You've got to admit, the guy's an optimist. And appears to be ignoring global OHC data. Yes, there are probably quasi-periodic cycles in ocean circulation but they cancel out over time. Even if this fractionally offset NH warming it would in due course *augment* it and the underlying forced trend would be the same on longer (centennial) timescales.
There's nothing here for deniers to crow about, as you would know if you understood the basics.
Gee, another thread is inaugurated by SpamKan hoiking up a steaming gobbet of the informational equivalent of over-ripe mashed fish-heads.
What a surprise.
Here's an idea, Spammer - spend the time it takes to copy/paste this stuff just a bit more wisely, say in a weensy amount of study, and you might even master the distinction beteween Fahrenheit and Celsius!
No, KarenMcSpot the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007 (during your much hyped and much trumpeted 'hiatus', you'll recall).
It's unlikely any reader (as opposed to troller) here expects 2013 to be a record year - the climate system doesn't follow a mechanical, monotonic progression. But I expect many would not be surprised by another record occurring by 2018.
So you've likely got a few years left yet to crow about 'recovery' and all the other led-by-the-nose, brain-dead guff you spend your time idiotically spouting on behalf of the fossil fuel industry group-think organisers..
"the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007"....."the climate system doesn’t follow a mechanical, monotonic progression."
No, apparently, it follows a melodic progression to the tune of Dave Brubeck's "Take Five".
Sea level rise isn't the issue with declining Arctic sea ice Freddy, just as canaries in coalmines aren't about the viability of subterranean avian habitats.
Here, h/t to Gareth at Hot Topic, is a presentation on arctic amplification by Jennifer Francis which covers a lot of ground and clarified a couple of things for me (why is there a jetstream, for example) in passing.
Well worth a watch to have the link between Arctic warming and crazy weather in the more southerly latitudes explained.
What sort of a fool would you have to be not to understand that a regression towards the mean is indeed likely to occur after a remarkable event like, say, the 2012 sea-ice collapse, or 2007, for that matter, but that regression is clearly back towards a mean that is itself in a steep decline?
Plagued by the likes of Touretting Freddy, and SpamKan, this place has become little more than a creche facility for blowhard, or outrightly deranged, DK innumerates.
Arctic sea ice is in terminal decline, Batty - get over it. And, while not as outright bonkers as some, you're as good a symptom as any of any decline in these parts...
What sort of a fool would you have to be not to understand that a regression towards the mean is indeed likely to occur after a remarkable event like, say, the 2012 sea-ice collapse, or 2007, for that matter, but that regression is clearly back towards a mean that is itself in a steep decline?
What it means
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!
What it means The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!
No Karenspambot, you'll have to own and deal with your last load of chum before dumping a new lot. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…"
“To the Editor The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…” http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.htm tiz the start of the climb downl
No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
Well worth a watch to have the link between Arctic warming and crazy weather in the more southerly latitudes explained.
Might be better to say "One possible explanation for recent weather patterns"
Others might be:
solar variability, long-term ocean cycles, and other long-term cycles of natural variability.
Five out of the last six UK summers have seen above average rainfall (2010 is the exception, with average rainfall) and the workshop heard new evidence from the University of Reading suggesting that long-term Atlantic currents may be playing an important role.
These are understood to operate on cycles of a decade or more, which suggests that we may see their influence on our summers for a few more years to come.
Another driver of colder winter weather has already been identified and is known as Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs).
Observational records show that the surface temperature of the North Atlantic has swung slowly between warmer and cooler conditions, and the present warm phase has a similar pattern to warm conditions that persisted throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s cooler conditions prevailed.
Computer simulations suggest that these changes in ocean temperature affect the atmosphere above. Warmth in the North Atlantic causes a trough of low pressure over western Europe in summer and steers rain-bearing weather systems into the UK.
Solar variability - nope, no TSI increase.
Ocean cycles - nope, cycles aren't net creators of heat
Other long-term cycles of natural variability. - or Jesus, perhaps.
Keep waving those arms and you might take off. Such answers are what you find satisfactory, in that they're total non-answers Redarse.
And perhaps you'll explain how the Met Office statement conflicts with anything Dr. Francis said, bearing in mind the subject of her talk?
Explain the increase in ocean heat content in all major basins over the last four decades.
How does any pattern or patterns of internal variability account for ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?
Never mind the denialist bollocks™. I'll save you the trouble. Such an accumulation of energy can only be explained by an increased forcing. Since we know it's not the sun, we have to look elsewhere.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and ... well, there's the explanation.
Eh? What the fuck does the old argument about which multiplier of precession or obliquity dominates orbitally triggered deglaciation have to do with what I just posted?
“We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
" Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."
“We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
” Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
"Over the past century, global average surface temperatures have warmed by about 0.75°C. Much of the warming occurred in the past half-century, over which the average decadal rate of change was about 0.13°C, largely due to anthropogenic increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases"
Its great that Karen is waking up to reality of AGW. Well done, Karen!
#58 - she thinks the two thirds of papers expressing no position on CAGW have no position on CAGW and just keeps on falling into that trap. Keep astronomy out of her way for she WILL deny gravity then.
We all knew this wasn’t SpamKan herself the moment we read the following:
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening
So, let’s insist; Spammy, in your own words, what did you just regurgitate?
Yes the UK Met Office has often been likened to La la Land, due to the unreliability of its long term, warm bias, weather forecasts.
So it is all the more peculiar, based on this past warm bias, that they trot out these alternatives, in particular emphasising the AMO and cyclic nature of the weather patterns.
The melting Arctic is mentioned as one possible explanation.
I suppose they cannot come straight out with it: "That they havent got a bloody clue"
Still latch onto the explanation that suites your politics or religion.
No Redarse, the la-la land refers to your careful weeding out of any mention of climate change in your bowdlerised version of the Met Office ststement. Deliberate? But of course.
Still latch onto the explanation that suites your politics or religion.
That is what *you* do.
The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.
Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).
Questions for our resident post-doc polymath:
While you're there, fred-fred, you have a number of skipped questions. Let's pick a recent one, more or less at random:
During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene.
What was the mean sea level highstand and where did the water come from?
Answers please. Not abusive rants. Let's see you walk the walk for a change.
BBD asshole #67 disqualified for unappropriately false arguments and foul language:
That is what *you* do.
The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.
Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).
@BBD fuckwit moron "During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene"
WRONG: nobody could reliably measure this, therefore PURE SPECULATION, as always with climate scientology church acolytes
I gave a range of *between* 1C - 2C, not a precise measurement. And just because you are utterly ignorant of the methodology behind this estimated range doesn't invalidate it. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
What was the MSL highstand during the Eemian, and where did all the water come from?.
~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?
References? Is this per year/century?
What a large scary number. Why not change it to ergs, then it will be 10^7 bigger. Even more scary.
Still by my calculation only enough to raise the temperature of the oceans by 0.004 degrees C. Can we measure the temperature of the oceans that accurately so we notice the difference?
And how did this appear exactly? Has someone actually measured this or did it appear in a vision?
And estimates for sea level rise by 2100 are getting lower
No jump in temperatures for the 0-300m depths
And not much shown 0-700m for the increase in heat content http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global oceanic heat content 0-700 m depth
So is this massive amount of heat burrowing its way to the deep ocean without showing up on the way down.
If so how do we measure anything below 2000m to know if its there?
And if it really gets there, how long will it be before it comes back to haunt us, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?
Is it an example of quantum linkage perhaps or the basis for some teleportation device.
What is the Physics behind this?
Enquiring minds need to know.
I've given the key reference DOZENS of times in comments here. It is Levitus et al. (2012). Try reading it, this time.
[1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
SSTs are not an indicator of OHC at depth. Stupid, basic error.
And not much shown 0-700m for the increase in heat content
More bloody ignorance. Rate of diffusion downwards has increased. Windspeed. Ekman pumping. All written up in the published scientific literature. See Balmaseda et al. (2013).
Also stop ignoring the full data set. Look at OHC all the way down to 2000m.
All your stupid noise to avoid answering/facing up to one simple fact:
The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations - CO2.
the la-la land refers to your careful weeding out of any mention of climate change in your bowdlerised version of the Met Office ststement.
Very little weeding was needed as references to climate change in the Met Office statement were very limited.
Surprising from a previouslly staunch advocate of AGW.
Perhaps they have woken up and now smell the coffee.
Someone asks a simple basic question and gets very unconvincing answers supposedly from the brightest and best They dont seem entirely sure themselves.
Levitus and Balmaseda both rely heavily on pre Argo data pre 2005 where 0-700m measurements were limited and 700-2000m measurements sporadic.
Hardly solid convincing stuff.
Are we talking real accurate measurement here or wishful thinking and visions.
Estimates of climate sensitivity continue to fall
No “hot spot”
Hiatus in surface temperaures
No they don't. Incomplete and speculative attempts based on the brief observational record - which you people deny anyway, remember - continue to produce lower estimates than those derived from millennial-scale paleoclimate behaviour. The most likely value remains stubbornly close to 3C/2xCO2. Sorry!
The "no hot-spot" lie is a Jo Nova stalwart, but not science. Sorry!
The slow down in the rate of surface warming because of increased ocean heat uptake has already been discussed.
ARGO data post-2005 show very substantial increases in OHC down to 2000m. Only people who don't understand that this is about energy accumulating in the climate system - not just decadal rates of surface warming - think this matters. Scientists and other climate literates just point to OHC.
And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.
No, data-denying fuckwit. Decades of XBT data. You are muddling up SST measurements with OHC measurements because you haven't got the remotest clue what you are talking about. As I said, you are a joke.
I don't really want to indulge Karen, but feel that I should point out that her sea level link from , gosh WUWT,( who would have thought it) compares the mass loss from the GRACE data over the period 2002-2011to the 110 year rate>. Clearly to see it in context, it should be compared to the average over the same time period which is about 3.3 mm/year.
Notice that the above exchange did not result in an admission from Rednoise that he has no counter-argument to the *facts*.
Which I will re-state once more:
The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations – CO2.
What we got was what we always get when there are facts on the table and nowhere else to go: evasions and denial.
How do these sorry excuses for human beings actually live with themselves?
Then why do it ... oh ... because it would dilute your 'message'.
And that's the problem with you and your fellow deniers - you treat science like a shyster lawyer treats a case, as if you actually believe you can win against reality with slick editing and disregard for the inconvenient.
Rove and his boys have really done a number on you idiots, haven't they.
And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.
You really are a sillyarse repeating that bilge, clearly that is what you collect in your bucket.
And I suspect your like will soon be throwing this at us by way of evidence for continued warming being a hoax:
“For longer periods (two decades or longer) we found a robust and a statistically significant warming trend,” he said. For shorter periods - a decade or less - there is no longer a significant temperature trend of either sign, consistent with the reports of a recent 'plateauing' of global temperatures.”
for this is the source Climate extremes are 'unprecedented', for full context rather than the honey-trap for the perennially confused that is Milloy's 'junkscience' currently echoing this in its usual very selective manner.
I refuse to link to there but freddy should feel at home except that he cannot string many words together without using foul language and whilst shouting his verbal diarrhea.
Oh, Redarse, here is another little torpedo, to add to the salvo already fired, for your moth-eaten hull of ocean warming understanding: WUWT: Ocean Misunderstanding and Confusion.
As BBD correctly points out OHC. Now repeat that till you fall asleep, 'OHC, OHC, OHC, OHC, OH...'.
I can't recall now which of the comedy duo of Mosher or Fuller (I can't distinguish any single bacterium) a few years ago claimed a US Navy career (which became more and more fake the more closely it was examined) and pushed this story about professional seamen treating temperature sampling as a joke. As if they wouldn't know that thousands of such measurements combined to make their lives safer through more accurate weather forecasting. I expect that's what Redarse is parroting here. There's nothing deniers will not try to damage or destroy given the slimmest chance of a momentary advantage.
Loss of Arctic ice and extreme weather are normal. Return to your homes and conduct business as usual is the underlying message, with the emphasis on 'lying'..
It was Fuller, who is by some distance the thicker of the two, and the more easily caught in mendacity. I had months of fun with our Tom on Collide-a-scape last year. Months.
Watch the deniers try and worm their way out of this one. They always do. If they were driving a car that plunged over a cliff, in mid flight they would scream aloud how fine the ride was. The WMOs report should - that being the operative word - drive a nail through the AGW denial brigade. But no amount of empirical evidence will convince these buffoons. Not when there are political agendas to promote.
In the era before Argo (2003), measurements of ocean temperature were made from ships by putting a thermometer in a bucket of water drawn up from the surface or in the inlet valves of the engines, or by diving darts (XBTs) that could dive down to 800m with a thermometer, transmitting the data back to the ship along thin wires. The uncertainties in the temperature measurements made by the XBTs falling through the ocean were huge, because the XBTs fell too quickly to come into thermal equilibrium with the water around them. Also, there is a very strong temperature gradient in the surface layer of the ocean to below the thermocline , so the depth attributed to each temperature data point is arrived at from an assumed rate of descent of the instrument. Any deviation from the assumed rate of descent will put the instrument (and temperature) at the wrong depth, making the calculated temperature still more uncertain. Measurements from thermometers in buckets of water variously obtained are obviously hugely imprecise.
The geographic distribution of the sampling was sparse and very uneven, because the samples were taken along commercial shipping routes, somewhat irregularly. Most shipping lanes are in the northern hemisphere, but most of the world’s oceans are in the southern hemisphere — much of the southern ocean is hundreds or thousands of kilometers from where samples were taken. The oceans are really big, yet the presence of currents and layers at different temperatures means temperatures can be quite different in waters just a few hundred meters apart.
Obviously the errors are so huge compared to the expected/modeled increases (less than a tenth of a degree C per decade) that pre-Argo data is useless. One wonders at the morals of people using this data to convince people the world is warming.
Brainwashed religious nutters might do this.
So we are back to scarce, unreliable and inaccurate measurements pre Argo and none below 1000m.
Yet Levitus claims to tell us changes in OHC from the 1950s, before even the use of the irregular and inaccurate XBT darts.
And, like a house of cards, Balmaseda relies heavily on Levitus to tie all these loose ends together and find the missing ergs.
And they still have not explained clearly how the extra radiation somehow concentrates at the few downwelling points in the oceans before funnelling down to the depths, seemingly remaining undetected in the top 700m.
Does this go for the 30% of this extra radiation that falls on the land surface as well? The Land surface temperatures from about 2000 are also remaining fairly level. So is this also being collected and concentrated before joining the queue for the teleporter?
when there are facts on the table
Put some facts on the table, not unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit.
Your unreferenced data denial is worthless. Just blab.
Every single OHC reconstruction in the published scientific literature demonstrates a strong increase over the last four decades.
Instrument bias and sampling density are comprehensively addressed in all studies, including Levitus 2012, which you have obviously not bothered to read.
The decadal trend in OHC is greater than the decadal uncertainty. Look at the published scientific literature instead of denialist rubbish.
Or are you so far gone that you believe that there is a conspiracy amongst scientists to falsify the data? I think perhaps you are:
One wonders at the morals of people using this data to convince people the world is warming.
You paranoid nutter.
Put some facts on the table, not unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit.
.
I did. I reference the scientific literature. You just spewed out the "unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit".
#7 "The oceans are really big, yet the presence of currents and layers at different temperatures means temperatures can be quite different in waters just a few hundred meters apart."
Like air temperature readings, they can be quite different just a few metres apart. Who gives a flying shit (though I'm happy to see the morons finally discovering some trivia). The trend is the same everywhere: up.
continue to produce lower estimates than those derived from millennial-scale paleoclimate behaviour. The most likely value remains stubbornly close to 3C/2xCO2. Sorry!
Paleoclimate estimates depend on proxies for temperature and CO2 measurements which are problamatic and produce error. The latest, lower estimates are based on direct readings and should therefore be more accurate and robust.
Otto et al discuss the low estimates for TCR which should be the one to determine planning issues.
We have discussed this before. Get over it.
Otto et al. uses estimated aerosol negative forcing. A guess. Otto et al. - like all observationally-derived guesstimates is extremely sensitive to this guess.
Otto et al. is also extremely sensitive to decadal fluctuations in upper ocean heat content - something determined by natural variability in the rate of mixing ;-)
You don't know what you are talking about, which is why you don't realise how stupid you sound.
Paleoclimate estimates depend on proxies for temperature and CO2 measurements which are problamatic and produce error.
This is of course data denial. What's hilarious is that you affirm Otto et al. and other "observational" guesstimates and in the same breath deny paleoclimate-derived estimates which look at much longer periods and are far less sensitive to eg. decadal variablity.
But you don't see how ludicrously inconsistent you are being because you are stupid.
Anyway, let's charitably assume that Otto et al. has some merit.
Let's remind ourselves what Otto said about this result:
What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC's models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.
That is exactly no comfort for deniers. I assume that the reason they are so keen on Otto et al. is that they don't have a clue what it actually means.
As for the stupid attempt to discredit the entirety of the OHC data based on that from the 1950s, let's play along.
Here's OHC 0 - 2000m. Put your hand over the screen and block out everything before 1980. Plenty of good data from then on. I mean, just take a look at the last decade or so. Whoo. Look at it go. And that's ARGO. All of it.
I'm sorry, MikeH, but Teh Stupid needs it's nose smacked again - perhaps join in rather than swim against the moron tide? Then attempt a sensible conversation when the fuckwittery has been beaten back somewhat?
Well if Captain Nemo took a f sample of ergs as well I am surprised the OHC record hasn't been taken back further. Perhaps Levitus is working on how to comprehensively address the instrument bias and sampling density of that one extra bucket of ergs.
"ARGO floats have provided reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans since 2003-04, and the installation was complete in 2007. But as late as 2011, Kevin Trenberth’s opinion was that they provided limited value due to “missing and erroneous data and calibration”."
The more I read the more stoooopid and gullible you look BBD :)
That graph that you keep linking to is pure BS, are you barnturd j's mother ?
The last decade, backed up by the more reliable ARGO data seems to show not much going on 0-700m.
FFS. All this has been explained. See Balmaseda et al. (2013). Energy is mixing down below the 700m over last decade. You see the increase in OHC *below* 700m.
Just LOOK at the OHC data. Look at the difference between the black (0 - 2000m) and red (0 - 700m) curves post-2000.
Are these reconstructions what we think ought to occur (visions) or are they backed by hard substantive evidence.
They are based on the available evidence and published in the reviewed literature. Why are you waving at denialist blog science and questioning the validity of the scientific literature?
It's just hopeless with you, Karen. You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand the discussion.
Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly.
Try thinking about the volume of ice loss since 1980 (Arctic sea ice, GIS WA~IS, glaciers etc etc.) before lolling your stupidity about for all to see Spamkan.
It was +0.07C in May according to your link. So nothing for 33 years and then suddenly nearly 0.2C in only 3 months. That's a huge acceleration, don't you find it alarming?
But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly
Through those few sinkholes bypassing the 0-700m layer without having any observable effect on this layer.
And as all those little ergs are waiting their turn drifting towards those crowded sinkholes, wouldn't there be some
observable effect. Apparently not. Amazing. Beam me up sorry down Scottie.
You may also find it useful to consult this fine book, a classic of its kind: Atmosphere, Weather and Climate. When I feel a bit more flush I may invest in a new copy as my 1980's edition is falling to bits it having been that well browsed by myself and others too.
Seriously you denier trolls are on a hiding to nothing given the huge amount of knowledge about climate systems already under the bridge, admittedly with more to come.
Think of it like a jig-saw puzzle where enough pieces are in place to get the big picture.
In recent years, the Southwest has trended toward drier and warmer conditions, which is consistent with climate-model projections that show that the region may become more arid in the coming decades, due in large part to manmade global warming. In fact, Arizona was the fastest warming state in the contiguous U.S. since the mid-1970s, with average surface temperatures increasing by 0.72°F per decade since 1970.
" keep in mind the size of the Earth’s oceans. The Earth’s oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square miles—or an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky."
"There is so very little observational data at depths greater than 700 meters that the NODC elected not to present the data in 3-month blocks. They used 5-YEAR windows, in one year steps, what they refer to as pentads. That is, for example, a temperature measurement in 1959 will be used for the pentads of 1955-1959, 1956-1960, 1957-1961, 1957-1962 and 1959-1963."
" it’s hard to believe that a handful of samples in the Northern Hemisphere represent the average ocean heat content of the global oceans over the 5-year period of 1955-1959, yet there are persons who use the NODC 0-2000 meter data as proof of human-induced global warming. At best, it’s a fantasy dataset." http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-a…
To whom does this 'seem at odds'? You do understand that there is a difference in ocean mass at 750m compared to 2000m due to the difference in density? The smaller mass warming more quickly than the larger (which isn't 'flat' as you characterise it in your typically misleading fashion, btw)
Betty 'child deniers' Betula whined on behalf of Bob Tisdale @ #52
At best, it’s a fantasy dataset
Oh, but of course, and that's why Tisdale blogs it rather than publishes it in order to convince the plentiful supply of know-nothing marines in moronworld, knowing he's got no chance with the oceanographers.
Regarding extreme weather events...why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?
1. "climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change"
Denying climate scientists that is.
2. "they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way"
The same denying climate scientists...
A. "Increasingly conclude"...how much is increasingly?
B. "that many recent events"....how many? Which ones?
C. "would have occurred in a different way"....how different? What way?
3. "or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change".....yet, they believe that it is "not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change"
4. "Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate
change will also require datasets that are
more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for
detecting temperature changes"
"Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently"
In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend.... and unlike you, they admit it.
Rather than arguing the points, attacks the messenger….very telling.
Tisdale's point about not enough data due to spread is not shown to be true just because he claims it, Betty. He has to make the case, which he doesn't. He relies on you know-nothings to think there's one there.
And if you keep up with these things, blog commenter caerbannog showed with his home made number cruncher that for all the Williwattsworld whining, ~30 stations will produce global average temperatures that match the main datasets very well.
Not enough data is one of the oldest and tiredest denier tactics.
So Betty, have you written to the Major informing him that according to your nutjob blogs of choice, that AGW is all a big con dreamt up by deskbound academics and eggheads some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens? Please be sure to publish his reply here.
Exactly, BBD. I'm hoping the NSA (given the program is active anyway - not that I approve of it)) is carefully logging every single crazy, unstable, irrational fuckhead poster here and elsewhere.
Betula, you are a dingbat. Humiliated so many times on Deltoid when your simpleton views are exposed, yet you keep coming back for more.
You cite this:
"A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes. Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently.”
Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It's you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years. Trends over the past decades reveal a strong indication of warming - including eastern North America, if one looks at both temperature trends and biotic proxies.
As I have said many times, you can't debate your way out of a soaked and dripping wet paper bag. There are all kinds of longer term trends which reveal without any doubt significant warming. Trends in temperature. Trends in extreme weather events - such as heat waves and record high temperatures versus record lows. Changes in the seasonal life cycles of organisms or in their distributions. And so on and so forth. You just either don't understand the concept of scale or prefer to stay dumb.
Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly
it is warm near the surface when sunlight reaches the surface, and cold when not!!
Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data
"OVERVIEW
In a number of posts, we’ve discussed and illustrated the difficulties with ocean heat content data. (There are links to those earlier posts at the end of this one.) The data presented in this post is supported by the 2012 Levitus et al paper World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010 [8.1 MB].
One topic discussed but not illustrated (until now in Figure 1) was that the annual variations in temperatures at depths between 700 and 2000 meters were in terms of hundredths if not thousandths of a deg C and that it was unrealistic to think we could measure the temperatures of the oceans at depth with that type of accuracy. It turns out that the annual variations are typically in thousandths of a deg C. The total scale of the temperature anomalies of the graph in Figure 1 is two one-hundredths of a deg C........................."
Oh poor old Billie,,,,,,,,,are you feeling lonely and want a chat dear ? I know I know, that flaccid old
thang just don't keep you company anymore does it, lol
What would you like to chat about sweety ?
Ummm..........let me see...............
Oh here is something Billie
"The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing."
attention agw idiots: SOME REAL SCIENCE FOR WANTBE AND CANNOTSCIENCE BEGINNERS BILLLX, BBDWIT, JEFFECOSHIT, BERNARDECONULL, ETC ETC ETC
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS's measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
NNNNNOOOOOOO PROOF OF FAKED GLOBAL WARMING BY CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH ASSHOLE SCOUNDRELS
GO HOME, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!
I WILL NOW INFORM THE MEMBERS OF US CONGRESS AND RECOMMEND AN IMMEDIATE STOP OF ANY SUBSIDIES FOR THE ROTTEN IPCC IDIOTS CONSPIRACY TEAM WHICH WASTES TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR NNNNOOOOOOTTTTTHHHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING"
Another rant from our resident psychotic...
Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate?
Next thing you will ranting on about will be that nature is involved in some big socialist conspiracy....
Some advice Freddy? 1. Seek professional medical attention immediately. 2. Go away.
"Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate? "
JefFeRy, don't you realize that the biota (and Homo sapiens) move around when the climate changes, lol, they have been doing it for eons you nuffie. Don't you realize that what you are witnessing is just a nano second in the history of evolution? Just a blip in the temperature gauge.
Dear Dr Tim Curtin,
On behalf of all the alarmist on this Deltiod blog I wish to convey their most humble apologies for being so DUMB and abusive to you, yes sir, you were dead right, and as usual the Dumbtoids were reading tealeaves and eating gold top mushrooms.
First of all Karen, you left out this little caveat:
" however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said."
Moreover, Donahue and his team are only examining quantitative effects and not qualitative effects, and their work is based exclusively on marginal zones - at the edge of deserts. Nothing is known about effects in many other major ecological zones. Furthermore, where are the mechanistic studies? Effects on primary and secondary plant metabolism? On competition and trophic interactions? As I have said many times, more biomass does not necessarily translate into healthier and more species-rich ecological communties. If it did, previous epochs when the atmsophere contained higher levels of C02 would also have been teeming with biodiversity. There was no correlation; in fact, the highest biodiversity the planet has evolved occurred relatively recently under low ambient C02 regimes.
The rate of change of atmospheric C02 levels is what will ultimately undermine them. First, the change is more rapid than has occurred in many millions of years; second, much of contemporary plant life is not adapted to very high C02 levels; perhaps it can deal with extra C02 to a certain point, but beyond that uptake wil level off and the extra C02 will then rapidly reduce plant quality. As I have said many times, and you and Rednose and Freddy and Betula just cannot get it through your thick heads, that C02 is not a limiting nutrient for plant fitness; N and P are more important. And for consumers up the food chain, N is very limiting.
So you can call off your muted crowing simply on the basis that your pig-ignorance does not wash in academia.
As for Freddy, what an idiot. Didn't even try and answer my point about biotic and abiotic proxies. That's because he is so utterly stupid that even typing on the keyborad is an effort for him.
Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity.
Clearly I really unsettle you, SpamKan. It must be truly painful to be irredeemably thick.
Ah, but your idiot tribe rallies round you, though they're fully aware that you have a head full of sawdust and cannot explain any of the nuggets you copy-paste in here; after all, you have never done so on any occasion. You are a prime example of the almost perfect ignorance that can be achieved by a US educational system that's in thrall to creationists (you know, like Freddy) and jingoistic anti-science blowhards (that's The Bircher.)
On the issue of whether rising CO2 is greening the deserts, we've been over it before. (I'll pause to note, yet again, that you possess not the slightest skepticism where results you think serve your cause are concerned - wrongly, yet again, in this case.)
To sum up, for those with functioning cerbral cortexes: one; it would make little difference even if it was true, and two; it's debatable that it's true. Witness Andrew Glikson from the ANU's letter to the New Scientist in the current edition -
In part, greening of subtropical regions, such as the southern Sahara, may be attributed to the expansion of the tropics and a rise of humidity. The increase in humidity and in rainfall in tropical and subpolar regions is consistent with a trend toward Pliocene-like conditions, in which temperatures were 2 to 3°C higher than today.
