“Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan”
Readers at home should be made aware that chek is attempting to push a cartoon as evidence that the variable energy from the sun does not change temperature, lol
Readers at home should also be made aware that the catoon that chek offers up is drawn by a failed cartoonist
Here is a science paper for you chek………………….
Long-term Variations in Solar Activity
and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate
The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series.
Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist.
A corresponding influence of solar activity has been demonstrated in other climatic parameters. Thus, both the date of arrival of spring in the Yangtze River Valley as deduced from phenological data and the extent of the sea-ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea have been shown to be correlated with the length of the sunspot cycle during the last 450 years.
70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
Oh deary me, lol I forgot the link http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
I am sure everybody would luv to read the paper in it’s entirety, enjoy
hehehehe, chek has run away and put his thick head under a rock again
You might like to notice how your claimed paper truncates its data in order to omit the modern era, SpamKan.
But then again,.reality isn’t your thing, is it.
“But then again,.reality isn’t your thing, is it.”
lol, you say that after you offered up a cartoon
Deadeye @ 91…
“I’m off on holiday tomorrow, so no more for a week”
Of course he’ll be vacationing locally to keep his carbon footprint down….
Graph, cartoon, graphic – it’s visual data SpamKan, simplified so that even a moron like you can comprehend …. something in that vacant lot you call your mind.
Greenland ice core 1550-1974
“Dansgaard et al. (1975) compared temperature variations derived from the 18-O concerntration in snow fallen in Central Greenland with temperatures in Iceland through the interval 900-1970. They concluded that most of the pronounced medium frequency (60ï 200 yr periods) oscillations back to 900 are essentially in phase, so that the 18-O curve is representative of climatic changes far beyond the Greenland area. In accordance with their conclusion we show in Fig.11 that the temperature data derived from the ice-core in Central Greenland like the variation of sea-ice extent at Iceland have varied in concert with the medium length solar activity during most of a 500 year period. ”
What is it that JefFeRy say’s ?
Was it something to do with ‘scale’ ?
A new climate science paper
Reviewing the effect of CO2 and the sun on global climate
“This paper discusses the effect of the greenhouse phenomenon and CO2 on global climate and suggests that numerical models that lack adequate knowledge of fundamental related factors cannot be used to extract “sound” conclusions. A very basic demonstration of this is done through a simple comparison between estimates of the forecast for global temperature increase obtained by various independent studies. Observing the global temperature and the CO2 atmospheric concentration though the geological aeons implies no obvious correlation. Physical observation on other planets like Mars and Venus, needing no numerical modeling, demonstrates the effect of the atmospheric-CO2 partial pressure on the temperature of the atmosphere. Moreover the CO2 role as a factor of danger or a benefactor for life is also addressed. On the other hand the role of the sun in the presently observed global warming has been greatly underestimated. Scientific evidence shows that the orbit of the earth and the Milankovitch cycles greatly affect the climate. A discussion follows pointing out the prime role that the sun should have on the earth’s climate with regard to solar cycles’ activity and irradiance, cosmic rays and cloud formation. The conclusion drawn here is that a natural signal of solar forcing has been mistakenly overlooked for an anthropogenic change, maybe owing to their quite similar effects on climate. For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth’s complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn.”
Define ‘Greenland ice core 1550-1974’ for me SpamKan, before you explain what it has to do with disappearing Arctic sea ice?
Quick answer – you haven’t a fucking clue you dumb bimbo copy/paster..
oh…..the linkie thingamajig
Yes, but when Hardley talks scale, 23 days is sufficient.
It will be lovely to have a holiday from BBD, lol
Karen @ 10…
“For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth’s complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn.”
Science denying scientists!
Stuffed as usual when you’re asked for explanation of how your whacky thought processes work, eh SpamKan?
No surprise there from someone who started out as a moron, but was found to be under qualified even for that.
And what do all the other papers published this year say, clowns?
Surely even you must be niggling aware of what hypocrites you are.
‘Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Oh, look, one result I like, science! Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. ‘
We already know the concept of ‘context’ is way above your head, Betty.
But never mind, a cretin like SpamKan won’t allow a simple thing like intelligence to get in the way of intent.
Oh lookie what bob’s up up and down when you flush the toilet
a chek, lol
BBD reminds me of Barney Fife….only angry. The bumbling Deputy of Deltoid….a true “Deadeye Dickie.”
Bill @ 17…
“And what do all the other papers published this year say, clowns? Surely even you must be niggling aware of what hypocrites you are”
“Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science”….etc.
Never said any such thing Bill. How about an example? Should be easy for you…
I’ve been reading Deltoid for a few years, along with a number of other blogs including RealClimate and DeSmogBlog. I’ve never posted previously as I have no relevant scientific education past high school and therefore don’t have any expertise to bring to the table.
