July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    July 3, 2013

    … on the other hand it gives him something to drill into those putative Fritzlesque child deniers he conjured up..

  2. #2 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    Hardley….

    Why don’t you believe climate scientists? Doesn’t this make you a denier? Oh my..

  3. #3 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    Et Tu, Deadeye Dickie? A Denier?

  4. #4 bill
    July 4, 2013

    You get just that bit more incoherent every day, Batty. One day you’ll wake up and you’ll be Freddy.

  5. #5 Sou
    July 4, 2013
  6. #6 Sou
    July 4, 2013

    Oh bother – was that you Bernard J? I accidentally deleted a comment instead of publishing it. Please comment again.

  7. #7 Sou
    July 4, 2013

    Nope, it’s okay. Got it.

  8. #8 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    BBD#87

    Decades of XBT data.

    An interesting summary of XBT data

    Before Argo

    In the era before Argo (2003), measurements of ocean temperature were made from ships by putting a thermometer in a bucket of water drawn up from the surface or in the inlet valves of the engines, or by diving darts (XBTs) that could dive down to 800m with a thermometer, transmitting the data back to the ship along thin wires. The uncertainties in the temperature measurements made by the XBTs falling through the ocean were huge, because the XBTs fell too quickly to come into thermal equilibrium with the water around them. Also, there is a very strong temperature gradient in the surface layer of the ocean to below the thermocline , so the depth attributed to each temperature data point is arrived at from an assumed rate of descent of the instrument. Any deviation from the assumed rate of descent will put the instrument (and temperature) at the wrong depth, making the calculated temperature still more uncertain. Measurements from thermometers in buckets of water variously obtained are obviously hugely imprecise.

    The geographic distribution of the sampling was sparse and very uneven, because the samples were taken along commercial shipping routes, somewhat irregularly. Most shipping lanes are in the northern hemisphere, but most of the world’s oceans are in the southern hemisphere — much of the southern ocean is hundreds or thousands of kilometers from where samples were taken. The oceans are really big, yet the presence of currents and layers at different temperatures means temperatures can be quite different in waters just a few hundred meters apart.

    Obviously the errors are so huge compared to the expected/modeled increases (less than a tenth of a degree C per decade) that pre-Argo data is useless. One wonders at the morals of people using this data to convince people the world is warming.

    Brainwashed religious nutters might do this.

    So we are back to scarce, unreliable and inaccurate measurements pre Argo and none below 1000m.

    Yet Levitus claims to tell us changes in OHC from the 1950s, before even the use of the irregular and inaccurate XBT darts.
    And, like a house of cards, Balmaseda relies heavily on Levitus to tie all these loose ends together and find the missing ergs.

    And they still have not explained clearly how the extra radiation somehow concentrates at the few downwelling points in the oceans before funnelling down to the depths, seemingly remaining undetected in the top 700m.
    Does this go for the 30% of this extra radiation that falls on the land surface as well? The Land surface temperatures from about 2000 are also remaining fairly level. So is this also being collected and concentrated before joining the queue for the teleporter?

    when there are facts on the table

    Put some facts on the table, not unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit.

  9. #9 MikeH
    July 4, 2013

    For some scientific relief from the cranks who have taken over Tim’s blog, watch the excellent Catalyst program on extreme weather
    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3791231.htm

    The above is a link to the promo. The actual program can be seen on Iview or the ABC iPad app.

  10. #10 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Your unreferenced data denial is worthless. Just blab.

    Every single OHC reconstruction in the published scientific literature demonstrates a strong increase over the last four decades.

    Instrument bias and sampling density are comprehensively addressed in all studies, including Levitus 2012, which you have obviously not bothered to read.

    The decadal trend in OHC is greater than the decadal uncertainty. Look at the published scientific literature instead of denialist rubbish.

    Or are you so far gone that you believe that there is a conspiracy amongst scientists to falsify the data? I think perhaps you are:

    One wonders at the morals of people using this data to convince people the world is warming.

    You paranoid nutter.

    Put some facts on the table, not unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit.

    .

    I did. I reference the scientific literature. You just spewed out the “unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit”.

    You stupid, hypocritical, projecting dupe.