The shift of climate zones towards the poles results in droughts in temperate zones where the bulk of farming takes place, examples being southern Europe, the central US and south-west Western Australia.
These factors, coupled with more extreme weather events in most climatic zones, which are harmful to agriculture, hardly justify a view that carbon emissions are beneficial.
Now we all, including the deniers, know that all SpamKan got out of that was the reference to Plasticene - she did quite well at that in bible school - and then got lost with the °C thing.
Then we have the case argued by those agrostologists who left the dim-bulbs at Jo Nova's flat-footed and gawping. But you won't remember that - inconvenient - and could barely understand the argument if you did.
Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity
go whining to mommy, you fucking asshole
TAKE NOTE: I GIVE YOU BACK WHAT YOU ARROGANT AGW ASSHOLES HAVE THROWN SINCE YEARS ON THE HEADS OR YOUR OPPONENTS. EVERY SINGLE WORD I HAVE USED HAD BEEN USED HERE BY THE BBDS WOWS ETC.
THEREFORE SHUT UP YOU ASSHOLE OR START TALKING LIKE A CIVILIZED CITIZEN WHO DESERVES A MINIMUM OF RESPECT
AND YOU ARE UGLY MEAN UNINSPIRED IDIOTIC NASTY CLIMATE DWARFS WHO WANT TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVERYTHING, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF SKILLS, TALENTS, MONEY
the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dobson wrote about characters like you that look in the mirror and yell obscenities at the reflection. Your ranting qualifies you for the title of 'The Red Queen'.
YOU ARE UGLY MEAN UNINSPIRED IDIOTIC NASTY CLIMATE DWARFS WHO WANT TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVERYTHING, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF SKILLS, TALENTS, MONEY
Oh fuck off, nutter.
I made my money and retired at 45. Unlike you, I'm not bluffing.
So nothing unusual is happening, just the usual politically funded science propaganda relevant peer-reviewed literature being spewed forth referenced by BBD and other numpties climate literates.
I notice that Karen has now joined the rest of the buffoons "referencing" qualification-free fake expert and multiply-debunked denier Bob Tisdale.
Still not a single reference to the reviewed literature from the lot of you.
Figured out why Tisdale should have taken those misleading UKMO EN3 OHC graphs down yet, Clown?
Keywords: systemic errors; obsolete; new version...
Tisdale knows the data set he used has been replaced and corrected, but he leaves the graphs up anyway and posts a lot of waffle about how puzzled he is that the data has gone from KNMI.
Well why the fuck do you think KNMI took it down, Bobbie?
More denialist dishonesty from BT. And you sheep lick it up like spilt ice-cream.
You should be ashamed of your stupid little selves.
"some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens?"
Chek, I'm glad to see you read Deadeye Dickies comment about beating deniers, though he didn't say he would "sit by", he said he wouldn't "lift a fucking finger to stop it". "Sit by" just doesn't sound angry enough...it's not representative of the true "Deadeye" that we have come to know.
By the way, I never did get the denier criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed...
When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?
Chek, could you please link to the memo....this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.
"Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It’s you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years."
Finally we agree Hardley! This may be as close as an admission you can give, that it is impossible to experience climate change" first hand" over a 23 day period, but I'll take it!
I'm also glad to see you agree with the WMO report that more time is needed to be able to relate any extreme weather events to climate change...
For a while there I thought you were a denier, but you are really coming along.
"Maybe you need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine"
But Lionel, @ 48, on pg 5 of the June thread you stated:
"should shout a warning to even the most die hard (like the US Marines and Bruce Willis) ACC denier."
So you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier?
And then Chek @ 51 on pg 5 of the June thread stated:
"And let’s also avoid mentioning that the USMC – as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism"
So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being a gangster?
And here's what Wow stated @ 41 on pg 5 of the June thread:
"The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive"
So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being killed for lack of inventiveness?
Oh, I get it! You want me to take a Marine refresher course on being a Marine denier, then, as a Marine gangster, along with my fellow Marines we can beat each other to death in the streets while you watch! Now why didn't I think of that?
What a tedious post at #4 Birch tree. I have to ask would the Marine Corps welcome you back? I doubt it. I'll bet you were a laugh a minute whilst in it and not in the way you would have liked.
And yes it is possible to experience the effects of climate change in a few days and I have just done that. An area of Scotland I have visited this year has many fewer LBJs (little brown jobs - small migratory birds) this year than in 2008 at a similar time of year. The change of wind, weather, temperature, humidity and precipitation patterns can be clearly implicated which in tern is the result of climate change altering the albedo and much else of the northern hemisphere in particular.
As I remarked above, you are on a hiding to nothing by being a tosser about this when the evidence mounts daily now.
You are not making yourself clear here .
I thought we were discussining the UK Met Office ARGO data the latest version of this is EN3v2a.
Tisdales graph to show OHC goes from Jan 2003 to March 12 so presumably is using this latest version http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-mod…
You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Of course if you disagree you will respond with a cogent and focussed defence of your waffly pseudoscience that explains why the import of Donohue et al is not inconsistent with the mainstream understanding of the dangers of human-caused climate change.
The United States of KarenMackSunspot blathers at #80:
JefFeRy, don’t you realize that the biota (and Homo sapiens) move around when the climate changes, lol, they have been doing it for eons you nuffie.
Dear Dr Tim Curtin,
On behalf of all the alarmist on this Deltiod blog I wish to convey their most humble apologies for being so DUMB and abusive to you, yes sir, you were dead right...
Erm, KMS, this is the same guy who thinks that dropping the pH of seawater below 7.0 renders it drinkable. "Curtin" and "right" make sense in the same sentence only when one is referring to his political bent.
You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Freddy, your parody of stupid people is actually sad, and deep into pathological psychology territory. Do yourself a favour and go out into the sun. See your GP for a referral to a specialist. And don't stick paperclip into power points.
The rest of you Denialati - your silence in response to freddy's constant suppurating invective is telling. That you can't challenge his wrongness, simply because his proclamations on the human cause of climate change agree with your own, is a disgusting indictment on your own lack of moral integrity. Not only will history judge you harshly for the criminal disregard you exhibit for the planet's future, it will be extremely unimpressed with the foolish delight you take in denying that which is evident to any sane and intelligent person.
BBD#9
It looks as if they converted to v2a in 2006/7. As they only put monthly updates on the latest version, and Tisdale's graph goes up to March 2012, I deduce he must be using version v2a
Without any further ado we can be sure that whatever the fuck Redarse and Tisdale are on about, the shortness of the period by definition has bugger all to do with climate, and so can only be more denier chum.
Quelle surprise.
You're a fatuous moron Redarse.
Yes, yet another one.
I'm surprised there's a role for you, given you all perform the same fucking one, i.e. being yet another fatuous moron.
" it’s not at all the conduct I would expect from a former Corpsman."
Dickie, let me help you out here with your faux knowledge. Corpsman are Navy enlisted personnel in the medical corps, that serve with Navy or Marine units...
Well as we were disicussing where the missing heat went to cause the surprising, on going and acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus, perhaps the period in question is relevent.
You still whinge and play the victim in a manner unbecoming. So my advice - nit-pickery notwithstanding - is to cease and desist before bringing further discredit on the Corps.
Tedious? Is that the what you call it when I use your own words to bring to light the Jackass that you are? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures..
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?
please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication
I have no idea what KNMI posted, you did not supply a link.
I am flagging up an apparent difference bertween the two data sets which is as yet unanswered.
I am also flagging up the difficulties the two papers you referenced had in dealing with an adequate explanation of how the heat got to the 700-2000m layer in sufficient quantity and speed , without apparently been detected or having any effect on the way down to the sea surface and 0-700m layer.
I also questioned the accuracy of particularly the early temperature measurements on which the OHC was calculated when claims of an accuracy to 1/1000th degree were made for a measurement made by a chance passing ship with a thermometer and a bucket on a rope.J
ust because a paper has passed palpeer review does not guarantee it is correct.
acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus perhaps the period in question is relevent.(sic)
Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That - when it's narrowed down - is what you mean by "everybody". Every fatuous moron.
That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a "hiatus".
Congratulations, you confirmed your fatuous moron status.
Tut tut - if yer gonna quote someone get yer words right and don't screw up yer blockquotes as my old gran used to say. Once again:
acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus perhaps the period in question is relevent.(sic)
Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That – when it’s narrowed down – is what you mean by “everyone”. Every fatuous moron.
That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a “hiatus”.
Congratulations, you just confirmed your fatuous moron status.
I am also flagging up the difficulties the two papers [blah blah blah]
No you aren't. You haven't even read them, so you can forget this posturing tripe. Let's be crystal clear: it means nothing at all. Nothing.
You need to understand that your wittering is scientifically weightless. Your opinions and suspicions and paranoid fantasies of data fiddling are of zero consequence in the adult world.
Get this through your head.
NODC is the reference data set. If you think you have a problem with it, take it up with NODC. Good luck with that.
Notice that Tisdale never actually publishes any of his crap. Why do you think that is?
Seriously, think for a moment. If BT has all these killer arguments that hole NODC OHC below the water line (intended) then why doesn't he publish them?
You still sound exactly nothing like any serving or ex-soldier I have ever met, Betty. They have a certain ring to them, and it is missing from you. I live in an Army town (Winchester, UK) so I know a fair few service personnel quite well.
Now explain the far more reliable observations 1980 - present.
Here's the thing. Simultaneous increase in OHC in all major basins cannot be explained except by invoking an increased forcing. It's not the sun, but the increasing forcing from CO2 forcing does account for the observed accumulation of energy in the world ocean.
You cannot get around this no matter how desperately you try to deny the data. And desperate data denial is all you've got left, as we can see all too clearly here.
Tedious? Is that the what you call it when I use your own words to bring to light the Jackass that you are? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures..
Birch wood, it is tedious because you keep grinding out the same old tunes. But then yes, they are desperate times for the climate ostriches. Perhaps you should take your head out before it cooks. Oops! Too late, it already shows signs of melt down. As Poirot might say, 'your little gray cells are sizzling nicely'.
********* BREAKING NEWS *********** BREAKING NEWS **********
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?
please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication
While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn't believe you had any connection to the USMC.
You're a blog denier blowhard from a country full of redneck blowhards who claim imaginary military prowess, and are perceived as such. Get over it.
Oh, and don't forget to post a copy of that reply from either Major Newell, or Colonel Charette either one, doesn't matter which that we both know is to a letter that will never be written (about their waste-of-time-renewable-greenie-con-'cos-Watts-says-so program).
You conduct yourself like a pathetic blowhard victim arsehole.
Oooh Ra?
More like ooooh, Betty.
Best not prod the idiot. Let's face it, he's been shown that the satellite TLT reconstruction knocked out by known sceptics is in all-but-exact agreement with land surface reconstructions times beyond number on two threads... and still he's blethering about problems with the thermometers.
The other point of course Lionel, which seems to evade Professor Freddy, is that even with a bias, the bias works one way only and doesn't affect the anomaly, which is the measurement climate scientists are interested in. Performing tests on two sites and altering the prevailing conditions there by altering the normal screen quality only informs about the performance of the screening material.
It doesn't affect the end product anomaly one whit (unless they replace the screening with a foreign type not there before and forget to inform of the adjustment required to make the local record homogenous again).
While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
"While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
Let me break down the sentence for you so it's easier to understand...by the way, I already broke in down @55 of the previous page...so calling it "selective quoting" is another of your lies.
1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
Denying climate scientists that is...
2. “they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way”
The same denying climate scientists…
A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?
B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?
C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?
3. “or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change”…
yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”
4. the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
What you seem to miss Deadeye, is that "likelihood" and "probably" are not definitive conclusions....that's why climate scientists say "it's not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
Do you think the WMO is lying when it states this? Is this a selective quote by the WMO? Why would the WMO write such a statement? Are you saying the WMO is a group of deniers?
The same report states more time is needed to reach a conclusion..
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently”
Fuck me, Betty's learning to parse English like a twelve year old and spotted it's possible to drain all meaning from a structured sentence by focussing on short individual phrases and demanding the definitive and so ignoring the information imparted.
Pretty much standard denier procedure which is applied to everything including data.
Well what would you call it when you label Marines deniers and then suggest I need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine.
You're saying you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier, yet you never condemned that fact that deniers should be beaten in the streets while Deadeye watches....
Is this correct?
Because now I am to assume you want me to take a refresher course on how to get beaten in the street while Deadeye watches, and personally, I don't know where to go to take that course...
"Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn’t believe you had any connection to the USMC."
I hope not, they're all dead. Including my father, who went in on the first wave at Iwo with the 5th Amphibious Tractor Battalion.
Chek...
By the way, I never did get the denier beating criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed…
When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?
Chek, could you please link to the memo….this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.
"Tell me, why is there ice loss at the poles, on Greenland and glaciers around the world?"
there is no ice loss at the south pole as the same altitude of the amundsen-scott basis (extra info for you outsiders in natural sciences: that's the US weather station at the south pole) since decades, i.e. the ice shield does not melt, fuckwit
same with greenland summit, ignorant fuckwit
forget all the glaciers outside antarctica and greenland: irrelevant re total ice masses on the earth: if all your holy beloved glaciers, the ones in the swiss alps wo which you have a personal relationship as fucking brits, but all the others on earth, which you don't know, also, would melt: YOU WILL NOT DIE FROM DROWNING IN LONDON OR ELSEWHERE ON THE PLANET,
MORON!!!!!! FUCKWIT!!!!!!!!! LEARN A LITTLE BIT OF REALITY!!!!!!!
Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods. The data have been adjusted to reflect new models of post-glacial rebound.
When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?
You know what I meant. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. If you live for another couple of decades you will see the proof.
Physics will see to that.
Who's going to be in the frame when the climate shit hit the economic fan? You didn't say last time I asked.
You are fighting against physics. Not even the USMC (ret) can prevail against that.
Actually I don't. When you say the public will be beating climate deniers and you won't lift a finger to help, it's vey vague...
How do you determine who is a denier? Is it not believing in AGW, or believing in AGW but not the consequences, or someone who points out the admitted flaws in the prediction process by quoting scientists? Is it the words that are spoken or the actions that are taken?
Betty gets off on the speculation, BBD. If he stays true to form, he'll work himself up into a full flying five-tissue frenzy over this imaginary situation.
It's his displacement activity, because he's so shit at analysis and comprehension.
"climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
You say: "It’s false Betty …and because it’s a partial quote omitting content vital to the meaning of the piece."
So the quote is a lie by the WMO? Even though they state it as fact, where as everything after it is a "likelihood" or a "probability", you know, not a fact. They also state they need a larger time frame to determine if these events are trending more frequently...this is why they use the term "not yet possible".
I know this is difficult for you to accept, really I do, because I know you are stuck on stupid. Also, when It comes to these things, I think it would be helpful if you learned a little about the difference between noise, signals, assessing trends, time frame considerations etc....
Here's a good place to start, it's from The WMO report...
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
Note where it says "by definition" cheky? Do you understand what that means? I'll help you...
They are talking about the word "extreme"...."farthest removed from the ordinary or average". Do you get it? It's not ordinary so it's less frequent. Because it's less frequent, you need longer time frames to assess a trend....
Now because scientists need a longer time fame, they say "that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
I know, you still don't get it, like I said, stuck on stupid. But hang in there cheky, maybe you'll get bumped on the head or something and come around.
Now it's apparent that your IQ us in the double digit range Betty, let me make this as plain as possible.
Your partial quote is the lie and is a denier-driven distortion of the actual WMO quote.
Any reasonable person will understand the difference.
You however will not. Ever.
You know, MikeH, you're not foolin' anyone. I mean, like, it is painfully obvious that the only reason you hang your loser, geek-ball rump out here in Deltoidland, instead of at some quality, respected, highly influential blog like Climate etc, Jo Nova, or WUWT, is that you have admitted to yourself, in the depths of your miserable, greenshirt heart-of-hearts, that you can't find your flabby eco-butt with even the full resources of your both hands, a proctologist as your personal trainer, a GPS-unit in "suppository form", and your abundantly demonstrated gift for runnin' your mouth out your ass fully up and operating at peak capacity.
That, and, of course, MikeH, you find in this blog's creep-out, group-think, heavy-petting, goo-goo eyed, obscenely-needy chit-chat a sad, pathetic "thrill" which is the closest you and your hive-bozo, retard pals will ever get to the "normal person" pleasures of a real-life date. Right guy?
And, oh by the way, MikeH--you "me-too", copy-cat, little shit--the "Tourettes" deal is BJ's goof-ball, pompous-ass, sorry excuse for a "zinger", not yours. I mean, like, MikeH, why don't you try coming up with something of your own for once? Huh, guy? Or would a demonstration of "originality of thought" be a career-ending move for a party-line, hive-hack gofer-parasite like you?
It doesn’t affect the end product anomaly one whit (unless they replace the screening with a foreign type not there before and forget to inform of the adjustment required to make the local record homogenous again).
Just so.
Sorry for the brevity of my answers, having only recently returned from Scotland (fascinating geology BTW) I have been exhausted (reduced heart function following a massive attack about 12 years ago) and trying to catch up on administrative matters whilst fighting with the license renewal of a well known Internet Security suite (clue begins with a 'K') across three computers.
This and prepping dozens of photo images taken during my travels.
Retirement - WTF is that?
More involved engagement soon I hope. Watching Mr Punchinello (aka freddy) losing it has brought some humorous relief of late.
WARNING: hazard to Fake Skeptics; danger of learning something. This does not apply to SpamKan, obviously, since she ain't learned nuthin' at all since Bible Camp - except Ctrl+C, Ctrl +V - and is proud of it!
Also, and I reckon only the locals will be able to see this one.
Photographer Murray Fredericks, of Salt fame, shifted his attention from Lake Eyre to Greenland (as you do). Not only is the result spectacular, on his last documented excursion, he happened to be there in May 2012, on the ice cap, just when it all started to go pear-shaped. Worth seeing for the Inuit guides' - and huskies! - reaction to the freak conditions alone. Be quick - expires shortly.
Well as we were disicussing where the missing heat went to cause the surprising, on going and acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus,
You may like to look up the meaning of hiatus for there has been no hiatus in annual global temperature rise as noted here (as well as in many other places using other sources):
I showed the following graph of the Earth's total heat content, demonstrating that even over the last decade when surface temperature warming has slowed somewhat, the planet continues to build up heat at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations worth of heat every second.
Now I suggest once again you look up the meaning of hiatus. You are wrong. All you have been doing is guessing on the musings of a blogger with a record of distorting the facts of climate change by guessing about the meanings of material output by scientific organizations working in the field.
In other words you are just another 'interpreter of interpretations' for when challenged you have failed to provide real substance to back your assertions.
Isn't it about time the public start beating Peter Stott of the U.K Met Office so you two have something to watch? He completely ruined the headline...
Hansen Study: Extreme Weather Tied to Climate Change:
"Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role".
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming"
Lionel
I am glad you had a pleasant trip to Scotland. Its a pity you were not there this week to take advantage of the fine weather. Myself, I am shortly off to my first BBQ for several years.
if you google "Global Warming you get this from wikepedea.
Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.
Then googling "hiatus" we get:
a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity
There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating - with considerable supporting evidence - that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.
It's about the degree of fractional attribution.
You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:
While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about "hiatus" etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don't you - because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn't happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Yes Betty, it's become clear that to someone as fundamentally stupid and/or dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, that you dearly wish conditional sentences weren't.
But they are.
So far has the hiatus meme been inserted up your arse by repetitions in the deniosphere that you are now unable to accept the data that were presented to you previously (viz. record melt years and warmest recorded years) and actually prefer to endure the anal discomfort rather than engage your brain. and think.
As BBD points out, the sun hasn't stopped shining or weakened, and CO2 recently passed the 400ppm mark ergo energy will continue accumulating until equilibrium is reached. Simple, yes?
It may come as a shock to you, but putting it simply, deniers are liars, the 'hiatus; one being no exception for being echoed and repeated again and again around denierland.
Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.
As for Myles Allen's bizarre remarks to the BBC, he even contradicts the IPCC. This from the AR4 SYR:
Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings.
Climate basic # 2:
Nobody ever said that natural variability has stopped, therefore tropospheric warming will not be monotonic.
Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-
“no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”
Pulling such shite from one of the world's arseholes is an exercise in avoiding the truth by selective quoting from the full article where we saw this:
"There were plenty of solar enthusiasts back in the 1990s who were attributing the observed warming since the 1970s to a brightening sun - which didn't really work out when we moved into an extreme solar minimum and still saw the warmest decade on record.
in which Harrabin managed to drop a closing quote.
Besides, Harrabin has form for trying to minimize the Beebs risk of a license caning from the current Downing Street occupants by slipping in the odd sop to the FF lobby.
Thanks to Lionel A for finding the link unfortunately absent from Rednoise's misrepresentation by selective quotation at # 77. Here is Rednoise's quote again:
Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-
“no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”
Now let's put it back into context:
Although overall temperature rise has slowed down since the 1990s, the WMO says temperatures are still rising because of greenhouse gases from human society.
The WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said: “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times.”
But climate change doubters emphasise the lack of movement in temperatures throughout the decade.
Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told BBC News that the issue hinged on the time frame.
“For longer periods (two decades or longer) we found a robust and a statistically significant warming trend,” he said. For shorter periods - a decade or less - there is no longer a significant temperature trend of either sign, consistent with the reports of a recent 'plateauing' of global temperatures.”
Even so, many climate scientists are alarmed by the consistently high temperatures during the decade. Every year of the decade except 2008 was among the 10 warmest on record.
The warmest year ever recorded was 2010, with a temperature estimated at 0.54C above the 14.0C long-term average of 1961-1990 base period, followed closely by 2005.
[...]
Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford told BBC News: "We predicted the temperature of this decade using a conventional detection and attribution analysis and data to 1996 (when lots of people were arguing there wasn't even a discernible human influence on global climate), and nailed it to within a couple of hundredths of a degree.
"There were plenty of solar enthusiasts back in the 1990s who were attributing the observed warming since the 1970s to a brightening sun - which didn't really work out when we moved into an extreme solar minimum and still saw the warmest decade on record.
He added: "It's only a single data point (and no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000) but it's still worth noting. Let's see what the next decade will bring."
Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments.
How must it feel to be forced to resort to data denial and egregiously obvious selective quotation all the time?
Not comfortable, I would hope. But who knows? I have trouble understanding the mindset that would routinely resort to childish dishonesty, apparently without qualm.
"Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments"
Nice try Dickie, but the quote I posted was in full (see 55 on previous page) and gone over, something I already told you at #49 of this page In addition, unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant.
The WMO...
1 ."No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses
of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards."
2. "Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term"
3. "Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
4. "WMO’s Commission for Climatology is currently
addressing new approaches for the improved characterization, assessment and monitoring of these events. In addition, promising new research into the attribution of individual extreme events based on observational and model data is starting to emerge"
Do you get it deadeye? No, you don't.
They are telling you they need more time. They are saying they don't know yet. They actually say it....The WMO actually put the words on paper for you to ignore:
"climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
Being awfully pleased at his grasp of high school parsing, ol' Betty 'child deniers' Betula spectacularly misjudges the absence of the certainty he childishly craves by re-imagining statements with the caveats completely discarded according to his taste, once crushed by his home-grown, on-board logic machine which is of course informed and powered by his vast scientific knowledge and understanding.
But although being spectacularly stupid, Betty 'child deniers' Betula is somehow labouring under the impression that he's being clever, very clever indeed. And if your yardstick is Williwattsworld who's to disagree within that sealed-off cesspit of cretinism?
What Betty 'child deniers' Betula isn't so aware of - being an inveterate cesspit swimmer by choice and never deigning to understand or even so much as skim any links to real science posted on this board - is that people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties that Betty 'child deniers' Betula freely discards.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"Have you seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?
Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir. Not a one. Although intel reports a vast amount of logistics are entering the area.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"But you haven't actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?
Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir, Not a one. But intel reports two enemy air wings moved two days ago to bases that are within range of this area.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"But you haven't actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, Corpseman, a real muhrine only acts on certainties. Wake me up when Isle of Lucy's on the TV.
I had a tanty in a lecture and lost my cool. I was so unprepared for the slimy slag off of climate science, climatologists, Hansen and Mann from a bloke advertising himself as a scientist and promoter of science, given on CSIRO premises. Was I too precious or is this the new underhand casting of doubt on published science.
I do hope I have Nick Ware wrong - I bailed 1/2 hour into it. And I hope you don't mind having my rant here. This is what set me off:
It starts: we have these groups:
1.Alarmists
2.Activists
3.Scientists (real scientists [like real Scotsmen I guess] skeptics with a k)
4.Sceptics
5.Deniers
3 being the ideal of course - he spoke to groups 1 and 3 for a bit
He talks about science for a tad - he brings up Babbage, decline of science and then the 3 causes of bad science:
1. Trimming - trim your data to clean up the presentation a little - he says "we've all done it"
2. Cooking - cook ones data
3. Fraud - make data up
Then he starts with a history of Climate Science - Fourier, fair enough. He said "Fourier correctly guessed at mostly water trapping heat" - [he moved on, no mention of feedbacks/forcings after the water bit, I'm hearing a whistle]
skipping Tyndall, next stop Arrhenius, "predicting a 6C rise per doubling - he corrected himself to 3C a bit later" [not my recollection]
Calendar just briefly, then Keeling, a bit of time here, "Charles and now his son". On this he says .. he then spends 5 minutes on CO2 ppm and how there was a big brouhaha in the press over 400ppm. But we're are not really there yet, the curve will bounce up and down for a while and there was only one tiny data point that only just got near 400ppm. Not 400ppm yet. I say again, not 400ppm yet. [Yeah, righto, but we'll be there soon enough I wanted to yell]
After #NotYet400ppm, we come to Hansen 1988, congress, with a slide, Hansen "Naughty boy" for he "really didn't have enough data to make the assertion".
Slide is this image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/James_Hansen… "see how surprised his offsider is - this is unusual as the assistants in Congress never show emotion - but see how this bloke is showing surprise - he knows that Hansen is overreaching" [YES - This image was presented at a skeptics lecture as proof of Hansen's dodginess, the look on an assistant's face - SKEPTICS, Yeah - I was dumbed into silence. I hope the lecture hall was, and it was near full]
He then puts up Hansen's projections overlaid with the model run with no CO2 forcing - the 2007IPCC picture - Ware then claims the error bars of the projections overlap, he draws his own error bands over the bands already shown that "fixes" the diagram. [I'm twitching here]
(The diagram was this one https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMMTA9TBODmghP3Sc… less the black actual line and less the axes markings -- and yes, then he added his own error range
Mann's Hockey Stick next - slide is up on overhead projector - there are 4 references at bottom - I can't quite make out - first may be Mann's paper itself, next 3 was same bloke, a McSomeone, like mine only longer. Ware then asserts " .. but Stephen McIntyre" [I'm pretty sure it was McIntyre upon reflection, I'm doubting myself, could this bastard be so dishonest - but at this point, I slip off my trolley, stand up and, regrettably lost my cool, dropping the f-word and stomping out]
I have no idea what happened after that - I'm assured by 3 members of the skeptics that "he is not a denier" - anyone who uses McIntyre to crit Mann's paper is I reckon - but he comes across as pro-science, science loving, "the data is trimmed a bit, we all do it", putting himself on the same level as the climatologists, riffing off their good work to do the doubt the science routine. Apparently, the talk "got better" - how, I have no idea - and it was "well received" by the people there.
