September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    Marco, I knew that you guyz would look like kids in a lollie shop with that paper :)

  2. #2 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    No one seems to be able to find any ARGO data for me, silly duffers :)

    ummm………….. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-v-2000m.gif

    Lets start with this eh.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2013

    Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?

    As you are too dense to find the data yourself:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/floats_data.htm

    And KarenMackSunspot, you can pop and fizz like a squib as much as you like, but it’s patently obvious to all who are reading this thread that you’ve capitulated on the matter of addressing the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise. I’m especially interested in you addressing in your explanation why it is not valid to call every annual temperature that occurs soon after a record high a “cooling”, and why it is not valid to call every annual Arctic sea ice area/extent/volume that occurs soon after a record low a “recovery”

    You also failed to answer my challenge about your claim that no-one cares what I say – what’s scaring you so much in that department?

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2013

    If numbers are too challenging for you, there is always the picture version:

    http://www.marine.csiro.au/~gronell/ArgoRT/select_floats_WMO.html

    And as we’re on the subject of Argo, you might like to lend some moral support to Thomas Murphy, who ran away when pressed on his egregious statements about the Argo measurements.

  5. #6 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    At 700 – 2000 mtrs, according to the argo data, there appears to be a temperature increase of 0.02 degrees C between the years 2005 – 2013.

    Is this agreed ?

  6. #7 bill
    September 22, 2013

    So, there you go, you’re just coughing up Cod(ling)swallop, just as I predicted.

    These endless flatulent emissions prove nothing, SpamKan. You cannot articulate any point in relation to this matter because comprehension of it is completely beyond your grasp.

    Everyone here, even your befuddled allies, can see, yet again, how freaking stupid you are, and many of them wish you would simply STFU, because you make them uncomfortably aware of just what a pathetic figure they must cut in the sight of others.

    (And believe me, folks, you do, you really do!)

    But, don’t worry, they won’t say anything; because all you losers have is each other.

    Marco, I knew that you guyz would look like kids in a lollie shop with that paper

    No, you didn’t, you dreary, pathetic little thing, you; it was an appalling surprise to you to discover you’d only gone and soiled yourself, yet again. This pathetic ‘lol’ing bravado is the sad little defence you’ve built up against the constant sting of discovery that you just don’t get it.

  7. #8 Karen
    September 22, 2013
  8. #9 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    Billeeee, you didn’t disagree with my #5

  9. #10 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    #2 Bernard J.

    Karen said: “Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?”

    “As you are too dense to find the data yourself:”

    JEfFeRy suffers with comprehension issues also barnturd, lol

  10. #11 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    Billy

    700 – 2000 mtrs, temperature increase of 0.02 degrees C between the years 2005 – 2013.

    0.02 C………… correct !

  11. #12 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2013

    Don’t you love Karen’s cherrypicked graph at #45 (and repeated later) on the previous page? Do you think she had any qualms that posting it might reveal how hard she (or rather her cut and paste source) is having to work to cherrypick?

    Nah, me neither. Her purpose her is to disseminate lies .

  12. #13 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2013

    Notice that 99% of Karen’s ‘sources’ are denier blogs.

    She’s disqualified. Or should have been a long time ago. Problem is she’s so utterly stupid that she thinks she is making headway here. That’s what is so pathetic.

  13. #14 chameleon
    September 22, 2013

    Jeff H?
    What is a ‘denier blog’? That just looks like petulant name calling. We are talking about the weather/climate modeling here. Everyone who has been to school can spot BS in regard to these issues. What in particular are these ‘denier blogs’ denying?
    WTF is a ‘denier blog’ anyway?
    I also remember you accusing me of linking a ‘denier paper’ a while back. That paper had been through the ‘peer review’ process.
    So WTF is a ‘denier paper’? What are they denying in particular?

  14. #15 Marco
    September 22, 2013

    Oh Karen, please stop lying. You thought you had found a paper that supported you, only to have someone take the minimal effort to read the abstract and see it didn’t.

    Another funny thing is your desire to show your ignorance by not knowing what a 0.02 degree rise means for a body of water 1300 meter in vertical size and tens of thousands in width. It’s enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees.

  15. #16 bill
    September 22, 2013

    Oh for God’s sake – an Argument From Bonehead Incredulity!

    I mean, SpamKan, seriously, what Marco said – you’re even more freaking stupid than I thought!

    Try looking here, you B-grade loon!

    Slightly less-dumb fellow-travellers, don’t you just cringe every time you see this gormless muppet’s icon?

