September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Rednose
    September 30, 2013

    Lenoil#95

    You do seem to hang around some crank websites loinel

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    September 30, 2013

    “You do seem to hang around some crank websites loinel”

    Look who’s talking. Given the crap you read, Rednose, its a wonder that you have thee audacity to make such a flippant remark. Bishops Hill? Hockey Schtick? WUWT? Unadulterated bilge.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    September 30, 2013

    RedNoise:

    Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.

    One does not go wrestling with a pig, even if it does wear lipstick.

    ‘Language’?

    What language? What is that statement supposed to mean?

    That Joe Nova has poor grasp of English as well as Science, in that case I agree.

    As for ‘crank’ sites, so you don’t grok Russell Seitz’s humour. That is your problem not mine or his.

    And now, just like earlier, there are signs of interrupted service here, not a Nova minion on the warpath perchance?

    Third attempt with many drops changing page.

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    September 30, 2013

    Great post over at Jo Novas

    Oxymoron.

  5. #5 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Kerrist! Still at the OHC denial stage?

    FFS evolve, trolls!

    We’ve been through this now and the moving finger, having writ, moves on!

    And yes, you have been weighed in the balance and found to be absolute fuckwits!

    Find something else you can’t understand and deny that instead. Come on, lazy-arses! You are getting insufferably boring, which is a crime worse than mere dishonesty, stupidity and denial.

  6. #6 Timmie
    September 30, 2013

    Is Joanna Nova a denialist or rather an ignorant?

  7. #7 Lionel A
    September 30, 2013

    A few posts ago I mentioned Richard Lindzen in the same breath as Curry (Curry of the Tikka-Masala variant – a Western fabrication with no authenticity), and Pat Micahels, and sure enough in another egregious article by the ever ‘confused’ David Rose archived by Sou and have no food or drink in mouth before linking, we find, after more spice from Curry, Lindzen quoted:

    Prof Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the IPCC had ‘truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.’

    It is a sad world when you have burned your bridges too, isn’t that right Dick.

    Of course Michaels left any reputation in tatters decades ago by cavorting with Western Fuels and Greening Earth but here we see Lindzen and Curry becoming fully signed up members.

    Note that it was this trio who were the GOPS selected invited representatives at the House Science and Technology Committee held a “Rational Discussion of Climate Change.

    One striking thing about these three witnesses was that their spoken testimony diverted significantly from their pre-submitted written testimonies. They have been in melt down ever since, having to resort to advocacy aimed at lay audiences and then with limited opportunity for their gish-gallops to be challenged.

    Oh! And of course Rose has to slip in Lomborg, now Rose is not being confused but providing a platform for more BS.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    September 30, 2013

    One striking thing about these three witnesses was that their spoken testimony diverted significantly from their pre-submitted written testimonies.

    Interestingly, that echoes the divergence between what Lindzen publishes in the peer reviewed literature and what he says to non-scientific audiences. I suspect the same holds for Curry these days too.

  9. #9 Stu
    September 30, 2013

    Rednose. Are you congenitally unable to admit that you are wrong and/or promoted something wrong? I cannot believe you are actually trying to defend Nova. To wit:

    Temperature is not heat.

    Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read:
    “but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules”

    So you’re saying that she wasn’t making an idiotic category error, just displaying an idiotic ignorance of SI units?

    Your “correction” makes the statement even dumber, Rednose. What unit would you propose we express ocean heat content in? Calories? eV? Btu? MMBtu? mol? Do tell, precious.

    I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to refute my assessment of you, and you’ve only made things worse. This last one officially makes you a medical miracle in being able to be this fucking dumb yet able to breathe.

    Answer this question or admit you are a moron, Rednose. What unit do you propose we express ocean heat content as?

  10. #10 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Looked at the astonishingly error-riddled Nova crap. Where to start? There is no surface cooling trend (she lied about that!), OHC increase is 0.09C not 0.06C, it’s Levitus not Levitis, she excludes OHC data for the 700 – 2000m layer so misses the downward mixing that accounts for the recent reduction in the rate of increase in OHC 0 – 700m layer and on and on and on.

