May 2013 Open thread

Past time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    May 21, 2013

    # 98

    No. You are a liar, an ignoramus and a denier.

  2. #2 Turboblocke
    May 21, 2013

    Rednose earlier mentioned the Renewable Energy Foundation. I think the foundation part of their name refers to their desire to see renewable energy projects buried in the foundations of construction projects, similar to the manner in which organised crime was supposed to disposseof murder victim’s bodies. One look at their press releases is enough to show that they do not support renewable energy.

  3. #3 Mack
    May 21, 2013

    Complete anarchy , game over guys, bye.

  4. #4 Wow
    May 21, 2013

    You have problems, Duffer.

    That’s really the be-all and end-all of your existence.

    You have problems.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    May 21, 2013

    A few points…

    KarenMackSunspot has never, ever presented a single post that is based on science, scientific method, testable evidence, or rational and defensible thought. I once challenged him to point to his single best post on Deltoid, the ‘killer’ of which he is most proud, and he has never responded. The challenge remains open, but don’t hold your breath folks – KarenMackSunspot is the epitome of shallow ignorance and ideological blinkeredness. With his most recent departure expect Karen or a new sock to materialise…

    Bill at #32 p2 – it’s one of evolution’s exquisite ironies that Homo sapiens (sic) is not adapted to survive and thrive in the conditions of the Anthropocene. It’s just going to take about another 50-100 years for that realisation to sink into the brains of the average Joe and Jane on the street.

    href=”http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/05/09/may-2013-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-156661Rednose:

    It seems to give us a few years breathing space to consider best options.

    No, we ran out of “breathing space to consider best options” a number of years ago. All we can do now is to try to minimise the damage to the biosphere and for future generations, and every day of further delay we’re making a bigger hash of that too.

    Your approach is no different to the parachutist who won’t pull the rip-cord because the ground is still fifty metres away.

  6. #6 rhwombat
    May 22, 2013

    Bernard: ( to stretch the analogy) …and because Monckton and Watts have posted to definitively disprove the Newtonian physics.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    May 22, 2013

    Lionel A at #5, p3, there was a recent paper in Nature focussing on this very phenomenon of shifting fish stock profiles:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7449/full/nature12156.html

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    “KarenMackSunspot has never, ever presented a single post that is based on science, scientific method, testable evidence, or rational and defensible thought”

    You can Betula to the mix… and Olaus and PentaxZ and several other simpletons…

    Baiters and switchers all. How many times have they made some simplistic comment, had it comprehensively demolished, then, totally ignoring that topic, moved onto something else? And debunking them is easy because its clear they don’t understand basic principles such as the importance (and relevance) of spatial and temporal scales against which the current predicament must be gauged.

  9. #9 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    hehehe, you are the ultimate nutter barnturd j :)

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dl7e4kDh0-w/UZunsMIDbgI/AAAAAAAAFLU/D0YGIx5N_Tc/s1600/ScreenShot3465.jpg

    It has been explained to you before, Mack is a man that resides in NZ, sunspot appears to be your worst nightmare (sometime I will read that thread to see why he upset you so),
    and I am a sweet little girl :)

    Spewandumbski should do some research on you honey, lolol

  10. #10 bill
    May 22, 2013

    SpamKan, your self-image is as well grounded as everything else about you.

  11. #11 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    I caught a taxi last week with a rather flatulent driver, I was hoping it was you Bill, unfortunately his name was Abdool :)

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Ca7X7fnZ4w/UZunsU23MmI/AAAAAAAAFLc/9BgCpeE7CXk/s1600/ScreenShot3464.jpg

  12. #12 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    Antarctic ice is taking up a lot of spatial now because of the very low temporal’z

    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Set A New Daily Record on May 20

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-set-a-new-daily-record-on-may-20/

  13. #13 chek
    May 22, 2013

    The thing is Karen, you have no idea what that means, and therefore how irrelevant it is.

    Just like your fellow travellers you mindlessly regurgitate the same shit from the same sources with a resolution (dpi=dumbness per individual) so low that it may as well all come from the same fetid glob of stupid. Which indeed it does.

  14. #14 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    I sure hope you guys get a pay rise for having to prop up the climate change fable, it must be hard to sleep at night when you all are saying one thing and the climate is saying another, lol, at least maybe you should get a bonus for looking like retards sweltering in monkey suits :)

    It looks as though the climate card house is on it’s way down now, lol

  15. #15 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    I’m looking at rhwombat’s picture

    zooerastia ?

    with a wombat I assume, YUKkkkkkkk

  16. #16 cRR Kampen
    May 22, 2013

    #11, looks like a lot of sweet water came off the continent lately :)

  17. #17 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    World’s biggest ice sheets likely more stable than previously believed

    “For decades, scientists have used ancient shorelines to predict the stability of today’s largest ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Markings of a high shoreline from three million years ago, for example – when Earth was going through a warm period – were thought to be evidence of a high sea level due to ice sheet collapse at that time. This assumption has led many scientists to think that if the world’s largest ice sheets collapsed in the past, then they may do just the same in our modern, progressively warming world.

    However, a new groundbreaking study now challenges this thinking. ”

    “Our study is telling scientists that they can no longer ignore the effect of Earth’s interior dynamics when predicting historic sea levels and ice volumes.”

    http://www.cifar.ca/ancient-shorelines-ice-sheets-stability

  18. #18 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    2007 Low Arctic sea ice was due to decreased clouds, lol

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50489/abstract

  19. #19 FrankD
    May 22, 2013

    Yes, 2007 had some exceptional weather which helped push Arctic sea ice are to a then all-time low.

    Which was then beaten in 2011 without any exceptional weather.

    Which was then thrashed in 2012.

    Karen still thinks Arctic sea ice is her friend. What can I say but “LOL”? :-)

  20. #20 Karen
    May 22, 2013

    So whats going to happen this year Fwank ?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    More comedy rants from Karen…

    What a schmuck. As I said earlier, if the best the deniers can scrape up on Deltoid is represented by the likes of intellectual bottom-feeders like Karen, then no wonder that lot is in deep, deep trouble. That being said, in the 5-10 years that I have been writing/commenting in Deltoid, all of the deniers have been semi-literate dolts lacking a basic science education.

    Yesterday Karen posted a Daily Fail article showing some Russians who drove a lightweight vehicle across the Arctic in winter and – if anyone can believe it – used this as ‘evidence’ that the Arctic ice was (1) as extensive as it was 30 years ago, and (2) very thick (the only thick thing is Karen’s head and her/its/his lack of any credible common sense).

    As an analogy Karen’s article is akin to someone claiming tropical forests are fine because they hiked Brazilian rainforests across a linear transect from north to south. This tells us nothing about the vast area outside of the transect nor the kind of forests they traversed – primary or secondary growth.

    Karen is thick alright – as thick as a large wooden plank.What is embarrassing is that he/it/he keeps writing in here in spit eof the constant humiliation she/he/it endures. Now that IS dense.

  22. #22 Wow
    May 22, 2013

    “As an analogy Karen’s article is akin to someone claiming tropical forests are fine because they hiked Brazilian rainforests across a linear transect from north to south”

    Not knowing how many trees there were there 10 years ago, making their assessment that “there’s a forest there, therefore there’s no deforestation” completely unevidenced.