In relation to the postings of Betula, Karen, mike, Freddy, GSW, Olaus Petri et al, I just wanted to say that if you think that anything you have said thus far will convince the average person of the veracity of your position/s, you are sadly mistaken.
Jeff, BBD, Chek, Lionel, Bernard J, Craig, adelady and everyone else, thank you for continuing to correct the pseudo-scientific misinformation circulated here and elsewhere. I am sure that I’m not the only person who is appreciative of your efforts.
Oh lookie what bob’s up up and down when you flush the toilet
Oh, I’d have thought it might be your latest miscarriage
… of ideas, such as a credible answer (that holds .. ahem … water) to my question @ #11.
how very tacky, cheky
I couldn’t find anything in the literature that discusses melting of the Antarctic ice sheet as a consequence of solar activity ?
There is no warming in the Antarctic.
It is looking like another bumper crop actually
Irony is only what iron things feel like to you, ain’t it SpamKan.
And we already covered Antarctic melt for Freddy Fuckwit’s benefit earlier in the thread, so you’re wrong there too.
Don’t worry though, as soon as a SpamKan post appears, it’s taken as read that it’s wrong. It’s your speciality.
ARCTIC ICE FREE
…….in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.
….in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
hmmmm…….a double post ?
That idiot barnturd normally does that, lol
Hi Karen, good effort , you have singlehandedly taken over the place.
I don’t see any of the old crowd, so maybe I’ll get past the gatekeeper. If so, I will return.
Yeh, Karen has sure taken over the place fatso with her willful ignorance and abuse of the peer-reviewed literature.
The question, of course, is not whether there were ice-free periods in the Arctic in the past – of course there were – but how long it took to get there. And it certainly took more than half a century or less to change from the conditions of the 1970s to where it is now. We are talking about comparing mesocosms and microcosms – something the abusers of science do all the time. You’ll also be hard pressed to find any of the authors whose work Karen routine distorts who would disagree with me and who would therefore not consider the present situation to be a serious one. I should know – unlike Karen, who clearly hasn’t ever been within a sniff of a scientific conference or even a lecture theater, I have, and I have met and discussed these kinds of papers with the authors themselves. And they are well aware of potential consequences of processes that naturally take many, many hundreds or even many thousands of years being boiled down into half a century or less. And they would distance themselves by miles from the distortions if morons like Karen who clearly exhibit all of the pathological signs of the infamous Dunning-Kruger effect. You too, Gordo.
Again, as I and others have posted here many times, climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists are, for the most part, clueless non scientists who are pushing other agendas. People like Karen would be eaten up and spat out in the halls of academia. Thats; why they end up on blogs. In this way they are intellectual detritus.
St Cyr: Many thanks for your kind words. We keep trying. The only reason I expend my efforts on Deltoid (rarely on other blogs) is that I think scientists have the responsibility to counter disinformation on important environmental issues. I learned fairly quickly that the blogosphere became the safe haven for abusers of science, since most of their ‘science’ is garbage, and they have therefore resorted to taking the findings of sound empirical science (where the authors generally have very different views from theirs) and distorting it in support of their own twisted political and economic agendas (see Karen’s posts, as a good example of this).
I believe in fighting the good fight – and having just been appointed Endowed Professor at a University in the Netherlands, I will continue t do so. Incidentally my topic in this Professorship deals with the science-society interface, as well as countering distortions in environmental science. Countering some of the nonsense that appears on Deltoid is therefore an important part of the process.
Elsewhere on the blogosphere we are debating how to convince the brainwashed masses that nothing unnatural is happening with our earthly climate.
Anywhere up to 75% of the population is in a deluded state after years of propaganda through the msm and education system. Undoubtedly we have lost a generation of young people, who at some point will need to be debriefed.
Humour is the obvious mechanism, sprinkled with salient facts, intending to open their minds to an alternative vision.
Well …thanx for that JH…
Perhaps you could enlighten me, on the evidence it appears the models are flawed. How do you intend getting around this problem in your interface?
It would be fantastic if you would hang out here and and educate the dogmatic Dumbtoids,
Oh ………….lookie here JefFeRy
Figure 2: Arctic sea ice extent from 1973 to 1990. From IPCC AR1 .
now why did the IPCC change the evidence ?
Thanks for the warn welcome Karen.
‘I just wanted to say that if you think that anything you have said thus far will convince the average person of the veracity of your position/s, you are sadly mistaken.’
What would it take to convince you St C?
You know, guys, I’ve wondered of late just what’s going on with this blog. You know, like, how a former, barely tolerated pariah, like moi, suddenly finds all his little “zingers” zip right through moderation and all (el gordo’s up-thread comment is along the same lines). So what gives?