    The really egregious error though is that she confuses *peak* TOA imbalance with time averaged TOA imbalance. The latter slowly increases from the chosen start point to a peak value at the end point year. She grabs the peak value and tries to pretend that Levitus 12 is at odds with the standard position but it isn’t.. Either through stupidity or dishonesty, Nova has fucked up.

    Not a trustworthy source… I know we’re all shocked to the core.

  11. #11 Stu
    September 30, 2013

    BBD, why bother? Putting down “the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules” as an actual argument should pretty much seal the deal, right?

    Oh, wait. I left this thread for a few hours. Now I remember. We have clowns on this thread ACTUALLY DEFENDING THAT SHIT.

    Sigh.

  12. #12 chek
    September 30, 2013

    “We have clowns on this thread ACTUALLY DEFENDING THAT SHIT.”

    To be accurate, they’re only making a pretence of defending it. They have no idea what it means either literally or to a climatologist.

  13. #13 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    You know, that’s what really infuriates me the most. The way the buffoons throw shit at the wall – any shit at all – relentlessly, day in, day out, but without understanding a fucking word of any of it.

    The pathology here goes way beyond people being mistaken in their conceptions. They haven’t even tried to grasp the concepts in the first place. It’s just fling, fling, fling. Deny, deny, deny. There is absolutely zero intellectual curiosity. No interest in learning anything. It’s the most contemptible, shit-headed attitude I have ever come across.

    “Fucking muppets” is far, far too kind.

  14. #14 Lionel A
    September 30, 2013

    Reading at SkS, note to the peanut gallery it is good for you too, in this post by John Mason I decided to try to find his comment at the Guardian. A little difficult at first as the article concerned was dated 27th and not 28th as implied, I think, must be this one with the comment by John directed too. I hope that last works, strange copy URL mechanism over there.

    Read it and think RedNoise et. al.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    September 30, 2013

    Aargh! /a not a/ required.

    Reading at SkS, note to the peanut gallery it is good for you too, in this post by John Mason I decided to try to find his comment at the Guardian. A little difficult at first as the article concerned was dated 27th and not 28th as implied, I think, must be this one with the comment by John directed too. I hope that last works, strange copy URL mechanism over there.

    Read it and think RedNoise et. al.

  16. #16 Rednose
    September 30, 2013

    Stu-pid#8

    Well some pages ago I suggested ergs, so we could multiply
    the OHC in joules by 10 to power 7. This would make the amount look even more frightening.

    What’s your take on the claim to be able to measure a temperature rise of 0.06C over 50 years at 2000m.

  17. #17 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

    If you bother to read the literature (eg the endlessly linked Levitus paper) you will end up with a better understanding of the robustness of the estimated change in OHC. Just standing on the sidelines implying that the data are crap and by extension that “alarmist” scientists are conspiring to fool the people is an exercise in nothing.

    If you want to challenge the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal. Anything less is just some denier on a blog bullshitting. You need to improve your game by an astonishing degree or fuck right off.

  18. #18 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    And where does this 0.06C figure come from? A denier blog perhaps?

    Can somebody reference it?

    The published figure (Levitus 12) is 0.09C arising from an increase in OHC 0 – 2000m of ~25 x 10^22 Joules.

  19. #19 Stu
    September 30, 2013

    Well some pages ago I suggested ergs, so we could multiply the OHC in joules by 10 to power 7.

    That’s not the point, you abject, utter, pathetic moron. You quoted a post over at the denialist Jo Nova’s shill den, saying “Great post over at Jo Novas.”.

    This post contained the utterly idiotic

    but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules.

    Which she (and by extension, you) were called on repeatedly. You then had the unmitigated balls assuming people are as stupid as you are, and threw in

    Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read: “but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules”

    I do take back what I said earlier — there’s really no deciding which is dumber: the earlier “I don’t know what heat is”, or your attempt at correction “I don’t know what a Joule is”.

