July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Redarse who cares about the crap emanating from crank’n’shill blogs like Montford’s et al?
    Apart from all you cranks’n’shills of course.

    What you do in the real world isn’t to bitch and moan on blogs that nobody but the aforementioned cranks’n’shills read.

    No, what you do is to conduct your own research and publish it. It’s really very simple, although not as exciting as playing conspiracies for all those retired middle managers who now wish they’d inhaled 50 years ago , .

  2. #2 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    Shrek
    So you keep referring to the crap which emanates from “Big Oil” shills who write for SKS, whose readership is only slightly larger than Deltoid, and the loss making Guardian, whose circulation figures are plummeting.

    Perhaps if you inhaled less your mind might be a little clearer, or does a drug induced torpor help with the visions of all those 10^29 ergs mysteriously somehow travelling to the deep ocean.

  3. #3 chek
    July 23, 2013

    does a drug induced torpor help with the visions of all those 10^29 ergs mysteriously somehow travelling to the deep ocean.

    You already tried that one Redarse. The only thing is you’ve nothing but disbelief and personal incredulity (the weakest of all fallacies) to challenge the science.

  4. #4 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    But how do they get there Shrek?
    Enquiring minds need to know.

    you’ve nothing but disbelief and personal incredulity

    One up from unquestioning, blind religious like belief.

  5. #5 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Radiation, followed by conduction and convection.
    Fucking moron.

  6. #6 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    Rednose: are you labouring under the misapprehension that “heat rises”. Cos it ain’t necessarily so.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2013

    Rednonsense,

    Science that makes its way to influence the prestigious national academies is not gleaned from blogs – whether they are excellent ones that stick to the empirical science like SKS or agenda-driven loopy right wing ones that shill for industry like the crap you tend to read. Moreover, number of hits is not an indication of scientific accuracy either – it just shows that there are a lot of clowns out there like you who wish to believe in the tooth fairy.

    No, the science that is so often butchered by the sites you like to read is performed at research institutes and universities and is published in scientific journals. You know – places that many of the AGW deniers have never apparently heard of and sources they apparently never read. Instead, like you, they tend to love to get it through second or third hand sources that are not at ll interested in the truth, but, as I said, in bolstering political and economic agendas.

    As an aside, its amazing how you, Betula and Karen appear to be a tag team writing into this blog. Fortunately very few AGW deniers write in here, but the downside is that you appear to be a tag-team outfit in order to maximize your coverage.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2013

    A more precise Betula:

    “I am an politically right wing guy who loathes government in all of its guises. I also think I know a lot more about science and the environment than I actually do, which in reality is peanuts. My arguments have been shot down dozens of times on a blog (Deltoid) but at least I can have the satisfaction of going after a guy (Hardley) who knows tons more about environmental science and ecology than I do. What I do is focus on a web article that Hardly admits he didn’t write, but in which he suggested that he saw climate change first hand while crossing a park in Ontario a couple of winters ago. But that’s impossible in 23 days! OK, so it was a record warm winter and so what that climate change was only a theme of his crossing. And so what if there are dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing climate change related effects on biodiversity. I don’t read scientific papers anyway, and if I did they’d further prove how little I know. So what I’ll do is keep hounding Hardley until kingdom come about AP/2012. Given my ritual dressing downs on Deltoid over subjects like C02 fertilization and the wonderful state of ecosystems where I live on the basis of three admittedly lousy examples, there’s little else I can do”.

  9. #9 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    “Nobody is buying your version, just you.”

    This is Deltoid. You can’t seriously believe that I ever expected like-minded Deltoidians not to cover for each other?You know the truth, and I know you will never acknowledge it, that’s not and never will be the point, after all you are Cmdr,Cheky of The Lost Planet Airheads…. that title is something that is earned.

    The point is that Hardley knows what he did and he knows I know it. He also knows he has a safe haven here at Deltoid, where he can talk about himself and people pretend to appreciate it.

    As far as I’m concerned, 23 days is the new timescale needed to distinguish between weather and climate, so at least I learned something on this site.

  10. #10 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Betsy, you’re talking shit. No surprise there.

