August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    4001
    Again victory

  2. #2 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    I am proud, on behalf of all decent climate realists, to have won the race for the 4000th and 4001st comment on Deltoid against all the slow and computer-illiterate CAGW greenpisser inhabitants of leper island of nihilism. No wonder that all greenpissers are sooooo retarded. Fuck off from this blog.

  3. #3 chek
    August 31, 2013

    All the usual vague claims and unspecified influence and handwaving from Curry. And if she had anything solid enough to publish in the literature, she’d do so but she hasn’t so she blogs it, where it’s only going to be seen by her coven of confused denier nutters in their misplaced search for an authority figure.

    the horses are spooked

    Yep, AR5 will give deniers the shits, hence the advance noise.

  4. #4 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    Congratulations Berendaneke :)

  5. #5 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Again victory

    What a sad excuse for a person.

  6. #6 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “President Ollanta Humala announced the emergency for seven provinces in Puno – Carabaya, Sandia, Lampa, San Antonio de Putina, Melgar, Puno and El Collao.

    Hundreds of families have been affected and more than 250,000 alpacas have died due to freezing temperatures and snow storms.”

    http://elcomercio.pe/actualidad/1623460/noticia-puno-zonas-afectadas-nevadas-fueron-declaradas-emergencia

    hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,does Peru have a carbon tax ?
    if so maybe they had better reduce it a bit :)

  7. #7 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    Congrats Beren.

  8. #8 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    me tinks shrek is jealous,

    never mind shrekie, we will let you get it next time honey :)

  9. #9 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “A rare snowfall in Chile’s Atacama desert has delighted visitors to one of the world’s driest areas.

    Residents of San Pedro de Atacama say the weekend snow was the heaviest in three decades for the desert city, which is 750 miles north of the capital, Santiago.

    But local officials say they are concerned that the snow and rain that fell over the weekend could cause some rivers to flood as has happened in the past.”

    http://news.sky.com/story/1133717/chiles-atacama-desert-sees-rare-snowfall

    Oh golly gee wizz………that blooody tax !!!!!!!!

  10. #10 chek
    August 31, 2013

    me tinks (sic) shrek is jealous

    You’re projecting again SpamKan. Splashing shit wall to wall over hundreds of comments may be admirable from your brainless perspective, but it’s not what sane people either do or congratulate.

    But I’ll take it as a metaphor for your collective denier psychosis.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2013

    “I am proud, on behalf of all decent climate realists, to have won the race for the 4000th and 4001st comment”

    Tells you all we need to know about you, Freddy, when you have to write this. Get a life, loser.

  12. #12 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.

    Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.”

  13. #13 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    “When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

    Especially in the renascent subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.”

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    “widespread water table draw down ” more bullshit and conflicts with salinity – oh fuck didn’t think of that….

    Did you miss the bit where I claimed both things were happening in the same place? Thought so, seeing as I never claimed that.

    “creeping salinity in various places” in general over-stated

    So, ignore the substance of the post and throw up a red herring apparently based on your own authority, disagreeing with other data ? Of course you did.

    (Never mind the obvious fallacy: over-stated (even if accurate) doesn’t mean “not serious”.)

    The whole Australian rainfall record is a rare event. The average year does not exist. Average = drought + flood divide by 2.

    …which has no bearing on my point. Putting your head in the sand doesn’t make the threat go away.

    (You’re reliably crap at this, which is interesting. You seem like you’re not smart enough not to be, so it seems deliberate.)

  15. #15 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Yes SpamKan @ #12 & 13, we already know Curry is a mediocre scientist whose bitterness at bigger talents has been nurtured for so long it’s now permanently etched into her face.

    Unfortunately for you and her, her rant doesn’t change the laws of physics, or what more able scientists and their professional bodies recommend.

  16. #16 Karen
    August 31, 2013

    100% Of Climate Models Overpredicted Temperature Rise

    “Climate scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t understand the climate, yet they want us to believe their latest crap about missing heat at the bottom of the sea.”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/100-of-climate-models-overpredicted-temperature-rise/

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2013

    “Why adopt an alarmist meme – WHY coz some fucktard like Jeff has put his shitty GM output plus or minus a barn into his shitty ecology models and produced some …. shit !”

    Nothing shitty about the empirical evidence is there, Luke. But then again, since you don’t do science and are a bonafide ‘fucktard’ (your own term), you don’t understand it. The ecological literature is full of studies showing effects of warming on a range of ecophysiological processes – its too bad that you’re such a numbskull and thin that the evidence is thus far circumstantial and based on models. The new Nature Climate Change article not only explores the projected effects of increased ocean acidification on marine biota, but on effects already well described.

    Like most deniers, you can’t debate yourself out of a dripping wet paper bag. But in your own mind you are something of a witty expert. Truth is that you are a witless crank. You’re also a liar – how many times have you said that you won’t post here any more and then to come back? I’ve counted at least 3. Must be more.

    So get off your backside and do some reading. Or else go and cozy with hacks like Nova, who are similarly saddled with superiority syndrome – while lacking any real evidence to support it.