    But are you really any smarter yourself – that’s the question to ask? Are any of you that remain any brighter than this thing, or Pentax, or Oily, or Boris?

    You know, the kinds of bone-headed nong – and it seems Murdoch really is one of you – who thinks a one year regression-to-declining-mean uptick in the sea-ice stats means something?

  16. #17 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    “It’s enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees.”

    How Marco ?

  17. #18 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    c’mon Billee, in your own words………..

    how will 0.02 degree rise at 700 – 2000 mtrs multiply the temp of the atmosphere with multiple degrees?

  18. #19 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2013

    Good grief. Karen really is impressively innumerate. She doesn’t even know what multiply means.

  19. #20 adelady
    September 22, 2013

    0K Karen, I’ll bite.

    We’ll keep it simple to start with. Not a paper, not an equation in sight, and a mere 4 minutes of time watching a video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyPLusD-tyM

    If you want more details or references just ask.

  20. #21 bill
    September 22, 2013

    Goalpost shift! First it was 0.02C isn’t enough to mean anything – despite the fact we’re talking about the frickin’ ocean – now it’s Bonehead Incredulity x 2; “how can that ‘multiply’ into the atmosphere?”

    The heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere is an issue for people way brighter than you, dolt. And way brighter than the numpties who run the Dunning-Krugerite blogs you’ve mistaken for ‘Science’.

    SpamKan, all you are doing is standing there with a suspicious load pulling down your diaper squalling “look at me! look at me!”

    Even your little friends are avoiding the joint because you’re so fricking embarrassing! Lol, you gibbering dork.

  21. #22 chameleon
    September 22, 2013

    FFS! Why do my comments languish in moderation?

  22. #23 Nick
    September 22, 2013

    #88 This is getting very boring ….By pointing out tunnel capacities I’m informing you, Stu2, of the capacity constraints of the Snowy system, which illustrates the absurdity of your insistence that 2000GL of water was wasted by SH and NOW during the floods. That information is relevant! It’s essential to understand where you are in error in your claim. You are arguing in bad faith, that’s for sure.

    I didn’t claim anyone was saying SH would damage their infrastructure, I said exceed its capacity. I simply informed you that the figure you have plucked from your backside is not achievable.

    I added a 0 in error to the Blowering inflow for 1/12 to 11/12: it was 150 GL,not 1500. Still, this shows a lot of uncontrolled water flowed into Blowering . At most 37GL of that was RAR, actually less because they ceased transfer for a period.

    SH told the inquiry it was repaying that water at about 112GL/month into the Tumut, from end April 2010, or about 3.7 GL/day.
    It is absurd to say this was wasted because the floods were in the unknown future, and Blowering stored that RAR. When the heavy rain hit, Blowering was close to full. It filled,and overflowed from heavy rain [rain outside the reach of SH infrastructure] , so that 500GL went over the spillway in the last two months but the previous six months RAR was still in the reservoir for accounting.. This spill I suspect is what you regard as wasted RAR? At most, 220 GL of that 500 was RAR,and little of that 220 is relevant to the actual flood peaks because of the way Blowering was micromanaged to hold back water while the Goobarragandra peaked.

    So a claim that ‘2000 GL was wasted’, 1000 of that down the Tumut, does not add up. Not only is your claim absurd but your understanding of where the water was, and how much can be saved per day into Eucumbene is lacking. I’ll repeat that the SH system gained 700GL in the last three months of 2010 and Blowering banked 1000GL [c.650 of it RAR] before spilling. All you can see is a wildly exaggerated ‘waste’ figure,it seems.

  23. #24 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    Billie, there is no goalpost shift, see the #13 Marco comment deary, :)

    Thankyou adelady for the lovely youtube clip, that was sweet of you :)
    It didn’t answer the question tho ?

    Poor old Billee has had to change his pants twice while trying work this out. lol

  24. #25 Marco
    September 22, 2013

    Karen, in plain English I said that the energy required to heat that amount of water by 0.02 degrees is enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees (as in >1 degrees).

  25. #26 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    For anybody interested here is Curry’s Australian frolic.

    Note that Tamino nails one big issue with Curry’s (and Willard Tony’s) methodology of assessing trends.

    Is it cognitive dissonance or dishonesty from the Punch & Judy show?

  26. #27 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    …how will 0.02 degree rise at 700 – 2000 mtrs multiply the temp of the atmosphere with multiple degrees?