  23. #23 Betula
    May 22, 2013

    “Karen’s article is akin to someone claiming tropical forests are fine because they hiked Brazilian rainforests across a linear transect from north to south”

    Or…akin to Jeff Harvey and friend hiking across Algonquin Park and using a 4 week scale to claim he “experienced climate change at first hand”….while his friend received frostbite.

    Classic.

  24. #24 Wow
    May 22, 2013

    Ah, another fiction from Betty.

    Remember, Betty insists that their quotes are entirely fictitious.

  25. #25 bill
    May 22, 2013

    Got any more top tips on the Tornado season, Batty?

  26. #26 Betula
    May 22, 2013

    “Ah, another fiction from Betty”

    You are correct, Jeff was being fictitious when he claimed he experienced climate change first hand over a 4 week scale, he wanted to believe it so bad, that he wanted us to believe it as well. It’s called exaggerating for the cause…

    I’m glad we finally agree Wow, I knew you would come around someday.

    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

  27. #27 Betula
    May 22, 2013

    Bill…
    “Got any more top tips on the Tornado season, Batty?”

    Here’s one…
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/totavg-ef3-ef5-torn1991-2010.gif

    Here’s another…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=factbox-the-10-deadliest-tornadoes

    Oh. here’s a really good one…

    “The short takeaway is that tornadoes aren’t really getting more common or violent over time — but more and more people do seem to be living in tornado-prone areas”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/21/a-short-history-of-violent-tornadoes-in-the-united-states/

    If you need any more help Bill, just let me know…

  28. #28 BBD
    May 22, 2013

    # 16 Karen

    For once, something interesting. But this needs carefully placing into context – just as the authors of the study caution that their reference section of the Eastern US seaboard needs to be placed in the correct geological context.

    First, there is a large amount of evidence from shore geology for an Eemian mean seal level highstand of >6m above the Holocene “only” ~125ka. The degree of tectonic uplift over this geologically brief timescale is insufficient to distort these estimates significantly. So where did the water come from?

    The latest work on the Greenland Ice Sheet suggests that *less* GIS melt occurred during the Eemian than previously thought, and the contribution to global MSL was perhaps in the order of 1 – 2m (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013). This leaves at least 4m and perhaps more to be accounted for. Substantial collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would contribute about 4m to MSL, so the sea level budget for the Eemian *just about* closes if there was a major WAIS collapse. Some contribution may have been made by the East Antarctic ice sheet. Can’t be ruled out.

    Global average temperatures during the Eemian were about 1 – 2C above the Holocene average.

    Second, looking much deeper into geological time, there is considerable evidence that sea level *did* fluctuate in line with changing global temperatures. And this evidence is synthesised from locations around the world, not a single, continuous section of the Eastern US seaboard.

    See Foster & Rohling (2013) Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales.

    The authors discuss the study here:

    The researchers compiled more than two thousand pairs of CO2 and sea level data points, spanning critical periods within the last 40 million years. Some of these had climates warmer than present, some similar, and some colder. They also included periods during which global temperatures were increasing, as well as periods during which temperatures were decreasing.

    “This way, we cover a wide variety of climate states, which puts us in the best position to detect systematic relationships and to have the potential for looking at future climate developments,” said co-author Professor Eelco Rohling, also from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton.

    The researchers found that the natural relationship displays a strong rise in sea level for CO2 increase from 180 to 400 parts per million, peaking at CO2 levels close to present-day values, with sea level at 24 +7/-15 metres above the present, at 68 per cent confidence limits.

    “This strong relationship reflects the climatic sensitivity of the great ice sheets of the ice ages,” said Dr Foster. “It continues above the present level because of the apparently similar sensitivity of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, plus possibly some coastal parts of East Antarctica.”

    But do please keep producing actual references to actual science and keep making actual points. It will help you learn how little you know about the work that has actually been done.

  29. #29 cRR Kampen
    May 22, 2013

    Silence please. Tomorrow, the Netherlands are the whóóóle world. Date record for cold possible.
    The +29.1° at Steinkjer, Norway, 64° NL last Saturday (new record for May) happened near Betelgeuse.

  30. #30 Wow
    May 22, 2013

    ““Ah, another fiction from Betty”

    You are correct”

    Yes, and you were making shit up again, even YOU admit it, Betty.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    “Or…akin to Jeff Harvey and friend hiking across Algonquin Park and using a 4 week scale to claim he “experienced climate change at first hand”….while his friend received frostbite”

    I never claimed anything, you dimwit. As I told you, I did not write the piece. You seem sickly obsessed with it. Unable to debate me on anything remotely related to ecology or environmental science, this is your only recourse. Its sad and pathetic, really.

    Of course the effects of long-term warming will be hard to determine on a 4 week trek through a provinical park. I certainly saw symptoms of it: collemboles active 4 weeks early, spiders and other insects in a landscape that should have been frozen solid. How these play out in the long term is the big question. Seasonal phenology is an important field in community ecology and there are plenty of data to show that changes in temperature over time are unraveling certain food webs. scale matters. Certainly, climate warming is a looming problem for natural systems. There is abundant empirical evidence for this, IF ONE BOTHERED TO READ UP ON THE PRIMARY LITERATURE. Its just too bad that you don’t read the primary scientific literature,Betty. Your strategy, Betty, if one can call it that, is to stick your head into a great big pile of dung and to muffle from your stinky refuge that, because you’ve never read a published study showing warming to be negatively affecting species interactions, then there is no problem. I have seen anti-environmentalists use the same stupid method of downplaying a whole suite of environmental problems.

    Utterly predictable. Jonas did it. Karen does it. Mack does it. You and other deniers do it. You have no clue about the field except to stick your fingers to the wind and say, “heck it seems OK to me”! You base your opinions on (1) your own inherent biases, (2) your own intellectual limitations, and (3) your own personal obervations. Thus, if you can’t see something happening right in front of your face, then it isn’t happening. Slow motion doesn’t work with people like you. You expect an almost instantaneous manifestation of warming.

    You should be surprised that any one with half an understanding of the importance of scale in system dynamics responds to your puerile histrionics. I correct what I said yesterday: your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles. I said shins yesterday. I was clearly being profoundly overly optimisitic.

    Essentially, you are left to your last little refuge: a short clipping from our web site in which it was written that I saw first hand the effects of warming. On individual organisms I most certainly did, which is remarkable given that this was just a very quick glimpse of a slowly unfolding story. If warming continues as it has since the 1980s in the medium term will there be consequences for natural sysrtems? Most definitely yes, and there already are. Look up the studies yourself, dumbo. If you are remotely capable of discussing their significance, I will be truly shocked.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

    .

  32. #32 Wow
    May 22, 2013

    I never claimed anything, you dimwit

    Betty knows. Freely admits it was a completely fabricated quote.

  33. #33 Betula
    May 22, 2013

    Article….. “Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night”

    Jeff @ 30…..”I never claimed anything, you dimwit”

    Jeff @ …. “I certainly saw symptoms of it”

    Jeff @ 30….”Of course the effects of long-term warming will be hard to determine on a 4 week trek through a provinical park.

