July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    And we’ve had no takers for #40 either!

    All denialist clowns, buffoons and freddy – come on!

    According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.

    The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:

    – 4.5C GAT

    – 6W/m^2 forcing

    So what’s back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?

    4.5 / 6 = ?

  2. #2 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “Pretending that this has no effect on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is nonsensical. Which is what the WMO report is actually saying”

    No, that’s not what it is saying. What it say’s is, in the absence of climate change, events “probably” would have been different. How different? They “probably” don’t know. Or would not occur at all. Would they have occurred? They probably don’t know..

    What they are saying is that it’s not yet possible to know because “Distinguishing between natural climate
    variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term”

    Pretending that global warming is the cause of every extreme weather event, or that global warming has an effect on every extreme weather event (an effect that can’t be quantified) without more datasets and time is nonsensical.

  3. #3 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Betty, we’ve been through that. Fruitlessly.

    Let’s return to the fundamentals of our disagreement.

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

  4. #4 Betula
    July 7, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “I cannot understand the basis of your denial”

    You are the one who labels me a denier, when you figure out what you base this on, then you will understand yourself.

    “your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.”

    I simply post the words of the scientists, words from you et al. and words in the articles you link…. words you don’t want to see or hear. You proved you don’t see them at #51.

    “how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?”

    Show me where we had this argument?

    Are you beginning to see how delusional you are?

  5. #5 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    No, Betty..

    Why do you think that the rapid and sustained increase in RF from CO2 is having and will have no discernible effect on climate and weather?

  6. #6 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    bbd arse: ” blah blah blah …. the rapid and sustained increase in RF from CO2 … blah blah blah …..”

    SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!

  7. #7 Turboblocke
    July 7, 2013

    Freddy: why do you mention water vapour in your list?

  8. #8 chek
    July 7, 2013

    You are the one who labels me a denier, when you figure out what you base this on, then you will understand yourself.

    Jeezus, Betty’s going in to zen stealth denier mode.
    This will certainly be fun coming from one so farcically stupid, Grasshopper..

  9. #9 Turboblocke
    July 7, 2013

    Freddy: Is it at all possible that you mentioned water vapour for its “greenhouse gas” properties?
    If so:
    – how do you know it has these properties?
    – what’s the significance of Oxygen and Nitrogen making up 99% of the atmosphere, as they are not GHGs? How do they have such a big influence on the climate as you claim in #87 on page 4?

  10. #10 Craig Thomas
    July 8, 2013

    You didn’t ask “freddy” to count to 2.

    “2 factors”
    =
    TEH SUN
    O2
    N2
    H2O

  11. #11 bill
    July 8, 2013

    These people are skydragons. By which I refer to all our regular antagonists – trolls are the people least likely to actually grasp the basic physics, probability, statistics or nuance, and most likely to cling to a narrative that sees their emeritus or unqualified Davids bringing down the giant of actual, um, Science.

    Even Watts – and OhLordy! Bonckers – now label them crazy. But they really, really think that, say, Tim Curtin’s going to turn out to be right, because plots in Hollywood movies…

    Freddy/Oily/Batty/Spammyworld reality is that of the noddies who feel vindicated by the volume – audible and numerical – of squawking on talkback radio. They conflate passionate conviction with evidenced knowledge.

  12. #12 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    bill arselick, your usual hateful blah blah blah

    the guant is truth and reality AND NOT YOUR RIDICULOUS FRAUDULENT COMPUTER GAMES, GCMS, WHICH WERE EVEN TOTALLY INCOMPETENT TO PROJECT 15 YEARS OF THE CURRENT STAGNATION OF RIDICULOUSLY UPWARDS CALCULATED FRAUDULENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

    CAGW ASSHOLE IDEOLOGIST FUCKWITS

  13. #13 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    @craig bollocks monger

    i did not know that you are able to count ….

    hahaha, hahaha, bravo, fuckwit

  14. #14 Marco
    July 8, 2013

    Re: #10
    Hilariously, over at Coby’s place freddykaitroll claims _I_ have fits of hatred and anger…

  15. #15 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    @bbd jeff bernard chek etc shit mudders

    you assholes base your eco bio shit on a faked ideolgy of not proven human climate change (virtual reality of computer games deceive you idiots)

  16. #16 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    # 13

    Scientific reference required!

  17. #17 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    bbd arse: ” blah blah blah …. the rapid and sustained increase in RF from CO2 … blah blah blah …..”

    SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!

    See here. Data and full publication index (end of page).

  18. #18 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    CO2 monitoring data here.

  19. #19 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    Forcings and GAT:

    GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

    Speaks for itself, really.

    – Well-mixed GHGs

  20. #20 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    the guant is truth and reality

    WTF does this mean in English? Anyone?

  21. #21 bill
    July 8, 2013

    Freddy, of all the broken souls here that inhabit denial, you are the most broken of all.

