July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘He won’t explain his “lag” because there is no such thing’

    We should find the lag in the oceans, where else could it be?

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/

  2. #2 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘Are you a religious man, el gordo?’

    You are the one with the AGW faith and even when your high priests announce that warming has stopped for some inexplicable reason, you lot would rather ignore reality and carry on as if nothing has changed.

    If it fails to warm within five years your religion is dead meat.

  3. #3 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘You are starting to fuck me off.’

    Give up the turps and you will see things in a more rational light.

  4. #4 chek
    July 29, 2013

    If it fails to warm within five years your religion is dead meat.

    You have no idea what you’re up against. El Fathead.

    19th century scientists said that if we burnt a lot of fossil fuels we would increase the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. We burnt a lot of fossil fuels and 20th century scientists found that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were increasing.

    19th century scientists said that if atmospheric CO2 levels increased the global temperature would rise. Atmospheric CO2 levels increased and 20th century scientists found that the global temperature was rising.

    20th century scientists said that as fossil fuels have a lower ratio of the isotopes carbon13 to carbon12 than vegetation or atmospheric carbon then an increase of atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuel would reduce the carbon13 to carbon12 ratio in the atmosphere. 20th century scientists found the ratio of the carbon isotopes was falling as predicted showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was largely due to burning fossil fuels.

    20th century scientists said that if global temperatures increased the Arctic region would warm faster than anywhere else on Earth. 21st century scientists have found that the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth.

    20th century scientists said a increase in global temperatures would reduce summer ice in the Arctic. 21st century scientists have found that summer ice extent and thickness is falling.

    20th century scientists said that global warming would lead to climate change with more extreme weather events. 21st century scientists have found that the climate is changing and the weather is becoming more extreme.
    (h/t T Bombardi)

  5. #5 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    el gordo, aka “Skippy”

    You are definitely fucking me off. First, although I demonstrated to you that TSI cannot be responsible for warming in the second half of the C20th you have still not admitted that you were wrong on this point, despite being asked twice.

    So admit your error, now, please.

    Second, you have simply skipped a very important follow-up question which you now oblige me to repeat:

    You claim – wrongly – that there is a lag.

    So explain the physical mechanism to me.

    You say:

    We should find the lag in the oceans, where else could it be?

    This is meaningless.

    OHC is rising *now*. How does TSI from several decades ago heat the ocean now?

    How does your “lag” actually work? Please explain the physical mechanism. Where is the energy coming from that is heating the ocean *now*?

  6. #6 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    You have dodged another direct question: are you a religious man? Yes, or no.

    You say:

    Its hubris to imagine humanity can change global climate.

    Hubris is an interesting and loaded term. In its basic sense, your comment simply denies known physics. But by saying “hubris” you imply that greater forces are at work.

    Are you a religious man, el gordo?

  7. #7 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    BBD I picked this up at Watts (Willis has a guest post and Leif has taken him on) so we won’t know the outcome for some time.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/HempelmannWeber12.pdf

  8. #8 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘Are you a religious man, el gordo?’

    Atheist.

  9. #9 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Skippy

    Thanks for the straight response at #8.

    Now, please, in you own words, without links, explanation.

    You have *again* skipped a very important follow-up question which you now oblige me to repeat:

    You claim – wrongly – that there is a lag.

    So explain the physical mechanism to me.

    You say:

    We should find the lag in the oceans, where else could it be?

    This is meaningless.

    OHC is rising *now*. How does TSI from several decades ago heat the ocean now?

    How does your “lag” actually work? Please explain the physical mechanism. Where is the energy coming from that is heating the ocean *now*?

  10. #10 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Please, take your time…

  11. #11 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    Some of us have day jobs, thanx for your patience.

  12. #12 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    Pathetic.

  13. #13 el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    Without going into detail, there appears to be a 10 to 30 year lag in the oceans, the TSI is felt at the tropics and works its way around the system through ocean currents.

