July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    July 15, 2013

    Yes Jeff, it is painfully obvious that much is over freddy’s little head and he provide the evidence right here:

    a: “Intra-interspecific”: NONSENSE: you probably meant intra- and/or interspecific

    freddy could not parse intra-interspecific so therefore you Jeff are illiterate. What a twerp our latest resident genius freddy is.

    freddy, why don’t YOU investigate the meaning of all those words that you blockquoted, the words Jeff used in the context of his understanding and experience. Do you not realise that ecological developments tell us much about climate and how it is changing?

  2. #2 freddy
    July 15, 2013

    @luniolell fartblow

    it’s extremely painful that aussies and brits open their so wide on an US science blog. nobody is really interested in too much emphasis on your unimportant home countries, just shut up, go home, AGW ARSELICKS

  3. #3 bill
    July 15, 2013

    Australian blog, nitwit.

  4. #4 Stu
    July 15, 2013

    The illiterate right-wing douchecanoe brims with American exceptionalism? I’m shocked again!

  5. #5 Lionel A
    July 15, 2013

    You twerp freddy, as others have pointed out this blog and its creator are based in Australia. Look at a map of the world, I do realise this could be a novel experience for you, and note the large land mass at a similar longitude to China but south of the equator.

    You may need further help understanding a number of concepts in that above explanation but then it is way past time you did some homework.

    I’ll bet that you are located somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line and can whistle ‘Dixie’.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    July 15, 2013

    How come you are so insulated from this sort of stuff freddy:

    July 15 News: Ongoing Drought In New Mexico Turns Rio Grande Into ‘Rio Sand’.

    Human caused climate change is having consequences.

  7. #7 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    Freddy still not been banned/restricted to the Jonas thread then?

    Come on, Tim. Enough’s enough.

  8. #8 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    #2

    Just shut up and go home, frothing bloody lunatic.

  9. #9 chek
    July 15, 2013

    It seems that it’s been Ken Drinwater’s week for being traduced by deniers.

    On the previous page we had Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula re-interpretation of fish population ‘recoveries’, while the reliably stupid Christopher Booker was misreporting Arctic ice melt at the Daily Torygraph. Ken corrects Booker over at Real Climate

  10. #10 chek
    July 15, 2013

    That should be ‘Ken Drinkwater’, of course.

  11. #11 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Lionel @ 6…

    Perhaps you can clue me in on a few things…

    First, you link an article about a drought in New Mexico, then you link an article about empirical evidence pointing to Human’s causing Global Warming…

    You then seem to conclude that, therefore, the New Mexico drought is caused by Global Warming. This sounds very scientific….. is this the normal process of scientific deduction?

    A few questions:

    First, you linked to the second article with this tagline….”Human caused climate change is having consequences”.

    Can you show me where in the article it mentions the consequences? Perhaps this is some m̶i̶s̶l̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ misunderstanding on your part?

    Second, do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?

    Thanks.

  12. #12 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye @ 9..

    You already linked that @ #9 on pg 8.

    Alzheimer’s?

    Now, before you are too far gone, why don’t you explain to me the “re-interpretation of fish population ‘recoveries’” and how it relates to your link.

    Thanks.

  13. #13 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye…

    That would be # 3 of pg 8.

    Alzheimer’s?

  14. #14 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    “Deadeye”?

    Aren’t you talking to chek at #9?

    Altzheimers?

  15. #15 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    Now, before you are too far gone, why don’t you explain to me the “re-interpretation of fish population ‘recoveries’” and how it relates to your link.

    Why? It’s not relevant.

    I’ve been asking you a question for a while now and you have been desperately trying to avoid answering it.

    The question has nothing to do with Booker getting his rubbish debunked by Drinkwater at RC.

    * * *

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

    It’s not irrelevant.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    Marine ecosystems are in an appalling condition, perhaps worse than in any time in tens of millions of years.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html

    To be fair to Birch-bark, climate change is only one factor in this unfolding catastrophe. Other forms of pollution and in particular over-harvesting are also major factors decimating coastal marine ecosystems and critically undermining their health and stability. Humans have fished down the food chain, so depleting stocks of many carnivorous species that jellyfish have moved to the terminal end of food chains off the Spanish coast, the Mediterranean and in other coastal green sea habitats.

