July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    # 94

    So now it’s as warm as it was at the end of the Holocene Optimum. Except this time without the precessional forcing to account for the warmth and consequent melt of 4.5ka ice.

    Great link, thanks. Goes well with the landmark study of the Schnidejoch ice field finds which shows exactly the same thing: temperatures higher now than for thousands of years.

    Of course this all provides strong empirical support for Marcott et al. (2013) – a fact amusingly overlooked (or simply misunderstood) by contrarians.

    Deniers loudly and falsely claiming that Marcott et al.’s reconstruction of recent temperatures is wrong will need to explain the strange case of Schnidejoch.

    This ice-field in the Western Swiss Alps began to melt in the hot summer of 2003, revealing wood, leather and other perishable artifacts dating back ~5ka to the late Neolithic. These artefacts could not have survived unless continuously frozen since deposition. From Grosjean et al. (2007):

    The critical point in the context of this paper is that leather requires permanent embedding in ice in order to stay preserved and, as it is observed today, deteriorates very quickly if exposed at the surface. In consequence, the finds at Schnidejoch suggest permanent ice cover at that site for the last 5000 years, more specifically from ca. 3000 BC until AD 2003.

    G07 provides detail about what a truly unusual archive Schnidejoch actually is, essentially by virtue of its altitude:

    Schnidejoch is a binary and non-continuous archive (‘open or closed’). It operates at a precisely defined and constant threshold (Equilibrium Line Altitude (ELA) at 2750 m) and responds immediately and most sensitively to small perturbations if climatology fluctuates around that threshold value.

    The authors go on to point out that the oldest ice at Schnidejoch (wherein the late Neolithic artefcats were preserved) formed as precessional forcing waned and the Holocene Climatic Optimum faded. Only now has it melted:

    Our findings suggest that at the archaeological site this glacier was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the past 5000 years.

    Interestingly, there are *four* distinct assemblages of finds at Schnidejoch. Working forwards chronologically from the late Neolithic, these are dated to early Bronze Age (4100–3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st–3rd century AD), and Medieval times (8–9th century AD and 14–15th century AD).

    Each group of artefacts was deposited during a warm period when glacial retreat opened the Schnidejoch pass. But none of these warm periods was warm enough to melt the 5ka ice. None was as warm as the late C20th.
    So if Marcott et al. is flawed, why is 5ky-old ice melting now?

    On the other hand, if the Marcott reconstruction is essentially correct, then what happened at Schnidejoch in 2003 makes perfect sense.

  2. #2 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Enough evasive lies from you Betty. You haven’t come within hailing distance of responding to my questions about your apparent physics denial, so on we go.

    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.

    Just fucking well get on with it Betty. I’m getting deeply fed up with your endless slipperiness.

  3. #3 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Karen, you fucking cretin, Mawson’s plane was on the seabed, not a glacier. Just read the words:

    Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

    “They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years – it was a fluke find,” Mr Jensen said in a statement.

    You are just buttock-stupid, aren’t you? And too damned lazy to even bother reading your own pointless references.

    Go away. You area waste of time here. Seriously. Fuck off now.

  4. #4 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    BBD asshole

    “For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended”

    YOU ARE REALLY ILL, GO TO YOUR THERAPIST

    AGW IS AN ILL IDEA IN YOUR SKULL, NOBODY EXCEPT GCMS PROGRAMMERS HAVE EVER “MEASURED” THIS

    AS WITH ALL SCIENCES: PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM:

    TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS WITH THERMOMETERS, FUCKWIT

  5. #5 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Deadeye…

    I’m sure your anticipated public beating of Eric Rignot will commence shortly, I just want to make sure you have a good seat…

    “Ice melts when the ocean water beneath it warms sufficiently. In this case, Rignot suspects that the melting isn’t driven primarily by the gradual warming of ocean water due to climate change, but rather by a change in ocean circulation that is bringing up warmer water from offshore. Generally, atmospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere has led to slightly stronger “zonal” winds that whip clockwise around Antarctica. And this, at least in certain areas, has pushed cold surface waters away from the continent, allowing slightly warmer water to rise to the surface and melt ice shelves, Rignot said.”

    “However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

    http://www.livescience.com/37423-antarctic-ice-melt-from-below.html

  6. #6 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    BBD , YOU AUTISTICS ARSELICK

    YOU CAN REPEAT YOUR WACKY SHIT TEXT

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    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?
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    A MILLION TIMES:

    IIITTTT IIISSSS IIRREELLEEVVAANNTTT what you understand or not: your imagination of how science works is SICK, YOU ASSHOLE. YOUR SAYING whether physics apply or not is IRRELEVANT, FUCKING AND STINKING SUPER ASSHOLE.

    LEARN WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD:

    YOU MUST DELIVER THAT YOUR ASSERTION OF WARMING BY HUMAN CO2 IS TRUE. DON’T ASK ANYBODY SUCH AN UTTER STUPID QUESTION WHETHER PHYSICS APPLIES OR NOT, YOU ASSHOLE: YOU FUCKING PIG IDIOT. SHUT UP YOU INSANE ARSELICK WITH ALL YOUR SICKNESS IN YOUR HEAD

    LEARN HOW SCIENCE WORKS, YOU ASSHOLE

  7. #7 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    I think I speak for us all…

    BBD asshole

    “For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended”

    YOU ARE REALLY ILL, GO TO YOUR THERAPIST

    AGW IS AN ILL IDEA IN YOUR SKULL, NOBODY EXCEPT GCMS PROGRAMMERS HAVE EVER “MEASURED” THIS

    AS WITH ALL SCIENCES: PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM:

    TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS WITH THERMOMETERS, FUCKWIT

    Your questions have been addressed enough here, fred-fred. Ignoring the explanations and repeating the caps & fucks is just tedious and rude.

  8. #8 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    I knew you’d manage to misunderstand/deliberately misrepresent Rignot in particular and the upwelling hypothesis in general.

    Generally, atmospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere has led to slightly stronger “zonal” winds that whip clockwise around Antarctica. And this, at least in certain areas, has pushed cold surface waters away from the continent, allowing slightly warmer water to rise to the surface and melt ice shelves, Rignot said.”

    The *atmospheric warming* is caused by AGW. The basal melt is accelerated by upwelling driven by the increase in zonal wind field strength in response to a warming atmosphere caused by AGW.

    I know it’s complicated Betty, but you must at least try.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    July 11, 2013

    Way past time for your med’s fred.