    They don’t have a definitive answer on this process, anymore than Trenberth’s missing heat.

  14. #14 Craig Thomas
    July 29, 2013

    Didn’t you quit your job over a year ago, El Gordo…?

  15. #15 bill
    July 29, 2013

    You’re out-of-date there, too, oh Clown Prince.

    ‘Felt’ eh? That’s about your level.

    Enough of the handwaving – explain the mechanism. Everyone here – including you – knows you can’t.

  16. #16 BBD
    July 29, 2013

    #13

    Rubbish. And unreferenced rubbish at that.

    See Levitus et al. (2012). OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins has increased simultaneously since the 1970s.

    Which ocean current or currents can distribute warm water simultaneously from the tropics to all major ocean basins?

    Explain. With supporting references.

    Or admit your error.

  17. #17 Craig Thomas
    July 29, 2013

    el gordo
    July 29, 2013

    ‘He won’t explain his “lag” because there is no such thing’

    We should find the lag in the oceans, where else could it be?

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/

    I think we have pointed this out before: you are focussing on crank blogs, thus resulting in your being grossly misinformed.
    Stop visiting crank blogs (except for entertainment).

    You have no idea what “lag” means.
    A “lag” would be a delayed response
    .
    There is no “lag” in relation to changes in irradiance. More sun=more heat. Instantaneously.

    If you want to understand the basics of climate change, you can get it from here:

    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Climate-change-tracker&tracker=trend-maps

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    You seem to insist on ignoring these valid sources of information in favour of crank blogs whose misinformation and nonsense helps confirm your personal beliefs.

  18. #18 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Rubbish. And unreferenced rubbish at that.

    See Levitus et al. (2012). OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins has increased simultaneously since the 1970s.

    Which ocean current or currents can distribute warm water simultaneously from the tropics to all major ocean basins?

    Explain. With supporting references.

    Or admit your error.

  19. #19 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Without going into detail

    Detail is required to explain the physical mechanism for this “lag”.

    Please provide it.

  20. #20 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Missing link:

    Levitus et al. (2012).

    If you can’t be bothered to read the paper, look at the SI at the end. See figures S1 (OHC 0-2000m) and S2 (OHC 0-700m).

  21. #21 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    I’m going to bed now, gordy, but let’s get one thing clear before I toddle off.

    You know nothing. You have no argument. You are politics, not science.

    Politics. Not science.

    FFS be honest about what you are doing and why.

  22. #22 bill
    July 30, 2013

    Pole-axingly thick squawkback politics at that. Seriously; what is the point of you, Gordo?

  23. #23 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    Craig…. Judith Curry is a luke warmer.

    ————–
    BBD
    I have no objection with the argument that heat is being stored in the 700– 2000 m layer, our only difference is the source of that initial heat.

    So what do you expect will happen over the next five years?

  24. #24 Craig Thomas
    July 30, 2013

    Curry recently held up Craig Idso’s professionally unqualified, politically-tainted, and therefore useless, opinions as a valid contrast to the opinions of a well-qualified professional who *doesn’t* take money from lobbyists and thinktanks.

    She is therefore a crank, and her website is for that reason alone (even if you hadn’t noticed all the other nonsense she has there) of value only to the misinformers.

  25. #25 Craig Thomas
    July 30, 2013

    I have no objection with the argument that heat is being stored in the 700– 2000 m layer, our only difference is the source of that initial heat.

    The source of the heat? Like, undersea volcano-fairies, maybe?

    We know perfectly well what the source of the heat is. What makes you imagine there is any argument in this department?

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    July 30, 2013

    What makes you imagine there is any argument in this department?

    …the fact that he can’t accept reality in this department, I expect, and can’t admit it – therefore there just has to be valid argument.