    Jeff again @ 30….”On individual organisms I most certainly did, which is remarkable given that this was just a very quick glimpse of a slowly unfolding story”

    Wow # 31….”Betty knows”

  34. #34 FrankD
    May 22, 2013

    Karen@19: So whats going to happen this year

    You first, Karen – you nominate a metric (Volume/Area/Extent, DMI/NSIDC/CT/PIOMAS etc) and a number, and I’ll do the same. End of the melt season, we can compare predictions.

    Whoever gets closer gets bragging rights. Loser agrees to fuck off from Deltoid, permanently.

    Got the stones to do more than run your mouth?

  35. #35 Betula
    May 22, 2013

    Hardley,

    I happen to notice, that lately that you seem to be stuck in Kindergarten with Dunning-Kruger. For example:

    @34 page 1…
    “which of course the kindergarten/Dunning-Kruger brigade who consistently dredge up the more C02 = more biomass argument”

    @26 page 2…
    “The denier ranks are full of these Dunning-Kruger intellectual wannabes.”

    @66 page 2…
    “A complete w*****. And Dunning-Kruger alumnus”

    @87 page 2…
    “on these kindergarten-level distractions”

    @26 page 3…
    “which would make even a kindergarten student blush with embarrassment”

    I find it interesting that you would use Dunning-Kruger to support your superiority complex, if fact, it brings to light something I’ve suspected all along. You are unaware of your own incompetence, in fact you are delusional.
    Let’s take a look :
    “Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:”

    1.”tend to overestimate their own level of skill”:

    # 95 page 3…”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’ ”

    2.”fail to recognize genuine skill in others”

    #26 page 2…”you can’t debate yourself out of a soaking wet paper bag”

    3.”fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy”

    #34 page 1….”where I work about my observations of climate change on the borders of biomes on the basis of a winter trek I made across Algonquin Park 15 months ago”

    4. “suffer from illusory superiority”

    @30 page 4….”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    You’re an easy case Hardley, most likely educated beyond your intelligence. You live your life with a superiority complex and use what little knowledge you have in a repetitive way to boost your vision of yourself and make assumptions about pretty much everything…

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    Betula,

    I stick by everything I said there. You write a load of old tosh. First you claimed that tornado severity is decreasing as a ‘good result of climate change’.

    Garbage. One cannot extrapolate one month’s worth of tornado data on anything; we need long term trends. And an increase or a decrease in tornado activity does nothing to dispel the reality of AGW.

    The you past up some commercial nonsense here in a feeble attempt to suggest that increasing atmospheric levels of C02 will enhance primary productivity in natural systems. This piffle is a standard refrain of the climate change deniers and in complex adaptive systems is absolutely meaningless.

    Give how dumb you are, I am not sure whether both examples were put up as a serious attempt at some sort of debate or just to show everyone how witty you are.

    You fail on both counts.

    As far as superiority goes, listen pal: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Imam quite happy to defer to a physician or to a medical expert who has studied some field for years over any opinions I have in that field. I also defer to the opinions of climate scientists who have spent many years honing their field of expertise. If anyone is an arrogant ass****, its people like you who, without any relevant qualifications, past comments up here where you try and give the impression that you know more about climate and environmental science than professionals in the field.

    In terms of my field of research, am not afraid to say it: I know a lot, lot more than you do. SHOCK! HORROR! In reality, hardly surprising. I’ve published 128 papers in my career, and have bee cited almost 2984 times, which I guess is 128 publications and 2984 citations more than you, Betty. Put up or shut up. If you write nonsense in here in which you (for instance) try and extrapolate plant growth and fitness in a highly controlled closed monoculture and microcosm to very open natural system with high species richness even over small scales, I will tear it apart.

    I know you don’t like your limited intellectual abilities to be exposed for all and sundry, but there you go.

    As for last winter in Algonquin Park, it was the warmest ever recorded. Moreover, there has been a statistically significant increase in winter temperatures there over the past 40 years. Stick that is your craw.

    Again I reiterate: you can’t debate science in any way, shape or form. Until you can, you are left with nothing more than your ever increasing frustration.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    To show you how totally stupid Betty is, he uses the D-K model asa proxy for me, a professional scientist, when the model was created in the first place for people just like him, who have no professional qualifications in fields in which they over estimate their abilities.

    Comedy gold. Ya’ gotta love this clown.

    I m not afraid to say that in certain fields I am an expert based on 20 plus years of research, many publications, conference and university lectures etc. But in other fields of environmental science and ecology, I defer to the expertise of people in those fields. Most climate scientists agree that humans are forcing climate. End of story. I know exactly where my scientific qualifications are limited, because I have professional training in evolutionary and population ecology. Betty, on the other hand, as well as Karen, Mack, Sunspot, Jonas, PentaxZ, Rednose and others have NO relevant qualifications in ANY of these fields. Yet they consistently attack the science of climate change (and the scientists involved) as if they are bonafide experts. Why? Because, as predicted in the D-K model they lack formal expertise in this field and thus over-estimate their knowledge of it.

    By defending the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists, I am defending science. Betty and his ilk, on the other hand, are not. Moreover, Betty hasn’t said in what fields of science I am over-estimating my worth. Can’t be climate science, because as I said I support the work of most climate scientists. Can’t be plant ecophysiology, because (1) its part of my professional work and (2) few statured scientists would argue that a greenhouse is a good proxy for natural systems. Where then?

    In his imagination, that’s where.

  38. #38 Wow
    May 22, 2013

    Betty @ 25:“Ah, another fiction from Betty” – You are correct.

    Betty knows she’s lying like a kiddie with chocolate smeared round his face, but, and again like a kiddie with chocolate smeared round his face, doesn’t care in the slightest.

  39. #39 BBD
    May 22, 2013

    Jeff, when I read Betula’s # 34, I had to pinch myself.

    Is this a Poe, I wondered? The awful truth is, I suspect not. It’s almost funny. Almost.

    I wonder if Betula takes this attitude with his accountant, his investment advisers (if any) and his solicitor? If not, why the inconsistency? Either you DK yourself into believing you know better than all the experts in all fields, or you don’t. One cannot be selective about it.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    May 22, 2013

    BBD, yes, I wonder about Betty myself. For one thing he seems singularly obsessed with me and my posts, but then again Jonas was too.

    Its quite funny how they react to me. I remember one of the deniers bitterly attacking me and demanding to know what made me so qualified to comment. When I told them who I was and what I do the immediate riposte was that I was arrogant and boasted about my CV.

    This is the intellectual level of their debating skills. From ‘who the hell are you’ to ‘you have a superiority complex’. Yet as I have said many times, I know exactly what my professional limitations are and when to defer. I wouldn’t go head to head with someone who is qualified in a professional scientific field in which I have no formal training. In population and evolutionary ecology, as well as systems ecology, I am certainly not afraid to take on the likes of Karen or Betula because its my field (directly or indirectly) of professional expertise and because neither of them knows a darned thing about them. Betula’s attempt to extrapolate artificial conditions in greenhouses to complex adaptive natural systems across the biosphere was comical, and I don’t mind saying so. Monckton did it, and other deniers on Deltoid have done it as well, and I have no reticence in demolishing it because its utterly frivolous nonsense. This clearly irks Betula who then somehow thinks the Dunning-Kruger applies to me when it is staring him right in the face. He thinks he knows more about abiotic factors and their effects on primary production than I do, even though I work and publish studies on plant biology and ecology. As I pointed out, what about other abiotic and biotic factors? I went into detail, a post which was ignored before coming in with his equally silly post about glacial retreat.