    The Luke writes up this utter tripe: “Unlike El Gordo I see AGW as a significant risk. But how much? How does one play that off against many other deserving needs for research and investment”

    Its the old Lomborg priority investment gambit. But of course the money is there. Its just that the will isn’t, not when this conflicts with the interests of investors and the privileged few. The US alone has a military budget of close to a trillion dollars a year. They spend huge sums killing people. Imagine what that money could do if it was invested into helping people and creating a just future. Throw in tax evasion/avoidance and the entire military-industrial state, governments that are beholden to the corporate sector etc. and its clear to see why the interests of the poor and of the environment have never been high up on the agenda. Read quotes from the likes of important politiicans/planners like Smedley Butler, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Thomas Carrothers over the years and the real agendas become clear – or should. The argument that ‘there isn’t enough money to deal with multiple problems’ is bullshit. Certainly elites use it to justify quite abhorrent policies aimed at ensuring capital flows remain largely uni-directional (poor to rich) and in support of expansionist foreign policies, but its pure garbage. Kindergarten level stuff. Trust old Luke to use it.

  18. #19 Stu
    August 31, 2013

    Gordo, how many years have temperatures been “flat” again? Can you go an entire day without contradicting your own stupid lies for once?

  19. #20 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2013

    Fatso.

    I’m still waiting for you to take my money from me.

    Anyone else on this thread who is posting in support of the plateau/hiatus/halt/cooling is welcome to jump in ahead of Fatso if he’s too scared to stand by his own position.

  20. #21 adelady
    August 31, 2013

    Bernard, shame on you. What about all those proponents of the “tipping point” for a period of cooling? They should get their chance, surely.

  21. #22 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2013

    Adelady.

    What about all those proponents of the “tipping point” for a period of cooling? They should get their chance, surely.

    Oh, they have their chance too. I’ve offered Mr Monckton a wager based on that very thing, but so far there’s been no response.

    As it always is. When push comes to shove I can never get a Denialatus to defend their anti-science claims with cash. I suspect that deep down they all know that they’re peddling snake oil…

  22. #23 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    I suspect that deep down they all know that they’re peddling snake oil…

    It’s consistent with that, which if accurate would imply that they are trying to convince other people of propositions that they aren’t personally convicted by.

  23. #24 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2013

    Hah, hadn’t seen the latest tomfoolery from Monckton. Shades of McLean’s spectacularly ludicrous cooling prediction. I wonder whether Monckton’s “math geek with a track record” is McLean, or even Monckton himself?

  24. #25 Lionel A
    August 31, 2013

    Monckton’s “math geek with a track record” is McLean, or even Monckton himself?

    Or Piers Corbyn maybe or even Joe Bastardi.

  25. #26 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Freddiot

    Now that you’ve delighted yourself by posting the 4000th/4001st comment, will you *please* stop the DOS bollocks?

    It is a pain in the effing arse.

  26. #27 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    And another day crickets from Luke on the little problem of simultaneous OHC increase in all major basins…

    I think he’s hit the wall with this one!

    :-)

  27. #28 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Given the usual outpouring of bollocks about Fyfe et al. and Kosaka & Xie by people who didn’t understand (and didn’t read) the studies but *do* get their scripts from disinformer blogs, it’s encouraging to find a lucid, correct discussion of both by John Nielsen-Gammon.

    Recommended to all!

    :-)

  28. #29 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Jeff revealed as a true communist – tax them more – redistribute wealth. What a prick. Hope you’re giving all your salary away on not sitting in a nice little house somewhere in the Netherlands like a massive hypocrite.

    Mate we do our own research on ecophysiological processes and only a bullshitter would not put forward the sheer complexity of issues here.

    Ocean acidification – where? You mean slight change in alkalinity impossible to detect against background variation. The last refuge of scoundrels. Dissolution of shells is chemothermodynamically impossible. Unless you’re hydrochloric acid pouring mesocosm douche bag.

  29. #30 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Mate we do our own research on ecophysiological processes and only a bullshitter would not put forward the sheer complexity of issues here.

    And which journal(s) do you publish it in?

  30. #31 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Ocean acidification – where?

    In the world’s oceans, as recognised and named as such by oceanographers

    Note, not as misunderstood by some douchebag denier of the calibre Gordon would know braying and pontificating outside whatever limited and minor expertise he has, if any.

  31. #32 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Jeff revealed as a true communist – tax them more – redistribute wealth

    Your juvenile political sloganeering is to be expected, and you fail to recognise that wealth is always redistributed, although usually in an upward direction. Wealth derives from appropriating the effort and ingenuity of millions of common people.

    I suspect you have a problem with those common people being compensated for their share of The Commons being treated as a free garbage dump literally and ecologically, but no problem whatever with people shouldering losses incurred by those far richer.

    And so the common people bail out mismanaged banks and corporate entities while those entities simultaneously extract ring fenced ‘profits’ to redistribute to their shareholders.

    Objecting to that process is not ‘communism’. You however are an active apologist for plutocracy leading to oligarchy.

  32. #33 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    chek

    I hope it goes without saying that I agree with your #32 and yawn when chemistry denial rears its cross-eyed and drooling head.

    But if you are there, are you having intermittent problems loading this site?

  33. #34 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Hi BBD – it’s been a pig just seeing pages all day, and worse when uploading a comment – it often taking three or four attempts. I’m hoping a bunch of duplicates don’t suddenly appear!

    It’s not quite as bad this evening, But still not back to ‘normal’.