  22. #22 Rednose
    UK
    July 8, 2013

    BBD#92

    So now we have established that peer reviewed papers by bona fide climate scientists have recognised the hiatus in the temperature record, according to the rules of this (very) amateur debating circle which you outlined earlier, I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.

    Also doing a quick google scholar search for “hiatus in the temperature record” produces 26800 hits. So using a Cookie style analysis (details of which I will not reveal as you will only want to find fault with it) I can now proclaim confidently that I have agreement from 97% of all scientists.

    In fact its bleeding obvious to anybody with half a brain and a partly functioning eyeball.
    Logically therefore Group 1 chicken shit little dingbat Alarmists such as BBD and Chek who continue to deny this hiatus do not.

  23. #23 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    July 8, 2013

    (This was posted yesterday but for some reason probably not unrelated to celebratory champers for our rugger buggers plus ‘Murraymint’ it went into the June box.)

    Hello, little Deltoids! You will notice that I have waited until this afternoon before posting because, of course, on Sunday mornings you all gather in the Chapel to chant things like “I belieeeeve! I belieeeeve” and I am always a great respecter of religion.

    But, I wanted to say ‘thank you’ for this dose of global warming we’re all enjoying. Well, I know we’re not supposed to actually ‘enjoy’ it but the fact is that most of us do and the only problem for the last 15 or so years is that we haven’t had any!

    Perhaps, next Sunday when you go to Chapel you could pray to the great Mann-God for a bit more global warming, well, I mean, he keeps forecasting it but somehow it never quite happens. Anyway, sorry to interrupt, carry on chanting!

  24. #24 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    So now we have established that peer reviewed papers by bona fide climate scientists have recognised the hiatus in the temperature record, according to the rules of this (very) amateur debating circle which you outlined earlier, I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.

    What in the name of fuck are you going on about you delusional pillock?

    All I have ever said to you – and the other denialati here – is that the rate of surface warming has slowed, but the rate of OHC increase in the 0 – 2000m layer of the world ocean has not.

    All I have said is that climate basic #1 is:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system.

    “Global warming” continues exactly as expected at the climate system level.

    Are you so stupid and so painfully climate-illiterate that you do not understand that you have no argument at all?

    You can stuff this particularly crude and stupid strawman right back where it came from.

    Prat.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    Rednoise,

    I now declare myself the winner of this particular argument. Its tough shit but there it is.

    You wish.

    The strange thing is I have just Google scholar searched on the precise text string, in quotes, “hiatus in the temperature record” and got only one hit to this:

    Space and time scales of mesoscale motion in the western North Atlantic.

    So I guess you used the string without the quotes. Indeed doing just this I did get lots of hits but the big question is, do they all support your case? Just a cursor glance down the lists suggest not.

    You are now looking like Admiral Charlie ‘B'(eresford) after his spat with the Admiralty and Admiral Jacky Fisher where Charlie bragged about winning his case. Charlie’s pumped up opinion has been recognized as the result of delusion – ref. e.g. works by Arthur Marder.

    Why is this, because you still refuse to acknowledge that near surface temperatures are not the only metric of global heat build up and this has been pointed out to you with copious examples and references.

    You are either being willfully ignorant or dishonest, or both.

    Thinking of Google, there was notice this weekend of this: Is Google Funding Climate Science Denial? Jim Inhofe Fundraiser Planned For July 11.

  26. #26 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    I sense that Rednoise is once again battling with his reading comprehension issues. Let’s help him get a clue:

    * * *

    #38 previous page:

    This just gets funnier. Karen references Guemas et al. (2013) and Rednoise goes for Meehl et al. (2011) – two papers that address the way in which the rate of ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of surface warming.

    Neither buffoon has a clue that they have cited against their own stupid nonsense; in fact both these cretins think they are being clever.

    You are both idiots and neither of you has the remotest idea what you are talking about!

    :-)

    The climate system continues to heat up, exactly as expected. Great supporting references – thanks!

    * * *

    #39 previous page:

    Rednoise – response please:

    Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.

    All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.

    Remember climate basic # 1:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system

    Make a note for future reference.

    * * *

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

    Thanks.

    * * *

    #47 previous page:

    Rednoise continues to empty a pump-action shotgun into his feet at #17 in the belief that “winning” an “argument” about “hiatus” actually means anything. Look what the puckered arse did next – referencing Kaufman et al. (2011).

    Let’s read the abstract in full:

    Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

    This, from a denier! Just how *uncaring* about the science can you be to reference this in support of some stupid denialist nit-picking misdirection?

    Idiot.

    * * *

  27. #27 Rednose
    UK
    July 8, 2013

    #23 and #22

    Appreciate your attempts to second guess a methodology which is kept secret. Full marks for trying
    Unfortunately you are incorrect :-)

    because you still refuse to acknowledge that near surface temperatures are not the only metric of global heat build up

    Strawman

    The original argument started with Shrek was “recognising the hiatus in the temperature record”.
    This recognition has been shown in peer reviewed papers and you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
    So by your rules I am the winner.