    Almost everything he says comes across as the kind of attempted opinion seeding unencumbered by the weight of evidence (a.k.a. wishful thinking that the sayer hopes other people will validate by joining with him in wishing it) that is beloved of political pundits and actual politicians, professional business propagandists and their fellow travellers in marketing and advertising and religious evangelists. Opinion seeding reveals more about what they want to be true – or for the more cynically inclined, what they want the gullible muppets they are fleecing (intellectually, if not actually financially) to believe to be true despite not believing it themselves – than what actually is.

  27. #27 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    About a year ago I got into a debate about increasing heat in the southern ocean and I argued against it, but was proven wrong.

    We then discussed the possibility of volcanic activity in West Antarctica….

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    July 30, 2013

    “About a year ago I got into a debate about increasing heat in the southern ocean and I argued against it, but was proven wrong”

    That must have been easy for your opponent. Your debating skills stink on the basis of the fact that you don’t know very much about anything you are talking about. However, like others afflicted with large doses of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, coupled with your own deep-rooted idealogical biases and warped political world views, you’ve swallowed just about every facet of the climate change denial handbook hook, line ands sinker.

    One bit of solace for you, Gordo: the internet is full of dupes like you. Many of them even go so far as to set up their own blogs. You happen to glean a lot of your ideas and arguments from them.

  29. #29 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    So Jeff drags out Dunning Kruger, get over it young fella.

    ‘coupled with your own deep-rooted idealogical biases and warped political world views’

    Being left wing all my life, having voted for jools at the last election and shook hands with Jim Spigelman at a Whitlam rally …. I was pretty much rusted on.

    Where did it all go so terribly wrong?

  30. #30 Craig Thomas
    July 30, 2013

    Are you talking about the disastrous response to the GFC?
    No, I guess not.

  31. #31 bill
    July 30, 2013

    For you? Only you can tell. And only you care.

    You’re now officially one of Hawke’s Silly Old Buggers. Some result, eh?

  32. #32 el gordo
    July 30, 2013
  33. #33 Lotharsson
    July 30, 2013

    And……..the Gish Gallop continues.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    July 30, 2013

    “So Jeff drags out Dunning Kruger”…

    No need for me to drag it out, Fatty. You are a textbook example. You clearly think that you know more about a complex field – climate science – than you do. My guess is that you have absolutely zero pedigree in any field of science.

    Moreover, you give far too much weight – excuse the pun – to weblogs run by climate change deniers who (surprise, surprise!) have also been set up by a veritable coterie of non-scientists. In virtually every instance these people denigrate scientists with whom they disagree, many of whom are leaders in their field. At the same time, like you, they scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any studies, no matter how shoddy or non-peer-reviewed, that try and argue that increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations are not driving climate change.

    As I have said before, with few exceptions your ‘side’ are not interested in science-driven research, but in bolstering clear ideological and political agendas. The fact that many of the deniers cannot dissociate themselves from far right think tanks and corporate funded lobbying groups is clear proof of this.

    Essentially, in scientific circles you guys are laughingstocks. Or would be, if there weren’t such huge amounts of money passing around the denial slush-fund.

  35. #35 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    el gordo

    I have no objection with the argument that heat is being stored in the 700– 2000 m layer, our only difference is the source of that initial heat.

    I have shown you that it is not the sun. There is no ocean current or currents capable of delivering warm equatorial waters simultaneously to all major ocean basins. It is not fucking volcanoes in Antarctica.

    I have repeatedly asked you for an explanation of a physical mechanism that can account for the observed increase in OHC. You have skipped and dodged farcically.

    Either accept this, or provide a detailed description of an alternative physical mechanism that has added ~25 x 10^22J to global ocean heat content over half a century.

    Time to walk the walk, gordo. Or time to go.

  36. #36 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Unclear:

    “Either accept this” -> “Either accept the scientific consensus that CO2 forcing is the cause”

  37. #37 bill
    July 30, 2013

    Blue Collar to Boltard. It’s not such an uncommon trajectory; all that’s required is the requisite profound lack of brains…

  38. #38 BBD
    July 30, 2013
  39. #39 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    Interesting graph illustrating the Arctic Death Spiral

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    Perhaps the budgie ate some hiatus seeds :-)

  40. #40 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    #38
    Would that be about 30cm rise/century, or about a foot.