  34. #35 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Thanks. Confirms not browser-specific (you are IE; I am FF). Teh Freddiot, I suspect.

    Interesting the trouble some people will go to to shut down the debate!

    When they have lost it!

    :-) :-) :-)

  35. #36 chek
    August 31, 2013

    Incidentally BBD, there’s an interesting discussion here with Mike Mann regarding Curry’s latest do-nothing bleatings.

  36. #37 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    JC is so badly adrift over this it moggles the bind.

    Is there a #JCWTF?

    If not, there should be!

    :-)

  37. #38 Berendaneke
    August 31, 2013

    Czeck greenpiss communist

    Your juvenile political sloganeering is to be expected, and you fail to recognise that wealth is always redistributed, although usually in an upward direction. Wealth derives from appropriating the effort and ingenuity of millions of common people.

    I suspect you have a problem with those common people being compensated for their share of The Commons being treated as a free garbage dump literally and ecologically, but no problem whatever with people shouldering losses incurred by those far richer.

    And so the common people bail out mismanaged banks and corporate entities while those entities simultaneously extract ring fenced ‘profits’ to redistribute to their shareholders.

    Objecting to that process is not ‘communism’. You however are an active apologist for plutocracy leading to oligarchy.

    You are really a communist and angry that you don’t belong to the rich, like Lionel, Marco, Stu, BBD, and all other greenpissers. You don’t deserve to belong to the rich since you are devoid of any significant talents with which you could make money. Even your scribble isnt worth penny so ridiculously irrelevant and annoying is your evil greenpiss sloganism full of hatred against mankind. Piss of from this blog.

  38. #39 Lionel A
    August 31, 2013

    Mate we do our own research on ecophysiological processes and only a bullshitter would not put forward the sheer complexity of issues here.

    Who is the ‘we’ therein? Not you yourself for your statement about ‘dissolution of shells’ shows you for the ideological ignorant bigot that you are.

    As for wealth distribution, chek nailed that in his following posts.

    What are you Luke? One of those hired to protect the real leeches of societies, i.e. those who make private fortunes with society at large shouldering the losses and degraded environments. Look what has happened to mountain tops in Appalachia for just one example. And fracking is another environmental destroyer in action.

    And bottled water has to come from somewhere. Now where did I hear about the Shrubs buying up land in South America with large aquifers beneath. What these idiots don’t realise is that when ecosystems completely fall apart it isn’t going to be fun for the even few left thereafter as the food chain dominoes fall. This after even their guards have turned on them.

    We are arguing against you, and your blinkered kind, so that this is not the future that eventuates.

  39. #40 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    #38

    I’m not “rich”, Freddy, but I bet 10 troy oz 24ct gold that I’ve got more personal wealth than you!!!

    :-)

    After all, I am the King of Old Siam!

    ;-)

  40. #41 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘how many years have temperatures been “flat” again?’

    There is little doubt that its been flat for 13 years.

  41. #42 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Gordy

    Read The Friendly Links!

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/08/learning-from-the-hiatus/

    Try to understand!

    :-)

  42. #43 chek
    August 31, 2013

    You don’t deserve to belong to the rich since you are devoid of any significant talents with which you could make money.

    Even the rich don’t belong to the rich anymore, Freddyfred Despite what you may have been led to believe with stories about the poor being ‘irresponsible’ with mortgages on ticker-tape box homes, the intent of the on-going bailout is to preserve the derivatives market. How many common people do you think have options on futures?

    Your Cold War (i.e. prehistoric) political views don’t begin to address the situation we’re in, the so-called rich having mortgaged the future with a wonderful selection of financial instruments to the tune of between $750 T and $1.4 Q (Quadrillion). By way of comparison., global GDP is approx. $60 Trillion per annum.

    Tell me about your ‘communism’ again, Freddyfred and The Lukes. I’m interested in anything that can be a greater threat to society than the derivative bubble. Like Climate Change for one..

  43. #44 Turboblocke
    August 31, 2013

    A question for those who think that we can shift agriculture aware from the equator to “take advantage” of global warming. Where’s the infrastructure?

    Supplementary questions: where are the farmers? When will they start producing meaningful quantities of crops? What are you going to eat in the meantime? How much will it cost?

  44. #45 Stu
    August 31, 2013

    Shockingly, Luke has no fucking clue what communism is.

    I’m sooo surprised.

  45. #46 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    #44 TB

    Very important questions. And before we build a single railway or road, what about the soil in this miraculous Terra Nova oop North? Crops are fussy about soil pH and drainage. Not to mention photoperiod and temperature!

    It all has to be hunky dory to feed the world!

    Big gamble with high stakes!

    :-)

  46. #47 chek
    August 31, 2013

    And bottled water has to come from somewhere. Now where did I hear about the Shrubs buying up land in South America with large aquifers beneath. What these idiots don’t realise is that when ecosystems completely fall apart it isn’t going to be fun for the even few left thereafter as the food chain dominoes fall. This after even their guards have turned on them.

    This ‘fortress’ mentality is seemingly gaining round Lionel as desperation takes hold. Dana N is also discussing Curry’s latest nonsense here and one commenter is convinced that investing in UK East Anglian sea-level defence is the answer as far as we’re concerned.