    Heat capacity and volumes you duffer. Now have you got it?

  27. #28 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Heat capacity and volumes you duffer.

    Or more correctly heat capacity and masses, but I thought that would really confusing this retard with little education – Karenski that is.

    BTW Karenski, you should go read that Tamino (@ #23) piece which involves trends seeing your confusion about this on display here very recently.

  28. #29 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Well I see now that the video link of adelady was on the same page as my suggestion. It is up to you to now answer your own question Karenski. I bet your school reports are interesting.

  29. #30 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Here is another, Primary School, lesson for Karenski.

    Which, if he/she/it had paid attention to the link to texts up-thread, and I know that they were noticed because he/she/it commented, then he/she/it WOULD ALREADY BE AWARE OF THESE CONCEPTS.

  30. #31 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2013

    …if he/she/it had paid attention to the link to texts up-thread…

    He/she/it feels no need, because Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.

  31. #32 adelady
    September 22, 2013

    Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.

    But it’d be nice to think that Karen and all those like her actually know what they’re lying about. My suspicion is that many of them really, really don’t know the simplest basics – like the difference between heat capacity of water and air.

    (They don’t even have to slog through the details, having a yr 9 ish concept of the size of the numbers involved would be enough for general blog conversation.)

  32. #33 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    #28 Now now Lothie don’t be grouchy, the Deltoids are teaching me all about the big scary boiling pot :)

    #22 Marco, I am not to sure that was helpful, nice try :)

    Lionel, I know that you are a very intelligent man, so maybe you can help me.
    We can see that there has been 0.02 C added to the ocean at the depth of 700 – 2000 mtrs, and 0.03 C has added to the ocean at the depth of 0 – 700 mtrs and this happened from about 2004 to now, okay.

    Now I know that we are talking about incredibly small temperature rises here, so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?

    So if’n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
    What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?

    Hi adelady, I would appreciate you input also :)

  33. #34 adelady
    September 22, 2013

    Krrrreyest on a trick bicycle!

    Did you read what I wrote? … and then write what you wrote before asking for a further contribution from me?

    I’d like to suggest a half hour with wiki – no science papers, no nasty complex references, just straightforward information available to everyone. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capacities have a look at the rest of that page, then watch that video again.

  34. #35 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Translated for Sunny:

    An absolutely mind-bogglingly vast amount of energy has accumulated in the 0 – 2000m ocean layer since 2004.

    Codling has used a crude trick to fool innumerates who do not understand physical concepts. This means you, Sunny.

    I see you’ve been banging this empty can since yesterday. You can stop now and switch to some other denialist chum. Everybody’s bored. Everybody’s tried – and failed – to explain this to you. The problem, as always, is with your stupidity and ignorance.

  35. #36 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    #31 adelady,

    In other words you can’t answer…… lol

  36. #37 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    BBD, 2 easy qwestyons for you luvie :)

    1/ so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?

    So if’n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
    2/ What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?

    thanks in advance :)

  37. #38 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2013

    In other words you can’t answer…… lol

    And the Dunning Kruger effect – or the denialist lying effect, it’s always hard to tell which – strikes again, as Karen apparently fails to recognise that she’s been given several different versions of the answer already and concludes based on her incomprehension or intransigence …

    … that no answer has been given.

    A droll LOL would be trenchant. Just not in the way Karen uses it.

  38. #39 Karen
    September 22, 2013

    sweet dreams guyz & gal :)

  39. #40 bill
    September 22, 2013

    how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify

    snort!

  40. #41 Marco
    September 22, 2013

    Well, I think we managed to find Karen’s level of intelligence in the field of rather basic physics. It doesn’t look good, most of my first year students (not physicists) would have understood.

  41. #42 adelady
    September 22, 2013

    Snort indeed.

    (Though I confess to a passing interest in the concept of “amounts” of temperature. I suppose it’s a bit like a stocktake of the rulers in the school stationery cupboard.)

  42. #43 FrankD
    September 22, 2013

    Adelady:

    I hope most people would realise that area = sq kms and volume = cubic kms, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

    I dunno, ‘Lady, that might be a bit if a stretch for Karen. She’s proven she can’t tell Celsius from Fahrenheit, and she thinks that the amount of ice is measured by extent rather than volume, so take nothing for granted.

    I’m intrigued that Karen thinks its time to start wittering on about OHC again, when the last time she did so, she showed she couldn’t convert that additional energy to a change in temperature to within five orders of magnitude. To put a scale to that level of fail, Karen’s calculator would tell her the surface of the sun is about 0.6C warmer than the surface of the Earth.