    More cause for alarm.

  41. #41 bill
    July 30, 2013

    Another one. Yep, that’s a real recovery, alright! Woohooo! It’s all clear sailing from here!

    I note you’re not around rabbiting on about UK temps at the moment. Now, why could that be?

    Incidentally, the rot really is spreading. Pretty soon it’s going to be Colonel Blimp blowhard radical-reactionaries only in your bedraggled little camp. You and Lord Frickin’ Monckton and that toxic beanpole Dellers. Much joy may you have of each other!

    Do you ever tire of being so paralyzingly dim?

  42. #42 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Rednoise

    You know absolutely nothing about the dynamics of ice sheet collapse.

    Nothing whatsoever.

    So, I refuse to discuss the potential for non-linear response to warming on a centennial scale with you because you are not competent to argue this matter.

    * * *

    Hansen (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise.

  43. #43 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    ‘or provide a detailed description of an alternative physical mechanism that has added ~25 x 10^22J to global ocean heat content over half a century.’

    I read a few articles in the SS bible, to get their slant, then I found Bob Tisdale who suggests it has nought to do with a heat trapping gas.

    ‘Climate modelers still cannot simulate the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with El Niño and La Niña events. And they are still trying to force El Niño and La Niña processes with longwave radiation from greenhouse gases, while in reality the processes are fueled by sunlight.

    ‘One of the authors of Meehl et al (2013), Kevin Trenberth, actually “wrote the book” on ENSO, and he understands the processes well. Yet somehow he has lent his name to a paper that presents an alternative to that reality. That is, Meehl et al suggest that manmade global warming continues but it’s being driven to depths below 700 meters by La Niñas. But the warm water created during La Niñas results from an increase in sunlight, not infrared radiation.’

  44. #44 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    Bill#41

    Yep. Typical British summer of old. Even managed to use the BBQ after scraping off the rust.

    Still the bees and the butterflies seem to be doing well.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1293243.ece

    Another scare averted. Nothing to do with BBQ washout summers of the last 5 years I suppose.

  45. #45 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Tisdale is a contrarian crank with no qualifications.

    Nor is this an explanation of the mechanism *you claim exists* that is responsible for the modern increase in OHC.

    So, game over for you. You can’t give me that explanation because you do not have one. You stand revealed as credulous, ignorant, dishonest and very, very stupid indeed.

    Where is your sense of intellectual pride? Why are you not ashamed of being publicly exposed as an ignoramus and a dupe? What moronic impulsion brings you here to be mocked for your gullibility and abysmal topic knowledge?

    Don’t you dislike being shown up as a sorry little joke?

  46. #46 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    BBD#20

    Your missing link.

    Looking at the Ocean Heat Content for the Major Ocean Basins, S1/S2, in your own words, how would you describe the shape of most of these graphs, or trends, post 2002?

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    July 30, 2013

    “Do you ever tire of being so paralyzingly dim?”

    In Rednose’s case, apparently not. His story on the status of insects in the UK is straight from the sandbox. Longer term data show that many UK butterflies are in deep trouble from a combination of anthropogenic threats. But there’s nothing like a feel-good story in a corporate paper to trump the empirical literature and years of data gathering, is there?

  48. #48 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Like this.

    You need to look at the full 0 – 2000m layer, not cherry-pick the 0 – 700m layer. Incomprehension of what is going on plus basic dishonesty. As per.

  49. #49 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    It’s serendipitous that Rednoise has re-appeared. He and the cretinous el gordo make a good pair of buttocks.

  50. #50 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    The Levitus paper is much debated and Palmer too, but it seems fairly clear that the changes in OHC are not directly caused by CO2.

