September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    September 23, 2013

    Murdoch’s Australian operations lose $350 million;

    the company saw its Australian newspaper revenues fall by $350m compared to the previous year, a fall of 15 per cent. It also wrote down the value of its Australian newspaper assets by $1.4bn.

    These are trying times for bonafide journalism, too, which is bad news for us all, but ‘bad news’ sums up News Corp, and the sinking of the Murdochracy is impossible to lament (and notably Fairfax, a real news organization, suffered a significantly smaller decline!)

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    September 23, 2013

    Just catching up on Q&A with David Suzuki.

    The first questioner claims something like there was no warming since 1998, and then when asked where he got his data claimed that all four major (temperature) data sets showed “a 17 year flat trend”, despite the fact that 1998 is ~15 years ago rather than 17.

    All four show a 17 year flat trend? What do you think?

    Tony Jones then repeats the “1998” claim. Shame he knows this is a common claim but hasn’t even done the basic homework to fact check it. Also a shame that David wasn’t better prepared to point out that it’s false and also fallacious even if it wasn’t false – but then, as he points out, he’s not a climatologist so why are they trying to dispute it with him?

    The second guy is a professor of environmental science or some such (possibly the same Prof. Stewart Franks who is sometimes quoted in the media as a contrarian of sorts), and he deliberately conflates “scientists” with “climatologists” even after being called on it. And then he reveals that he doesn’t understand how to evaluate climate models – comparing observations over periods too short for climatic signals to be observed, and incorrectly expecting models to match the realised noise in the signal.

    And then he tries to argue that the only question is whether CO2 will have a catastrophic effect or not (a black and white fallacy, but at least admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas), and then falsely implies that the answer to this question is based purely on models which he’s tried to discredit on mistaken grounds.

    Quite a dishonest start for the skeptics.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    No more dishonest than the display put on by the GOP talking heads described as The Five Craziest Arguments At Wednesday’s Climate Hearing where McKinley made this astonishing statement, amongst others:

    But more importantly this report coming out of the United Nations the IPCC report coming up (out) is saying that most experts believe that by 2083, in 70 years the benefit of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

    These Karenski level arguments can be viewed here if you have the stomach.

    More on that hearing here:

    Moniz, McCarthy Fight Off Climate Change Deniers At House Hearing

  4. #4 Boris
    September 23, 2013

    Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists like Lotharsson, BBD, Adelady, Lionel, Bernard, Harvey, Marco etc. are allowed to excrement their ideological asshole bullshit?

  5. #5 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    Strewth, the BBC are really beginning to annoy with their ‘balanced’ (???) climate with the latest on the 1800 (six o’clock) News this evening 23.8.2013 coverage where they go through the reasons why ‘warming has paused’ only to bail it on telling how scientists do know that the oceans are warming and that it is understood why surface temperatures have not risen as fast (no pause in reality) as some suggested.

    David Shukman did the business in slaloming around evidence, continuing with a warming has stalled and nobody really know why and splicing is a brief statement from, yes you have guessed it Professor Myles Allen, which was probably one small part of what the Professor said just to make sure. The baton was then passed on to none other than Andrew ‘Bishop Hill’ Montford aka Cardinal Puff and GWPF tool, to provide the take home point.

    I am unable to link to this story, their web page is very coy about this news item but here is an earlier one from today

    How can such an inoffensive looking little man like Montford be such a danger to society? Because he has not been exposed for what he is, yet, George, Dana and John Abraham.

    So another round and your license is safe from the Tory axe BBC.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists..

    Where did I write that I was a non-scientists? Did you not catch the bit about an ‘interesting’ i.e. varied life.

    As for the others well I know for a fact that Jeff is a working scientists and the others show definite signs of having more than a nodding acquaintance with the fields.

    Now you, Boorish, OTOH well whenever you try it, it comes back at you. Are you not getting sick of the taste?

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    September 23, 2013

    Gee, Boris, you really are a fruitcake. I did my PhD at Liverpool University in 1995, have worked at a research institute in Holland since 2000 and recently was appointed Visiting Endowed Professor in Amsterdam. I have 135 publications on the Web of Science and 3,200 citations of my work there (h factor of 32). If that doesn’t make me a scientist, then please tell me your definition. And while you are at it, I’d love to know your day job. That must be amusing!

  8. #8 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    #1

    But Kai, you are a lying, sock-puppeting nutter! You aren’t a fucking scientist – you aren’t even a complete human being! You don’t have any basis for sneering at others here. We all know hugely more than you do, and none of us are clinically insane.

    So off you go and kill yourself!

  9. #9 Lionel A
    September 23, 2013

    OK some more BBC today but with more nuance:

    Human role in warming ‘more certain’ – UN climate chief

    and

    Five key questions about climate facing the IPCC .