  43. #44 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2013

    Karen
    September 22, 2013

    #31 adelady,

    In other words you can’t answer…… lol

    Said without the slightest hint of irony.

    But wreaking of profound hypocrisy.

    It;s interesting to note that you’re still struggling with the questions piling up regarding the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise, and the supplementary questions that followed on. What’s the problem little feller, does the thought of facing some honest scientific truth have you wetting your pants?

    Everyone’s watching your humiliation, you know. Better to front up and make a go of it than to be recognised as just another ignoramus who couldn’t answer a simple question put to him.

  44. #45 FrankD
    September 22, 2013

    sorry, I meant to add….. lol.

  45. #46 Boris
    September 22, 2013

    Marco, please stop lying.Thank you!

    First year students, blablabla

    hahahahaha

  46. #47 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2013

    Karen
    September 22, 2013

    #2 Bernard J.

    Karen said: “Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?”

    “As you are too dense to find the data yourself:”

    JEfFeRy suffers with comprehension issues also barnturd, lol

    No, just you Franknfurter. I know Jeff’s work, and it’s very good. In fact it about thirty years of study and experience and 50 points of IQ ahead of anything that you exhibit.

    Oh, and “qwestyons”?! What’s with the regular use of baby talk? And the obsession with peoples’ pants? Is there no puerile emotional back-alley that you wouldn’t run into in order to avoid addressing a substantive issue of science?

    There’s no avoiding the obvious – you really are just internet trash.

  47. #48 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Karenski the lazy ignoramus strikes again:

    1/ so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?

    Temperature is not heat.

    Now write 100 times (multiplied by an order of magnitude – quantifying an order of magnitude may open up another can of worms in your head)

    Temperature is not heat

    And stop running away to bed when things get sticky, you can’t go to bed ’till your homework is done.

  48. #49 Bernard J.
    September 22, 2013

    …so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?

    I see that I’m in a long queue of people laughing at this, but I have to ask – Franknfurter, do you understand the concept of heat capacity? And do you understand the nature of the heat capacity of water?

    Also, do you realise that you’re slipping back into the Sunspot signature illiteracy?

    And in case anyone’s in any doubt that ‘Furter is a bloke, his comment on the previous page dispels any lingering uncertainty. No woman, not even a retired autistic prostitute, would come up with that.

    Yuck. What a grub.

  49. #50 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    No woman, not even a retired autistic prostitute, would come up with that.

    Never been to Strait Street Valetta aka ‘The Gut’ then.

    I recall one of the older ‘entertainers’ in the late 1960s proclaiming, ‘Well f*** my old sea-boots’ where others might say ‘stone-the-crows’. She probably learned the expression when younger, during WW2 maybe.

  50. #51 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Another look at the The Gut and recalling those well know ‘sticky green’ drinks for the girls.

    Funnily enough I had a short but friendly relationship with one very pretty girl such that we corresponded for awhile after the ship had left Valetta for more exercises in the eastern Mediterranean. The lass, who I won’t name but still recall, even sent me a small tobacco pipe from the family firm.

    The exercises included a real and nasty fire in one of accompanying destroyers which involved our helo’s ferrying fire-fighting equipment, returning with scorched tyres, and a collision with a Russian SAM Kotlin destroyer which had behaved in flagrant breach of the rules of the sea.

    Some other recent ‘unfortunate behaviour’ from the Russians. Expect more of this as the Arctic opens up.

  51. #52 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Sunny is as clueless as they get. Although dog-brains Gordy ran him a close second.

    Think of it like this Sunny: it takes oh so very much more energy to heat a given quantity of water than it does to heat the same mass of atmosphere by the same amount. Think about that. Don’t skip ahead. Read it again.

    Now, with that crucial bit of physics between your shiny little teeth, let’s take another baby step forward.

    There’s an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.

    Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and “only” raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?

    Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself – yet again – on this thread? Can you see that yet?

    Think, Sunny. Think!

    :-)

    Does this help break the logjam on the conceptual side? Sweetie?

  52. #53 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Sodding html.

    There’s an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.

    Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and “only” raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?

    Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself – yet again – on this thread? Can you see that yet?

    Think, Sunny. Think!

  53. #54 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    On a general note, is there any point calling “Karen” Karen? It seems all-but certain that this is simply Sunspot running a sock, so why should we be complicit in that deception?