  51. #51 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    BBD#48
    You have not answered the question concerning the graphs referred to in Levitus 2012 and have changed to something else.
    Levitus 2012 S1 shows the 0-2000m layer Ocean Heat Content for the Major Ocean Basins.
    So I repeat the question, in your own words, how would you describe the shape or trends of most of those graphs post 2002 shown in S1 for Levitus 2012.

  52. #52 bill
    July 30, 2013

    but it seems fairly clear that the changes in OHC are not directly caused by CO2

    Don’t hold back Prince, explain your full understanding of why not, and the mechanism by which the Sun is responsible instead.

    You ridiculous old man.

  53. #53 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    The Levitus paper is much debated and Palmer too, but it seems fairly clear that the changes in OHC are not directly caused by CO2.

    So what has caused the increase in OHC over the last half-century?

    You don’t seem to understand how this works, gordy.

    Either you provide a physical mechanism that explains the observations or you accept the scientific consensus that it is CO2 forcing. What you don’t get to do is repeat lies and horse-shit ad nauseam.

    Where’s your proposed physical mechanism? No mechanism, no argument.

    You lose and you bugger off. It’s really very simple. So simple that even someone as stupid as you evidently are ought to be able to understand the principle.

  54. #54 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    # 51

    You have not answered the question concerning the graphs referred to in Levitus 2012 and have changed to something else.

    You fucking moronic tool. Look at where the NODC OHC data comes from. What does it say on the pretty picture?

    Updated from Levitus et al. 2012)

    Your denialist cherry-picking and lying stupidity answered – again:

    Global 0 – 700m and 0 – 2000m compared.

    Now fuck off and stop wasting my time.

  55. #55 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    As I said, these two are a perfectly matched pair of arse-cheeks.

  56. #56 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    The NODC graph linked twice above is shown in the final panel of Levitus et al. (2012) Fig S1. It is labelled “World Ocean”. Preceding it are “Southern Hemisphere” and “Northern Hemisphere”.

    Buttock-stupid fuckwit deniers take note.

  57. #57 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    “The 0 – 2000m component of the NODC graph…”

  58. #58 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    #54

    Is your fucking graph shown in S1?

    So answer the question.

    So I repeat the question, in your own words, how would you describe the shape or trends of most of those graphs post 2002 shown in S1 for Levitus 2012.

  59. #59 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Is your fucking graph shown in S1?

    Yes, you imbecile. Read the fucking words:

    # 54

    # 56

    What is wrong with your brain?

  60. #60 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    Apologies. A version is there.
    But answer the question.

  61. #61 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    It’s not MY fucking graph.

    The data are from Levitus 12.

    How is it possible for anyone to be this fucking STUPID?

  62. #62 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    I DID answer the question – look at the GLOBAL data and stop trying to cherry pick. You are being intellectually dishonest as you invariably are.

  63. #63 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Global OHC 0 – 2000m

    Utterly unambiguous increase right up to the huge increase Jan – March 2013.

  64. #64 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    And that is *it*. That is the not-missing energy right there, in front of you. That is the *real* “global warming”. Not this brief slow-down in the rate of surface warming which is itself simply modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake.

    Why can’t you people just try to understand? Why are you so fucking mad and paranoid that you actually believe there’s some sort of conspiracy between every oceanographer, atmospheric chemist, atmospheric physicist, paleoclimatologist, ecologist and all the bloody rest of the Earth System sciences.

    It is just fucking insane. You are all mad. Barking bloody mad, the lot of you.

  65. #65 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    And now you are being intellectually dishonest.

    The original Levitus S1 graphs for the separate ocean basins nearly all flatten out post 2002. The exception being the Southern Indian.

  66. #66 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    No Rednoise. Intellectually dishonesty is when you eyeball the data and make a false claim.

    How do we know the claim is false? Because the paper also presents the global analysis, properly calculated from the basin data, not eyeballed and cherry-picked by some denialist ignoramus lying his arse off on a blog.