I can do open warfare, but this type of treachery from within I'm unarmed. And it bloody well worked too. Hansen and Mann are data-trimming alarmists, then there are deniers and then there are the good pro-science pure-science skeptics.
How does one fight this type of doubt peddling?
(I took off to mum's place, closeby and she put me onto last Catalyst - Bill#73 is right, it was refreshing a show that speaks to actual people who do the science)
the whole and only basis of the rotten AGW ideology is the so called "global temperature", without "global temperature" nothing can be argued by the climate hysterics, especially not by the second hand "climatologists" from the shit eco "sciences" (ecology, ecophysiology, ecochemistry, ecoagticulture, ecomusic, ecopolitology, eco-shit-x ......) of the poor indivuduals here (bbd, chek, bill, bernard, and other joke brothers) about "global warming". these eco blows talk about vegetation shifts on the slopes of their home hills bur have no clue of data from other parts of the world beyond their horizon, local pseudo-science junk only by weak local green activists, nothing more, like phil jones from the cru of east anglia university, who is one of the three local green activists who calculates a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"
why does phil jones in any of his many publications in global temperature not disclose which temperature stations he had used per year to calculate a mean global temperature for a specific year. why does he hide this information?
any decent and honest scientist who deserves this designation would have published a matrix like the following (example):
Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring... whoopeeee... nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again... everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!... medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron...
Freddy, you're ridiculous.
Dave: may I suggest you don't attend any more things put on the by the Canberra Skeptics? Booking a room at a CSIRO venue does not a climate scientist make.
Have a look at the man's qualifications:
Nick Ware worked for 40 years as an electron microscopist and microanalyst dealing mainly with research in the earth sciences. As curator of the meteorite collection at the ANU and listed as such in the periodicals, he had to deal with a steady correspondence of earnest pseudo-science. He became interested in climate change when the topic came up in the weekly current affairs class at his school in 1960.
Freddy - you so should get in front of a CO2 laser. (the alternate reality may protect you - it would be interesting to see)
Bill - I know - but it was mean to to be a talk on pseudo-science of deniers - you're totally right though, life's too short - I bailed after 30minutes of that crap
http://www.meetup.com/SocialSkepticsCanberra/events/118069152/ I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen's 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a "skeptics" lecture - it must've been a test - yet it was all about air temps, not say, the absorption bands that satellites have measured or any of the many other lines of evidence
... ahh - skeptics - skeptics my arse
I must tell of a lecture .. oh 3 years ago now - UNSW Prof Matthew England, I think it was a Sunday of a science week in Sydney, public lecture at the Powerhouse. Meant to go only for an hour - packed - everyone riveted, not a sound for 2 hours solid as a bloke who knew his stuff told us what he did. It had to stop at the 2 hours as the room was booked for something else - all of us could done easy another hour.
But yeah, I'll stick with the qualified men and women.
Yet, the treachery, the snake, the Uriah Heep - claiming to know more than Hansen or Mann because he and McIntyre think them so -- grrrr, gives me the creeps :(
and at the same time silly enough not to detect this
poor fuckwit morons
ps: thermometer temperature readings and fraudulous calculations of a ridiculous "global temperature" by green activists is far out of your comprehension, idiots
I see freddykaitroll has moved over here to peddle his false claim that Phil Jones hides which T stations are being used. I already showed him where he can find that information, but for some reason (well, we know which reason it is), freddykaitroll must see the matrix he demands, or someone is hiding the data. This is the type of idiots we are dealing with...
That link goes to Richard Alley's talk posted by Lionel @ #85, and there are several others in the sidebar including 20 minutes from Michael Mann on the hockey stick war.
From this point on I think I will leave 'The Red Queen' in a Punch suite, aka freddy, stamping his feet in the corner and yelling seeing as he still cannot grasp that there are other manifestations of heat than that measured by thermometers.
Dave McRae
" I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen’s 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a “skeptics” lecture – it must’ve been a test – yet it was all about air temps,"
Oh deary me David! Did they mention this part about Hanson's
"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot." ...
Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that man had to say after that deceptive tactic he used in 1988.
"Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring… whoopeeee… nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again… everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!… medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron…"
Thanks Marco - that's much better - it probably was me being too precious. His presentation yesterday skipped Tyndall, and went from Keeling, and his son, (nepotism whistle?) to Hansen and the alarmed gentleman to his right.
Interesting paper published recently.
Oh look what it says in the opening lines:
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period
Now what was that "meaning of hiatus" quoted earlier.
Have the ostrich brigade ever explored the phase (equilibrium) diagram of water and appreciated how many types of ice there are? I very much doubt it.
Doubt it? I'd guarantee it Lionel.
Don't forget we experience the full range of idiocy and dishonesty here.
Take SpamKan here who isn't even aware that from one week to the next we're entering an ice age, then it is warming but it's slowing, or she's having a hiatus. It's like expecting clarity from an epileptic goldfish with Alzheimer's disease.
I (and I'm sure others too) don't click on links to trash denier blogs. If - and it's a mighty big if - you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at.
Karen, please provide evidence that 'Hanson' (we know him better as James E. Hansen) said:
"What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot.”
Since I know you cannot provide such evidence, because I know Hansen did not say that, I expect you to profusely apologise to Jim Hansen for telling porkies.
You better also apologise to *us* for getting your information from Steve Goddard's homepage. It's insulting enough you come here and express all the nonsense you do, it's even worse you just repeat Steve Goddard's idiotic ramblings.
The "trash denier blog" you refer to does provide a link to the paywalled original source material where you can read the opening lines which go:
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period</blockquote.
If you wern't such a Group 1 Alarmist Dingbat you might have been able to follow the links.
..and if you weren't such an ignorant fuckwit you'd know that "near-surface temperature " does not describe the climate system, being but one single metric, you hiatus-believing cretin.
There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period).
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming ....
For Cheks benefit, as he seems incapable of following links and would probably have difficulty making his own Mr Sprout Head, the take home quote from the Nature Climate Change Editorial is:
This offers a plausible explanation for the onset of the warming slowdown, although further work is needed to understand relationships between upper ocean and surface temperatures, and the processes by which heat was buried below the surface. However, the lack of warming beyond 2004 is still not understood7. According to observations8, energy continues to be accumulated through the top of the atmosphere, but has not been taken up by the upper ocean. This leaves the deep ocean as the most likely destination, but this cannot be confirmed because the observational network is too sparse. There is therefore an urgent need for observations of the deep ocean, as well as continued monitoring of energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.
The “trash denier blog” you refer to does provide a link to the paywalled original source material where you can read the opening lines which go:
So, why is it that you repeatedly fail to link to original sources yourself. Those sane thinkers around here would no more visit such trash denier blogs than jump in font of a bus.
Just as a pointer to how the meme your are echoing is being broadcast a simple search reveals that it is being pushed by the likes of ClimateDespot, JunketScience, and of course WeUseWishfulThinking.
That in short, tells us all we need to know and that is that information is being taken OUT OF CONTEXT and used for propaganda purposes rather than portraying the truth. As check points out in his #16.
How much are Charles and David paying you to repeat this shite? If nothing then you are a fool twice over.
Commander Cheky and his Lost Planet Airheads...."The enemy is in the village, get the Marine Corpsman!"
Brigadier General WMO..."The enemy is hurt?"
Commander Cheky..."No, I might get hurt, we need the Marine Corpsman now!"
Bigadier General WMO...."There's no such thing as a Marine Corpsman, and how do you know the enemy is in the village?"
Commander Cheky...."They look like the enemy!"... "Send us a backup of Airheads!"
General WMO....“Distinguishing between natural villager variability and enemy-induced clothing change will require reconnaissance datasets that are more complete"
Commander Cheky...."They look like the enemy, BOMB the Village!"
General WMO...."Headquarters believes that it is not yet possible to attribute individual village activity to the enemy"
Commander Cheky..."Denier! Bomb the village!"
General WMO....Major General Stott, at our U.K. Headquarters agrees......" It is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to the enemy". We need to wait for more information from Recon, "people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties".
Commander Cheky..."Fuck it! I'm BOMBING the village!"
General WMO..."Are you denying headquarters Cheky?Cheky are you there? Come in Cheky! Check. Check. Cheky?"
Redarse travels back in time to a Nature editorial from June 2011, proving he either didn't read or didn't understand BBD's linksa to Levitus et al or likely both, and doesn't understand that surface temperatures are not the only heat entering the system. Which leaves with no explanation for the record ice melts of 2007 and 2012, or the catalogue of warmest years in the past decade he's already been referred to.
But then we now expect stupidity and refusal to inform themselves from deniers. Which brings us to Betty 'child deniers' Betula who still hasn't grasped the point of conditional sentences and offers his redneck clown show by way of riposte.
And you link to a site touting Group 1 alarmist propaganda crap
Skeptical Science, like Real Climate, is a site run by publishing scientists regerencing punlished science.
There is precisely zero equivalence with your clownshoe sites Redarse. But your clownshoe denier sites successfully urge dimwits like you to regard them as the 'enemy'. And because you're so stupid, you comply.
Now Wooden Top (@ #20) is behaving like a Jap on a remote island who doesn't know the war is over, or all but over as far as The Science not being controversial, see:
Redarse travels back in time to a Nature editorial from June 2011
Yes it seems main stream science has accepted the hiatus in the temperature record for years but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.
Yes it seems main stream science has accepted the hiatus in the temperature record for years but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.
No - that's an outdated editorial, not a study and as such doesn't account for the events to which you've been referred many times now including the record Arctic melt of summer 2012. Where did that gigantic blast of heat to melt hundreds of gigatonnes of ice come from during your beloved 'hiatus'. Answer - there is no hiatus.and energy entering the Earth's system still exceeds energy radiated out.
In the real world you don't simply ignore what doesn't fit your preconceptions. The 2012 Levitus et al paper does provide the explanation.
Also take note of those risking life and limb to collect data, e.g. at sea. That you could nay say the results from this hard, uncomfortable and dangerous work indicates what a disgrace you are. You are indeed beneath contempt. This applies to all the other trolls here.
"If – and it’s a mighty big if – you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at."
Did you hear that Deadeye? The CMDR is talking to you!
Hopefully, you won't have to be told again, like I told you at #86.....
"unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant."
We know Betty. It also became clear you couldn't understand it without butchering all the inconvenient bits out of it thus simplifying it in terms your double-digit IQ could comprehend.
That's what's been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren't accepted.
Karen @ number 2 (no pun intended)
You quote What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot
And imply that it's Hansen. But it wasn't was it? So permit me to correct the rest of your post...
Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that Karen had to say after that deceptive tactic (s)he used in 2.
"Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role".
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming."
After denying the WMO and bombing the villages, CMDR Cheky of The Lost Planet Airheads plead his case to the WMO at his court martial......
"That’s what’s been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren’t accepted."
Not wanting to let go of that thought process, the Cmdr (in typical unexplained fashion), then broke out in song...
This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) - two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.
Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.
You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!
:-)
The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references - thanks!
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Our friendly neighbourhood child denier mentor, Betty Bloop is now projecting so powerfully he's gone into a feedback loop.
Cover your ears, the implosion is imminent.
Stop repeating the same old crap which was dealt with on the previous page at # 78:
And which you now oblige me to repeat, yet again, in full:
* * *
Why can’t you understand the words, Betty?
There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating – with considerable supporting evidence – that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.
It’s about the degree of fractional attribution.
You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:
While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.
I don't know what to say any more chek. Betty's childish refusal to read the fucking words in the WMO report and indeed, elsewhere, amounts to solid evidence either for mental illness or a degree of blatant dishonesty I have rarely encountered.
Bernard @#35
A hard slog and no fluke.
Tbh, I'm no tennis (or sports) fan myself, but I wish my mum who was could have lived to see it. It'd have made her day, so I'm pleased for him on her behalf..
Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that "winning" an "argument" about "hiatus" actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next - referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).
Let's read the abstract in full:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.
This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?
Idiot.
* * *
And Rednoise, your preferred source, the Hockey Schtick blogger, is a liar. First, he blatantly misrepresents Guemas et al., then repeats a debunked denialist lie (twice):
Close examination of the paper, however, reveals that the model used by the authors only predicted a slowdown for up to 5 years, not the complete lack of warming for the past 16+ years.
For fuck's sake Betty, you may imagine that you're some sort of intellectual sniper, far up the Eiffel Tower armed with a .50 cal., but what you've actually got is a potato gun with a 30ft range. The greatest danger you'll ever present is jaw dislocation from yawning.
While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
"While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
Meanwhile, at # 49 of page 3 I posted this....
“While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
What's the matter with you deadeye? High speed potato between the eyes?
Asking Betty to explain one of his proud *ahem* comic creations whether half-baked, unbaked or otherwise flat fails, would be like asking him to explain his point in being here. No, not his miserable existence itself, but at Deltoid.
they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
Reading comprehension issues seem to be commonplace amongst the contrarian fringe.
What you don't understand, Betty - because you don't want to - is that this is about quantifying fractional attribution.
The scientific position is, yes, certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC, but quantifying the fractional attribution to CC is extremely difficult at present.
"Only in response to my # 38 pointing out what a dishonest quote-miner you are"
You really are sharp o'l deadeye, except you missed my picking apart the quote at # 55 on pg 2 (in response to Hardley) a full page before your #38...
Only one of the reasons you are known as "Deadeye"...
# 55 pg 2....
Regarding extreme weather events…why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?
1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
Denying climate scientists that is.
2. “they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way”
The same denying climate scientists…
A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?
B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?
C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?
3. “or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change”…..yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
4. “Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate
change will also require datasets that are
more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for
detecting temperature changes”
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently”
In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend…. and unlike you, they admit it.
No, we're not, though it's blatantly too complex for you Betty.
What you, in your bovine witted way are trying to do is strip the statement down to: "climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
But what it actually says is (yet again)
: "While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change.
There is a massive difference, and you're incapable of spinning the WMO version to your chopped and altered preferred version.
"certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC"
You do realize they never state the events are more common because of climate change don't you? In fact, the words "are" and "common" aren't even in the quote.
They say there is a "likelihood" and they say "probably"....but they "believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
They continue their conclusion by explaining why it is "not yet possible"....
"Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
What do you believe the timeframe should be Dickie? Is 23 days too short?
The NCC editorial is Dated July 2013, maybe you ought to read it again. I know things move fast in climate science but not that fast. Chek and BBD have not got their sprout heads around the hiatus yet.
This offers a plausible explanation for the onset of the warming slowdown, although further work is needed to understand relationships between upper ocean and surface temperatures, and the processes by which heat was buried below the surface. However, the lack of warming beyond 2004 is still not understood7. According to observations8, energy continues to be accumulated through the top of the atmosphere, but has not been taken up by the upper ocean. This leaves the deep ocean as the most likely destination, but this cannot be confirmed because the observational network is too sparse. There is therefore an urgent need for observations of the deep ocean, as well as continued monitoring of energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.
#47
Oh look, a hiatus in all these temperature records.
Going up, now comming down
You do realize they never state the events are more common because of climate change don’t you? In fact, the words “are” and “common” aren’t even in the quote.
Let's see:
they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.
But they have occurred so it's not a question of awaiting them.
That WMO report is dated 2010, and there is ongoing effort to understand the exact mechanisms creating the events, not the events themselves generally which are already predicted by AGW theory.
Grant Foster did a study of heatwaves in a warming system which is worth a read here.
But not you Betty. It's back to studying English as a second language, Chapter 9, understanding conditional sentences for you. Or perhaps More Dishonest Denial for Dishonest Deniers is more up your street.
Tell you what Deadeye...you are going to believe what you want, no matter what the words say. What it boils down to is speculation that can't be proved.
Now, answer the question, regarding a timeframe... The WMO states... "Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”
How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?
marco fuckwit, why are such an dishonest liar who tries to hide what phil jones was forced to admir in a public hearing, that he had deleted original raw temperature data from the eighties. this is one of the reasons why phil jones hides which temperature stations he had used to calculate his ridiculously flawed "land surface temperature"
i have never heard if such a poor climate scoundrel like you who excuses every bad behavior of his peers regardless how inferior it is. FUCKWIT MORON
How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?
See the link to Foster's study, then try and comprehend that the past is a resource. So, not the sit around and do nothing for thity years while business as usual proceeds that you're eagerly interpreting it as.
What it boils down to is speculation that can’t be proved.
I've asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
how often is it necessary to teach you stupid what a theory and what a hypothesis is,
now listen again, chek arselick:
AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory
the AGW hypothesis is: "anthropogenic CO2 leads to an increase of the air temperature, as measured by thermometers 2 meters above the ground". THAT'S IT, NOTHING ELSE
your primitive hypothesis text cannot be mixed up with a theory, only plain idiots like you do this, real scientists not
How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?
For reasonably robust fractional attribution - a couple of decades or perhaps a climatology of 30 years. But this is essentially beside the point. Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn't invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.
Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
No Betty. That's not what I said. Read the words again:
Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn’t invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.
Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.
But what it actually says is (yet again)
: “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change.
and then go watch the bell curve explanation bit at about 18:00 here: Extreme Weather. It ain't that hard really for anyone with a modicum of science & maths under their belt.
The harder AGW and CC get to refute the shriller becomes the bozo brigade.
I’ve asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
"Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying"
No, that's not what it is saying. What it say's is, in the absence of climate change, events "probably" would have been different. How different? They "probably" don't know. Or would not occur at all. Would they have occurred? They probably don't know..
What they are saying is that it's not yet possible to know because "Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term"
Pretending that global warming is the cause of every extreme weather event, or that global warming has an effect on every extreme weather event (an effect that can't be quantified) without more datasets and time is nonsensical.
Let's return to the fundamentals of our disagreement.
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
You are the one who labels me a denier, when you figure out what you base this on, then you will understand yourself.
"your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended."
I simply post the words of the scientists, words from you et al. and words in the articles you link.... words you don't want to see or hear. You proved you don't see them at #51.
"how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?"
Freddy: Is it at all possible that you mentioned water vapour for its "greenhouse gas" properties?
If so:
- how do you know it has these properties?
- what's the significance of Oxygen and Nitrogen making up 99% of the atmosphere, as they are not GHGs? How do they have such a big influence on the climate as you claim in #87 on page 4?
These people are skydragons. By which I refer to all our regular antagonists - trolls are the people least likely to actually grasp the basic physics, probability, statistics or nuance, and most likely to cling to a narrative that sees their emeritus or unqualified Davids bringing down the giant of actual, um, Science.
Even Watts - and OhLordy! Bonckers - now label them crazy. But they really, really think that, say, Tim Curtin's going to turn out to be right, because plots in Hollywood movies...
Freddy/Oily/Batty/Spammyworld reality is that of the noddies who feel vindicated by the volume - audible and numerical - of squawking on talkback radio. They conflate passionate conviction with evidenced knowledge.
the guant is truth and reality AND NOT YOUR RIDICULOUS FRAUDULENT COMPUTER GAMES, GCMS, WHICH WERE EVEN TOTALLY INCOMPETENT TO PROJECT 15 YEARS OF THE CURRENT STAGNATION OF RIDICULOUSLY UPWARDS CALCULATED FRAUDULENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).
So now we have established that peer reviewed papers by bona fide climate scientists have recognised the hiatus in the temperature record, according to the rules of this (very) amateur debating circle which you outlined earlier, I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.
Also doing a quick google scholar search for "hiatus in the temperature record" produces 26800 hits. So using a Cookie style analysis (details of which I will not reveal as you will only want to find fault with it) I can now proclaim confidently that I have agreement from 97% of all scientists.
In fact its bleeding obvious to anybody with half a brain and a partly functioning eyeball.
Logically therefore Group 1 chicken shit little dingbat Alarmists such as BBD and Chek who continue to deny this hiatus do not.
(This was posted yesterday but for some reason probably not unrelated to celebratory champers for our rugger buggers plus 'Murraymint' it went into the June box.)
Hello, little Deltoids! You will notice that I have waited until this afternoon before posting because, of course, on Sunday mornings you all gather in the Chapel to chant things like “I belieeeeve! I belieeeeve” and I am always a great respecter of religion.
But, I wanted to say ‘thank you’ for this dose of global warming we’re all enjoying. Well, I know we’re not supposed to actually ‘enjoy’ it but the fact is that most of us do and the only problem for the last 15 or so years is that we haven’t had any!
Perhaps, next Sunday when you go to Chapel you could pray to the great Mann-God for a bit more global warming, well, I mean, he keeps forecasting it but somehow it never quite happens. Anyway, sorry to interrupt, carry on chanting!
So now we have established that peer reviewed papers by bona fide climate scientists have recognised the hiatus in the temperature record, according to the rules of this (very) amateur debating circle which you outlined earlier, I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.
What in the name of fuck are you going on about you delusional pillock?
All I have ever said to you - and the other denialati here - is that the rate of surface warming has slowed, but the rate of OHC increase in the 0 - 2000m layer of the world ocean has not.
All I have said is that climate basic #1 is:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
"Global warming" continues exactly as expected at the climate system level.
Are you so stupid and so painfully climate-illiterate that you do not understand that you have no argument at all?
You can stuff this particularly crude and stupid strawman right back where it came from.
I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.
You wish.
The strange thing is I have just Google scholar searched on the precise text string, in quotes, "hiatus in the temperature record" and got only one hit to this:
So I guess you used the string without the quotes. Indeed doing just this I did get lots of hits but the big question is, do they all support your case? Just a cursor glance down the lists suggest not.
You are now looking like Admiral Charlie 'B'(eresford) after his spat with the Admiralty and Admiral Jacky Fisher where Charlie bragged about winning his case. Charlie's pumped up opinion has been recognized as the result of delusion - ref. e.g. works by Arthur Marder.
Why is this, because you still refuse to acknowledge that near surface temperatures are not the only metric of global heat build up and this has been pointed out to you with copious examples and references.
You are either being willfully ignorant or dishonest, or both.
This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) – two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.
Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.
You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!
:-)
The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references – thanks!
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that "winning" an "argument" about "hiatus" actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next - referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).
Let's read the abstract in full:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.
This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?
Appreciate your attempts to second guess a methodology which is kept secret. Full marks for trying
Unfortunately you are incorrect :-)
because you still refuse to acknowledge that near surface temperatures are not the only metric of global heat build up
Strawman
The original argument started with Shrek was "recognising the hiatus in the temperature record".
This recognition has been shown in peer reviewed papers and you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
So by your rules I am the winner.
You are a poor loser BBD ;-)
Anyway no time to start another argument, packing for a french trip.
Anyway no time to start another argument, packing for a french trip.
Au Revoir
Aha! Now you are behaving like the High Seas Fleet on June 1st 1916, running away and yet still claiming victory.
Pathetic.
As BBD has pointed out, besides other metrics considered, a slow down in warming, over a comparatively short time frame, does not constitute a hiatus. If you owe large sums of money and are paying off with interest a reduction in interest rates does not mean a stop in interest payments unless you pay off the sum borrowed.
Similarly, it is impossible to have a stop in warming until the human forcings have ceased AND the incoming-outgoing energy balance has been restored i.e. equilibrium has been achieved. This is basic physics as explored by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and many others since.
Marco @ #12. Yes freddy is a real class act - only prized for entertainment value but with an act where he can only step in the paint bucket a few times before it all becomes tedious.
If you owe large sums of money and are paying off with interest a reduction in interest rates does not mean a stop in interest payments unless you pay off the sum borrowed.
But isnt it a relief when the mortgage payments go down when the interest rate falls. Arent you glad of this hiatus.
Didn't know you had such a nautical background. Are you related to Seaman Stanes who operated the bucket used to gather that early information about sea temperatures. Was it true he could measure to 0.001C at depths of over 700m.
What a legend?
There has been no interruption, break or pause in warming, by any metric. The rise has been slower than previously anticipated, due to the effects of unknown knowns, but it has not stopped.
I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing - twisting the scientific description of attribution into a semantic caricature that attempts to arrive at a conclution in contradiction to the scientific understanding. His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening.
Others above have already smacked you about for your signature dodging and weaving. It's astonishing to see your antics, really... If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers' instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it's no wonder that you are an ex-Marine... an inability to understand the meaning of a statement is a dangerous thing in a person holding a gun - or an opinion...
After you have done so, can you describe in your own words what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming, and can you describe what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming?
At the risk of giving Birch an excuse for jumping over Bernard J's direct questions here is another presentation by meteorologist Stu Ostro from which our resident numpty brigade could learn much, probably only if they open their closed little minds.
In addition to my #36 above at 20:200 in the presentation Stu Ostro mentions where all his 1072 slides are. I'll make it easier for those with learning difficulties by providing a full URL here to the PDF file.
Jennifer Francis at 39:40 at the presentations linked to above and here again makes the point that, '...if you calculate how much heat went into the Arctic Ocean just last summer in the areas where there used to be ice it is about enough energy to power the entire United States for twenty five years.
A hiatus in warming, no way. Have the muppets here any idea of how much heat energy it takes to melt a given mass of ice compared to heat the same mass of water through one degree Celsius?
Check out the concepts of latent heat and heat capacity, when you have done that you will appreciate the huge difference between the heat quantities involved in melting ice and changing water's temperature. Once again, investigate the phase diagram of water - a good text on Physical Chemistry will help here.
Lionel @ #38 I've asked the same question multiple times and all our fake sceptics avoid it like the plague.
I assume they have no answer because it hasn't been can't be convincingly accounted for within the hiatus meme.
The gnomic Jonarse did try some half-hearted bollocks through his pet SwedTroCollFarm hands that it was a 'regional' effect, and therefore not global, but the GRACE data and WGMS data blow that nonsense out of the water.
The rest of the trolls have no answer, because there isn't one.
That they can't even attempt one is to me a clear indication they know they're promoting a lie.
your agw "logic" is utterly primitively simplistic, like "in the toilet your shit falls down, do you believe it or you think that physics is not valid because my shit falls upwards, hein
@bbd arselickhappy, your baby logic reveals the full primitivity of your brain function, your dirty text :
$£¥£$£¥£$£¥
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
$£¥£$££$££¥$£
"I cannot understand the basis of your denial": BECAUSE YOUR EDUCATION LEVEL IS LOW, YOUR INFORMATION LEVEL IS MISERABLE, AND YOUR COMPREHENSION LEVEL IS A CATASTROPHE, your testimony that you cannot understand speaks for itself: i do not wonder that you don't understand
"For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended": TYPICAL AGW ARSELICKER SHIT: as AGW in electron microscopic, hence totally irrelevant dimensions only happens because of deforestation, house heatings during, hot waste air from cars, airplanes and industry, but undiscernible by falsely called green house gases (the atmosphere is no greenhouse, you fool), the laws of physics apply, but AGW - as explained by me to you above - is so tiny that it cannot be measured, bbd fuckwit. hence in conclusion: physics works, but AGW not.
hahahaha, hahahaha, you always lose the argument because you are a fool, bbd asshole cleaning vermin
Poor Prof. Freddy Fuckwit doesn't know what he means - he only knows he's against it.
But, whichever way you cut it or squint at it, increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat's entering the system to melt more and more ice, and there's no stalling whatsoever.
"increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat’s entering the system to melt more and more ice"
WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE: 99% of the relevant cryosphere is antarctica and greenland: no significant ice melting. arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean. agw is completely unmeasurable, so tiny is it. what we see is all weather: weather always changes, it changed constantly over more than 4 billion years with or without humans, and will do so also in the future, you tiny asshole fuckwit
Hey Freddy, if AGW turns out not to be true, I have another theory that I'll gift to you. Gratis.
It could be that worldwide production of cars, buses, trucks, monster trucks - and some of those fuckers have big, I mean really big, like big fuck off giant wheels and has now reached such a mass production volume that all the air pumped into all those tyres under pressure - very high pressure in some cases - is lowering the sky thus bringing the sun closer. Hence the warming.