  11. #11 cRR Kampen
    July 4, 2013

    #7 “The oceans are really big, yet the presence of currents and layers at different temperatures means temperatures can be quite different in waters just a few hundred meters apart.”

    Like air temperature readings, they can be quite different just a few metres apart. Who gives a flying shit (though I’m happy to see the morons finally discovering some trivia). The trend is the same everywhere: up.

  12. #12 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    BBD#87

    continue to produce lower estimates than those derived from millennial-scale paleoclimate behaviour. The most likely value remains stubbornly close to 3C/2xCO2. Sorry!

    Paleoclimate estimates depend on proxies for temperature and CO2 measurements which are problamatic and produce error. The latest, lower estimates are based on direct readings and should therefore be more accurate and robust.
    Otto et al discuss the low estimates for TCR which should be the one to determine planning issues.
    We have discussed this before. Get over it.

  13. #13 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    BBD I too would like to see the 2000 mtr deep ocean temperature data please honey pie :)

    All the way back to 1950 thank you.

  14. #14 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    BBD while your at it could you also find the 10000 mtr Hot Spot data for JeFfeReY ?

    JeFfeReY always waits for someone else to answer for him, poor little numptie. lol

  15. #15 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    Karen#12

    They probably managed to get a bucket down there in 1951, or was it 1952.

    Still we have BBD’s assurance that:

    Instrument bias and sampling density are comprehensively addressed in all studies

  16. #16 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Otto et al. uses estimated aerosol negative forcing. A guess. Otto et al. – like all observationally-derived guesstimates is extremely sensitive to this guess.

    Otto et al. is also extremely sensitive to decadal fluctuations in upper ocean heat content – something determined by natural variability in the rate of mixing ;-)

    You don’t know what you are talking about, which is why you don’t realise how stupid you sound.

  17. #17 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Paleoclimate estimates depend on proxies for temperature and CO2 measurements which are problamatic and produce error.

    This is of course data denial. What’s hilarious is that you affirm Otto et al. and other “observational” guesstimates and in the same breath deny paleoclimate-derived estimates which look at much longer periods and are far less sensitive to eg. decadal variablity.

    But you don’t see how ludicrously inconsistent you are being because you are stupid.

  18. #18 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    Rednose I was thinking that they may have got the data from the Nautilus, :)

  19. #19 MikeH
    July 4, 2013

    Here is a direct link to the Catalyst segment.
    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/catalyst/catalyst_14_11_wildweather.mp4

  20. #20 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    MikeH you should know better than to scare the children before bedtime with monster stories!

  21. #21 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Anyway, let’s charitably assume that Otto et al. has some merit.

    Let’s remind ourselves what Otto said about this result:

    What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.

    That is exactly no comfort for deniers. I assume that the reason they are so keen on Otto et al. is that they don’t have a clue what it actually means.

  22. #22 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    As for the stupid attempt to discredit the entirety of the OHC data based on that from the 1950s, let’s play along.

    Here’s OHC 0 – 2000m. Put your hand over the screen and block out everything before 1980. Plenty of good data from then on. I mean, just take a look at the last decade or so. Whoo. Look at it go. And that’s ARGO. All of it.

    Feel better do we?

  23. #23 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    I’m sorry, MikeH, but Teh Stupid needs it’s nose smacked again – perhaps join in rather than swim against the moron tide? Then attempt a sensible conversation when the fuckwittery has been beaten back somewhat?

  24. #24 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    Karen#17

    Well if Captain Nemo took a f sample of ergs as well I am surprised the OHC record hasn’t been taken back further. Perhaps Levitus is working on how to comprehensively address the instrument bias and sampling density of that one extra bucket of ergs.

  25. #25 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    # 21

  26. #26 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Start at 1980 with good data.

    The simultaneous increase in ocean heat content in all major basins can only be explained in terms of an increased forcing.

    We know it’s not the sun, and the only other forcing that has increased sufficiently to account for observations is CO2.

    Get used to it ;-)

  27. #27 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2
    CO2

  28. #28 cRR Kampen
    July 4, 2013

    And a half watt from CH4.

    #12, FOI ?

  29. #29 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    Every single OHC reconstruction in the published scientific literature demonstrates a strong increase over the last four decades.

