July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Stu
    July 10, 2013

    Where else could the water have come from?

    Noah’s fresh water tank on the Ark?

  2. #2 Betula
    July 10, 2013

    “NMFS denies ribbon seal endangered species listing”

    “This decision begins to bring some rationality to the recent misapplication of the ESA that has resulted in the precautionary listing of currently abundant and robust species based on speculated and unproven climate related impacts over century timeframes,” he said by email. “We stand ready to assist the NMFS in defense of this decision if it is challenged.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/nmfs-denies-ribbon-seal-endangered-species-listing-222037776.html

  3. #3 bill
    July 10, 2013

    Another idiot selective-quotation, brought to you by our regular science-deniers –

    Ribbon seals are found in the Bering and Chukchi (Chuk-CHEE’) seas off Alaska and in the Sea of Okhotsk (oh-KOTSK’) off Russia. They are not in danger of disappearing under the time limits required for listing in the Endangered Species Act, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

    “NOAA’s status review concluded that the anticipated threats to ribbon seals, primarily from reductions in sea ice and disrupted prey communities, will result in a gradual decline in ribbon seal population abundance,” said Julie Speegle in the announcement. “However, this decline is not expected to render the species in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.”

    The agency also rejected a listing for ribbon seals in December 2008. Attorney Rebecca Noblin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which with Greenpeace sued for reconsideration, said the agency acknowledges that the seals could be in serious trouble in the Sea of Okhotsk. Continued sea ice loss also threatens them in the Bering Sea, she said.

    “We disagreed that loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea is not going to be a problem in the foreseeable future,” she said. “We think the sea ice models show that ribbon seals are losing sea ice at critical times in the spring.”

    Everyone acknowledges the sea-ice is diminishing and this will have an impact on the seals – this is niggling about timeframes to facilitate BAU; the kind of bog-standard bureaucratic buck-passing you guys deplore in any other context, in fact

    And, whaddyaknow, I can use blockquotes! I’ve showed you the code twice. The reactionary mind…

  4. #4 bill
    July 10, 2013

    Maybe you should learn to read before you regurgitate, Batty? Oh, no, sorry; that’s right, you’re a denier – what was I thinking?

  5. #5 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Some evasive, empty blather aside, you have not answered the key question Betty.

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

    I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

    How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

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

  6. #6 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    @chek bloblo

    no, wrong!!!!!

  7. #7 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    @bill

    blockquotes, hahahahahaha

    the computer illiterate is proud of blockquotes in most primitive html, yes that’s exacty the level about which you can be proud

    GREAT ACHIEVEMENT, BLOCKQUOTES

    TYPICAL AGW CHURCH ACOLYTES LEBEL

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAÄHAH
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  8. #8 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    @bbd asshole stinker

    you have bern given information about the idiocy and fallacy of your delusion

    €$£$££¥£$
    Some evasive, empty blather aside, you have not answered the key question Betty.

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

    I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

    How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?
    €$££¥$£¥¥£$£

    why do yout fuckwit resist to learn your lesson??

    go back in the thread, read your lesson, then get back and admit that you are a big idiot

  9. #9 chek
    July 10, 2013

    yes that’s exacty the level about which you can be proud

    Well there is that, but then there’s also communicating coherent English and support for the entirely coherent theory of AGW.

    Maybe coherence is the thing you’re rejecting in thought and deed, Freddy-fred.

  10. #10 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    why do yout fuckwit resist to learn your lesson??

    What lesson? You know nothing, reference nothing and are continually and seriously in error about everything.

    Where did that ~6m of extra ocean come from during the Eemian, freddy?

  11. #11 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    you have bern given information about the idiocy and fallacy of your delusion

    No I haven’t. I’ve been subjected to an outpouring of stupid, illiterate abuse by a nutter who references nothing and who clearly knows nothing about even the basic concepts of physical climatology.

    And it’s getting tedious now.

  12. #12 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    chek ignorant arse

    AGW IS NO THEORY, you have been thaught this now several times, and your learning abilitites a pure catastrophe

    for once, wikipedia has a valid definition of what a scientific theory is. listen and try to learn again:

    ä$£¥£$£¥$

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
    The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
    Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

    @&€€&€&&€€&&&€&&&&€&

    WILL YOU FOOL NOW ABSTSAIN FROM YOUR COMPULSION DISORDER TO CALL SPECULATED HUMAN CO2 WARMING A THEORY, FUCKWIT ARSEHOLE

  13. #13 Bob
    July 10, 2013

    Freddy:

    WILL YOU FOOL NOW ABSTSAIN FROM YOUR COMPULSION DISORDER TO CALL SPECULATED HUMAN CO2 WARMING A THEORY, FUCKWIT ARSEHOLE

    Time Cube:

    Fraudulent ONEness of religious
    academia has retarded your opposite
    rationale brain to a half brain slave.
    YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS –
    FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,
    THEY ALREADY EXIST.
    4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS
    IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
    4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.
    4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS
    WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS.
    TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS – THE
    ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.