    You need to learn how language works, you may then have a chance of understanding the science.

  10. #10 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    And I have to say this, Betty. Please stop misrepresenting Rignot as a “denier”. I have little doubt that he would find what you are doing exceptionally offensive and dishonest.

  11. #11 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Meanwhile, Betty’s transparent evasions continue. Betty still won’t answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C – 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty’s asinine views on AGW.

    So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

    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?

  12. #12 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Betty @ #98

    Cmdr. cheky @ 78…

    Still maintaining your marine fantasy, eh Betty? Shame your deplorable formatting indicates failure to complete even elementary school successfully. Nobody’s buying it, but carry on if it makes you feel better.

    “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.

    No it’s not. It’s dull. Dull, dull dull. As dull as you Betty. Neither is he apparently qualified to say the sky is blue, because he didn’t say that either according to your moron logic.

    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.

    The collapse of Arctic Sea ice in summer is well documented over the past decade,especially in the climate related blogs and playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Or rather, more dumb than anybody previously thought possible.

    But Cdr.

    Stop being so obsequious Betty. Just because someone isn’t as stupid as you does nor make them your fantasy commanding officer. If it did the whole world would have seniority over you. Although thinking about it, that’s likely the root of that inferiority complex and tendency to fixate that you display all to frequently.

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

    Oh my sides – you pretend to take a metaphor seriously and then mangle it. Just like you impulsively do with.. well, everything you bring here. But instead of your idiocy and defence of political appointees in the petro-state of Alaska, <a href="http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/mammals_seals.html"<let's see what's really the problem:

    “Early ice breakup could result in premature separation of mothers and pups, leading to higher death rates among newborn pups. In the southern Baltic Sea, from 1989 to 1995, a series of nearly ice-free winters led to very high pup mortality rates (Härkönen et al. 1998). If autumn and winter are fairly mild, the ice is soft and thin and disintegrates easily. As a result, newborn seal pups, which are born on the ice, do not have enough time to wean properly and may not survive. Seal pups need at least 12 days on the ice before they finish nursing (Nickerson 2002).

    I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.

    Not my characterization, it’s (sic) the words of the scientists.

    Sure they are Betty. And if only you had but a single shred of honesty instead of your usual MO of lying by omission.

    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 …

    Unfortunately, the single, soltary item of rapidly disappearing arctic sea ice only affords a feeling of security to the most vacant of airheads. That’d be you again, Betty.

  13. #13 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Cmdr. cheky @ 78…

    Still maintaining your marine fantasy, eh Betty? Shame your deplorable formatting indicates failure to complete even elementary school successfully. Nobody’s buying it, but carry on if it makes you feel better.

    “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.

    No it’s not. It’s dull. Dull, dull dull. As dull as you Betty. Neither is he apparently qualified to say the sky is blue, because he didn’t say that either according to your moron logic.

    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.

    The collapse of Arctic Sea ice in summer is well documented over the past decade,especially in the climate related blogs and playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Or rather, more dumb than anybody previously thought possible.

    But Cdr.

    Stop being so obsequious Betty. Just because someone isn’t as stupid as you does nor make them your fantasy commanding officer. If it did the whole world would have seniority over you. Although thinking about it, that’s likely the root of that inferiority complex and tendency to fixate that you display all to frequently.

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

    Oh my sides – you pretend to take a metaphor seriously and then mangle it. Just like you impulsively do with.. well, everything you bring here. But instead of your idiocy and defence of political appointees in the petro-state of Alaska, <a href="http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/mammals_seals.html"<let's see what's really the problem:

    “Early ice breakup could result in premature separation of mothers and pups, leading to higher death rates among newborn pups. In the southern Baltic Sea, from 1989 to 1995, a series of nearly ice-free winters led to very high pup mortality rates (Härkönen et al. 1998). If autumn and winter are fairly mild, the ice is soft and thin and disintegrates easily. As a result, newborn seal pups, which are born on the ice, do not have enough time to wean properly and may not survive. Seal pups need at least 12 days on the ice before they finish nursing (Nickerson 2002).

    I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.

    Not my characterization, it’s (sic) the words of the scientists.

    Sure they are Betty. And if only you had but a single shred of honesty instead of your usual MO of lying by omission.

    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..

    Unfortunately, the single, soltary item of rapidly disappearing arctic sea ice only affords a feeling of security to the most vacant of airheads. That’d be you again, Betty.

  14. #14 Stu
    July 11, 2013

    (Härkönen et al. 1998)

    Holy crap that’s an awesome name. Probably a ginger, too.

  15. #15 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Didn’t he play guitar with the ‘Airplane? :)

  16. #16 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    BBD…

    “Please stop misrepresenting Rignot as a “denier”….

    He’s only a Denier by your definition of a Denier. He admits the reason for warming water is a matter of debate and more data and more time is needed, which I have posted here repeatedly. If that isn’t a Denier in your book, I don’t know what is.

    Guess you missed this part…

    “However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

    Is it time for the beatings yet?

  17. #17 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Cmdr. Cheky…

    But you are the Commander…

    Commander Cheky of the Lost Planet Airheads:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNVF1F23oQ

  18. #18 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Cmdr. Cheky

    “I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.”

    Once again, the view of the scientists. That’s why they aren’t on the endangered list…
    You are starting to deny the opinions of scientists….watch out for your kiss up friend, he may turn on you.

  19. #19 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Rignot is only a denier in your twisted little world, Betty. Do you seriously think he argues that AGW has *nothing* to do with the increased zonal windfield strength and consequent upwelling and basal melt? Because it is not clear at all from the words that this is the case.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, Betty’s transparent evasions continue. Betty still won’t answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C – 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty’s asinine views on AGW.

    So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

    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?

  20. #20 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Once again, the view of the scientists.

    Your appointee seems to be breeding, or more likely another of your dishonest quirks in action.

    But please link to all the other scientists confirming Rignot’s politicised opinion. And to all his relevant published material indicating his experience in the field. You’ve checked of course, to back him so enthusiastically.

  21. #21 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    It’s so difficult with you because you either deliberately or unintentionally mangle everything.

    What Rignot is uncertain about is whether the upwelling hypothesis is correct. He – and many other Antarctic specialist are increasingly confident that it is, but is is a new hypothesis only proposed in 2007.

    He’s not saying that AGW has nothing to do with the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS and EAIS. He’s not saying that this is uncertain and that we need more data to establish that AGW is contributing to the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS, in particular. He *is* saying that the exact mechanisms involved are not yet fully established. Quite.