My “pet” theory?–the blog is now being run as a sort of lab experiment.
I mean, like, I can well imagine that the hive is somewhat perplexed by the ineffectiveness of its agit-prop flim-flam, to date, on behalf of its “signature” CAGW hustle, on the one hand, and likewise disturbed, on the other hand, by the apparent ease with which a despised “rabble” (H/T to BJ) of mere “denier”-peons, utterly lacking in any sort of party-discipline and respect for their betters and without the slightest direction from elite shot-callers of any stripe, have been able to so totally outclass, with home-brew, roll-your-own, guerrilla, blog tactics, the best and brightest the hive has had to offer.
Hence, an apparent editorial decision to just let this blog free-wheel and allow the deniers to go at it in a full “rip” mode, thereby filling the Petri dish with a rich assortment of samples of their work for further, furrow-browed analysis by some ad-hoc committee of useful-tool, trough-addicted, sell-out, hive-hack, smarty-pants functionaries with a genius for telling their hive-betters what they want to hear.
Also, the blog now undoubtedly serves as a “test-bed” for the hive’s latest, prototype memes, bots, personas, false-flags, the “bait” portion of future “bait-and-switches”, bogeymen, and the like. Case in point?–St. Cyr’s no. 22.
It seems St. Cyr is the product of the same workshop that previously brought us freddy–both hive-confections suffering from a glaring “too-good-to-be-true”, stereotype perfection. But let’s examine the St. Cyr deal just a little:
-Our St. Cyr–a modest, everyman, just-plain-folks, kinda guy with no more than a high school education in science.
-And, in a break with the hive’s past preference for trite-booger, motor-mouth, smart-lip, party-line, ego-maniac weirdos, our St. Cyr only speaks when he has something of substance to say–a dignified, well-spoken, manly man of few words, but one who commands a respectful listen when he does part his lips in, thoughtful moderate speech.
-An “average person” of very limited formal scientific education, our St. Cyr has, nevertheless, fortunately escaped contamination by any of the evil “denier” blogs that have ensnared so many other, callow unfortunates, and has gravitated, exclusively, through some sort of natural, naif, child-of-Rousseau instinct for the “good” and “beautiful” to those blog-founts of the “true faith”–this blog, DesMogBlog, and Real Climate. ( Wasn’t this how all the kids you creeps worked so hard to brainwash in school from Kindergarten on were supposed to turn out, Deltoids?–must be such a shock that the vast majority of the kids you hive-bozos took such pains to corrupt responded to your best efforts by figuring out how to think for themselves anyway, while acquiring, in the process, a life-long grudge against the hive for screwing with their former kid-minds )
-And, finally, our St. Cyr is an artificer of lists– “lists” of the “bad-guys” and the “good-guys”, of course (you lefties and your “lists”–always the earmark of a hive-production). And, I deliciously note that bill got left out of the “good guys” list, at least by name. Not a good sign guy!–same thing happened to Yezhov (and Yagoda, too, for that matter), just before–well, you know.
At least, that’s my latest, best thoughts on Deltoidland, guys.
It is refreshing standing in this empty shed, with Jeffrey monitoring every word the Denialati speak…. to be a part of his interface.
Do you hear me JF? Apparently CO2 does not cause global warming, or at least most scientists can’t account for the drop in temperatures.
From your link…
.”In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one”
Sorry, cannot find that statement at the sources pointed to by any of my recent links. But then you avoid being specific do you not, it is one of your ‘trade marks’.
Whatever that does not matter much, did you bother to read at that RealClimate Marcott post? Clearly not else you would have a better idea about the context of comparisons between then and now.
Hint, temperatures are now rising faster than at any time during the period from when humans started along the agrarian path. And this at a time when solar forcing are at their minimum.
This is the context that you would already have grasped if you had, as suggested, read some relevant literature from those scientists who do know what they are on about and are not afraid or purchased to keep quiet (as with the ‘Greedy, Lying Bastards’).
Such honest and knowledgeable scientists include David Archer and William Ruddiman. A host of others accessible by watching the right-hand side panel at Real Climate under the heading Books.
Now when you have completed some honest inquiry and research and avoid cherry picking quotes and quotes without sources then I may feel more inclined to engage further, ’till then I don’t have time for a time wasting ideologue such as you.
Just for you Birch, another one for you to chew over, mind the splinters if you cherry pick:
Nonsense And Sensitivity: Top Climatologist Slams The Economist For Yet Another ‘Flawed And Misleading’ Piece
From Mike Mann, I have highlighted a different part of the quote in order to frame your thinking:
Among other things, the author hopelessly confuses transient warming (the warming observed at any particularly time) with committed warming (the total warming that you’ve committed to, which includes warming in the pipeline due to historical carbon emissions). even in the best case scenario, business as usual fossil fuel burning will almost certainly commit us to more than 2C (3.6 F) warming, an amount of warming that scientists who study climate change impacts tell us will lead to truly dangerous and potentially irreversible climate change. the article does a disservice to Economist readers by obscuring this critical fact. Sadly, it is hardly the first time in recent history that the Economist has published flawed and misleading stories about climate change.