    Are these reconstructions what we think ought to occur (visions) or are they backed by hard substantive evidence.

    The last decade, backed up by the more reliable ARGO data seems to show not much going on 0-700m.
    The Atlantic and Pacific seem to be losing ergs.
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png

    And 0-2000m also
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.png

    So maybe the ergs are hiding below 2000m. How will we know?

  30. #30 Turboblocke
    July 4, 2013

    Re #7… Oh No, Red No is probably quoting Jo No. Talk about keeping an open mind so open that…

  31. #31 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    So much for CO2 BBd
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/10-figure-s3-levitus-2005.png

    This is enlightening also…….

    “ARGO floats have provided reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans since 2003-04, and the installation was complete in 2007. But as late as 2011, Kevin Trenberth’s opinion was that they provided limited value due to “missing and erroneous data and calibration”.”

    The more I read the more stoooopid and gullible you look BBD :)

    That graph that you keep linking to is pure BS, are you barnturd j’s mother ?

  32. #32 bill
    July 4, 2013

    SpamKan and Rudolph – now, there’s a meeting of minds…

  33. #33 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    The last decade, backed up by the more reliable ARGO data seems to show not much going on 0-700m.

    FFS. All this has been explained. See Balmaseda et al. (2013). Energy is mixing down below the 700m over last decade. You see the increase in OHC *below* 700m.

    Just LOOK at the OHC data. Look at the difference between the black (0 – 2000m) and red (0 – 700m) curves post-2000.

    No denialist blog science please:

    The Atlantic and Pacific seem to be losing ergs.
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png

    And 0-2000m also
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.png

    Are these reconstructions what we think ought to occur (visions) or are they backed by hard substantive evidence.

    They are based on the available evidence and published in the reviewed literature. Why are you waving at denialist blog science and questioning the validity of the scientific literature?

    Can’t you see that this is utterly stupid?

  34. #34 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Karen

    Too stupid to understand what Trenberth is saying or to realise that I agree with him.

    Shall I explain?

    KT suspects that ARGO is under-estimating OHC. While denialists only seem to think that uncertainty goes one way, it’s actually a two-way street.

    KT proposes – and I agree – that the OHC graph that you think is “pure BS” (references please) is probably conservative. An under-estimate.

    Can you understand this? Or is it too complicated for you?

  35. #35 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    The more I read the more stoooopid and gullible you look BBD

    What the fuck can I say to that?

    Dear God in heaven. You people. Look in the bloody mirror.

  36. #36 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    You can’t stand this, can you?

    Start at 1980 with good data.

    The simultaneous increase in ocean heat content in all major basins can only be explained in terms of an increased forcing.

    We know it’s not the sun, and the only other forcing that has increased sufficiently to account for observations is CO2.

    Hence the renewed frenzy of denial.

  37. #37 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2
    *denial*
    CO2

  38. #38 Karen
    July 4, 2013

    and the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

    and in May the temperature of the atmosphere was the same as is was in 1980

    you should sack CO2, it’s not doing it’s job properly, lol

  39. #39 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    It’s just hopeless with you, Karen. You simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand the discussion.

    Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly.

    Can you grasp this?

  40. #40 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    There’s a reason it’s called Teh Stupid.

  41. #41 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Try thinking about the volume of ice loss since 1980 (Arctic sea ice, GIS WA~IS, glaciers etc etc.) before lolling your stupidity about for all to see Spamkan.

  42. #42 Turboblocke
    July 4, 2013

    #37 Karen it was -0.12C in February http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png

    It was +0.07C in May according to your link. So nothing for 33 years and then suddenly nearly 0.2C in only 3 months. That’s a huge acceleration, don’t you find it alarming?

  43. #43 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    BBD#36

    Do you get some sort of inner calm or comfort chanting like that?
    I find a small malt whiskey is good whenever I am feeling irritable.

    Anyway, have you given up defending the crap data pre ARGO?

  44. #44 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly

    Through those few sinkholes bypassing the 0-700m layer without having any observable effect on this layer.
    And as all those little ergs are waiting their turn drifting towards those crowded sinkholes, wouldn’t there be some
    observable effect. Apparently not. Amazing. Beam me up sorry down Scottie.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    July 4, 2013

    Ah, I see that Spencer seems to have quietly disappeared his 3rd order polynomial fit.