    I saw a film (movie) recently which highlighted the perception problem in play here. It was called The Purge (yeah, I know, but it had Ethan Hawke in it, so me and my sons being huge sci-fi fans I thought maybe …) in which the inhabitants of a protected enclave seemed to think that steel shuttered doors and windows were an adequate investment.

    If only they’d consulted the owner of a local sink estate shop on my bus route to work! He could have told them that all that happens is they come through the roof tiles instead. That wasn’t considered by the writers, just as a thousand-and-one other things aren’t considered by the fortress mentality proponents.

    As you say, what the idiots don’t realise is that there are no shortcuts to a liveable world. Which is easily within our grasp once long-term priorities are sorted.

  47. #48 chek
    August 31, 2013

    what about the soil in this miraculous Terra Nova oop North?

    There have been posts from Jeff over the past few years explaining how the acid soils of the Canadian Shield are totally inappropriate for crops.

    I once actually began calculating how many trainloads (at 10KT per train) of compost, sand, potash etc., etc. would be required to even make a dent, but gave up when the numbers just became stupid.

  48. #49 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    It’s funny how the wheels on my little lad’s Lego vehicles are better attached than those of certain “arguments”!

    :-)

  49. #50 el gordo
    August 31, 2013

    ‘There’s no “natural variability only” run to compare to.’

    Pity.

  50. #51 BBD
    August 31, 2013

    Try to understand, Gordy.

    At least try.

    Before you deny!

    :-)

  51. #52 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    We’re not talking about the rich – we’re talking about the middle class. If you fucks want to give all your money to poor countries and become like them go right ahead. “The noble poor” – pigs bum. I know what we contribute in aid collectively as a society and what I do personally. I know what nations national parks are in good condition and what parks are being pilfered, trashed and poached. Want nature conservation – you won’t be paying for it with the poor’s money nor defending it. Fucking Dana and Cook living the high life at University of Queensland and fucking off all around the world on their massive carbon footprint while lecturing us about cutting back. I hope all you cunts have given all your worldy goods away, are wearing sackcloth and are sitting there with a candle and a Negroponte One Laptop Per Child powered by a bicycle. So hypocrites go and get straight fucked.

  52. #53 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    And as for ocean acidification (really imperceptible alkalinity tweaking) – as a combatant once remarked.

    “Aragonite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by corals) and calcite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by calcareous forams i.e. the phytoplankton known as cocolithophores) CANNOT begin to dissolve unless they are thermodynamically permitted to do so i.e. their Saturation Indices (SIs) must be less than zero.
    For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an increase in the partial pressure (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere 6.4 times the current level to 2455 ppmv (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of aragonite down from its present +0.61 to zero.
    pH of the seawater would then be 7.52 (expressed at 25 C, the standard temperature for expressing pHs).
    For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an 8.8 times increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 3388 ppmv ppm (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of calcite down from its present +0.73 to zero.
    pH of the seawater would then be 7.39.
    These values are based on over 200 years of the study of (and parameter measurement in) solution thermodynamics and can be easily obtained in about 15 minutes using any standard geochemical model such as USGS PHREEQC.
    The established paleoclimatic literature shows quite clearly that the occurrences of corals and calcareous phytoplankton in the geological record over the last several hundreds of million years are fully consistent with the above thermodynamic facts.
    Thus the modern level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 384 ppmv would have to double 2 – 3 times before corals and calcareous plankton would begin to disappear.
    Until we approached such a condition any field observations are highly likely to be instances of natural, complex ‘noise’ restricted to specific species or other local factors.”

  53. #54 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Aragonite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by corals) and calcite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by calcareous forams i.e. the phytoplankton known as cocolithophores) CANNOT begin to dissolve unless they are thermodynamically permitted to do so i.e. their Saturation Indices (SIs) must be less than zero.
    For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an increase in the partial pressure (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere 6.4 times the current level to 2455 ppmv (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of aragonite down from its present +0.61 to zero.
    pH of the seawater would then be 7.52 (expressed at 25 C, the standard temperature for expressing pHs).
    For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an 8.8 times increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 3388 ppmv ppm (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of calcite down from its present +0.73 to zero.
    pH of the seawater would then be 7.39.
    These values are based on over 200 years of the study of (and parameter measurement in) solution thermodynamics and can be easily obtained in about 15 minutes using any standard geochemical model such as USGS PHREEQC.
    The established paleoclimatic literature shows quite clearly that the occurrences of corals and calcareous phytoplankton in the geological record over the last several hundreds of million years are fully consistent with the above thermodynamic facts.
    Thus the modern level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 384 ppmv would have to double 2 – 3 times before corals and calcareous plankton would begin to disappear.
    Until we approached such a condition any field observations are highly likely to be instances of natural, complex ‘noise’ restricted to specific species or other local factors.

  54. #55 Luke
    August 31, 2013

    Who the fuck is DOS attacking this site. Please desist.

  55. #56 BBD
    September 1, 2013

    Well, Luke, it’s either you and your chums or “Freddy”!

    Who knows!

    But do please stop, whoever you are!

    :-)

  56. #57 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    ‘At least try. Before you deny!’

    The models would all work perfectly if CO2 was taken out of the equation.

  57. #58 chek
    September 1, 2013

    The models would all work perfectly if CO2 was taken out of the equation

    [citation needed]

  58. #59 BBD
    September 1, 2013

    #57

    No, Gordy, that is rubbish!