    If truth be told, marine ecosystems are in a more parlous state than most of their terrestrial counterparts. Huge influxes of terrestrial pollutants have created virtual ‘dead zones’ in many coastal ecosystems which once teemed with life. Hyper-eutrophication from terrestrial N and P runoff is a major problem that is creating anoxic zones. Climate change is adding to this.

    It is also important to note that the vast majority of marine ecosystems are virtual biotic ‘deserts’, lacking in much of the way of biodiversity. The productive ecosystems are the green seas that lie off of the coasts on continental shelves. And it is these that are being hammered by a suite of anthropogenic processes.

    Of course old birchy will probably use expanding sea lamprey or jellyfish populations as an example of how ‘healthy’ these systems are.

  17. #17 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    BBD @ 15..

    See # 56 Pg 8..

    Alzheimer’s?

  18. #18 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    “To be fair to Birch-bark”

    WTF?

  19. #19 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    #17

    See my response at 8/#59:

    Irrelevant

    No it isn’t.

    Physics denial.

  20. #20 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    To be clear:

    #17

    See my response at 8/#59:

    [Betty-John:] Irrelevant

    [BBD:]
    No it isn’t.

    Physics denial.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    ““To be fair to Birch-bark”

    WTF?

    Well, since bitch trees are in the genus Betula, and you seem to rant on here a lot (e.g. bark), I thought it was as original as your handle for me (Hardley).

    Heck, anything goes on Deltoid….

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    oopps… now I am getting tetchy! I meant BIRCH!

  23. #23 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Hardley @ 21..

    It was the “To be fair” part that threw me off…

  24. #24 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye @ 20′…

    It’s not relevant to the quote by the NESSAS scientists because we aren’t in a Hyperthermal..

    So why are you calling the NESSAS scientists physics deniers?

  25. #25 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye…

    See # 24

  26. #26 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye…

    See # 25

  27. #27 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye…

    And so forth…

  28. #28 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie…

    And so on…

  29. #29 Betula
    July 15, 2013
  30. #30 Stu
    July 15, 2013

    @Betula, 24:

    1. Nobody did.
    2. They didn’t.
    3. They arent.
    4. You’re a clown. Stop lying. You’re pathetic and transparent. Who do you think you are fooling with this tripe? The pathologically dyslexic?

  31. #31 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    So why are you calling the NESSAS scientists physics deniers?

    Because they aren’t. You are the denier.

    They are investigating a regional and transient event and you are pretending that this regional and transient event means… fuck it, Betty, we’ve been through this already and you are just ignoring and evading the substantial argument.

    It’s dishonest and tedious. And above all, it’s physics denial.

  32. #33 Betula
    July 15, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “Because they aren’t. You are the denier”

    Put your bullet back in your pocket Deadeye..

    Let me get this right. I post an article that discusses the findings of scientists, corroborated with other scientists, and they aren’t deniers, but I am a lying physics denier…..just for posting it.

    Someone (or two Stu) needs help.

    Let’s review:

    “More plankton benefits entire food chain”

    “In explaining how warmer seas could lead to so much more fish in the North Atlantic, all the way to the Arctic, scientists point to the bottom-up effect: Warmer seas result in more phytoplankton, which feeds more zooplankton, providing more nourishment for the herring and capelin that serve as a food supply for cod and other larger fish.”

    “Scientific literature confirms that cod reproduction is typically higher in warm-water years and lower when waters are cold”.

    Link between ocean temperature and spawning

    “As part of the recently concluded research project Norwegian Component of the Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas (NESSAS), researchers Svein Sundby and Odd Nakken studied the relationship between ocean temperature and cod spawning”

    “When the two charted spawning along the Norwegian coast in a 1900-1976 timeline, the correlation was unmistakable: In coldwater years, southern coastal areas were of highest importance. When waters warmed up, spawning was most active in the northern areas. Seen over time, their research showed that cod reproductivity was markedly higher when the ocean warmed up, and that spawning moved north”.

    Spawning grounds off northern Norway

    “Since 2003, Arcto-Norwegian cod have been observed spawning once again along the coast of Finnmark, Norway’s northernmost county. This had not seen since the early 1960s”.