    Does KarenMackSunspot or any of the other Denialati support Spencer’s use of this in his graphs? A yes or no with a one sentence explanation will do.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    July 4, 2013

    At the risk of giving the RedNose brigade room to eavde other issues and pointed questions here is an article which they really should take in the ramifications of: Jeff Masters on Jet Stream Extremes, and Obama’s Climate Plan .

    You may also find it useful to consult this fine book, a classic of its kind: Atmosphere, Weather and Climate. When I feel a bit more flush I may invest in a new copy as my 1980′s edition is falling to bits it having been that well browsed by myself and others too.

    Seriously you denier trolls are on a hiding to nothing given the huge amount of knowledge about climate systems already under the bridge, admittedly with more to come.

    Think of it like a jig-saw puzzle where enough pieces are in place to get the big picture.

  47. #47 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    BBD
    And your NOAA graph for OHC 0-2000m years 2003 onwards (rising) seems at odds with the UK Met Office graph from the same period (flat)

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.png

    Apparently the Met Office figures are raw while NOAA figures have been adjusted.

    Seems it might be down to interpretation again.
    Who needs cash for more ARGOs?

  48. #48 Lionel A
    July 4, 2013

    Rudolf.

    You have checked to see if Tisdale is pulling a flanker here I suppose? He has a history of not being entirely straight with his comparisons.

    Come on, let us see you supposed apples and oranges, IOW a link to BBDs specific ‘NOAA graph’ and to those ‘Met Office figures’.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    July 4, 2013

    Where had freddy the clown gone, to adjust his face.

    Here is more context on that Arizona fire: The Climate Context Behind the Deadly Arizona Wildfire.

    In recent years, the Southwest has trended toward drier and warmer conditions, which is consistent with climate-model projections that show that the region may become more arid in the coming decades, due in large part to manmade global warming. In fact, Arizona was the fastest warming state in the contiguous U.S. since the mid-1970s, with average surface temperatures increasing by 0.72°F per decade since 1970.

    Get it yet freddy clown?

  50. #50 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    Lionel
    try this link for the NOAA OHC graph 0-2000m
    I will look on the met office site to see if can get this first hand.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

  51. #51 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    Naw does not work. You get graph for 0-700m
    Click on the 2 under the graph to get the one in question

  52. #52 Rednose
    UK
    July 4, 2013

    The MO EN3 data set can be downloaded here
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/index.html

    Cannot find the graph. Perhaps it was a construct using this data.

  53. #53 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    A few tidbits for “Deadeye Dickie”…

    ” keep in mind the size of the Earth’s oceans. The Earth’s oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square miles—or an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky.”

    “There is so very little observational data at depths greater than 700 meters that the NODC elected not to present the data in 3-month blocks. They used 5-YEAR windows, in one year steps, what they refer to as pentads. That is, for example, a temperature measurement in 1959 will be used for the pentads of 1955-1959, 1956-1960, 1957-1961, 1957-1962 and 1959-1963.”

    ” it’s hard to believe that a handful of samples in the Northern Hemisphere represent the average ocean heat content of the global oceans over the 5-year period of 1955-1959, yet there are persons who use the NODC 0-2000 meter data as proof of human-induced global warming. At best, it’s a fantasy dataset.”
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/

  54. #54 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Redarse @ #46

    seems at odds with

    To whom does this ‘seem at odds’? You do understand that there is a difference in ocean mass at 750m compared to 2000m due to the difference in density? The smaller mass warming more quickly than the larger (which isn’t ‘flat’ as you characterise it in your typically misleading fashion, btw)

  55. #55 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula whined on behalf of Bob Tisdale @ #52

    At best, it’s a fantasy dataset

    Oh, but of course, and that’s why Tisdale blogs it rather than publishes it in order to convince the plentiful supply of know-nothing marines in moronworld, knowing he’s got no chance with the oceanographers.

  56. #56 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    Hardley @ 97…

    Regarding extreme weather events…why would you link an opinion piece and not the actual WMO report? Hmmm?