    No, I can’t tell the difference either.

  14. #14 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Bob

    That’s interesting. Where did the Time Cube comment come from?

  15. #15 Lionel A
    July 10, 2013

    TYPICAL AGW CHURCH ACOLYTES LEBEL

    freddy’s typical non-argument picked up from the worst of denialist blogs.

    LEBEL! Are you now discussing rifles now FFS? If so the SMLE was superior.

    It isn’t Luboš Motl behind this freddy mask by any chance is it? Just stringing things together.

  16. #16 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Fred-fred

    AGW is a consequence of the laws of physics operating within the climate system.

    It’s probably not accurate to describe it as a theory in formal terms, but nor is it correct to claim that it is an hypothesis.

    It is robust, evidentially supported and now accepted throughout the multidisciplinary field of Earth System Sciences as a matter of fact. A strong scientific consensus attests to this.

    Pretending that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong.

    Yet again, you are spouting arrant crap.

  17. #17 Bob
    July 10, 2013

    BBD,

    It’s just a random excerpt from the infamous website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_cube). Freddy’s ramblings remind me very strongly of the sort of tripe that can be found on there – in fact, most of them would fit in seamlessly.

  18. #18 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Bob – thanks for that; I had no idea. One lives and learns.

    The resemblance to fred-fred is remarkable, but perhaps our freddy is only “school of”. I get the impression that Gene/Otis E. Ray would sign his own work :-)

  19. #19 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    @bbd asshole

    “Pretending that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong”

    THIS IS YOUR PAGAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

    “WELL-UNDERSTOOD PHYSICS” IS IRRELEVANT AS LONG AS YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR BELIEF BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS 2m ABOVE THE SURFACE, SINCE TEMPERATURE INCREASES MUST BE MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOTHING ELSE, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORANT FUCKWITS

  20. #20 chek
    July 10, 2013

    “There are more cranks in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

  21. #21 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    further basic education for CAGW meteorology and glaciology laymen morons: bill, jeff, chek, bernard, marco, craig, bbd, etc.:

    any changes in antarctic sea ice volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

    YOUR STUPIDITY AND LEVEL OF LACKING KNOWLEDGE IS INCREDIBLE, HOWEVER THE STINKING MOUTH ALWAYS WIDE OPEN, THE AGW ARSELICKS

  22. #22 Lionel A
    July 10, 2013

    Another data point for that skewed bell curve of extreme weather events.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    July 10, 2013

    “YOUR STUPIDITY AND LEVEL OF LACKING KNOWLEDGE IS INCREDIBLE, HOWEVER THE STINKING MOUTH ALWAYS WIDE OPEN, THE AGW ARSELICKS”

    You really do need professional medical help, Freddy.

  24. #24 oh dear
    July 10, 2013

    What is the raving crank freddy trying to achieve? What’s freddy’s point? He’s completely irrational.

    Talk about hyper-religious. He’s firmly attached his fragile ego to the teachings of his high priests Monckton and jo nova etc, and his mind has since solidified. Poor guy.

  25. #25 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    This rubbish again:

    WELL-UNDERSTOOD PHYSICS” IS IRRELEVANT AS LONG AS YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR BELIEF BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS 2m ABOVE THE SURFACE, SINCE TEMPERATURE INCREASES MUST BE MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOTHING ELSE, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORANT FUCKWITS

    Same old graph showing satellite data directly compared to surface air temperature on a common baseline.:

    UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 – present; monthly means; common 1981 – 2010 baseline

    Don’t you get it? Don’t you see that this single graph completely debunks your bollocks about errors/fakery in the gridded surface temperature records?

    Can you still not see this? You are taking obtuse to an entirely new level, freddy.

  26. #26 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    any changes in antarctic sea ice volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

    The first thing a glaciologist would tell you, fred-fred, is that you have confused sea ice with ice sheets. They are not the same thing at all. Ice sheets form on land. Sea ice forms… well, hopefully you’ve got it by now.

    Now, Google up “marine ice sheet” and “grounding lines on retrograde slopes” and do some reading. Then we can get back to the Eemian MSL mystery that you are so very keen not to discuss with me.

  27. #27 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    THIS IS YOUR PAGAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

    No, freddy, it is the truth.

    Pretending – as the most stupid and clueless deniers do – that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong.

    It is a grossly ignorant misrepresentation of the actual state of scientific understanding. Your insistence on this point is both witless and counter-productive.