    We had the very coldest winter here in Northern Ireland around Xmas 2010 that I can remember with icy streets, sub-zero temperatures and snowdrifts for two weeks. No big deal to those who endure such every winter, but a big, infrastructure-testing deal (intermittent transport and electricity for those of us in urban areas plus no water for those in rural areas) for those of us not used to it. Otherwise known as T-shirt weather for Geordies (a joke, not for your merkin shill ears Betsy)_

    Meanwhile in Greenland, it was 20 degrees warmer than here. Had I had the opportunity of visiting Thule AFB again at the same time, I – sans parka – would be claiming to have witnessed global warming first hand.

    You’re a busted flush and an embarrassment Betsy.
    But on reflection when has that ever stopped you spewing your pigshit that you seem to feel the need to do here

  11. #11 Rednose
    uk
    July 23, 2013

    Shrek#5

    Unfortunately, radiation only penetrates up to several metres, depending on the wavelength, water is a very poor conductor, so any substantial conduction requires time scales which are orders of magnitude too long to ferret away all those ergs quick enough so they don’t show up, and we all should now that warm water rises and cool water falls, so that seems to rule out convection.

    Maybe you know of some new laws of physics that can account for this, quantum entanglement perhaps.

  12. #12 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    JH#8

    that stick to the empirical science like SKS

    If only it did, but first it filters the science for its cultists followers, and then embellishes it with its agenda driven spin.

    As an aside, its amazing how you, Betula and Karen appear to be a tag team writing into this blog. Fortunately very few AGW deniers write in here, but the downside is that you appear to be a tag-team outfit in order to maximize your coverage.

    Are you claiming we are all involved in some sort of conspiracy?

    Talking about tag teams, cannot wait for you to team up again with your brother Matt.

  13. #13 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Redarse – Why haven’t you read the Leviticus et al paper you’ve been referred to multiple times now? Are some of the big words beyond you?

  14. #14 chek
    July 23, 2013

    first it filters the science

    These conspiracy c*nts really can’t help projecting their own limited blogshite experience, can they.

  15. #15 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    Rednose: you ruled out convection. But as any fule know: it isn’t the heat that rises but the less dense fluid. Can you work out what would cause warm surface SEAwater to sink?

  16. #16 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    Shrek
    Leviticus, the paper that claimed to measure to 0.001 degrees to a depth of 700-2000m using a bucket.
    Besides some vague handwaving, there does not appear to be a plausible explanation of how all those ergs get there
    and why perhaps they all suddenly decided to go there at a particular time instead of warming the surface temperature.

    Perhaps you could explain in more detail the processes involved. Please don’t use big words so we can all follow the explanation

  17. #17 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Redarse, I see then that you haven’t bothered, and instead are relying an the interpretation of some Ben Pile-style moron to tell you what to think.

  18. #18 Craig Thomas
    July 23, 2013

    el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that.

    I see, so one of 3 things has occurred then:
    1/ Solar irradiance has suddenly dropped, thus reversing the energy imbalance that was heating up the planet
    2/ The greenhouse gas content of the Earth’s atmosphere has suddenly dropped, thus reversing the energy imbalance
    3/ The laws of physics have changed, allowing outgoing radiation to balance with incoming solar radiation.

    So, El Gordo, which is it?
    Because unless one of the above has occurred, then the planet is still warming.

    Maybe you can have a think about how little you understand about physics?
    Maybe you can accept that when some people who are fairly clever spend their lives studying this stuff and trying to explain it to us, it is extremely unlikely that a uni-drop-out ex-weatherman and his crank followers on his nonsense-blog is going to be able to present further and better information?

  19. #19 el gordo
    July 23, 2013
  20. #20 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    As you can’t work it out for yourself Rednose… surface sea water heats up and water evaporates. Because of the increased concentration of salt it becomes more dense. ..

  21. #21 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    You should check out “Thermohaline circulation”. There’s also a dynamic effect called gyres where currents meet.

  22. #22 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    Shreks given up then.

    Can you work out what would cause warm surface SEAwater to sink?

    Well it could be evaporation causing cooling and increase in salinity and density.
    But these major downwelling regions are in quite specific areas.

    The dense water masses that sink into the deep basins are formed in quite specific areas of the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    So we still have the problem of all these little ergs having to travel and queue up at these specific areas, and remain undetected, as sea surface temperatures have also shown a hiatus, before disappearing into the abyss only to reappear in about 1600 years or so.

  23. #23 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    LOL, now what was that about ruling out convection?

  24. #24 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    And if the surface water has evaporated, the surface remaining must have cooled, indicating its lost heat. so how is this loss of heat to the atmosphere supposed to warm the deep ocean.