    You are a poor loser BBD ;-)

    Anyway no time to start another argument, packing for a french trip.

    Au Revoir

  28. #28 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    Rednoise.

    Anyway no time to start another argument, packing for a french trip.

    Au Revoir

    Aha! Now you are behaving like the High Seas Fleet on June 1st 1916, running away and yet still claiming victory.

    Pathetic.

    As BBD has pointed out, besides other metrics considered, a slow down in warming, over a comparatively short time frame, does not constitute a hiatus. If you owe large sums of money and are paying off with interest a reduction in interest rates does not mean a stop in interest payments unless you pay off the sum borrowed.

    Similarly, it is impossible to have a stop in warming until the human forcings have ceased AND the incoming-outgoing energy balance has been restored i.e. equilibrium has been achieved. This is basic physics as explored by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and many others since.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    Marco @ #12. Yes freddy is a real class act – only prized for entertainment value but with an act where he can only step in the paint bucket a few times before it all becomes tedious.

  30. #30 Rednose
    UK
    July 8, 2013

    If you owe large sums of money and are paying off with interest a reduction in interest rates does not mean a stop in interest payments unless you pay off the sum borrowed.

    But isnt it a relief when the mortgage payments go down when the interest rate falls. Arent you glad of this hiatus.

    Didn’t know you had such a nautical background. Are you related to Seaman Stanes who operated the bucket used to gather that early information about sea temperatures. Was it true he could measure to 0.001C at depths of over 700m.
    What a legend?

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    July 8, 2013

    Rednose.

    I see that you imagine for yourself some basic competence in science and in statistical analysis.

    Your climate change-denying brethren here, headed by the dissembling Betula, have each been too scared to answer some fundamental questions that underpin your ignorant claim of no warming.

    Are you able to address them in defense of your uninformed comment?

  32. #32 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    Arent you glad of this hiatus.

    There has been no interruption, break or pause in warming, by any metric. The rise has been slower than previously anticipated, due to the effects of unknown knowns, but it has not stopped.

  33. #33 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    You are a poor loser BBD

    You are constructing strawmen and being a dishonest little shit, Rednoise.

  34. #34 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    When are you going to muster up the courage to respond to this?

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

    Instead of crap strawmen and lies, let’s have some engagement out of you, you dishonest little shit.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    July 8, 2013

    Betula.

    I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing – twisting the scientific description of attribution into a semantic caricature that attempts to arrive at a conclution in contradiction to the scientific understanding. His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening.

    Others above have already smacked you about for your signature dodging and weaving. It’s astonishing to see your antics, really… If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers’ instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it’s no wonder that you are an ex-Marine… an inability to understand the meaning of a statement is a dangerous thing in a person holding a gun – or an opinion…

    So, in your own words, can you go back and finally answer those original questions that seek to establish your understanding of the statistical processes used to identify warming.

    After you have done so, can you describe in your own words what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming, and can you describe what the attribution of individual events means in the context of the human contribution to global warming?

  36. #36 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    Cue the usual deafening silence.

  37. #37 chek
    July 8, 2013

    What is it about deniers and their delusional quest for easy answers?

  38. #38 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    At the risk of giving Birch an excuse for jumping over Bernard J’s direct questions here is another presentation by meteorologist Stu Ostro from which our resident numpty brigade could learn much, probably only if they open their closed little minds.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    In addition to my #36 above at 20:200 in the presentation Stu Ostro mentions where all his 1072 slides are. I’ll make it easier for those with learning difficulties by providing a full URL here to the PDF file.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    July 8, 2013

    Jennifer Francis at 39:40 at the presentations linked to above and here again makes the point that, ‘…if you calculate how much heat went into the Arctic Ocean just last summer in the areas where there used to be ice it is about enough energy to power the entire United States for twenty five years.

    A hiatus in warming, no way. Have the muppets here any idea of how much heat energy it takes to melt a given mass of ice compared to heat the same mass of water through one degree Celsius?

    Check out the concepts of latent heat and heat capacity, when you have done that you will appreciate the huge difference between the heat quantities involved in melting ice and changing water’s temperature. Once again, investigate the phase diagram of water – a good text on Physical Chemistry will help here.

  41. #41 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Lionel @ #38 I’ve asked the same question multiple times and all our fake sceptics avoid it like the plague.

    I assume they have no answer because it hasn’t been can’t be convincingly accounted for within the hiatus meme.

    The gnomic Jonarse did try some half-hearted bollocks through his pet SwedTroCollFarm hands that it was a ‘regional’ effect, and therefore not global, but the GRACE data and WGMS data blow that nonsense out of the water.

    The rest of the trolls have no answer, because there isn’t one.
    That they can’t even attempt one is to me a clear indication they know they’re promoting a lie.