    I know this pushes you to your limits, but at least *try* to grasp the (slight) subtleties.

  22. #22 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Bugger – I confused Rignot with the Alaskan guy, if that helps clarify #20.

  23. #23 Stu
    July 11, 2013

    Wait, this Rignot?

    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/eric_rignot/

    Is there anything or anyone you won’t dishonestly quotemine Betula? Even more baffling, why the hell do you think you are fooling anyone?

    Pathetic.

  24. #24 Jeff Harvey
    July 11, 2013

    Just as I said – now Betty has latched onto ribbon seals as his cause celebre as if the climate change-biodiversity the story ends there.

    What a dork. Clearly belongs in a sandbox along with Karen and Freddy. This is kindergarten level discourse from these clots.

  25. #25 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    #23 Stu

    Yup, that’s our man: Rignot the Denier.

    Great denialist quotes there from RtD.

    :-)

  26. #26 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Did Betty just get beaten up in the street .. again ..today?

  27. #27 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    @bbd asshole

    i think i speak for us all

    The *atmospheric warming* is caused by AGW. The basal melt is accelerated by upwelling driven by the increase in zonal wind field strength in response to a warming atmosphere caused by AGW

    ASSHOLE, IT’S GETTING TEDIOUS WITH YIU, TAKE YOUR TABLETS AND SHUT UP, ARSELICK

  28. #28 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    @bbd fuckwit denier

    you had given the wrong answer

    He’s not saying that AGW has nothing to do with the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS and EAIS. He’s not saying that this is uncertain and that we need more data to establish that AGW is contributing to the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS, in particular. He *is* saying that the exact mechanisms involved are not yet fully established. Quite

    GO TO THE TOILET AND CLEAN YOUR STINKING ASSHOLE

  29. #29 freddy
    July 11, 2013

    @bbd barbecue sausage fuck

    you have exceeded the number of unreasonable repetitions of inappropriate text, you are boring, arsefoul

    So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man. 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?

    I WILL INFORM KEVIN TRENBERTH, YOUR BOSS, THAT HE SHOULD PUNISH YOU FOR FOOLISH AGW MISBEHAVIOR

    ASSHOLE

  30. #30 cowichan
    quathiaski cove, Canada
    July 11, 2013

    Owch! I used to find this a worthwhile site. If you get a moderator to block the likes of Freddy perhaps it would be again. Till then, goodbye.

  31. #31 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “Do you seriously think he argues that AGW has *nothing* to do with the increased zonal windfield strength and consequent upwelling and basal melt?”

    No, he thinks it does, but he’s not sure:

    “However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

    This according to your criteria, not mine, makes him a denier.

  32. #32 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    @bbd barbecue sausage fuck

    Heh! Good one. No idea what it means, but it sounds sincere and it’s Teh Thought that counts.

    Goodnight and God Bless!

  33. #33 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Oh give over with your nonsense Betty.

  34. #34 Betula
    July 11, 2013

    Stu…

    “Is there anything or anyone you won’t dishonestly quotemine Betula? Even more baffling, why the hell do you think you are fooling anyone?”

    How would I be trying to fool anyone by linking the article with the quote numb nuts?

    Ringot states:

    “However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

    Like I’v’e been saying on this blog forever….predictions based on uncertainties, lack of data, unknown timeframes (though 23 days seems to be a popular timeframe) and assumed worst case scenarios.

    If this makes me a denier, then Rignot is a denier according to Deadeye’s criteria and Rignot should be beaten by the public while Deadeye watches.

  35. #35 Craig Thomas
    July 11, 2013

    I notice know-nothing moron, “Karen”, was talking about “busted hockey-sticks”.

    Unfortunately for his irrational belief, the hockey-stick has yet again been reproduced by independent research:

    Researchers in 24 countries working for the last seven years have confirmed the findings of the famous 1998 “hockey stick” graph.

    The graph showed global temperatures over the last thousand years, and how the warming in the last century was unprecedented.

    The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience​, is based on 511 climate archives from around the world. All the data has been freely released.

    It also dismissed the often-quoted “Medieval Warm Period” or “Little Ice Age” as local temperature fluctuations that had no global impact.

    http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-10-temperatures-are-rapidly-increasing

    Bad luck, “Karen”, you moron.

  36. #36 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    Sayin’ it don’t make it so, Betty. See above. You’re being boring.

  37. #37 Betula
    July 12, 2013

    Cheky States…

    “I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.”

    Me…”Once again, the view of the scientists”

    Chek…”Your appointee seems to be breeding, or more likely another of your dishonest quirks in action”

    You’re not very good with reading comprehension are you chek…

    The “appointee” had nothing to do with any decision rejecting the listing of Ribbon seals on the endangered species list….it was the Federal Government..it was scientists at The National Marine Fisheries Service.

    You’re dumber than dirt and half as smart as kelp.

    Jon Kurland, NOAA Fisheries’ assistant regional administrator for protected resources said….
    “Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable,” “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” Link at #2 pg 6

    Now, let’s review :

    You said…”I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.”

    I said……”Once again, the view of the scientists”

    I know chek, this is difficult for you. Now, try to go back and read all the lines this time.

  38. #38 Betula
    July 12, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    “Sayin’ it don’t make it so”

    See #36.,

  39. #39 Karen
    July 12, 2013

    #3 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    “Karen, you fucking cretin, Mawson’s plane was on the seabed, not a glacier. Just read the words:”

    tch tch tch…………………here is more about the melting refreezing melting refreezing ect

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

    You really are a dunce BBD, do a little homework before you act with such choler.

    “seabed” lol

  40. #40 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    maybe the most appropriate answer to all the agw asshole deceivers is that

    1.
    MICHAEL MANN BETRAYED THE PUBLIC WITH A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT DECEIVING METHODOLOGY TO SHOW THE CONSTRUCTED HOCKEY STICK

    2.
    GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NOT PRECISELY DEFINED AND ITS SENSE IS ZERO

    Conclusion:
    ALL AGW ASSHOLES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC AND SHOULD BE SUED

  41. #41 Craig Thomas
    July 12, 2013

    1. Michael Mann has just been proven to have been correct. Again.
    http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-10-temperatures-are-rapidly-increasing

    2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature

    3. freddy has been telling us about “record” Arctic sea ice, and yet, Arctic sea ice is in freefall:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Conclusion: freddy is an incompetent, bumbling buffoon who has no idea what he is talking about and is utterly ignorant about basic physics.

