The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it’s clever.
It’s quite common in our regular trolls. For example, that was chameleon’s foible as well. Evidence to the contrary is like heavy rain off an Argentinian duck’s back…
Karen, Macri gives no detail beyond that this was the second heaviest rainfall in the city… ‘heaviest’ is ambiguous and is very likely to be a one day total,rather than a comment on relative intensities. Rainfall totals by convention are one day periods. It is very unlikely that in 1906 an hourly rate is being observed. Your assumption is obvious, your comprehension is amply demonstrated to be feeble at best.
Falls in La Plata according to local press were well in excess of the figures from BA airport.
show me the data
Sure, #2, for a salary!
Karen, you fuckwit, Australia is not the world.
RTFR. Note the discussion of “regional” vs “global”. It’s the same old, same old with you, isn’t it?
Now, back to the questions you refuse to answer:
1/. Now, why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase? Please justify this assertion:
Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol
2/. Please summarise the effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle.
Do not dare to repeat this:
At no time did I discuss evaporation rates and temperature, your barking up the wrong tree old chum (WOOF WOOF little doggy).
Trying to pretend that this discussion *does not* derive from the effects of warming on the hydrological cycle is beyond disingenuous. It transcends contemptible.
Don’t fuck about with me like this again.
My very witty, incisive and highly intelligent comment yesterday seems to have gone astray so I will try again because I am always eager to help you little Deltoids as much as possible.
So, to ensure that you have the very latest jargon, which some of those appalling ‘deniers’ have called ‘gobbledegook’, let me tell you what the next ‘in’ phrase is, and if anyone giggles they will get a hundred lines and stay behind after school:
Now, it is important that you use this as often as possible and when you do so you must get across that you really, really mean it, er, whatever it actually means!
No, no, please, no need to thank me.
I see from your # 99 previous page that you are now spamming from Delingpole’s midden as well.
BBD, Buenos Aires is not the world either?
Future planning for a population of several millions is not a subject that will ever trouble SpamKan’s reality. And neither Doolallypole’s ignorant, spittle-flecked rhetoric won’t provide the resource when it’s needed.
And SpamKan still hasn’t the first clue clue how to even frame a question.
I am happy to see that you survived an extraordinarily cold winter and very late spring.
I read that it was sooooo cold over there that your country nearly run out of gas!!!
And all the poor little sheepies froze to death, sigh, and the frozen biota would be incalculable.
It’s fun to watch cretins like SpamKan try to deny that the hydrological cycle isn’t strengthening when MSL is massively reduced by the very odd ‘double’ La Nina 2011 – 2012.
So much evaporated seawater precipitated over land that the sea level fell further and faster than at any time in the record.
Think (if you can do such a thing) about that, SpamKan!
# 7 Different regions, different effects. You are still a fuckwit, SpamKan!!
Answer the questions (# 4), you miserable excuse for a correspondent that you are!
Come on, Spammers! You started this!
Now answer those questions – or STFU and FOAD!
You can’t do it. You can’t square your denialist clap-trap with the facts.
2/ Spanish priest who founded an order whose members became known as Dominicans or carbonazi’s
“My very witty, incisive and highly intelligent comment yesterday ”
Yeah, very walter mitty.
You can’t do it, you cretin. You look so utterly stupid now it’s actually more pitiful than amusing.
You should have taken the hint a while back and STFU
Some really sad news about polar scientist Dr Katherine Giles (warning, some a couple of the comments will nauseate):
Your 2/ is crap as well.
Domini Canes – look it up, fuckwit
Your use of apostrophe in your Godwin is illiterate.
You really are Teh Stupid incarnate.
the future will tell, lol
# 18 we crossed
Hello, Karen, yes, all this global warming has been sheer hell, I tell you, hell! My Long Johns are in sad need of repair partly because I haven’t taken them off since October last year – dread thought!!
The Argentine National Meteorological Service has produced a report on the event which ranks the precipitation recorded at official stations. No mention is made of anecdotal reports of much higher figures in La Plata. Given the report was released within a couple of days of the event, you can assume that data from private sources has not yet been collated,if indeed that is an intention.
The 24 hr total recorded at Buenos Aires is the highest for any April on record, the reference period starts in 1906. The second highest April fall occurred in 1989. So Macris remark, if accurate and accurately translated, refers to any-month falls at some time post 1906. April is not exactly the height of the wet season,which peaks Feb-March. As well, Oct and Nov are wetter on average than April. These are record falls on a seasonal shoulder,and close to all time.