    1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

    Denying climate scientists that is.

    2. “they increasingly conclude
    that many recent events would have occurred
    in a different way”

    The same denying climate scientists…

    A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?

    B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?

    C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?

    3. “or would not have occurred
    at all – in the absence of climate change”…..yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

    4. “Distinguishing between natural climate
    variability and human-induced climate
    change will also require datasets that are
    more complete and long-term. A decade
    is the minimum possible timeframe for
    detecting temperature changes”

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and
    climate events requires an even longer
    timeframe because, by definition, these
    events do not occur frequently”

    In other words, unlike you Hardley, they need more than a 23 day time frame to detect a trend…. and unlike you, they admit it.

    http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

  57. #57 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    Chek.

    Rather than arguing the points, attacks the messenger….very telling.

  58. #58 Betula
    July 4, 2013

    Chek”’

    “in order to convince the plentiful supply of know-nothing marines in moronworld”

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/marines_push_to_front_lines_in_renewable_energy_innovation/2667/

  59. #59 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Rather than arguing the points, attacks the messenger….very telling.

    Tisdale’s point about not enough data due to spread is not shown to be true just because he claims it, Betty. He has to make the case, which he doesn’t. He relies on you know-nothings to think there’s one there.

    And if you keep up with these things, blog commenter caerbannog showed with his home made number cruncher that for all the Williwattsworld whining, ~30 stations will produce global average temperatures that match the main datasets very well.

    Not enough data is one of the oldest and tiredest denier tactics.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    July 4, 2013

    So Birch, yale reports notwithstanding, what are YOU as an ex-marine doing to slow climate change?

    Maybe you need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine.

  61. #61 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Rednoise

    Still “referencing” Tisdale I see. Not one single link to the published, peer-reviewed literature.

    Just denialist blog “science” from someone routinely caught out misrepresenting.

    Here’s the thing, Clown.

    I made a case using real science. You have nothing except… what was it now? Oh yes:

    unsubstantiated ideas, articles of faith, hand waving and bullshit

    So as usual, you end up looking like a prat and everything I have said here stands.

    You can’t so much as smudge it. Did I mention that you were a joke? Why yes, I did.

  62. #62 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Betty burped:

    marines push_to_front_lines_in_renewable_energy_innovation

    So Betty, have you written to the Major informing him that according to your nutjob blogs of choice, that AGW is all a big con dreamt up by deskbound academics and eggheads some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens? Please be sure to publish his reply here.

  63. #63 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    :-)

  64. #64 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Exactly, BBD. I’m hoping the NSA (given the program is active anyway – not that I approve of it)) is carefully logging every single crazy, unstable, irrational fuckhead poster here and elsewhere.

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    July 4, 2013

    Betula, you are a dingbat. Humiliated so many times on Deltoid when your simpleton views are exposed, yet you keep coming back for more.

    You cite this:

    “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes. Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently.”

    Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It’s you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years. Trends over the past decades reveal a strong indication of warming – including eastern North America, if one looks at both temperature trends and biotic proxies.

    As I have said many times, you can’t debate your way out of a soaked and dripping wet paper bag. There are all kinds of longer term trends which reveal without any doubt significant warming. Trends in temperature. Trends in extreme weather events – such as heat waves and record high temperatures versus record lows. Changes in the seasonal life cycles of organisms or in their distributions. And so on and so forth. You just either don’t understand the concept of scale or prefer to stay dumb.

    Either way, you are a poor example of a comedian.

  66. #66 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Not even double-thickness tinfoil can save you from the NSA…

  67. #67 freddy
    July 4, 2013

    lionnell RAA

    WRONG

    TRY AGAIN

  68. #68 freddy
    July 4, 2013

    @bbd arselick

    WRONG ANSWER GIVEN

    Yes. The ocean radiates energy to the atmosphere. But energy is being mixed down into the ocean. This stops the surface layer from *warming up* rapidly

    it is warm near the surface when sunlight reaches the surface, and cold when not!!

    UNDERSTOOD!!!! FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!!