  28. #28 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    my fault: “antarctic sea ice volume”

    i meant antarctic ice shield volume (i wrote this too fast)

    my comment applied to antarctic ice shield volume

    for once you were right, that i used the wrong term: now my eduation lesson to you reads:

    any changes in antarctic ice shield volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

    FUCKWITS

  29. #29 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    “ice sheet“, freddy, but we’re getting there.

    as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

    Then you will have no difficulty in supplying numerous references to support this claim.

    I should add that the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS is considered to be only the merest hint of what is to come GHG forcing continues to increase over the course of the century.

  30. #30 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    @ # 20

    I am but mad north-north-west: when the
    wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

  31. #31 Betula
    July 10, 2013

    About that massive iceberg…

    “the way the ice breaks, or “calves,” is still somewhat mysterious.”

    “While Humbert and her colleagues did not draw direct connections between this week’s calving event and climate change, other scientists, including marine geologists at the British Antarctic Survey, are investigating whether global warming is thinning Antarctica’s ice sheets and speeding up the glacier’s retreat”

    “Yet, the flow of the Pine Island Glacier may be driven by other factors, Humbert said. The glacier flows to the Amundsen Sea at a rate of about 2.5 miles (4 km) per year. She says whether the flow speeds up or slows down is based more on changing wind directions in the Amundsen Sea, and less by rising air temperatures.”

    What is it with these denying scientists? Beat them!

  32. #33 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Betty, pack the straw away. Nobody said anything about the PIG calving being the result of CC. Although everybody I have ever discussed the increasing Antarctic (specifically WAIS) rate of mass loss with thinks that it *is* caused by AGW.

    * * *

    The denying link…

    Do shut up with this rubbish, Betty.

    You are a denier because you refuse to accept that AGW is a *threat* to future generations because it will be severely disruptive of the climate and of agriculture and eventually, of the world’s entire coastline as SLR gets going later this century.

    You don’t have the balls or the honesty to admit that you are a denier though. You deny your denial, like the majority of climate liars one comes across.

    Then you whine, which makes the whole miserable spectacle even worse and makes several people here – including myself – want to give you a metaphorical kick in the arse.

  33. #34 chek
    July 10, 2013

    Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula, fucks up again with his famous brand of dishonest selective quote mining.

    (If you’ve still got the receipt Betty, I’d take that argument model back to where you got it and demand a refund. Either it’s a piece of shit, or you are for not operating it correctly. I know which one my money’s on but YMMV).

    Betty offers the bit that suits his not-a-denier denial agenda:
    whether the flow speeds up or slows down is based more on changing wind directions in the Amundsen Sea, and less by rising air temperatures.”

    “Less by rising air temperatures”, (presumably measured 2 meters above ground only with a thermometer) is Betty’s take home message to us. But – oh dear what’s this? Betty left out in the immediately following paragraph:

    “The wind now brings warm sea water beneath the shelf ice,” Humbert said. “Over time, this process means that the shelf ice melts from below, primarily at the so-called grounding line, the critical transition to the land ice.”

    Still, if the glacier’s flow speeds up, it could have serious consequences, the researchers said. The Pine Island Glacier currently acts as a plug, holding back part of the immense West Antarctic Ice Sheet whose melting ice contributes to rising sea levels.

    Oh dear, there’s another bucket of globally warmed hot water poured over the hiatus morons. And so teh Stupid loses again with Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula once again achieving the opposite to what he intended.

  34. #35 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Before you get going, Betty, inform yourself. Read this, wherein you will find this:

    Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent’s ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

    [...]

    Scientists have studied the rates of basal melt, or the melting of the ice shelves from underneath, of individual ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers that empty into the sea. But this is the first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves. The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

    “The traditional view on Antarctic mass loss is it is almost entirely controlled by iceberg calving,” said Eric Rignot of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. Rignot is lead author of the study to be published in the June 14 issue of the journal Science. “Our study shows melting from below by the ocean waters is larger, and this should change our perspective on the evolution of the ice sheet in a warming climate.”

  35. #36 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    We crossed again, chek ;-)

  36. #37 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    I wonder if any of the contrarians here have done as I suggested at #25 and Googled “marine ice sheet” and “grounding lines on retrograde slopes” yet?

    It’s good advice and sincerely offered.

  37. #38 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Here’s the calving vs basal melt map of Antarctica.

    With this firmly in mind, let’s return to the Eemian :-)

    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 indicate the contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) to the Eemian MSL highstand was ~2m or less (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013)

    A major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) apparently contributed ~3m – 4m to the Eemian highstand. If not the GIS, then where else could the water have come from, after all?