  67. #67 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    The difference between what I am doing and what you are doing is that what I am doing is *rigorous* and what you are doing is intellectually dishonest.

    A word of advice, you fuck. Make that the last time you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    July 30, 2013

    The original Levitus S1 graphs for the separate ocean basins nearly all flatten out post 2002.

    Balderdash! (And that’s quite apart from BBD pointing out you’re desperately trying to redirect the discussion away from global OHC.)

    Even with my Mark 1 eyeball, that’s not the case. Zoom in a bit and put a ruler on the left hand edge of the 2002 tick in fig S1 (Note: S1, not S2) and see what the trend looks like for the remaining data. The only one that arguably doesn’t have a distinct rising trend post-2002 is the North Indian basin – and although it’s hard to tell due to the scale, the post-2002 trend doesn’t look markedly dissimilar from the red trend line.

    More specifically, since you talked about an apparent change in trend since 2002 when I compare post-2002 with the red trend line I see:

    South Atlantic: rising much faster than red line (the very opposite of what you claim)
    North Atlantic: faster than red line (ditto)
    South Indian: much faster than red line
    North Indian: faster than red line
    South Pacific: similar to red line
    North Pacific: similar to red line

    NOT ONE of them is clearly rising more slowly than its red trend line. Not one.

    You are (a) an idiot for depending on your eyeball rather than calculating trends from data, and (b) an idiot for making eyeball claims that eyeballs can refute since other people may be better or worse at eyeballing trendlines than you, (c) an idiot for using time periods that are short enough that noise may dominate signal, (and (d), as ever, an idiot for determinedly refusing to get the point and trying to discuss some other cherry-pick instead, but we all knew that already.)

  69. #69 Stu
    July 30, 2013

    The original Levitus S1 graphs for the separate ocean basins nearly all flatten out post 2002. The exception being the Southern Indian.

    So yeah! If you look at that specific version, put your hand over that one (I don’t like that one, forget that one), tilt a little to the right and squint, it ALMOST says what I said it does!

    So there! QED!

    Fucking clown.

  70. #70 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    The final graph you link to global OHC 0-2000m
    Shows the pedental average to 2012 (as per levitus)
    Croyoned onto this is the yearly average for 2012 and then the 3 month average for Jan-march 2013.
    Chalk, cheese and chutney.
    And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

    A word of advice, you fuck.

    Word of advice, if you are aiming to threaten someone, make sure the message is clear.

  71. #71 Rednose
    UK
    July 30, 2013

    #68
    You should go to Specsavers. I see trends for N and S Atlantic and N and S Pacific less than the red trend lines. This is at a time when the oceans are supported to be taking in all this extra heat to account for the hiatus in surface temperatures.

  72. #72 Stu
    July 30, 2013

    Croyoned onto this is the yearly average for 2012 and then the 3 month average for Jan-march 2013.

    Of the same variable.

    Chalk, cheese and chutney.

    You are quite possibly as stupid as a person can be while still being able to type.

  73. #73 Stu
    July 30, 2013

    I see trends for N and S Atlantic and N and S Pacific less than the red trend lines.

    You have no idea what “trend” means, do you precious?

  74. #74 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Oh fuck off Rednoise. Your #70 is beyond the limit. You are too stupid to have this discussion with.

    Global data falsify your stupid, dishonest cherry-pick. Utterly, incontrovertibly, undeniably and finally.

    The evidence is there in black and red. See #66.

    Fucking denialist moron.

  75. #75 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    I just cannot get over this:

    The final graph you link to global OHC 0-2000m
    Shows the pedental average to 2012 (as per levitus)
    Croyoned onto this is the yearly average for 2012 and then the 3 month average for Jan-march 2013.
    Chalk, cheese and chutney.
    And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

    You actually do not understand this graph in any way at all do you?

    That’s incredible, really. How can you seriously come here and argue with us?