  69. #69 GSW
    July 4, 2013

    @All

    More humour.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/peter-h-gleick-genius/

    Gleick witnesses Climate Change (not quite) first hand, but you get the message, while the reality, as always, is quite different.

    http://248am.com/mark/automotive/the-traffic-lights-arent-melting/

    Wasn’t he part of the 97% consensus? Part of the “consensus” and daft as a bag of spanners. I think there’s a lesson there for some..
    ;)

  70. #70 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Poor Griselda, a day late, a dollar short and a headful of somebody else’s puss … as usual.

  71. #71 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data

    “OVERVIEW

    In a number of posts, we’ve discussed and illustrated the difficulties with ocean heat content data. (There are links to those earlier posts at the end of this one.) The data presented in this post is supported by the 2012 Levitus et al paper World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010 [8.1 MB].

    One topic discussed but not illustrated (until now in Figure 1) was that the annual variations in temperatures at depths between 700 and 2000 meters were in terms of hundredths if not thousandths of a deg C and that it was unrealistic to think we could measure the temperatures of the oceans at depth with that type of accuracy. It turns out that the annual variations are typically in thousandths of a deg C. The total scale of the temperature anomalies of the graph in Figure 1 is two one-hundredths of a deg C…………………….”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-changes-in-ocean-temperatures-from-700-to-2000-meters-based-on-nodc-data/

    read on chappies :)

  72. #72 bill
    July 5, 2013

    No, Spammy, you explain it to us in your own words.

  73. #73 bill
    July 5, 2013

    And Freddy, no one gives a toss about your abusive, under-medicated ramblings. You’ve lived pointless, you’ll die pointless; who cares? Sod off.

  74. #74 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    Oh poor old Billie,,,,,,,,,are you feeling lonely and want a chat dear ? I know I know, that flaccid old
    thang just don’t keep you company anymore does it, lol

    What would you like to chat about sweety ?

    Ummm……….let me see……………

    Oh here is something Billie
    “The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.”

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

    You would think that “IF” bbd’s silly alarmist scarey OHC graffywaffie was correct then we would all be drowning due to thermal expansion !

    So nothing unusual is happening, just the usual politically funded science propaganda being spewed forth by BBD and other numpties :)

  75. #75 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    sshhhhhhhh.

    I think Billie has gone for his afternoon nap

  76. #76 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    attention agw idiots: SOME REAL SCIENCE FOR WANTBE AND CANNOTSCIENCE BEGINNERS BILLLX, BBDWIT, JEFFECOSHIT, BERNARDECONULL, ETC ETC ETC

    Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):

    £$£££$£££$££££$

    Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations

    Abstract
    Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.

    £$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££

    the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING

    NNNNNOOOOOOO PROOF OF FAKED GLOBAL WARMING BY CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH ASSHOLE SCOUNDRELS

    GO HOME, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!

    I WILL NOW INFORM THE MEMBERS OF US CONGRESS AND RECOMMEND AN IMMEDIATE STOP OF ANY SUBSIDIES FOR THE ROTTEN IPCC IDIOTS CONSPIRACY TEAM WHICH WASTES TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR NNNNOOOOOOTTTTTHHHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    July 5, 2013

    “the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING”

    Another rant from our resident psychotic…

    Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate?

    Next thing you will ranting on about will be that nature is involved in some big socialist conspiracy….

    Some advice Freddy? 1. Seek professional medical attention immediately. 2. Go away.

  78. #78 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    insane outbursting jeff

    “biotic proxies in plants” IS NO THERMOMETER TEMPERATURE MEASURENENT

    WILL YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU ASSHOLE

    YOU BETTER GO AWAY FROM HERE SINCE YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS ZERO

  79. #79 bill
    July 5, 2013

    Pfffffhaaaaaaaaaart!

    Brainfart. Boring. Next.

  80. #80 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    I hate to bring this topic up again but more good news it seems.
    Wish you colonials would make up your mind on an issue.
    :-)

    http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

  81. #81 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    “Explain this then, Freddy: why have hundreds of studies measuring biotic proxies in plants and animals shown recent significant changes in: seasonal phenologies of organisms, range shifts polewards or to higher elevations, earlier flowering and/or reproductive periods, extended growing seasons, and other biological traits that are influenced by climate? ”

    JefFeRy, don’t you realize that the biota (and Homo sapiens) move around when the climate changes, lol, they have been doing it for eons you nuffie. Don’t you realize that what you are witnessing is just a nano second in the history of evolution? Just a blip in the temperature gauge.