  42. #42 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    chek arseblower, false assumption

    your agw “logic” is utterly primitively simplistic, like “in the toilet your shit falls down, do you believe it or you think that physics is not valid because my shit falls upwards, hein

  43. #43 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    @ #40

    SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!

    What exactly is “utterly primitively simplistic”? Please reference your argument!!!!!

  44. #44 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    @bbd arselickhappy, your baby logic reveals the full primitivity of your brain function, your dirty text :

    $£¥£$£¥£$£¥
    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.
    $£¥£$££$££¥$£

    “I cannot understand the basis of your denial”: BECAUSE YOUR EDUCATION LEVEL IS LOW, YOUR INFORMATION LEVEL IS MISERABLE, AND YOUR COMPREHENSION LEVEL IS A CATASTROPHE, your testimony that you cannot understand speaks for itself: i do not wonder that you don’t understand

    “For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended”: TYPICAL AGW ARSELICKER SHIT: as AGW in electron microscopic, hence totally irrelevant dimensions only happens because of deforestation, house heatings during, hot waste air from cars, airplanes and industry, but undiscernible by falsely called green house gases (the atmosphere is no greenhouse, you fool), the laws of physics apply, but AGW – as explained by me to you above – is so tiny that it cannot be measured, bbd fuckwit. hence in conclusion: physics works, but AGW not.

    hahahaha, hahahaha, you always lose the argument because you are a fool, bbd asshole cleaning vermin

    hahahahagaha, HA!

  45. #45 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Poor Prof. Freddy Fuckwit doesn’t know what he means – he only knows he’s against it.

    But, whichever way you cut it or squint at it, increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat’s entering the system to melt more and more ice, and there’s no stalling whatsoever.

  46. #47 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    @chek whistleblower

    “increasing disappearance of the cryosphere says heat’s entering the system to melt more and more ice”

    WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE: 99% of the relevant cryosphere is antarctica and greenland: no significant ice melting. arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean. agw is completely unmeasurable, so tiny is it. what we see is all weather: weather always changes, it changed constantly over more than 4 billion years with or without humans, and will do so also in the future, you tiny asshole fuckwit

  47. #48 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Hey Freddy, if AGW turns out not to be true, I have another theory that I’ll gift to you. Gratis.

    It could be that worldwide production of cars, buses, trucks, monster trucks – and some of those fuckers have big, I mean really big, like big fuck off giant wheels and has now reached such a mass production volume that all the air pumped into all those tyres under pressure – very high pressure in some cases – is lowering the sky thus bringing the sun closer. Hence the warming.

    Of course, it sounds insane but I’d argue no more and maybe even less insane than a trace gas which not only warms up an entire planet, but sustains an entire taxonomy.
    I mean, how does it find the time?

  48. #49 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    I asked for a *referenced* response, freddy. Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. I could justifiably strike through your comment, but I just can’t be bothered.

  49. #50 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    lionnel sock puppy, your mommy prepared your meal now, so go first to the toilet

    apart from copy paste have you arse anything learned in your poor life?

  50. #51 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    chek, your last “contribution” clearly reveals that you are an idiot

  51. #52 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    bbd asshole, again wrong, how surprising, irony off

    YOU MUST REFERENCE WHAT YOU CLAIM, ALL THE WRONG ASSERTIONS OF YOUR CLIMATE CHURCH

    YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU ASSERT THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED IN THE REAL WORLD: YOU FUCKWIT MUST REFERENCE AT LEAST ONE SINGLE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES THE ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2. YOU MUST REFERENCE, BECAUSE YYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUU ASSERT, NOT ME, YOU UTTERLY STINKING FUCKWIT ASSHOLE

  52. #53 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    You asked for references at #4 and I provided them at #15 and #16.

    You are claiming that “agw “logic” is utterly primitively simplistic”, by which you fundamentally mean the laws of physics.

    Please explain why, and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is “utterly primitive and simplistic” with references to the published literature.

    Otherwise, it is just argument by assertion, aka blah.

    Try it without caps and fucks. Stretch yourself a little.

  53. #54 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    #46

    :-)

  54. #55 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    bbd

    arrogant asshole without substance

    YOU MUST DELIVER WHAT I EXPLAINED TO YOU: SHOW ME ONE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES YOUR SHITTY DAMNED ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2

    YOU ALWAYS MIX SOMETHING VERY FUNDANENTAL UP TO HIDE YOUR UNTENABLE SCIENTIFIC STANCE:

    YOUR AGW CHURCH ASSERTS HUMAN GLOBAL WARMING, BUT CANNOT PROVE IT IN REALITY.

    YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU
    MMMMMMMUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSTTTTTTT
    PPPPPPPPPPPRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFF
    YYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUURRRRRRRR
    CCCCCCCCCCCCLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIMMMMM

    ASSHOLE

  55. #56 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    bbd arselick

    where is your reference to a paper of a measurement IN REALITY of co2 sensitivity??????