Of course, it sounds insane but I'd argue no more and maybe even less insane than a trace gas which not only warms up an entire planet, but sustains an entire taxonomy.
I mean, how does it find the time?
I asked for a *referenced* response, freddy. Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. I could justifiably strike through your comment, but I just can't be bothered.
bbd asshole, again wrong, how surprising, irony off
YOU MUST REFERENCE WHAT YOU CLAIM, ALL THE WRONG ASSERTIONS OF YOUR CLIMATE CHURCH
YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU ASSERT THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED IN THE REAL WORLD: YOU FUCKWIT MUST REFERENCE AT LEAST ONE SINGLE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES THE ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2. YOU MUST REFERENCE, BECAUSE YYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUU ASSERT, NOT ME, YOU UTTERLY STINKING FUCKWIT ASSHOLE
You asked for references at #4 and I provided them at #15 and #16.
You are claiming that "agw “logic” is utterly primitively simplistic", by which you fundamentally mean the laws of physics.
Please explain why, and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is "utterly primitive and simplistic" with references to the published literature.
Otherwise, it is just argument by assertion, aka blah.
Try it without caps and fucks. Stretch yourself a little.
Now, in return, please explain and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is “utterly primitive and simplistic” with references to the published literature.
Why are you uncapable of providing reasons that would show this is wrong, for instance without resorting to your trademark ranting all caps assertions and argumentum ex fuckwit.
bbd asshole, you are in big problems because the cited article does not provide ab exact measurement of co2 sensitivity
since you have not read or understood the Rohling article, i cite subsequently some important parts:
$£¥£$£¥£$£¥$
Characterizing the complex responses of climate to changes in the radiation budget requires the definition of climate sensitivity: this is the global equilibrium surface temperature response to changes in radiative forcing (an alteration to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth–atmosphere system) caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Despite progress in modelling and data acquisition, uncertainties remain regarding the exact value of cli- mate sensitivity and its potential variability through time. The range of climate sensitivities in climate models used for Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Assessment Report 4 (IPCC-AR4) is 2.1–4.4 K per CO2 doubling1, or a warming of 0.6–1.2 K per W m–2 of forcing. Observational studies have not narrowed this range, and the upper limit is particularly difficult to estimate2.
Large palaeoclimate changes can be used to estimate climate sensi- tivity on centennial to multi-millennial timescales, when estimates of both global mean temperature and radiative perturbations linked with slow components of the climate system (for example, carbon cycle, land ice) are available (Fig. 1). Here we evaluate published estimates of climate sensitivity from a variety of geological episodes, but find that intercom- parison is hindered by differences in the definition of climate sensitivity between studies (Table 1). There is a clear need for consistent definition of which processes are included and excluded in the estimated sensitivity, like the need for strict taxonomy in biology. The definition must agree as closely as possible with that used in modelling studies of past and future climate, while remaining sufficiently pragmatic (operational) to be applicable to studies of different climate states in the geological past.
Here we propose a consistent operational definition for palaeoclimate sensitivity and illustrate how a tighter definition narrows the range of reported estimates. Consistent intercomparison is crucial to detect sys- tematic differences in sensitivity values—for example, due to changing continental configurations, different climate background states, and the types of radiative perturbations considered. These differences may then be evaluated in terms of additional controls on climate sensitivity, such as those arising from plate tectonics, weathering cycles, changes in ocean circulation, non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), enhanced water- vapour and cloud feedbacks under warm climate states. Palaeoclimate data allow such investigations across geological episodes with very dif- ferent climates, both warmer and colder than today. Clarifying the dependence of feedbacks, and therefore climate sensitivity, on the back- ground climate state is a top priority, because it is central to the utility of past climate sensitivity estimates in assessing the credibility of future climate projections1,3.
$£¥£$£¥££¥££¥
YOU FOOL, BBD, ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AS ARE UNABLE TO INTERPRET WHAT THE AUTHORS SAID. the article estimates and calculates paleodata from other studies, you idiot. there are no own observations but plenty of speculations about co2 sensitivity
THEREFIRE YOU MISSED YOUR TASK TO REFERENCE AN ARTICLE WHICH PROVDES UNEQUIVOCAL AND PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OF CO2 SENSITIVITY
You have references for RF per gas (#15) and atmospheric sampling (#16). You have the thorough intercomparison of paleoclimate estimates of S in Rohling et al.
I'm still waiting for you to provide a referenced argument contradicting everything the laws of physics make CO2 molecules do. When they can find the time.
WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE: 99% of the relevant cryosphere is antarctica and greenland: no significant ice melting.
Freddy, freddy freddy. Were you unable to understand the GRACE mass loss measurements from Antarctica I previously posted to correct your same false and stupidly easy to refute point?
Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods.
Or perhaps this article on the Antarctic giant melt crater will cure your incredibly ill-informed, malformed ignorance.But we all know that's never gonna happen.
There's more on the GIS (that's the bit on the land) and the instability around the West Antarctic coast glaciers when those ice shelves disintegrate. But that's enough to stuff a sock in your dumb mouth for a while.
"I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing"
You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done...
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming.”
And then you state this...
"His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening"
What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?
And this...
"If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers’ instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it’s no wonder that you are an ex-Marine…"
Why is it you treat all your "ifs" as fact Berntard.? Isn't that a difficult way to go thru life? Why don't you tell me what research and advice I have misrepresented...
For example, why don't you tell me what I misrepresented in posting Stott's own view?
And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard....with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?
I realize you like to think of yourself as the demanding teacher 24/7 Berntard, but your questions serve no purpose to what I've been saying all along, and which you are misrepresenting. I have never denied Global Warming....you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases, sort of like this blog.
Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change "first hand"...you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn't read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it....a cop out to protect your like minded buddy....it was too difficult for you to read the article, yet you demand I answer your 20 questions. Now, go to the back of the class, you're berntardy.
If you want to talk noise and signals, this blog is the perfect example. There is plenty of fluctuating noise on this blog on a daily basis, but long term I have picked up on a recurring trend...
The Deltoid trend is this.... the timescale needed for a trend depends on the Deltoidian making the point...
For Hardley, the timescale needed to experience climate change "fist hand" and see shifting zones "for real" is only 23 days and frostbite, with no challenge from the peanut gallery.
For Deadeye Dickie, he completely bypasses the section of the WMO report (as do others) regarding a timescale needed to detect a trend in extreme weather and climate events. For Dickie, the time is now.
The WMO states:
“Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes”
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
These are not my words, they are the words in the WMO conclusion. Words that apparently you and others deny, yet somehow, I am the denier for posting them..
Here's the truth Berntard, the Deltoid "signal" stinks of bias...
“I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing”
You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done…
Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?
If you don't know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).
What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?
OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.
You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can't ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is...
Why is it you treat all your “ifs” as fact Berntard.?
Betula, I don't treat my "ifs" as fact. If</i> they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.
If</i> that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.
And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard….with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?
Open book, 'phone a friend, ask the thread - whatever works for you.
All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.
I have never denied Global Warming….you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases...
Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?
Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change “first hand”…you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn’t read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it...
I remember my response very well. let's recap on that, whilst we're at it - you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff's group "...experienced climate change at first hand", to which I responded:
I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent “first hand” evidence of climate change.
There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word "if" which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.
You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:
If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”. What the relevance of your question is though is unclear – it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur…
Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word "if" which seems to bug the hell out of you.
You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the "bias" is that you imagine is present in climatology.
So, once more - is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?
“I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing”
You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done…
Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?
If you don't know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).
What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?
OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.
You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can't ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is...
Why is it you treat all your “ifs” as fact Berntard.?
Betula, I don't treat my "ifs" as fact. If</ they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.
If</ that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.
And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard….with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?
Open book, 'phone a friend, ask the thread - whatever works for you.
All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.
I have never denied Global Warming….you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases...
Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?
Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change “first hand”…you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn’t read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it...
I remember my response very well. let's recap on that, whilst we're at it - you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff's group "...experienced climate change at first hand", to which I responded:
I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent “first hand” evidence of climate change.
There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word "if" which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.
You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:
If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”. What the relevance of your question is though is unclear – it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur…
Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word "if" which seems to bug the hell out of you.
You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the "bias" is that you imagine is present in climatology.
So, once more - is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?
Freddy, you are the most pathetic wretch I've had the misfortune to encounter online.
Remember; the fact that your own fellow-travellers cynically see you as a 'useful idiot' is also an acknowledgement that you' are just that - an idiot.
He's wrung just about every conceivable metaphorical drop he can from an online article I did not write but which appeared on our NIOO web site. This alone reveals he has no facts to support his vacuous arguments; he relies on this and will forever as far as Deltoid is concerned.
Several weeks ago I linked to at least 10 studies which show recent rapid biotic responses to warming - and Betula's reply was to go back to Algonquin Park again. He really thinks he's on a winner here, so why switch to discuss actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that undermine his arguments? I could also gladly refer to a recent PhD thesis over here which points out the effects of increased atmospheric C02 and temperature on soil communities but he is not interested. I realized that his knowledge of environmental science is at grade-school level when he flippantly remarked that ecosystems where he lives are in a good state on the basis of three appallingly simple examples. He wisely never went back to that, as the rug had been pulled out from under him big time. No, instead it was back to a NIOO article that I personally did not write, even if I do accept responsibility for it. That's his Alamo. His last stand. As the Mexican army overwhelms him, Betula acts like a modern day Davy Crockett, holding on until the last moment.
The main thing is we've got both Fred's handles covered, so n.p., BBD.
I do wonder though how long these ... er ... people think their denial can remain tenable, given that it's been a creaky old shack shifting on its foundations for some time now.
The grim pathology of denial is such that as the evidence mounts, the rejectionism becomes stronger and stronger. LIke a number of... observers, I strongly suspect that the focus will shift away from physics denial to attacking any and every policy response. Different tune, same song: no-no-no-no-no...
arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean.
Before you thump the keyboard perhaps you should spend a little time in understanding which argument you are replying to. With respect to heat absorption then Arctic Sea Ice is extremely relevant. The only metric that Arctic sea ice dos not affect directly is rise in sea level.
Now, if you had been following the posts in this thread, with their many helpful links to easily digestible information, you would not be behaving in so transparently an ignorant manner.
What is it with you, is English not your first language or is it that you skipped classes at school. Maybe you were home-schooled, a poor little rich kid maybe, such demonstrable ignorance and illiteracy is often a product of that.
arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean.
This is Fred-fred's way of avoiding the issue and signalling the SpamKan's and PantieZ et al that there's no case to answer as SLR isn't a problem.
You're not supposed to point out the knock on effects on weather systems Lionel, or that it's the indication of a vast amount of heat entering the Earth system, or what that heat may do once the polar ice is no longer there to absorb it.
Denial is all about pretending there's no problem.
Yes, fred-fred. We grasp that. But we are talking about what happens when the radiative profile of the atmosphere is altered, reducing the efficiency of energy loss to space. That's why it's called "radiative imbalance".
When you come out with these little gems you emphasise how poorly you understand the very basics of physical climatology.
Good to see you're on the ball BBD, although I hardly think Freddy-fred's in a position to nit-pick at this point (other than ineffectual nit-pickery being one consistent definition of denial through the years).
Have you any idea of the effect on glacier flow dynamics of large chunks of ice like this breaking off. So that is West Antarctic and East Antarctic displaying cryospheric instability in a short space of time.
What is behind this, a build up of heat in the system or aliens? Think back up thread about latent heat eh!
If this has been figured out, please let me know, but I'm curious where our little new scatological brain-damaged friend is from. I think I spotted a 'Hein' up there, which would suggest a Frenchy... although with his massive inferiority complex, a Wallon seems more likely.
Eemian MSL highstand was at least 5m above present MSL. Global average temperature during the Eemian was ~1C - 2C warmer than the Holocene Hansen & Sato (2012)
The NEEM project results (Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013) indicate less contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) to the Eemian MSL highstand. Not more than ~2m; perhaps less.
A major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) apparently contributed ~3m - 4M more. Where else could the water have come from?
It's even possible that the contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) was greater than previously thought.
Yes, I noticed that "hein" and there seems little doubt that fred-fred is battling courageously with English and that, though nothing else, does him credit.
Researcher predicts cooler climate in Northern Hemisphere from 2015
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201306300011
Another cyclist ignoring record arctic melting this decade.
You've got to admit, the guy's an optimist. And appears to be ignoring global OHC data. Yes, there are probably quasi-periodic cycles in ocean circulation but they cancel out over time. Even if this fractionally offset NH warming it would in due course *augment* it and the underlying forced trend would be the same on longer (centennial) timescales.
There's nothing here for deniers to crow about, as you would know if you understood the basics.
But you don't. Hence the noise.
Who fed you this one, Karen?
Maybe it was the commenter in that thread that informs us that CO2 levels were higher in the 1940's than they are now?
Ha! An idiot, to be sure. Didn't realise there were comments and I now feel slightly poorer for the fact of having read them.
It's the sheer confidence with which these ignorant buffoons get it all hopelessly wrong that gets to me.
I guess the source was either climatdepot or junkscience: which would show a high degree of gullibility. Could you please confirm Karen?
Turboblocke
Found at Climatedepot!
Oh, Karen. Oh dear.
And at Junkscience as well!
Spoiled for choice, eh Karen? But chum is just chum, really. Rotting fish guts and blood, when all is said and done.
For the denier who likes others to do their thinking for them, so they don't have to!
Or because they can't.
It also appeared on WUWT, but I thought that suggesting that Karen found it there would be too offensive.
Chum! Glorious chum!
Da-de-de-de-da-dah...
Gee, another thread is inaugurated by SpamKan hoiking up a steaming gobbet of the informational equivalent of over-ripe mashed fish-heads.
What a surprise.
Here's an idea, Spammer - spend the time it takes to copy/paste this stuff just a bit more wisely, say in a weensy amount of study, and you might even master the distinction beteween Fahrenheit and Celsius!
hmmm,,,,,,,,,,,a very late....erm..... unfreeze
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I spoze the guys gals and gays in here will pray for a nice big Arctic storm, lol
Shut up about Arctic Sea ice Karen. The precipitous decline over the last decade is the signal. Deniers are the noise.
The signal to noise ratio is very strong. You just come across as buttock-stupid and frankly, rather insane.
No, KarenMcSpot the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007 (during your much hyped and much trumpeted 'hiatus', you'll recall).
It's unlikely any reader (as opposed to troller) here expects 2013 to be a record year - the climate system doesn't follow a mechanical, monotonic progression. But I expect many would not be surprised by another record occurring by 2018.
So you've likely got a few years left yet to crow about 'recovery' and all the other led-by-the-nose, brain-dead guff you spend your time idiotically spouting on behalf of the fossil fuel industry group-think organisers..
Bruchek...
"the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007"....."the climate system doesn’t follow a mechanical, monotonic progression."
No, apparently, it follows a melodic progression to the tune of Dave Brubeck's "Take Five".
Karen: do you realise that the DMI page that you link to is based on model data? See the bottom left corner.
agw scientologists enthusiasm about arctic sea ice discloses all climate church arselicks:
SEA ICE SWIMS IN OCEAN: NO SEA LEVEL RISE
FUCKWIT MORONS!!!!!!
Sea level rise isn't the issue with declining Arctic sea ice Freddy, just as canaries in coalmines aren't about the viability of subterranean avian habitats.
check troll: typical science denier junk from the agw scientology church faithfuls in the 5th row
DO BETTER
attention, climate scientology warming pupils:
clouds on the sky lead to decreases of tempersture readings at 2m above NN. satellite sensors cannot track this
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
... just as canaries in coalmines aren’t about the viability of subterranean avian habitats.
Nice one chek, that was amusing.
Does freddy understand that the GIS and WAIS aren't sea ice? Clearly he does not.
So who's the fuckwit moron, fred-fred?
- reference for this shit?
- satellite temperature reconstructions used in all graphs I have linked are for the top lower troposphere - that's ~14,000ft altitude.
So who's the fuckwit moron again, fred-fred?
This twerp freddy brings things to a new low. Whodathunkitpossible!
This shouty village idiot should check out Jason Box and James Balog for starters.
bbd assfuck, no reference
EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS EXCEPT YYYYYYOOOOOOOUUUUUUU
hahahaha tadah. hahahahaha tadah
bbd is THE fuckwit moron full of shit
lioonny red arselick
no!
I think you are either mistaken or lying. Prove me wrong. With a reference.
* * *
Questions for our resident post-doc polymath:
During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 - 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C - 2C higher than the Holocene.
What was the mean sea level highstand and where did the water come from?
And fred-fred, you didn't mention the other bit...
- satellite temperature reconstructions used in all graphs I have linked are for the top lower troposphere – that’s ~14,000ft altitude.
So who’s the fuckwit moron again, fred-fred?
Here, h/t to Gareth at Hot Topic, is a presentation on arctic amplification by Jennifer Francis which covers a lot of ground and clarified a couple of things for me (why is there a jetstream, for example) in passing.
Well worth a watch to have the link between Arctic warming and crazy weather in the more southerly latitudes explained.
What sort of a fool would you have to be not to understand that a regression towards the mean is indeed likely to occur after a remarkable event like, say, the 2012 sea-ice collapse, or 2007, for that matter, but that regression is clearly back towards a mean that is itself in a steep decline?
Plagued by the likes of Touretting Freddy, and SpamKan, this place has become little more than a creche facility for blowhard, or outrightly deranged, DK innumerates.
The Deltoid signal is becoming more clear with each passing day. The linear downward trend is turning into a spiraling descent...
And moderators are still locking people out. . . for days.
This is a sad little place.
No sensible/practical/workable debate here. . . none :-( :-(
Arctic sea ice is in terminal decline, Batty - get over it. And, while not as outright bonkers as some, you're as good a symptom as any of any decline in these parts...
bill the arctic sea ice criminal
"is in terminal decline"
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE SHIT
prove it, fucking moron!!!!!!!!!
@ bill:
It's like talking to goldfish, isn't it?
What it means
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-…
LOL
lol, I luv this one :)
What happened to the climate refugees?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refuge…
oh, I know, I know, it's going to happen!
in about 500 years, hehe
What it means The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!
No Karenspambot, you'll have to own and deal with your last load of chum before dumping a new lot. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
Blockquote>LOL
lol, I luv this one What happened to the climate refugees? http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refuge… oh, I know, I know, it’s going to happen! in about 500 years, hehe
No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
"To the Editor
The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…"
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html
tiz the start of the climb down :)
“To the Editor The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…” http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.htm tiz the start of the climb downl
No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.
Check#32
Might be better to say "One possible explanation for recent weather patterns"
Others might be:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/meeting-on-uks-run-of-unu…
And more explanation on the AMO
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/guest-blog-how-the-atlant…
Thanks for the glimpse into la-la land.
Solar variability - nope, no TSI increase.
Ocean cycles - nope, cycles aren't net creators of heat
Other long-term cycles of natural variability. - or Jesus, perhaps.
Keep waving those arms and you might take off. Such answers are what you find satisfactory, in that they're total non-answers Redarse.
And perhaps you'll explain how the Met Office statement conflicts with anything Dr. Francis said, bearing in mind the subject of her talk?
Clown continues to confuse regional weather with global average temperature.
Explain the increase in ocean heat content in all major basins over the last four decades.
How does any pattern or patterns of internal variability account for ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?
Never mind the denialist bollocks™. I'll save you the trouble. Such an accumulation of energy can only be explained by an increased forcing. Since we know it's not the sun, we have to look elsewhere.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and ... well, there's the explanation.
End of story.
"We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation."
The 100,000 Year Problem
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/100000-year-problem
Eh? What the fuck does the old argument about which multiplier of precession or obliquity dominates orbitally triggered deglaciation have to do with what I just posted?
Explain, please.
You clueless, lying, desperate tosser.
And don't dodge the questions by gesticulating at orbital squirrels.
Answer the questions:
Explain the increase in ocean heat content in all major basins over the last four decades.
How does any pattern or patterns of internal variability account for ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?
We all knew this wasn't SpamKan herself the moment we read the following:
So, let's insist; Spammy, in your own words, what did you just regurgitate?
The 100,000 Year Problem http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/100000-year-problem
Karenspambot, you've got enough catching up to do without continuing to bury yourself up to the chin in more chummy chum.
Apologies to chek - should have struck out Karen's latest attempt to dodge *earlier* questions.
“We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
" Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract
No. This is not an answer to the question.
“We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
” Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract
From the same paper Karen cites:
"Over the past century, global average surface temperatures have warmed by about 0.75°C. Much of the warming occurred in the past half-century, over which the average decadal rate of change was about 0.13°C, largely due to anthropogenic increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases"
Its great that Karen is waking up to reality of AGW. Well done, Karen!
#15, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2007.png so you see, the ice grew in that cold 2007 summer ;)
#58 - she thinks the two thirds of papers expressing no position on CAGW have no position on CAGW and just keeps on falling into that trap. Keep astronomy out of her way for she WILL deny gravity then.
The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot 10km up in the sky over the tropics JefFeRy,
Where it is it sweety :)
We all knew this wasn’t SpamKan herself the moment we read the following:
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening
So, let’s insist; Spammy, in your own words, what did you just regurgitate?
cRR..........do you still hate jooz ?
lol
And what do you think about the lack of Zyclon B in the cement :)
chek#46
Yes the UK Met Office has often been likened to La la Land, due to the unreliability of its long term, warm bias, weather forecasts.
So it is all the more peculiar, based on this past warm bias, that they trot out these alternatives, in particular emphasising the AMO and cyclic nature of the weather patterns.
The melting Arctic is mentioned as one possible explanation.
I suppose they cannot come straight out with it: "That they havent got a bloody clue"
Still latch onto the explanation that suites your politics or religion.
No Redarse, the la-la land refers to your careful weeding out of any mention of climate change in your bowdlerised version of the Met Office ststement. Deliberate? But of course.
̶S̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶g̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶?̶ ̶T̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶k̶y̶!̶
Note - The preceding message was pre-struck to prevent Chek and B-bot from being able to read it.
Karenspambot #60 & #62
Crank magnetism in action.
Rednoise @ 63
That is what *you* do.
The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.
Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).
Well done Betty 'child deniers' Betula.
If only more deniers were considerate enough to pre-delete their own garbage before posting it.
BBD: this from you had to be disqualified due to junk status:
BBD
July 1, 2013
Ha! An idiot, to be sure. Didn’t realise there were comments and I now feel slightly poorer for the fact of having read them.
It’s the sheer confidence with which these ignorant buffoons get it all hopelessly wrong that gets to me.
Just no. No fucking way. No.
cRR……….do you still hate jooz ?
lol
And what do you think about the lack of Zyclon B in the cement
You are an ignorant buffoon, fred-fred. I've "PROOFED" that over and over again in comments here.
Were you not insane, you would acknowledge this fact. For it is a fact.
Questions for our resident post-doc polymath:
While you're there, fred-fred, you have a number of skipped questions. Let's pick a recent one, more or less at random:
During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene.
What was the mean sea level highstand and where did the water come from?
Answers please. Not abusive rants. Let's see you walk the walk for a change.
BBD asshole #67 disqualified for unappropriately false arguments and foul language:
That is what *you* do.
The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.
Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).
@BBD fuckwit moron "During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene"
WRONG: nobody could reliably measure this, therefore PURE SPECULATION, as always with climate scientology church acolytes
PS: LEARN: PROXY DATA ARE NNEEVVEERR precise
fred-fred
I gave a range of *between* 1C - 2C, not a precise measurement. And just because you are utterly ignorant of the methodology behind this estimated range doesn't invalidate it. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
What was the MSL highstand during the Eemian, and where did all the water come from?.
Come on. Answer the questions please.
What is it about B-bot that reminds me of Barney Fife? The Deputy of Deltoid...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM
I may have to start referring to him as BDD.... Barney "Deadeye Dickie"
Here's BDD being asked about the Prediction Estimation Proclamation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBXUaM6t58
References? Is this per year/century?
What a large scary number. Why not change it to ergs, then it will be 10^7 bigger. Even more scary.
Still by my calculation only enough to raise the temperature of the oceans by 0.004 degrees C. Can we measure the temperature of the oceans that accurately so we notice the difference?
And how did this appear exactly? Has someone actually measured this or did it appear in a vision?
Doesnt seem to be doing much to the sea surface temperatures
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst3gl/fro…
And estimates for sea level rise by 2100 are getting lower
No jump in temperatures for the 0-300m depths
And not much shown 0-700m for the increase in heat content
http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global oceanic heat content 0-700 m depth
So is this massive amount of heat burrowing its way to the deep ocean without showing up on the way down.
If so how do we measure anything below 2000m to know if its there?
And if it really gets there, how long will it be before it comes back to haunt us, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?
Is it an example of quantum linkage perhaps or the basis for some teleportation device.
What is the Physics behind this?
Enquiring minds need to know.
Clown wants references.
I've given the key reference DOZENS of times in comments here. It is Levitus et al. (2012). Try reading it, this time.
SSTs are not an indicator of OHC at depth. Stupid, basic error.
More bloody ignorance. Rate of diffusion downwards has increased. Windspeed. Ekman pumping. All written up in the published scientific literature. See Balmaseda et al. (2013).
Also stop ignoring the full data set. Look at OHC all the way down to 2000m.
OHC 0 - 2000m
FFS get a clue.
All your stupid noise to avoid answering/facing up to one simple fact:
The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations - CO2.
Deny, deny, deny...
chek#64
Very little weeding was needed as references to climate change in the Met Office statement were very limited.
Surprising from a previouslly staunch advocate of AGW.
Perhaps they have woken up and now smell the coffee.
Oh look. Clown suddenly loses all interest in OHC and starts wittering about something else.
What a fucking joke you people are.
#62, asylums should restrict internet access. Word salad is pathological. Asylums should protect sick people's privacy better.
#74, therefore ice ages never existed (for how could we know). What's next, the earth was created day before yesterday?
#78
Your windspeed Ekman pumping is discussed at RC
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blo…
Someone asks a simple basic question and gets very unconvincing answers supposedly from the brightest and best They dont seem entirely sure themselves.
Levitus and Balmaseda both rely heavily on pre Argo data pre 2005 where 0-700m measurements were limited and 700-2000m measurements sporadic.
Hardly solid convincing stuff.
Are we talking real accurate measurement here or wishful thinking and visions.
Estimates of climate sensitivity continue to fall
No "hot spot"
Hiatus in surface temperaures
Deny Deny Deny.
Off you go with the data denial... It's all you've got left.
And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.
No they don't. Incomplete and speculative attempts based on the brief observational record - which you people deny anyway, remember - continue to produce lower estimates than those derived from millennial-scale paleoclimate behaviour. The most likely value remains stubbornly close to 3C/2xCO2. Sorry!
The "no hot-spot" lie is a Jo Nova stalwart, but not science. Sorry!
The slow down in the rate of surface warming because of increased ocean heat uptake has already been discussed.
ARGO data post-2005 show very substantial increases in OHC down to 2000m. Only people who don't understand that this is about energy accumulating in the climate system - not just decadal rates of surface warming - think this matters. Scientists and other climate literates just point to OHC.
No, data-denying fuckwit. Decades of XBT data. You are muddling up SST measurements with OHC measurements because you haven't got the remotest clue what you are talking about. As I said, you are a joke.
gotogo.
Catchulater
I don't really want to indulge Karen, but feel that I should point out that her sea level link from , gosh WUWT,( who would have thought it) compares the mass loss from the GRACE data over the period 2002-2011to the 110 year rate>. Clearly to see it in context, it should be compared to the average over the same time period which is about 3.3 mm/year.