    Have a look at all those historical wiggly lines nuff nuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

  82. #82 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    Rednose #79

    I am totally gobsmacked :)

    Dear Dr Tim Curtin,
    On behalf of all the alarmist on this Deltiod blog I wish to convey their most humble apologies for being so DUMB and abusive to you, yes sir, you were dead right, and as usual the Dumbtoids were reading tealeaves and eating gold top mushrooms.

    :)

  83. #83 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    I am just waiting to see Bill’s rant on this one

  84. #84 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    The old codger is most likely hanging out down at the public toilets again, doing some temperature readings, lol

  85. #85 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    Karen

    CSIRO do organise “Little Learners Days” so the Deltoid regulars can catch up during the vacation. They could learn about things such as:

    Where do plants come from? Find out about the wonders of germination as you make a “Mr Sprout Head” to take home.

    http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Education/Programs/Double-Helix-Science-Club/Helix-events/VIC-Holiday-Programs/Win13-Highett-Little-Learners-Double-Helix-Holiday-Program.aspx

    LOL

  86. #86 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    lol….that might be a bit advanced for them

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    July 5, 2013

    First of all Karen, you left out this little caveat:

    ” however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.”

    Moreover, Donahue and his team are only examining quantitative effects and not qualitative effects, and their work is based exclusively on marginal zones – at the edge of deserts. Nothing is known about effects in many other major ecological zones. Furthermore, where are the mechanistic studies? Effects on primary and secondary plant metabolism? On competition and trophic interactions? As I have said many times, more biomass does not necessarily translate into healthier and more species-rich ecological communties. If it did, previous epochs when the atmsophere contained higher levels of C02 would also have been teeming with biodiversity. There was no correlation; in fact, the highest biodiversity the planet has evolved occurred relatively recently under low ambient C02 regimes.

    The rate of change of atmospheric C02 levels is what will ultimately undermine them. First, the change is more rapid than has occurred in many millions of years; second, much of contemporary plant life is not adapted to very high C02 levels; perhaps it can deal with extra C02 to a certain point, but beyond that uptake wil level off and the extra C02 will then rapidly reduce plant quality. As I have said many times, and you and Rednose and Freddy and Betula just cannot get it through your thick heads, that C02 is not a limiting nutrient for plant fitness; N and P are more important. And for consumers up the food chain, N is very limiting.

    So you can call off your muted crowing simply on the basis that your pig-ignorance does not wash in academia.

    As for Freddy, what an idiot. Didn’t even try and answer my point about biotic and abiotic proxies. That’s because he is so utterly stupid that even typing on the keyborad is an effort for him.

    Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity.

  88. #88 bill
    July 5, 2013

    Clearly I really unsettle you, SpamKan. It must be truly painful to be irredeemably thick.

    Ah, but your idiot tribe rallies round you, though they’re fully aware that you have a head full of sawdust and cannot explain any of the nuggets you copy-paste in here; after all, you have never done so on any occasion. You are a prime example of the almost perfect ignorance that can be achieved by a US educational system that’s in thrall to creationists (you know, like Freddy) and jingoistic anti-science blowhards (that’s The Bircher.)

    On the issue of whether rising CO2 is greening the deserts, we’ve been over it before. (I’ll pause to note, yet again, that you possess not the slightest skepticism where results you think serve your cause are concerned – wrongly, yet again, in this case.)

    To sum up, for those with functioning cerbral cortexes: one; it would make little difference even if it was true, and two; it’s debatable that it’s true. Witness Andrew Glikson from the ANU’s letter to the New Scientist in the current edition -

    In part, greening of subtropical regions, such as the southern Sahara, may be attributed to the expansion of the tropics and a rise of humidity. The increase in humidity and in rainfall in tropical and subpolar regions is consistent with a trend toward Pliocene-like conditions, in which temperatures were 2 to 3°C higher than today.

    The shift of climate zones towards the poles results in droughts in temperate zones where the bulk of farming takes place, examples being southern Europe, the central US and south-west Western Australia.