    Have not found the Shukman at 18:00 as yet.

  10. #10 Boris
    September 23, 2013

    Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer from India who governs the climate scientology church, admitted recently:

    “There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,”

    AHA AHA, AN INCREASE IN THEIR BELIEF!!!!!

    IS THERE A MEASURE OF THE BELIEF INCREASE?????

    PACHAURI MOST EVIDENTLY ADMITS THAT THERE IS A BELIEF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE TAKES PLACE, AND THAT THE BELIEF IS INCREASING!!!!! VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT!!!!!!!

  11. #11 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    A belief based on a consensus of the evidence, you fuckwit.

    Do you talk to Jesus by the way? Are there voices in your head telling you things? Do you have visions?

    Do you ever imagine harming people?

  12. #12 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    #6 Lionel A

    I am glad I missed the segment with Montford. What goes through the minds of the Tristrams who organise this offal? Really, what?

    Who decided to grub up the Sticky Bishop? Who thought it would be a good idea to invite comment from a devious, lying, unqualified shill for the denial machine? Which unspeakable, cretinous little turd did that? Sometimes the smug fucking stupidity of these morons makes me see red.

  13. #13 Boris
    September 23, 2013

    To better understand CAGW alarmists wishi washi

    here some useful infos:

    £$£¥¥$£¥¥££¥£

    The language of climate

    The IPCC has evolved a complicated way of communicating scientific certainty and confidence in a finding:

    very unlikely – 0-10%

    unlikely – 10-33%

    likely as not – 33-66%

    likely – 66-100%

    very likely – 90-100%

    Extremely likely – 95-100%

    Virtually certain – 99-100%

    Confidence is also expressed as very low, low, medium, high and very high.

    Evidence can can be limited, medium or robust.

    And levels of agreement can be low, medium or high

    £$££¥£$£¥¥

    I am virtually certain that my belief that climate change is robustly non-existent is true.

  14. #14 Boris
    September 23, 2013

    BBD shut up you criminal, you dared above to incite somebody to kill himself. How far are you asshole willing to go in your hatred and will for physical harm to your superior opponents? You are a monster and human crap!

  15. #15 Boris
    September 23, 2013

    BBD fuckwit

    Rajendra from India did NOT SAY: “A belief based on a consensus of the evidence, you fuckwit.”

    THIS IS YOUR EXAGGERATED INVENTION. ADMIT FUCKWIT

  16. #16 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    You are too stupid to understand what Pachauri is talking about. You are a moron. Belief in the sense he used it, meaning “confidence in scientific knowledge” arises from scientific evidence. This has never been stronger.

    * * *

    Do you talk to Jesus? Are there voices in your head telling you things? Do you have visions?

    Do you ever imagine harming people? Do you?

  17. #17 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    Rajendra from India

    Are you a racist as well as a lunatic and a fuckwit?

    It sounds very much to me as though you have a problem with Pachauri’s ethnicity. I think you are a racist scumbag, Kai.

    Tell me about *your* beliefs, Kai. Tell me about Jesus, and brown people, and Hell, and damnation.

  18. #18 BBD
    September 23, 2013

    Do you have fantasies about hurting people, Kai?

  19. #19 chek
    September 23, 2013

    Boris, stop playing at being insane.
    Put that .38 in your mouth and just do it.
    Show some fucking commitment for once in your pathetic life.

  20. #20 chek
    September 23, 2013

    What town are you living in Boris?

    I need to check the news reports for the One Less Fuckwit In The World party I intend to organise once the good news of your demise breaks.

    They say those .38’s are mighty tasty especially right after discharging a shell.

    Btw, BBD is on the moderate wing of Denier Fuckwits and What To Do With Them tendency. My tendency is somewhat more fundamental.

  21. #21 adelady
    September 23, 2013

    From the sounds of the “progress” report Bernard gave about Suzuki’s Q&A appearance, I’m glad I took a good book to bed early last night.

  22. #22 chek
    September 23, 2013

    Looks like that which is known as ‘Boris/Kai/Freddy etc. here has morphed into >a href=”http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/comment-page-4/#comment-339112″>Olaf at Real Climate

    The frothometer never lies.

  23. #23 chek
    September 23, 2013

    Ho hum
    Looks like that which is known as ‘Boris/Kai/Freddy etc. here has morphed into Olaf at Real Climate

    The fruitcake frothometer never lies.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2013

    Boris
    September 23, 2013

    Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists like http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-21/#comment-168683 are allowed to excrement their ideological asshole bullshit?

    Here’s a challenge for you. Go back one, two, three four and five years and show how “http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-21/#comment-168683″ were less able back then to post, and in just what way Deltoid has degenerated.