    “Recently, cod catches in the Barents Sea have been on the rise. Within the last few years, catch levels have reached those of the 1920s and 1930s warm period. Off Iceland and Greenland, however, no corresponding increase has been recorded.”

    “Research indicates that knowledge about natural climatic variations in fish stocks deserves a role in the future management of the northern fisheries resources.”

    US observations corroborate

    “The correlation between warming ocean waters and more fish has also been investigated in a comparative study carried out by the NESSAS researchers in collaboration with US researchers. They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia).”

    “This comparative study has been interesting,” says Dr Drinkwater, “in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505092525.htm

  33. #34 jerryg
    July 15, 2013
  34. #36 chek
    July 16, 2013

    Betty ‘child deniers Betula, let me put this as straight as possible.

    You’re trying to construct a feasible reality from news reports of work beyond your competence, and insisting that your uninformed layman’s interpretations are the correct ones.

    You’re an egotistical, know-nothing wanker Betty, caught lying far too many times, knowingly, or more likely unknowingly. shilling for corporate interests way beyond any areas of expertise your pig-ignorant hide possesses.

  35. #37 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 It’s not going to stop warming, Betty-John.

    Arguing otherwise is physics denial.

    Focussing on a transient, regional effect and pretending that it has any relevance to the mid-century and beyond is either stupid or dishonest. Or both.

    We’ve been through this. Repeating your misdirections is pointless.

  36. #38 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    chek puts it better.

  37. #39 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Come on, Betty. Answer the fucking question. It is relevant.

  38. #40 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

  39. #41 Stu
    July 16, 2013

    Let me get this right. I post an article that discusses the findings of scientists, corroborated with other scientists,

    …that doesn’t say what you say it does, which is obvious to sentient slugs.

    Who do you think you are fooling, you lying douche?

  40. #42 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Deadeye…

    See # 26

  41. #43 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Cmdr.Cheky.

    “You’re trying to construct a feasible reality from news reports of work beyond your competence, and insisting that your uninformed layman’s interpretations are the correct
    ones.”

    And you have imagined what my interpretations are…..

    Scary, isn’t it?

  42. #44 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Stu…

    “that doesn’t say what you say it does”

    Enlighten me.

  43. #45 chek
    July 16, 2013

    Scary, isn’t it?

    Not in the slightest.
    You’re not even any good at what you do here.

  44. #46 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    So Betula takes ONE study by one ONE scientific research group with respect to ONE fish species and then apparently applies these findings to marine ecosystems as a whole.

    I have used all sorts of analogies before to explain Betula’s benthic level understanding of ecology. Another one here is to argue that coyotes (one of his own poor examples) have spread across much of eastern North America ad have become much more abundant as a result of forest clearing and other human disturbances. But what about the vast majority of other species that inhabited the original forests before they were cleared?

    This is why Betula is a waste of time and space, or as Chek put it: “You’re an egotistical, know-nothing wanker Betty”.

  45. #47 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    I will paste it again and say it again: marine ecosystems are in serious trouble:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html

    Betula will again ignore this and all of the other studies I have pasted up here that completely contradict and undermine his arguments and focus on one study on one species. This is what he does. He is not convincing anyone here, except a few other deluded converts, so why does he persist?

  46. #48 Olaus Petri
    July 16, 2013

    Can someone please set Guardian straight? It has a scale problem. ;-)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/15/polar-ice-loss-cause-unclear

  47. #49 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    You miserable, evasive little fuck.

  48. #50 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Since Betty is a fucking cowardly liar, I will answer the question that he is too frightened and dishonest even to acknowledg.

    Major warming events invariably result in mass extinctions of marine biota. And it will of course happen again if sufficient CO2 forcing is applied to the climate system.

    Transient, regional benefits are just that: short-lived and localised.

    The effect on the global oceans will be devastating. It always is. Invariably. Every time.

    Betty won’t face up to this because he is a denier.

    Not to mention dishonest scum.

  49. #51 Turboblocke
    July 16, 2013

    What’s your point OP? The scientists say that they need more years of data to be able to reach firm conclusions:
    “Although ice is lost beyond any doubt, the period is not long enough to state that ice loss is accelerating,” said Wolfgang Rack of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

    “This is because of the natural variability of the credit process, snowfall, and the debit process, melting, and iceberg calving, which both control the ice sheet balance.”