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2013

    Excellent links, Craig. And the continued death spiral of the Arctic ice also includes ice thickness, which has also been drastically reduced in terms of scale over the past three decades.

    Watching the D-K brigade flounder in their own ignorance is telling on this site. I’ve been visiting and contributing to Deltoid for the past decade and at present the AGW denying brigade is the most intellectually challenged bunch I have seen in all that time – and that is saying a lot.

  43. #43 GSW
    July 12, 2013

    @craig

    Thanks for the laugh. Can I just ask, are you the same “Craig Z Thomas” that’s reponsible for the wikipedia entry “Global Temperature” from june 28th just so that few days later you could claim

    “2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature

    Ingenious!
    ;)

  44. #44 bill
    July 12, 2013

    Hilarious – as usual Spammy can explain nothing and handwaves a link… to Wikipedia! Always wrong unless it’s right, eh?

    Now, in your own words, Spammy, what do you imagine that link proves? Hint, as usual, the only thing lolling is your tongue in your gawping mouth. That’s the squirmy pink thing that agitates all the drool. Nyuuk Nyuuk…

    Nice links indeed from Craig! Switch on the longer term average and 2007 in the NSIDC chart to get the idea. Funny how it’s so cold up North and yet the ice is still on the way out. You’d almost think it was in a poor state to begin with…

    But don’t expect a response: remember, charts are hard, and Foul-mouthed Freddy and SpamKan both think that a ‘standard deviation’ is a normal suburban peccadillo. Yes, Spammy, that’s a kind of small, armour-plated Aaardvark…

    Truly it must hurt to be so bloody stupid!

  45. #45 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    fucking assholes billthejoke and craigthespammer are poor idiots entrapped in their rotten agw ideology

    yes of course was craigasshole the crook who entered a “definition” (hahahagahahaha, what a definition from an undeveloped non-performer, wantbeimportant) there that he can claim that there is one.

    this incredible scandal shows the quality level of wikishitia as long as climate primates like craigarsekick are entitled to excrement whatever rubbish they like

    POOR IDIOTS, AGW FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!

    ASSHOLES, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU!!!!!!

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2013

    GSW says, “Thanks for the laugh”.

    He must be looking in the mirror again. The laughs on him and other AGW deniers; they are the ones who don’t do much in the way of original science or publish their findings in scientific journals. Clowns like GSW are stuck on blogs sniping away at the overwhelming majority in the scientific community. In this way they are much like proponents of ‘intelligent design’ or creationism, who also don’t do much in the way of science but instead snipe away at evolutionary theory on the sidelines.

    Look at Freddy recently: he pasted an article he thinks contradicts evidence for AGW then adds the caveat PEER REVIEWED as if this legitimizes both the paper and his misinterpretation of it. But of course, what Freddy doesn’t do is go on to say that the huge empirical literature base in support of AGW is also PEER REVIEWED including studies he doesn’t like that appear in the most rigid journals like Science, Nature and PNAS.

    What the deniers do is this: they scrape the bottom of the barrel searching for any studies, no matter how obscure, that they think support their position of AGW denial. Once they find an article, they blow its findings out of all proportion and if the paper is published in a joke journal they still try and legitimize it by saying it was PEER REVIEWED.

  47. #47 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @gsw

    and billie was the asshole who explained to me foul-mouth wide open that there IS a definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in wikiassholia, but only since a few days after i have driven the agw assholes mad about this lack in their ideology rotten insanity. i confront the agw asshole shit community full of bowel consensus that their shit smells well thtat they are not able to define their only SINGKE cause of existence, THE “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, in a reliable comprehensive way. craigass finally gave in to my pressure onto the asshole community and entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

    THATS HOW THE CAGW SCOUNDRELS UNDERSTAND THEIR HAHAHA-SCIENTIFIC CLIMATE ARSELICK WORK.

    AND THEN COMES SHITBILLIE AND BLATHERS THAT THERE IIIISS A DEFINITION OF “GLOBAL SHIT TEMPERATURE” 5 cm above the anus of insane climate scientology believers.

    IT IS SOOOOO RIDIDUCULOUS WHAT THE AGW CROOKS DO!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha, you assholes

    hahahahahahahahaha, you agw assholes

  48. #48 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @jeff fuckwit

    “the huge empirical literature base in support of AGW is also PEER REVIEWED including studies”

    WHICH ONES??????

    references required, subito

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2013

    Freddy,

    Read the 2007 IPCC report, that is if of course you can read anything vaguley scientific that is. Judging by the quality of your posts, you give the impression of being a tantrum prone teenager or a very old and bitter pensioner.

    It has been known for more that a century that C02 is a potent greenhouse gas – then go to the 1950s and read what Revelle and Keeling had to say about the future implications of putting more C02 into the atmosphere. Then read the report commissioned by the Johnson administration in 1965 warning of future warming on the basis of the burning of fossil fuels. What has since transpired was therefore predicted several decades ago. Hansen has been completely vindicated.

    But of course all of this will be lost of you, a foul-mouthed, wretched dipstick who will be banned when Tim returns to the blog.That won’t be a moment too soon IMHO.

    You once told us all here that you have a PhD – when challenged that little nugget was quickly buried. Where is your bonafide scientific resume, Freddy? Or do you like to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more before going off on another foul-mouthed tangent?

  50. #50 chek
    July 12, 2013

    entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

    Freddy-fred, why do you need to lie that way?
    The fully disclosed source is the IPCC AR4, WG1 report, Chapter3

    Sources don’t get any sounder than that (in the real world that is, not la-la flake land).