The official 24 hr figure from la Plata [181mm] is the highest by a considerable margin [50mm] in data starting from 1959.
Data for shorter periods ,6 hours and 1 hour are given,and the reference period is very short,starting 1999…which strongly suggests that the all-month highest fall –Macri’s ‘heaviest’– is a 24hr figure. The 2 hour fall is the second highest on record for Buenos Aires Observatory. The highest is a January fall, with the other high figures almost exclusively Jan Feb or Mar.
No 1hr fall data are available at La Plata, and the 6hr figure to midnight 2/4/13 is 125mm.
It’s not the sun, Karen.
missing data eh!
No BBD, the sun has nothing to do with heating the planet, lol
It’s absolutely amazing, SpamKan’s lack of basic comprehension. We get another spammed link to Svensmark and his hypothesis that cosmic rays may affect cloud.
But nothing whatsoever on the hydrological cycle or how moisture enters the atmosphere to form clouds (they’re formed by evaporation of water which is caused by heat which is increased by CO2 re-radiation to simplify for you SpamKan).
But all it takes is one misconstrued or not even understood concept and the deniers are off and away. Teh Stupid incarnate indeed.
Meantime, BBD #10, sea level rebounded to way above the trend, constituting a rise that was the best in the record
#25, yes, Karen, missing data. Still compiling that list, are you?
a little pointer for wetchec………
Svensmark & http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/solar_region_count.png
tappedy tap…tap tap
Also missing how clouds become clouds: there is a lot of water surrounding a nucleation site. Putting lots of nucleation sites will inhibit clouds.
‘sfunny how deniers get all bent out of shape because “greenhouse gas effect” isn’t precisely the same as a greenhouse, yet are completely fine with a “cloud chamber” despite it being very little like a chamber with clouds in. If you had enough condensation to cause clouds in a “cloud chamber”, you’d be unable to do anything with it.
Kaz, so now show us the cosmic ray count for the latest cycle.
And lets look at the weather for the last time the sun was like this, hmm?
#29 means the 1960’s were by far the warmest decennium on record, closely followed by the 1770’s.
Cosmic ray counts were at a recorded high in 2010…which was the warmest year on record.
# 34 Nick
Yes – the scepticoid numpties never seem to understand that observations of GCR flux *contradict* the Svensmark hypothesis.
But for the real death blow, ask the scepticoid numpties what they can google up about the Laschamp excursion…
Those who know nothing about paleoclimate are doomed to be hit over the head with it
Google is for chumps…GutFeeling is the new search engine on the block…JuzHazToBe is an up-and-comer
Whats the thinking on Georgieva et al
“Once again about global warming and solar activity”
“A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations…”
(shown last page fig 6)
The thinking is that G05 is mistaken.
You spammed your latest nonsense from <a href="http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/paper-finds-solar-influence-on-climate.html"this denialist midden.
No points for scientific comprehension or originality or intellectual integrity – or anything at all, really.
It took you 14 hours! Too slow, lard-arse! You need to up your game.
God you lot are pitiful. You crap on about argument from authority but just fucking look at you all. You would have nothing were it not for the little coterie of lying chum-ladlers out their, feeding you your daily rotting fish guts.
Rednose’s paper seems to date from 2005. Wonder why HockeySchtick and the GWPF have suddenly decided to promote it as though it were new?
Others produce published results.
Its quite a correlation. Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years.
You ought to be gratefull for the distraction. It might stop you barking up the wrong tree
“A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations…”
Have you checked if they’re right, duffer? Or are you unskeptical of its claims?
“Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years.”
Still going down that up escalator, duffer?
Well I thought I would check with you first Wow.
You seem to have a comment for everything.
None of them particularly significant
You have nothing to say worth hearing (hence your improved screen-name!). If I was interested in old, mistaken papers I could visit the Denialist Middens myself.
# 41 lord_sidcup
Because they are desperate, dishonest scum with nothing better to offer.
Others produce published results.
Its quite a correlation.
Oh, a gift. You really shouldn’t have said that
How much have we seen in the mainstream climate journals from the scepticoid chum-shovellers, fake experts and other and midden-curators?
Let’s all have another bloody good laugh at your expense. Give us a list.
Go on. I challenge you.
“You seem to have a comment for everything.”
Irony. See Duffer’s comment above.
“Better than between CO2 and temperature for the last 15 years”
Oh my Lord, here we go again with this crap. I thought I put Rednose’s puerile inability to understand scale to bed, and he rehashes the same shite.