    I’ll give you a clue to deranged fool, it’s degenerated in the opposite way to that which you appear to believe.

  25. #25 Ed Darrell
    Dallas, Texas
    September 24, 2013

    Tim,

    The piece you and Quiggin did for Prospect on Rachel Carson — is it available in the longer version anywhere on the net?

    Thanks.

  26. #26 Stu
    September 24, 2013

    Oh great. How many more troll flashbacks are we going to get here?

  27. #27 Stu
    September 24, 2013

    @chek: Olaf, Boris, Olaus, it all gets laughable. The true Heartland shills mostly know better than to actually engage, so I truly am picturing Alex Jones, Lord Monckton and three schizophrenics in their basements doing all the frothing.

  28. #28 Boris
    September 24, 2013

    Does anybody of the uninformed Doltoids here (BBD, chek etc.) know why the fuck the holy AGW church asserts (therefore = logical fallacy according to climate fuckwit BBD) that earths’s albedo is 0.3??

    Why should it be 0.3 and how is this value justified based on measurements in reality?? Answer required, fuckwits

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    September 24, 2013

    Bernard, Boris AKA Freddy and Berendaneke, will soon be booted off of Deltoid. Watch this space. He’ll then try and come back as another sock puppet, and that person will be dealt with as well and so on and so forth. The aim is to drive this foul nutcase away for good.

  30. #30 bill
    September 24, 2013

    I hope so – this pathetic loon needs institutionalising before he hurts himself and/or others. I’ve written to request it, and the permanent sequestration of SpamKan, too.

  31. #31 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    Oh, thank you Willie :) OH my own thread :) :) :)

    I promise to add all the counter arguments and peer reviewed literature in an easy to find format for people that use google :)

    You must really love me Billie :-*

    NOW STOP CARRYING ON LIKE A SOOKY BABY WITH A WET NAPPY !

  32. #32 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    Dishonest scum should be moderated. Sock puppeteers should be moderated. Previously moderated dishonest scum running a sock really should be moderated.

    This means you, Sunspot.

  33. #33 bill
    September 24, 2013

    Well, since there’s virtually no peer-reviewed literature among the counter arguments you won’t be pressed beyond your epsilon capacity, will you?

    You’re not likely to be missed. You’re a tedious attention-seeking sad act who has demonstrated all too clearly that you don’t even have a bright primary-school student’s grasp of science.

    You’re perfectly representative of your tribe.

  34. #34 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    - There is no “holy AGW church”, only scientific evidence and the scientific consensus arising from that evidence. Your first false claim.

    – Since there is no “holy church” it cannot assert anything. Your second false claim.

    – Science does not argue by assertion, but from evidence, therefore any claim that science “asserts” a value for albedo is false – and an argument by assertion.

    – If you want to know more about the calculation of Earth’s albedo, fuck off and find out. You do not come here and demand answers. You lunatic scum.

    * * *

    You have been very quiet about Jesus, your visions, the voices in your head, your racist bigotry, Hell & damnation and the age of the Earth.

    Share your views.

  35. #35 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    #29 BBD, you know that I am not Mr Spot, this is only a pathetic and childish attempt to smear me. It won’t work, Timmy would have checked my IP and investigated this lie long before you arrived on the scene, barnturd pushed Timmie privately about it long ago to no avail.

    AND I know that you are absolutely shitting yourself about this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-20/#comment-168578

    tch tch tch

  36. #36 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    #29 BBD, you know that I am not Mr Spot

    On the contrary, Sunny, I am virtually certain that you *are* Sunspot. I have some skill with textual analysis and the eponymous thread to play with. Your bad luck to run into me, I’m afraid.

    IP is a very weak argument. I could spoof a dozen in the next ten minutes if I really had to. Or you might simply have moved, or changed ISP…

    * * *

    Re your failure to grasp basic physics, no, I’m not remotely troubled. It was hardly a surprise, after all. Adelady, myself and everybody else tried to explain the topic, but you were too stupid to understand.

  37. #37 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    ” I am virtually certain that you *are* Sunspot.”

    I am 100% certain that you have doubts about the effects of co2, the evidence and the scientific consensus…….

  38. #38 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    Say what you like, Sunny, but you are nailed.

  39. #39 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    It is going to be a tough gig for the IPCC to convince policy makers and the population of the planet that the heat has been going into the ocean, when by all accounts the warming has stopped…..and the SST has been at a standstill………..

  40. #40 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    Quote of the Week:

    A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field? – Roger Pielke, Jr.

    lol

  41. #41 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    #36 Sunspot

    SSTs are not an indicator of OHC, especially not OHC at depth. A basic, but huge failure of comprehension.