  51. #51 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    chek fuqwit, fuking asshole, ignorant idiot

    your link which show craigtheasses definition is this

    €€€€€€€£££$££¥£$$£££$

    Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
    Contents3
    Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
    Executive Summary
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 Changes in Surface Climate: Temperature
    3.2.1 Background
    3.2.2 Temperature in the Instrumental Record for Land and Oceans
    FAQ 3.1 How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?
    3.3 Changes in Surface Climate: Precipitation, Drought and Surface Hydrology
    3.3.1 Background
    3.3.2 Changes in Large-scale Precipitation
    3.3.3 Evapotranspiration
    3.3.4 Changes in Soil Moisture, Drought, Runoff and River Discharge
    FAQ 3.2 How is Precipitation Changing?
    3.3.5 Consistency and Relationships between Temperature and Precipitation
    3.3.6 Summary
    3.4 Changes in the Free Atmosphere
    3.4.1 Temperature of the Upper Air: Troposphere and Stratosphere
    3.4.2 Water Vapour
    3.4.3 Clouds
    3.4.4 Radiation
    3.5 Changes in Atmospheric Circulation
    3.5.1 Surface or Sea Level Pressure
    3.5.2 Geopotential Height, Winds and the Jet Stream
    3.5.3 Storm Tracks
    3.5.4 Blocking
    3.5.5 The Stratosphere
    3.5.6 Winds, Waves and Surface Fluxes
    3.5.7 Summary
    3.6 Patterns of Atmospheric Circulation Variability
    3.6.1 Teleconnections
    3.6.2 El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Tropical/Extratropical Interactions
    3.6.3 Pacific Decadal Variability
    3.6.4 The North Atlantic Oscillation and Northern Annular Mode
    3.6.5 The Southern Hemisphere and Southern Annular Mode
    3.6.6 Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation
    3.6.7 Other Indices
    3.6.8 Summary
    3.7 Changes in the Tropics and Subtropics, and in the Monsoons
    3.7.1 Asia
    3.7.2 Australia
    3.7.3 The Americas
    3.7.4 Africa
    3.7.5 Summary
    3.8 Changes in Extreme Events
    3.8.1 Background
    3.8.2 Evidence for Changes in Variability or Extremes
    3.8.3 Evidence for Changes in Tropical Storms
    FAQ 3.3 Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?
    3.8.4 Evidence for Changes in Extratropical Storms and Extreme Events
    3.8.5 Summary
    3.9 Synthesis: Consistency Across Observations
    References
    Appendix 3.A: Low-Pass Filters and Linear Trends
    Appendix 3.B: Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems: See Supplementary Material
    Coordinating Lead Authors:
    Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
    Lead Authors:
    Peter Ambenje (Kenya), Roxana Bojariu (Romania), David Easterling (USA), Albert Klein Tank (Netherlands), David Parker (UK), Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), James A. Renwick (New Zealand), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Brian Soden (USA), Panmao Zhai (China)
    Contributing Authors:
    R. Adler (USA), L. Alexander (UK, Australia, Ireland), H. Alexandersson (Sweden), R. Allan (UK), M.P. Baldwin (USA), M. Beniston (Switzerland), D. Bromwich (USA), I. Camilloni (Argentina), C. Cassou (France), D.R. Cayan (USA), E.K.M. Chang (USA), J. Christy (USA), A. Dai (USA), C. Deser (USA), N. Dotzek (Germany), J. Fasullo (USA), R. Fogt (USA), C. Folland (UK), P. Forster (UK), M. Free (USA), C. Frei (Switzerland), B. Gleason (USA), J. Grieser (Germany), P. Groisman (USA, Russian Federation), S. Gulev (Russian Federation), J. Hurrell (USA), M. Ishii (Japan), S. Josey (UK), P. Kållberg (ECMWF), J. Kennedy (UK), G. Kiladis (USA), R. Kripalani (India), K. Kunkel (USA), C.-Y. Lam (China), J. Lanzante (USA), J. Lawrimore (USA), D. Levinson (USA), B. Liepert (USA), G. Marshall (UK), C. Mears (USA), P. Mote (USA), H. Nakamura (Japan), N. Nicholls (Australia), J. Norris (USA), T. Oki (Japan), F.R. Robertson (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), F.H. Semazzi (USA), D. Shea (USA), J.M. Shepherd (USA), T.G. Shepherd (Canada), S. Sherwood (USA), P. Siegmund (Netherlands), I. Simmonds (Australia), A. Simmons (ECMWF, UK), C. Thorncroft (USA, UK), P. Thorne (UK), S. Uppala (ECMWF), R. Vose (USA), B. Wang (USA), S. Warren (USA), R. Washington (UK, South Africa), M. Wheeler (Australia), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), D. Wuertz (USA)
    Review Editors:
    Brian J. Hoskins (UK), Thomas R. Karl (USA), Bubu Jallow (The Gambia)
    This chapter should be cited as:
    Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

    €£$££¥£$££¥£$£

    SO YOU ASSHOLE WHERE IS THE DEFINITION, ASSHOLE STINKER, WHERE IS IT ARSELICK

    YOU ARE SUPERFICIAL ARSEBLOW SCOUNDREL WHO DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT A REFERENCE IS. BUT THIS IS SO TYPICAL FOR UNDERGROUND AGW WATCHDOGS LIKE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE

  52. #52 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @jeff arselick, THESE ARE YOUR PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES WHICH SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM, empirical evidence if AGW:

    €£$£¥£$£££$£¥£$

    Read the 2007 IPCC report, that is if of course you can read anything vaguley scientific that is. Judging by the quality of your posts, you give the impression of being a tantrum prone teenager or a very old and bitter pensioner.

    It has been known for more that a century that C02 is a potent greenhouse gas – then go to the 1950s and read what Revelle and Keeling had to say about the future implications of putting more C02 into the atmosphere. Then read the report commissioned by the Johnson administration in 1965 warning of future warming on the basis of the burning of fossil fuels. What has since transpired was therefore predicted several decades ago. Hansen has been completely vindicated.

    €$£¥£$£¥$££$

    not a single of the mentioned reports is a true peer-reviewed original scientific study

    YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT A PEER-REVIEWED STUDY IS??????

    LEARN BEFORE YOU POST JUNK, ASSHOLE

  53. #53 chek
    July 12, 2013

    You can be given references Freddy-fred, but you have to be able to read them. However, just this once.

  54. #54 Karen
    July 12, 2013

    lol……I luv the way these guys move the goalposts to keep you guyz suckered in, :)

    http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.11335.1373023384!/image/climate-forecast.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/climate-forecast.jpg

    T’wont be long before all the computer models start to mysteriously point down.

  55. #55 chek
    July 12, 2013

    T’wont be long before all the computer models start to mysteriously point down.

    Short of radiation ceasing (which will make a petty item like climate change moot) how’s that going to happen? Or does SpamKan actually think radiative transfer will just stop? There’s enough lolling stupidity there, but surely not.

  56. #57 bill
    July 12, 2013

    Hey, Freddy – surely Satan’s not likely to punish us pagans, given we’re in league with him and all that? Try to get your fantasies straight, there’s a good loony… say, isn’t that nurse pulling on the rubber gloves?