    Sunspot = Sunspot. Let’s call a sock a sock!

  54. #55 Lionel A
    September 22, 2013

    Think of it like this Sunny: it takes oh so very much more energy to heat a given quantity of water than it does to heat the same mass of atmosphere by the same amount. Think about that. Don’t skip ahead. Read it again.

    It is not like, he/she/it will bother reading such words as I have asked before why vehicles use water in cooling systems and buildings use it for heating. There is also the form of solar energy captured using water. Now the clever money would be a device which is both a PV cell and a solar water heater.

    I see that Dorset landowner and millionaire Richard Drax has applied to be allowed to put a huge solar installation on his Charbourough Estate in Dorset – the one with a long wall alongside the A31 near Wimborne where one gate is surmounted by the sculpture of a 5 legged stag. Drax earlier voted against similar installations elsewhere in the county and the offshore wind-farm.

    Drax is descended from a naval Admiral Plunket-Ernle-Erle-Drax and is a Tory minister – the party pushing fracking. Perhaps they could try fracking his estate. Fair is fair.

  55. #56 Boris
    September 22, 2013

    +++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++ BREAKING NEWS

    German Greens have dramatically lost votes in Gernany’s federal election due to pedophilia problems. AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.

    Hurrah!!!

  56. #57 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Physics doesn’t care about politics, Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker. You are looking at this back-to-front. You start with politics instead of with physics. And it all goes wrong from there.

  57. #58 Turboblocke
    September 22, 2013

    Economic powerhouse with well educated citizens and a robust AGW policy reelects the same leader. Compare with Australia.

  58. #59 Turboblocke
    September 22, 2013

    AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.

    Hurrah!!!

    Actually agree with that… it wasn’t an election issue because it’s not controversial. Hurrah for the Germans for being so well informed and intelligent. Now remind me again how it went in Australia…

  59. #60 chek
    September 22, 2013

    Putting it like that, one can imagine what an Abbott in Oz or a Cameron in the UK would be doing if their 20% renewables by 2020 target was hitting 17% in 2011.

    Complacency doesn’t begin to describe the Boristroll’s stance.

  60. #61 chek
    September 22, 2013

    The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.

    “What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we’ve never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all”.

  61. #62 chek
    September 22, 2013

    Corection:

    The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.

    “What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we’ve never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all”.

  62. #63 chek
    September 22, 2013

    Correction 2 (leaving off the italics):

    The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.

    “What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we’ve never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all”.

  63. #64 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Sodding html.

    Comments software needs to grow up!

  64. #65 chek
    September 22, 2013

    A preview function would be good at the very least.

  65. #66 chek
    September 22, 2013

    Still, on the bright side, Gordon and The Lukes seem to have fucked off now the Aussie elections are over, and we seem to be left with the fuck-for-brains who can’t understand the difference between temperature and heat, and an occasional spasmic depths-of-stupid response by The Lomborg Fanbois Collective.
    With five days to go, it could be worse..

  66. #67 bill
    September 22, 2013

    Yep, SpamKan ain’t a woman, it’s a very sick individual indeed.

    And a deeply, deeply stupid one.

  67. #68 Boris
    September 22, 2013

    BBD: I have written in 2 hours a much better cms than this junk here. But you are NOT able to do so as you have less talents compared to me. Poor fuckwit

  68. #69 Boris
    September 22, 2013

    BBD, in addition I look much better than you small, ugly, fat, senile and bald moron, and have at least 100 times more money than you poor unemployed, ignorant fuckwit

  69. #70 BBD
    September 22, 2013

    Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, Kai.

    ;-)

  70. #71 Boris
    September 22, 2013

    No

  71. #72 chek
    September 22, 2013

    What can Boris be projecting from?

  72. #73 Nick
    September 23, 2013

    #66 ‘Boris is handsome and wealthy therefore AGW is a conspiracy’. Ever thought of putting a paper together on this angle, Borrie? It’s quite novel.

  73. #74 bill
    September 23, 2013

    Boris could write a better paper in 2 hours than ever you have written. He pities you all with your significantly less talents and your many times more ugly faces. Boris is so much the handsome and more successful individual that he spends his time as an internet troll who has upended your so-called science with his tactical abusive snippets. He has no need of your puny blockquotes, as he invented the internet, and will do so again many times. Puny mortals!

  74. #75 bill
    September 23, 2013

    Steven Goddard melts down on a Guardian comments thread

    Perhaps global warming true believers should start vigorously enforcing their belief at shopping malls?