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

  38. #39 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    bbd arseblower, a quite simple thought WILL NOT go into your brain: THERE IS NO AGW WHICH CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

    HENCE SHUT UP WITH YOUR MONGER BOLLOCKS:
    $£¥£$£¥£
    You are a denier because you refuse to accept that AGW is a *threat* to future generations because it will be severely disruptive of the climate and of agriculture and eventually, of the world’s entire coastline as SLR gets going later this century
    $£¥£$£¥££

    YOUR POOR PERFOMANCE AS AGW ARSELICK IS A SHAME, EVEN FOR YOUR CHURCH. I AM SURE KEVIN TRENBERTH WILL NOT LIKE YOU. HE IS HUMILIATED BY LOSERS LIKE YOU FUCKWIT, FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCK

  39. #40 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    @bbd arsestink

    before something in antarctica collaoses YOU WILL COLLAPSE A MILLION TIMES AT LEAST.

    IT’S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS,

  40. #41 Lionel A
    July 10, 2013

    IT’S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS,

    Now there is a thing, glaciers can suffer depression through basal melt.
    It is a shame that you never learned anything about anything, ’tis all unknown unknowns with you.

    PS It would seem that your med’s are wearing off again.

  41. #42 Stu
    July 10, 2013

    Hi Freddy.

    USING ALL CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A JUVENILE MORON WITHOUT ARGUMENTS.

    Actually, you are a juvenile moron without arguments, so it’s very fitting.

    Never mind, carry on.

  42. #43 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    bbd arseblower, a quite simple thought WILL NOT go into your brain: THERE IS NO AGW WHICH CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

    HENCE SHUT UP WITH YOUR MONGER BOLLOCKS:

    But you are mistaken, dear fred-fred. Look:

    GAT vs GISS forcings from 1900: solar; well-mixed GHGs; total net forcing

    NOAA, GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are estimated forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

  43. #44 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    stu ASSHOLE ZERO AGW

  44. #45 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    When one factors in ocean heat content, the picture gets even clearer:

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    – Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans (Levitus et al. 2012).

    Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.

    All things considered, I think “MONGER BOLLOCKS” is a little hastily dismissive, don’t you?

  45. #46 freddy
    July 10, 2013

    no bbd arse, i don’t give a penny on your propaganda industry

  46. #47 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    IT’S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS

    You are being a pillock, fred-fred. There’s no need for this, really.

    Just make your argument and reference it.

  47. #48 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Freddy old bean, physics is just physics. It does what it does. The “propaganda industry” – whatever you think that is – is irrelevant.

    Look at paleoclimate behaviour.

  48. #49 Craig Thomas
    July 10, 2013

    “freddy”, any comment on your mistaken assertions about the Arctic sea ice “recovery” which, it turns out, only existed in your imagination?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

  49. #50 Stu
    July 10, 2013

    stu ASSHOLE ZERO AGW

    I stand in awe of your debating skills, Freddy. Science be damned, AGW is a hoax! And it’s all thanks to you, Freddy!

  50. #51 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Here’s another classic line bought you by Deadeye Dickie…

    Nobody said anything about the PIG calving being the result of CC. Although everybody I have ever discussed the increasing Antarctic (specifically WAIS) rate of mass loss with thinks that it *is* caused by AGW.

    Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

  51. #52 bill
    July 11, 2013

    Did we establish if Freddy da Freak is, indeed, a Walloony? ;-)

    And Scrofula, I’m going to assume that dropping the NMFS Ribbon Seals selective-quotation thing from #2 down the memory hole is your way of acknowledging you have no point. Ta.

    The sad thing is that that’s as good as it gets for you, isn’t it?

  52. #53 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    “I’m going to assume that dropping the NMFS Ribbon Seals selective-quotation thing from #2 down the memory hole is your way of acknowledging you have no point”

    The point was made…Ribbon Seals won’t be put on the endangered list because they aren’t endangered. Doesn’t get any more clear than that.

    “Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable,” he said in the announcement. “Their diet is diverse, they feed over a wide range of depths, and there is evidence that they may compensate for changes in sea ice by moving to other habitats in which they are still able to feed and reproduce”

    Bill, does it upset you that they aren’t endangered?

  53. #54 bill
    July 11, 2013

    Definitely ‘school of’ for any Gene Ray / Time Cube comparison.

    Philosophical train-wreck gawkers – and, c’mon, isn’t this you? ;-) – may enjoy this edumacational material on YouTube.

  54. #55 bill
    July 11, 2013

    No, Batty, the point is nothing of the sort.

    This is first-class bureaucratic nit-picking about time-lines as the rest of the article makes very clear indeed.

    But you excerpted the bit you liked to bolster your ludicrous hope that if someone somewhere claims that AGW impacts are ‘speculated and unproven’, well, that proves them to be so, don’t it?

    But this someone turns out to be a ‘a spokesman for the state of Alaska, Doug Vincent-Lang’, a Sarah Palin appointee who turns out to be this guy.

    Would you be so kind as to explain to us the qualifications of this man with regard to either seal-biology or the climate system? Ta.

    As I said, this really is the best you can do. It’s not impressive, is it?