    Now I wil admit that I am not an expert on glaciers or climate, but I never ever said that I was. I do, however, defend the work and qualifications of the trained experts, most of whom believe that warming is reducing the extent of most glaciers around the world, or who argue that humans are the primary culprit behind the recent warming.

    If lone checks up on the primary literature, lo and behold they will find that the overwhelming majority of published studies shown that 80% or more of the world’s mountainous glaciers have retreated in the past century, and that there is strong evidence for a human fingerprint on the current warming.

    Against these facts, we have the Betula’s and Karen’s suggesting that it’s either all some sort of bug lie, or else that the scientific evidence is inconclusive – evidence they know little about because they lack the professional training and clearly have not read the huge volume of literature. I’d like Betula to provide an exhaustive list of the studies he has read supporting, for example, his C02-prmary production argument in communities and ecosystems (and not some crappy sales brochure about greenhouses). I’d like him to discuss how we can factor changes in plant-based N and P concentrations under increasing C, as well as rainfall, and then how he thinks changes in these limiting nutrients will affect plant fitness. I’d like him to speculate on the effects of increased concentrations of atmospheric C02 on plant-plant competition (for light, nutrients etc) and on interactions with consumers such as herbivores, pathogens and their antagonists, in terms of behavior and ecophysiology. How will plants use the extra foliar C? What about plant allelochemistry (secondary metabolites) and primary metabolites? C-based defenses? N-based defenses? Will these effects operate linearly or non-linearly and over what kinds of spatial and temporal scales? Will there be winners and losers? Will ecosystem resistance and resilience be affected positively or negatively? Why? Will diversity increase or decrease? Why?

    These are just some of the questions raised by the global atmospheric experiment. Against this immense complexity we have the Monckton’s and their acolytes simply calling C02 ‘plant food’ without possessing even basic understanding of the many, many complexities involved. To them, nature is broken down to the simplest common denominator. Plants utilize carbon. Therefore, carbon is good. More carbon is better. And so on and so forth. I wade in, and I am attacked.

    This is the way it goes.

  41. #41 rhwombat
    May 22, 2013

    Wow@#37: That’s not chocolate.

  42. #42 rhwombat
    May 22, 2013

    …& Karen@#14: actually, it’s bouldering at 5000m in the Nepal Himalaya, but wherever your Tourette’s tick takes you.

  43. #43 chek
    May 22, 2013

    Jeff, when I read Betula’s # 34, I had to pinch myself. Is this a Poe, I wondered? The awful truth is, I suspect not. It’s almost funny. Almost.

    But don’t forget that DuKes like Betty are the very ones least aware of their own incompetence, incomprehension and miscomprehension. DuKes will always think such talk must be about someone else.

  44. #44 Craig Thomas
    May 22, 2013

    Karen asks,

    So whats going to happen this year Fwank ?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png

    I’m happy to offer my prediction, even if Karen isn’t:
    This year’s track for sea ice extent will roughly follow that for 2007.

    How about it, Karen?
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  45. #45 Nick
    May 23, 2013

    #17,Karen,fool. No. Paper is not explanatory of specific years ice minimum extent,or of sea ice trends,and is not intended to be. Paper discusses radiative trends under varying cloudiness. “…on average,Arctic Ocean clouds warm the surface..”
    “During the early 21st century, summer TOA albedo decreases are consistent with sea ice loss, but are unrelated to summer cloud trends that are statistically insignificant.”
    2007 is only discussed in terms of the net shortwave radiative anomaly observed relative to other years,which resulted primarily from “..cloud reductions in early summer,and sea ice loss during late summer”

    You miss,as usual.

  46. #46 Nick
    May 23, 2013

    #17. Karen,fool : More interesting—but only barely–than your persistent miscomprehension is who keeps misleading you. You bring the credulity and the vanity, who supplies the material?

  47. #47 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    Nick # 45

    Karen got the stuff about tectonic uplift from WTFUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/18/good-news-worlds-biggest-ice-sheets-likely-more-stable-than-previously-believed-upsets-previous-estimates-of-melting-and-sea-level/

    She (if she it is) also seems fond of the Hockey Schtick and Notrickszone.

    If Karen thinks I don’t know where she gets her shite from, she is woefully mistaken.

    I know.

  48. #48 Karen
    May 23, 2013

    Ha….. they admit that they

    HAVE NOT GOT A CLUE

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/has_the_rate_of_surface_warming_changed.html

    h/t wuwt :)

  49. #49 Karen
    May 23, 2013

    Betula # 34

    lolololololololol :)

    Take that to your next psycho session Jeffery, (wiping tearssss) haha:)haha

  50. #50 Karen
    May 23, 2013

    Fwank # 33

    “End of the melt season, we can compare predictions.”

    Oh….. Fwanker, I’m not into your esoteric mumbo jumbo dear, lol……pray tell Fwank, can you see a storm in your teacup ?

    “Whoever gets closer gets bragging rights.

    bragging rights ? Do you want try to compete with Jeffery ? I doubt anybody could ascend to those heights :)

    “Loser agrees to fuck off from Deltoid, permanently.”

    hehe, well you are a sore loser Fwank, go on petal off you go………

  51. #51 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    From ‘who the hell are you’ to ‘you have a superiority complex’.

    It was more like from “who the hell are you” you “stop boasting about who you are”. Occasionally it went from “who the hell are you” to “who cares who the hell you are”.

  52. #52 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    # 47 Karen

    If you were a little less… unaware of the basics, you would understand that the plethora of potential causes for the recent slowdown in surface temperature warming all demonstrate one thing:

    The climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation.

    This is strongly suggestive that CO2 forcing (radiative perturbation) works as advertised (see OHC) and that low estimates for TCR/ECS are problematic.

    Your problem, Karen, is that you don’t understand any of this. In your own words:

    Oh….. Fwanker, I’m not into your esoteric mumbo jumbo dear, lol

    Moreover, you are a blustering coward. You just ran away from a simple challenge, revealing yourself to be nothing but shite on a stick.

    It would be difficult to hold you in more contempt than I already do, but I am working on it.

  53. #53 Karen
    May 23, 2013

    Sorry to challenge your dogma BBD, but someone has to do it :)

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1836.html

  54. #54 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    Ho fucking hum, Karen.

    As I said, you don’t know what you are talking about. Try reading the thread, including the links.

  55. #55 bill
    May 23, 2013

    Karen at #47 presents an intriguing example of Dunning-Krugerite projection.

    The rest of us read the SkS post a couple of days ago when it came out. It clearly doesn’t say what she imagines it says – but she’s never read it, so she actually has no idea what it actually says anyway. She’s just ‘interpreted the interpretations’ of Watts, or, more likely, gobbled some prolefeed slogan from the comments thread there and rushed over here to regurgitate it.

    None of them would be likely to recognise good-faith efforts made by serious people to ensure that their published efforts match the evidence. The irony alarms at Watts’ place would all have blown fuses, had not those particular items all burned-out back in 2006…

  56. #56 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    Is there anything more stupid than a fucking denier describing scientific argument as “dogma”?