Seems like he/she/it and Karen are an ignoramus tag-team.
BBD resorting to ad hominums, or is it ad hominae?
Any comment on the correlation, the one going back to 1856?
Is that scale long enough?
Duffer, your screed is nothing but what you complain others are doing.
Not rising to the challenge?
No scientific case for scepticoidism after all? Just lots of fake experts and chum-shovelling on the Intertubes?
What to do? The usual: have a whine and make a weak attempt to divert attention away from the rather obvious problem.
You must be old if you remember Professor Unwin
Perhaps you studied under him.
Here’s an uncontroversial correlation for you.
What are you going to do? Be a sceptic or a scepticoid? Wow asked you this at # 43 and it is an important question. Do we trumpet a single, mistaken and, frankly, ignored, study or do we look at the standard position which is standard because it is well supported?
Some landowners are sueing some energy and chemical companies. What is interesting is the companies’ defense…
“In their petition for a review by the full 5th Circuit, the companies argued that global warming was not attributable only to them but resulted from the emissions of greenhouse gases from millions of sources dating back to the Industrial Revolution.”
So if even they are not denying AGW and it’s causes, that shows just how far removed from reality the deniers are.
Redarse, do NOT come here and spew your half-baked vacant assertions such as #52.
AGW is an entirely scientifically robust theory supported by many lines of evidence established over the past century, studied by today’s leading scientists and peer-reviewed so far up the arse, it gets a clean bill of dental health.
If you want to wank on about ‘correlations going back to 1856′ picked up from your failing PR sites, it’s up to YOU to do the work and bring something substantial to the table. Not pathetic innuendos suggesting ‘maybes’ and ‘what ifs’.
But of course we already know you’re just a spam chumming idiot without the wherewithal, and all that you CAN do is repeat the same formulated bilge to thinking people that your preferred disinformers churn out, which satisfies the easily satisfied, uninformed idiot minds of you and your ilk.
Take your received, second-hand shiteideas to Watts’ place or wherever, but not here.
Speaking of many lines of evidence –
Recently observed extreme temperatures at high northern latitudes are rare by definition, making the longer time span afforded by climate proxies important for assessing how the frequency of such extremes may be changing. Previous reconstructions of past temperature variability have demonstrated that recent warmth is anomalous relative to preceding centuries or millennia, but extreme events can be more thoroughly evaluated using a spatially resolved approach that provides an ensemble of possible temperature histories. Here, using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of instrumental, tree-ring, ice-core and lake-sediment records, we show that the magnitude and frequency of recent warm temperature extremes at high northern latitudes are unprecedented in the past 600 years. The summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400 (probability P > 0.95), in terms of the spatial average. The summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia (P > 0.99) and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well (P > 0.90). These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate, but can be understood as resulting from constant space–time variability about an increased mean temperature. [Emphasis mine]
What many a Denialatus doesn’t know – and I assure you this is true, this collective and tacit accord embracing willful ignorance is how meatbots like Rednose and SpamKan are able to operate – is that research like this – proper, bona-fide scientific assessments reviewed by people who actually know what they’re doing – is being published all the time.
We’re actually drowning in evidence, but these people are the Creationists of the 21st Century, and mere science cannot move them.
So the jackasses and jillasses simply extrude themselves out of the oily sheen of the epistemic bubble momentarily, gurgling and sputtering their mantra of ‘no evidence'; knowing all the while that shortly surface-tension will suck them safely back inside in the warm goo.
And, seriously, Svensmark? You’re cracking me up!
So the warming is unprecedented in the last 600 yrs, eh O’ flaccid one ?
Unprecedented since the LITTLE IC AGE !!
It looks like you just swallowed another big turd sillybilly, lol
Remember this whenever you read a CSIRO report
Shop-worn, unimaginative abuse, coprolalia, and illiteracy.
And, through it all, a profound, impenetrable, and irredeemable ignorance.
You truly are one of the most inconsequential creatures to have ever blighted the face of the earth, aren’t you, SpamKan?
This pathetic, would-be interventionist smirking and drooling is the most you’ve ever achieved in your sad, sordid, worthless little excuse for an existence, isn’t it?
And the sad truth is, you’re right; this is the highlight. This dreary little spittle-stain is your mark on history.
I just had a look on google earth ?
What gives ?
I thought that if it was so warm up there the Vikings would have moved back ?