    Has there been a corresponding increase in cloud cover or humidity for this hiatus period?

  25. #25 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    ‘Because unless one of the above has occurred, then the planet is still warming.’

    No its stopped, which suggests CO2 is not the boogeyman.
    Do you understand the argument about black body radiation?

    Anyway, can you explain the build up in northern hemisphere snow extent?

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif

  26. #26 chek
    July 23, 2013

    It is you Redarse who has given up, it being all too obvious that sections 2 through five have never entered your field of view.

    Perhaps you’ll share with us the source and significance of your dearly believed “that claimed to measure to 0.001 degrees to a depth of 700-2000m using a bucket. (Hint: they don’t) when heat content isn’t measured by the temperature scale.

    .

  27. #27 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    Oh dear scrabbling desperately now: not all the heat is lost by evaporative cooling. How about you concede that ruling out convection was wrong?

    As we say in France, roughly translated… “You’ll go to bed less stupid tonight.”

  28. #28 chek
    July 23, 2013

    as sea surface temperatures have also shown a hiatus,

    Oh for fucks sake Redarse, now you’re just making shit up to suit your stupid story

  29. #29 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    BTW Rednose, you already have the requisite information to work out why not all the heat is lost by evaporative cooling. Can you work it out for yourself this time? Hint: the answer is in one of your earlier posts.

  30. #30 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Fatso, you cannot present the evidence that its stopped,, so stop falsely claiming it.

    Just because you and your crank posse believe it, does not make it so. You have to be able to show it, which you and your brethren with your endless, badly supported braying around the climate blogs hoping sheer repetition will make it so, can’t do.

    Did you get that?
    It can’t, only you’re too stupid to realise it yet.

  31. #31 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    Number 25, El Gordo: snow requires cold and water. Increased global temperature increases the amount of water vapour available for making snow. Once temperatures are below freezing, it doesn’t matter if it’s now -5, where it was -6 before.

    Rather than just the Winter snow cover, you should look at the monthly anomaly over the whole year http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=5

  32. #32 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    ‘as sea surface temperatures have also shown a hiatus’

    tru dat

  33. #33 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Fatso, I just showed it’s FALSE

    You’re deniers are mental in your faith for falsity..

  34. #34 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    That makes sense Turbo.

    I’m trying to turn the conversation towards the possibility of global cooling and longer trends are useful.

    For example the build up of sea ice surrounding Antarctica is fascinating and I wonder how long it will take before we see icebergs off Margaret River.

  35. #35 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    The irony burns.

  36. #36 chek
    July 24, 2013

    .. doesn’t do what you think it might, i.e. cover for your obscene ignorance and lack of data.

  37. #37 Betula
    July 24, 2013

    Hardley @ 8….

    So much for ignoring me eh Hardley?

    1. “I am an politically right wing guy who loathes government in all of its guises”

    Hardly, I’m an independent who worked for the Government for years…

    2. “My arguments have been shot down dozens of times on a blog (Deltoid)”

    Hardly, usually the arguments are unrelated to what I posted, and the rest is all about you.

    3, “What I do is focus on a web article that Hardly admits he didn’t write”

    Hardly, because I have no idea why who wrote it has anything to do with what you said ( see answer to #2)

    4. “in which he suggested that he saw climate change first hand while crossing a park in Ontario a couple of winters ago. But that’s impossible in 23 days!”

    Hardley, in your own words you couldn’t see it first hand., unless “as far as first hand goes” means something other than first hand, and “of course I can’t describe things first hand” means of course you can!

    5. “And so what if there are dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing climate change related effects on biodiversity”

    Hardly, once again, this has nothing to do with your personal claim (see answer to #2)

    6. “I don’t read scientific papers anyway, and if I did they’d further prove how little I know.”

    Hardly, if I didn’t read them, then how is it I’m always posting the words of the scientists that write them?

    7. “Given my ritual dressing downs on Deltoid over subjects like C02 fertilization”

    Hardly, you can’t dress down someone over a subject when you yourself have no idea about what role, if any, it may play in the future…which was the point.

    8. “and the wonderful state of ecosystems where I live on the basis of three admittedly lousy examples”

    Hardly, I never said they were lousy examples, you did. (see answer to #2). In addition, the examples were used as a few of the many changes I’ve seen over some 40 YEARS….not 23 days! What were your examples again?

    You see Hardley, there’s a reason I call you Hardley.