    If you had any dignity, you would apologize and never, ever, ever post anything on climate ever again.

    As a random analogy… you’re the guy that goes in to get his car checked, and upon hearing “you need a new air filter” says “but I read on the interwebs that it could be my middle wheel, or that my solar sprocket is out of alignment — and until you prove to me that it isn’t either of those things, I won’t allow you to do anything”.

    That’s you. A delusional, selfish moron.

  20. #20 Timmie
    September 30, 2013

    The IPCC admitted:

    “The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate”

  21. #21 Joe
    September 30, 2013

    The IPCC admitted:

    “The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate”

  22. #22 Joe
    September 30, 2013

    @Stu#18 “If you had any dignity”

    Do you have any dignity?

  23. #23 Rednose
    September 30, 2013

    “you need a new air filter”

    Alternatively I might ask to inspect the old one to see what condition it was in. Make sure it was not a conspiracy by the mechanic to overcharge. So trusting of you.

    Still no comment on the amazing claimed precision of being able to measure 0.06/0.09C increase over 54 years down to 2000m
    Thats 0.0011/0.0017C per year.
    I know you have difficulty with sums.

  24. #24 chek
    September 30, 2013

    Alternatively I might ask to inspect the old one to see what condition it was in. Make sure it was not a conspiracy by the mechanic to overcharge. So trusting of you.

    At which point you’d go – duh, it’s a metal thingy with corrugated cardboard inside it.. I have no criteria to judge.

    Yet in Codling’s case you’ve been plainly shown she’s full of shit, but you cling to your fantasy.

  25. #25 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    #21

    I commented. You dodged. Here’s the repeat, lying shit:

    Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

    If you bother to read the literature (eg the endlessly linked Levitus paper) you will end up with a better understanding of the robustness of the estimated change in OHC. Just standing on the sidelines implying that the data are crap and by extension that “alarmist” scientists are conspiring to fool the people is an exercise in nothing.

    If you want to challenge the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal. Anything less is just some denier on a blog bullshitting. You need to improve your game by an astonishing degree or fuck right off.

  26. #26 Rednose
    September 30, 2013

    but you cling to your fantasy.</blockquote.

    Well her photograph is quite flattering, and she is not as gobby as some.LoL

  27. #27 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Where does the 0.06 figure come from Rednoise? You keep fucking using it and I want a fucking source.

    Come on.

  28. #28 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Are you a conspiracy theorist, Rednoise? Because it very much sounds as though you are. Or is it just denial without the paranoid conspiracist ideation?

    Denial is mental illness, Rednoise, even on its own. I’m concerned about your mental health, Rednoise.

  29. #29 Nick
    September 30, 2013

    #19 The IPCC “admitted” nothing. The IPCC reports. Joey admitted to using tabloid framing and decontextualising.

  30. #30 chek
    September 30, 2013

    Well her photograph is quite flattering

    Yes, it’s already been established you’re a post-pensional impotent old wanker, but you still understand the meaning of words, don’t you? And your post-menopausal MILF lies to you.

  31. #31 BBD
    September 30, 2013

    Joe has no idea how the climate system works and no knowledge of paleoclimate behaviour to aid him in his comprehension. He has therefore misunderstood the import of the sentence he quotes above.

    Here’s the thing, Joe – if cloud feedback really did net negative and if it is strong enough to dominate the climate system, then cloud would have always acted to negate the effects of forcing change. As a direct consequence, Earth’s climate history would be flat and uneventful.

    But it wasn’t. Not at all. Paleoclimate is a record of tremendous variability, often in response to relatively small changes in forcing. This demonstrates that the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks. It also demonstrates that clouds aren’t going to somehow stop AGW.

    All this is perfectly obvious if you simply bother to think about it, even briefly. Although admittedly some basic knowledge of climate dynamics and paleoclimate are necessary.

  32. #32 Stu
    September 30, 2013

    Still no comment on the amazing claimed precision of being able to measure 0.06/0.09C increase over 54 years down to 2000m Thats 0.0011/0.0017C per year.