SpamKan, in all honesty the best you could possibly do for your sorry cause is to quit altogether; since any well-informed, moderately-intelligent 12 year old could swat down your mindless inanities it’s trivially easy to demolish your ‘case’, and you’re a constant reminder of how uninformed – and even unhinged – Denial really is.
Do you imagine that anyone at all is impressed by your antics?
“that research like this – proper, bona-fide scientific assessments reviewed by people who actually know HOW TO DRAW HOCKEY STICKS – is being published all the time.”
You are a numb scull Bill, I just shot your ExPeRt paper down with two really dumb observations, but you, being the flaccid blind old fool that you are, will no doubt continue to be fooled by hockey sticks,
ummm…….. try this sucker https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/6338/study-may-answer-longstanding-questions-about-little-ice-age
#69 Karen, still compiling that list? Or have you become frightened? You do not have to kneel in order to be allowed to talk to me. Really. So, speak!
As for your sucker, you must be bruised badly
“The study, led by the University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations, suggests that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D. The persistence of cold summers following the eruptions is best explained by a subsequent expansion of sea ice and a related weakening of Atlantic currents, according to computer simulations conducted for the study.”
Did you check the relation between this and your silly assertion about the 1960’s and 1770’s being the warmest decades of the world climate record?
CampOne said “Did you check the relation between this and your silly assertion about the 1960′s and 1770′s being the warmest decades of the world climate record?”
Your interpretation Einstein, lol
Ok…….here we have a FOIA obtained Met Office document that says CO2 can’t be blamed for the droughts floods ect in Pommie Land
“So the warming is unprecedented in the last 600 yrs, eh …
Unprecedented since the LITTLE IC AGE !!”
Yes, spots, since the little ice age. That’s what “unprecedented in the last 600 years” means.
Why do you complain about the meaning of words you don’t understand, spots?
Lets look at that again.
Study may answer longstanding questions about little ice age.
“ummm…….. try this sucker https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/6338/study-may-answer-longstanding-questions-about-little-ice-age”
Same phrase again.
Tell me, what do you think “study may answer” means?
“here we have a FOIA obtained Met Office document that says CO2 can’t be blamed for the droughts floods ect in Pommie Land”
Except watts is refuting your statement here with the headline.
It says: “met-office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate”.
Watts says that the Met Office document shows they DO NOT KNOW that CO2 didn’t affect the weather in pommie land.
#71, your interpretation, Karen. Not mine.
#72, where’s the last page? Anyway, the last page given by Watts is clear about Trenberth’s Law (and global warming).
Name the warming period’S the planet has had since the Little Ic Age
Unless you’re claiming we’re still IN the little ice age, what on earth was your point?
woW, sillybilly has realized how stoooopid his toilet paper IS and has nicked off for a drive in his old decrepit taxi, lol
Every time Karen’s wafer thin b* is undermined, he/she/it scuttles back to WUWT. I find his/her/its persistence in the face of a consistent hammering to represent either profound ignorance or else just that Karen is a sucker for punishment. Nobody who reads Deltoid – with the exception of equally brush-daft clowns such as Rednose – swallow Karen’s nonsense, yet he/she/it keeps returning to be bashed again and again.
Get a life, Karen. You give me the impression that you sit in front of a computer all day reading and re-reading garbage from a bunch of climate change denial web sites which you then rehash by cutting and pasting over here. You are willfully ignorant in just about every facet of science, as demonstrated every time you write something. And, like Rednose, you have mastered the art of ‘baiting and switching’ – writing some such gibberish, having it categorically debunked, then moving on the something else. Worse still, also like Rednose you then return to the original meme (for instance the ‘it hasn’t warmed since 1996 despite an increase in atmospheric C02′) canard, of course ignoring, or, as is more likely, failing to understand the dynamics of scale or the difference between stochastic and deterministic processes.
Moreover, you also seem to think that highlighting a few outlier points – such as a cold weather event here or there, or else some example of local biodiversity suffering as a response to these events somehow disproves AGW. You actually paste this stuff up here when anybody who has even a basic understanding of science knows that many data points are generally needed to make a regression significant – and that, based on the empirical data, there are many more data points showing polewards or altitudinal shifts in the distributions of many species and species populations since the 1970s, that growing seasons and life cycles (e.g. intra-seasonal generations) have been increased, and so on and so forth. On the other side of the ledger we have seen a number of phenological mis-matches generated by differential responses of species in food chains to rapid recent regional warming. None of this is remotely controversial because we have the data – lots of it – to prove it.
And then you cut and past a few articles showing the odd outlier and try to claim this disproves what hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals show.