    SHOW IT
    PROVE IT
    WHERE IS THE PROOF

    DON’T BE LAZY

    SHOW THAT YOU CAN DELIVER (no computer game results accepted)

    YOU MUST DELIVER BECAUSE YOU ASSERT

  56. #57 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    YOU MUST DELIVER WHAT I EXPLAINED TO YOU: SHOW ME ONE ARTICLE WHICH MEASURES YOUR SHITTY DAMNED ASSERTED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF CO2

    Rohling et al. (2013)

  57. #58 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    Now, in return, please explain and support your claim that everything we know about the radiative properties of CO2 is “utterly primitive and simplistic” with references to the published literature.

  58. #59 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Freddy, why aren’t you able to read and understand the references you’ve been pointed to?

    Why are you so scared of reading the evidence that you instead demand proof like an ignorant toddler?

  59. #60 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Why are you uncapable of providing reasons that would show this is wrong, for instance without resorting to your trademark ranting all caps assertions and argumentum ex fuckwit.

  60. #61 chek
    July 8, 2013

    Uncapable?
    Christ.

  61. #62 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    bbd asshole, you are in big problems because the cited article does not provide ab exact measurement of co2 sensitivity

    since you have not read or understood the Rohling article, i cite subsequently some important parts:

    $£¥£$£¥£$£¥$

    Characterizing the complex responses of climate to changes in the radiation budget requires the definition of climate sensitivity: this is the global equilibrium surface temperature response to changes in radiative forcing (an alteration to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth–atmosphere system) caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Despite progress in modelling and data acquisition, uncertainties remain regarding the exact value of cli- mate sensitivity and its potential variability through time. The range of climate sensitivities in climate models used for Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Assessment Report 4 (IPCC-AR4) is 2.1–4.4 K per CO2 doubling1, or a warming of 0.6–1.2 K per W m–2 of forcing. Observational studies have not narrowed this range, and the upper limit is particularly difficult to estimate2.
    Large palaeoclimate changes can be used to estimate climate sensi- tivity on centennial to multi-millennial timescales, when estimates of both global mean temperature and radiative perturbations linked with slow components of the climate system (for example, carbon cycle, land ice) are available (Fig. 1). Here we evaluate published estimates of climate sensitivity from a variety of geological episodes, but find that intercom- parison is hindered by differences in the definition of climate sensitivity between studies (Table 1). There is a clear need for consistent definition of which processes are included and excluded in the estimated sensitivity, like the need for strict taxonomy in biology. The definition must agree as closely as possible with that used in modelling studies of past and future climate, while remaining sufficiently pragmatic (operational) to be applicable to studies of different climate states in the geological past.
    Here we propose a consistent operational definition for palaeoclimate sensitivity and illustrate how a tighter definition narrows the range of reported estimates. Consistent intercomparison is crucial to detect sys- tematic differences in sensitivity values—for example, due to changing continental configurations, different climate background states, and the types of radiative perturbations considered. These differences may then be evaluated in terms of additional controls on climate sensitivity, such as those arising from plate tectonics, weathering cycles, changes in ocean circulation, non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), enhanced water- vapour and cloud feedbacks under warm climate states. Palaeoclimate data allow such investigations across geological episodes with very dif- ferent climates, both warmer and colder than today. Clarifying the dependence of feedbacks, and therefore climate sensitivity, on the back- ground climate state is a top priority, because it is central to the utility of past climate sensitivity estimates in assessing the credibility of future climate projections1,3.

    $£¥£$£¥££¥££¥

    YOU FOOL, BBD, ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AS ARE UNABLE TO INTERPRET WHAT THE AUTHORS SAID. the article estimates and calculates paleodata from other studies, you idiot. there are no own observations but plenty of speculations about co2 sensitivity

    THEREFIRE YOU MISSED YOUR TASK TO REFERENCE AN ARTICLE WHICH PROVDES UNEQUIVOCAL AND PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OF CO2 SENSITIVITY

    YOU MUST TRY AGAIN, SINCE YOU DID A LOUSY JOB

  62. #63 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    chek asshole, your last 3 postings don’t contain any reasonable content

    TRY AGAIN

  63. #64 freddy
    July 8, 2013

    chek and bbd dwarfs

    can it really be that i am confronted here with absolutely ignorant people who have no clue what the content of an original scientific article is

  64. #65 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    You have references for RF per gas (#15) and atmospheric sampling (#16). You have the thorough intercomparison of paleoclimate estimates of S in Rohling et al.

    I’m still waiting for you to provide a referenced argument contradicting everything the laws of physics make CO2 molecules do. When they can find the time.

  65. #66 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    can it really be that i am confronted here with absolutely ignorant people who have no clue what the content of an original scientific article is

    No.

  66. #67 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    This needs a word:

    THEREFIRE YOU MISSED YOUR TASK TO REFERENCE AN ARTICLE WHICH PROVDES UNEQUIVOCAL AND PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OF CO2 SENSITIVITY

    The fun thing is, nobody knows. Even more hilariously, few who understand the basics even care.