  57. #57 bill
    May 23, 2013

    Ah, while I was posting, we are delivered another classic example.

    Karen has grabbed a link to a paper she’s never read and couldn’t comprehend if she had. She thinks it says something she likes, because the folks that ladle the chum into the holding tanks have told her it does, so she bolts is down then darts right over here – again, we were all aware of this one days ago – to hoik up what she imagines is a bombshell.

    The interpreters of interpretations have been so active with this one the lead author has had to go out of his way to point out that it doesn’t say what the likes of Karen have gone into febrile raptures imagining it does.

    But, of course, like so many of her kind, we have to understand that Karen could not hope to understand what the paper says via direct experience of it; and, besides, all that thinking stuff is a bore when there’s sicking-up and shouting to be done…

  58. #58 Nick
    May 23, 2013

    Karen laughs a lot,though. Surely that’s of some value?

  59. #59 rednose
    UK
    May 23, 2013

    rhwambat#41

    it’s bouldering at 5000m in the Nepal Himalaya

    Yeah, yeah.
    Looks like a bloody big jug to grap hold of while you pose.

  60. #60 bill
    May 23, 2013

    Ooooh, Rudolph is snarky (and an expert on climbing, the go-to guy for the analysis on 64×64 pixel imagery, as well as a leading authority on climate.)

    Perhaps you were hoping to run the SkS thing and the Otto paper on us as well?

  61. #61 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    # 57 Nick

    LOL!

    :-)

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    The lead author of the paper Karen doesn’t understand (Otto)recently said in an interviewwit the BBC that climate change is a serious problem for humanity and that even an increase of temperatures at the lower end of the IPCC projecitons should not be construed as being minor.

    But then again, deniers love to take articles by scientists and to distort their findings and significance in pursuit of political agendas. What’s worse is when they misquote the scienitsts or derive conclusions that are at odds with what the scientistswho write the articles themselves believe.

    In my earlier posts I argued that deniers like Karen (and Betula and Rednose) are way, way out of the their depth on the science, yet somehow they derive conclusions that conflict with the prevailing view amongst the experts.

    This is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are all casebook examples of it.

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    In a rspponse to Betula’s verbal diarrhea earlier:

    “Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:”

    1.”tend to overestimate their own level of skill”:

    # 95 page 3…”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’ ”

    2.”fail to recognize genuine skill in others”

    #26 page 2…”you can’t debate yourself out of a soaking wet paper bag”

    3.”fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy”

    #34 page 1….”where I work about my observations of climate change on the borders of biomes on the basis of a winter trek I made across Algonquin Park 15 months ago”

    4. “suffer from illusory superiority”

    @30 page 4….”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    In a rspponse to Betula’s verbal diarrhea earlier:

    “Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:”

    1.”tend to overestimate their own level of skill”:

    # 95 page 3…”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’ ”

    2.”fail to recognize genuine skill in others”

    #26 page 2…”you can’t debate yourself out of a soaking wet paper bag”

    3.”fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy”

    #34 page 1….”where I work about my observations of climate change on the borders of biomes on the basis of a winter trek I made across Algonquin Park 15 months ago”

    4. “suffer from illusory superiority”

    @30 page 4….”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”

  65. #65 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    you would understand that the plethora of potential causes for the recent slowdown in surface temperature warming

    However, this is irrelevant.

    “It’s been flat” is NOT proof that the IPCC is incorrect in their conclusions, since this doesn’t prove the IPCC projected warming is incorrect.

    You have to prove that the projections are incorrect.

    What’s REALLY dumb about these denidiots whining is that whenever an extreme event in weather comes up, they screech “We’ve had that before!!!!!”.

    Yet we’ve had times before when the short term ~10-15 year trend has been zero or negative before, yet we’ve still gone up again overall after such events.

    So why is it that THIS time, when it wasn’t happening all the other times, that such an event is conclusive proof that AGW and the IPCC conclusions are wrong?

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    In a rspponse to Betula’s verbal diarrhea earlier:

    “Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:”

    1.”tend to overestimate their own level of skill”:

    # 95 page 3…”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’ ”

    2.”fail to recognize genuine skill in others”

    #26 page 2…”you can’t debate yourself out of a soaking wet paper bag”

    3.”fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy”

    #34 page 1….”where I work about my observations of climate change on the borders of biomes on the basis of a winter trek I made across Algonquin Park 15 months ago”

    4. “suffer from illusory superiority”

    @30 page 4….”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”

  67. #67 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    Karen laughs a lot,though.

    A psychotic maniac laughs a lot too. This does not bode well, however.

  68. #68 Rednose
    uk
    May 23, 2013

    #59

    So little time. Can’t do everything :-)

  69. #69 Rednose
    uk
    May 23, 2013

    Jh #63,64,65

    You seem to be suffering a bit. Jh. Alka seltzer works pretty good for me

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    So here is my response to Betula:

    1. I don’t overestimate my own skills. You do. You have not got any. What are your professional qualifications in ANY field of science? Degrees, publications, awards, lectureships, conferences attended etc? I wrote yesterday that my views are based on the vast majority of climate scientists who agree that humans are the primary culprit behind the recent warming. Betula disagees, on the basis on ZERO qualifications or empirical arguments.

    2. Fail to recognize the genuine skills of others? So what skills do you possess, Betty? Or Karen? Neither of you has any requisite skills in science. Betty wrote some basal level piffle about C02 and primary productivity that I would fail a high school student for if they presented such material to me. I challenged you to defend the ‘science’ you presented and was met with a resounding blank. If you are going to say that I should appreciate your ‘skills’ in environmental science, let me see them. So far I haven’t seen a shred of any evidence that you have any. But deniers are certainly quick to slag off those who do have qualifications. Not only me, but deniers routinely deride Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Santer and many others.

    3. Again, waht inadequacy, Betula? My CV and scientific record stands for itself. Where are your bonafides? I certainly recognize where my qualification begin and end. Your don’t. Karen doesn’t. For instance, Karen routinely writes in here with snippets from climate change denial web sites and writes as if she/he/it is an expert in the field of climate science. I never said that I was. I just tend to think that, if most real experts are saying one thing, then we ought to take that seriously. You and Karen must think that you know more than these experts, otherwise you wouldn’t belittle them and act is if they have somehow missed something that you think you know.

    4. My intellectual superiority in environmental science over you is not illusory. It is the truth. I could give lectures on plant ecophysiology or on population ecology that would be so far over your head that you’d either fall asleep or ask to leave. That’s not hard because I have worked in the field for many years. On the other hand, I think that James Hansen knows a lot, lot more about climate science than I do. Yet people like Karen, Jonas and others appear to suggest that one doesn’t need a professional education to be an expert in a complex field. Read a few blogs, climate change denial blogs and bingo!… one knows all they need to know. This is pure folly. Why else would people bother to go to university, earn a degree, then do a PhD unless they wanted to become experts in certain fields? Of course your understanding of environmental science is much less than mine. Why don’t you just waltz into a university and apply for a lectureship in environmental science or ecology when a vacancy arises? They’d ask you first for your CV and professional background, including degrees, publications, research history etc. Clearly you would not be short-listed. Does that mean they are being unfair? Of course not. Qualifications matter.