  55. #56 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Bill…

    “But you excerpted the bit you liked to bolster your ludicrous hope that if someone somewhere claims that AGW impacts are ‘speculated and unproven’, well, that proves them to be so, don’t it?”

    The climate impacts on the “currently abundant and robust” Ribbon seals is indeed “speculated and unproven”. That’s why the Federal Government, under The National Marine Fisheries Service (not Doug Vincent Lang), rejected the listing….

    I think fisheries biologist Doug Vincent Lang, as Director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation (appointed by Cora Campbell) has every right to comment on the decision, in fact, it would be expected that he does…

    And it was Jon Kurland, NOAA Fisheries’ assistant regional administrator for protected resources, who stated:

    “Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable,” he said in the announcement. “Their diet is diverse, they feed over a wide range of depths, and there is evidence that they may compensate for changes in sea ice by moving to other habitats in which they are still able to feed and reproduce”

    So I ask you again evasive Bill, does it upset you that they aren’t endangered?

  56. #58 bill
    July 11, 2013

    Batty, your dishonesty shines – or, more rightly, squelches – through.

    Here’s a link to what you posted above.

    I leave people to judge for themselves which qualifications proved crucial in the gentleman concerned securing that job.

    And, again, I will take your evasiveness as conceding my point. Thank you.

    Your intentions were obvious. I have deflated them. Suck it up.

    As for trying to draw attention away from your own dishonesty by alluding to my being ‘upset’ – one: cheap, and two: not at all. Being a bonafide conservationist, I’m perfectly happy if ‘adaptable’ Ribbon Seals manage to be just that. But the article you posted proves nothing with regard to the matter – the ice will recede, this may or may not impact the seals, but probably not ‘endanger’ them in a conveniently truncated timeframe.

    What I really don’t like is nasty little muckers trying to score cheap points via selective-quotation. And that would be you…

    (If I had a dollar for every time I closed a link tage with ‘i’ rather than ‘a’ – well, I’d have 23 dollars and 50 cents… ;-) )

  57. #59 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    further education of the totally uninformed cagw arselicks concerning THE TOTAL IRRELEVANCE OF CO2 ON EARTH’S CLIMATE!!!

    swallow and digest this:

    ———————–
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene

    Milankovitch cycles[edit]
    Main article: Milankovitch cycles
    Glaciation in the Pleistocene was a series of glacials and interglacials, stadials and interstadials, mirroring periodic changes in climate. The main factor at work in climate cycling is now believed to be Milankovitch cycles. These are periodic variations in regional and planetary solar radiation reaching the Earth caused by several repeating changes in the Earth’s motion.
    Milankovitch cycles cannot be the sole factor responsible for the variations in climate since they explain neither the long term cooling trend over the Plio-Pleistocene, nor the millennial variations in the Greenland Ice Cores. Milankovitch pacing seems to best explain glaciation events with periodicity of 100,000, 40,000, and 20,000 years. Such a pattern seems to fit the information on climate change found in oxygen isotope cores. The timing of our present interglacial interval (known as the Holocene, Postglacial, or the Present Interglacial) to that of the previous interglacial, beginning about 130,000 years ago (The Eemian Interglacial), suggests that the next glacial would likely begin in about 3,000 years.

    —————————

    CONCLUSION: CO2 HAS NO ROLE AND THE NEXT GLACIAL WILL COME SOON, ARSELICKS

    FORGET YOUR OBSESSION AND COMPULSION ABOUT A NULL-FACTOR ON EARTH’S CLIMATE, FUCKWITS

  58. #60 Craig Thomas
    July 11, 2013

    Heh, The Australian has a way of spinning things:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/electricity-market-shrinks-by-40pc-as-prices-tumble/story-e6frg6xf-1226677358635

    “Electricity market shrinks as prices tumble”.

    I think they mean, “Renewables and carbon tax brings down cost of electricity, freeing up household spending and making business more competitive”.

  59. #61 Craig Thomas
    July 11, 2013

    Oh, “freddy” is still here.

    Have you explained yet what went wrong with your mistaken belief in an Arctic sea ice recovery that never happened, “freddy”?
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Seeing as “freddy” was completely wrong about Arctic sea ice, what else is “freddy” wrong about?

  60. #62 Jeff Harvey
    July 11, 2013

    Betula is not only a quote miner, but his fatuous little strategy – if one can call it that – is to focus his attention on single examples he thinks support his arguments (e.g the ribbon seal) and to ignore many, many others that do not. The empirical literature is replete with many empirical examples of declining biodiversity in which climate change is a major factor. As far as the seals are concerned, if their predicted demographics indicate declining populations, that is concern in itself even if the species is not listed as endangered. Using Betula’s kindergarten-level style of debating, I would guess that he doesn’t think that the recent population free-falls of bird species like Eastern Towhees, Golden Winged Warblers, Loggerhead Shrikes and others is worrying given that they are not officially listed as endangered…. yet. Similarly, in Europe many birds have experienced population melt downs since the 1970s and 1980s, some of which can directly be attributed to recent warming. But these species are also not yet listed as endangered, as if that is the magical term in which concern should be raised.