    #37

    RPJr is arguing from assertion. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting his mischaracterisation of scientists as “activists” making “false claims”. It is the crudest and most obvious framing.

    In fact the only activist making false claims in this picture is RPJr.

    Your fundamental problem (apart from an absolute inability to act in good faith) is that your comprehension is abysmal. Not only are you incapable of understanding the physical underpinnings of climate system processes, you cannot parse. You simply cannot understand what is written. This is yet another example: you don’t see the fundamental inversion in RPJr’s polemic. It all sails miles over your head.

  42. #42 bill
    September 24, 2013

    I thought the maroon had run off because its service provider had shaped its access?

    Clearly, it had actually merely run away until we’d all forgotten it’s most recent self-soiling, and how stupid it is. That’s not going to happen.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2013

    Sunspot.

    You gave yourself away a long time ago with your peculiar punctuation spacings, your ellipsis manglings, your focus on the same issues in the guise of your separate socks, and your general usage of language. There were also the odd conversations between your socks at various coincident times, and the fact that you both have the same hit and run approach with no ability to synthesise information from primary sources.

    Another peculiarity was that you continued to post at WTFUWT and other cesspits and reference conversations at Deltoid, but ‘Karen’ was the only sock active here at the time.

    As for IP addresses, they are to some extent meaningless – they can be changed by anyone with a clue.

    And for what it’s worth, I note that you are still unable to answer with any substance my question from a few days ago:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-19/#comment-168444

    Is the truth really such a big scary spider for you?

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    September 24, 2013

    …when by all only the doctored accounts the warming has stopped…

    FIFY.

    I guess you have trouble comprehending the graphs I’ve showed you time and time again, including one just last night. You know, where the trend line rises as you move from left (earlier years) to right (later years). Competent year 8 students call that “ongoing warming”. But as you’ve recently demonstrated year 8 science is too much for you.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2013
  46. #46 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    As I mentioned upthread, perhaps we should cease to collude in the deception and refer to Sunspot as Sunspot or Sunny etc?

    Why be passively complicit in this matter?

    And it will annoy Sunny!

    ;-)

  47. #47 Timmie
    September 24, 2013

    I support agriculture by advocting for a climate that is at least sometimes anmenable to seasons of production. Climate change is going to be a big game-changer in the coming decades, and in many parts of Australia (and the world) not for the better. Given that future generations of farmers will be working without cheap (and one day, even available) oil, the last thing that primary producers need is for the fundmental milieu of their production environment to be FUBARed.

  48. #48 rhwombat
    September 24, 2013

    BBD. No argument about identity or stupidity, but I still think Spam fits it perfectly:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

  49. #49 bill
    September 24, 2013

    I hope we’ve all seen this incidentally – Media Watch from Monday Night.

    ‘Science’ by circle-jerk!

  50. #50 bill
    September 24, 2013

    Bloody vikings!

  51. #51 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    Spamspot?

    Sunspam?

    We can work together on this, I am certain.

    :-)

  52. #52 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    So Sunspot (aka Karen) the tedious is still fuck-arsing around:

    AND I know that you are absolutely shitting yourself about this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-20/#comment-168578

    tch tch tch

    Having not yet discovered the import of the statement:

    TEMPERATURE IS NOT HEAT

    tch, tch, tch indeed you boring fart.

  53. #53 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    #45 bill

    It’s absolutely true because I read it in the Dail Mail….

    (With apologies to all who have heard the Daily Mail Song before. But if you haven’t, click on the link or Tim will pop out of retirement and ban you for ever and ever and ever…).

  54. #54 Nick
    September 24, 2013
  55. #55 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    Bill @ #45 and WRT the blizzard of garbage we can expect from ‘the usual suspect’ you know the type that does not know the difference between temperature and heat, then following a link on Capital Climate I was reminded of the Background Readings in Advance of Release of the IPCC AR5 Reports put out by Yale.

    So, suspects, you are on notice not to come up with your normal level of asinine drivel over the IPCC and its reports or the science covered thereby. Note that phrase, ‘the science covered thereby’ which does not mean ‘the science carried out by’. But maybe the distinction will remain too subtle for your mall-formed brains and you will pitch in regardless like the zombies you are.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    Warming has paused or their is a hiatus in warming, what bullshit!.