Context, context, context. Time you understood this principle.
“At least, that’s my latest, best thoughts on Deltoidland, guys”
… which give your track record of rank stupidity, means that your ‘thoughts’ can be immediately binned as being utterly useless.
Fatso opines: “Apparently CO2 does not cause global warming, or at least most scientists can’t account for the drop in temperatures”
First, temepratures are not dropping. This is a fallacious lie. May of this year was the third warmest on record – hardly indicitive of a drop. Second, you don’t understand the concept of scales for systems that vary in size amd especially for systems at the upper end of the size threshold. I have gone over this before and I am not wasting my breath with a brainless twerp like you, Gordo. You were banned once – go away.
“What would it take to convince you St C?”
First, for all of the National Academies of Science on Earth to reverse their positions on the matter. Second, for the denialati to publish more than one or two papers a year and in better journals. The weight of empirical evidence, as described in thousands of peer-reviewed papers, dwarfs the output of a few outliers who are on the academic fringe. Biotic proxies indeed prove that it is warming. This is the nail in the coffin lid of the deniers. Heck, I work with several of those systems and we see clear evidence of both range shifts and changes in the seasonal phenology of species in Europe as a result of warming, and there are plenty more examples elsewhere.
So St. Cyr, take a word of advice from me: Karen, Betula, Mike, Gordo, et al. are NOT scientists but right wingnuts who are distorting science because the current state-of-the-art does not fit in with their political views. An important point is that a veritable know nothing, Karen, posts stuff up here as if she is the new Galileo, spotting data and papers that somehow have bypassed the academic community. If Karen is so up on her science, why isn’t she writing this stuff up for the media and sound scientific journals or giving lectures to packed lecture theaters who want to learn the ‘truth’? Instead, she’s a complete nobody who doesn’t do any scientific research and is confioned to blogs on which, because they are not peer-reviewed, is possible to paste up any ridiculous arguments and crazy ideas, as well as to distort the findings of scientists doing the actual research. Creationists do it and AGW deniers do it.
Well the first thing obviously is to have them know nothing about science whatsoever. But even destructive arseholes like the Koch Bros. balk at that one.
Thing is Fatty, being a fruitcake is a luxury afforded to you by the rational. Your fruitcake contingent may dream of it, but you haven’t got the wherewithal or know-how to be anything other than fringe whackos, forever.
That’s your chosen fate, and the world ain’t gonna change to accommodate your fantasies.
that’s my latest, best thoughts
Still, keep at it and you never know, you may yet achieve dribbling inanity.
Meanwhile, SpamKan copies’n’pastes history that she no doubt thinks means something or other.
I’d ask her how long ago the early Holocene was and it’s relevance to whatever point she’s trying to make, but I think she’s too intellectually exhausted with all the clickety-clicking and lolling.
More data points for that extremes bell-curve:
consequences of human activity elevated temperatures having consequences .
What do you mean, check? Early holocene is what, 11ky ago? Totally relevant! 3 million hunter-gatherers and a few subsistence farmers, 7 billion humans sustained by industrial agriculture… totally comparable!
That Jeff Harvey is hilarious
He wanted me to post science, that is what I do,
climate science, from the journals, peer reviewed science.
I copy and past the abstracts from the peer reviewed literature, and poor little JefFeRy’S psychotic mind somehow has visions that I have lied about climate science?
How on earth could JefFeRy be offered a professorship? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding?
JefFeRy, your demented self portrayals grandeur are sickening.
Mike, I don’t doubt your theory, especially since spewendumbskies pathetic effort, lol, but I’m thinking that St. Cyr is JefFeRy’S reflection in the mirror, his sycophant self-adulating self so to speak,
Apparently CO2 does not cause global warming , or at least most scientists can’t account for the drop in temperatures.
 Provide counter evidence to over a century of research which proves different.
 Context for this claim, note that ‘hide the decline’ and similar are not what you think or may try to make out.
“He wanted me to post science, that is what I do,
climate science, from the journals, peer reviewed science.”
Post all of the science you want, Karen, but stop cherry-picking and distorting the results to suit your own pre-determined views.
You do it. AGW deniers do it. Creationists do it. Anti-environmentalists do it. I’ve seen this bunch in action over my entire scientific career and they are masters at ignoring vast amounts of data they don’t like and honing in on a tiny bit that they do. And in many cases they even are content to distort the findings and opinions of scientists whose views, were they to be known, are very, very different.