    As I have said before, Betula couldn’t debate his way out of a dripping wet paper bag. His problem, like that of so many deniers, is that they think they know more than they actually do, on the basis of reading snippets here and there or working outdoors where they think they have a ‘pulse’ of nature.

    I response to this post, be prepared for Mr. Birch to respond in his usual way – about Algonquin Park. That is all he has left when is arguments are shredded, one by one.

  61. #63 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

    You missed the link Betty. Do share.

  62. #64 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    CONCLUSION: CO2 HAS NO ROLE AND THE NEXT GLACIAL WILL COME SOON, ARSELICKS

    Wrong, as ever. First, CO2 and CH4 are essential parts of the mechanism by which orbital (Milankovitch) forcing triggers deglaciations (Shakun et al. 2012).

    Very roughly, it works like this:

    – Obliquity, precession and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit modulate NH insolation (aka orbital or Milankovitch forcing)

    – NH summer insolation minima allow NH ice sheets to grow, triggering strong ice albedo feedback, reducing atmospheric GHG content (water vapour, CO2, CH4) and initiating a glacial

    – NH summer insolation maxima roughly every 100ka trigger ice melt and increase the flux of fresh water to the N Atlantic at high latitudes

    – This inhibits deep water formation and halts the AMOC

    – This halts equator ->pole ocean heat transport in the NH, and the hemisphere *cools*

    – The SH ocean meanwhile heats up, as it must, in compensation

    – Carbon is released from deep ocean sediments and increased GHG feedback raises global temperature, re-starting NH ice melt

    – Both hemispheres now continue to warm, propelled by strong positive ice albedo feedback operating in tandem with GHG feedback

    – The climate system reaches a new quasi-equilibrium interglacial phase

    Shorter version: you cannot take GHGs out of climate system behaviour and still get everything to work. No GHG feedbacks – no interglacials.

  63. #65 chek
    July 11, 2013

    which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

    Well, we all do have to watch every single time you drag your mutilated corpse in here to offer up yet another load of nonsense, with the same old shit technique with the same old partial twist and with the same old forlorn hope for williwatts levels of ignorance, then get soundly beaten for the repetitively stupid idiot you are, then disappear for a day or two before repeating the spectacle yet again, and no doubt the time after that as well.

    You bring it on yourself Betty. It’s feasible that you could educate yourself to the point where you don’t auto-adopt crank ideological spin, but that’s never going to happen.
    I guarantee it.

  64. #66 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    # 63 cont.

    Second, the onset of the next glacial is likely to be somewhat delayed as a result of… CO2!

    See Archer & Ganopolski (2005) A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation.

  65. #67 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Can’t wait to see Rignot denying that CO2 is causing energy to accumulate in the climate system, predominantly the oceans, which are warming up as a result.

    Where’s Betty with that link?!

  66. #68 Lionel A
    July 11, 2013

    Oh dear, freddy at #8 thinks that Milankovitch cycles are unknown to us and that their effect rules out any role for CO2 in climate modification.

    freddy dear, sorry to disabuse you but we do know about Milankovitch cycles and indeed have pointed out sources such as David Archer’s ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ and ‘The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change’ by Wally Broecker both of which contain explanations.

    There are many other sources including an excellent starters treatise on oceanography by Tom Garrison Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science. This book will advise you on many of Earth’s processes including the biotic.

    Now, as for an ice age coming on soon, you are way behind the curve of current understanding which indicates that an ice age should already be advancing on us were it not for the activities of humans which over about 10k years which have ensured that any ice age has been aborted and is now most unlikely to come upon us anytime soon.

    You will find more in William Ruddiman’s excellent books ‘Earth’s Climate: Past and Future’ and ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’.

    Now please, for your own sake, go do some honest research amongst the many books of an introductory nature, such as those cited above, which should disabuse you of your strange ideas. You may hen cease behaving like a total part.

  67. #69 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    Mass balance in the Glacier Bay area of Alaska, USA, and British Columbia, Canada, 1995–2011, using airborne laser altimetry

    “For the full period (1995–2011) the average mass loss was 3.93 ± 0.89 Gt a–1 (0.6 ± 0.1 m w.e. a–1), compared with 17.8 Gt a–1 for the post-LIA (1770–1948) rate.”

    http://www.igsoc.org/journal/59/216/t12j101.pdf

  68. #70 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Cherry-picking.