  50. #52 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Physics denial:

    [Betty, over and over again:] It’s not relevant to the quote by the NESSAS scientists because we aren’t in a Hyperthermal..

    But unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 it’s not going to stop warming, Betty-John.

    Arguing otherwise is physics denial.

    Focussing on a transient, regional effect and pretending that it has any relevance to the mid-century and beyond is either stupid or dishonest. Or both.

    We’ve been through this. Repeating your misdirections is pointless.

    But on and on he goes. At root, it’s standard-issue crank, tinfoil, loony tunes physics denial.

    Nobody takes physics deniers seriously because they are nutters and we don’t take nutters seriously.

    It’s over, Betty-John. You are outed as just another the physics-denying nutter blabbering and lying on the internet.

  51. #53 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    ‘Only one idea at a time’ (OOIAAT) birch at #11 wrote:

    First, you linked to the second article with this tagline….”Human caused climate change is having consequences”.

    Can you show me where in the article it mentions the consequences? Perhaps this is some m̶i̶s̶l̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ misunderstanding on your part?

    You only ask that question because you have, deliberately or because of a lack in comprehension skills, misinterpreted the make up of my sentence where only the first part ‘Human caused climate change‘ contained a link to evidence for human activities being behind the current trend for increasing incidence of extreme weather events of which droughts are but one example.

    And it is that latter type of event which is implicated in the lack of water in the lower Rio Grande as reported in the article cited.

    You must be some kind of dissembler or an idiot to not connect the dots here.

    What is the ultimate source of water for the Rio Grande?

    Here I’ll help you out with some information from The University of Arizona:

    Snowpacks in the Upper Colorado River Basin continue to decrease as spring temperatures warm. While several spring storms dropped snow in northern Colorado, which helped measuring stations record near-average snowpacks for this time of year, many other regions are recording well below-average totals (Figure 8). This includes the upper Rio Grande headwaters, where snowpacks are measuring, on average, about 24 percent of average

    Get it now?

    Of course another factor in low reservoir levels is an increased need for farmers to draw off water which in turn is due to warming caused drought.

    Therefore my,

    Human caused climate change is having consequences.

    in the round is entirely in order.

  52. #54 chek
    July 16, 2013

    Olap @ #48
    The Guardian doesn’t have a problem at all.
    The glaciologists don’t have a problem either:
    ““Although ice is lost beyond any doubt, the period is not long enough to state that ice loss is accelerating,” said Wolfgang Rack of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
    Such problem ass exists is for you deniers trying to spin the current question: ‘is the rate increasing?’ into the answer: ‘There’s some doubt? Why there’s ‘nothing to worry about at all (and hence BAU)’.

  53. #55 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    And to keep Birch on the hook with which he has snagged himself we have Jeff Masters with this report on floods i n India

    According to the Indian Meteorological Department, Uttarakhand, which lies just to the west of Nepal in the Himalayas, received rainfall 847% of normal during the week June 13 – 19, 2013. Dehradun, the capital of Uttarakhand, received 14.57″ (370 mm) of rain in 24 hours on June 16 – 17, the highest 24-hour rainfall in city history. The torrential rains triggered a massive landslide that hit Uttarakhand’s Hindu shrine in Kedarnath, which lies just a short distance from the snout of two mountain glaciers. The shrine is an important pilgrimage destination in June, and was packed with visitors celebrating a religious holiday. The June 2013 monsoon rains in Uttarakhand were highly unusual, as the monsoon came to the region two weeks earlier than normal. The monsoon started in South India near the normal June 1 arrival date, but then advanced across India in unusually rapid fashion, arriving in Pakistan along the western border of India on June 16, a full month earlier than normal. This was the fastest progression of the monsoon on record.

  54. #56 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Don’t forget China.

  55. #57 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    China – indeed. We had a family member, a medic, trapped over there for awhile, back in UK now.

  56. #58 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Glad to hear of safe return. A grim business, by the looks of things.

  57. #59 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    agw assholes

    dont forget sahara, much hotter than india or china

    FUCKWIT ALARMISTS

  58. #60 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Still not banned fred-fred? Oh well…

  59. #61 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    The illiterate squatter strikes again. Don’t be an idiot freddy were we reporting on heat in India and China? Nope! You Dope.