  38. #38 adelady
    July 24, 2013

    For example the build up of sea ice surrounding Antarctica is fascinating and I wonder how long it will take before we see icebergs off Margaret River.

    Build up? Sea ice? Around Antarctica?

    The sea ice around Antarctica is basically a seasonal phenomenon. The recently increased extent is basically a combination of changed wind/ currents and of increased meltwater flowing off the continent. Both attributable to warming, not cooling. http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2013/04/01/warming-linked-to-spread-of-antarctic-sea-ice

  39. #39 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Why would there be “global cooling”?

    What mechanism will drive this, especially given the fact there is already a positive energy imbalance between the solar radiation received and the energy re-radiated to space?

    No idea? Of course not. It’s all throw-away lines gleaned from know-nothing crank blogs.
    What a monumental waste of time El Gordo is.

  40. #40 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Again, El Gordo’s “build-up in Antarctica” is clearly fiction he has gleaned from his favourite crank-blog authors:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-242.jpg

    Build-up? No, of course not, if El Gordo said it, we know it’s bound to be pure rubbish.

    So, does El Gordo aim to ever contribute anything useful, factual, and/or constructive to this discussion?

  41. #41 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Let’s save El Gordo the trouble and embarrassment of repeating here any more ice-related fictions devised by his favourite cranks by looking at the rest of the ice:

    Greenland:
    http://climatesignals.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Greenland_Nov2010.gif
    ….dwindling….

    Glaciers:
    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/glacier_thickness.gif
    …dwindling…

    Arctic ice:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
    …dwindling…

    Now, let’s see if I can put two and two together here:
    – greenhouse gases have increased
    – there is a measured imbalance between energy received and energy re-radiated
    – this imbalance persisted through the period of the current solar minimum
    – polar ice and glaciers are all in the process of dwindling.

    On the other hand we have the argument El Gordo has put forward:

    – If measured temperatures don’t show a steady linear upwards course, then the above facts can be ignored because it means it must be cooling, and just to make sure we convince ourselves, we will also invent some fairy-stories about Antarctica “building-up” and stuff like that.

    How stupid would you have to be to find the 2nd option attractive?

  42. #42 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    Why would there be “global cooling”?

    Why not?

    The mechanism is the sun’s effect on the NAO and AO.

  43. #43 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    ‘Build up? Sea ice? Around Antarctica?’

    Naturally it waxes and wanes, but the winter extent is increasing.

    And that’s probably why they are getting CAOs in Brazil.

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    …and we all should now that warm water rises and cool water falls…

    A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially when one (a) fails to grok key caveats such as “all other things being equal” and (b) rejects out of hand a little more inconvenient knowledge, even when it’s been provided on a platter.

    It is useful to have Rednose (and others) here demonstrating how certain positions can only be “reached” by rejecting readily available and widely understood knowledge – and helpfully pointing out various and sundry blogs that do this by citing them in support of his positions ;-)

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    Why not?

    Er…starting at the most simplistic level, because of what the “O” stands for in NAO and AO, as has been pointed out many times before…

  46. #46 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Ah, so what you are saying, Lotharsson, is that “oscillations”, or variability is not the same thing as a trend introduced to the system by a change to the value for radiative forcing?

    Maybe what El Gordo is saying, is that once there has been a change to radiative forcing, then the observation of any subsequent oscillation (or variability) proves the change to radiative forcing never happened?

  47. #47 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes is at it again.

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/07/21/currys-wide-sargasso-sea-of-stupidity

    I assume he’s paid to do this.

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    Me, I think Keyes is foolish enough to do it for free – noting that foolishness is not precluded by the possession of some forms of intelligence.

  49. #49 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Ian Plimer has plenty of intelligence.
    And yet, he published a book full of the most incredible collection of arrant nonsense this side of Velikovsky.

    Ditto Bob Carter, of course.

    I showed my 11-year-old a graph illustrating Bob Carter’s “no warming since 1958″. She looked at it and said, “I don’t get it. How can he say there is no warming when the right hand side looks bigger than the left hand side?”.

    I wonder what El Gordo’s response to Bob Carter’s “no warming” would be?
    Is he as smart as a 11-year-old?

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    July 24, 2013

    Betula, you just can’t give up being hammered. What a clown you are. Until you are capable of getting out of your intellectual sand-box, go away.