    Get real, Betty. If this is the best you can do, then its no small wonder that your posts are easy to quash. Again, the real Dunning-Krugerites are those whose own personal views of their knowledge far exceed their actual qualifications. Hint: that is more like you and Karen, neither of whom have the relevant pedigree. I certaionly know where mine begin and end.

  71. #71 FrankD
    May 23, 2013

    @Karen: “I’m not into your esoteric mumbo jumbo dear, lol”

    All tip and no iceberg…

  72. #72 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    No tip, either.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    May 23, 2013

    At #4 above I said:

    With [Mack's] most recent departure expect Karen or a new sock to materialise…

    In spite of his most recent insistence that he’s a girl and not Mack, the Karen sock is as predictably typical of the KarenMackSunspot complex (simplex?) as ever. To wit – all witlessness and no wit, inane laughter notwithstanding…

    KMS, I reiterate my oft-repeated query – what is your proudest post on Deltoid? You may choose from any of the three conspicuous socks under which you post, or if you have a better one elsewhere, you may claim that instead. Any will do – I’m just curious to see what constitutes in your own mind (such as it is) your best scientific argument.

    Go on – amaze us.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    May 23, 2013

    And KarenMackSunspot.

    Just for the record, you’ve been leaving more of your usual punctuation peculiarities around on this thread under both your “Karen” and your “Mack” socks. Add further to that your usage peculiarities and your own brand of sub-adult level grammar, and your protestations to be separate identities are in fact contradicted by your own signature semi-literacy.

    Get a clue, dumb-arse.

  75. #75 Karen
    May 23, 2013

    “Karen, I reiterate my oft-repeated query – what is your proudest post on Deltoid?”

    Umm……..I can’t recall you ever asking me that barnturd j ?

    I will tell what I did find very very amusing. The time I suckered you into telling me where the hovel is located that you reside, lol, well…that close it doesn’t matter :)

    You still have not responded to the study that I posted that proved that Tasmania has been somewhat consistently warmer than now ?

    I get a good laugh every time you wave your punny little arms around screaming about AGW because you seen an apple tree bud early, lol

  76. #76 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    Spots, we KNOW you’re a braindead little moron.

    But saying “I don’t remember that” doesn’t answer the question even if you had perfect recall.

    Thereby proving you’re a braindead little moron.

  77. #77 Betula
    May 23, 2013

    Jeff…

    It looks like you are becoming unraveled. Let me be straight with you, I believe you to be an arrogant, hypocrite and a phony. Phony, not in the sense of your education or knowledge, but how you use that knowledge to assume conclusions based on biased ideology.
    You M.O is to repeat what you know and then attempt to make yourself feel superior by putting people down based on pure assumptions about what they don’t know, while being hypocritical in the process.
    What you know about the environment Jeff, doesn’t make your conclusions about climate change a fact. When you see slight changes over a 4 week period in Algonquin and relate it to climate change…you are being hypocritical in regards to everything you say about scale and comparing weather to climate.
    When you think you are putting someone down by calling them a “tree pruner”, you are basing this on an assumption and at the same time attempting to insulting anyone who may be a tree pruner. I have pruned many trees in my day, though I am not a tree pruner. The difference between you and me is that I don’t look down on them, in fact, It is hard to find someone with a good eye for pruning and knowledge of plant material to be able to prune correctly and at the proper time, let alone someone with climbing experience to prune large trees..
    Here where I live, we have some of the wealthiest clients on earth and they hire world renown landscape architects who are very particular about the material that goes in and how it is maintained, which is where I fit in.
    As a licensed Arborist in 2 states with a B.S. in Forestry and a former Marine Corps Engineer Officer, I have been in the field over 30 years.
    I can honestly tell you, if you were doing the job I do you would flat out fail. Why? Because every time you had to solve a problem, your answer would be the same….more lace bugs this year? Climate change. Armillaria on my Cherry tree? Climate change. Huge amounts of Army worms in my lawn? Climate change. Snow mold? Climate Change. My Spruce tree is turning brown….climate change. Why didn’t my Magnolia flower? Climate change. What is wrong with the Hemlocks? Climate change. And then to solve the problems, you would tell everyone it’s their fault and they need to change their light bulbs. Plus, with your superiority complex, I don’t think you would treat the crews well and they would turn on you. I don’t picture you as a people person.
    I’ve seen many cycles in my 30 years, many changes, many thing come and go…and not just with insects, diseases and plant material, but with wildlife as well…and it’s not all bad.
    When I was young we used to catch Weak fish in Long Island sound, then they disappeared for 10 years, then they came back….same with the Mackerel. We never had Wild Turkeys in the past, now we do, and as a result now we have Coyotes, which we never did before…..the Deer are so plentiful the NY Times referred to them as “rats with hoofs”.
    Yes, here we are on the border of 2 plant Zones, along the water is one Zone, 10 miles inland is another….knowing which plants can withstand salt, which plants can withstand the cold, which ones want wet feet, which ones like dry feet, which ones are shade tolerant, which plants are shallow rooted, which plants grow fast, which plants are disease resistant, which plants are susceptible to a variety of insects and diseases, and what are the life cycles of those insects and how do you treat those insects or diseases, and which chemicals affect Bees or fish, and which chemicals are phytotoxic to which plants, and at what temperature should you spray and what organic products are available, and at what time of year do they flower and which plants are considered invasive, and why didn’t my Apple get any fruit this year, and I need to adjust the spray heads away from the Leucothoe to prevent shot hole fungus after I cut the girdling root on the Sugar Maple and can you please take down my 40″ diameter White Oak that is leaning over the back of my house and the pool without any vehicle access….and then prune my ten thousand dollar cut leaf maple and my espaliered Pear tree.
    This and much more with more than100 clients, many who are millionaires and billionaires with estates worth up to 80 million dollars, brings in a lot of money. Interestingly, the State I live in and the surrounding States are all Democratic Blue States, so most of these rich people are the kind you rail against…only they are Democrats…including David Blood of the well known Blood and Gore duo.
    But back to you Jeff,
    As complex as the environment is, you claim to know as fact, that worst case outcomes are going to derive from the possibility that CO2 will double, and if it does, what climate sensitivity might be, and if that climate sensitivity is what you think it is, what the scenarios will arise all over the world and all those scenarios can only be bad even though the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Did you intentionally leave out the scenario that warming may stall for a decade or was that just an oversight? Tell me Jeff, do you use electricity? Gas? Do you eat food? Do you breath? Are you part of the problem? Of course you are…but this isn’t what it’s about is it Jeff. It’s about the rich, it’s about labeling people deniers even though you don’t know what it is they are denying. Are they denying Global Warming? Are they denying climate change? Are they denying if or when C02 will double? Are they denying Climate Sensitivity? Are they denying worst case scenarios based on a doubling of speculations? Are they denying how a complex world is reacting now or how it will react in the future? Or are they denying you Jeff?
    Hey Jeff, why not rail against the people in charge of the lights on Broadway, why not rail against the people who exempted China from the Kyoto Protocol? Why not rail against the shipping industry? commercial trucking? major league sports” Disney land and Disney World? Resorts? Hotels? Travel agencies? Hmm..
    You’re a Putz Jeff, an “intellectually superior” Putz who claims to witness climate change in Algonquin because you saw “spiders and other insects in a landscape that should have been frozen solid” even though temperatures by your own admission were “around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night” and your friend managed to get frostbite.