    Sheeesh! What a simpleton this twerp freddy is.

  60. #62 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    jeff harvey eco-arselick

    the following from your homepage is utmost idiotic, as typical for a green lefty activist of your scientology church of fundamentalistic truth deniers and big assholes:

    YOU 4TH INTEREST:

    €&@&€&@&€&@@€

    Science, ecology and advocacy.

    Scientists are currently faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced simplification of the biosphere. Although our knowledge of factors shaping the evolution, assembly and functioning of ecosystems is poorly understood, we do know that over large spatial and temporal scales, conditions and processes (‘ecosystem services’) which nurture life and humanity are generated. At the same time, sophisticated techniques are being employed around the world by powerful, vested interests that are aiming to change the way the public thinks about the environment. For example, a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulations. In the face of this new threat from the political right, scientists are faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced changes to the biosphere and their consequent effects on the delivery of ecosystem services. Over the past several years I have become actively involved in discussions based on bridging economics and ecology, in an attempt to stem the relentless flow of disinformation emanating from a number of surprisingly well-endowed think tanks and public relations firms that are distorting science to support a political agenda and pre-determined worldview on environmental issues.

    @&€&&@&€&&@&€&@&

    arselick: ” a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulations…. blah blah ”

    education for arselick: conspiration theory, it’s not dubious sources you asshole, but the resistance of reasonable citizens to throw your ideology into the wastebasket as complete and quickly as possible.

    FUCKWIT, FUCK, WUCK, WUCK, FUCK

  61. #63 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    @bbd

    WHY ARE YOU NOT BANNED, YOU FUCKING IDIOT WITHOUT VALUE IN EVERY SCIENCE DEBATE

    ASSHOLE, FUCKING, CLEAN YOUR STINKING ASSHOLE FROM DIRTY SHIT

  62. #64 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    sillyonell, shut just up you ugly dwarf

    your comments are unbearable

    only crap from a bollocks monger arselick

  63. #65 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    agw assblowers, when are you finally willing to follow your guru kevin to be at least a tiny bit honest

    kevin wrote

    €&@€&@&€

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    @&€&@&€&@&€

    FOLLOW YOUR GURU AND ACCEPT WHAT HE SAID. DONT DIVERT FROM WHAT HE SAID AND APPRAISE HIS GUIDANCE TO YOU FOLLOWER ARSELICKS WITHOUT ANY OWN KNOLEDGE ABOUT WEATHER AND CLIMATE, YOU ALL ARE ONLY COPY PASTE Of THE “TRUTHS” OF KEVIN, MIKE, JIM, PHIL AND YOUR OTHER AGW PRIESTS.

    YOU ARE TRUE IDIOTIC FUCKWIT DWARFS AND PRESUMABLY METROSEXUAL IN ITS WORST SIGNIFICANCE

    GO HOME AND LEARN TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE WITHOUT WANTING HARM TO SOCIETY

  64. #66 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    @liontroll assfucker

    you disqualified due to your mental deviation:

    The illiterate squatter strikes again. Don’t be an idiot freddy were we reporting on heat in India and China? Nope! You Dope. Sheeesh! What a simpleton this twerp freddy is.

    LEARN AND IMPROVE, ARSELICK

    TRY TO BECOME A DECENT CITIZEN!!!

  65. #67 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    @lionejokeblower

    again, you missed the minimum standard of communication skill:

    You only ask that question because you have, deliberately or because of a lack in comprehension skills, misinterpreted the make up of my sentence where only the first part ‘Human caused climate change‘ contained a link to evidence for human activities being behind the current trend for increasing incidence of extreme weather events of which droughts are but one example.

    IT IS DEFINITELY YOU WHO SHOWS SEVERE COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS. YOU NEED A THERAPIST URGENTLY, STINKING ASSHOLE

  66. #68 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    Oh! My!

  67. #69 Turboblocke
    July 16, 2013

    OMG: I can’t believe that anyone is still trying to make points using the Climategate I e-mails.

  68. #70 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    I think freddy has recently been released from solitary confinement somewhere, even if self imposed.