  57. #57 Joe
    September 24, 2013

    The discussion is not about change being the norm in complex adaptive systems. Of course it is (even though there isn evidence that stability also drives adaptive radiation as evidenced in the riotous species and genetic diversity in tropical biomes`). What is of great concern is the rate at which humans are transforming the chemical composition of the atmosphere and both the structure and biogeochemistry of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This rate far exceeds anything the biosphere has experienced in many millions of years, and against the background humans are reducing both species diversity and genetic diversity, the latter a vital pre-requisite that enables species to respond to the suite of stressors humans are inflicting. A 1998 paper by Hughes et al. in PNAS argued that, at that time, human activities were probably driving as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations to extinction on a daily basis. Now, if this is indeed true it is profoundly worrying. Underlying this is the combined assault our species is inflicting on nature, with climate warming perhaps being the biggest factor of all.

  58. #58 johnl
    September 24, 2013

    For those thermodynamic illiterates, who don’t know the difference between heat(energy) or temperature, I present thislgem from Zeke:

    Total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased temperature has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

  59. #59 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    “Warming has paused or their is a hiatus in warming”

    Agreed :)

  60. #61 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    “As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F)”

    I did, or how else how did it get to the ocean? Ninja past it eh..lol

  61. #62 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    umm……….that is…….. It did

  62. #63 Karen
    September 24, 2013

    and Lionel……..that would be there, not their :)

  63. #64 chek
    September 24, 2013

    SpamKan, if you don’t know the barest, most basic of the science, then all your objections are invalid.

    Whatever you think you’re doing here is invalidated by your level of moronosity. Spamming denier blog lies that you don’t understand and nobody here is buying is a complete waste of your time and hours.

  64. #65 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    #56 Sunny

    I[t] did, or how else how did it get to the ocean? Ninja past it eh..lol

    Nope. Utterly wrong, as usual. Energy is delivered to the upper ocean layer as shortwave solar radiation, aka “sunlight”. This passes through the atmosphere, which is substantially transparent to it, but stops in the upper 100m of water, where an energetic transfer occurs and ocean heat content increases.

    The long-term warming of the troposphere by GHG forcing heats the air directly above the ocean skin layer. Molecular forces dominate in this thin (sub-1mm) layer of water so the only way energy can cross it is by conduction. The warming air at the surface reduces the thermal gradient across the skin layer. This reduces the efficiency of conduction across it, and slows the rate at which the ocean cools. Over time, OHC increases as a consequence.

    So fuck your ignorance and your stupid lols, eh?

  65. #66 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    …and Lionel……..that would be there, not their
    I suffered from Dyslexia (as did Wally Broecker – you go look up how many times Cronin cites Wally in his ‘Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present”), besides I have one of these magic Microsoft keyboards where the characters are wearing off. What’s your excuse?

  66. #67 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    SpotKaren.

    Seeing as you evidently know very little about heat transfer to the oceans then I link here to a 1979 ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment aka the Charney Report.

    This contains a useful backgrounder, for such as you, on a number of things including mechanisms for heat transfer between ocean layers, climate sensitivity and carbon reservoirs. This work was recently, 2010, published in ‘The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast’ which is a collection of milestone scientific papers on matters pertaining to climate change starting back with Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, the collection being edited by inclusion of supporting material by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

    You would do well to find a copy of this book and start studying.

    Now that Charney report acknowledges a number of others for their helpful comments, amongst them being none other than Richard S Lindzen. Note the date 1979 so enough was known about climate sensitivity back then to realise that it was not negligible or less than unity.

    So if Richard S Lindzen claims today that climate sensitivity is low, less than unity or even 1.5 then I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to what Lindzen is engaged in. But there is more:

    Since then (1979), scientific study has shown that climate sensitivity can depend upon the starting state of the climate at any period under study and also the magnitude and rate of forcing. In other words it is variable (Thomas M Cronin and James Hansen amongst others). The rate of forcing from GHGs and land use changes is such as to increase climate sensitivity.

    Demonstrate that you wish to be taken seriously by not dismissing this information with a flippant remark and lol-ing around.

  67. #68 Turboblocke
    September 24, 2013

    For Karen: hot light from Sun passes through sky, gets taken by surface. Surface gives heat to sky. (but not all).

    If hot light taken by sky, then you not feel heat when you stand in hot light from sun.

  68. #69 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    Lionel

    I see Cronin has hit the doormat! I hope you are pleased – I would feel responsible to an extent if not…

  69. #70 Stu
    September 24, 2013

    Turbo wins the thread. That is hilarious.

  70. #71 Lionel A
    September 24, 2013

    Hit the doormat, damned well nearly went through it! [1]

    Cronin looks good, naturally have some of the info’ duplicated in other publications but that is rarely a bad thing because the accent on topics is different so fresh perspectives are always a good idea.

    One can never read too much, valid material, on this topic.

    What do you say Karenspot?

    [1] Reminds me of a scene at Yeovilton when a local Somerset farmer drove his pick-up in through the main gate and dumped some tangled metalwork on the quarterdeck with the words, ‘nigh on ‘it me cow!’ No respect for ceremony there..