    You can see from paleoclimate behaviour 65Ma – present that the climate system is sensitive to radiative forcing on all timescales.

    And the most likely value for S hovers around the canonical 0.75W/m^2

  67. #68 chek
    July 8, 2013

    there are no own observations but plenty of speculations relevant calculation of ranges about co2 sensitivity

    Fixed that little stupidity for you Freddy.

  68. #69 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    Of course it will be a bit less or a bit more, but it won’t make any real difference. That’s why few who understand the basics even care.

  69. #70 BBD
    July 8, 2013

    That should be:

    The most likely value for S hovers around the canonical 0.75C per W/m^2.

  70. #71 bill
    July 9, 2013

    never wrestle with a pig…

  71. #73 chek
    July 9, 2013

    Freddy @ #45

    WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE: 99% of the relevant cryosphere is antarctica and greenland: no significant ice melting.

    Freddy, freddy freddy. Were you unable to understand the GRACE mass loss measurements from Antarctica I previously posted to correct your same false and stupidly easy to refute point?

    Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods.

    Or perhaps this article on the Antarctic giant melt crater will cure your incredibly ill-informed, malformed ignorance.But we all know that’s never gonna happen.

    There’s more on the GIS (that’s the bit on the land) and the instability around the West Antarctic coast glaciers when those ice shelves disintegrate. But that’s enough to stuff a sock in your dumb mouth for a while.

  72. #74 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    Freddy still didn’t say where all the water came from in the Eemian. Although asked several times for his opinion.

    WTFUWT?

  73. #75 Betula
    July 9, 2013

    Berntard….

    “I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing”

    You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done…

    “He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming.”

    And then you state this…
    “His view is vehemently at odds with deniers and dissemblers who imagine that less than 100% attribution to humans of a particular climate event means that climate change is not happening”

    What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?

    And this…
    “If you misunderstood and misrepresented your former commanding officers’ instructions as much as you do the research and advice of professional scientists, it’s no wonder that you are an ex-Marine…”

    Why is it you treat all your “ifs” as fact Berntard.? Isn’t that a difficult way to go thru life? Why don’t you tell me what research and advice I have misrepresented…
    For example, why don’t you tell me what I misrepresented in posting Stott’s own view?

    And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard….with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?
    I realize you like to think of yourself as the demanding teacher 24/7 Berntard, but your questions serve no purpose to what I’ve been saying all along, and which you are misrepresenting. I have never denied Global Warming….you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases, sort of like this blog.

    Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change “first hand”…you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn’t read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it….a cop out to protect your like minded buddy….it was too difficult for you to read the article, yet you demand I answer your 20 questions. Now, go to the back of the class, you’re berntardy.

    If you want to talk noise and signals, this blog is the perfect example. There is plenty of fluctuating noise on this blog on a daily basis, but long term I have picked up on a recurring trend…
    The Deltoid trend is this…. the timescale needed for a trend depends on the Deltoidian making the point…

    For Hardley, the timescale needed to experience climate change “fist hand” and see shifting zones “for real” is only 23 days and frostbite, with no challenge from the peanut gallery.

    For Deadeye Dickie, he completely bypasses the section of the WMO report (as do others) regarding a timescale needed to detect a trend in extreme weather and climate events. For Dickie, the time is now.

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

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

    These are not my words, they are the words in the WMO conclusion. Words that apparently you and others deny, yet somehow, I am the denier for posting them..

    Here’s the truth Berntard, the Deltoid “signal” stinks of bias…

  74. #76 Bernard J.
    July 9, 2013
    “I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing”

    You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done…

    Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?

    If you don’t know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).

    What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?

    OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.

    You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can’t ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is…

    Why is it you treat all your “ifs” as fact Berntard.?

    Betula, I don’t treat my “ifs” as fact. If</i> they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.

    If</i> that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.

    And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard….with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?

    Open book, ‘phone a friend, ask the thread – whatever works for you.

    All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.

    I have never denied Global Warming….you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases…

    Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?

    Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change “first hand”…you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn’t read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it…

    I remember my response very well. let’s recap on that, whilst we’re at it – you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff’s group “…experienced climate change at first hand”, to which I responded:

    I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent “first hand” evidence of climate change.

    There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word “if” which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.

    You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:

    If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”. What the relevance of your question is though is unclear – it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur

    Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word “if” which seems to bug the hell out of you.

    You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the “bias” is that you imagine is present in climatology.

    So, once more – is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?

  75. #77 Bernard J.
    July 9, 2013
    “I know what Peter Stott says about attribution of extreme climate events. I spent some time discussing this with him after a presentation he gave on the subject. As it happened I also spoke with him about the very thing that you are doing”

    You spoke to him about me posting his own view? Because that is the very thing I have done…

    Do you have an inability to parse, or are you just being your typical dissembling self?