    Like the terrorists in Kenya, you are certain that your point of view is the only valid one, and that the world depends on your belief system

    Scroll up and down for further hysteria and Godwinning…

  75. #76 Nick
    September 23, 2013

    #72 Goddard is probably the fuckwit’s fuckwit. Now he has made even more internet users aware of that.

  76. #77 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    Well, this is depressing if entirely unsurprising.

    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/after-the-storms-a-different-opinion-on-climate-change.html

    The abstract reads

    A naturalistic investigation of New Jersey residents, both before and after they experienced Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, examined support for politicians committed or opposed to policies designed to combat climate change. At Time 1, before both hurricanes, participants showed negative implicit attitudes toward a green politician, but at Time 2, after the hurricanes, participants drawn from the same cohort showed a reversed automatic preference. Moreover, those who were significantly affected by Hurricane Sandy were especially likely to implicitly prefer the green politician, and implicit attitudes were the best predictor of voting after the storms, whereas explicit climate-change beliefs was the best predictor before the storms. In concert, the results suggest that direct experience with extreme weather can increase pro-environmentalism, and further support conceptualizing affective experiences as a source of implicit attitudes.

    So all we need to educate the public about risks from climate is for them to lose their power supply, or their food and water, or their house, or a neighbour’s life to appreciate the worth of good policy. I’ll be the one sitting in the corner staring at the walls.

  77. #78 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    So, not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?

    1/ An ocean temperature of 15 C, that is then heated to 15.03 C, will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by how much ?

    2/ Does a rise in ocean temperature of 0.03 add an extra 0.03 C to the atmosphere ?

    3/ Or will the increase of 0.03 C only be added to the atmosphere when the atmosphere temperature is below the ocean temperature ?

    4/ If only 0.03 C will be added to the atmosphere then what is the big deal?

    Calling me a moron doesn’t answer my query’s, so guyz, can someone please help me with this?
    Obviously most people in here don’t know the answers either.

  78. #79 bill
    September 23, 2013

    Oh, bugger off you vacuous, pointless, drooling nong.

    You’ve demonstrated for all to see that you are utterly incapable of understanding the issue, and that you’re a semi-literate, quasi-edumacated dill performing an sordid online drag act.

    The sooner we’re finally shot of this one the better.

    Why don’t you run off and look for some of those ‘ small amounts of temperature’ running around the place? They might be little Celciuses, or Fahrenheits, but, hang on, that’s right; you won’t be able to tell the difference, will you, plonker?

  79. #80 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    OK…….. Bill doesn’t have a clue either, that demonstrates that you have the same lack of knowledge on this subject as me, well done Billie :)

  80. #81 chek
    September 23, 2013

    SpamKan @#75

    So, not one of you ….can someone please … Obviously most people in here don’t know

    My. so much passive aggression!
    Tell you what Spam, if you can explain why OHC isn’t measured in your ‘Temp C’, and show you’ve done some non-denier blog reading, then maybe…
    Or maybe not.
    Who knows?
    It’s not like you generate any goodwill.

  81. #82 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    “if you can explain why OHC isn’t measured in your ‘Temp C’, ”

    chekie, OHC is the measure of solar energy in the ocean, a temperature measurement does not indicate the amount of energy stored.

  82. #83 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    An ocean temperature of 15 C, that is then heated to 15.03 C, will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by how much ?

    OK. I know the others are completely fed up, but I’m pretty sure you’re not the only person in the world who’s confused about this – for whatever reason.

    1. If the heating has gone into the oceans And Stays There – there can be no effect on the temperature of anything that isn’t the ocean.

    2. What if the heat / energy doesn’t stay there? Depends where it goes. If it goes into melting ice, then there will be no effect on atmospheric temperature, the energy will be expended in the phase change from ice to water or vapour.

    3. What happens when the heat that initially went into the ocean goes entirely or partly into the atmosphere? That’s the big one that’s tripping you up.

    An experiment at a cooking school. We have 3 ovens all calibrated to exactly the same heat output but unheated at the moment. In the first we put a container of water frozen solid. In the next, we put the same quantity of water in the same size container. The last oven gets an empty container. Turn all the ovens on to the same setting. Check the temperatures in all 3 containers at regular intervals.

    No need to go any further with this – everyone knows what happens next. The empty container’s “contents” – the air – heats up much, much faster to much higher temperatures than either of the other 2 even though the heat input is the same.

    I’ll leave that there as food for further thought for the time being.