    We need to look at global glacier mass balance change, aka “the big picture” – global spatio-temporal mass balance change 1946-2005 (source: World Glacier Monitoring Serivce report Global Glacier Changes 2009):

    Fig. 5.8 a-f Spatio-temporal overview on glacier mass changes. The average annual mass balance for nine sectors of the globe are shown for the decades (a) 1946–55, (b) 1956–65, (c) 1966–75, (d) 1976–85, (e) 1986–95, and (f) 1996–2005. Sectors with measurements are coloured according to the mean annual specific mass balance in metre w.e. with positive balances in blue, ice losses up to 0.25 m w.e. in orange and above that in red; sectors without data in grey. Average decadal mass balance values based on less than 100 observations (marked in italics) are less representative for the entire sector. For each decade, the global mean (gm) annual mass balance in m w.e. and the number of observations (no) are indicated. Source: Data from WGMS.

    Here’s global glacier length change 1845 – 2005. Red indicates recession; blue indicates advance.

  69. #71 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    The WGMS has since updated its mass balance survey to 2011:

    Preliminary mass balance values for the observation period 2010/11 have been reported now from more than 100 glaciers worldwide. The mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 37 reference glaciers in ten mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to 1980.

    The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of one metre water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2011. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at more than 15 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2).

    Fig. 1 Mean annual mass balance of reference glaciers 1980 – 2011.

    Fig. 2 Mean cumulative mass balance of ALL reported glaciers (blue dashed) vs reference glaciers (red) 1980 – 2011

    Stop your bollocks, Karen.

  70. #72 bill
    July 11, 2013

    SpamKan put those words down because she found them somewhere and thinks they must prove something because slightly smarter stupid people claim they do.

    Refutations don’t work on people who have no understanding of what they’re hoiking up in the first place. Even sound refutations, unfortunately…

  71. #73 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Harvey @ 61…

    Yawn. As Cmdr.chek said at #64….”yet another load of nonsense, with the same old shit technique”

    Thanks Cmdr.

  72. #74 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Cmdr. Cheky @ 64..

    “then disappear for a day or two before repeating the spectacle yet again”

    Are we still talking about Hardley?

    By the way, of the approximately 15 people that follow this blog, I find it interesting that a full 30% of comments come from Deadeye Dickie…
    If I disappear for “a day or two” or a week or a year, it’s because I have a life, and it doesn’t revolve around 12 angry men.

  73. #75 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    Melting Alaska glacier is exposing remains from a military air tragedy SIX decades ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359632/Melting-Alaska-glacier-exposing-remains-military-air-tragedy-SIX-decades-ago.html

  74. #76 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Bill,

    So to you, this isn’t about the climate impacts on Ribbon Seals being “speculative and unproven” as much as it is about the qualifications of the person who said it…

    Why don’t you tell me why future climate impacts on Ribbon seals aren’t “speculative and unproven”?

    “As for trying to draw attention away from” the “speculative and unproven” climate impacts on Ribbon seals by injecting your political ideology, why don’t you show me why your opinion about the qualifications to say such a thing isn’t “speculative and unproven”?

  75. #77 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Well, I’m hardly surprised that Freddy Fuckwit hasn’t found the motivation to lambast Betty and SpamKan in his inimitable fashion for their complete misunderstanding and cherry picking screw-ups respectively.

    Maintaining standards doesn’t seem to trouble deniers.

  76. #78 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Betty, still at it and just as pointlessly I see.

    Why don’t you tell me why future climate impacts on Ribbon seals aren’t “speculative and unproven”?

    Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven. You do this all the time, and think it’s clever like a rwelve year old might. However in the real world every day people, companies, corporations and governments prepare for that speculative and unproven realm you attempt to dismiss.

    They can examine trends and can predict for example that if a huge proprtion of an entire habitat is disappearing before our very eyes and instruments, then the fauna and flora currently there are endangered. Just as it can be be predicted that if the main employer in a town closes down on Friday, there’ll be mass unemployment the following Monday.

    You, of course would characterise that prediction as speculative and unproven right up until the unemployment claims were made. That’s pathological denial in action.
    Do you really think the staggering pig-ignorance you display influences anybody at all?

  77. #79 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Betty

    Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

    Actual quote and link for context please.

  78. #80 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    # 74

    Metal objects sink into glaciers. They get hot in the sun, you see. They are also heavy, and ice is, essentially, plastic, so they also just sink. Furthermore, amazingly, lots of snow falls on glaciers and buries stuff…

    WTF are you on, Karen?

  79. #81 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    And Karen, let’s make that the last glacier cherry-pick referenced to the Daily Mail ever, shall we?

    As I seem to recall mentioning recently, the informative view of the cryosphere is the global one. The big picture. I believe I even provided some links and references to valid scientific sources as opposed to, say, the Daily Mail.