    The three examples you gave on the health of eastern NE ecosystems stink. Two involve habitat generalists (the deer example is more egregious when considering the elimination of its natural enemies is a major factor as well as the fragmentation of forests), and wild turkeys were restocked over much of their range under strict protection. In other words, their ‘come-back’ as not a natural one. Coyotes thrive in disturbed anthropogenic landscapes. They are intelligent and adaptable. But what about habitat specialists?

    If you understood basic ecology – which you don’t – you’d have seen that there are far more examples of species undergoing demographic meltdowns at the moment. Species that were once common – like Rufous Sided Towhees – have seen populations decline by up 90% since the 1980s. Loggerhead Shrikes are extinct in the Northeast. Bewicks Wrens ditto. Many other birds that were once common are declining, some at the heart of their range. I could go on with examples with many other vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. But since bozo here won’t digest them I won’t waste my time.

    As for the supposed C02 fertilization argument you posited I know a helluva lot more about plant ecophysiology than you ever will. I study plant stoichiometry and its effects on the nutritional ecology of insects (amongst other things) and the ‘C02 is plant food meme’ that kicks around the anti-AGW blogs is pure and utter bull***. It greatly oversimplifies non-linear effects and ignores, amongst other things, competitive hierarchies in communities, species-specific responses to elevated C02 and also plant primary and secondary metabolism.

    I don’t want to waste any more of my valuable time on Betula the bozo.

  51. #51 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    I think El Gordo is starting to answer his own questions:

    ‘Build up? Sea ice? Around Antarctica?’

    Naturally it waxes and wanes, but the winter extent is increasing.

    As we have established the mass balance is on a downward trend, if you are positing an extent increase, what do you think that would mean?
    Less mass covering a greater area say anything to you yet?
    If not, you could try this simple experiment: get one of those squat candles and leave it outside on a piece of slate in the sun after drawing a chalk circle around the candle base on the slate with a thermometer attached to the underside of the slate.
    Make the following observations at hourly intervals:
    – temperature
    – height of candle
    – “extent” of candle, eg, area beyond the chalk circle that it occupies.

    And you could thus vastly increase your experience of performing some actual science, rather than the usual imbibing of stupid from crank blogs.

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    July 24, 2013

    “The point is that Hardley knows what he did and he knows I know it”

    Know what? Good grief, this guy is bonkers. Sure I know what I did. I spent 23 days hiking across a park in winter. A temporary PR person asked me about it when I got back to NIOO. She wrote it up. One of the themes was to consider the effects of climate change on ecosystems that border distinct biomes. You (Betty) clearly were rattled by my responses to your crap and wanted to know if I was a qualified scientist like I said I was, so you started googling my name to find out if it was true. Your aim was to latch onto anything – no matter how insignificant – that you think you could hang over me. You focused laser-like onto a short clip on our web site. Its all you have – although given what appears to be a case of cyber stalking I am sure you looked elsewhere.

    At least I had the integrity not to use an anonymous handle like you do Betty. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to find anything. That being said, since you appear to have no notable background in anything I am sure that the real Betty is just as much a nobody as the anonymous Betty.

    The crux of the matter is that you are well over your head in areas discussed on Deltoid. I will admit, that when it comes to climate and atmospheric physics, I am too. So I leave that part up to the experts who have worked in the field for years. And most of them agree that humans are forcing climate. My interest is in the biotic effects of warming. You write as if you are an expert in areas well beyond your competence. When this is shown, you respond predictably. You once even used the Dunnng-Kruger effect as an example without realizing that you are a model example of it.

  53. #53 Rednose
    UK
    July 24, 2013

    Shrek#28

    Interesting you are lengthening the Hiatus period when the MET Office are trying to shorten it to starting 2001 ish.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend

    Sea surface seems to be cooling so all those ergs are not hiding here. You would think if they were all massing together to go down those few sink holes it would show up. And its not as if they would be moving to quickly to detect as the round trip is about 1600 years apparently.
    Still what have the Romans ever done for us?

  54. #54 Rednose
    UK
    July 24, 2013

    Turbo#29

    Oh you are a tease.
    Pleeeese explain how all this is supposed to work

  55. #55 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    ‘a graph illustrating Bob Carter’s “no warming since 1958″.

    That sounds dodgy, do you have a link for that graph?

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    Is he as smart as a 11-year-old?

    A la the thread at The Stoat, is that a trick question?

    ;-)

    Is Rednose as smart as an 11 year old?

    Sea surface seems to be cooling so all those ergs are not hiding here.

    I guess not.