    If you don’t know what I mean, you are the only one, except perhaps freddy (whom I note you do not in any way challenge).

    What does that have to do with me or his view regarding extreme events?

    OK, without any dodging or skirting, tell us what you believe is the relationship between human carbon emissions and extreme climate events. For bonus points you could document for the record your understanding of the relationship between human carbon emissions and climate change.

    You should only need a paragraph to state each succinctly, and this is the perfect opportunity to put your position on the record once and for all so that you can’t ever be misrepresented again. If you are misrepresented, that is…

    Why is it you treat all your “ifs” as fact Berntard.?

    Betula, I don’t treat my “ifs” as fact. If</ they appear to be so treated in your mind, it may be that that occurs because you yourself understand them as fact.

    If</ that is the case then I am more than happy to go with that.

    And keep posting the 10 questions with 2 parts each Berntard….with orders. How will I ever answer them? Is it open book?

    Open book, ‘phone a friend, ask the thread – whatever works for you.

    All I seek is for you to demonstrate that you actually have the basic science under your belt. To date you have steadfastly avoided any and every opportunity to prove that you are equipped with the basic understanding to comment on matters of climate change.

    I have never denied Global Warming….you know it, and I have never denied that climate changes, it always has, how much it changes in the future and the effect of those changes is a prediction, one that more and more appears to be full of biases…

    Betula. Is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence?

    Do you remember your response to my question regarding Hardley and experiencing climate change “first hand”…you showed me your true colors. You said you hadn’t read the material (that I linked many times) so you were uninformed and would have to take his word for it…

    I remember my response very well. let’s recap on that, whilst we’re at it – you had a conversation with Jeff Harvey about his trip, a conversation in which I took no part because it was not relevant to the issues that I was focussing on. You attempted to draw me into it by asking me if I believed Jeff’s group “…experienced climate change at first hand”, to which I responded:

    I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent “first hand” evidence of climate change.

    There is nothing contentious about my response, except that I predicated it with the word “if” which seems to fill you with such rabid loathing for the setting of a context.

    You also asked me if I believed Jeff when he said that he couldn’t describe soil “things” first hand. I said:

    If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”. What the relevance of your question is though is unclear – it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur

    Again, there is nothing contentious about my response, except that I once more predicated it with the word “if” which seems to bug the hell out of you.

    You spend a lot of time with side-steps and distractions Betula, but you never actually have the courage to say explicitily what the “bias” is that you imagine is present in climatology.

    So, once more – is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? To what extent is climate changing as a result of human carbon emissions? Can you demonstrate that you know how human influence is distinguished from non-human influence? Can you demonstrate where you imagine that climatological/physical science is wrong in its interpretation of the nature of climate change?

  76. #78 freddy
    July 9, 2013

    @nochek

    NO, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU JUST CHERRYPICK

  77. #79 freddy
    July 9, 2013

    @chek arseblow

    GRACE satellite DATA

    REFERENCE REQUIRED!!!!!!!

    you know the accuracy of these satellite data???????

    NO YOU DONT, BECAUSE YOU WANT CHERRY PICKING

  78. #80 bill
    July 9, 2013

    Freddy, you are the most pathetic wretch I’ve had the misfortune to encounter online.

    Remember; the fact that your own fellow-travellers cynically see you as a ‘useful idiot’ is also an acknowledgement that you’ are just that – an idiot.

  79. #81 Jeff Harvey
    July 9, 2013

    Bernard,

    Excellent response to Mr. John Birch.

    He’s wrung just about every conceivable metaphorical drop he can from an online article I did not write but which appeared on our NIOO web site. This alone reveals he has no facts to support his vacuous arguments; he relies on this and will forever as far as Deltoid is concerned.

    Several weeks ago I linked to at least 10 studies which show recent rapid biotic responses to warming – and Betula’s reply was to go back to Algonquin Park again. He really thinks he’s on a winner here, so why switch to discuss actual peer-reviewed scientific studies that undermine his arguments? I could also gladly refer to a recent PhD thesis over here which points out the effects of increased atmospheric C02 and temperature on soil communities but he is not interested. I realized that his knowledge of environmental science is at grade-school level when he flippantly remarked that ecosystems where he lives are in a good state on the basis of three appallingly simple examples. He wisely never went back to that, as the rug had been pulled out from under him big time. No, instead it was back to a NIOO article that I personally did not write, even if I do accept responsibility for it. That’s his Alamo. His last stand. As the Mexican army overwhelms him, Betula acts like a modern day Davy Crockett, holding on until the last moment.

  80. #82 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    Betty still denying that he’s a denier…

  81. #83 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    Freddy the Fuckwit™ still not saying where that ~6m of extra ocean came from during the Eemian…

    Ho-hum.

  82. #84 chek
    July 9, 2013

    Neither has Professor Fuckwit© explained what he means by ‘cherrypicking’ GRACE data.

    Just common-or-garden ignorant denial, as expected.