You may fool a few sceptics, Karne, but you don’t fool me or many others. Bill summed it up above when he described Karen’s approach:
“Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Oh, look, one result I like, science!‘
And even here, the ‘Oh look one result, I like science’ is often a blatant misinterpreting of the results of a study that are not in line with the author’s views or else a case of massive cherry-picking. Its dishonest but its the way that deniers play the science game.
“How on earth could JefFeRy be offered a professorship? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding”
Could be becazuse I have 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, 3068 citations on the WoS as of this week and an h-index of 32.
For Karen the stats tally 0, 0 and 0. A bit of a difference there.
Lionel @ 38…
.”In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one”
“Sorry, cannot find that statement at the sources pointed to by any of my recent links”
Maybe if you had read your link, you would have seen that it links to the original article at Discovery Magazine..
I know, these things are difficult.
“Clearly not else you would have a better idea about the context of comparisons between then and now.”
I thought it was “irrelevant”
Lionel @ 38…
“’till then I don’t have time for a time wasting ideologue such as you.”
Lionel @ 39…
“Just for you Birch, another one for you to chew over”
”In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one”
So that quote was not in the article that I pointed you at, which is what you tried to make out. Besides Discover is not well renowned for its complete and balanced coverage.
Havi8ng said that I will now provide the complete context as Discover put it:
In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one. If the climate system is indeed an “angry beast,” as geochemist Wallace Broecker once said, I shudder to think what will happen if we keep poking her with our proverbial sticks.
And Wally Btoecker is another scientist who’s writing will help unscramble your ill ordered mind.
And as for my ‘irrelevant’ remark it is irrelevant in the sense of that what is happening currently to climate is nothing like the periods studied by paleodata and I indicated one of the parameters where this is so.
You are playing word games like that dissembler Keyes another sophist who refused to consult the writings of scientists.
Hey Jeff (aka St. Cyr (good catch Karen!))!
Yr. no. “…I have 300 plus peer reviewed papers…”
Dear Jeff and his flashing credentials and Jeffry-genic, attaboy, mash notes to himself! One of Deltoids, true, epicurean delights.
You know Jeff, your little sock-puppet suck-up, St Cyr, is sporting the persona of an earnest, guileless, disinterested “layman” doing his best, within the limitations of his high-school-only science education, to truly share the “joy” you take in your motor-mouth self-praise.
And, in that regard, do you honestly think, Jeff, that St. Cyr is really going to knowledgeably appreciate and groove on your exquisite, “Endowed Professor” wonderfulness when you say stuffy, ivory-tower, B. S. things like: I have “an h-index of 32”? See what I mean Jeff?
No, Jeff, what you need is something that connects with the “little guy” and shows, in terms the “little guy” can truly understand, just what an important, authoritative voice, you are, in matters of climate science and put to rest, once and for all those old meanie, ” right wing nutter” attempts to falsely and maliciously portray you as an intellectual air-head, lightweight who got to where you’ve gotten exclusively through hive-connections, a well-demonstrated reliability in the hive’s party-line adherence department, and a genuine gift for little-operator, brown-nose schmoozing in the critical, party-time after hours of those eco-confabs you incessantly attend.
Here’s my idea that will allow you to hit the “credibility-ball” out of the park:
-Post all your travel claims for the last two years.
-With each travel claim describe your trip’s activities (yes, Jeff include the blow-out party-times and any “little adventures”).
-Describe, then, how each of your trip’s activities contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
-Further describe the estimated number of tons of CO2-spew associated with your trip, to include those that are travel and accommodations related, together with your justification for your piggie carbon-footprint in terms of the trip’s “scientific” value (might even detail why a given trip did not lend it self to low-carbon, Gaia-friendly video-conferencing).
-Finally, adress any public funds expended, directly or indirectly, on your trip and justify those expenses to poor, strapped-out, ripped-off tax-payers like St. Cyr.
Do the above, Jeff, and all of us–not just St. Cyr–can really begin to truly appreciate just what “treasure” you are to humanity. Or not.
In the meantime, I’ll continue to write you off as a patent, geek-ball, booger-brain, big-mouth braggart and hypocrite who does not PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY EXAMPLE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CARBON-AUSTERE LIFE-STYLE YOU URGE ON OTHERS.!
Hi mike! You do realize you are clinically insane, don’t you?
“So that quote was not in the article that I pointed you at, which is what you tried to make out”
Your article linked to the original article in the first paragraph moron!
“Havi8ng said that I will now provide the complete context as Discover put it:”
“In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one. If the climate system is indeed an “angry beast,” as geochemist Wallace Broecker once said, I shudder to think what will happen if we keep poking her with our proverbial sticks.”
