact +1.23° C anomaly of the summer of 1982–83, compared to the 1961–1990 mean. This summer’s anomaly was 1.44° C…

    [*Proud financial supporter of WebCite]

  87. #87 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Vince?
    What do you think these refer to?
    From the gregory et al (thanks Lotharsson) paper:
    ” but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
    and then these?
    From the Kopp et al paper:
    Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today.
    These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.
    Hmmmm?
    I think they do indeed refer to the 20th century after all and they do indeed point out it is highly likely that curent SL and SLR has occured B4.
    But it’s OK Vince,
    I’m not really all that interested in arguing with you over what you think I think the paper says or doesn’t say or whatever.
    Maybe you need to wait for your hero non climatologists Lewandowsky and Cook to guide you on what is right and wrong about these particular studies?
    Because according to your comments at the Brad K thread, Lewandowsky is always right and/or never wrong about matters climate.
    ;-)
    I’m sure Kopp and White and Church etc are all waiting with baited breath for that summation
    :-)

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Good grief! Chameleon – even after having it pointed out – still thinks “21” is the same (century) as “20”.

    There’s simply no point discussing science with her.

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    For want of placing the URL between the quotation marks…

    Bureau’s own report on the summer just ending.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013
  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.

    I think they do indeed refer to the 20th century after all

    Are you sure about that?

  92. #92 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    according to your comments at the Brad K thread, Lewandowsky is always right and/or never wrong about matters climate.

    He is right until somebody manages to show where he is wrong.

    Where was he wrong, Chameleon?

  93. #93 bill
    March 1, 2013

    The (energy giant) EDF’s PR suicide thing that Monbiot has been touting is interesting.

    There’s nowt to stop you signing on folks.

    (I know several of the people involved in the Gunns case, including TWS’s rather brilliant ‘bush lawyer‘. There’s good advice on that site for those challenging large corp.s with buckets of cash to shell out on lawyers. ‘Be careful, not silent’ indeed!)

  94. #94 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Remember: the banking families are all “Jewish”. Even if they’re not.

    It really IS another Neo-Nazi dogwhistle to claim the bankers are doing this.

  95. #95 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Bray’s reasons for posting are simple narcissism.

    His distraught postings when nobody was playing in his jail thread prove that all he craves is attention.

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    I suspect it wouldn’t take very long for BK to get very bored if no-one paid any attention to his meanderings. (It certainly worked for sunspot.)

    If there’s one dubious benefit the BK carnival has had here it’s that his thread has bumped the Jonas thread to the back burner. ;-)

  97. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Yeah, I was hoping somebody would terminate Jonah.

    Thank god for Brad coming along.

    Funny how all these deniers are all idiots, though – how come not one of them can explain why their fringe belief (low sensitivity/underestimated solar forcings/climate science as a global conspiracy/sea level rise as a figment of humanity’s collective imagination/etc…) can’t do so without telling lie after lie?

  98. #98 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    No, I think all that would happen is that Bray would petulantly post again and again to any and all threads in order to garner attention until banned, then go elsewhere and cry for attention because they’d been treated so mean.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Wow, I think we should try that experiment :-)

    He certainly dons a martyr’s cape over his banning at Lewandowsky’s for repeatedly violating the commenting terms & conditions (I was *censored* I tells you, *censored*!) so it wouldn’t surprise me if he did exactly what you said.

  100. #100 bill
    March 1, 2013

    Why not just do it? Seriously, nothing you could do to Brad could possibly equal the narcissistic injury of ignoring him.

    He’s just rehashing run-of-the-mill Denialist chum-nuggets in a self-satisfied stylee anyway, so what’s there to lose?

Current ye@r *