    Meanwhile we may as well let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Norwegians, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all complete the devastation of fish stocks from everywhere on the planet:

    No deal on huge Antarctic marine reserves.

    Has no body heard the fables of ‘The Goose that laid the golden egg’ and ‘King Midas’. You cannot eat gold.

    Way to go world, which will shrug us off soon at this rate.

  69. #71 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    lionell and turbobloke nutters, the thunderstorm is not yet over for you. i know, you define it so, you want it, but the content from kevin still applies and you assholes have never given any substantial testimony of what kevin admitted

    YOU HAVE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR GURU SAID, FUCKWITS

  70. #72 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    Reminding about my #100 on page 8 , which is in danger of being overlooked by the turn of the page.

  71. #73 Lionel A
    July 16, 2013

    …the thunderstorm is not yet over for you…

    Meaning what freddy do you even know yourself?

  72. #74 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    @lioneloony, why are you soooooo misanthrop and dont enjoy life? what went wrong with you? are you so angry because you are lacking all talents, look ugly, dont have money? what is it that makes you a mean enemy of mankind and a dirty alarmist?

    your text: “Meanwhile we may as well let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Norwegians, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all complete the devastation of fish stocks from everywhere on the planet:

    No deal on huge Antarctic marine reserves.

    Has no body heard the fables of ‘The Goose that laid the golden egg’ and ‘King Midas’. You cannot eat gold.

    Way to go world, which will shrug us off soon at this rate.”

    is of utter idiocy. of course will there be a lot of fish in the future. nobody wants to eat gold but just to have it to buy nice things, which you cant since you are poor like bbd fuckwit, the other big arselick

    YOU MUST LEARN TO BECOME OPTIMISTICI AND TO THROW AWAY YOUR DARK DELUSIONS OF A WARMING AND DYING WORLD, YOU ASSHOLE

  73. #75 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Lionel @ 53”’

    I see you accidently skipped over my question at #11. I’m sure it was just oversight on your part. No worries, I’ll post it again here:

    Do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?

    Thanks.

  74. #76 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “But unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 it’s not going to stop warming”, “Arguing otherwise is physics denial”

    Strange, I don’t recall that argument…

    But let’s sum up what it is you are saying:

    You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal,…. and within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies….all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!”

    Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin.

  75. #77 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    “…a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!” Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin”.

    More than a few ‘diehard delusional Deltoidians’ , birch bark brain. Try much of the scientific community as well as all of the National Academies in every nation are agreed that climate change poses a very profoundly serious risk to the future. The article I lined to above appears to suggest that many scientists view human threats to marine ecosystems as very serious as well.

    As for your other obsessions, they reveal a lot about your mind set. Cornered, you resort to whatever you have left. And that ain’t much.

  76. #78 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    PS: Algonquin Provincial Park is publicly owned. So its clear that if your tried to sell some land from there you’d be breaking the law.

    In other words, your humor mis abut as flat as pancake.

    As for Betula’s sidekick Freddy, well what more can we say. He’s truly off his rocker.

  77. #79 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    I see that Freddy still adores me. He’s going through just about anything he can find about me.

    You want my autograph, Freddy?

  78. #80 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    Lionel’ @ 55

    I know you like to keep informed. Here’s some info for you…

    “Disastrous monsoon floods are common in India and surrounding nations, and 60,000 people–an average of 500 people per year–died in India due to monsoon floods between 1900 – 2012, according to EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database.”

    “There is criticism from some that the devastating floods were not entirely a natural disaster–human-caused deforestation, dam building, and mining may have contributed. “Large-scale construction of dams and absence of environmental regulations has led to the floods,” said Sunita Narian, director general of Delhi based advocacy group Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).”

    “Climate models show a wide range of possibilities for the future of the Indian monsoon, and it is unclear at present what the future might hold”

    You’re welcome.

  79. #82 Jeff Harvey
    July 16, 2013

    Can’t wait to see the primary school educated Dunning-Kruger wannabes go after this one:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50360/abstract

  80. #83 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    GO HOME AND LEARN TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE WITHOUT WANTING HARM TO SOCIETY

    Yawn @ #65

    You aren’t reading my responses, which is regrettable but not unexpected.

    Where would you be if you stopped ranting about debunked shite?