    The quarterdeck being a smartly turned out area with polished canon, canon balls, white painted fences and chains where the flag-pole carrying the White Ensign lived).

    The bent metal were a pair of lower fuselage doors, fuel-bay, from a Sea Vixen which had fallen off in flight. The attachment of these doors was rather awkward being designed for quick access for running turn-rounds and the turn-buckled hanging supports needed careful adjustment, these also weakened with age.

  71. #72 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    :-) I’m surprised the poor man wasn’t lashed to a grating and flogged by a spare bosun’s mate.

  72. #73 Turboblocke
    September 24, 2013

    Thanks Stu that’s very kind of you. Finally realised that the other explanations were going over Karen’s head. If this didn’t do it, I don’t think there’s any hope.

  73. #74 chek
    September 24, 2013

    Would you consider doing a guest post at Williwatts pitched at a similar level TB?
    It might just do the trick

  74. #75 Turboblocke
    September 24, 2013

    Sorry can’t go that low.

  75. #76 Boris
    September 24, 2013

    Why the fuck is none of the CAGW Doltoid ignorami able to reference a publication about MEASUREMENT (not calculation, the fuckwit BBD) of earth albedo? Why the fuck is the level of information among degenerated Doltoid fuckwits so low?

  76. #77 chek
    September 24, 2013

    Short answer to the troll – (who is still refusing to put that gun in his mouth and put himself out of his misery. Just fucking do it Boris and do us all a favour) – dynamic systems being measured by instruments that require time to complete a full scan by necessity require calculation of the results by that apparatus.

    Now fuck off and blow your useless brains out fuckwit.

  77. #78 Turboblocke
    September 24, 2013

    Well Boris how about trying Google… let us know how you get on.

  78. #79 BBD
    September 24, 2013

    Why the fuck can’t you get off your lazy arse and look, Kai?

    From the website of the ESA GlobAlbedo Project:

    The following steps were taken to produce the final albedo products:

    1. Satellite Top-of-Atmosphere 1km reflectances, corrected for Sun-Earth distance and using the same solar irradiance model are used as input from the ESA MERIS and SPOT-VEGETATION instruments

    2. Every input Pixel is identified as land, water, cloud, snow with a given probability

    3. Spectral Directional Reflectance, SDR (sometimes known as Top-of-Canopy reflectances or Bidirectional Reflectance Factors, BRFs) are retrieved correcting for the effects of the atmosphere using aerosol optical depth estimates produced from the same input data

    4. SDRs are integrated into Broad Band Directional Reflectances (BBDRs) using radiative transfer models

    5. Every orbit is binned into the MODIS SIN 10° x 10° tiles

    6. The BBDRs in MODIS SIN tiles are then transferred to UCL-MSSL

    7. Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Functions (BRDFs) in netCDF are derived from the BBDRs using an optimal estimation model and gaps are filled in (due to persistent cloud cover or low solar elevations) from a 10 year climatology derived from an every 8 days MODIS BRDF time series

    8. Bi-Hemispherical Reflectances (BHR, sometimes known as “white-sky” albedo) and Direct Hemispherical Reflectances (DHR, sometimes known as “black-sky” albedo) are then integrated from the BRDF for a particular solar angle range every 8 days in netCDF

    9. 1km MODIS SIN tiles are then upscaled, mosaiced and projected into 0.05° and 0.5° and into monthly time-steps in netCDF

    10. Browse products are generated from each albedo product at 1km, 0.05° and 0.5° mosaics in PNG and animations with annotations created in GIF or MPEG2 and placed on the right area of the website

    * * *

    Now do as chek suggests, and don’t botch it. Hold the weapon upside-down and shoot up through the palate into the cranium. I’d hate for you to be maimed instead of killed outright.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2013

    I’d hate for you to be maimed instead of killed outright.

    If he missed the synapse he wouldn’t be mained. He’d carry on as usual, with no detectable difference in mental acuity, and with only one more entry wound and a few extra grams of lead in his head.

  80. #81 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2013

    …maimed…

  81. #82 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2013

    So the new Education minister Christopher Pyne is putting quotas on the number of uni students, removing initiatives to put disadvantaged students into uni, and removing the ammenities charge for students.

    The Coalition government really hates the ‘lower’ classes lifting themselves up, and it really hates the regional institutions competing with the inner city unis to which the rich send their privileged offspring.