    And, chek, the question you’re really looking for is -

    does SpamKan actually think

    And the answer is ‘no.’ Spammy pastes. Spammy doesn’t know what ‘radiative transfer’ is, but she suspects it might be a sort of a tattoo that glows in the dark…

  57. #58 Lionel A
    July 12, 2013

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha, you assholes

    Once again freddy fails with words. Maybe in his world asses live in holes and thus calling another an asshole is some form of twisted-freddy-world insult.

    Our freddy has now got to the second stage of this – from 2:10. What a joke is our fred.

  58. #59 Karen
    July 12, 2013

    Billie……sometimes you can be very catty dear, lift up that shriveled up old scrotum of yours and see if you have another hole?

    Your miasmatic charm is amusing :)

  59. #60 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @all agw fuckwit morons

    look how dirty phil jones acted regarding the hockeystick betrayal by mann: LOOK AT THIS, AGW ASSHOLES

    €€€€£$£¥£££¥££

    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers Phil

    €$£¥£$£¥¥££¥¥££

    this mail is very revealng how fraud-enthousiastic phil jones applauded the dirty, methodologically sick trick to cheat with the hockeystick

  60. #61 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @chek asslicker

    the reference you had given re “global temperature” did not contain what you pretended, therefore YOU ARE A LIAR AND A DIDDLER. WHY ARE AGW ASSHOLES INCAPABLE TO REFERENCE SOMETHING THEY ASSERT???????

  61. #62 Stu
    July 12, 2013

    Oh no! Freddy posted the ClimateGate e-mail! We’ve been caught! We never wanted that e-mail to get out! Run away!

    (By the way, I second the call for a time-out for this clown until he takes some meds — maybe Karen can join him, as well… he/she/it probably needs some time to recover from its new scrotum fixation)

  62. #63 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    ALL YOU AGW ASSHOLES ARE TOTALLY CORRUPT:

    CHECK ARSELICK, I BET THAT IF A GIVE YOU 100’000 US$ YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT AGW IS AN ASSHOLES DIRTY JUNK SCIENCE AND YOU CURSE ALL AGW DELUSIONISTS, IF I WANT YOU TO SAY SO.

    THEREFORE YOU ARE A CORRUPT STINKING ARSEHOLE, WORTH NOTHING

  63. #64 freddy
    July 12, 2013

    @stooling ass

    any consternation apart from your corruptness re phil jones scandalous behavior as science fraud??

    ADMIT, ASSHOLE!!!!!!

  64. #65 Lionel A
    July 12, 2013

    Strewth. When was this freddy character retired from the SS?

    VE HAVE VAYS OF MAKING YOU TALK YOU GLOBAL KORUPT VARMISTS – ASSESVHOLES!

  65. #66 chek
    July 12, 2013

    Freddy-fred – the reference I provided @ #50 & #53 was exactly what was required to expose your lie regarding Craig making up the Wiki derfinition.

    You’re a liar Freddy, and that’s all there is to it. And if you’re still masturbating over the so-called climategate emails, take a tip: go get a life.

  66. #67 lord_sidcup
    July 12, 2013

    Has freddy been locked away somewhere since December 2009? Wonder where?

    Btw, whatever happend to climategate3?

  67. #68 Stu
    July 12, 2013

    any consternation apart from your corruptness re phil jones scandalous behavior as science fraud??

    This has been addressed multiple times, on this blog and elsewhere. Are you seriously blaming me for your own ignorance?

  68. #69 a
    Canada
    July 12, 2013

    To all and sundry, whether you believe global warming or do not ,why not try a different line of thought. How about we get together and try to put pressure on politicos and govs. To get us off the planet instead of putting money into wars . We could just as easily put our efforts into terraforming mars and Venus as killing each other and obtain far greater returns for our efforts

  69. #70 chek
    July 12, 2013

    Btw, whatever happend to climategate3?

    Like CG2, it disappeared without a trace, leaving only the broken hearts of a handful of conspiracy cranks who truly believed (and they really, really did, if you peeked at their contemporary comments) that this time… this time….

  70. #71 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    You really are a dunce BBD, do a little homework before you act with such choler.

    “seabed” lol

    You should have taken my advice and kept your mouth *shut*.

    By opening it again, once more demonstrate that you are simply a liar.

    It is exactly as I said. The plane is not on a glacier. It’s at the bottom of Boat Harbour. The occasional melt sank it and refroze it on the bottom. Melt and low tide finally revealed it.

    Here are a few quotes from the Wiki you linked but apparently did not bother to read:

    The frame of the air-tractor sledge remained on the ice at Boat Harbour where Bickerton had left it. The last expedition to Cape Denison to see the frame was in 1976; the next expedition, in 1981, could find no trace of it. The ice in that location does not move, and the implication is that the frame sank through the ice. It is therefore possible the frame is still there.

    And:

    Next year (the 2009-10 season) further search was undertaken using differential GPS, bathymetry equipment, ice augers, a magnetometer and a metal detector (whose sensor was placed down the ice auger holes after drilling).[53] The ice showed signs of having extensively melted in the past, was about 3 metres thick and covering smooth rock which extended Northwards to become the harbour bottom. Visual examination of the harbour bottom during the bathymetry survey did not reveal any fragments of the frame in the first 30 metres of the harbour.

    I repeat: the plane is not on a fucking glacier. Never was. You are wrong and lying about it. As I said, you are a waste of space and time. So shut up and disappear.

  71. #72 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    Christ, when is Tim going to block freddy’s IP? The self-parodic ravings were vaguely amusing for a while, but the novelty has entirely worn off now.

  72. #73 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    # 56 Karen

    tiz a down hill run chekie

    No, it *was* a downhill run. Until the C20th. Read Marcott et al. (2013). It’s all in there:

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

    Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

    * * *

    I have to say something here. You, Karen, know exactly fuck-all about paleoclimate. Every time you try to use it as a sandbox for your stupid, ignorant denialism, you look like the floundering, dishonest prat that you are.

    So don’t. Steer clear of all things paleoclimate or expect to be skewered every time.

  73. #74 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    Oh, and Karen, read this again. Try to understand it this time.

  74. #75 Stu
    July 12, 2013

    Wow, I didn’t know Freddy was on YouTube…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGvD5OSkJ_Q

  75. #76 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    Comprehensive review of Murray Salby’s antics by John Mashey at DeSmog.

    Salby, it turns out, has form. Lots of it. Let’s hope this important but missing context becomes as well-aired as Salby’s misleading claims about CO2.