In summary, this clearly shows that you are not interested in science, but in promoting your own, twisted version of the world. Only those with a similar mind set are sucked in by your histrionics, Karen. And on Deltoid there are thankfully few of those. Why don’t you stick with the denier blogs run ostensibly by people like you? Those with little or no scientific pedigree who try and ‘package’ their clearly ideological views as science?
While the doofus is in the away phase, the BoM has a serious announcement to make.
That’s the official website of a premier scientific institution full of trained boffins and actual meteorologists, rather than a blog run by, oh, let’s say some some superannuated TV weatherman who looks like a Scooby Doo villain*, or any of a selection of oil-funded cranks, ageing tin-foil hat misanthropes, or complete Libertarian lunatics.
Because that’s what constitutes ‘science’ in SpamKan’s world. And Rednose’s, Olaus’s, Duffer’s, etc..
*and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for those meddling science kids…
The Real JH #81
Following your advice, I looked up stochasticism and determinism to fill in the obvious gaps in my knowledge which you kindly drew to my attention. I am convinced now and wish to mend my ways. Do you think if you put a good word in for me they would let me join?
#83,I think they’re crying out for you at that website, Redface. Off you go…last updated May 2004. It’s all yours
Have you ever noticed that ‘lol’ is a term much-favoured by slack-jawed individuals whose tongue is, indeed, inclined to loll in their open mouths, just as a little runnel of drool tends regularly to slide down their chins?
I repeat, you do your cause no good whatsoever; calling a paper in Nature ‘toilet paper’ only convinces us that you are a childish, resentful ignoramus, who bitterly resents those smarter than herself – one mightily big set!
“sillybilly has realized how stoooopid his toilet paper IS”
Nonsense. What the hell are you blithering on about now, you thundering buffoon?
Your not keeping up with it sillybilly, your fooled by the alarmist hype again
Now why would the BOM want to misslead the numpties ?
Get a life, Karen. You give me the impression that you sit in front of a computer all day reading and re-reading garbage from a bunch of climate change denial web sites which you then rehash by cutting and pasting over here.
Spots is being PAID to do this. Resources and all that jazz.
Ah,Karen’s back, the little gust of illiterate paranoid hot air…
Jefffferyyy………” (for instance the ‘it hasn’t warmed since 1996 despite an increase in atmospheric C02′)”
I know you have problems reading charts deary, lol, but this chart also shows that Australia was warmer in 1915, golly gosh pumpkin and lookie at that massive sea of beautiful blue compared to the smaller amount of red.
Now WHY didn’t BOM include 2011 & 2012 data in their alarmist report ? Hmmm……………
Your painfull sounding anatomical position goes some way to explaining how you can vomit copious amounts of both shit and bile at the same time.
“AGW is an entirely scientifically robust theory supported by many lines of evidence”
If you read the “Met Office Briefing Document” mentioned above, you might notice the responses are hedged and uncertain.
Are there doubts appearing about some of this “robust theory”.
So Epicycles to you.
The entire document is at the bottom of the link, so you do not have to taint yourself by reading the commentary.
‘Toilet paper’ is, believe it or not, a reference to the paper just published in Nature I quoted from and linked to earlier. Yes, this creature possesses no dignity whatsoever.
Karen, you need never fear having anything published in Nature, though I suspect you might yet get your own call-out box in the DSM V…
Again; Denial is about good faith arguments from intelligent people? Hardly!
Now the gibbering fool suggests the BoM can’t make sense of its own data!
This is, characteristically, disgraceful behaviour, Karen; you really ought to be shamed of yourself, but shame is clearly an emotion too elevated to be available to you.
hehehe, O’ flaccid one is a bad loser, lol
lol lol lol lol lol
“I know you have problems reading charts deary, lol, but this chart also shows that Australia was warmer in 1915″
Weather, not climate, spots.
Olap would be so correcting you here if he were in the least bit honest.
Hey billy, I don’t know if you quite understand what I’m telling you ?
but try this, at 100mm from your hearing aid at 120db,
THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED
Yup, duffer, ignorance and lack of knowledge is all you have to parade for your cause.
Spots is being PAID to do this.
Someone should ask for their money back, he’s providing really crap service that only discredits them.
#96, it is, but if it weren’t: you find it funny because you hate science, eh, creationist? Or are you also like ¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte! ?
Don’t be shy, it’s a free country. Speak!
Well, if nothing else Bill, they demonstrate the kind of numpties that vote for prehistoric idiots like Joe Barton.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.