  57. #57 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    ‘And most of them agree that humans are forcing climate.’

    Is that the 97% meme so popular with warmists?

  58. #58 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    ‘As we have established the mass balance is on a downward trend, if you are positing an extent increase, what do you think that would mean?’

    Eventually, if it persists. an increase in mass balance. Following on from that would be the appearance (over time) of large icebergs in the southern ocean.

  59. #59 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Rednoise (with a Pinocchio effect shonk), is there enough red paint in the store?

    And if the surface water has evaporated, the surface remaining must have cooled, indicating its lost heat. so how is this loss of heat to the atmosphere supposed to warm the deep ocean.

    You really don’t understand this do you.

    What happens to the near surface water as evaporation takes place, note that this is the main heat transfer path and not radiation?

    Hint, think what Plimsoll lines are for and that there are two components to the cause of the effect.

    Now what happens to the SG of that body of water?

    This mechanism is not necessarily confined to polar areas.

    Some more for your consideration (although Ray Pierrehumbert, David Archer and Spencer Weart’ to name but a few would be worth your consulting):

    Scientists Predict Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back To Haunt Us Once Again?.

    Now on the Shukman nonsense cited up-thread here is an illustrative exchange with many useful links.

    As for Cook & Co, maybe you could provide evidence for paper retraction. Note that Cardinal Puff is not qualified to comment but then maybe you and he are the same.

  60. #60 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    Its generally agreed that there is a reduction of mass balance in west Antarctica, while east Antarctica has increasing mass balance through extra precipitation.

    Little sea level rise in this, it balances perfectly.

  61. #61 adelady
    July 24, 2013

    Icebergs?

    Icebergs don’t come from seasonal/ one year’s worth sea ice. They come from glaciers and ice sheets calving or breaking up. You’re doing well to find more than a few bits of sea ice thicker than 2 metres, let alone icebergs.

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

  62. #62 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Another nail for the growing Rednoise nose:

    In Hot Water: Ocean Heat Content Continues To Soar.

  63. #63 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    There was huge iceberg earlier this century, broke off from Ross and took a few years to fully break up.

    In the future east Antarctica will be ripe for calving.

  64. #64 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Antarctic sea ice has increased, well has it?. I guess that all depends upon where and when you measure.

    That against the background of this warming and this mass loss.

    As for East Antarctic ‘ripe for calving‘, well now you know why although there is less ice shelf for calving than found in West Antarctic, most of the continental Antarctic being in the East as you can see. Note where the higher ground is.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    Eventually, if it persists. an increase in mass balance.

    Teh Stupid – or Teh Determined Avoidance Of Teh Point – is strong in this one.

  66. #66 turboblocke
    July 24, 2013

    Rednose: you showed in post 11 above that you understand that radiation penetrates below the surface of the sea. Now ask yourself how the surface loses heat differently from the layers underneath… it’s all in your earlier posts, you just have to make the connections.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Leviticus, the paper that claimed to measure to 0.001 degrees to a depth of 700-2000m using a bucket.

    That confirms that you didn’t read Levitus et. al. Rednoise and are thus a fraud.

    Firstly Leviticus is a book in the OT of the Bible and secondly there is no mention of ‘a bucket‘ in that paper.

    Oh! Dear! Nought out of ten again. One strike for a detention.

  68. #68 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    There will shortly be more shite coming from the usual suspects WRT a warming pause. This because the UK Met’ Office Hadley Centre has, yesterday 23.07.2013, released a three part report.

    In part (paper) one, on page 22 we find this apposite (re. comments on Levitus) statement, my emphasis:

    There are much fewer observations below 700m, and the ocean below 2,000m has remained largely un-monitored. However, there is evidence of warming below 700m, and even below 2,000m. Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer. To put this into context, if the same energy had warmed the lower 10km of the atmosphere, it would have warmed by 36°C! While this will not happen, it does illustrate the importance of the ocean as a heat store.

    Now do you get the picture Rednoise?

    And, I do hope David Shukman is now paying attention, for his sake otherwise foolish he will look too.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    July 24, 2013

    “Is that the 97% meme so popular with warmists?”

    No, its the simple fact of me being a scientist and working ‘on the inside’ of an academic environment. I have met lots of climate and atmospheric scientists over the years and I have yet to meet one who denies the reality of AGW.