  76. #77 chek
    July 12, 2013

    The echo chamber rundown alone makes the article worth reading. Where all the trolls get fed.

  77. #78 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    Yes indeed. All the chum-ladlers stand revealed as credulous bozos who don’t bother checking their sources.

    All the uncomprehending repeaters swarming blog comments likewise.

  78. #79 bill
    July 12, 2013

    BBD – you don’t seriously think Spammer is going to read any of those hard words, do you? Or ever really grasp what happened to Mawson’s entertainingly Heath Robinson sledgey thing?

    And I love the bursts of compensatory pretentious language. ‘Choler’? Seriously? More like choler-ing in!

    You are a gift to our side, SpamKan.

    I’ll also pause to note that like many incompetents when defeated you fall-back to the cheapest, most-tawdry, anally-fixated and infantile insults, apparently imagining that this is stinging repartee; whereas your stupidity, which is what the rest of us are drawing attention to, is palpable (and that’s not the mouthparts of a bug!), and has been demonstrated in these pages over and over again. I mean; sussed out the distinction between C and F yet?

    You singularly pointless individual, you!

    Much of this debate could fairly be characterised as the Revenge of the Thickos, where a whole bunch of also-rans whose Dunning-Krugers protects them from full knowledge of the awful truth now find they can get lashings of undeserved attention by acting as useful idiots (actually, the ‘useful’ bit is highly debatable – witness the case in point) on behalf of a truly venal corporate elite and its magical economic theory.

    And, Freddy, you really are the most ridiculous little fellow. Baby Jesus despises you for a fool! The bearded bloke in the sky is going to be none-too-happy with you wrecking his creation, too! Just imagine what he’ll have to do to you! Run along now…

  79. #80 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    And sure our Karen has “miasmatic” on the tip of her tongue every day.

    Yet they don’t get the most basic of the basics. You can’t fool an informed audience.

    So the capering and jingling goes on.

  80. #81 Craig Thomas
    July 13, 2013

    @craig

    Thanks for the laugh. Can I just ask, are you the same “Craig Z Thomas” that’s reponsible for the wikipedia entry “Global Temperature” from june 28th just so that few days later you could claim

    “2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature”

    Ingenious!
    ;)

    What GSW may have previously missed in this conversation was freddy’s assertion that there was no such thing as “Global Temperature”, the proof being there was no wikipedia entry for it.

    Having hoist freddy with his own petard, we now have the bonus of having amused GSW.

    Oh, and freddy is a liar and a moron.

    entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

    The source isn’t just disclosed, it is referenced and linked to. You would have to be an abject fool to call a direct link to the relevant reference an “undisclosed” source, wouldn’t you freddy, you foul-mouthed muppet?

  81. #82 Craig Thomas
    July 13, 2013

    BBD
    July 12, 2013

    Comprehensive review of Murray Salby’s antics by John Mashey at DeSmog.

    Salby, it turns out, has form. Lots of it. Let’s hope this important but missing context becomes as well-aired as Salby’s misleading claims about CO2.

    I’ve only had time to just glance over it, but I cannot see Salby’s name anywhere in the documents link-referenced by the article at Desmoblog.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university–banned-national-science-foundation

    What am I missing?

  82. #83 bill
    July 13, 2013

    Are you sure you’re reading the right article there, Craig? That’s not the link provided above.

  83. #84 bill
    July 13, 2013

    And re #80; denier doesn’t get the joke. Film at 11.

  84. #85 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    bill arselick

    ALL YOU AGW ASSHOLES ARE TOTALLY CORRUPT:

    bill ARSELICK, I BET THAT IF I GIVE YOU 100’000 US$ YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT AGW IS AN ASSHOLES DIRTY JUNK SCIENCE AND YOU CURSE ALL AGW DELUSIONISTS, IF I WANT YOU TO SAY SO.

    THEREFORE YOU ARE A CORRUPT STINKING ARSEHOLE, WORTH NOTHING

  85. #86 bill
    July 13, 2013

    Look, moron, you’re wrong. What you’re doing is called ‘projection’ – you know; ‘I’m a sleazy mercenary fuck, therefore so is everybody else.’

    And Jesus really doesn’t want you for a sunbeam, petal. There’s no room in the happy-place for nasty, spiteful, foul-mouthed little boys…

  86. #87 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    apart from their total ignorance in meteorology and atmospheric physics the arsefuck environmentalists here, the bbds, cheks, bernards, billies, craigs etc etc etc, are also totally incompetent in biology, molecular biology, molecular genetics etc and still believe in an utmost primitive manner the old fairy tales of darwinian evolution because of a total lack of information and understanding of the advancements in science especially in molecular genetics.

    the agw arseholes working in wg2 and wg3 are only parasites who claim illusioned empirical evidence of agw like more live stress for a fish, a fly, etc.

    POOR CRAP BROTHERS, AGW ARSELICKS

    I WANT TIM TO BAN YOU ALL, YOU LOSERS

  87. #88 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    so bill, you asshole, you want 200k bucks? you are not humble

  88. #89 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    BBD #70 & #72

    Sheeezzzzz I don’t know why I bother trying to educate protozoal cretins such as yourself.

    Quotes from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

    “The frame of the air-tractor sledge remained on the ice at Boat Harbour where Bickerton had left it.”

    At the harbour! ……………Not in the harbour! They looked in the harbour and found nothing, simpleton!

    “Using photographs from 1913, 1931 and 1976 it was possible to derive transits between the frame and distant objects which located the frame to a small area of ice about 50 m from the hut. Comparison with a 1931 photograph by Frank Hurley confirmed this location.”

    Take note that between the above mentioned dates the sledge was covered in ice and when the ice had melted the sledge was visible at those dates.

    “located the frame to a small area of ice about 50 m from the hut”

    If you have a look at this map https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/artefacts/cape_denison.jpg you will see that (if you are capable) by using the scale
    at the bottom of the map, that the sledge would be positioned close to the shoreline, NOT IN THE HARBOUR YOU FOOL!

    “Dr Chris Henderson, the leader of the team, believes “the frame sank in situ to the rock surface, three metres below the present ice surface”

    So now the ice at that position (the edge of the harbour) is 3 metres deeper than it was in 1931 and 1976, lol

    “The findings to date (2011) suggest that metal object(s) exist at a depth of 3 metres, on rock, in the location where the frame was last known to have been seen in 1976. This is likely to be the remains of Mawson’s Air Tractor, but confirmation awaits a future opportunity.