    Yes, you are intellectually dishonest. Constantly. But you are also a stupid little worm.

    Just.. fuck off.

  76. #76 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    You should go to Specsavers. I see trends for N and S Atlantic and N and S Pacific less than the red trend lines. This is at a time when the oceans are supported to be taking in all this extra heat to account for the hiatus in surface temperatures.

    But this is not representative of the 0 – 2000m OHC of the global ocean.

    This is why we do not eyeball and cherry-pick.

    This is why we use the calculated global ocean OHC instead.

    Because we are interested in ocean heat uptake globally.

    I don’t think I can face much more of this for now. Can somebody else explain to this utterly clueless clown why his “reasoning” is dog-shit?

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    July 30, 2013

    Chalk, cheese and chutney.
    And you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

    Epic ROFL Fail!

    The three different treatments are clearly marked. You know, in that “legend” element that graphs often have? And they’re all treatments of the same data. Perhaps you should learn how to read a graph before you foolishly throw out accusations of dishonesty to distract from having been caught out trying to bullshit people who are far more bullshit-resistant than you are.

    I see trends for N and S Atlantic and N and S Pacific less than the red trend lines.

    I did not say you didn’t.

    Please revisit the three reasons I called you an idiot. If you have even a modicum of intellectual dignity you’ll refrain from making assertions that you can’t back up, if only because they are far too subjective, let alone the ones that are clearly wrong. (BTW, I predict you won’t refrain…)

    This is at a time when the oceans are supported to be taking in all this extra heat to account for the hiatus in surface temperatures.

    You have to be desperately stupid to point at a couple of regions using only known-to-be-inaccurate eyeballs instead of using actual statistics on the actual global data set – especially when the global trend is shown to you on the very same figure.

    But you are both desperate and stupid, aren’t you? You literally can’t deal with the evidence in front of your nose so you desperately invent new layers of bullshit to deny it. And you’re stupid enough to think you won’t get rumbled, and even more stupid than that because you haven’t learnt a damn thing from all the other times you have been rumbled.

  78. #78 Rednose
    uk
    July 30, 2013

    I don’t think I can face much more of this

    There there BBD. What you need is a nice relaxing holiday.

  79. #79 Rednose
    uk
    July 30, 2013

    #77

    Yes but different treatments and should be graphed separately not tagged one onto the other.
    The assertions made via eyeballing can be followed by anyone else viewing the s1 graphs

  80. #80 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Yes but different treatments and should be graphed separately

    No. The graph is abundantly clear. Stop trying to shift the blame: the problem is you and your ignorance and incomprehension. You have, once again, made a complete and utter arse of yourself.

    The assertions made via eyeballing can be followed by anyone else viewing the s1 graphs

    Dog shit.

  81. #81 Turboblocke
    July 30, 2013

    Rednose: do you understand why the blue line doesn’t go all the way to the end?

  82. #82 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    No, I think it’s evident that he doesn’t. Frightening, but see “#70.

    And because he cannot understand *any* of what he sees, he accuses me of intellectually dishonesty.

  83. #83 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    ‘Where’s your proposed physical mechanism? No mechanism, no argument.’

    As I mentioned earlier, no mystery, its that big bright orb.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    # 83

    I’ve already shown you the data that contradicts this claim, so why are you repeating it?

    Repeating the debunked is lying.

  85. #85 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    The sun comes up and warms the oceans, it happens.

    BBD you may need professional help with your anger management and for starters I’d be giving up the piss.

  86. #86 Craig Thomas
    July 30, 2013

    El Gordo, ask yourself this: If solar irradiance isn’t increasing, and ocean heat content is increasing, what has changed?

  87. #87 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Repeating the debunked is lying. Smearing the debunker is the tactic of last resort.

    Look at the data. You are wrong.

    And you still haven’t admitted it. Instead, you lie.

  88. #88 el gordo
    July 30, 2013

    ‘Smearing the debunker is the tactic of last resort.’