So I quote the part that is fact, and you use the speculation part to put it in context…..as though that were the part that is fact.
“I shudder to think”
So wait, Betula, you’re saying that a drought as bad as one of these historical ones would be a good thing?
You know that’s what you’re implying, right?
The is a difference between speculation and informed opinion Birch, that is the trouble with you, you lack depth and breadth in this area.
And what I called you on was the absence of the statement you quoted in the article which I cited. Nothing more, nothing less.
You, once again, present as one of those tiresome idiots who like to play semantics and moving goal posts after the fact. The statement you quoted was NOT in the article that I cited, thus not ‘from my link’ and thus you were lying. Simple.
You do realize you are clinically insane, don’t you?
Far from it, Stu.
I’d posit that the current cloud of idiots with their even denser accompanying cloud of idiocy fancy themselves as the ‘informed citizenry’, rather than the all-too-obviously guided small-minded morons doing the bidding of vested interests in areas outside their collective comprehension we actually see in action here daily.
“You know that’s what you’re implying, right?”
Jeez Stu, I thought I was implying it wasn
You know that’s what you’re implying, right?”
Jeez Stu, I thought I was implying it wasn’t unprecedented.
No, you SAID it wasn’t unprecedented. At the very least you implied it was no big deal, and in context and from your previous comments, you implied it might be GREAT.
So what if it isn’t unprecedented? Neither is sea level 100ft higher than today. Neither is most of the North American continent covered under hundreds of feet of ice. Neither is an atmosphere without oxygen. Neither is a planet without humans.
What do you think the current and already inevitable changes will do to the environment, and what those changes will do to human existence?
Lionel @ 49
‘Provide counter evidence to over a century of research which proves different.’
So in order to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming it will be necessary to get a journal paper to back me up. Even though most scientists now accept that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
The null hypothesis …. global cooling is just around the corner.
St C has been brainwashed and is ‘rusted on’ to watermelon thinking, primarily through our ABC.
Even though most scientists now accept that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
It’s worse than thar Fatso. The data don’t accept it.
In passing, and as a floating moron – how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain’t looking good this year either) during this period of ‘flat’ temperatures?
You don’t think people cleverer than you and able to read newspapers have been feeding you shit you’re too stupid to check up on, do you?
Here is a NASA animation of the Arctic storm that smashed the ice to smithereens in 2012
” Published on May 18, 2013
A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds.”
To all the piss-witted deniers on this thread.
What you haven’t realised is that your fave blogscientists have sent you out, not with a knife to a gunfight, but armed with matchsticks up against a tank regiment of Abrams M-2’s, backed by a squadron of T-90s, Leopard and Challenger IIs, aka the international science community.
That you place your faith in repeating memes debunked months ago, and whose debunkings are amenable to an average 12 year old capable of reading a non-tabloid newspaper demonstrates the shallowness of your understanding.
Stick to your ‘what if fruitcakes ran the world’ debates on your fruitcake blogs and don’t venture out anywhere intelligent folk may frequent.
Consider yourselves warned.
the Arctic storm that smashed the ice to smithereens
Movement doesn’t melt ice, SpamKan. The only thing that does is HEAT. Being an ignorant piss-wit, you may not already know that, but it’s never too late to be educated.
Thank you for demonstrating the depths of your stupidity chek
The CYCLONE hit the ice at the peak of summer, lol
The storm brought unusually warm waters (el nino) to the East Siberian and Laptev seas and to the edge of the ice pack. It also pulled warmer air into the Arctic. It broke the ice pack into smaller pieces that are easier to melt. It also pushed the ice together making the pack smaller.
The storm brought unusually warm waters
For which you read ‘heat’, you dumb cow.
Wait, the argument now is “cyclone caused the melt, har har, there is no warming?”
Yes, it is time for us all to review:
Seriously Stu, they’re dumb enough to swallow a kilo of rat poison if their preferred blogscientist told them to.
‘how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain’t looking good this year either) during this period of ‘flat’ temperatures?’
Its natural behaviour for our Modern Climate Optimum … the refreeze in the northern winter was spectacular.
As for what is in store, my money is on another freezing winter in the UK.
It’s just the sheer clod-hopping dissonance of it all. “No warming!” “No melting!” “More ice!” “More polar bears!” “Al Gore has a big house!” “More cod!” “Jeff flies on airplanes!” … and now “It’s cyclones!”
Oh, remind me, what state are we going to stash 150MM Bangladeshi in again?
I’m with Stu, I think we are all dumber for reading that. Still, there are some aspects so excellently wrong that they are worth running through:
1. Sea Ice was already melting in situ before the cyclone formed (at 3 to 5 seconds into Karen’s linked animation). Sea ice melt leads cyclone formation (LOL).