    So the ice melted around 1931 and the sledge sunk to the rocky surface below, then it was covered in ice again until the ice REMELTED in or about 1976, then it was covered in ice again, so now it is 3 METRES below the ice surface at the EDGE of the harbour.

    SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    BBD, if you cannot understand something as simplistic as this then why would anybody believe anything that you have to say about the subject of climate change?

    Climate Change is a complex science, not even the government funded climate scientists understand it, what hope have you got sweety, :)

    It is obvious that your ego has been smashed, after all you have been very sooky lately, wah wah wah.

    So shut up and disappear, your mangling of the science is a joke.

  89. #90 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    “So shut up and disappear, your mangling of the science is a joke”….

    says Karen, who for all we know works in a cardboard box factory. What are your scientific credentials, “sweetie”?

    Dolts like Karen and Freddy make big noises about “science” on a few blogs but, like Jonas, Betula, PentaxZ, Rednose etc., NONE of them has any scientific credentials and NONE of them have published a single paper in their miserable lives. Instead, they haunt the blogs imparting their versions of contemporary wisdom, oblivious to the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth in every country has verified the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences. EVERY ONE. There are no ‘outliers’.

    Set against these prestigious organizations and the huge number of scientists they represent are a small coterie of scientifically illiterate knobs who think they know a lot about various fields because their views are not under any sort of scrutiny or peer-review; if they were, these knobs would be forced to spew their vitriolic nonsense elsewhere. The only salvation is that this horde of ignorants is virtually invisible in the broader scientific arenas; the likes of Karen and Freddy are laughingstocks amongst those doing the research – or would be if they were known. Its a shame I, as a working, publishing scientist have encountered them though. Still, they are good material for ridicule amongst my colleagues. No wonder they are anonymous; they know that, were their cover to be blown, that they would metaphorically be tarred and feathered.

    So Karen thinks that a few old shipping records indicate that the Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 1930s as it is now, and more importantly that the remarkable decline in sea ice also is hardly unusual. Strangely, this view is not shared by the scientific community either.

  90. #91 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    “the bbds, cheks, bernards, billies, craigs etc etc etc, are also totally incompetent in biology, molecular biology, molecular genetics etc and still believe in an utmost primitive manner the old fairy tales of darwinian evolution because of a total lack of information and understanding of the advancements in science especially in molecular genetics”

    Aside from HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! etc, what can I reply to this verbal diarrhea? Listen Freddy, you are wwaayyyy over your head. You once claimed to have a PhD: I say prove it. I do. I have 130 plus papers and over 3,000 citation so my work (201 so far in 2013) and an h-factor of 32. So, aside from being a foul mouthed idiot, what are your prestigious credentials? I AM a biologist, and the stuff you spew is completely vacuous garbage.

  91. #92 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    “So Karen thinks that a few old shipping records indicate that the Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 1930s as it is now, and more importantly that the remarkable decline in sea ice also is hardly unusual. Strangely, this view is not shared by the scientific community either.”

    hahaha, wot a moron. lol

    you, like BBD have not got a clue!

    your commenting on the post directly above your own last post and you did not comprehend ANYTHING ABOUT THAT POST !!!!!!

    Wot a fantastic specimen of a scientist you are JefFeRy, lol lol lol

    JefFeRy could you please publish a list here of all, or even some, of the peer reviewed papers that BBD Bill Chek Lionel or any other Dumbtoids have published,

    Thanks in advance, :)

  92. #93 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    Karen, You evade the point I made (as expected). Why has the scientific community writ large expressed concern over the rapid loss of ice in Arctic if, as you suggest, it is not unprecedented in recent geological history? How is is that knobs like you apparently possess ‘wisdom’ that has bypassed the vast majority of experts in the field?

    This is a point you can duck and avoid here, but if you were to give a presentation at a scientific conference you’d be humiliated and laughed out of the venue. Most importantly, your silly, fatuous arguments would be shot down in flames.

    Its you who does not have a clue. If you did, you wouldn’t be consigned as an anonymous nothing on a blog. You’d be out there in the big world imparting your ‘wisdom’. But the truth is that your arguments are hollow and meaningless.

  93. #94 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    “Karen, You evade the point I made”

    The point is dopey, the discussion was a small area in Antarctica, lol

  94. #95 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Oh you muppet. From your original link:

    Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

    “They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years – it was a fluke find,” Mr Jensen said in a statement.

    The TIDE was low, fuckwit. The TIDE. The TIDE. Read the fucking words. The exceptionally low TIDE exposed the plane, which was on the seabead, fuckwit.

    Low tides expose things on the seabed.

    Your unbelievably stupid lies really have screwed you this time. Take my advice and shut up and sod off. Not for damage limitation, because we are far beyond that now, but out of a proper sense of embarrassment.

    Just go, Karen. Now.

  95. #96 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    OH good, this means that you fully agree that the Arctic death spiral is real and of profound concern.

    Glad I got that all sorted out.

  96. #97 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    “Why has the scientific community writ large expressed concern over the rapid loss of ice in Arctic if, as you suggest, it is not unprecedented in recent geological history? How is is that knobs like you apparently possess ‘wisdom’ that has bypassed the vast majority of experts in the field? ”

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHACTWA/20130708180000_CVCHACTWA_0007152567.gif

  97. #98 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    Just for Karen:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL7D5eRlDxk

    And while I am at it, changes in ice mass in the Antarctic in no way exclude the effects of AGW. The continent is bitterly cold. If temperatures increase, it will still be very cold – what do you expect – a sudden shift from – 30 C to + 10C? Yet this is the sort of obfuscation deniers make so frequently: that if its warming regionally, suddenly these shifts lead to broadcast changes in local conditions. Moreover, was about changes in precipitation? Given that its still cold in the Antarctic even under warming, increases in precipitation could very feasibly influence ice mass.

    Of course experts in the field know all of this and have factored it in. Karen hasn’t. End of story.

  98. #99 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    “Glad I got that all sorted out.”

    me too :)

  99. #100 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    Karen, what does you graph tell us about the thickness of the ice in the Arctic? Nothing of course. Its like you showing me a graph showing that 88% of Brazil is still forested but leaving out the little tidbit that about 25% of these forests are plantations or second growth forests – very different from primary forests.

    Nothing then, about quality.

    My gosh Karen you are a lousy debater. Join the club of Betula, Rednose et al. None of you are remotely credible.

1 5 6 7 8 9 18