    Please at least *try* to understand!

    I know AR4 is nearly old hat now, but I have a strong feeling nothing has changed!

  59. #60 chek
    September 1, 2013

    Fucking Dana and Cook living the high life at University of Queensland and fucking off all around the world on their massive carbon footprint while lecturing us about cutting back

    You’re actually incapable of seeing beyond your spoon-fed, suburban Republican nutter horizons, aren’t you The Lukes.

  60. #61 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    “You’re actually incapable of seeing beyond your spoon-fed, suburban Republican nutter horizons, aren’t you The Lukes.”

    Don’t verbal me – I’m not a Republican or Conservative voter. You see more and more verballing – goes to the heart of your objectivity as I keep telling you. You’ve bought into the whole CAGW meme replete with politics. What else have you made assumptions about? Maybe I’m in the bush – why am I in a suburb. Maybe I’m in that van parked across the street from you?

    But next time you’re slagging try “Tea Party libertarian extreme deregulation fucks”. Works better but still wrong.

  61. #62 chek
    September 1, 2013

    And yet, there’s you railing and gnashing away about the ‘high life’ as lived by … junior academics?

    I’m not ‘verballing’ you The Lukes. You actually are a moron.

  62. #63 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Luke, you are overlooking something very important with respect to the issue of calcifer shells.

    The critical thing for most calcifers isn’t how quickly their calcium carbonate shells/skeletons dissolve, but rather how easily they can be formed. The closer to the saturation index that the environment moves in response to acidification, the more energy is required to fix the calcium from solution. Many species are already on tight energetic budgets and simply don’t have the ability divert more energy to draw the more-difficult-to-obtain calcium that results from an acidified ocean.

    And as individual of most calcifer species have lifespans on the order of days to months, and perhaps to several years at the most, the compromised ability to properly form new calcium structures is what the problem is all about.

    Your dissolution argument is a red herring.

  63. #64 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    Ever visited the University of Queensland. It’s a tough gig – sub-tropical, Staff Club with a la carte menu, cinema, leafy suburb on the river, nearby restaurants and barista bars. Just like sub-Saharan Africa.

  64. #65 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Fatso:

    ‘how many years have temperatures been “flat” again?’

    There is little doubt that its been flat for 13 years.

    So put your money where your mouth is.

  65. #66 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Ever visited the University of Queensland. It’s a tough gig – sub-tropical, Staff Club with a la carte menu, cinema, leafy suburb on the river, nearby restaurants and barista bars. Just like sub-Saharan Africa.

    Universities are ‘built’ by politicians and beaurocrats. What does the design of a campus have to do with the implications of the science conducted therein?

  66. #67 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Bugger. Closed the opening tag…

    Ever visited the University of Queensland. It’s a tough gig – sub-tropical, Staff Club with a la carte menu, cinema, leafy suburb on the river, nearby restaurants and barista bars. Just like sub-Saharan Africa.

    Universities are ‘built’ by politicians and beaurocrats. What does the design of a campus have to do with the implications of the science conducted therein?

  67. #68 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    The ocean is isn’t acidified – it’s still alkaline !

    Bernard – good call – at least someone’s awake – but as lovers of palaeo I wonder how the fauna survived previous epochs of high CO2. Yes is is about rate but why does the meme bang on about dissolution? How does the current fauna survive the daily variation in pH?

    John Cook suffering at UQ

    http://www.scmb.uq.edu.au/images/images/images/uq-campus.jpg

  68. #69 chek
    September 1, 2013

    Your dissolution argument is a red herring.

    Are you sure Bernard?

    The Lukes have after all read a page (maybe two!) on some blog and know everything required to start telling us all and instructing professionals such as yourself as to why OA is an imaginary problem.

  69. #70 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    BJ its better to avoid betting, because one of us is going to lose and it would be sad to spoil a friendship.

    I’m prepared to give up my membership with the Denialati in a couple of years if we don’t spot a tipping point going south, then join the sceptics who believe there maybe a little positive feedback from increasing CO2, but nothing like the alarmists are predicting.

    Waiting for AR5.

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    …revealed as a true communist – tax them more – redistribute wealth…

    Sigh. Luke doesn’t understand the term “communist” and deploys “redistribute wealth” in almost precisely the fashion the rabid US Tea Partiers don’t understand it, regardless of his denial of being a Republican or Conservative voter.

    And Luke uses that to avoid rebutting any of Jeff’s points about how the human world works, especially how the first world derives a huge amount of wealth from exploiting the rest.

    Then goes off on tangents like this:

    I know what we contribute in aid collectively as a society and what I do personally.

    Which still has nothing to do with how the first world massively exploits the rest, and fuck all to do with how the very rich privatise the profits and socialise the costs (CO2 in the atmosphere being one of the poster children for that ploy).

    Goes to his lack of objectivity, I say ;-)

  71. #72 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    Crops are fussy about soil pH and drainage. Not to mention photoperiod and temperature!

    I seem to recall they are also fussy about the microbiology of the soil which varies geographically and AFAIK we have no industrial scale mechanism for transplanting from one region to another.

    Speaking of chemistry, we now have this bit of denier chum:

    The ocean is isn’t acidified – it’s still alkaline !