    Then we can think about other versions of heat absorption, transfer between the containers outside an oven and other changes. And – eventually – think about what happens during an el Nino.

  83. #84 Lotharsson
    September 23, 2013

    …not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?

    Impressively moronic, even by your high standards.

    (After correcting for your incoherent English expression) practically everyone has explained it. It only requires basic high school science, and fairly early science at that, if I recall correctly.

    The problem is that you are too stupid or hidebound to recognise that it has been explained which also means that you are unable to recognise just how deeply scientifically incompetent you are. (Where’s that number for D&K again?)

    This would explain why you keep posting links to material that directly refute the claims you allege the material supports. High school students taking their first year of science classes generally understand more about science than you appear to.

  84. #85 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    It only requires basic high school science, and fairly early science at that, if I recall correctly.

    That’s my thought. This is not the further reaches of radiative physics or choosing alternatives among options for sophisticated statistical analysis. I’m thinking of it a bit like the stuff we did (in my case in 1960) on heating black and white surfaces – which is a pretty good basis for starting a discussion about albedo when you think about it for 10 seconds or so.

    (Ex-schoolteacher husband just got back. He mentioned that he always, always, always made sure that he got the basics of energy input and phase change into the not-always-eager heads of year 8/9/10 science classes. Missing that kind of fundamental concept would make most other stuff more difficult.)

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    September 23, 2013

    That’s my thought.

    Yes, and your cooking thought experiment would be understood by practically every housewife and househusband in the land, even those who had never taken a science class.

    This is very very basic stuff, and is showing Karen up very very clearly. But never mind, I’m sure she’ll Gish Gallop merrily on to the next point any minute now and pretend it never happened…

  86. #87 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    Thank you adelady :)

    I understand the thermal mass concept, and I understand there is a huge amount of energy in the ocean.

    A huge amount of energy can also be stored in a reservoir, but that stored energy will not flow uphill without a push.

    Neither will the energy from the ocean multiply when it moves from water to air, heat is a form of energy, and temperature is the measure of it, I cannot see that the temperature can multiply when moving from one medium to another yet we are led to believe that this “OHC” will come back to get us by causing higher atmospheric temperatures.

    0.03 C, how ?

  87. #88 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    Neither will the energy from the ocean multiply when it moves from water to air, heat is a form of energy, and temperature is the measure of it,

    But ….

    this shows that you didn’t really grasp the concept clearly. Heat is a form of energy. But measuring the result of the input of energy by reading off the temperature does not set the temperature forever. If you transfer the energy, you can get a much different temperature depending on what substance you transfer the energy into.

    The same energy gives different results depending on its – those words again – heat capacity.

  88. #89 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2013

    Just to remind, David Suzuki is appearing as the sole interviewee on tonight’s episode of Q and A:

    http://archive.is/bFNkx

    Should be very interesting…

  89. #90 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    Just think for a minute about melting ice. You have eleventy gazillion litres of ocean water and half a million litres of ice. What happens to the temperature of the ice even though contact with the water allows transfer of energy?

    Absolutely nothing. Ice, and the water in immediate contact with it. will stay at 0C until it is melted. Only then will the water-formerly-ice begin changing temperature more towards the temperature of the larger body of water.

    Look at the wiki definition

    Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity that specifies the amount of heat required to change the temperature of an object or body by a given amount.

    So if a certain volume of water has had energy sufficient to change its temperature by a certain amount, it will depend on what substance it is transferring that energy to how much change there will be in the temperature of that new recipient of that energy. It is unlikely (look at the table in the wiki page) that there will ever be an exact match in heat capacities of two substances which are transferring energy. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be a similar change in temperature when the same amount of energy is transferred.

  90. #91 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    Bernard. I looked at that last night and was initially keen.

    To watch it, I’d have to rely on the ABC to select decent participants from the pro and anti groups they’ve promised us. I know Suzuki is experienced and competent at dealing with this sort of thing – but I’ve been a tad annoyed at the sorts of people and the tone of “debate” the ABC likes to promote for these events.

    I’ll see what sort of mood I’m in at the time to make the decision to watch. If I’m already grumpy and fed up, I’ll give it a miss.