  83. #85 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    chek – sorry about the look-and-feel infringement there ;-) Have the legal bods sort it out and I’ll buy you a pint.

    I wondered what ™ © was on about wrt “cherry-picking” GRACE. He’s a rum ‘un, is our fred-fred.

  84. #86 chek
    July 9, 2013

    The main thing is we’ve got both Fred’s handles covered, so n.p., BBD.

    I do wonder though how long these … er … people think their denial can remain tenable, given that it’s been a creaky old shack shifting on its foundations for some time now.

  85. #87 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    The grim pathology of denial is such that as the evidence mounts, the rejectionism becomes stronger and stronger. LIke a number of… observers, I strongly suspect that the focus will shift away from physics denial to attacking any and every policy response. Different tune, same song: no-no-no-no-no…

  86. #88 Lionel A
    July 9, 2013

    freddy

    arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean.

    Before you thump the keyboard perhaps you should spend a little time in understanding which argument you are replying to. With respect to heat absorption then Arctic Sea Ice is extremely relevant. The only metric that Arctic sea ice dos not affect directly is rise in sea level.

    Now go back up to my #40 and watch the presentation linked to there.

    Now, if you had been following the posts in this thread, with their many helpful links to easily digestible information, you would not be behaving in so transparently an ignorant manner.

    What is it with you, is English not your first language or is it that you skipped classes at school. Maybe you were home-schooled, a poor little rich kid maybe, such demonstrable ignorance and illiteracy is often a product of that.

  87. #89 chek
    July 9, 2013

    arctic sea ice is irrelevant as it swims in the ocean.

    This is Fred-fred’s way of avoiding the issue and signalling the SpamKan’s and PantieZ et al that there’s no case to answer as SLR isn’t a problem.

    You’re not supposed to point out the knock on effects on weather systems Lionel, or that it’s the indication of a vast amount of heat entering the Earth system, or what that heat may do once the polar ice is no longer there to absorb it.

    Denial is all about pretending there’s no problem.

  88. #90 freddy
    July 9, 2013

    hey nochecking, wrong: there is no additional energy beside radiation from the sun, fuckwit

  89. #91 chek
    July 9, 2013

    You’re correct of course Freddy, a lazy term of expression on my part meant to indicate the imbalance.

  90. #92 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    Yes, fred-fred. We grasp that. But we are talking about what happens when the radiative profile of the atmosphere is altered, reducing the efficiency of energy loss to space. That’s why it’s called “radiative imbalance”.

    When you come out with these little gems you emphasise how poorly you understand the very basics of physical climatology.

  91. #93 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    chek #91 we crossed – sorry.

  92. #94 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    bill @ #72

    I hadn’t realised that PAGES 2K confirmed the MBH98/99 “handle” to such an extent.

    MBH must have been pleased, given the cess that’s been flung at the HS over the years. This deserves a wide audience. I hope it gets one.

  93. #95 chek
    July 9, 2013

    Good to see you’re on the ball BBD, although I hardly think Freddy-fred’s in a position to nit-pick at this point (other than ineffectual nit-pickery being one consistent definition of denial through the years).

  94. #96 Lionel A
    July 9, 2013

    freddy in #47 you mentioned the Antarctic well it just so happens that beside the Antarctic flood produces ‘ice crater’ mentioned at least twice in this thread we now see that Pine Island glacier produces giant iceberg.

    Have you any idea of the effect on glacier flow dynamics of large chunks of ice like this breaking off. So that is West Antarctic and East Antarctic displaying cryospheric instability in a short space of time.

    What is behind this, a build up of heat in the system or aliens? Think back up thread about latent heat eh!

  95. #97 Stu
    July 9, 2013

    If this has been figured out, please let me know, but I’m curious where our little new scatological brain-damaged friend is from. I think I spotted a ‘Hein’ up there, which would suggest a Frenchy… although with his massive inferiority complex, a Wallon seems more likely.

  96. #98 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    Eemian MSL highstand was at least 5m above present MSL. Global average temperature during the Eemian was ~1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene Hansen & Sato (2012)

    The NEEM project results (Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013) indicate less contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) to the Eemian MSL highstand. Not more than ~2m; perhaps less.

    A major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) apparently contributed ~3m – 4M more. Where else could the water have come from?

    It’s even possible that the contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) was greater than previously thought.

  97. #99 Craig Thomas
    July 9, 2013

    Stu, Swiss-German.

    He hasn’t commented on the Arctic Sea ice “recovery” lately.

    I wonder why that is?

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Looks like “freddy”‘s “recovery” is as reliable a fact as anything else he spouts.

  98. #100 BBD
    July 9, 2013

    @ Stu

    Yes, I noticed that “hein” and there seems little doubt that fred-fred is battling courageously with English and that, though nothing else, does him credit.

    But who cares about the details? He’s a monster from the id.

    :-)

1 3 4 5 6 7 18

Current ye@r *