    Good grief. Luke apparently doesn’t understand that the term “acidification” doesn’t imply “became acidic”, but feels qualified to comment on shell chemistry. Add that to Luke’s growing DuKE list.

  72. #73 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    The ocean is isn’t acidified – it’s still alkaline !

    Straw man. No-one is saying that the oceans are “acidified”.

    They are, however, acidifying.

    Bernard – good call – at least someone’s awake – but as lovers of palaeo I wonder how the fauna survived previous epochs of high CO2.

    Many marine calcifers didn’t.

    In fact many other species didn’t either.

    Yes is is about rate but why does the meme bang on about dissolution?

    Probably because the lay public understand it better in this form than they would if they were told of compromised deposition rates and patterns.

    And when it comes to community structures such as the Great barrier Reef, then over its lifetime dissolution is actually a factor to be considered.

    How does the current fauna survive the daily variation in pH?

    Red herring.

    It’s no different to how plants fix carbon each day – they do it when diurnal conditions are conducive, when the energy requirements are optimal.

    If the regular availability of deposition conditions changes, as happens when mean ocean acidity increases, then the issue of energetic inability to properly fix calcium manifests. It’s little different to a seedling being shaded by a more quickly growing tree.

    Do you really need pictures drawn in order to work this out?

  73. #74 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    Graph CO2 emissions versus infant mortality.

    Lotharsson if you’re troubled – give all your money away. Have you?

    Meme bullshit on “ocean acidification” – same bullshit with “CO2 pollution”. Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.

    Get real Bernard – you’ll find corals doing well in a range of pH environments. It’s just bedwetting.

  74. #75 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    Lotharsson if you’re troubled – give all your money away. Have you?

    Look over there, a squirrel!

    The answer doesn’t affect Jeff’s observations nor your inability to rebut them, not what that says about your inappropriate use of political terminology (never mind the science). So we’ll add that to your growing list of points on which you have ducked, dodged, weaved and ignored. It’s becoming quite a pattern with you.

    Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.

    Nope. “Acidification” is ALSO correct terminology.

    You are really determined to show that you don’t know what you are talking about on a whole range of issues, aren’t you?

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    Gack, close tag failure. Sorry folks.

  76. #77 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Meme bullshit on “ocean acidification” – same bullshit with “CO2 pollution”.

    You are confabulating. An increse in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration.

    Further, you haven’t proven that “CO2 pollution” is bullshit, so your sprious comparison is doubly spurious.

    Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.

    No it’s not. You’re flat-out wrong.

    The alkalinity of the oceans remains the same (and may enve increase), as alkalinity refers to the cation concentration. The basicity of the oceans decreases in lock-step with the increasing acidity.

    And as a loss of basicity is exactly the same as an increase in acidity, “acidification” is a competely valid term. It simply means that the concentration of hydronium ions is increasing, which is indisputable from a hard, chemistry point of view.

    Get real Bernard – you’ll find corals doing well in a range of pH environments.

    Once again this is a straw man.

    Different species of coral “do well” in different environments. This does not mean that it is beneficial to alter all environments so that the corals are favoured that “do well” at one extreme of the range in which corals survive. Some fish survive at close to freezing point – would you advocate letting the world’s ocean cool to that temperature if such was happening and humans could act to avoid it?

    You’ve be vociferous in your demands of exact science and high logic Luke, but your arguments are falling over at the first hurdle every time. You’re using piss-poor memes and outright fallacy to make your claims, and I really doubt that you are at all interested in promoting the consensus understanding.

    I stand by my Stockholm metaphor.

  77. #78 Berendaneke
    September 1, 2013

    Lotharsson, greenpisser and marxist

    Which still has nothing to do with how the first world massively exploits the rest, and fuck all to do with how the very rich privatise the profits and socialise the costs (CO2 in the atmosphere being one of the poster children for that ploy).

    Karl Marx would excrete your crap similarly. Your ideology leads to war, poverty, cilization decline, mass murder. Therefore you are an immoral silly ideologist.

    All: … it’s lotharsson’s idiocy

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    Meme bullshit on “ocean acidification” – same bullshit with “CO2 pollution”.

    You are confabulating. An increase in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration.

    Further, you haven’t proven that “CO2 pollution” is bullshit, so your spurious comparison is doubly spurious.

    Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.

    No it’s not. You’re flat-out wrong.

    The alkalinity of the oceans remains the same (and may enve increase), as alkalinity refers to the cation concentration. The basicity of the oceans decreases in lock-step with the increasing acidity.

    And as a loss of basicity is exactly the same as an increase in acidity, “acidification” is a competely valid term. It simply means that the concentration of hydronium ions is increasing, which is indisputable from a hard, chemistry point of view.

    Get real Bernard – you’ll find corals doing well in a range of pH environments.

    Once again this is a straw man.

    Different species of coral “do well” in different environments. This does not mean that it is beneficial to alter all environments so that the corals are favoured that “do well” at one extreme of the range in which corals survive. Some fish survive at close to freezing point – would you advocate letting the world’s ocean cool to that temperature if such was happening and humans could act to avoid it?

    You’ve be vociferous in your demands of exact science and high logic Luke, but your arguments are falling over at the first hurdle every time. You’re using piss-poor memes and outright fallacy to make your claims, and I really doubt that you are at all interested in promoting the consensus understanding.