    Oh for christ’s sake have a look at yourself, you are a disgrace.
    ———————
    ‘If solar irradiance isn’t increasing, and ocean heat content is increasing, what has changed?’

    Good question young Craig and I once again refer you to the ‘lag’. Late last century the sun was very active and now its not, so the OHC must have slowly absorbed that warmth.

    As it takes 10-30 years to go through the system I suspect that over the coming decade the OHC will show a ‘pause’.

    UKMO report (part 2) is out and I’ll leave it here for later consideration.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

  89. #89 chek
    July 30, 2013

    The sun comes up and warms the oceans, it happens.

    Is this that new post-natal science?

  90. #90 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    Good question young Craig and I once again refer you to the ‘lag’. Late last century the sun was very active and now its not, so the OHC must have slowly absorbed that warmth.

    No. The energy transfer from solar SW to OHC is instantaneous. But over recent decades OHC has increased as DSW fell. You are wrong. Look at the data FFS.

  91. #91 bill
    July 30, 2013

    I think what we’re dealing with here is post-neural science.

  92. #92 BBD
    July 30, 2013

    The intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, stupidity and persistence of the deniers on this thread is a disgrace.

    Being blunt in dealing with it is a relief.

  93. #93 bill
    July 30, 2013

    el Gordo, here’s a hypothesis –

    A large percentage – probably a majority – of Deniers are vacuous old Dunning-Krugerite blowhards who have no real grasp of the basic science, but love the sound of their own voices. What they think they know about the issue comes from the same small circle of reactionary blogs they found during their initial 15 minutes of *cough* ‘research’ on the interwebs. These are reassuring to the deludee because they are run by similarly ignorant muppets and/or conspiracy theorists and/or outrightly venal hacks.

    Now, which of the following applies; your behaviour here confirms / disproves this hypothesis?

    In short; what do you imagine you’re achieving?

    It’s obvious to everyone here (who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid*) – and a lot of people read this stuff – that you haven’t got the ghost of an f ‘ing clue and just faff around like a third-rate clown waving your hands around and quoting Andrew Bolt.

    There’s a life’s work…

    *and even some of them must cringe each time they see your icon! But, never fear – being a Denier is all about never conceding that any of your fellow-travellers is wrong, no matter how deranged, daft or contradictory their message.

  94. #94 Craig Thomas
    July 30, 2013

    …and he’s back on this “lag” thing…

    What “lag”, El Gordo? Where is this documented?
    How does energy delivered instantaneously stay invisible for 30 years?

    More to the point, what kind of a person would ignore a perfectly well-documented mechanism explaining the current energy imbalance along with observations confirming that this is exactly what is happening in favour of an unknown mechanism for which there is no evidence?

  95. #95 el gordo
    July 31, 2013

    ‘…an unknown mechanism for which there is no evidence?’

    ‘…warm water created during La Niñas results from an increase in sunlight, not infrared radiation.’ (Tisdale)

    Solar radiation is mainly short-wave.

  96. #96 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    #95

    The energy transfer from solar SW to OHC is instantaneous. But over recent decades OHC has increased as DSW fell.

    So why is energy accumulating in the oceans?

    Provide a physical mechanism.

  97. #97 bill
    July 31, 2013

    Wow, a non sequitur! That was out of character…

  98. #98 bill
    July 31, 2013

    Gordy’s idea of a physical mechanism is a tin opener.

  99. #99 Stu
    July 31, 2013

    The sun comes up and warms the oceans, it happens.

    Tide goes in, tide goes out…

    From Limbaugh to O’Reilly. Dumber than a sack of hammers.

  100. #100 BBD
    July 31, 2013

    For goodness sake gordy. Just think.

    ENSO is an oscillation. The clue is in the name. It is internal variability. It does not add energy to the climate system as a whole.

    So ENSO cannot cause global OHC to rise over several decades. It doesn’t add energy to the climate system.

Current ye@r *