    Trouble is Gordo, you clearly don’t go anywhere near academia and are stuck in front of a computer monitor; that’s where you got your ‘education’ so to speak. You ought to get out more.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Back to the Arctic with this in the near future maybe The Great Arctic Flush!

  71. #71 Rednose
    UK
    July 24, 2013

    Lionel#59

    An interesting link.
    However the author proposes increased deep ocean heating due to wind driven gyres driven by intensified trade winds.
    However several sources, including the one below are reporting decreasing average global wind speeds, particularly over the hiatus period (2000 onwards.) when this lost heat became an issue.
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101017/full/news.2010.543.html
    He also persists in talking about the continued warming of the surface layer, when from 2002 at least it has been cooling.
    So this is not an entirely convincing piece.
    Whats the next method you are suggesting?
    Why not a teleporter?

  72. #72 Rednose
    UK
    July 24, 2013

    So this is not an entirely convincing piece,/blockquote>

    I forgot to add: by a card carrying warmist committed to the faith.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    …due to wind driven gyres driven by intensified trade winds. However several sources, including the one below are reporting decreasing average global wind speeds…

    Decreasing global average wind speeds and intensified trade winds are not necessarily mutually exclusive, just like increasing average global temperatures and decreasing average temperatures in (say) the UK are not necessarily incompatible.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    Rednoise at 71,

    Do try to keep up and also look back up thread for hints on other ocean heat exchange mechanisms. The Earth’s fluid systems are complex and concentrating overmuch on one explanation is not an adequate methodology.

    He also persists in talking about the continued warming of the surface layer, when from 2002 at least it has been cooling.

    Who says?

    Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880-2011 and Climate Change: Global Temperature. Note click and drag bar chart and SHIFT/Click and drag to stretch you will see that 2002 is a tad lower than 2012-2013.

    You should have left of the ‘card carrying warmist‘ bit for all that does is make you look a total jerk, one not interested in the truth. Little wonder Cardinal Puff figures so much in your thought processes.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    And we must not forget this one:

    Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content and note Figure 1 which is also available here with more context.

    So Rednoise, since 2002 eh?

    It must be becoming harder and harder to NOT see the truth of matters. But then I suppose if your income depends on not understanding the issue then that would explain.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    More context on this warming stopped, hiatus, stupid:

    The answer is blowing in the wind: The warming went into the deep endand also from the ever useful OSS .

  77. #77 Rednose
    uk
    July 24, 2013

    Lionel#75

    See Red nose #53
    Sea surface temperatures decreasing since 2002

  78. #78 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    No Rednoise, that will not do, Go Back to #74. Don’t be such a tosser!

  79. #79 Betula
    July 24, 2013

    Hardley @ 52..

    For what it is worth, if you really want to influence people as a Professor, the first thing you should do is get over yourself.

    Try it for a few days, then a week, then a month etc…baby steps.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    July 24, 2013

    …baby steps.

    Something you are an expert in, baby steps to learning about climate change. You have taken the first step by coming here and then got stuck. So sad to see a grown-up regress like this.

  81. #81 chek
    July 24, 2013

    “card carrying warmist”

    So that’s why Redarse acts so stupidly. “Card carrying Communist‘ being the Red Scare phrase it’s derived from, for the benefit of our younger readers.

    A superannuated Pope Montford true believer in worldwide conspiracies with a McCarthyite anti-communist club for protection from all those Red hippy eco pre-verts intent on sapping his vital bodily fluids hiding under his bed. (Bit of a Dr. Strangelove mashup going on there for we older readers).

    Cheer up Redarse, Viscunt Popeyes is sure to be along soon to read you one of those nice scary bedtime stories that you like so much, or perhaps an interpretation of an interpretation by Dellers or Pile.

  82. #82 chek
    July 24, 2013

    if you really want to influence people

    Heh – you ain’t ‘people’ Betty.

  83. #83 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    ‘I have met lots of climate and atmospheric scientists over the years and I have yet to meet one who denies the reality of AGW.’

    C’mon, you didn’t ask ‘em. They also have mortgages to pay and cannot risk having doubts about the veracity of AGW.

  84. #84 chek
    July 24, 2013

    Fatso, anyone worried above all else about their mortgage would be on the denier gravy train like the CEI, the AEI, the Donor’s Trust, AFP, Heritage, Cato et fucking cetera..

    Do you never get tired of the limitations that your infantile bullshit runs into after more than 30 seconds of critical thought? Evidently not, or like most deniers, you can’t maintain an attention span that long.