    Did the spiders get frostbite too?

  78. #78 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    Coo, a lot of words, betty, but pointless.

    Why bother reading what you say when you’re blatant about how you make things up at will.

  79. #79 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    Betula

    Why do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?

    As a layman, your only logically consistent option is to accept the expert (scientific) consensus.

    So why are you routinely to be found here in comments spouting denialist clap-trap?

    Why?

  80. #80 Wow
    May 23, 2013

    Pissing people off.

    Probably Spots et al too.

    They’re now wanting to get back at the people who’ve resisted their idiocies and shown them up to be the dumbest of the dumbest of the dumb.

    It was a job.

    NOW, it’s personal.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    “Let me be straight with you, I believe you to be an arrogant, hypocrite and a phony”

    Thanks Betula. Coming from an ignoramus like you, that’s a compliment. Thankfully my scientific peers think otherwise. And if I had to balance their views against yours, well, let’s just say you come second.

  82. #82 GSW
    May 23, 2013

    @Betula

    “It looks like you are becoming unraveled. Let me be straight with you[jeff], I believe you to be an arrogant, hypocrite and a phony.”

    Yes he is, I seem to remember we started to make a list of failings some time ago, but ran out of space. A personality disorder probably best describes it, he oscillates between being a martyr and some sort of dreamy Napolean figure.

    In either guise, a thoroughly repulsive individual. Keep up the good work Betula, KBO.

    ;)

  83. #83 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    “As a licensed Arborist in 2 states with a B.S. in Forestry and a former Marine Corps Engineer Officer, I have been in the field over 30 years”

    ..and you spout profoundly simplistic nonsense about the supposed benefits of increased C02 concentrations on ecological communities – on the basis of a brochure by a company, no less. If you want to be taken seriously by me and most others on Deltoid, then its time you acted like you know what you are talking about. Your C02 argument is something I often see from non-scientist AGW deniers, but you will find few scientists working in the field who would make such a flippant remark. On this basis alone, you are the Putz. I think most people on Deltoid would agree with that.

    In this regard your 30 years of experience in your field mean diddly squat. I challenged you to discuss the more complex ecophysiological aspects of this at the level of species, populations, communities and ecosystems and you gave it a pass. That’s hardly surprising, because all of your 30 years of experience in your field has not equipped you with the expertise to be able to understand a field I have worked in for the past 20.

    I don’t deny that the tree pruner quip was wrong, and I retract it. But one thing I don’t retract is that you do not have the qualifications to be able to critically and effectively evaluate a myriad of anthropogenic stresses upon natural and managed ecosystems. You think that 30 years is a long time, whereas in nature its the blink of an evolutionary eye. I not only do a lot of field work, but I speak with a lot of colleagues who study plant-animal interactions and who have access to data sets that are longer – some spanning 100 years or more (still representing a very short time span) which describe the demographics of songbird populations in northern Europe. Trends for many species of passerines in both the Nearctic and Palearctic realms are indeed profoundly worrying – some species have seen their populations decline by 70% or more since the 1960s. Given the paucity of qualified researchers able to evaluate the reasons underlying these declines, we are left to a subset of systems in which data are available and in which research is ongoing. Some of these studies provide clear, unambiguous proof that climate warming is an important, if not the major, culprit. Its my guess that you’ve never read a single study in the field. Just because you haven’t doesn’t make it so. You think that working outdoors for 30 years in the field somehow equips you with the ability to detect trends. It does not, at least not unless you are actively collecting the data and assiduously analyzing it.

    Essentially, what comes out of your posts is a far-right libertarian ideology that clearly affects your views on climate science and other fields. You are forced to dig out the old ‘do you drive a car et al’ chestnut, which might have come straight from a Tea Party shindig or from someone like Rush Limbaugh. Its the same claptrap that the far right has been putting out for years. I am sure that you loathe government, even though in your country government and corporations are two sides of the same coin, joined at the hip to the Pentagon. Your entire post was a rant in which you attempt to tell everyone that you are as qualified to comment on climate as the scientists doing the research because you’ve been working in the field for the past 3 decades.

    As for your discussion of white-tailed deer, coyotes and wild turkeys, well where do I begin to demolish this? White-tailed deer thrive because their main predators, wolves and mountain lions, were extirpated from the eastern US. As a result, lyme disease thrives, even though the tick vectors prefer reptilian hosts (in the south lyme disease is rare). There are probably more deer now than ever because of the elimination of top-level predators via trophic cascades. Coyotes thrive in anthropogenic habitats because they are highly intelligent and expanded their range east over the past century. Wild turkeys are a success story, I will admit, having been hunted out of most of their original range by early in the 20th century. However, restocking programs have worked. But for every success their are many, many more worrying signs. Many perching birds are in population freefall across the eastern US. Rufous side towhees have declined by 90% since the 1970s; many parulid warblers are declining, even at the heart of their range. Bachman’s, Grasshopper and Henslow’s sparrows are in deep trouble. Loggerhead shrikes are almost extinct now north of the Ohio River. Bewicks wrens are extinct east of the Misssissippi. Red-Headed woodpeckers are rapidly declining in the north-east, and Red Cockaded woodpeckers continue to spiral towards extinction. The current status of American birds does not make happy reading. Nor does that for European birds, for that matter. In fact, over here the situation may be even more serious than it is on your side of theAtlantic. In a nutshell, things are going in the wrong direction.

    Climate change most certainly is a factor, but as I have said many times it does not act alone. Humans dominate terrestrial landscapes and by fragmenting them we have created urban and agricultural barriers which make it harder for species to disperse polewards or to higher elevations. We have also either intentionally or inadvertently introduced many plants and animals to non-native ecosystems where a small percentage are wreaking havoc upon the native flora and fauna. In combination, the human assault across the biosphere is driving extinction rates 100 to 1000 times higher than natural ‘background’ rates, and certainly far faster than new species are evolving to replace them. Biodiversity represents the working parts of our global ecological life support systems, and in combination it drives critical processes – ecosystem services – that sustain humanity. There are few, if any technological substitutes for most of them.

    Now if you want to discuss science, and not some cursory observations made in your work, go ahead. You repeatedly criticize me but I have yet to see you make any kind of meaningful scientific contribution to Deltoid. Instead, you wade in here often just to throw in your 5 cents worth about climate change being crap. Your comments on C02 and glacier retreat were hardly informed.

    Essentially, I do have better things to do than to spar with you down in the intellectual benthos. All you have proven in your posts is that you are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger study. Yet you are so blind in your belief that your career has given you some deep insight into ecology that you can’t even see it.

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    May 23, 2013

    Now GSW is back with his bilge. These clowns all come out of the woodwork. GSW is another one of those who thinks he is some kind of expert on ecophysiology. Yet his posts also reek of simplicity. He is a big fan of Jonas N, which should say it all.

  85. #85 chek
    May 23, 2013

    “…even though the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Did you intentionally leave out the scenario that warming may stall for a decade or was that just an oversight?

    Yup, standard chummychunk denier claptrap in a crispy coat of intellectual envy with a sprinkling of Rethugnican rage. And of course, Griselda puts in an appearance for The Swede Collective pf Mediocrities and Nobodies to reinforce the point, as if that does Betty a favour.