2. Warm-core cyclones like this one form where water is warmer than its surrounds. The preceding sea ice loss contributed to the cyclone’s formation
3. “(el nino)” = Bizarre. Warm El Nino water is 10,000 km’s from the Arctic Ocean. Anyway, how could the storm have pushed warmer waters into the East Siberian and Laptev without first melting the intervening ice in the Chukchi? Overland across Siberia?
4. In any case, the ice margin in the Laptev doesn’t change during the storm. So why the reference to the Laptev? BS intended to impress – Fail. I can only conclude that Karen is as ignorant of Arctic geography as she is of …well, eveything that she’s ever commented on, actually…
5. Finally, NSIDC find that increased storminess is associated with *high* sea ice years. Far from these storms “smashing the ice to smithereens” storms generally reduce ice loss by cutting insolation, causing compaction and rafting (reducing surface area), and creating local gyres which break up the steady forcing of ice out of the Fram Strait. So why would 2012 have been different? Do tell, Karen…
Proverbs 26:11. Its all about Karen.
“No, you SAID it wasn’t unprecedented”
Wrong Stu….don’t get your panties in a knot. At #11, pg 9, I asked if it was unprecedented…
“Second, do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?”
You ask…”What do you think the current and already inevitable changes will do to the environment, and what those changes will do to human existence?”
Which current changes are you referring to and can you link to the peer reviewed scientific paper that states changes are already inevitable?
As far as what
So now you are denying that we’ve already pumped sufficient CO2 and heat into the system to cause future sea level rise?
Is that what you’re saying?
“So now you are denying that we’ve already pumped sufficient CO2 and heat into the system to cause future sea level rise? Is that what you’re saying?”
Is this your way of denying to answer a question? Is that what you’re saying?
What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?”
It sjows a different world Betsy, and one you don’t wanna be living in.
No, Jeff, what you need is something that connects with the “little guy” and shows, in terms the “little guy” can truly understand,
Oh really? And when someone, lots of someones, present material in simplified terms, what do you and all your mates do? Nag about evidence and data and details of scientific papers. There’s a reason why they’re called scientific papers and not newspapers – newspapers are written for a reading age of 12 or less. Scientific papers are not just written in more complex language, that language is representing concepts and using the technical jargon associated with those concepts that are waaay outside the conventional education of the “little guy” you’re so fond of.
However, I take the view that most of the “little guys” I know are perfectly capable of learning the arithmetic analysis needed to analyse sports performance and results. They’re also perfectly capable of comprehending the technical intricacies of the vehicles or the power tools or the golf clubs they’re keen on, so the normal presentation of science is not really a huge obstacle.
What you’re suggesting is that complex science should be presented more simply than the owner’s manual for a car or a motorbike. And when it is done that way, say, by the straightforward statement that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures, (but not every day in every way) you want to complain in much the same way as someone saying that if they depress the accelerator in their car a set distance – it doesn’t always result in exactly the same increase in speed.
A motoring writer might be very kind in pointing out that it makes a difference whether the car is on level ground, or on the up or the down side of a rise. There’s more to speed of a car than the accelerator pedal, you have to look at the driving surface, the terrain and the weather. The embarrassed complainer nods and slinks away.
When a climate writer says much the same thing about climate, you and your mates just keep arguing. You need to understand that we see those arguments as being exactly the same quality as the befuddled car driver’s argument about the accelerator pedal.
“It sjows a different world Betsy, and one you don’t wanna be living in”
No, it’s the same world, only todays droughts are mild in comparison…
“The 1950s drought was the most severe 20th century drought in this region, but when viewed in the context of the past three centuries, it appears to be a fairly typical drought. However, when the 1950s drought is compared to droughts for the entire reconstruction, back to 136 BC (bottom graph), it is clear that the 1950s drought is minor relative to many past droughts”
Of course, we now know for a fact, that all future droughts will be caused by climate change, and we know for a fact, that all droughts will get worse over time….it’s “inevitable”
Okay Betula, so you are denying that. Links to research on it have been provided many, many times.
I was merely making sure. You can stop JAQing off now, you’re not fooling anyone.
Compared to 350AD, 400AD and 1600AD.
In New Mexico.
You’re not even trying anymore, are you? Pathetic.
‘What you’re suggesting is that complex science should be presented more simply…’
Its important that the electorate know the truth and reducing complexity into identifiable bites is entirely appropriate in a democracy.
I agree with Mike on this.
“all future droughts will be caused by climate change”
Who said that? What scientists are telling us is that we can expect that droughts of the future may be worse, and/or longer, and/or in more places, and/or with more extreme effects than what we’ve seen in droughts of the last few centuries.