  85. #85 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    Well that’s not entirely true, chek. i have taken on board the Klimatariat argument (presented by colleagues here) that this temperature pause is caused by a negative PDO.

  86. #86 chek
    July 24, 2013

    Cycles are distributors Fatso, not creators.
    Ans as as it’s even more apropos to your interjection, I’ll repeat what I just said:
    <Ii "Do you never get tired of the limitations that your infantile bullshit runs into after more than 30 seconds of critical thought? Evidently not, or like most deniers, you can’t maintain an attention span that long"

    Read a fucking book or some papers for fucks sake and stop snuffling about in semi-pro denier blog bullshit.

  87. #87 el gordo
    July 24, 2013

    One thing is patently clear, you are not a scientist and have to resort to one of your bibles for direction from the faith.

    You should get a life.

  88. #88 chek
    July 24, 2013

    So says the moron without the brain power to process or even examine the meaningless, unsupported crap he spouts.

  89. #89 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Lotharsson
    July 24, 2013

    Eventually, if it persists. an increase in mass balance.

    Teh Stupid – or Teh Determined Avoidance Of Teh Point – is strong in this one.

    He thinks he’s being funny.

    He’s pretending to be too smart to actually believe the satire he presents here, but deep down he clings to the notion that somehow all the scientists are wrong and Tony Abbott will save him from the nasty Greenies.

    What he is avoiding coming to terms with is the fact that he actually is a science-denying calcified-brain dupe of the crank-blogs he gets his humour from.

  90. #90 Craig Thomas
    July 24, 2013

    Rednose, what on earth is this “hiatus” you are talking about?

    As you can see, temperatures have increased:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

  91. #91 chek
    July 25, 2013

    I suspect the denier clownshoe market is already way oversaturated, Craig

  92. #92 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    I’m flattered that you think my serious comments are considered parody.

  93. #93 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    Jeff Harvey elsewhere they are discussing Abbott’s DAP and the idea of putting CO2 back into the soil. The consensus is that its a total waste of money, do you have an opinion on this|?

  94. #94 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    The Klimatariat is strongly pushing the line in the msm that the heat has gone into the deep oceans and cannot be monitored by satellites.

    unfknbelvable

    I couldn’t make this shit up… its classic.

  95. #95 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    Your comments aren’t even remotely serious.

    To be serious, they would need to refer to some checkable facts.

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    Do you never get tired of the limitations that your infantile bullshit runs into after more than 30 seconds of critical thought?

    30 seconds?

    Way too generous! Much of it is dispensed in one second, and most of the rest within 3.

  97. #97 Craig Thomas
    July 25, 2013

    If you get sick of hearing the uneducated opinions of cranks and ex-TV-weathermen, you can have a listen to what a real scientist actrively researching and publishing in the field has to say:

    the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

  98. #98 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    ‘Something is happening to our sun. If history is anything to go by, the sun’s change of mood could affect us all by cooling the earth and throwing our climate change calculations into disarray.

    ‘It might even be the case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change.’ Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun.’

    –David Whitehouse, Public Service Europe, 24 July 2013

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2013

    If “history is anything to go by”, the anthropogenic forcing we are already applying will have very serious consequences as strongly implied by the paleo data, and even if we (say) experience another Maunder Minimum. Note that even such an unusual “change in the sun’s mood” would only be temporary and would have a much smaller impact than the anthropogenic impact we’re currently on course for.

    But you don’t really want to go by history now, do you? You want to ignore everything we’ve learned about climate response from data about the past in favour of crank theory, rolling the dice hoping the sun will temporarily mitigate some of the warming so that you can kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it.

    And you just want to mention “going by history” via a writer for the denialist organisation GWPF – in the hope that it will fool someone, whether yourself or others.

    As that link points out where Whitehouse has made wrong claims many times…if you’re appealing to his authority (which you are, seeing you don’t seem to be able to provide any actual evidence), you’re admitting that your argument is most likely wrong.

    But even there you’re mediocre. Karen/Mack/Sunspot does the clown-trolling pie-in-one’s-own-face thing much better than you do.

  100. #100 el gordo
    July 25, 2013

    ‘But you don’t really want to go by history now, do you?’

    As there has been a pause in global warming we should lean on the ‘precautionary principle’ in case of global cooling.

    It comes back to CO2 sensitivity and I don’t believe a Maunder will be over in a couple of decades, overwhelmed by AGW.

    guffaw

Current ye@r *