    And ironically it’s a significant portion of ‘lower’ class that elected this elitist government. The kids of these voters will have to thank their parents for this astute electoral insight…

  82. #83 Stu 2
    September 24, 2013

    Nick@#20 previous page
    Yes this is getting boring.
    I am now back home and I have the SHL figs in front of me.
    Because this is a public site I am not going to put them on this blog as even though this was several years ago they were ‘commercial in confidence’ at the time.
    However very simply.
    I have no reason to hand wave or make anything up. Unlike Marohasy, I was involved in these events and I did try to politely correct your original comments and warn you that you had been misinformed about the real issues surrounding those SHL RAR releases and the level of Marohasy’s influence.
    You have used the information from the inquiry which had very tight ‘terms of reference’ and only looked at the releases in that short period in December when the flooding was critical.
    That inquiry correctly found that the rules were followed. You seem to be refusing to understand that it was actually the rules that were the problem. Your figures regarding what SHL and the downstream storages gained in the short Dec timeframe is completely irrelevant to the larger problem that was created by the inflexible rules re RAR payback.
    No later than October 2010, SHL was indeed tipping that payback water into an overfull system that was unable to manage it. Therefore, significant amounts of water, which did indeed total over 2000GL was wasted for no good outcomes for anyone, including SHL. There is a cumulative effect that you don’t seem to understand. Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012.
    Also, if Marohasy had defamed or unduly embarrassed SHL and NOW and/or unduly panicked people as you originally claimed, then they would have gladly sued her for defamation or at least forced her to print a retraction. They probably like her even less than you do. You might perhaps ask yourself why they didn’t do that?
    Perhaps Nick, there was indeed substance to her claims that water was being wasted and exacerbating a system that was already in minor flooding well before the December floods?
    Anyway, as you say this is getting boring. I was just not prepared to allow the misrepresentation of events re water management in the Murray and Murrumbidgee Valley stand unchallenged on a site that I once liked and respected.

  83. #84 Stu
    September 24, 2013

    Stu 2’s TL,DR: .

  84. #85 Nick
    September 25, 2013

    Stu2, pretty much all your claims are crap. If you are not going to read or understand what I have put forward, and refuse to use NOW data to check your assertions, I see little point in continuing an exchange with you while you cling to a 2000GL figure that you cannot back, and accuse me of misrepresentation.

    You write: ” Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012″

    Firstly, “all the downstream storages” is misleading: there is only one downstream storage on the Tumut, and that is Blowering. This is the only dam on that river with a prime storage and buffering brief. It went from 30% to full over the last few months of 2010. Whatever spilled, the 70% gain was ‘banked’. A lot of that was RAR.

    Secondly, Blowering was managed to mitigate all the floods on the Tumut. It did have the capacity to do that. In the first two events [flooding at Tumut ] no [none, zip] water from the SH process,or from catchment runoff above Blowering was released below the dam. Flooding at Tumut and downstream came entirely from the Goobarragandra, Gilmore Creek and other tributaries that enter the river downstream of the dam. In the biggest flood, spill from Blowering was a factor, but the top half of the peak at Tumut was again from the Goobarragandra, and Blowering’s spill contributed to a second and considerably lower peak. Also, this flood at Tumut had no effect on the peak at Gundagai and Wagga,which was generated from the whole Murrumbidgee catchment and peaked days before the Tumut flood water reached those towns.

    These facts were available to be reconstructed, as I did, from real time data as they happened. They can still be reconstructed, if you have knowledge of the dates. The subsequent inquiry handed down the following year confirmed my recon. BOM special reporting of the late 2010 rain events is also useful background.

    Thirdly the floods at issue were in 2010, not 2012.

    In context, the rains [record breaking] brought to an end a record breaking drought. Blowering and Burrinjuck went from low to spill, ditto Hume Dam. Snowy Hydro’s system also gained considerably despite being to the east of the most intense falls. For SH to have been meaningfully able to add to its already considerable storage gains would have meant many weeks of foregone power generation…and this would have had vanishingly small influence on the Murrumbidgee flood peak heights. In the end there was not enough storage space for the massive amount of water dropped on the Murrumbidgee,and flood mitigation capacity was exhausted. Nobody’s fault.

    This site is what you make it. If you wish to ‘like and respect’ it bring data and facts. I have not misrepresented the event. You have.

  85. #86 Boris
    September 25, 2013

    BBD, why the fuck are you so terribly stupid to think that anything you copied from globalbedo.org has anything to do with answering my fucking question.

    YOU IDIOT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION WHICH PUBLISHED A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA.

    I GIVE YOU IDIOT AN EXAMPLE WHAT A “ORIGINAL PUBLICATION” IS, YOU FUCKNG ASSHOLE

    $£¥£$££¥£$$££¥£$£¥£$££$£

    THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH’S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.

    Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
    P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)

    (1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
    (3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
    (5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
    (6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy

    1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES

    A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.

    To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
    To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)

    Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.

    2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION

    Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.