Notice that the above exchange did not result in an admission from Rednoise that he has no counter-argument to the *facts*.
Which I will re-state once more:
The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations – CO2.
What we got was what we always get when there are facts on the table and nowhere else to go: evasions and denial.
How do these sorry excuses for human beings actually live with themselves?
Redarse @ #80
Then why do it ... oh ... because it would dilute your 'message'.
And that's the problem with you and your fellow deniers - you treat science like a shyster lawyer treats a case, as if you actually believe you can win against reality with slick editing and disregard for the inconvenient.
Rove and his boys have really done a number on you idiots, haven't they.
Rudolf:
You really are a sillyarse repeating that bilge, clearly that is what you collect in your bucket.
And I suspect your like will soon be throwing this at us by way of evidence for continued warming being a hoax:
for this is the source Climate extremes are 'unprecedented', for full context rather than the honey-trap for the perennially confused that is Milloy's 'junkscience' currently echoing this in its usual very selective manner.
I refuse to link to there but freddy should feel at home except that he cannot string many words together without using foul language and whilst shouting his verbal diarrhea.
Oh, Redarse, here is another little torpedo, to add to the salvo already fired, for your moth-eaten hull of ocean warming understanding: WUWT: Ocean Misunderstanding and Confusion.
As BBD correctly points out OHC. Now repeat that till you fall asleep, 'OHC, OHC, OHC, OHC, OH...'.
I can't recall now which of the comedy duo of Mosher or Fuller (I can't distinguish any single bacterium) a few years ago claimed a US Navy career (which became more and more fake the more closely it was examined) and pushed this story about professional seamen treating temperature sampling as a joke. As if they wouldn't know that thousands of such measurements combined to make their lives safer through more accurate weather forecasting. I expect that's what Redarse is parroting here. There's nothing deniers will not try to damage or destroy given the slimmest chance of a momentary advantage.
Loss of Arctic ice and extreme weather are normal. Return to your homes and conduct business as usual is the underlying message, with the emphasis on 'lying'..
It was Fuller, who is by some distance the thicker of the two, and the more easily caught in mendacity. I had months of fun with our Tom on Collide-a-scape last year. Months.
Just as James Hansen said recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073
Watch the deniers try and worm their way out of this one. They always do. If they were driving a car that plunged over a cliff, in mid flight they would scream aloud how fine the ride was. The WMOs report should - that being the operative word - drive a nail through the AGW denial brigade. But no amount of empirical evidence will convince these buffoons. Not when there are political agendas to promote.
But ,THE HEADLINE AT WTFUWT reads:
Looks like Willard A. just can't help telling porkies.
Sou at HotWhopper takes his post apart here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/a-decade-of-extremes-from-wmo-and-wu…
Oh dear. Betty-John isn't going to like this at all.
... on the other hand it gives him something to drill into those putative Fritzlesque child deniers he conjured up..
Hardley....
Why don't you believe climate scientists? Doesn't this make you a denier? Oh my..
Et Tu, Deadeye Dickie? A Denier?
You get just that bit more incoherent every day, Batty. One day you'll wake up and you'll be Freddy.
Some of you will get a kick out of this one:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/ooh-isnt-anthony-watts-clever-little…
Oh bother - was that you Bernard J? I accidentally deleted a comment instead of publishing it. Please comment again.
Nope, it's okay. Got it.
BBD#87
An interesting summary of XBT data
For some scientific relief from the cranks who have taken over Tim's blog, watch the excellent Catalyst program on extreme weather
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3791231.htm
The above is a link to the promo. The actual program can be seen on Iview or the ABC iPad app.
Your unreferenced data denial is worthless. Just blab.
Every single OHC reconstruction in the published scientific literature demonstrates a strong increase over the last four decades.
Instrument bias and sampling density are comprehensively addressed in all studies, including Levitus 2012, which you have obviously not bothered to read.
The decadal trend in OHC is greater than the decadal uncertainty. Look at the published scientific literature instead of denialist rubbish.
Or are you so far gone that you believe that there is a conspiracy amongst scientists to falsify the data? I think perhaps you are:
You paranoid nutter.
.
I did. I reference the scientific literature. You just spewed out the "unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit".
You stupid, hypocritical, projecting dupe.
#7 "The oceans are really big, yet the presence of currents and layers at different temperatures means temperatures can be quite different in waters just a few hundred meters apart."
Like air temperature readings, they can be quite different just a few metres apart. Who gives a flying shit (though I'm happy to see the morons finally discovering some trivia). The trend is the same everywhere: up.
BBD#87
BBD I too would like to see the 2000 mtr deep ocean temperature data please honey pie :)
All the way back to 1950 thank you.
BBD while your at it could you also find the 10000 mtr Hot Spot data for JeFfeReY ?
JeFfeReY always waits for someone else to answer for him, poor little numptie. lol
Karen#12
They probably managed to get a bucket down there in 1951, or was it 1952.
Still we have BBD's assurance that:
Otto et al. uses estimated aerosol negative forcing. A guess. Otto et al. - like all observationally-derived guesstimates is extremely sensitive to this guess.
Otto et al. is also extremely sensitive to decadal fluctuations in upper ocean heat content - something determined by natural variability in the rate of mixing ;-)
You don't know what you are talking about, which is why you don't realise how stupid you sound.
This is of course data denial. What's hilarious is that you affirm Otto et al. and other "observational" guesstimates and in the same breath deny paleoclimate-derived estimates which look at much longer periods and are far less sensitive to eg. decadal variablity.
But you don't see how ludicrously inconsistent you are being because you are stupid.
Rednose I was thinking that they may have got the data from the Nautilus, :)
Here is a direct link to the Catalyst segment.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/catalyst/catalyst_14_11_wildweather.mp4
MikeH you should know better than to scare the children before bedtime with monster stories!
Anyway, let's charitably assume that Otto et al. has some merit.
Let's remind ourselves what Otto said about this result:
That is exactly no comfort for deniers. I assume that the reason they are so keen on Otto et al. is that they don't have a clue what it actually means.
As for the stupid attempt to discredit the entirety of the OHC data based on that from the 1950s, let's play along.
Here's OHC 0 - 2000m. Put your hand over the screen and block out everything before 1980. Plenty of good data from then on. I mean, just take a look at the last decade or so. Whoo. Look at it go. And that's ARGO. All of it.
Feel better do we?
I'm sorry, MikeH, but Teh Stupid needs it's nose smacked again - perhaps join in rather than swim against the moron tide? Then attempt a sensible conversation when the fuckwittery has been beaten back somewhat?
Karen#17
Well if Captain Nemo took a f sample of ergs as well I am surprised the OHC record hasn't been taken back further. Perhaps Levitus is working on how to comprehensively address the instrument bias and sampling density of that one extra bucket of ergs.
# 21
Start at 1980 with good data.
The simultaneous increase in ocean heat content in all major basins can only be explained in terms of an increased forcing.
We know it's not the sun, and the only other forcing that has increased sufficiently to account for observations is CO2.
Get used to it ;-)
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
And a half watt from CH4.
#12, FOI ?
Are these reconstructions what we think ought to occur (visions) or are they backed by hard substantive evidence.
The last decade, backed up by the more reliable ARGO data seems to show not much going on 0-700m.
The Atlantic and Pacific seem to be losing ergs.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-p…
And 0-2000m also
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-mod…
So maybe the ergs are hiding below 2000m. How will we know?
Re #7... Oh No, Red No is probably quoting Jo No. Talk about keeping an open mind so open that...
So much for CO2 BBd
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/10-figure-s3-levitus-2005…
This is enlightening also.......
"ARGO floats have provided reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans since 2003-04, and the installation was complete in 2007. But as late as 2011, Kevin Trenberth’s opinion was that they provided limited value due to “missing and erroneous data and calibration”."
The more I read the more stoooopid and gullible you look BBD :)
That graph that you keep linking to is pure BS, are you barnturd j's mother ?
SpamKan and Rudolph - now, there's a meeting of minds...
FFS. All this has been explained. See Balmaseda et al. (2013). Energy is mixing down below the 700m over last decade. You see the increase in OHC *below* 700m.
Just LOOK at the OHC data. Look at the difference between the black (0 - 2000m) and red (0 - 700m) curves post-2000.
No denialist blog science please:
The Atlantic and Pacific seem to be losing ergs.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-p…
And 0-2000m also
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-mod…
They are based on the available evidence and published in the reviewed literature. Why are you waving at denialist blog science and questioning the validity of the scientific literature?
Can't you see that this is utterly stupid?
Karen
Too stupid to understand what Trenberth is saying or to realise that I agree with him.
Shall I explain?
KT suspects that ARGO is under-estimating OHC. While denialists only seem to think that uncertainty goes one way, it's actually a two-way street.
KT proposes - and I agree - that the OHC graph that you think is "pure BS" (references please) is probably conservative. An under-estimate.
Can you understand this? Or is it too complicated for you?
What the fuck can I say to that?
Dear God in heaven. You people. Look in the bloody mirror.
You can't stand this, can you?
Start at 1980 with good data.
The simultaneous increase in ocean heat content in all major basins can only be explained in terms of an increased forcing.
We know it’s not the sun, and the only other forcing that has increased sufficiently to account for observations is CO2.
Hence the renewed frenzy of denial.
CO2
*denial*
CO2
*denial*
CO2
CO2
*denial*
CO2
*denial*
CO2
CO2
*denial*
CO2
*denial*
CO2
CO2
*denial*
CO2
*denial*
CO2
and the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_201…
and in May the temperature of the atmosphere was the same as is was in 1980
you should sack CO2, it's not doing it's job properly, lol
It's just hopeless with you, Karen. You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand the discussion.
Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly.
Can you grasp this?
There's a reason it's called Teh Stupid.
Try thinking about the volume of ice loss since 1980 (Arctic sea ice, GIS WA~IS, glaciers etc etc.) before lolling your stupidity about for all to see Spamkan.
#37 Karen it was -0.12C in February http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Februar…
It was +0.07C in May according to your link. So nothing for 33 years and then suddenly nearly 0.2C in only 3 months. That's a huge acceleration, don't you find it alarming?
BBD#36
Do you get some sort of inner calm or comfort chanting like that?
I find a small malt whiskey is good whenever I am feeling irritable.
Anyway, have you given up defending the crap data pre ARGO?
Through those few sinkholes bypassing the 0-700m layer without having any observable effect on this layer.
And as all those little ergs are waiting their turn drifting towards those crowded sinkholes, wouldn't there be some
observable effect. Apparently not. Amazing. Beam me up sorry down Scottie.
Ah, I see that Spencer seems to have quietly disappeared his 3rd order polynomial fit.
Does KarenMackSunspot or any of the other Denialati support Spencer's use of this in his graphs? A yes or no with a one sentence explanation will do.
At the risk of giving the RedNose brigade room to eavde other issues and pointed questions here is an article which they really should take in the ramifications of: Jeff Masters on Jet Stream Extremes, and Obama’s Climate Plan .
You may also find it useful to consult this fine book, a classic of its kind: Atmosphere, Weather and Climate. When I feel a bit more flush I may invest in a new copy as my 1980's edition is falling to bits it having been that well browsed by myself and others too.
Seriously you denier trolls are on a hiding to nothing given the huge amount of knowledge about climate systems already under the bridge, admittedly with more to come.
Think of it like a jig-saw puzzle where enough pieces are in place to get the big picture.
BBD
And your NOAA graph for OHC 0-2000m years 2003 onwards (rising) seems at odds with the UK Met Office graph from the same period (flat)
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-mod…
Apparently the Met Office figures are raw while NOAA figures have been adjusted.
Seems it might be down to interpretation again.
Who needs cash for more ARGOs?
Rudolf.
You have checked to see if Tisdale is pulling a flanker here I suppose? He has a history of not being entirely straight with his comparisons.
Come on, let us see you supposed apples and oranges, IOW a link to BBDs specific 'NOAA graph' and to those 'Met Office figures'.
Where had freddy the clown gone, to adjust his face.
Here is more context on that Arizona fire: The Climate Context Behind the Deadly Arizona Wildfire.
Get it yet freddy clown?
Lionel
try this link for the NOAA OHC graph 0-2000m
I will look on the met office site to see if can get this first hand.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
Naw does not work. You get graph for 0-700m
Click on the 2 under the graph to get the one in question
The MO EN3 data set can be downloaded here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/index.html
Cannot find the graph. Perhaps it was a construct using this data.
A few tidbits for "Deadeye Dickie"...
" keep in mind the size of the Earth’s oceans. The Earth’s oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square miles—or an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky."
"There is so very little observational data at depths greater than 700 meters that the NODC elected not to present the data in 3-month blocks. They used 5-YEAR windows, in one year steps, what they refer to as pentads. That is, for example, a temperature measurement in 1959 will be used for the pentads of 1955-1959, 1956-1960, 1957-1961, 1957-1962 and 1959-1963."
" it’s hard to believe that a handful of samples in the Northern Hemisphere represent the average ocean heat content of the global oceans over the 5-year period of 1955-1959, yet there are persons who use the NODC 0-2000 meter data as proof of human-induced global warming. At best, it’s a fantasy dataset."
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-a…
Redarse @ #46
To whom does this 'seem at odds'? You do understand that there is a difference in ocean mass at 750m compared to 2000m due to the difference in density? The smaller mass warming more quickly than the larger (which isn't 'flat' as you characterise it in your typically misleading fashion, btw)
Betty 'child deniers' Betula whined on behalf of Bob Tisdale @ #52
Oh, but of course, and that's why Tisdale blogs it rather than publishes it in order to convince the plentiful supply of know-nothing marines in moronworld, knowing he's got no chance with the oceanographers.
Hardley @ 97...
Regarding extreme weather events...why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?
1. "climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change"
Denying climate scientists that is.
2. "they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way"
The same denying climate scientists...
A. "Increasingly conclude"...how much is increasingly?
B. "that many recent events"....how many? Which ones?
C. "would have occurred in a different way"....how different? What way?
3. "or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change".....yet, they believe that it is "not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change"
4. "Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate
change will also require datasets that are
more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for
detecting temperature changes"
"Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently"
In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend.... and unlike you, they admit it.
http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf
Chek.
Rather than arguing the points, attacks the messenger....very telling.
Chek'''
"in order to convince the plentiful supply of know-nothing marines in moronworld"
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/marines_push_to_front_lines_in_renewable_e…
Tisdale's point about not enough data due to spread is not shown to be true just because he claims it, Betty. He has to make the case, which he doesn't. He relies on you know-nothings to think there's one there.
And if you keep up with these things, blog commenter caerbannog showed with his home made number cruncher that for all the Williwattsworld whining, ~30 stations will produce global average temperatures that match the main datasets very well.
Not enough data is one of the oldest and tiredest denier tactics.
So Birch, yale reports notwithstanding, what are YOU as an ex-marine doing to slow climate change?
Maybe you need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine.
Rednoise
Still "referencing" Tisdale I see. Not one single link to the published, peer-reviewed literature.
Just denialist blog "science" from someone routinely caught out misrepresenting.
Here's the thing, Clown.
I made a case using real science. You have nothing except... what was it now? Oh yes:
So as usual, you end up looking like a prat and everything I have said here stands.
You can't so much as smudge it. Did I mention that you were a joke? Why yes, I did.
Betty burped:
So Betty, have you written to the Major informing him that according to your nutjob blogs of choice, that AGW is all a big con dreamt up by deskbound academics and eggheads some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens? Please be sure to publish his reply here.
:-)
Exactly, BBD. I'm hoping the NSA (given the program is active anyway - not that I approve of it)) is carefully logging every single crazy, unstable, irrational fuckhead poster here and elsewhere.
Betula, you are a dingbat. Humiliated so many times on Deltoid when your simpleton views are exposed, yet you keep coming back for more.
You cite this:
"A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes. Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently.”
Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It's you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years. Trends over the past decades reveal a strong indication of warming - including eastern North America, if one looks at both temperature trends and biotic proxies.
As I have said many times, you can't debate your way out of a soaked and dripping wet paper bag. There are all kinds of longer term trends which reveal without any doubt significant warming. Trends in temperature. Trends in extreme weather events - such as heat waves and record high temperatures versus record lows. Changes in the seasonal life cycles of organisms or in their distributions. And so on and so forth. You just either don't understand the concept of scale or prefer to stay dumb.
Either way, you are a poor example of a comedian.
Not even double-thickness tinfoil can save you from the NSA...
lionnell RAA
WRONG
TRY AGAIN
@bbd arselick
WRONG ANSWER GIVEN
Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly
it is warm near the surface when sunlight reaches the surface, and cold when not!!
UNDERSTOOD!!!! FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!!
@All
More humour.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/peter-h-gleick-genius/
Gleick witnesses Climate Change (not quite) first hand, but you get the message, while the reality, as always, is quite different.
http://248am.com/mark/automotive/the-traffic-lights-arent-melting/
Wasn't he part of the 97% consensus? Part of the "consensus" and daft as a bag of spanners. I think there's a lesson there for some..
;)
Poor Griselda, a day late, a dollar short and a headful of somebody else's puss ... as usual.
Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data
"OVERVIEW
In a number of posts, we’ve discussed and illustrated the difficulties with ocean heat content data. (There are links to those earlier posts at the end of this one.) The data presented in this post is supported by the 2012 Levitus et al paper World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010 [8.1 MB].
One topic discussed but not illustrated (until now in Figure 1) was that the annual variations in temperatures at depths between 700 and 2000 meters were in terms of hundredths if not thousandths of a deg C and that it was unrealistic to think we could measure the temperatures of the oceans at depth with that type of accuracy. It turns out that the annual variations are typically in thousandths of a deg C. The total scale of the temperature anomalies of the graph in Figure 1 is two one-hundredths of a deg C........................."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-chan…
read on chappies :)
No, Spammy, you explain it to us in your own words.
And Freddy, no one gives a toss about your abusive, under-medicated ramblings. You've lived pointless, you'll die pointless; who cares? Sod off.
Oh poor old Billie,,,,,,,,,are you feeling lonely and want a chat dear ? I know I know, that flaccid old
thang just don't keep you company anymore does it, lol
What would you like to chat about sweety ?
Ummm..........let me see...............
Oh here is something Billie
"The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
You would think that "IF" bbd's silly alarmist scarey OHC graffywaffie was correct then we would all be drowning due to thermal expansion !
So nothing unusual is happening, just the usual politically funded science propaganda being spewed forth by BBD and other numpties :)
sshhhhhhhh.
I think Billie has gone for his afternoon nap
attention agw idiots: SOME REAL SCIENCE FOR WANTBE AND CANNOTSCIENCE BEGINNERS BILLLX, BBDWIT, JEFFECOSHIT, BERNARDECONULL, ETC ETC ETC
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS's measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
NNNNNOOOOOOO PROOF OF FAKED GLOBAL WARMING BY CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH ASSHOLE SCOUNDRELS
GO HOME, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!
I WILL NOW INFORM THE MEMBERS OF US CONGRESS AND RECOMMEND AN IMMEDIATE STOP OF ANY SUBSIDIES FOR THE ROTTEN IPCC IDIOTS CONSPIRACY TEAM WHICH WASTES TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR NNNNOOOOOOTTTTTHHHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING"
Another rant from our resident psychotic...
Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate?
Next thing you will ranting on about will be that nature is involved in some big socialist conspiracy....
Some advice Freddy? 1. Seek professional medical attention immediately. 2. Go away.
insane outbursting jeff
"biotic proxies in plants" IS NO THERMOMETER TEMPERATURE MEASURENENT
WILL YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU ASSHOLE
YOU BETTER GO AWAY FROM HERE SINCE YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS ZERO
Pfffffhaaaaaaaaaart!
Brainfart. Boring. Next.
I hate to bring this topic up again but more good news it seems.
Wish you colonials would make up your mind on an issue.
:-)
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
"Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate? "
JefFeRy, don't you realize that the biota (and Homo sapiens) move around when the climate changes, lol, they have been doing it for eons you nuffie. Don't you realize that what you are witnessing is just a nano second in the history of evolution? Just a blip in the temperature gauge.
Have a look at all those historical wiggly lines nuff nuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Rednose #79
I am totally gobsmacked :)
Dear Dr Tim Curtin,
On behalf of all the alarmist on this Deltiod blog I wish to convey their most humble apologies for being so DUMB and abusive to you, yes sir, you were dead right, and as usual the Dumbtoids were reading tealeaves and eating gold top mushrooms.
:)
I am just waiting to see Bill's rant on this one
The old codger is most likely hanging out down at the public toilets again, doing some temperature readings, lol
Karen
CSIRO do organise "Little Learners Days" so the Deltoid regulars can catch up during the vacation. They could learn about things such as:
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Education/Programs/Double-Helix-Science-Clu…
LOL
lol....that might be a bit advanced for them
First of all Karen, you left out this little caveat:
" however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said."
Moreover, Donahue and his team are only examining quantitative effects and not qualitative effects, and their work is based exclusively on marginal zones - at the edge of deserts. Nothing is known about effects in many other major ecological zones. Furthermore, where are the mechanistic studies? Effects on primary and secondary plant metabolism? On competition and trophic interactions? As I have said many times, more biomass does not necessarily translate into healthier and more species-rich ecological communties. If it did, previous epochs when the atmsophere contained higher levels of C02 would also have been teeming with biodiversity. There was no correlation; in fact, the highest biodiversity the planet has evolved occurred relatively recently under low ambient C02 regimes.
The rate of change of atmospheric C02 levels is what will ultimately undermine them. First, the change is more rapid than has occurred in many millions of years; second, much of contemporary plant life is not adapted to very high C02 levels; perhaps it can deal with extra C02 to a certain point, but beyond that uptake wil level off and the extra C02 will then rapidly reduce plant quality. As I have said many times, and you and Rednose and Freddy and Betula just cannot get it through your thick heads, that C02 is not a limiting nutrient for plant fitness; N and P are more important. And for consumers up the food chain, N is very limiting.
So you can call off your muted crowing simply on the basis that your pig-ignorance does not wash in academia.
As for Freddy, what an idiot. Didn't even try and answer my point about biotic and abiotic proxies. That's because he is so utterly stupid that even typing on the keyborad is an effort for him.
Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity.
Clearly I really unsettle you, SpamKan. It must be truly painful to be irredeemably thick.
Ah, but your idiot tribe rallies round you, though they're fully aware that you have a head full of sawdust and cannot explain any of the nuggets you copy-paste in here; after all, you have never done so on any occasion. You are a prime example of the almost perfect ignorance that can be achieved by a US educational system that's in thrall to creationists (you know, like Freddy) and jingoistic anti-science blowhards (that's The Bircher.)
On the issue of whether rising CO2 is greening the deserts, we've been over it before. (I'll pause to note, yet again, that you possess not the slightest skepticism where results you think serve your cause are concerned - wrongly, yet again, in this case.)
To sum up, for those with functioning cerbral cortexes: one; it would make little difference even if it was true, and two; it's debatable that it's true. Witness Andrew Glikson from the ANU's letter to the New Scientist in the current edition -
Now we all, including the deniers, know that all SpamKan got out of that was the reference to Plasticene - she did quite well at that in bible school - and then got lost with the °C thing.
Then we have the case argued by those agrostologists who left the dim-bulbs at Jo Nova's flat-footed and gawping. But you won't remember that - inconvenient - and could barely understand the argument if you did.
jeff fuckwit
Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity
go whining to mommy, you fucking asshole
TAKE NOTE: I GIVE YOU BACK WHAT YOU ARROGANT AGW ASSHOLES HAVE THROWN SINCE YEARS ON THE HEADS OR YOUR OPPONENTS. EVERY SINGLE WORD I HAVE USED HAD BEEN USED HERE BY THE BBDS WOWS ETC.
THEREFORE SHUT UP YOU ASSHOLE OR START TALKING LIKE A CIVILIZED CITIZEN WHO DESERVES A MINIMUM OF RESPECT
What a sad, twisted, irrelevant little man you are, Freddy.
@bill, once again TOTAL SHIT from you
I AM VERY RICH, I AM VERY INFLUENTIAL
AND YOU ARE UGLY MEAN UNINSPIRED IDIOTIC NASTY CLIMATE DWARFS WHO WANT TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVERYTHING, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF SKILLS, TALENTS, MONEY
YOU ARE TRUE ASSHOLES FULL OF MINORITY COMPLEXES
freddy,
the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dobson wrote about characters like you that look in the mirror and yell obscenities at the reflection. Your ranting qualifies you for the title of 'The Red Queen'.
Here is your theme tune. Enjoy.
lionneell fuckwit moron, you are an
UTMOST ARROGANT ASSHOLE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE!!!
YOU ARE A SHAME FOR MANKIND
"Clearly I really unsettle you, SpamKan."
No Billie, I think your a cute misguided old codger :)
Now Freddy, please do not shout at the other little learners and call them rude names. Its very naughty and Mr Sprout Head will not be your friend.
freddy,
I am honoured to receive your appellations of approbation. Do keep it up comic.
Freddy, you are a waste of decent people's oxygen.
And Rudolph, if running with this thing is the best you can do; well, only you can know how pathetic you really are.
What a miserable rabble.
Oh fuck off, nutter.
I made my money and retired at 45. Unlike you, I'm not bluffing.
Karen, corrected for sanity and accuracy:
I notice that Karen has now joined the rest of the buffoons "referencing" qualification-free fake expert and multiply-debunked denier Bob Tisdale.
Still not a single reference to the reviewed literature from the lot of you.
What a joke you are.
Figured out why Tisdale should have taken those misleading UKMO EN3 OHC graphs down yet, Clown?
Keywords: systemic errors; obsolete; new version...
Tisdale knows the data set he used has been replaced and corrected, but he leaves the graphs up anyway and posts a lot of waffle about how puzzled he is that the data has gone from KNMI.
Well why the fuck do you think KNMI took it down, Bobbie?
More denialist dishonesty from BT. And you sheep lick it up like spilt ice-cream.
You should be ashamed of your stupid little selves.
Chek...
"some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens?"
Chek, I'm glad to see you read Deadeye Dickies comment about beating deniers, though he didn't say he would "sit by", he said he wouldn't "lift a fucking finger to stop it". "Sit by" just doesn't sound angry enough...it's not representative of the true "Deadeye" that we have come to know.
By the way, I never did get the denier criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed...
When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?
Chek, could you please link to the memo....this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.
Thanks.
Betty, you do a heck of a lot more whining and playing the victim that is proper and decent in an ex-Marine.
Stop moaning, get your K-Bar out and gut that metaphor like the trained killer you supposedly are.
Hardley @ 64...
"Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It’s you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years."
Finally we agree Hardley! This may be as close as an admission you can give, that it is impossible to experience climate change" first hand" over a 23 day period, but I'll take it!
I'm also glad to see you agree with the WMO report that more time is needed to be able to relate any extreme weather events to climate change...
For a while there I thought you were a denier, but you are really coming along.
Deadeye Dickie...
"Stop moaning, get your K-Bar out and gut that metaphor like the trained killer you supposedly are"
You said you wanted to watch a beating...now you want me to bring a knife? Where do your sadistic tendencies end?
Lionel @ 59...
"Maybe you need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine"
But Lionel, @ 48, on pg 5 of the June thread you stated:
"should shout a warning to even the most die hard (like the US Marines and Bruce Willis) ACC denier."
So you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier?
And then Chek @ 51 on pg 5 of the June thread stated:
"And let’s also avoid mentioning that the USMC – as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism"
So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being a gangster?
And here's what Wow stated @ 41 on pg 5 of the June thread:
"The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive"
So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being killed for lack of inventiveness?
Oh, I get it! You want me to take a Marine refresher course on being a Marine denier, then, as a Marine gangster, along with my fellow Marines we can beat each other to death in the streets while you watch! Now why didn't I think of that?