  80. #82 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Can anyone hear a whining noise? Seems to get louder around # 73…

    A butt-hurt sort of whining…

  81. #83 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    “Metal objects sink into glaciers. They get hot in the sun, you see. They are also heavy, and ice is, essentially, plastic, so they also just sink. Furthermore, amazingly, lots of snow falls on glaciers and buries stuff…”

    sooooo………..if it is hotter now than it was 60 yrs ago then why didn’t the sun keep heating and sinking it ? Going by your dumb theory it should now be deeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WTF are you on, bbD ?

    ps, chekie, Freddie is a hunk :)

  82. #84 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    “Can anyone hear a whining noise? A butt-hurt sort of whining”

    I hear a noise! And yes, it’s definitely coming from the butt area:

    @ 85 pg 5…”chek – sorry about the look-and-feel infringement there ;-) Have the legal bods sort it out and I’ll buy you a pint.”

    @93 pg 5…”chek #91 we crossed – sorry”

    @95 pg 5….”Good to see you’re on the ball BBD”

  83. #85 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    Remind me again what the carbon tax and ETF and Global Carbon Markets are supposed to do ?

    Three solar firms file for bankruptcy in a week

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/three-solar-firms-file-for-bankruptcy-in-a-week/

  84. #86 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Fuck me you are thick, Betty!

    The rate of melt/ablation at the glacier surface must be greater than the rate of sinking or the aircraft would not have been exposed.

    Do at least *try* to think before typing…

  85. #87 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    Half Way Through The North Pole Melt Season – Still The Coldest Summer On Record

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    ht. sm

  86. #88 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    so now I’m Betty, lol

  87. #89 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    # 84

    Would that be homophobic abuse, Betty?! Tsk, tsk.

  88. #90 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    “Fuck me you are thick, Betty!”

    ps. I don’t date retards, :(

  89. #91 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Sorry Karen!

    Well spotted though – encouraging that you can at least recognise your own name. Now, how about admitting that your # 83 was Teh Stupid?

    Come on. You have been made to look like what you are – an ignorant arse – so you might as well be good-humoured and join in the laughter.

  90. #92 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    And I don’t date climate liars, Karen. Besides, there’s Mrs BBD to think about, not to mention the air fares etc.

  91. #93 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Karen and Betty

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

    I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

    How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

    Are you physics deniers? Dragon Slayers? Please clarify.

    Especially you, Betty, who has dodged this question endlessly. Your evasive blather on the last page was not a response, so please do not link to it or repeat it. Try substantive engagement this time.

  92. #94 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    An oldie but a goodie :)

    Ancient Artifacts Revealed as Northern Ice Patches Melt

    Apr. 26, 2010 — High in the Mackenzie Mountains, scientists are finding a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools being revealed as warming temperatures melt patches of ice that have been in place for thousands of years.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100426131603.htm

    lol………so much for it being warmer now, sorta reminds me of busted hockey sticks :)

  93. #95 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    “and bows and arrows dating back 850 years. ”

    lol

  94. #96 chek
    July 11, 2013

    sorta reminds me of busted hockey sticks

    .. and reminds us that you will never, ever understand what the term ‘global’ in AGW refers to.

  95. #97 Karen
    July 11, 2013

    “Mr Jensen said the aircraft was still sitting on the ice in 1931 and was spotted again when ice melted in 1975.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ice-melt-reveals-mawsons-plane-20100103-ln5o.html

    so this plane disappeared then reappeared and then disappeared then reappeared again.

    GOLLY !!! That will really do bbD’s head in, lol

  96. #98 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Cmdr. cheky @ 78…

    “Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven”

    Yet, somehow, the Director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation isn’t qualified to say such a thing. Interesting.

    “They can examine trends and can predict for example that if a huge proprtion of an entire habitat is disappearing before our very eyes and instruments, then the fauna and flora currently there are endangered.”

    What timescale is needed for that trend to show? Is “before our very eyes” about the right amount of time needed? Apparently, in this case, The National Marine Fisheries Service would disagree with you.

    “Just as it can be be predicted that if the main employer in a town closes down on Friday, there’ll be mass unemployment the following Monday.”

    But Cmdr., “Federal biologists estimate the ribbon seal population at 200,000 to 300,000″ how do you know they will close down by Friday?

    “You, of course would characterise that prediction as speculative and unproven right up until the unemployment claims were made”

    Not my characterization, it’s the words of the scientists. By the way, keep in mind that predictions, especially ones that have millions upon millions of parts that need to fit in place as predicted, seldom pan out …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c

  97. #99 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “Especially you, Betty, who has dodged this question endlessly. Your evasive blather on the last page was not a response, so please do not link to it or repeat it”

    Actually, it was a response.

    See #4 pg 5

  98. #100 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Deadeye @ 86…

    “Do at least *try* to think before typing”

1 4 5 6 7 8 18

Current ye@r *