    ;-)

  81. #84 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin.

    Explain the PETM.

  82. #85 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal

    Since I don’t indulge in physics denial or paleoclimate denial (remember those marine extinctions?) I’m left with a future where policy responses to the laws of physics will determine what happens.

    You would be too, if you weren’t a physics denier.

  83. #86 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Betty

    You don’t provide a link, but assuming that Sunita Narian is quoted accurately:

    “Climate models show a wide range of possibilities for the future of the Indian monsoon, and it is unclear at present what the future might hold”

    Monsoons are caused by land surface warming during the Spring and early Summer creating a low pressure over continental interiors (convection). Warm SSTs evaporate moisture into the atmosphere and the moist air is drawn in by the low pressure over the hot continental interior. Big rains result.

    What do you think will happen as the climate system heats up?

    - Monsoon stays the same

    - Monsoon strengthens

    - Monsoon weakens

    Pick one and explain your reasoning.

  84. #87 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    @bbd arselick and fartstinker

    your pretext is wrong, therefore —> wastebasket

    Monsoons are caused by land surface warming during the Spring and early Summer creating a low pressure over continental interiors (convection). Warm SSTs evaporate moisture into the atmosphere and the moist air is drawn in by the low pressure over the hot continental interior. Big rains result.

    What do you think will happen as the climate system heats up?

    - Monsoon stays the same

    - Monsoon strengthens

    - Monsoon weakens

    Pick one and explain your reasoning.

    YOU ASSHOLE SHOULD LEARN FROM METEOROLOGISTS THAT TOTAL SOLAR INSOLATION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE. THE SECOND IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE CLOUDS. MORE CLOUDS = COLDER, LESS CLOUDS = WARMER. THAT’S IT. THE REST IS PEANUTS FOR FUCKWITS WHO WANT TO PRETEND TO SAVE THE WORLD.

    YOU TINY AGW DWARFS ARE WRONG, YOU CHEAT, DECEIVE AND BETRAY AND SHOULD GIVE THE MONEY BACK YOU HAVE WASTED, YOU DIRTY ASSHOLES FULL OF STINKING SHIT.

  85. #88 Olaus Petri
    July 16, 2013

    Jeffie, a friendly advise: The One hour photo guy isn’t freddy. You should be more concerned with chek. I remember clearly his creepy fanyasies about what you were up to in your own home. Really creepy stuff.

  86. #89 Betula
    July 16, 2013

    ” Algonquin Provincial Park is publicly owned. So its clear that if your tried to sell some land from there you’d be breaking the law.”

    Um, yes Hardley, nothing is lost on you ….

  87. #90 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    citation bbd arselick: ” … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …
    physics denial
    physics denial fuck
    physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …”

    YOU ARE AWARDED THE MONDAY AFTERNOON PRIZE FOR THE DISTINGUISHED FUCKWIT WHICH HAS MOST OFTEN USED “physics denial” WITHIN 2 HOURS.

    CONGRATULATIONS YOU ASSHOLE

  88. #91 chek
    July 16, 2013

    Betty @ 76 tried it on again, this time with this variation:

    within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies….all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!”

    Tell me Betty, what thickness of tinfoil are you making your hats from these days?

  89. #92 Craig Thomas
    July 16, 2013

    How’s your Arctic sea ice “recovery”, “freddy”?

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

    Time to admit you were wrong?

    What else are you wrong about?

    Or, to put it another way, is there anything you are *right* about?

  90. #93 freddy
    July 16, 2013

    craig asshole, to stuff your green blathermouth:

    THIS IS WHO YOU ARE:

    @&&&&€&&€@@&€€&

    Craig Thomas joined the Evans School faculty in 2006. Thomas teaches courses in policy process, environmental policy, performance management, and research design. His current research analyzes collaboration among public, private, and nonprofit partners as an alternative form of governance to centralized planning and command-and-control regulation. He has also begun new lines of research on performance management and institutional adaptation to environmental change.

    Thomas previously served on the faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst from 1997-06.

    He is the author of Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity (MIT Press, 2003), and co-author of Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? (RFF Press, 2004). He has also published numerous articles in interdisciplinary journals, and is the editor of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

    He is the 1998 recipient of the American Political Science Association’s Leonard D. White Award, which recognizes the best dissertation in the field of public administration.