You truly have a brilliant mind Lionel...kudos.
Betty, in case you hadn't noticed, you are a laughing-stock here.
I'm just hinting in a jocular, bluff, man-to-man fashion (presumably familiar from your days in the Corps) that you should find another can to bang.
Because, well, the mockery...
Seriously though, Betty. You do whine and play the victim and it's not at all the conduct I would expect from a former Corpsman.
Really.
Time to get a grip, Betty.
What a tedious post at #4 Birch tree. I have to ask would the Marine Corps welcome you back? I doubt it. I'll bet you were a laugh a minute whilst in it and not in the way you would have liked.
And yes it is possible to experience the effects of climate change in a few days and I have just done that. An area of Scotland I have visited this year has many fewer LBJs (little brown jobs - small migratory birds) this year than in 2008 at a similar time of year. The change of wind, weather, temperature, humidity and precipitation patterns can be clearly implicated which in tern is the result of climate change altering the albedo and much else of the northern hemisphere in particular.
As I remarked above, you are on a hiding to nothing by being a tosser about this when the evidence mounts daily now.
BBD#99
You are not making yourself clear here .
I thought we were discussining the UK Met Office ARGO data the latest version of this is EN3v2a.
Tisdales graph to show OHC goes from Jan 2003 to March 12 so presumably is using this latest version
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-mod…
The changes made to the Met Office database can be seen here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/en3_history.html
As far as I can tell most of the changes are for pre ARGO data and there do not appear to be any of note post 2007.
So WFAYOA
Rednose at #79.
You're a few months late to the trashing of the denialist misinterpretation of Donohue et al. A fellow by the handle of Dead Agrostologists Society did some more pruning of the twisted tangle of misunderstanding that sprouted from the paper, although I'm certain that his points would not even register across your synapse.
You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Of course if you disagree you will respond with a cogent and focussed defence of your waffly pseudoscience that explains why the import of Donohue et al is not inconsistent with the mainstream understanding of the dangers of human-caused climate change.
The United States of KarenMackSunspot blathers at #80:
Odin on a stick. You denialists are hard of learning - I noogied freddy on this point last month.
You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
KarenMackSunspot also simpers at #80:
Erm, KMS, this is the same guy who thinks that dropping the pH of seawater below 7.0 renders it drinkable. "Curtin" and "right" make sense in the same sentence only when one is referring to his political bent.
You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Freddy, your parody of stupid people is actually sad, and deep into pathological psychology territory. Do yourself a favour and go out into the sun. See your GP for a referral to a specialist. And don't stick paperclip into power points.
The rest of you Denialati - your silence in response to freddy's constant suppurating invective is telling. That you can't challenge his wrongness, simply because his proclamations on the human cause of climate change agree with your own, is a disgusting indictment on your own lack of moral integrity. Not only will history judge you harshly for the criminal disregard you exhibit for the planet's future, it will be extremely unimpressed with the foolish delight you take in denying that which is evident to any sane and intelligent person.
Grow some brains.
I don't think KNMI put up 3v2a.
That's why it got taken down.
Can you show me a single instance where BT actually provides a VERSION NUMBER for the version he used for SPECIFIC GRAPHS?
Can you?
BBD#9
It looks as if they converted to v2a in 2006/7. As they only put monthly updates on the latest version, and Tisdale's graph goes up to March 2012, I deduce he must be using version v2a
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/EN3c_changes
And none of this distracts from the key fact: all you are doing is waving about a routinely-debunked denialist blog scientist.
I'm referencing real science.
So, you lose the argument automatically because you aren't mounting a supported counter-argument.
Tough, but that's how it goes. Blog science loses, ever time.
Redarse @ #8
Without any further ado we can be sure that whatever the fuck Redarse and Tisdale are on about, the shortness of the period by definition has bugger all to do with climate, and so can only be more denier chum.
Quelle surprise.
You're a fatuous moron Redarse.
Yes, yet another one.
I'm surprised there's a role for you, given you all perform the same fucking one, i.e. being yet another fatuous moron.
Too weak
Read carefully:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/en3_history.html
What KNMI posted was probably the final version of EN3v1c
Deadeye Dickie..
" it’s not at all the conduct I would expect from a former Corpsman."
Dickie, let me help you out here with your faux knowledge. Corpsman are Navy enlisted personnel in the medical corps, that serve with Navy or Marine units...
"the mockery…"
Chek#12
Well as we were disicussing where the missing heat went to cause the surprising, on going and acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus, perhaps the period in question is relevent.
Betty
You still whinge and play the victim in a manner unbecoming. So my advice - nit-pickery notwithstanding - is to cease and desist before bringing further discredit on the Corps.
Clown
Using PMEL and NODC, there's no problem.
Real oceanographers acknowledge no problem finding the not-actually-missing heat.
I strongly suspect KNMI fucked up and BT took advantage of it.
Whatever the case, the *reference data set* is NODC. It's the standard by which others are judged, not vice-versa.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with NODC.
Either way, my point stands - you have no scientifically-supported argument, just denialist blog bullshit and hand-waving. So, you lose.
Again.
And herev is one John Mashey may find interesting, giving part of the answer why Birch & Co. are so intellectually and ideological confused:
Koch millions spread influence through nonprofits, colleges, note the 'payola' to GMU and AFP that latter the domain of the awful Tim Phillips.
Lionel...
"What a tedious post at #4 Birch tree"
Tedious? Is that the what you call it when I use your own words to bring to light the Jackass that you are? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures..
********* BREAKING NEWS *********** BREAKING NEWS **********
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?
please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication
Deadeye Dickie..
"cease and desist before bringing further discredit on the Corps"
The Corps or Corpsman?
And let me guess, you pronounce Corpsman like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0
Yes Deadeye, "you are a laughing-stock"...
BBD#13
I have no idea what KNMI posted, you did not supply a link.
I am flagging up an apparent difference bertween the two data sets which is as yet unanswered.
I am also flagging up the difficulties the two papers you referenced had in dealing with an adequate explanation of how the heat got to the 700-2000m layer in sufficient quantity and speed , without apparently been detected or having any effect on the way down to the sea surface and 0-700m layer.
I also questioned the accuracy of particularly the early temperature measurements on which the OHC was calculated when claims of an accuracy to 1/1000th degree were made for a measurement made by a chance passing ship with a thermometer and a bucket on a rope.J
ust because a paper has passed palpeer review does not guarantee it is correct.
acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus perhaps the period in question is relevent.(sic)
Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That - when it's narrowed down - is what you mean by "everybody". Every fatuous moron.
That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a "hiatus".
Congratulations, you confirmed your fatuous moron status.
Tut tut - if yer gonna quote someone get yer words right and don't screw up yer blockquotes as my old gran used to say. Once again:
Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That – when it’s narrowed down – is what you mean by “everyone”. Every fatuous moron.
That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a “hiatus”.
Congratulations, you just confirmed your fatuous moron status.
No you aren't. You haven't even read them, so you can forget this posturing tripe. Let's be crystal clear: it means nothing at all. Nothing.
You need to understand that your wittering is scientifically weightless. Your opinions and suspicions and paranoid fantasies of data fiddling are of zero consequence in the adult world.
Get this through your head.
NODC is the reference data set. If you think you have a problem with it, take it up with NODC. Good luck with that.
Notice that Tisdale never actually publishes any of his crap. Why do you think that is?
Seriously, think for a moment. If BT has all these killer arguments that hole NODC OHC below the water line (intended) then why doesn't he publish them?
Hmm?
You still sound exactly nothing like any serving or ex-soldier I have ever met, Betty. They have a certain ring to them, and it is missing from you. I live in an Army town (Winchester, UK) so I know a fair few service personnel quite well.
No, Clown. Tisdale didn't label his graphs with a version number.
Don't get fucking tricksy with me.
Redarse again:
I can now amend that to "fatuous conspiracy moron".
Your cliche card is filling up nicely, Redarse.
Clown
Not that your "questioning" amounts to the air used to articulate it, but I did address this yesterday.
Block out everything pre-1980 with your hand.
Now explain the far more reliable observations 1980 - present.
Here's the thing. Simultaneous increase in OHC in all major basins cannot be explained except by invoking an increased forcing. It's not the sun, but the increasing forcing from CO2 forcing does account for the observed accumulation of energy in the world ocean.
You cannot get around this no matter how desperately you try to deny the data. And desperate data denial is all you've got left, as we can see all too clearly here.
Birch wood, it is tedious because you keep grinding out the same old tunes. But then yes, they are desperate times for the climate ostriches. Perhaps you should take your head out before it cooks. Oops! Too late, it already shows signs of melt down. As Poirot might say, 'your little gray cells are sizzling nicely'.
"You still sound exactly nothing like any serving or ex-soldier I have ever met, Betty. They have a certain ring to them, and it is missing from you"
With all your military knowledge, does it sound like Corpsman or Marine Corps?
I've got major doubts about you, Betty. Just letting you know.
********* BREAKING NEWS *********** BREAKING NEWS **********
Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
£$£££$£££$££££$
Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
Abstract
Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
£$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?
please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication
COMNENTS FROM AGW ASSHOLES NOT WELCOME
By the way Deadeye,
Does this sentence have a "ring" to it?...
“climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
"I’ve got major doubts about you, Betty. Just letting you know"
Are you putting me on notice that I may face the wrath of "Deadeye Dickie"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM
Lionel...
"Birch wood, it is tedious because you keep grinding out the same old tunes"
Well, if you weren't constantly contradicting yourself, maybe I wouldn't have to keep playing "Memories".
# 35
No, I just think you are full of shit. Selective quotation being diagnostic. I have read the report, you know. Not the WTFUWT edit.
What a tub of excrement you are, Betty.
Would an ex-Marine lower themselves to such blatant dishonesty?
As I've said, if you really once were a Marine, you are bringing the Corps into disrepute. However you pronounce it.
And on that note, while it's something of a truism, in my experience, real soldiers do not nit-pick.
Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn't believe you had any connection to the USMC.
You're a blog denier blowhard from a country full of redneck blowhards who claim imaginary military prowess, and are perceived as such. Get over it.
Oh, and don't forget to post a copy of that reply from either Major Newell, or Colonel Charette either one, doesn't matter which that we both know is to a letter that will never be written (about their waste-of-time-renewable-greenie-con-'cos-Watts-says-so program).
You conduct yourself like a pathetic blowhard victim arsehole.
Oooh Ra?
More like ooooh, Betty.
The descent into the nth circle of farce continues, eh, chek?
Speaking of and to yourself freddy, for 'tis the climate ostriches like you who are the AGW a'holes.
Tell me, why is there ice loss at the poles, on Greenland and glaciers around the world?
Even if thermometer measurements are that far out, and they are not, they only inform about sensible heat. Now again why is the ice melting?
Contradicting myself?
Only in your fevered mind which takes things out of context and hashes them together in a dishonest attempt at put downs.
Lionel A
Best not prod the idiot. Let's face it, he's been shown that the satellite TLT reconstruction knocked out by known sceptics is in all-but-exact agreement with land surface reconstructions times beyond number on two threads... and still he's blethering about problems with the thermometers.
UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline
This chap is in a dark, malodorous and hot little little place and he is best left alone in there.
The other point of course Lionel, which seems to evade Professor Freddy, is that even with a bias, the bias works one way only and doesn't affect the anomaly, which is the measurement climate scientists are interested in. Performing tests on two sites and altering the prevailing conditions there by altering the normal screen quality only informs about the performance of the screening material.
It doesn't affect the end product anomaly one whit (unless they replace the screening with a foreign type not there before and forget to inform of the adjustment required to make the local record homogenous again).
Deadeye Dickie..
"I have read the report, you know."
Then you must have read this part...
"climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
Is your browser working properly? Or is it just stunningly infantile dishonesty?
Deadeye @ 38...
"While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
Let me break down the sentence for you so it's easier to understand...by the way, I already broke in down @55 of the previous page...so calling it "selective quoting" is another of your lies.
1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
Denying climate scientists that is...
2. “they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way”
The same denying climate scientists…
A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?
B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?
C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?
3. “or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change”…
yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”
4. the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
What you seem to miss Deadeye, is that "likelihood" and "probably" are not definitive conclusions....that's why climate scientists say "it's not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
Do you think the WMO is lying when it states this? Is this a selective quote by the WMO? Why would the WMO write such a statement? Are you saying the WMO is a group of deniers?
The same report states more time is needed to reach a conclusion..
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently”
Please explain why the WMO is lying about this...
Fuck me, Betty's learning to parse English like a twelve year old and spotted it's possible to drain all meaning from a structured sentence by focussing on short individual phrases and demanding the definitive and so ignoring the information imparted.
Pretty much standard denier procedure which is applied to everything including data.
Lionel @ 43...
"Contradicting myself?"
Well what would you call it when you label Marines deniers and then suggest I need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine.
You're saying you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier, yet you never condemned that fact that deniers should be beaten in the streets while Deadeye watches....
Is this correct?
Because now I am to assume you want me to take a refresher course on how to get beaten in the street while Deadeye watches, and personally, I don't know where to go to take that course...
"Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn’t believe you had any connection to the USMC."
I hope not, they're all dead. Including my father, who went in on the first wave at Iwo with the 5th Amphibious Tractor Battalion.
Chek...
By the way, I never did get the denier beating criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed…
When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?
Chek, could you please link to the memo….this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.
Thanks.
Chek..
"ignoring the information imparted"
Let's put this to bed. I'll make it real simple for you. Is the following statement true or false...and why?
“climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
lionB fuckwit
your text trial is of course full of errors
"Tell me, why is there ice loss at the poles, on Greenland and glaciers around the world?"
there is no ice loss at the south pole as the same altitude of the amundsen-scott basis (extra info for you outsiders in natural sciences: that's the US weather station at the south pole) since decades, i.e. the ice shield does not melt, fuckwit
same with greenland summit, ignorant fuckwit
forget all the glaciers outside antarctica and greenland: irrelevant re total ice masses on the earth: if all your holy beloved glaciers, the ones in the swiss alps wo which you have a personal relationship as fucking brits, but all the others on earth, which you don't know, also, would melt: YOU WILL NOT DIE FROM DROWNING IN LONDON OR ELSEWHERE ON THE PLANET,
MORON!!!!!! FUCKWIT!!!!!!!!! LEARN A LITTLE BIT OF REALITY!!!!!!!
It's false Betty ...and because it's a partial quote omitting content vital to the meaning of the piece. Next.
Get a clue 'Professor' Fuckwit and stop embarrassing yourself ever further.
Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods. The data have been adjusted to reflect new models of post-glacial rebound.
Oh Betty. What are we going to do with you?
I'm not going to paste in the WMO quote again because there is no point.
I'm not going to concede that there is an iota of substance to your parsomatic at # 49.
You have degraded yourself with this and I suspect that somewhere inside you know it.
You know what I meant. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. If you live for another couple of decades you will see the proof.
Physics will see to that.
Who's going to be in the frame when the climate shit hit the economic fan? You didn't say last time I asked.
You are fighting against physics. Not even the USMC (ret) can prevail against that.
Deadeye Dickie...
"You know what I meant"
Actually I don't. When you say the public will be beating climate deniers and you won't lift a finger to help, it's vey vague...
How do you determine who is a denier? Is it not believing in AGW, or believing in AGW but not the consequences, or someone who points out the admitted flaws in the prediction process by quoting scientists? Is it the words that are spoken or the actions that are taken?
How about William Grey? He's 84 yeas old, should he be beaten while you fucking watch Dickie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
"Who’s going to be in the frame when the climate shit hit the economic fan?"
Do you mean the predicted climate shit? Can you be more specific in terms of actual time line and actual shit location...
It's a losing battle, Betty. An ex-Marine should have some sense of this.
Betty gets off on the speculation, BBD. If he stays true to form, he'll work himself up into a full flying five-tissue frenzy over this imaginary situation.
It's his displacement activity, because he's so shit at analysis and comprehension.
Chek..
Regarding this statement by The WMO:
"climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
You say: "It’s false Betty …and because it’s a partial quote omitting content vital to the meaning of the piece."
So the quote is a lie by the WMO? Even though they state it as fact, where as everything after it is a "likelihood" or a "probability", you know, not a fact. They also state they need a larger time frame to determine if these events are trending more frequently...this is why they use the term "not yet possible".
I know this is difficult for you to accept, really I do, because I know you are stuck on stupid. Also, when It comes to these things, I think it would be helpful if you learned a little about the difference between noise, signals, assessing trends, time frame considerations etc....
Here's a good place to start, it's from The WMO report...
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
Note where it says "by definition" cheky? Do you understand what that means? I'll help you...
They are talking about the word "extreme"...."farthest removed from the ordinary or average". Do you get it? It's not ordinary so it's less frequent. Because it's less frequent, you need longer time frames to assess a trend....
Now because scientists need a longer time fame, they say "that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
I know, you still don't get it, like I said, stuck on stupid. But hang in there cheky, maybe you'll get bumped on the head or something and come around.
Deadeye Dickie..
"It’s a losing battle, Betty. An ex-Marine should have some sense of this"
Marines are all too familiar with your type Dickie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA
Now it's apparent that your IQ us in the double digit range Betty, let me make this as plain as possible.
Your partial quote is the lie and is a denier-driven distortion of the actual WMO quote.
Any reasonable person will understand the difference.
You however will not. Ever.
From Betty 'child deniers' Betula, @ #63
Oh, the fucking irony....
It had to come to this - the climate cranks are now represented by a female impersonator and a turkey with Tourettes.
MikeH: Kochsuckers Inc.
What's the difference between the Holocene and the LGM?
- about 4.5C GAT
- about 6W/m^2 forcing
You can work out the sensitivity to a 1W/m^2 change in forcing yourself.
Hey MikeH!
Yr no. 67--"...turkey with Tourettes."
You know, MikeH, you're not foolin' anyone. I mean, like, it is painfully obvious that the only reason you hang your loser, geek-ball rump out here in Deltoidland, instead of at some quality, respected, highly influential blog like Climate etc, Jo Nova, or WUWT, is that you have admitted to yourself, in the depths of your miserable, greenshirt heart-of-hearts, that you can't find your flabby eco-butt with even the full resources of your both hands, a proctologist as your personal trainer, a GPS-unit in "suppository form", and your abundantly demonstrated gift for runnin' your mouth out your ass fully up and operating at peak capacity.
That, and, of course, MikeH, you find in this blog's creep-out, group-think, heavy-petting, goo-goo eyed, obscenely-needy chit-chat a sad, pathetic "thrill" which is the closest you and your hive-bozo, retard pals will ever get to the "normal person" pleasures of a real-life date. Right guy?
And, oh by the way, MikeH--you "me-too", copy-cat, little shit--the "Tourettes" deal is BJ's goof-ball, pompous-ass, sorry excuse for a "zinger", not yours. I mean, like, MikeH, why don't you try coming up with something of your own for once? Huh, guy? Or would a demonstration of "originality of thought" be a career-ending move for a party-line, hive-hack gofer-parasite like you?
Tosspot. Next.
Just so.
Sorry for the brevity of my answers, having only recently returned from Scotland (fascinating geology BTW) I have been exhausted (reduced heart function following a massive attack about 12 years ago) and trying to catch up on administrative matters whilst fighting with the license renewal of a well known Internet Security suite (clue begins with a 'K') across three computers.
This and prepping dozens of photo images taken during my travels.
Retirement - WTF is that?
More involved engagement soon I hope. Watching Mr Punchinello (aka freddy) losing it has brought some humorous relief of late.
Something for the ostriches here to watch and learn from:
The Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines,
N.B.
.
More tirades of keyboard abuse in
ONE
TWO
THREE
...
Leaving aside the ongoing Festival of The Stupid for a moment, ABC's Catalyst did indeed do a good job on extreme weather - and I've given the link to the non iView version, so it should be available to all.
WARNING: hazard to Fake Skeptics; danger of learning something. This does not apply to SpamKan, obviously, since she ain't learned nuthin' at all since Bible Camp - except Ctrl+C, Ctrl +V - and is proud of it!
Also, and I reckon only the locals will be able to see this one.
Photographer Murray Fredericks, of Salt fame, shifted his attention from Lake Eyre to Greenland (as you do). Not only is the result spectacular, on his last documented excursion, he happened to be there in May 2012, on the ice cap, just when it all started to go pear-shaped. Worth seeing for the Inuit guides' - and huskies! - reaction to the freak conditions alone. Be quick - expires shortly.
Rednoise,
You may like to look up the meaning of hiatus for there has been no hiatus in annual global temperature rise as noted here (as well as in many other places using other sources):
4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second and note this,
Now I suggest once again you look up the meaning of hiatus. You are wrong. All you have been doing is guessing on the musings of a blogger with a record of distorting the facts of climate change by guessing about the meanings of material output by scientific organizations working in the field.
In other words you are just another 'interpreter of interpretations' for when challenged you have failed to provide real substance to back your assertions.
Now is that honest behaviour?
Deadeye Dickie and Chek...
Isn't it about time the public start beating Peter Stott of the U.K Met Office so you two have something to watch? He completely ruined the headline...
Hansen Study: Extreme Weather Tied to Climate Change:
"Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role".
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming"
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hansen-study-extreme-weather-tied-to…
He must be in cahoots with those deniers at The WMO:
“climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”
Beatings for everyone! Deadeye...you bring the popcorn.
Lionel
I am glad you had a pleasant trip to Scotland. Its a pity you were not there this week to take advantage of the fine weather. Myself, I am shortly off to my first BBQ for several years.
if you google "Global Warming you get this from wikepedea.
Then googling "hiatus" we get:
There are a number of quotes about the hiatus here
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-g…
And more recently
It would seem there is a break in the projected continuation of increasing temperatures or a hiatus
Why can't you understand the words, Betty?
There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating - with considerable supporting evidence - that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.
It's about the degree of fractional attribution.
You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:
Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.
Rednoise
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about "hiatus" etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don't you - because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn't happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Thanks.
Yes Betty, it's become clear that to someone as fundamentally stupid and/or dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, that you dearly wish conditional sentences weren't.
But they are.
Redarse, you're a classic case of denial.
So far has the hiatus meme been inserted up your arse by repetitions in the deniosphere that you are now unable to accept the data that were presented to you previously (viz. record melt years and warmest recorded years) and actually prefer to endure the anal discomfort rather than engage your brain. and think.
As BBD points out, the sun hasn't stopped shining or weakened, and CO2 recently passed the 400ppm mark ergo energy will continue accumulating until equilibrium is reached. Simple, yes?
It may come as a shock to you, but putting it simply, deniers are liars, the 'hiatus; one being no exception for being echoed and repeated again and again around denierland.
Some minor matters arising:
As for Myles Allen's bizarre remarks to the BBC, he even contradicts the IPCC. This from the AR4 SYR:
Climate basic # 2:
Nobody ever said that natural variability has stopped, therefore tropospheric warming will not be monotonic.
Rednoise,
Pulling such shite from one of the world's arseholes is an exercise in avoiding the truth by selective quoting from the full article where we saw this:
in which Harrabin managed to drop a closing quote.
Besides, Harrabin has form for trying to minimize the Beebs risk of a license caning from the current Downing Street occupants by slipping in the odd sop to the FF lobby.
Also, Myles Allen is not the most trustworthy source given his arguments on CCS.
Oh what a tangled web you weave Rednoise.
Thanks to Lionel A for finding the link unfortunately absent from Rednoise's misrepresentation by selective quotation at # 77. Here is Rednoise's quote again:
Now let's put it back into context:
Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments.
How must it feel to be forced to resort to data denial and egregiously obvious selective quotation all the time?
Not comfortable, I would hope. But who knows? I have trouble understanding the mindset that would routinely resort to childish dishonesty, apparently without qualm.
And following on from the words of Mike Mann (@ #73) we have the erudite words of Richard Alley explaining why 'The Science is not controversial...'.
But come on Rednoise, Birch Top and the ever entertaining freddy all you can manage is more pissing into wind.
Deadeye Dickie at 84...
"Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments"
Nice try Dickie, but the quote I posted was in full (see 55 on previous page) and gone over, something I already told you at #49 of this page In addition, unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant.
The WMO...
1 ."No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses
of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards."
2. "Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term"
3. "Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
4. "WMO’s Commission for Climatology is currently
addressing new approaches for the improved characterization, assessment and monitoring of these events. In addition, promising new research into the attribution of individual extreme events based on observational and model data is starting to emerge"
Do you get it deadeye? No, you don't.
They are telling you they need more time. They are saying they don't know yet. They actually say it....The WMO actually put the words on paper for you to ignore:
"climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3SK-yB1c9Y
Sorry, wrong link...
http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf
Peter Stott of the U.K. Met office told you the same thing:
"his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming” (link at 76)
Why do you deny the scientists Deadeye? Soon you will be watching yourself be beaten by the public and you won't lift a finger to stop it...
Betty, if that is how you have decided to interpret the WMO report, then fine.
It's your parsomatic and you'll lie if you want to...
With apologies to Lesley Gore.
Being awfully pleased at his grasp of high school parsing, ol' Betty 'child deniers' Betula spectacularly misjudges the absence of the certainty he childishly craves by re-imagining statements with the caveats completely discarded according to his taste, once crushed by his home-grown, on-board logic machine which is of course informed and powered by his vast scientific knowledge and understanding.
But although being spectacularly stupid, Betty 'child deniers' Betula is somehow labouring under the impression that he's being clever, very clever indeed. And if your yardstick is Williwattsworld who's to disagree within that sealed-off cesspit of cretinism?
What Betty 'child deniers' Betula isn't so aware of - being an inveterate cesspit swimmer by choice and never deigning to understand or even so much as skim any links to real science posted on this board - is that people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties that Betty 'child deniers' Betula freely discards.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"Have you seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?
Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir. Not a one. Although intel reports a vast amount of logistics are entering the area.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"But you haven't actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?
Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir, Not a one. But intel reports two enemy air wings moved two days ago to bases that are within range of this area.
Latrinesman but acting General Betty:"But you haven't actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, Corpseman, a real muhrine only acts on certainties. Wake me up when Isle of Lucy's on the TV.
This Tamino article examines recent heat wave trends and could be applied to other types of extreme events readily.
Following on from # 79
Assuming that we stick with the laws of physics, and don't deny the known radiative properties of CO2, we have a problem.
According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm - 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.
What’s the difference between the Holocene and the LGM? The coldest part of the last ice age and the present.
- about 4.5C GAT
- about 6W/m^2 forcing
You can work out the sensitivity to a 1W/m^2 change in forcing yourself.
beware of faked scientists here:
agw asshole bbd IS NO scientist, only a cheap teacher of young children
agw asshole chek IS NO scientist, also only a tiny irrelevant teacher of young children
agw asshole lionert IS NO scientist, also only an unknown anonymous teacher of tiny children
agw asshole billiestupid IS NO scientist, also only an unknown anonymous teacher of tiny children
ALL THESE AGW MORONS DO ONLY COPY PASTE OF THE AGW SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH SLOGANS OF THEIR AGW PRIESTS
AGW "climatology" is no scientific discipline, it is the ideology of green-lefties who want to rob the money of decent but naive citizens
Yes of course, freddy. Whatever you say.
But according to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.
The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:
- 4.5C GAT
- 6W/m^2 forcing
So what's back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?
4.5 / 6 = ?
Betula.
On the matter of your comments about Peter Stott at #77 and at #87*, what excactly are you claiming is Stott's position.
No waffle, no, avoidance, no hedging - what do you think Stott means, and what do you think is Stott's understanding of the science?
[*My numbers will differ to others as I have comments in moderation.]
I had a tanty in a lecture and lost my cool. I was so unprepared for the slimy slag off of climate science, climatologists, Hansen and Mann from a bloke advertising himself as a scientist and promoter of science, given on CSIRO premises. Was I too precious or is this the new underhand casting of doubt on published science.