    These factors, coupled with more extreme weather events in most climatic zones, which are harmful to agriculture, hardly justify a view that carbon emissions are beneficial.

    Now we all, including the deniers, know that all SpamKan got out of that was the reference to Plasticene – she did quite well at that in bible school – and then got lost with the °C thing.

    Then we have the case argued by those agrostologists who left the dim-bulbs at Jo Nova’s flat-footed and gawping. But you won’t remember that – inconvenient – and could barely understand the argument if you did.

  89. #89 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    jeff fuckwit

    Certainly we need Tim back here to police this site; Freddy has gone way beyondeven the most extreme boundaries of normal debate and his banning is a necessity

    go whining to mommy, you fucking asshole

    TAKE NOTE: I GIVE YOU BACK WHAT YOU ARROGANT AGW ASSHOLES HAVE THROWN SINCE YEARS ON THE HEADS OR YOUR OPPONENTS. EVERY SINGLE WORD I HAVE USED HAD BEEN USED HERE BY THE BBDS WOWS ETC.

    THEREFORE SHUT UP YOU ASSHOLE OR START TALKING LIKE A CIVILIZED CITIZEN WHO DESERVES A MINIMUM OF RESPECT

  90. #90 bill
    July 5, 2013

    What a sad, twisted, irrelevant little man you are, Freddy.

  91. #91 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    @bill, once again TOTAL SHIT from you

    I AM VERY RICH, I AM VERY INFLUENTIAL

    AND YOU ARE UGLY MEAN UNINSPIRED IDIOTIC NASTY CLIMATE DWARFS WHO WANT TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVERYTHING, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF SKILLS, TALENTS, MONEY

    YOU ARE TRUE ASSHOLES FULL OF MINORITY COMPLEXES

  92. #92 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    freddy,

    the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dobson wrote about characters like you that look in the mirror and yell obscenities at the reflection. Your ranting qualifies you for the title of ‘The Red Queen’.

    Here is your theme tune. Enjoy.

  93. #93 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    lionneell fuckwit moron, you are an

    UTMOST ARROGANT ASSHOLE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE!!!

    YOU ARE A SHAME FOR MANKIND

  94. #94 Karen
    July 5, 2013

    “Clearly I really unsettle you, SpamKan.”

    No Billie, I think your a cute misguided old codger :)

  95. #95 Rednose
    uk
    July 5, 2013

    Now Freddy, please do not shout at the other little learners and call them rude names. Its very naughty and Mr Sprout Head will not be your friend.

  96. #96 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    freddy,

    I am honoured to receive your appellations of approbation. Do keep it up comic.

  97. #97 bill
    July 5, 2013

    Freddy, you are a waste of decent people’s oxygen.

    And Rudolph, if running with this thing is the best you can do; well, only you can know how pathetic you really are.

    What a miserable rabble.

  98. #98 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    YOU ARE UGLY MEAN UNINSPIRED IDIOTIC NASTY CLIMATE DWARFS WHO WANT TO BE IMPORTANT BUT ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVERYTHING, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF SKILLS, TALENTS, MONEY

    Oh fuck off, nutter.

    I made my money and retired at 45. Unlike you, I’m not bluffing.

  99. #99 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Karen, corrected for sanity and accuracy:

    So nothing unusual is happening, just the usual politically funded science propaganda relevant peer-reviewed literature being spewed forth referenced by BBD and other numpties climate literates.

    I notice that Karen has now joined the rest of the buffoons “referencing” qualification-free fake expert and multiply-debunked denier Bob Tisdale.

    Still not a single reference to the reviewed literature from the lot of you.

    What a joke you are.

  100. #100 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Figured out why Tisdale should have taken those misleading UKMO EN3 OHC graphs down yet, Clown?

    Keywords: systemic errors; obsolete; new version…

    Tisdale knows the data set he used has been replaced and corrected, but he leaves the graphs up anyway and posts a lot of waffle about how puzzled he is that the data has gone from KNMI.

    Well why the fuck do you think KNMI took it down, Bobbie?

    More denialist dishonesty from BT. And you sheep lick it up like spilt ice-cream.

    You should be ashamed of your stupid little selves.