    I stand by my Stockholm metaphor.

  79. #80 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    On the AR5

    ‘Revolutionary climate science is under way. The question now is whether the IPCC is up to the challenge.’

    Barry Brill (guest post at Watts)

  80. #81 FrankD
    September 1, 2013

    Luke:

    Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.

    Bernard J:

    No it’s not. You’re flat-out wrong.

    The alkalinity of the oceans remains the same (and may enve increase), as alkalinity refers to the cation concentration. The basicity of the oceans decreases in lock-step with the increasing acidity.

    Earlier Luke described himself as a “practising scientist”, in what might have been interpreted as a desperate appeal to his own authority. But seriously…a practising scientist who does not know enough basic chemistry to know the difference between alkalinity and basicity?

    Consider my credulity well and truly stretched….

  81. #82 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    Well looks like we hit a nerve with Lotharsson – probably living the high life in a nice house with all the mod cons like the rest of you fucking hypocrites. Hands up who’s not !

    And yes very tedious it is basicity but the issue is still the same – ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public. As an aquarist I may have gathered some appreciation of alkalinity, well the kH component. As for desperate – do shit on Frank – appeal to authority – you’re the fuckers engaging – says a lot about your own objectivity.

  82. #83 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    ENSO processes are not well understood, yet is considered a CC driver. so the race will be on to define its true impact on temperatures.

    ‘The temperatures in different zones in the world do not show significant changes due to El Nin ̃o except when measured in a restricted area in the Pacific Ocean.

    ‘We find, in contrast, that the dynamics of a climate network based on the same temperature records in various geographical zones in the world is significantly influenced by El Nin ̃o. During El Nin ̃o many links of the network are broken, and the number of surviving links comprises a specific and sensitive measure for El Nin ̃o events.

    ‘While during non- El Nin ̃o periods these links which represent correlations between temperatures in different sites are more stable, fast fluctuations of the correlations observed during El Nin ̃o periods cause the links to break.’

    Yamasaki et al. 2008

  83. #84 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    ‘Your comment is awaiting moderation.’

    Good afternoon mod.

  84. #85 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    Since we were tangentially discussing Michael Mann earlier, his defamation lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn is once again allowed to proceed. The latest motion to dismiss was denied because the judge says that “The evidence before the court indicates the likelihood that ‘actual malice’ is present.”, and furthermore indicated that the NR/Steyn lawyers seem to be less than entirely competent in that particular jurisdiction. As Eli says, maybe they’re using the lawyers Monckton frequently relies on for his legal opinions?

    I predict much covering of oneself in martyr’s garb, cries of oppression, gnashing of teeth whilst decrying “activist judges” and obsessively repeating “1st Amendment” if the lawsuit succeeds.

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2013

    Luke’s reply tells us exactly where he is coming from.

    What’s clear is that he clearly support expansionist corporate wars. He sees nothing wrong is hyper-bloated military budgets aimed primarily at securing investors rights, and has nothing more in his bankrupt arsenal than to claim that anyone arguing that many corporations are literally and financially getting away with murder is a ‘commie’.

    Note that he couldn’t argue a single point I made in my last post. But since he’s never heard of any of the prominent people I mentioned, with the possible exception of Kissinger, he was left with nothing more than a smear as a riposte.

    What a loser. And given he is a legend in his own mind,. that makes it even worse.

  86. #87 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2013

    Luke claims that the rapid increase in atmospheric C02 concentrations is not harming marine biodiversity. The vast bulk of the empirical evidence says something else completely.

    Where are Luke’s publications in the field? Indeed, has he ever studied it? of course not. Yet our new blog ‘legend’ spews out more bullshit.

  87. #88 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    Well looks like we hit a nerve with Lotharsson…

    ROFL!

    A) Apparently your English comprehension and mind-reading skills are both as deficient as your understanding of chemistry. (And deploying them doesn’t remove the fallacious presumption and inappropriate conflation at the centre of your attempted distraction.)

    You really are crap at this, aren’t you?

    B) It’s always projection! Have you ever stopped to ponder why you responded to Jeff’s comment taking issue with some of your positions by ignoring the argument and attempting to shift the focus to other people ? And responded to my comment pointing that tactic out by trying to do the same again? In what world did you imagine that someone who saw through it the first time wouldn’t see through it the second time?

    I suspect that the majority of our readers are smart enough to see the pattern of behaviour in (b) as an acknowledgement that you can’t answer the argument. They’ve had a lot of practice over the years with people who’ve used that tactic far more skillfully than you do. And that’s what’s rather sad – you’re not only mediocre at understanding the scientific landscape when you appear to have sufficient cognitive abilities to do much better, but you’re also mediocre at being a contrarian. Most people can manage one or the other if they put their mind to it, even if they are working with limited abilities. Look at some of our regulars!

    Meanwhile, your catalogue of unadmitted errors and unsubstantiated claims grows ever longer, oddly in almost direct proportion to your deployment of denialist memes. It’s a bravura performance from someone who claimed to be a practicing scientist, although if you actually expected people to believe that on the evidence you provide here…

  88. #89 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2013

    …ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public.

    So after having had the correct terminology explained to him, and subsequently claiming to have (retrospectively!) understood the basics of chemistry in apparent opposition to the earlier comment where he ballsed it up, Luke argues that the correct terminology shouldn’t be used on the basis that it is “alarmist”.