The situation: ACT Skeptics run a lecture http://www.canberraskeptics.org.au/event/july-lecture-pseudo-science-cl…
I do hope I have Nick Ware wrong - I bailed 1/2 hour into it. And I hope you don't mind having my rant here. This is what set me off:
It starts: we have these groups:
1.Alarmists
2.Activists
3.Scientists (real scientists [like real Scotsmen I guess] skeptics with a k)
4.Sceptics
5.Deniers
3 being the ideal of course - he spoke to groups 1 and 3 for a bit
He talks about science for a tad - he brings up Babbage, decline of science and then the 3 causes of bad science:
1. Trimming - trim your data to clean up the presentation a little - he says "we've all done it"
2. Cooking - cook ones data
3. Fraud - make data up
Then he starts with a history of Climate Science - Fourier, fair enough. He said "Fourier correctly guessed at mostly water trapping heat" - [he moved on, no mention of feedbacks/forcings after the water bit, I'm hearing a whistle]
skipping Tyndall, next stop Arrhenius, "predicting a 6C rise per doubling - he corrected himself to 3C a bit later" [not my recollection]
Calendar just briefly, then Keeling, a bit of time here, "Charles and now his son". On this he says .. he then spends 5 minutes on CO2 ppm and how there was a big brouhaha in the press over 400ppm. But we're are not really there yet, the curve will bounce up and down for a while and there was only one tiny data point that only just got near 400ppm. Not 400ppm yet. I say again, not 400ppm yet. [Yeah, righto, but we'll be there soon enough I wanted to yell]
After #NotYet400ppm, we come to Hansen 1988, congress, with a slide, Hansen "Naughty boy" for he "really didn't have enough data to make the assertion".
Slide is this image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/James_Hansen… "see how surprised his offsider is - this is unusual as the assistants in Congress never show emotion - but see how this bloke is showing surprise - he knows that Hansen is overreaching" [YES - This image was presented at a skeptics lecture as proof of Hansen's dodginess, the look on an assistant's face - SKEPTICS, Yeah - I was dumbed into silence. I hope the lecture hall was, and it was near full]
He then puts up Hansen's projections overlaid with the model run with no CO2 forcing - the 2007IPCC picture - Ware then claims the error bars of the projections overlap, he draws his own error bands over the bands already shown that "fixes" the diagram. [I'm twitching here]
(The diagram was this one https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMMTA9TBODmghP3Sc… less the black actual line and less the axes markings -- and yes, then he added his own error range
Mann's Hockey Stick next - slide is up on overhead projector - there are 4 references at bottom - I can't quite make out - first may be Mann's paper itself, next 3 was same bloke, a McSomeone, like mine only longer. Ware then asserts " .. but Stephen McIntyre" [I'm pretty sure it was McIntyre upon reflection, I'm doubting myself, could this bastard be so dishonest - but at this point, I slip off my trolley, stand up and, regrettably lost my cool, dropping the f-word and stomping out]
I have no idea what happened after that - I'm assured by 3 members of the skeptics that "he is not a denier" - anyone who uses McIntyre to crit Mann's paper is I reckon - but he comes across as pro-science, science loving, "the data is trimmed a bit, we all do it", putting himself on the same level as the climatologists, riffing off their good work to do the doubt the science routine. Apparently, the talk "got better" - how, I have no idea - and it was "well received" by the people there.
I can do open warfare, but this type of treachery from within I'm unarmed. And it bloody well worked too. Hansen and Mann are data-trimming alarmists, then there are deniers and then there are the good pro-science pure-science skeptics.
How does one fight this type of doubt peddling?
(I took off to mum's place, closeby and she put me onto last Catalyst - Bill#73 is right, it was refreshing a show that speaks to actual people who do the science)
@ david
"How does one fight this type of doubt peddling"
you need not to fight this as it is true.
now yourself: do you think you belong to the group of agw church assholes whose only goal is to weaken the economies of first world countries, hein???
the whole and only basis of the rotten AGW ideology is the so called "global temperature", without "global temperature" nothing can be argued by the climate hysterics, especially not by the second hand "climatologists" from the shit eco "sciences" (ecology, ecophysiology, ecochemistry, ecoagticulture, ecomusic, ecopolitology, eco-shit-x ......) of the poor indivuduals here (bbd, chek, bill, bernard, and other joke brothers) about "global warming". these eco blows talk about vegetation shifts on the slopes of their home hills bur have no clue of data from other parts of the world beyond their horizon, local pseudo-science junk only by weak local green activists, nothing more, like phil jones from the cru of east anglia university, who is one of the three local green activists who calculates a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE"
why does phil jones in any of his many publications in global temperature not disclose which temperature stations he had used per year to calculate a mean global temperature for a specific year. why does he hide this information?
any decent and honest scientist who deserves this designation would have published a matrix like the following (example):
———————–1850–1851–1852——-…2012
thermometerA——-Y——Y——-Y———……N
thermometerB——-N——N——-U———……N
thermometerC——-N——Y——-Y———……Y
…….
thermometerLAST——-Y——Y——-U———……N
N = no, Y = yes, U = unavailable
WHY DO THE AGW HYSTERICS HIDE DATA????
Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring... whoopeeee... nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again... everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!... medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron...
Freddy, you're ridiculous.
Dave: may I suggest you don't attend any more things put on the by the Canberra Skeptics? Booking a room at a CSIRO venue does not a climate scientist make.
Have a look at the man's qualifications:
Life's too short...
Freddy - you so should get in front of a CO2 laser. (the alternate reality may protect you - it would be interesting to see)
Bill - I know - but it was mean to to be a talk on pseudo-science of deniers - you're totally right though, life's too short - I bailed after 30minutes of that crap
http://www.meetup.com/SocialSkepticsCanberra/events/118069152/ I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen's 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a "skeptics" lecture - it must've been a test - yet it was all about air temps, not say, the absorption bands that satellites have measured or any of the many other lines of evidence
... ahh - skeptics - skeptics my arse
I must tell of a lecture .. oh 3 years ago now - UNSW Prof Matthew England, I think it was a Sunday of a science week in Sydney, public lecture at the Powerhouse. Meant to go only for an hour - packed - everyone riveted, not a sound for 2 hours solid as a bloke who knew his stuff told us what he did. It had to stop at the 2 hours as the room was booked for something else - all of us could done easy another hour.
But yeah, I'll stick with the qualified men and women.
Yet, the treachery, the snake, the Uriah Heep - claiming to know more than Hansen or Mann because he and McIntyre think them so -- grrrr, gives me the creeps :(
bill, dave
ridiculous that's what YOU are
and at the same time silly enough not to detect this
poor fuckwit morons
ps: thermometer temperature readings and fraudulous calculations of a ridiculous "global temperature" by green activists is far out of your comprehension, idiots
Dave, if the presentation looked like this one:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/123722687/Skepticism-and-the-Climate-Change…
it is not *that* bad. A bit incoherent at places and likely wrong at others, but I have seen far worse.
I see freddykaitroll has moved over here to peddle his false claim that Phil Jones hides which T stations are being used. I already showed him where he can find that information, but for some reason (well, we know which reason it is), freddykaitroll must see the matrix he demands, or someone is hiding the data. This is the type of idiots we are dealing with...
Dave M - to get that dirty taste out of your mouth following the crank lecture, I'd recommend checking out the AGU Chapman lectures online here.
That link goes to Richard Alley's talk posted by Lionel @ #85, and there are several others in the sidebar including 20 minutes from Michael Mann on the hockey stick war.
From this point on I think I will leave 'The Red Queen' in a Punch suite, aka freddy, stamping his feet in the corner and yelling seeing as he still cannot grasp that there are other manifestations of heat than that measured by thermometers.
What an ill-bred he is.
Dave McRae
" I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen’s 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a “skeptics” lecture – it must’ve been a test – yet it was all about air temps,"
Oh deary me David! Did they mention this part about Hanson's
"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot." ...
Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that man had to say after that deceptive tactic he used in 1988.
The alarmist brigade are such a slimy gaggle.
July 7, 2013 Bill said
"Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring… whoopeeee… nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again… everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!… medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron…"
Is this your HOT MICROPHONE moment Bill? :)
Thanks Marco - that's much better - it probably was me being too precious. His presentation yesterday skipped Tyndall, and went from Keeling, and his son, (nepotism whistle?) to Hansen and the alarmed gentleman to his right.
A similar talk, addressing the same issues, was given by Noami Oreskes 2006 - it so rocks http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459 and no mention of alarmed gentlemen in photographs
#82-84
Dissing your own supporters now.
Dave McRae,
Portrait of a galah ?
:) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flaming%20galah
Earth’s heat budget
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/fig_tab/nclimate1863_F2.ht…
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicat…
ht. flaccid Bill :)
You never did show evidence of grasping the concept of context did you Rednoise.
And here we have an example of a previous known unknown:
Antarctic flood produces 'ice crater'.
One way in which Antarctica can lose ice mass.
Have the ostrich brigade ever explored the phase (equilibrium) diagram of water and appreciated how many types of ice there are? I very much doubt it.
Interesting paper published recently.
Oh look what it says in the opening lines:
Now what was that "meaning of hiatus" quoted earlier.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/new-paper-finds-in-retrospe…
The exert from the Nature Climate Change accompanying editorial neer the bottom of the post seems to sum it up quite well.
Doubt it? I'd guarantee it Lionel.
Don't forget we experience the full range of idiocy and dishonesty here.
Take SpamKan here who isn't even aware that from one week to the next we're entering an ice age, then it is warming but it's slowing, or she's having a hiatus. It's like expecting clarity from an epileptic goldfish with Alzheimer's disease.
Note to the trolls.
I (and I'm sure others too) don't click on links to trash denier blogs. If - and it's a mighty big if - you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at.
Thank you.
Karen, please provide evidence that 'Hanson' (we know him better as James E. Hansen) said:
"What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot.”
Since I know you cannot provide such evidence, because I know Hansen did not say that, I expect you to profusely apologise to Jim Hansen for telling porkies.
You better also apologise to *us* for getting your information from Steve Goddard's homepage. It's insulting enough you come here and express all the nonsense you do, it's even worse you just repeat Steve Goddard's idiotic ramblings.
chek#13
The "trash denier blog" you refer to does provide a link to the paywalled original source material where you can read the opening lines which go:
Redarse @ #15
..and if you weren't such an ignorant fuckwit you'd know that "near-surface temperature " does not describe the climate system, being but one single metric, you hiatus-believing cretin.
Then there is Meehl et al 2011
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/abs/nclimate1229.html
Then there is Kaufman et al 2011
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.short
Only a Group 1 Alarmist Dingbat denies this hiatus.
For Cheks benefit, as he seems incapable of following links and would probably have difficulty making his own Mr Sprout Head, the take home quote from the Nature Climate Change Editorial is:
So, why is it that you repeatedly fail to link to original sources yourself. Those sane thinkers around here would no more visit such trash denier blogs than jump in font of a bus.
Just as a pointer to how the meme your are echoing is being broadcast a simple search reveals that it is being pushed by the likes of ClimateDespot, JunketScience, and of course WeUseWishfulThinking.
That in short, tells us all we need to know and that is that information is being taken OUT OF CONTEXT and used for propaganda purposes rather than portraying the truth. As check points out in his #16.
How much are Charles and David paying you to repeat this shite? If nothing then you are a fool twice over.
Once again, go do some frigging homework.
Commander Cheky and his Lost Planet Airheads...."The enemy is in the village, get the Marine Corpsman!"
Brigadier General WMO..."The enemy is hurt?"
Commander Cheky..."No, I might get hurt, we need the Marine Corpsman now!"
Bigadier General WMO...."There's no such thing as a Marine Corpsman, and how do you know the enemy is in the village?"
Commander Cheky...."They look like the enemy!"... "Send us a backup of Airheads!"
General WMO....“Distinguishing between natural villager variability and enemy-induced clothing change will require reconnaissance datasets that are more complete"
Commander Cheky...."They look like the enemy, BOMB the Village!"
General WMO...."Headquarters believes that it is not yet possible to attribute individual village activity to the enemy"
Commander Cheky..."Denier! Bomb the village!"
General WMO....Major General Stott, at our U.K. Headquarters agrees......" It is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to the enemy". We need to wait for more information from Recon, "people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties".
Commander Cheky..."Fuck it! I'm BOMBING the village!"
General WMO..."Are you denying headquarters Cheky?Cheky are you there? Come in Cheky! Check. Check. Cheky?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehB1jSqMlKQ
#19
Because the sources are pay walled and you can't read much of them.
And you link to a site touting Group 1 alarmist propaganda crap
..and so it continues with the ignorati.
Redarse travels back in time to a Nature editorial from June 2011, proving he either didn't read or didn't understand BBD's linksa to Levitus et al or likely both, and doesn't understand that surface temperatures are not the only heat entering the system. Which leaves with no explanation for the record ice melts of 2007 and 2012, or the catalogue of warmest years in the past decade he's already been referred to.
But then we now expect stupidity and refusal to inform themselves from deniers. Which brings us to Betty 'child deniers' Betula who still hasn't grasped the point of conditional sentences and offers his redneck clown show by way of riposte.
What a shower of thickos..
Skeptical Science, like Real Climate, is a site run by publishing scientists regerencing punlished science.
There is precisely zero equivalence with your clownshoe sites Redarse. But your clownshoe denier sites successfully urge dimwits like you to regard them as the 'enemy'. And because you're so stupid, you comply.
What a thicko.
Correcting my all-thumbs typing while eating an unco-operative overfull salad sandwich there.
Enjoy
Now Wooden Top (@ #20) is behaving like a Jap on a remote island who doesn't know the war is over, or all but over as far as The Science not being controversial, see:
here and here and here.
Yes it seems main stream science has accepted the hiatus in the temperature record for years but Group 1 Warmist Dingbats take awhile longer to accept reality.
Betula.
Please answer my question about your remark concerning Peter Stott.
I am keen to confirm your interpretation of Stott's position on climate change.
No - that's an outdated editorial, not a study and as such doesn't account for the events to which you've been referred many times now including the record Arctic melt of summer 2012. Where did that gigantic blast of heat to melt hundreds of gigatonnes of ice come from during your beloved 'hiatus'. Answer - there is no hiatus.and energy entering the Earth's system still exceeds energy radiated out.
In the real world you don't simply ignore what doesn't fit your preconceptions. The 2012 Levitus et al paper does provide the explanation.
Dingbats, Rednoise?
Here you are plonker here is reality as cited by Bill at #75, page 3. Take note of the explanations from working climate scientists.
Also take note of those risking life and limb to collect data, e.g. at sea. That you could nay say the results from this hard, uncomfortable and dangerous work indicates what a disgrace you are. You are indeed beneath contempt. This applies to all the other trolls here.
CMDR Cheky and his Lost Planet Airheads at #13...
"If – and it’s a mighty big if – you have some reputable information to offer, link to the source material and NOT the comic book you found it at."
Did you hear that Deadeye? The CMDR is talking to you!
Hopefully, you won't have to be told again, like I told you at #86.....
"unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant."
We know Betty. It also became clear you couldn't understand it without butchering all the inconvenient bits out of it thus simplifying it in terms your double-digit IQ could comprehend.
That's what's been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren't accepted.
Karen @ number 2 (no pun intended)
You quote What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot
And imply that it's Hansen. But it wasn't was it? So permit me to correct the rest of your post...
Anybody, even with the slightest amount of integrity, would not listen to anything that Karen had to say after that deceptive tactic (s)he used in 2.
The denier brigade are such a slimy gaggle.
Betula.
You appear to have not noticed my post above reminding you of my earlier question regarding your comment about Peter Stott.
Please clarify what you think Stott's position is on the matter of climate change and extreme events.
Congratulations Andy Murray.
A well-deserved win.
Berntard....
"Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role".
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming."
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hansen-study-extreme-weather-tied-to…
After denying the WMO and bombing the villages, CMDR Cheky of The Lost Planet Airheads plead his case to the WMO at his court martial......
"That’s what’s been so funny about your ongoing reminders about it and your constant carping that your facile interpretations weren’t accepted."
Not wanting to let go of that thought process, the Cmdr (in typical unexplained fashion), then broke out in song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8GwjFEnhqc
This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) - two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.
Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.
You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!
:-)
The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references - thanks!
Far too much skipping since last night.
Rednoise - response please:
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Thanks.
All denialist clowns, buffoons and freddy - come on!
According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.
The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:
- 4.5C GAT
- 6W/m^2 forcing
So what’s back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?
4.5 / 6 = ?
Our friendly neighbourhood child denier mentor, Betty Bloop is now projecting so powerfully he's gone into a feedback loop.
Cover your ears, the implosion is imminent.
Betty @ #36
Stop repeating the same old crap which was dealt with on the previous page at # 78:
And which you now oblige me to repeat, yet again, in full:
* * *
Why can’t you understand the words, Betty?
There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating – with considerable supporting evidence – that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.
It’s about the degree of fractional attribution.
You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:
Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.
* * *
I don't know what to say any more chek. Betty's childish refusal to read the fucking words in the WMO report and indeed, elsewhere, amounts to solid evidence either for mental illness or a degree of blatant dishonesty I have rarely encountered.
Bernard @#35
A hard slog and no fluke.
Tbh, I'm no tennis (or sports) fan myself, but I wish my mum who was could have lived to see it. It'd have made her day, so I'm pleased for him on her behalf..
BBD, I know what you mean. I put it down to us witnessing the small print and even smaller minds of those interesting times the Chinese curse bestows.
Bertard @ 35 and Cmdr Cheky @44...
The totality of CO2 emitted by such events....a tragedy.
Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that "winning" an "argument" about "hiatus" actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next - referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).
Let's read the abstract in full:
This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?
Idiot.
* * *
And Rednoise, your preferred source, the Hockey Schtick blogger, is a liar. First, he blatantly misrepresents Guemas et al., then repeats a debunked denialist lie (twice):
The lie debunked (for the nth time):
UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline
LOOK at the data.
Why are you paying any attention to this liar, Rednoise? Are you a gullible prat?
Eh - wrong graph at # 47. Should have been this one:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Deaedeye Dickie..
"Betty’s childish refusal to read the fucking words"
Not only did I read them, I posted them.
For fuck's sake Betty, you may imagine that you're some sort of intellectual sniper, far up the Eiffel Tower armed with a .50 cal., but what you've actually got is a potato gun with a 30ft range. The greatest danger you'll ever present is jaw dislocation from yawning.
# 49
Not like this you didn't:
chek
30 foot range? Let's not get carried away.
What's this "Deadeye Dickie" all about? I don't mind you playing around with my screen name, but I don't understand this one at all.
Deadeye Dickie @ 51 states:
"Not like this you didn’t:"
"While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
Meanwhile, at # 49 of page 3 I posted this....
“While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures"
What's the matter with you deadeye? High speed potato between the eyes?
We know Betty. Then you spent futile hours of your life attempting to rewrite them to comply with your extremely limited comprehension.
"What’s this “Deadeye Dickie” all about?"
This question is proof you don't read posts, you're on automatic response...it's all making sense now.
Asking Betty to explain one of his proud *ahem* comic creations whether half-baked, unbaked or otherwise flat fails, would be like asking him to explain his point in being here. No, not his miserable existence itself, but at Deltoid.
Only in response to my # 38 pointing out what a dishonest quote-miner you are.
I can't believe you just tried that on! You child, you.
# 58 was a reply to Betty's absurd #54:
@ #56
Fine, don't explain the puerile joke.
"Then you spent futile hours of your life attempting to rewrite them to comply with your extremely limited comprehension"
Yet, somehow, I understand what the words "not yet possible" mean...
But not "While".
Or:
Reading comprehension issues seem to be commonplace amongst the contrarian fringe.
What you don't understand, Betty - because you don't want to - is that this is about quantifying fractional attribution.
The scientific position is, yes, certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC, but quantifying the fractional attribution to CC is extremely difficult at present.
Read the words - again.
Deadeye Dickie..
"Only in response to my # 38 pointing out what a dishonest quote-miner you are"
You really are sharp o'l deadeye, except you missed my picking apart the quote at # 55 on pg 2 (in response to Hardley) a full page before your #38...
Only one of the reasons you are known as "Deadeye"...
# 55 pg 2....
Regarding extreme weather events…why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?
1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
Denying climate scientists that is.
2. “they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way”
The same denying climate scientists…
A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?
B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?
C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?
3. “or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change”…..yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change”
4. “Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate
change will also require datasets that are
more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for
detecting temperature changes”
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently”
In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend…. and unlike you, they admit it.
Deadeye...
What part of "not yet possible" do you not understand?
Is it the "likelihood' part? Likelihood - "a probability or chance of something"
Or is it the "probably" part? Probably - "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof"
"presumption but not proof"....which brings us back to "not yet possible".
We're not talking complicated stuff here Dickie.
I can't understand it for you Betty.
No, we're not, though it's blatantly too complex for you Betty.
What you, in your bovine witted way are trying to do is strip the statement down to:
"climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
But what it actually says is (yet again)
: "While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change.
There is a massive difference, and you're incapable of spinning the WMO version to your chopped and altered preferred version.
Although I have tried my best to *explain* it to you. See #62, #63 and #64.
We are now going round in circles. Repeating your parsomatic doesn't make it valid.
This is a tad surreal, chek.
Deadeye...
"certain types of extreme weather events are more common and more intense because of CC"
You do realize they never state the events are more common because of climate change don't you? In fact, the words "are" and "common" aren't even in the quote.
They say there is a "likelihood" and they say "probably"....but they "believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change"
They continue their conclusion by explaining why it is "not yet possible"....
"Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
What do you believe the timeframe should be Dickie? Is 23 days too short?
"This is a tad surreal, chek"
Your crutch?
The NCC editorial is Dated July 2013, maybe you ought to read it again. I know things move fast in climate science but not that fast. Chek and BBD have not got their sprout heads around the hiatus yet.
This offers a plausible explanation for the onset of the warming slowdown, although further work is needed to understand relationships between upper ocean and surface temperatures, and the processes by which heat was buried below the surface. However, the lack of warming beyond 2004 is still not understood7. According to observations8, energy continues to be accumulated through the top of the atmosphere, but has not been taken up by the upper ocean. This leaves the deep ocean as the most likely destination, but this cannot be confirmed because the observational network is too sparse. There is therefore an urgent need for observations of the deep ocean, as well as continued monitoring of energy fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.
#47
Oh look, a hiatus in all these temperature records.
Going up, now comming down
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/plot/gis…
Acknowledged by most as needing some explaining, but not by BBD and Chek, both Group 1 Alarmist Dingbats.
Let's see:
But they have occurred so it's not a question of awaiting them.
That WMO report is dated 2010, and there is ongoing effort to understand the exact mechanisms creating the events, not the events themselves generally which are already predicted by AGW theory.
Grant Foster did a study of heatwaves in a warming system which is worth a read here.
But not you Betty. It's back to studying English as a second language, Chapter 9, understanding conditional sentences for you. Or perhaps More Dishonest Denial for Dishonest Deniers is more up your street.
Tell you what Deadeye...you are going to believe what you want, no matter what the words say. What it boils down to is speculation that can't be proved.
Now, answer the question, regarding a timeframe... The WMO states... "Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”
How long a timeframe do you believe is needed Dickie?
marco fuckwit, why are such an dishonest liar who tries to hide what phil jones was forced to admir in a public hearing, that he had deleted original raw temperature data from the eighties. this is one of the reasons why phil jones hides which temperature stations he had used to calculate his ridiculously flawed "land surface temperature"
i have never heard if such a poor climate scoundrel like you who excuses every bad behavior of his peers regardless how inferior it is. FUCKWIT MORON
Rednoise
I'm still waiting for your response to this repeated question.
By the way, you do understand why I call you Rednoise, I hope?
See the link to Foster's study, then try and comprehend that the past is a resource. So, not the sit around and do nothing for thity years while business as usual proceeds that you're eagerly interpreting it as.
I've asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
chek asshole: you excreted this "AGW theory"
how often is it necessary to teach you stupid what a theory and what a hypothesis is,
now listen again, chek arselick:
AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory
the AGW hypothesis is: "anthropogenic CO2 leads to an increase of the air temperature, as measured by thermometers 2 meters above the ground". THAT'S IT, NOTHING ELSE
your primitive hypothesis text cannot be mixed up with a theory, only plain idiots like you do this, real scientists not
Deadeye at #80..
Does this response mean you won't answer my question at # 76?
For reasonably robust fractional attribution - a couple of decades or perhaps a climatology of 30 years. But this is essentially beside the point. Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn't invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.
Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.
Betty, please don't be so childishly evasive.
Whatever, Freddy.
Read the fracking NCC editorial I have posted at least twice.
bbd asshole: you need some education: earth's climate is principally affected by two factors, which you fuckin moron don't like:
1. THE SUN
2. N2 and O2 which form 99% of the atmosphere
3. WATER (clouds, water vapour, oceans)
everything else including your shitty co2 is IRRELEVANT, did you hear: IRRELEVANT
FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!
I cannot understand why someone who might have been quite bright at one time can now be such a sprout head.
Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition
Deadeye...
"For reasonably robust fractional attribution – a couple of decades or perhaps a climatology of 30 years"
So you're saying you need more time to be sure. Agreed.
Time goes in two directions Betty.
Rednoise
Read my comments and the links they contain. BTW you haven't mentioned your own hilarious self-sabotage with references earlier...
:-)
As for your #88, is that a yes, or a no?
And where's the answer to the question?
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Thanks.
No Betty. That's not what I said. Read the words again:
Uncertainty over fractional attribution doesn’t invalidate the scientific and evidential consensus that only increased RF from CO2 can explain modern warming, including the increase in OHC in all major basins.
Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying.
@ # 87
As ever, fred-fred, sayin' it don't make it so. Even with caps and fucks.
Woodentop, take this pointed out by check:
and then go watch the bell curve explanation bit at about 18:00 here: Extreme Weather. It ain't that hard really for anyone with a modicum of science & maths under their belt.
The harder AGW and CC get to refute the shriller becomes the bozo brigade.
Or just look at the pretty picture.
Betty, you haven't responded to #80 yet.
I’ve asked this of Rednoise a couple of times, but I think I need to ask you too:
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
And we've had no takers for #40 either!
All denialist clowns, buffoons and freddy – come on!
According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.
The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:
- 4.5C GAT
- 6W/m^2 forcing
So what’s back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?
4.5 / 6 = ?
Deadeye...
"Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying"
No, that's not what it is saying. What it say's is, in the absence of climate change, events "probably" would have been different. How different? They "probably" don't know. Or would not occur at all. Would they have occurred? They probably don't know..
What they are saying is that it's not yet possible to know because "Distinguishing between natural climate
variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term"
Pretending that global warming is the cause of every extreme weather event, or that global warming has an effect on every extreme weather event (an effect that can't be quantified) without more datasets and time is nonsensical.
Betty, we've been through that. Fruitlessly.
Let's return to the fundamentals of our disagreement.
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Deadeye...
"I cannot understand the basis of your denial"
You are the one who labels me a denier, when you figure out what you base this on, then you will understand yourself.
"your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended."
I simply post the words of the scientists, words from you et al. and words in the articles you link.... words you don't want to see or hear. You proved you don't see them at #51.
"how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?"
Show me where we had this argument?
Are you beginning to see how delusional you are?
No, Betty..
Why do you think that the rapid and sustained increase in RF from CO2 is having and will have no discernible effect on climate and weather?
bbd arse: " blah blah blah .... the rapid and sustained increase in RF from CO2 ... blah blah blah ....."
SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!
Freddy: why do you mention water vapour in your list?