  91. #92 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    Thank you again adelady, :)

    The dopey men in here haven’t a clue, they just pretend they do, then insult me and sook about me teasing them… lol……..wah wah wah :)

    I have been searching to try to find a more definitive answer to my questions, re how much the air temp will rise with the miniscule rise in ocean temps, obviously El Nino is a powerful influence on our weather and may get stronger in the future, but…….. I am not convinced that a rise of 0.03 C at 0 – 700 mtrs has affected air temp’s noticeably or even that could be measured, obviously I don’t have the skills to work it out, fizziks iz not my forte, fizziks evidently iz also a talent sadly lacking among the Deltiods…..
    If someone could work out the temp figures or supply a link to a reputable website that has done the maths I would appreciate it.
    My monthly data has just run out! sheeezzzz, snails pace till Saturday!
    I know you all will miss me………….xoxoxoxoxo.. till then :)

  92. #93 bill
    September 23, 2013

    TRANSLATION: Even I have, the poster child for the Dunning-Kruuger effect, have managed to finally comprehend that I really have made an utter fool of myself. So I’m making my excuses and running away until such time as I can return and pretend it all never happened.

    Lol, dork.

  93. #94 Karen
    September 23, 2013

    Stll ere’ Willie, are you trying to tell me that academia cannot answer my question?

  94. #95 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    I am not convinced that a rise of 0.03 C at 0 – 700 mtrs has affected air temp’s noticeably or even that could be measured, obviously I don’t have the skills to work it out

    Read my previous comment. If the energy has heated the water and the water’s temperature shows that the energy has been retained and not transferred to the air, then it can’t have heated anything else.

    The el Nino issue arises because that is when energy is released from some areas of the Pacific – and the temperature of the water will go down. The temperature of the water was raised, say 0.03C, by a certain amount of energy. When that energy is free to heat something else, that something else’s temperature will be raised by an amount relevant to its own heat capacity unrelated to the temperature of the source of the energy.
    (check that wiki list again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capacities )

    There’s no need to know the exact temperatures before and after these processes, but it’s very important to understand that the energy will change the temperature of different solids, liquids, gases according to their own heat capacity. What that energy might have done, or did in fact do, to affect the temperature of another item is irrelevant to the temperature of the item in question once it is absorbed.

    Energy has no memory. It just does what it does in the circumstances it happens to be in.

  95. #96 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2013

    How cute.

    ‘Furter is wingeing about how no-one will answer his question (whilst ignoring the fact that many people have pointed to the underlying phenomena), but he has left hundreds of unanswered questions in his wake during his time clogging the arteries of Deltoid.

    What’s the word I’m looking for? The one that starts with an ‘H’, and ends with ‘ypocrisy’?

  96. #97 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    Karenski:

    So, not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?

    Many of us have pointed to the mechanism and it is up to you to figure out how it all works by doing some text book study (not at WUWT etc as they will confuse you further) – seeing as you don’t appear to have experience with the concepts.

    Now adelady having more patience, but wasted I am afraid because giving stuff on a plate rarely leads to increased understanding in the recipient and I doubt that you would be amongst the exceptions.

    Now of course we know how it works, after all how could we provide such succinct prompts.

    I am pleased that adelady has mentioned ‘phase change’ (I very nearly went there earlier but thought better of it not wanting to push you into running before you could crawl) do you know how much heat energy is required to phase change one gram of ice vis a vis raising the temperature of one gram of fresh water through one degree Celcius. Answer in calories will do.

    Now start behaving like a sensible enquirer after the truth and stop fuck-arsing around.

  97. #98 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    Now adelady having more patience

    I’m used to it.

    Spent part of the day encouraging a 7 year old to read – well, write down a few 3 letter words to be truthful. Frustrating but we’ll get there in the end. Not so sure about the same approach here.

  98. #99 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    I’m used to it.
    Spent part of the day encouraging a 7 year old to read

    Me too, used to it that is. Four children, eleven grandchildren (and no doubts some GGC before long) and all that plus degree level teaching qualifications with experience of 7-8 year olds 36 at a time. Taught adults Maths A-level, computer stuff like programming, DTP, spreadsheets, databases, SAGE and some other odds and sods. Have had an interesting life.

  99. #100 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    Now for the adults here there is an interesting concept just broached at the Rabett’s Freezing about a possible difference in freezing point of water droplets on nucleating dust particles.

    Russell Seitz introduces a very pertinent and confounding factor in the comments.

    Of course when working with particles of geological origin there is a danger of developing the debilitating, and potentially lethal condition:

    pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

    which word was brought to my attention by one of those eleven grandchildren mentioned above, who is at first year secondary school level (i.e. way above Karenski). Evidently this is the longest word in the English dictionary. Dictionary version not mentioned by grandson’s source.