  86. #86 GSW
    May 23, 2013

    Just posted over at WUWT,- painfully humourous audio clip from the Chief Economist at NRDC,

    “Great moments in activist climate science – NRDC’s Dr. Laurie Johnson: ‘CO2 makes your car hot’”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/great-moments-in-activist-climate-science-dr-laurie-johnson-co2-makes-my-car-hot/

    Just checking if you guys are still “on message” with NRDC’s latest analysis..
    ;)

  87. #87 BBD
    May 23, 2013

    Christ. Another buffoon.

  88. #88 chek
    May 23, 2013

    A repeater buffoon at that.

    So Griselda, you’re swallowing the chum at Watts’s then brainlessly shitting it out here and saying that the CO2 in the atmosphere somehow behaves differently because it’s in your car or your house and doesn’t absorb and re-radiate heat as fast as the sunlight can be converted?
    I’d be fascinated to hear how that works.
    How does it know, Oh wise one?

  89. #89 Nick
    May 24, 2013

    Betula, that’s an unhinged and confused attack on Jeff.

    ‘..more lace bugs this year? Climate change.’ ..

    “I don’t think you would treat the crews well,and they would turn on you”

    This is just ridiculous childish ‘personal’ stuff,and it goes on forever.
    That gallop of disjointed ‘questions’ at the end there…get a grip,man.

  90. #90 bill
    May 24, 2013

    Batty, if you were ever in contact with a plot, you’ve clearly lost it now. Have you no dignity, man?

  91. #91 rhwombat
    May 24, 2013

    Jeff,
    Well put. I have neither your patience and lucidity, nor your depth of knowledge on the complexities and ramifications of climate change to scare the shit out of the denialati, as you do, but I do appreciate the time and passion that you (and Bernard, bill, chek, nick, wow, BBD et al.) put into this blog. The same suspects keep leaving flaming bags of denier shit on the doorstep, then wondering why they are derided as puerile punks. Denial is a pathology as well as a philosophy.

  92. #92 Olaus Petri
    May 24, 2013

    Dana and Deltoid are on top of things, as usual:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/dana-nuccitellis-twitter-war-with-richard-tol-over-that-97-consensus-paper/#more-86913

    @GSW :-) Climatescientology is everywhere. I’ll bet Jeffie has noticed that climate change first hand too! ;-)

  93. #93 bill
    May 24, 2013

    That’s it; we have the full set of meatbag Denier spambots.

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    May 24, 2013

    Let’s take a look :
    “Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:”

    1.”tend to overestimate their own level of skill”:

    # 95 page 3…”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’ ”

    Logic fail.

    A claim to greater relative expertise in a subject compared to another, a claim that is most evidently correct here, is not evidence of over-estimation of said expertise. Or to give a simple example, me saying that I’m driving faster than my mother is not the same as me saying that I am exceeding the speed limit. Ask your average primary school kid – they’ll confirm it for you.

    Ironically, your attempt to apply Dunning-Kruger here IS evidence of your own over-estimation of your own logical and debating abilities. Further evidence is provided by your attempted riposte #2 where you presume your own debate competence in order to argue that Jeff has failed to recognise yours, a presumption that is solidly challenged by the available evidence on Deltoid – and your #4 suffers from exactly the same problem.

    Better put the shotgun down and go get some medical treatment for the holes in your feet. Unless, of course, you were ironically holding yourself up as an illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect ;-) in which case, well played, sir!

  95. #95 Bernard J.
    May 24, 2013

    KarenMackSunspot at #75.

    You are an idiot.

    Really. Truly.

    It’s about more than apple buds. At various times I’ve provided you with a plethora of empirical effects of warming, sufficient for one of average intelligence to further pursue study and determine that there is a significant change occurring in the local Tasmanian climate. Some of it is even easy for a dumb-arse – the marine effects of global warming are well-documented online.

    But why bother with the actual, empirical sequelæ of planetary warming? You provided the data temperature yourself, although you seem to have missed it at the time. Remember when you claimed at #9 on page 8 of the April Open Thread:

    1910 – 2012 trend in mean temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

    1910 – 2012 trend in maximum temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

    1910 – 2012 trend in minimum temperature for Tasmania = 0.05 deg C

    THAT’S…………ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE of a trend from 1910

    sssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeez

    Really? You think that there’s “0.05” [sic] of a trend from 1910? Look harder. Look better. Look much more closely…

    The mean annual temperature trend shows in fact a 0.05-0.1°C increase per decade, which averages crudely as 0.75°C since 1910. Most of the state’s maximum annual temperature trend shows a similar increase.

    The minimum annual temperature trend in my area shows a 0.1-0.15°C increase per decade, which averages crudely (and likely conservatively) as 1.25°C since 1910. And note – this is simply the minimum increase realised. Many people are reporting that the nights are overall now even warmer than this, so an integrated nightly temperature analysis is likely to show an even higher trend. I’ve started collecting 1/2 hourly data myself to see if this is in fact the case.

    The thing that astonishes me is that the sea surface temperature trend is 0.08-0.12°C increase per decade, which equates to 1.0°C since 1910. That’s an enormous amount of heat – at least, it is for anyone who has the intelligence required to comprehend it. Dumb-arses such as you would have no hope of finding the cerebral capacity required to understand what’s happening…

    A few sundry observations…

    You still have not responded to the study that I posted that proved that Tasmania has been somewhat consistently warmer than now ?

    Wrong.

    I did, here, pointing you to:

    http://www.redmap.org.au/article/sea-temperatures-and-climate-change-in-tasmania/

    and

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111000803

    And as I have detailed above, you yourself linked to the Bureau of Meteorology data that shows significant and very serious warming. Classic KarenMackSunspot own-goal.

    Also, it’s worthwhile noting how you used not one but two of the Sunspot space-before-punctuation-marks idiosyncrasies in your post at #75 above, as well as the excessively elongated Spotty ellipses. You did the space thing in your guise as Mack at #3 above and at #72 on the previous page.

    Are there actual schools where people learn to be dumb-arses of the extreme calibre that you manifest? That can be the only explanation – besides the fact that you’ve suffered a severe head injury, and/or that you are in the bottom decile of the population’s intelligence distribution.

  96. #96 cRR Kampen
    May 24, 2013

    #77 “It’s about the rich, it’s about labeling people deniers even though you don’t know what it is they are denying.”

    So Al Gore ain’t rich or is a denier.

    It’s about anthropogenic global warming mate. Not about your job or your paranoia for thinking people.

    To state you’ve got so and so many years of experience in the outside is empty. Apparently you been around like a zombie.

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    May 24, 2013
  98. #98 Wow
    May 24, 2013

    #77 “It’s about the rich, it’s about labeling people deniers even though you don’t know what it is they are denying.”

    Hell, THEY don’t know what they’re denying. Projection again, idiot.

    All you know and all you can agree on is that there should be nothing done about AGW. You’ll deny anything and everything to that aim.

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    May 24, 2013

    Doh.

    For those wondering why I posted the hyperlinked “…sea surface temperature trend…” there is, sitting in the moderation queue, a preceding comment directed to KarenMackSunspot .

  100. #100 bill
    May 24, 2013

    Will Karen even be able to find Tasmania on that map?

Current ye@r *