Jeezus, Betty's going in to zen stealth denier mode.
This will certainly be fun coming from one so farcically stupid, Grasshopper..
Freddy: Is it at all possible that you mentioned water vapour for its "greenhouse gas" properties?
If so:
- how do you know it has these properties?
- what's the significance of Oxygen and Nitrogen making up 99% of the atmosphere, as they are not GHGs? How do they have such a big influence on the climate as you claim in #87 on page 4?
You didn't ask "freddy" to count to 2.
"2 factors"
=
TEH SUN
O2
N2
H2O
These people are skydragons. By which I refer to all our regular antagonists - trolls are the people least likely to actually grasp the basic physics, probability, statistics or nuance, and most likely to cling to a narrative that sees their emeritus or unqualified Davids bringing down the giant of actual, um, Science.
Even Watts - and OhLordy! Bonckers - now label them crazy. But they really, really think that, say, Tim Curtin's going to turn out to be right, because plots in Hollywood movies...
Freddy/Oily/Batty/Spammyworld reality is that of the noddies who feel vindicated by the volume - audible and numerical - of squawking on talkback radio. They conflate passionate conviction with evidenced knowledge.
bill arselick, your usual hateful blah blah blah
the guant is truth and reality AND NOT YOUR RIDICULOUS FRAUDULENT COMPUTER GAMES, GCMS, WHICH WERE EVEN TOTALLY INCOMPETENT TO PROJECT 15 YEARS OF THE CURRENT STAGNATION OF RIDICULOUSLY UPWARDS CALCULATED FRAUDULENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
CAGW ASSHOLE IDEOLOGIST FUCKWITS
@craig bollocks monger
i did not know that you are able to count ....
hahaha, hahaha, bravo, fuckwit
Re: #10
Hilariously, over at Coby's place freddykaitroll claims _I_ have fits of hatred and anger...
@bbd jeff bernard chek etc shit mudders
you assholes base your eco bio shit on a faked ideolgy of not proven human climate change (virtual reality of computer games deceive you idiots)
# 13
Scientific reference required!
See here. Data and full publication index (end of page).
CO2 monitoring data here.
Forcings and GAT:
GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).
Speaks for itself, really.
- Well-mixed GHGs
WTF does this mean in English? Anyone?
Freddy, of all the broken souls here that inhabit denial, you are the most broken of all.
BBD#92
So now we have established that peer reviewed papers by bona fide climate scientists have recognised the hiatus in the temperature record, according to the rules of this (very) amateur debating circle which you outlined earlier, I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.
Also doing a quick google scholar search for "hiatus in the temperature record" produces 26800 hits. So using a Cookie style analysis (details of which I will not reveal as you will only want to find fault with it) I can now proclaim confidently that I have agreement from 97% of all scientists.
In fact its bleeding obvious to anybody with half a brain and a partly functioning eyeball.
Logically therefore Group 1 chicken shit little dingbat Alarmists such as BBD and Chek who continue to deny this hiatus do not.
(This was posted yesterday but for some reason probably not unrelated to celebratory champers for our rugger buggers plus 'Murraymint' it went into the June box.)
Hello, little Deltoids! You will notice that I have waited until this afternoon before posting because, of course, on Sunday mornings you all gather in the Chapel to chant things like “I belieeeeve! I belieeeeve” and I am always a great respecter of religion.
But, I wanted to say ‘thank you’ for this dose of global warming we’re all enjoying. Well, I know we’re not supposed to actually ‘enjoy’ it but the fact is that most of us do and the only problem for the last 15 or so years is that we haven’t had any!
Perhaps, next Sunday when you go to Chapel you could pray to the great Mann-God for a bit more global warming, well, I mean, he keeps forecasting it but somehow it never quite happens. Anyway, sorry to interrupt, carry on chanting!
What in the name of fuck are you going on about you delusional pillock?
All I have ever said to you - and the other denialati here - is that the rate of surface warming has slowed, but the rate of OHC increase in the 0 - 2000m layer of the world ocean has not.
All I have said is that climate basic #1 is:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
"Global warming" continues exactly as expected at the climate system level.
Are you so stupid and so painfully climate-illiterate that you do not understand that you have no argument at all?
You can stuff this particularly crude and stupid strawman right back where it came from.
Prat.
Rednoise,
I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.
You wish.
The strange thing is I have just Google scholar searched on the precise text string, in quotes, "hiatus in the temperature record" and got only one hit to this:
Space and time scales of mesoscale motion in the western North Atlantic.
So I guess you used the string without the quotes. Indeed doing just this I did get lots of hits but the big question is, do they all support your case? Just a cursor glance down the lists suggest not.
You are now looking like Admiral Charlie 'B'(eresford) after his spat with the Admiralty and Admiral Jacky Fisher where Charlie bragged about winning his case. Charlie's pumped up opinion has been recognized as the result of delusion - ref. e.g. works by Arthur Marder.
Why is this, because you still refuse to acknowledge that near surface temperatures are not the only metric of global heat build up and this has been pointed out to you with copious examples and references.
You are either being willfully ignorant or dishonest, or both.
Thinking of Google, there was notice this weekend of this: Is Google Funding Climate Science Denial? Jim Inhofe Fundraiser Planned For July 11.
I sense that Rednoise is once again battling with his reading comprehension issues. Let's help him get a clue:
* * *
#38 previous page:
This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) – two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.
Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.
You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!
:-)
The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references – thanks!
* * *
#39 previous page:
Rednoise – response please:
Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.
All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.
Remember climate basic # 1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Make a note for future reference.
* * *
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Thanks.
* * *
#47 previous page:
Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that "winning" an "argument" about "hiatus" actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next - referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).
Let's read the abstract in full:
This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?
Idiot.
* * *
#23 and #22
Appreciate your attempts to second guess a methodology which is kept secret. Full marks for trying
Unfortunately you are incorrect :-)
Strawman
The original argument started with Shrek was "recognising the hiatus in the temperature record".
This recognition has been shown in peer reviewed papers and you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
So by your rules I am the winner.
You are a poor loser BBD ;-)
Anyway no time to start another argument, packing for a french trip.
Au Revoir
Rednoise.
Aha! Now you are behaving like the High Seas Fleet on June 1st 1916, running away and yet still claiming victory.
Pathetic.
As BBD has pointed out, besides other metrics considered, a slow down in warming, over a comparatively short time frame, does not constitute a hiatus. If you owe large sums of money and are paying off with interest a reduction in interest rates does not mean a stop in interest payments unless you pay off the sum borrowed.
Similarly, it is impossible to have a stop in warming until the human forcings have ceased AND the incoming-outgoing energy balance has been restored i.e. equilibrium has been achieved. This is basic physics as explored by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and many others since.
Marco @ #12. Yes freddy is a real class act - only prized for entertainment value but with an act where he can only step in the paint bucket a few times before it all becomes tedious.
But isnt it a relief when the mortgage payments go down when the interest rate falls. Arent you glad of this hiatus.
Didn't know you had such a nautical background. Are you related to Seaman Stanes who operated the bucket used to gather that early information about sea temperatures. Was it true he could measure to 0.001C at depths of over 700m.
What a legend?
Rednose.
I see that you imagine for yourself some basic competence in science and in statistical analysis.
Your climate change-denying brethren here, headed by the dissembling Betula, have each been too scared to answer some fundamental questions that underpin your ignorant claim of no warming.
Are you able to address them in defense of your uninformed comment?
There has been no interruption, break or pause in warming, by any metric. The rise has been slower than previously anticipated, due to the effects of unknown knowns, but it has not stopped.
You are constructing strawmen and being a dishonest little shit, Rednoise.
When are you going to muster up the courage to respond to this?
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
Instead of crap strawmen and lies, let's have some engagement out of you, you dishonest little shit.
Betula.
I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing - twisting the scientific description of attribution into a semantic caricature that attempts to arrive at a conclution in contradiction to the scientific understanding. His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening.
Others above have already smacked you about for your signature dodging and weaving. It's astonishing to see your antics, really... If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers' instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it's no wonder that you are an ex-Marine... an inability to understand the meaning of a statement is a dangerous thing in a person holding a gun - or an opinion...
So, in your own words, can you go back and finally answer those original questions that seek to establish your understanding of the statistical processes used to identify warming.
After you have done so, can you describe in your own words what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming, and can you describe what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming?
Cue the usual deafening silence.
What is it about deniers and their delusional quest for easy answers?
At the risk of giving Birch an excuse for jumping over Bernard J's direct questions here is another presentation by meteorologist Stu Ostro from which our resident numpty brigade could learn much, probably only if they open their closed little minds.
In addition to my #36 above at 20:200 in the presentation Stu Ostro mentions where all his 1072 slides are. I'll make it easier for those with learning difficulties by providing a full URL here to the PDF file.
Jennifer Francis at 39:40 at the presentations linked to above and here again makes the point that, '...if you calculate how much heat went into the Arctic Ocean just last summer in the areas where there used to be ice it is about enough energy to power the entire United States for twenty five years.
A hiatus in warming, no way. Have the muppets here any idea of how much heat energy it takes to melt a given mass of ice compared to heat the same mass of water through one degree Celsius?
Check out the concepts of latent heat and heat capacity, when you have done that you will appreciate the huge difference between the heat quantities involved in melting ice and changing water's temperature. Once again, investigate the phase diagram of water - a good text on Physical Chemistry will help here.
Lionel @ #38 I've asked the same question multiple times and all our fake sceptics avoid it like the plague.
I assume they have no answer because it hasn't been can't be convincingly accounted for within the hiatus meme.
The gnomic Jonarse did try some half-hearted bollocks through his pet SwedTroCollFarm hands that it was a 'regional' effect, and therefore not global, but the GRACE data and WGMS data blow that nonsense out of the water.
The rest of the trolls have no answer, because there isn't one.
That they can't even attempt one is to me a clear indication they know they're promoting a lie.
chek arseblower, false assumption
your agw "logic" is utterly primitively simplistic, like "in the toilet your shit falls down, do you believe it or you think that physics is not valid because my shit falls upwards, hein
@ #40
What exactly is "utterly primitively simplistic"? Please reference your argument!!!!!
@bbd arselickhappy, your baby logic reveals the full primitivity of your brain function, your dirty text :
$£¥£$£¥£$£¥
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?
I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.
Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?
Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
$£¥£$££$££¥$£
"I cannot understand the basis of your denial": BECAUSE YOUR EDUCATION LEVEL IS LOW, YOUR INFORMATION LEVEL IS MISERABLE, AND YOUR COMPREHENSION LEVEL IS A CATASTROPHE, your testimony that you cannot understand speaks for itself: i do not wonder that you don't understand
"For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended": TYPICAL AGW ARSELICKER SHIT: as AGW in electron microscopic, hence totally irrelevant dimensions only happens because of deforestation, house heatings during, hot waste air from cars, airplanes and industry, but undiscernible by falsely called green house gases (the atmosphere is no greenhouse, you fool), the laws of physics apply, but AGW - as explained by me to you above - is so tiny that it cannot be measured, bbd fuckwit. hence in conclusion: physics works, but AGW not.
hahahaha, hahahaha, you always lose the argument because you are a fool, bbd asshole cleaning vermin
hahahahagaha, HA!
Poor Prof. Freddy Fuckwit doesn't know what he means - he only knows he's against it.
But, whichever way you cut it or squint at it, increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat's entering the system to melt more and more ice, and there's no stalling whatsoever.
@chek whistleblower
"increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat’s entering the system to melt more and more ice"
WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE: 99% of the relevant cryosphere is antarctica and greenland: no significant ice melting. arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean. agw is completely unmeasurable, so tiny is it. what we see is all weather: weather always changes, it changed constantly over more than 4 billion years with or without humans, and will do so also in the future, you tiny asshole fuckwit
Hey Freddy, if AGW turns out not to be true, I have another theory that I'll gift to you. Gratis.
It could be that worldwide production of cars, buses, trucks, monster trucks - and some of those fuckers have big, I mean really big, like big fuck off giant wheels and has now reached such a mass production volume that all the air pumped into all those tyres under pressure - very high pressure in some cases - is lowering the sky thus bringing the sun closer. Hence the warming.
Of course, it sounds insane but I'd argue no more and maybe even less insane than a trace gas which not only warms up an entire planet, but sustains an entire taxonomy.
I mean, how does it find the time?
I asked for a *referenced* response, freddy. Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. I could justifiably strike through your comment, but I just can't be bothered.
lionnel sock puppy, your mommy prepared your meal now, so go first to the toilet
apart from copy paste have you arse anything learned in your poor life?
chek, your last "contribution" clearly reveals that you are an idiot
bbd asshole, again wrong, how surprising, irony off
YOU MUST REFERENCE WHAT YOU CLAIM, ALL THE WRONG ASSERTIONS OF YOUR CLIMATE CHURCH
YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU ASSERT THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED IN THE REAL WORLD: YOU FUCKWIT MUST REFERENCE AT LEAST ONE SINGLE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES THE ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2. YOU MUST REFERENCE, BECAUSE YYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUU ASSERT, NOT ME, YOU UTTERLY STINKING FUCKWIT ASSHOLE
You asked for references at #4 and I provided them at #15 and #16.
You are claiming that "agw “logic” is utterly primitively simplistic", by which you fundamentally mean the laws of physics.
Please explain why, and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is "utterly primitive and simplistic" with references to the published literature.
Otherwise, it is just argument by assertion, aka blah.
Try it without caps and fucks. Stretch yourself a little.
#46
:-)
bbd
arrogant asshole without substance
YOU MUST DELIVER WHAT I EXPLAINED TO YOU: SHOW ME ONE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES YOUR SHITTY DAMNED ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2
YOU ALWAYS MIX SOMETHING VERY FUNDANENTAL UP TO HIDE YOUR UNTENABLE SCIENTIFIC STANCE:
YOUR AGW CHURCH ASSERTS HUMAN GLOBAL WARMING, BUT CANNOT PROVE IT IN REALITY.
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU
MMMMMMMUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSTTTTTTT
PPPPPPPPPPPRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFF
YYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUURRRRRRRR
CCCCCCCCCCCCLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIMMMMM
ASSHOLE
bbd arselick
where is your reference to a paper of a measurement IN REALITY of co2 sensitivity??????
SHOW IT
PROVE IT
WHERE IS THE PROOF
DON'T BE LAZY
SHOW THAT YOU CAN DELIVER (no computer game results accepted)
YOU MUST DELIVER BECAUSE YOU ASSERT
Rohling et al. (2013)
Now, in return, please explain and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is “utterly primitive and simplistic” with references to the published literature.
Freddy, why aren't you able to read and understand the references you've been pointed to?
Why are you so scared of reading the evidence that you instead demand proof like an ignorant toddler?
Why are you uncapable of providing reasons that would show this is wrong, for instance without resorting to your trademark ranting all caps assertions and argumentum ex fuckwit.
Uncapable?
Christ.
bbd asshole, you are in big problems because the cited article does not provide ab exact measurement of co2 sensitivity
since you have not read or understood the Rohling article, i cite subsequently some important parts:
$£¥£$£¥£$£¥$
Characterizing the complex responses of climate to changes in the radiation budget requires the definition of climate sensitivity: this is the global equilibrium surface temperature response to changes in radiative forcing (an alteration to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth–atmosphere system) caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Despite progress in modelling and data acquisition, uncertainties remain regarding the exact value of cli- mate sensitivity and its potential variability through time. The range of climate sensitivities in climate models used for Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Assessment Report 4 (IPCC-AR4) is 2.1–4.4 K per CO2 doubling1, or a warming of 0.6–1.2 K per W m–2 of forcing. Observational studies have not narrowed this range, and the upper limit is particularly difficult to estimate2.
Large palaeoclimate changes can be used to estimate climate sensi- tivity on centennial to multi-millennial timescales, when estimates of both global mean temperature and radiative perturbations linked with slow components of the climate system (for example, carbon cycle, land ice) are available (Fig. 1). Here we evaluate published estimates of climate sensitivity from a variety of geological episodes, but find that intercom- parison is hindered by differences in the definition of climate sensitivity between studies (Table 1). There is a clear need for consistent definition of which processes are included and excluded in the estimated sensitivity, like the need for strict taxonomy in biology. The definition must agree as closely as possible with that used in modelling studies of past and future climate, while remaining sufficiently pragmatic (operational) to be applicable to studies of different climate states in the geological past.
Here we propose a consistent operational definition for palaeoclimate sensitivity and illustrate how a tighter definition narrows the range of reported estimates. Consistent intercomparison is crucial to detect sys- tematic differences in sensitivity values—for example, due to changing continental configurations, different climate background states, and the types of radiative perturbations considered. These differences may then be evaluated in terms of additional controls on climate sensitivity, such as those arising from plate tectonics, weathering cycles, changes in ocean circulation, non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), enhanced water- vapour and cloud feedbacks under warm climate states. Palaeoclimate data allow such investigations across geological episodes with very dif- ferent climates, both warmer and colder than today. Clarifying the dependence of feedbacks, and therefore climate sensitivity, on the back- ground climate state is a top priority, because it is central to the utility of past climate sensitivity estimates in assessing the credibility of future climate projections1,3.
$£¥£$£¥££¥££¥
YOU FOOL, BBD, ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AS ARE UNABLE TO INTERPRET WHAT THE AUTHORS SAID. the article estimates and calculates paleodata from other studies, you idiot. there are no own observations but plenty of speculations about co2 sensitivity
THEREFIRE YOU MISSED YOUR TASK TO REFERENCE AN ARTICLE WHICH PROVDES UNEQUIVOCAL AND PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OF CO2 SENSITIVITY
YOU MUST TRY AGAIN, SINCE YOU DID A LOUSY JOB
chek asshole, your last 3 postings don't contain any reasonable content
TRY AGAIN
chek and bbd dwarfs
can it really be that i am confronted here with absolutely ignorant people who have no clue what the content of an original scientific article is
You have references for RF per gas (#15) and atmospheric sampling (#16). You have the thorough intercomparison of paleoclimate estimates of S in Rohling et al.
I'm still waiting for you to provide a referenced argument contradicting everything the laws of physics make CO2 molecules do. When they can find the time.
No.
This needs a word:
The fun thing is, nobody knows. Even more hilariously, few who understand the basics even care.
You can see from paleoclimate behaviour 65Ma - present that the climate system is sensitive to radiative forcing on all timescales.
And the most likely value for S hovers around the canonical 0.75W/m^2
there are no own observations but plenty of speculations relevant calculation of ranges about co2 sensitivity
Fixed that little stupidity for you Freddy.
Of course it will be a bit less or a bit more, but it won't make any real difference. That's why few who understand the basics even care.
That should be:
The most likely value for S hovers around the canonical 0.75C per W/m^2.
never wrestle with a pig...
Pages 2K joins the Hockey League. Coprolalic agnotophiles more disenfrachised than ever. Suck it up, skuzzballs.
Freddy @ #45
Freddy, freddy freddy. Were you unable to understand the GRACE mass loss measurements from Antarctica I previously posted to correct your same false and stupidly easy to refute point?
Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods.
Or perhaps this article on the Antarctic giant melt crater will cure your incredibly ill-informed, malformed ignorance.But we all know that's never gonna happen.
There's more on the GIS (that's the bit on the land) and the instability around the West Antarctic coast glaciers when those ice shelves disintegrate. But that's enough to stuff a sock in your dumb mouth for a while.
Freddy still didn't say where all the water came from in the Eemian. Although asked several times for his opinion.
WTFUWT?
Berntard....
"I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing"
You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done...
"He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming.”
And then you state this...
"His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening"
What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?
And this...
"If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers’ instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it’s no wonder that you are an ex-Marine…"
Why is it you treat all your "ifs" as fact Berntard.? Isn't that a difficult way to go thru life? Why don't you tell me what research and advice I have misrepresented...
For example, why don't you tell me what I misrepresented in posting Stott's own view?
And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard....with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?
I realize you like to think of yourself as the demanding teacher 24/7 Berntard, but your questions serve no purpose to what I've been saying all along, and which you are misrepresenting. I have never denied Global Warming....you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases, sort of like this blog.
Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change "first hand"...you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn't read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it....a cop out to protect your like minded buddy....it was too difficult for you to read the article, yet you demand I answer your 20 questions. Now, go to the back of the class, you're berntardy.
If you want to talk noise and signals, this blog is the perfect example. There is plenty of fluctuating noise on this blog on a daily basis, but long term I have picked up on a recurring trend...
The Deltoid trend is this.... the timescale needed for a trend depends on the Deltoidian making the point...
For Hardley, the timescale needed to experience climate change "fist hand" and see shifting zones "for real" is only 23 days and frostbite, with no challenge from the peanut gallery.
For Deadeye Dickie, he completely bypasses the section of the WMO report (as do others) regarding a timescale needed to detect a trend in extreme weather and climate events. For Dickie, the time is now.
The WMO states:
“Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade
is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes”
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently"
These are not my words, they are the words in the WMO conclusion. Words that apparently you and others deny, yet somehow, I am the denier for posting them..
Here's the truth Berntard, the Deltoid "signal" stinks of bias...
Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?
If you don't know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).
OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.
You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can't ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is...
Betula, I don't treat my "ifs" as fact. If</i> they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.
If</i> that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.
Open book, 'phone a friend, ask the thread - whatever works for you.
All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.
Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?
I remember my response very well. let's recap on that, whilst we're at it - you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff's group "...experienced climate change at first hand", to which I responded:
There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word "if" which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.
You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:
Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word "if" which seems to bug the hell out of you.
You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the "bias" is that you imagine is present in climatology.
So, once more - is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?
Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?
If you don't know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).
OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.
You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can't ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is...
Betula, I don't treat my "ifs" as fact. If</ they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.
If</ that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.
Open book, 'phone a friend, ask the thread - whatever works for you.
All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.
Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?
I remember my response very well. let's recap on that, whilst we're at it - you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff's group "...experienced climate change at first hand", to which I responded:
There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word "if" which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.
You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:
Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word "if" which seems to bug the hell out of you.
You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the "bias" is that you imagine is present in climatology.
So, once more - is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?
@nochek
NO, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU JUST CHERRYPICK
@chek arseblow
GRACE satellite DATA
REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!!
you know the accuracy of these satellite data???????
NO YOU DONT, BECAUSE YOU WANT CHERRY PICKING
Freddy, you are the most pathetic wretch I've had the misfortune to encounter online.
Remember; the fact that your own fellow-travellers cynically see you as a 'useful idiot' is also an acknowledgement that you' are just that - an idiot.
Bernard,
Excellent response to Mr. John Birch.
He's wrung just about every conceivable metaphorical drop he can from an online article I did not write but which appeared on our NIOO web site. This alone reveals he has no facts to support his vacuous arguments; he relies on this and will forever as far as Deltoid is concerned.
Several weeks ago I linked to at least 10 studies which show recent rapid biotic responses to warming - and Betula's reply was to go back to Algonquin Park again. He really thinks he's on a winner here, so why switch to discuss actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that undermine his arguments? I could also gladly refer to a recent PhD thesis over here which points out the effects of increased atmospheric C02 and temperature on soil communities but he is not interested. I realized that his knowledge of environmental science is at grade-school level when he flippantly remarked that ecosystems where he lives are in a good state on the basis of three appallingly simple examples. He wisely never went back to that, as the rug had been pulled out from under him big time. No, instead it was back to a NIOO article that I personally did not write, even if I do accept responsibility for it. That's his Alamo. His last stand. As the Mexican army overwhelms him, Betula acts like a modern day Davy Crockett, holding on until the last moment.
Betty still denying that he's a denier...
Freddy the Fuckwit™ still not saying where that ~6m of extra ocean came from during the Eemian...
Ho-hum.
Neither has Professor Fuckwit© explained what he means by 'cherrypicking' GRACE data.
Just common-or-garden ignorant denial, as expected.
chek - sorry about the look-and-feel infringement there ;-) Have the legal bods sort it out and I'll buy you a pint.
I wondered what ™ © was on about wrt "cherry-picking" GRACE. He's a rum 'un, is our fred-fred.
The main thing is we've got both Fred's handles covered, so n.p., BBD.
I do wonder though how long these ... er ... people think their denial can remain tenable, given that it's been a creaky old shack shifting on its foundations for some time now.
The grim pathology of denial is such that as the evidence mounts, the rejectionism becomes stronger and stronger. LIke a number of... observers, I strongly suspect that the focus will shift away from physics denial to attacking any and every policy response. Different tune, same song: no-no-no-no-no...
freddy
Before you thump the keyboard perhaps you should spend a little time in understanding which argument you are replying to. With respect to heat absorption then Arctic Sea Ice is extremely relevant. The only metric that Arctic sea ice dos not affect directly is rise in sea level.
Now go back up to my #40 and watch the presentation linked to there.
Now, if you had been following the posts in this thread, with their many helpful links to easily digestible information, you would not be behaving in so transparently an ignorant manner.
What is it with you, is English not your first language or is it that you skipped classes at school. Maybe you were home-schooled, a poor little rich kid maybe, such demonstrable ignorance and illiteracy is often a product of that.
This is Fred-fred's way of avoiding the issue and signalling the SpamKan's and PantieZ et al that there's no case to answer as SLR isn't a problem.
You're not supposed to point out the knock on effects on weather systems Lionel, or that it's the indication of a vast amount of heat entering the Earth system, or what that heat may do once the polar ice is no longer there to absorb it.
Denial is all about pretending there's no problem.
hey nochecking, wrong: there is no additional energy beside radiation from the sun, fuckwit
You're correct of course Freddy, a lazy term of expression on my part meant to indicate the imbalance.
Yes, fred-fred. We grasp that. But we are talking about what happens when the radiative profile of the atmosphere is altered, reducing the efficiency of energy loss to space. That's why it's called "radiative imbalance".
When you come out with these little gems you emphasise how poorly you understand the very basics of physical climatology.
chek #91 we crossed - sorry.
bill @ #72
I hadn't realised that PAGES 2K confirmed the MBH98/99 "handle" to such an extent.
MBH must have been pleased, given the cess that's been flung at the HS over the years. This deserves a wide audience. I hope it gets one.
Good to see you're on the ball BBD, although I hardly think Freddy-fred's in a position to nit-pick at this point (other than ineffectual nit-pickery being one consistent definition of denial through the years).
freddy in #47 you mentioned the Antarctic well it just so happens that beside the Antarctic flood produces 'ice crater' mentioned at least twice in this thread we now see that Pine Island glacier produces giant iceberg.
Have you any idea of the effect on glacier flow dynamics of large chunks of ice like this breaking off. So that is West Antarctic and East Antarctic displaying cryospheric instability in a short space of time.
What is behind this, a build up of heat in the system or aliens? Think back up thread about latent heat eh!
If this has been figured out, please let me know, but I'm curious where our little new scatological brain-damaged friend is from. I think I spotted a 'Hein' up there, which would suggest a Frenchy... although with his massive inferiority complex, a Wallon seems more likely.
Eemian MSL highstand was at least 5m above present MSL. Global average temperature during the Eemian was ~1C - 2C warmer than the Holocene Hansen & Sato (2012)
The NEEM project results (Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013) indicate less contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) to the Eemian MSL highstand. Not more than ~2m; perhaps less.
A major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) apparently contributed ~3m - 4M more. Where else could the water have come from?
It's even possible that the contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) was greater than previously thought.
Stu, Swiss-German.
He hasn't commented on the Arctic Sea ice "recovery" lately.
I wonder why that is?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Looks like "freddy"'s "recovery" is as reliable a fact as anything else he spouts.
@ Stu
Yes, I noticed that "hein" and there seems little doubt that fred-fred is battling courageously with English and that, though nothing else, does him credit.
But who cares about the details? He's a monster from the id.
:-)