    Why, it’s almost like he’s not a scientist at all, given their well known penchant for (a) getting explanations – especially the really basic ones – right the first time, and b) precision in communication. (And it’s far from the first time he has tried to wheel out a retrospective and difficult to believe justification for some of his earlier ill-considered comments.)

    A few more of these unscientific episodes and my credulity will be stretched as far as yours, FrankD! ;-)

  89. #90 adelady
    September 1, 2013

    ENSO processes are not well understood, yet is considered a CC driver. so the race will be on to define its true impact on temperatures.

    Considered a climate change driver? Who said that? I’ve never heard it.

    As for ENSO not being understood, it turns out it’s a very ordinary consequence of geography/ meteorology/ physics. When climate models are spun up from nothing (no specified starting points, just the standard equations), ENSO starts appearing all of its own accord. So we have at least one confirmation that the physics/ meteorology equations are a pretty good representation of the climate system.

  90. #91 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    From Luke:

    And yes very tedious it is basicity but the issue is still the same – ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public.

    1) It is not “tedious”. It is about correctness, and your incorrectness, and it is about understanding what the issue is.

    2) Oceans are acidifying, and the rate of acidification that is occurring is starting to have discernible effects, and if continued for several more decades it will have significant deleterious effects. Tanties to the contrary won’t change the science – all that they might achieve is to impress the ignorant, although given that the world is thick with ignorants (and ignorance) that in itself is an achievement of sorts I suppose.

    As an aquarist I may have gathered some appreciation of alkalinity, well the kH component.

    As an aquarist myself for the last four decades, in both a home context and for a number of years in a research context stemming from my work as a professional biologist, I can tell you that if you had a decent understanding of pH, gH and kH you wouldn’t be as sanguine as your make out.

    You’ll have to excuse me if your protestations leave me more than a little underwhelmed.

  91. #92 Bernard J.
    September 1, 2013

    From Luke:

    And yes very tedious it is basicity but the issue is still the same – ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public.

    1) It is not “tedious”. It is about correctness, and your incorrectness, and it is about understanding what the issue is.

    2) Oceans are acidifying, and the rate of acidification that is occurring is starting to have discernible effects, and if continued for several more decades it will have significant deleterious effects. Tanties to the contrary won’t change the science – all that they might achieve is to impress the ignorant, although given that the world is thick with ignorants (and ignorance) that in itself is an achievement of sorts I suppose.

    As an aquarist I may have gathered some appreciation of alkalinity, well the kH component.

    As an aquarist myself for the last four decades, in both a home context and for a number of years in a research context stemming from my work as a professional biologist, I can tell you that if you had a decent understanding of pH, gH and kH you wouldn’t be as sanguine as your make out.

    You’ll have to excuse me if your protestations leave me more than a little underwhelmed.

  92. #93 Rednose
    UK
    September 1, 2013

    It’s funny how the wheels on my little lad’s Lego vehicles are better attached than those of certain “arguments

    I would have thought you would have got him onto the Pirate Ship by now BBD.
    I’ve still got one somewhere in the garage. Its in bits, some missing and no instructions. Now there’s a challenge

  93. #94 el gordo
    September 1, 2013

    ‘Considered a climate change driver? Who said that? I’ve never heard it.’

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/

  94. #95 adelady
    September 1, 2013

    ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public.

    Apart from farmers, gardeners and fish enthusiasts and anyone who’s ever watched a gardening show on teev as well as the smaller group of people keen on preserving their own foods.

    “Acidifying” soils and solutions is quite common language for many activities for many people.

  95. #96 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    The oceans aren’t acidifying – where’s the empirical evidence?

    And it looks like the bludging whingers are all living high on academic hog never having worked a hard day in their lives enjoying the full western lifestyle yet sooking about it. What hypocrites !

    As for correctness let’s remind ourselves of the tally

    (1) models invalidated as far a replicating GMT
    (2) no trop hotspot and no santa claus
    (3) evap trend the wrong direction
    (4) no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
    (5) unexplained centennial internal GCM variability
    (6) multi-model mean projection simply bogus
    (7) GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
    (8) no evidence of ocean change in acidity
    (9) obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
    (10) Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle

  96. #97 Lionel A
    September 1, 2013

    Those farts in the corner are becoming increasingly incoherent, and I didn’t think that possible at the beginning.

    Luke, there is one well respected Aussie who gets it straight John Pilger (go read him), so why can’t you?

    Couldn’t be because you are an ideological crippled bigot by any chance.

    Your education needs expanding in so many directions, so much to learn, so little time. Little wonder that you flake.

  97. #98 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    The oceans aren’t acidifying – where’s the empirical evidence?

  98. #99 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    As for correctness let’s remind ourselves of the tally
    models invalidated as far a replicating GMT
    no trop hotspot and no santa claus
    evap trend the wrong direction
    no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
    unexplained centennial internal GCM variability rivalling AGW
    multi-model mean projection simply bogus
    GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
    no evidence of ocean change in acidity
    obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
    Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle

  99. #100 Luke
    September 1, 2013

    And it looks like the bludging whingers are all living high on academic hog never having worked a hard day in their lives enjoying the full western lifestyle yet sooking about it. What hypocrites !