No one is saying that without the current climate changes, Australia and the Sahara would become green and pleasant countryside. Droughts are expected in certain places for well-known climatic reasons (check out Hadley cells and ENSO for a start).
That sort of statement quoted at the top makes you look a bit silly.
Stu @ 84…
“Links to research on it have been provided many, many times.”
Links to peer reviewed scientific literature stating changes are already inevitable have been provided many, many times? Yet you can’t produce one?
“You’re not even trying anymore, are you? Pathetic”
You ignored them the first few dozen times, Betula. It is established science. I’m not about to waste my time digging up more links for you to ignore. Anyone who is genuinely interested can find them sprinkled liberally over any of the past five or so open threads, or — the horror — use them thar Google machine.
The electorate does know the truth. It is presented perfectly simply here:
We live in a Democracy and our government funds the above professional and well-reputed organisations who present the facts on climate change.
Where it gets complicated is when idiots like El Gordo go to internet blogs run by cranks such as the university-dropout and ex-TV-weatherman Anthony Watts, and there people like El Gordo read a lot of nonsensical fluff posing as “science”.
Here’s a clue, El Gordo: ignore Andrew Bolt and Joanne Codling – they are not responsible nor even capable of informing us about climate change. Stick with the reputed professionals and you won’t suffer the kind of misinformation that has been dogging you for years.
Oh look, more idiocy from El Gordo:
“the refreeze in the northern winter was spectacular.”
Looks like garbage I saw on Watts’s site a few months ago.
Let’s steer clear of the crankblogs for a minute and find out what happened in the real world:
Yep – 2013 saw less “refreeze” than *any* previous winter in the last 34 years.
There’s only one explanation for El Gordo’s decision to believe something gleaned from cranks blogs that is the opposite of reality: he *wants* to believe in something. He does *not* want to be informed as to the facts.
adelady @ 87.
Lionel @ 6 on page 9 insinuated the drought in Mexico is a consequence of climate change with this:
“July 15 News: Ongoing Drought In New Mexico Turns Rio Grande Into ‘Rio Sand’.”
“Human caused climate change is having consequences”
I have no doubt, every time there is a drought, we will see someone like Lionel blaming it on climate change….thus, the reason I made the comment.
Now a question: Does the comment by Lionel at #6, pg 9 make him look a bit silly…or does he get a pass?
Here’s where we find out your true colors…
No, it’s the same world, only todays droughts are mild in comparison
No Betsy, you even-dumber-fuckwit-than Spam,Kan, it was a different world.. World, not region.
The wilfully stupid and ignorant, along with the fruitcakes and whackos can’t be catered to. They’ve chosen to no longer be amenable and instead actively fill their heads with blogshite provided by self-appointed nobodies.
When deniers with allegedly years of experience on blogs apparently can’t yet grasp concepts like ‘global’, and are unable to make the mental leap between ‘warm waters’ and ‘heat’, then they’re leaving themselves behind in the station of ignorance when the train leaves.
“You ignored them the first few dozen times”
I ignored peer reviewed scientific literature that states climate change is “already inevitable”?
Can you give me some comment and page numbers? Were they in the July thread? Give me a hint…
You can do it Stu, c’mon this will be easy for you.
‘He does *not* want to be informed as to the facts.’
The fact is, from real world observation, there has been no increase in temperatures over the past 17 years … which is an indication that the models are flawed.
During this whole period CO2 has increased markedly, can you explain why temperatures are flat?
Look, the reason this clown was banned in the first place is there’s no point responding to him. There must be something better you could be doing elsewhere. DNFTT.
Bill, I was banned because I was off topic, but this is an open thread so you can pull your head in. Its a robust environment, enjoy it.
Here’s the latest on the global temperature malaise.
‘During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” For several seconds, nobody said a word.
‘Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure.’
For several seconds, nobody said a word.
It’s OK fatso, you’re not expected to think that far ahead. Morons will be morons appears to be Morano’s motto. Can’t say I disagree with that, at all..
Alright, here’s Rupert Darwall in Huffpo
‘Amidst all the agitprop, there is a nugget of science: no 15-year period of global temperature yields a statistically significant trend. But then, to its embarrassment, neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.
‘That doesn’t mean observed temperatures did not rise – they did – or that global warming, whether man-made or not, did not happen. Rather it illustrates the sheer difficulty in demonstrating whether the rise is outside a range of random natural variation and of moving from the physics of the test tube to the immense complexity of the atmosphere.’
First off, thank you for your spirited but courteous comment. A rarity on Deltoid.
My comment no. 72, of June 15, 2013, appearing on page 5 of the June Open Thread, though originally addressed to BBD, also serves as my response to your comment no. 82, above, if it is of interest to you.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.