    Outside of academia, Thomas has worked professionally as an administrative analyst for the University of California, a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, and in positions for two environmental nonprofits in Washington, D.C.

    Thomas holds a Ph.D. in political science and an MPP from the University of California, Berkeley. He also holds a BA in international studies from the University of Washington.

    Areas of specialization
    Collaborative Governance
    Environmental Policy
    Policy Process
    Public Management

    @&€&&&€&@&€&&

    YOU ARE A GREEN ECO-ORDAINED POLITOLOGIST WITHOUT ANY CLUE OF NATURAL SCIENCES, HOWEVER YOUR LOSE MOUTH WIDE OPEN TO CONFESS AGW CLIMATE SLOGANS BY

    COPY PASTE

    YOU ASSHOLE WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND DO COPY PASTE OF SLOGANS FROM YOUR AGW SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH GURUS WHOM YOU BLINDLY BELIEVE UNTIL THE END.

    YOU DARED – AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS – TO “DEFINE” the tern “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in Wikipedia. That’s an example of how utterly primitive Wikipedia deals with contents, IT’S ALL ABOUT A POLIITICAL SPIN OF THE GREEN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN WIKIPEDIA

    ASSHOLE CRAIG FUVKWIT: YOU DO COPY PASTE IN AREAS YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND

    YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE, SO TYPICAL FOR THE ROTTEN AGW CHURCH MOVEMENT

  91. #94 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    YOU ASSHOLE SHOULD LEARN FROM METEOROLOGISTS THAT TOTAL SOLAR INSOLATION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE.

    No it isn’t. The atmosphere re-radiates in IR. Basic wrong-o.

    citation bbd arselick: ” … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial …

    And the atmosphere still re-radiates IR.

    You silly billy!

  92. #95 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    YOU DARED – AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS – TO “DEFINE” the tern “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in Wikipedia. That’s an example of how utterly primitive Wikipedia deals with contents, IT’S ALL ABOUT A POLIITICAL SPIN OF THE GREEN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN WIKIPEDIA

    So the prominent sceptic and vocal critic of the IPCC Roy Spencer is peddling *warmist lies*? Someone ring Roy. Right now. He should be told.

    Here’s what Roy says about global average temperature. Remember, he’s the sceptic satellite guy.

    I sometimes hear my fellow climate realists say that a globally-averaged surface temperature has little or no meaning in the global warming debate. They claim it is too ill-defined, not accurately known, or little more than just an average of a bunch of unrelated numbers from different regions of the Earth.

    I must disagree.

    The globally averaged surface temperature is directly connected to the globally averaged tropospheric temperature through convective overturning of the atmosphere. This is about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. You cannot warm or cool the surface temperature without most of the atmosphere following suit.

    The combined surface-deep layer atmospheric temperature distribution is then the thermal source of most of the infrared (IR) radiation that cools the Earth in response to solar heating by the sun. Admittedly, things like water vapor, clouds, and CO2 end up also modulating the rate of loss of IR to space, but it is the temperature which is the ultimate source of this radiation. And unless the rate of IR loss to space equals the rate of solar absorption in the global average, the global average temperature will change.

    Read the rest here:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/in-defense-of-the-globally-averaged-temperature/

  93. #96 Craig Thomas
    July 17, 2013

    What was your PhD in, “freddy”?

    Care to share with us a list of your publications?

    Or, as we all suspect from the ignorance and lack of education your writing displays, is it possible that you have no scientific training, little education, and no expertise in any field let alone the field of climate science?

    How’s that Arctic sea ice recovery going?
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you still in denial about it?

  94. #97 Craig Thomas
    July 17, 2013

    Oh, this guy really is a hoot.

    YOU DARED – AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS – TO “DEFINE” the tern “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in Wikipedia.

    No I didn’t. I referenced an authoritative source on the matter.

    Which seems to be a bit more than you can manage.

    Still going to crank blogs like WUWT for your “information”?

  95. #98 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Freddy, vous êtes fou.

  96. #99 Craig Thomas
    July 17, 2013

    Er ist ganz verrückt. Und ohne Ahnung.

  97. #100 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Er ist zweifellos.