    3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS

    The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.

    4. REFERENCES CITED

    [1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)

    [2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/

    [3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.

    [4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.

    $£¥£$£££$££££$££$

    THE SHOWN PAPER COULD NOT SHOW A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO.

    NOW GIVE ME AB ARTICLE WHICH PUBLISHES A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA, FUCKING IDIOT.

  86. #87 bill
    September 25, 2013

    *cuckoo!* *cuckoo!*

  87. #88 Boris
    September 25, 2013

    “*cuckoo!* *cuckoo!*”

    Terminal mental degeneration of Bill? Maybe Lime’s disease?

  88. #89 bill
    September 25, 2013

    That’s the one you catch from citrus, right?

    Run along now, Boris; isn’t that baby Jesus calling you?

  89. #90 peterd
    Melbourne
    September 25, 2013

    #81: Enough of the disrespectful tone.

    Globalbedo.org appears to list this data, and while I did not succeed in running the program they link to there to enable the data to be viewed, observational data for the global albedo are listed elsewhere. Try for example, Goode et al, GRL (2001): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL012580/abstract
    Abstract only: I seem not to have the full pdf.
    However, the data quoted in the abstract supports the “0.3” value.

  90. #91 Boris
    September 25, 2013

    bill, instead of writing utter bullshit (as always from you leper islander) try to help your ignoramus brother BBD to cite a paper with earth’s global albedo based on real data, Try, you fucking idiot!

  91. #92 Boris
    September 25, 2013

    peterd, thank you for your constructive comment and please give me some time to read the referenced article.

  92. #93 rhwombat
    September 25, 2013

    Much as I regret feeding the Socktroll, it’s Lyme disease (after a town called Old Lyme in Connecticut, USA, where the disease was first described in the 1970’s) – a tick-borne spirocheatosis with Borrelia bergdorferi, B. afzelius or B. geurinae. It does not occur in Australia, despite the active efforts of some Boris-level loons who are determine to prove that all of the extant science is wrong, and that they, alone, know the truth. Not surprisingly the same subset of idiots are usually both strident anti-vaxers and climate denialists, which is where I first encountered the tribe, when asked to counter one of their more egregious public squawks back in the late 80’s. (BTW BBD, I’m an Infectious Diseases Physician not a Single Organ Doctor (SOD it!) though I did my PhD on modulation of host defence in cystic fibrosis). Curious that the Socktroll gibbers that particular malapropism on a climate thread. I suspect that it hears the same voices as Behring Breivik.

  93. #94 Karen
    September 25, 2013

    There is a David Suzuki article on WUWT.

  94. #95 BBD
    September 25, 2013

    What a fucking prat you are, Kai. Pull the trigger.

  95. #96 BBD
    September 25, 2013

    Just on a general point. Our resident psychopath demands and rages that we provide him with a reference supporting the standard value for Earth’s albedo (0.3).

    Why? Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker won’t read it. KFBB couldn’t understand it in a month of Sundays. KFBB has no idea why 0.3 is considered the best estimate, nor, until very, very recently did he even know that it was the best estimate.

    So WTF is this charade all about? Well, obviously, this is KFBB’s default tactic: demand some information – it hardly matters what – then accuse all here of ignorance, fraud etc whether we provide it or not.

    This is a tedious, irritating noise that has gone on long enough now.

    It is high fucking time this multi-sock, psychopathic troll was banned.

  96. #97 Bernard J.
    September 25, 2013

    FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke.

    Just quietly you’ve posted about “leper islanders” on this thread using both Boris and Berendaneke socks. That’s to say nothing about your fixation with human body waste and with upper case yelling, again through plural agencies.

    If you’re going to pretend to be multiple people try to nuance your personæ with at least some finesse. If you’re not aware that you’re doing this then consider talking to someone about the mælstrom in your mind.

    And if the voices in your head start to whisper that you should kill yourself, think* about consulting a psychiatrist. The internet would definitely be a better place without you but someone would have to clean up the mess you left behind, and it might be someone who actually cares** about you.

    [*I use the term advisedly.

    **Stranger things have happened.]

  97. #98 Bernard J.
    September 25, 2013

    OK, I might have stretched credulity with the “Stranger things have happened” comment…

    Mea culpa.

  98. #99 BBD
    September 25, 2013

    If you’re going to pretend to be multiple people try to nuance your personæ with at least some finesse.

    He can’t Bernard. He’s as thick as pigshit as well as totally insane. That’s why this irruption of hydra-socked trolling is so tedious. There’s not wit nor art to any of it. It’s just noise. And I for one have heard enough of it.

  99. #100 Karen
    September 25, 2013

    “And I for one have heard enough of it.”

    Off you go then……….