    Yes, when being caught in something idiotic, why not double down and say something even dumber?

    Do you seriously think this was based on one measurement 54 years ago, and one yesterday?

    Sweet tapdancing Jebus you’re a moron, Rednose.

  33. #33 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    you’re a post-pensional impotent old wanker,

    Lol

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    October 1, 2013

    Could it be? Has Tim moderated Karen and Boris out of our existence? We can only hope…. my fear is that Boris has now morphed into Joe…

  35. #35 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    @ Rednoise

    Why are you being so evasive? Please answer the question:

    Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

    Insinuating that the data are crap is by extension insinuating that “alarmist” scientists are conspiring to fool the people. That is conspiracist ideation.

    * * *

    If you are seriously challenging the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you will need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal.

    Do you have a paper in progress? In review? In press?

    Well, do you?

    Because if you don’t you are obviously a conspiracy theorist. I would like to clear this matter up now.

    Please answer the questions in bold above.

  36. #36 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    BBD#33
    I thought Peter Lilley posted a comment which covers it

    Unfortunately, when doomsday forecasts fail, cult supporters don’t immediately give up. A US social scientist infiltrated a cult whose leader predicted the apocalypse would arrive on 21 December, as would a flying saucer to save her followers. When neither came on the appointed day, most of her followers, far from abandoning the cult, accepted their leader’s message that doom had been postponed and became even more fanatical. – See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1380507150/global-warming-alarmism-no-longer-scientifically-or-politically-sustainable,/blockquote>utm_source=homepage_puff&utm_medium=homepage_puff&utm_term=pufftest&utm_campaign=homepage_puff#sthash.hmCBAo7R.dpuf

    And McIntyre also has something to say
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

  37. #37 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Do you seriously think this was based on one measurement 54 years ago, and one yesterday?

    Well how many measurements were made at 2000m, yesterday and 54 years ago?
    And to what precision were those measurements made 54 years ago?

  38. #38 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    #34 is not an answer to the two questions at #33.

    Stop being evasive and answer the questions in bold at #33.

  39. #39 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    #35

    Answer your own questions about the methodology behind the OHC reconstruction by reading the reference. Go on. Stop being so insufferably bloody lazy.

    Levitus et al. (2012).

  40. #40 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    If you are seriously challenging the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you will need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal.

    2/ Do you have a paper in progress? In review? In press?

    Yes/No?

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    October 1, 2013

    Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.

    Here we go again. How many times has this been answered now?

    Why not go and “put her right”? Because I’ve been there, done that, and she continues to repeat the falsehoods even when it’s something as simply verified as what the IPCC said in a particular report, which is simply refuted by quoting them.

    Hence, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that Jo Nova’s purpose is to disseminate falsehoods. There’s no point trying to play in her moderated sandpit when she’s fundamentally dishonest about the subject.

  42. #42 Nick
    October 1, 2013

    #34, a link to an uninformed rant in a right wing rag, and Macintyre playing dumb. Wow. The usual suspects -a Tory MP who chairs an oil company, and a mining speculator- have objections. Wow.

  43. #43 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    Still waiting, Rednoise.

    Here’s another one for you:

    3/

    (a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

    (b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

    (c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

  44. #44 Joe
    October 1, 2013

    BBD, are you a climatologist? In case yes, in which subdiscipline?

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    October 1, 2013

    Peter Lilley? How much deeper does the barrel of b* the deniers scrape go? Rednoise just links to more musings from a right wingnut.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    RedNoise,

    Peter Lilley was one of the sophist regressives (along with right on fruitcake Piers Corbyn and Monkytoons) at the presentation given by Richard Lindzen in London early in 2012, reading there will help fill you in. You may not like it because it presents an alternative view to that presented by your ‘regressive (aka Tory) party press’ such as the Mail and Telegraph.

    Note that Lindzen by being cited by David Rose, along with Curry and Lomborg in a recent Mail article (see above posts) and that really tells you all you need to know about these obfuscating illusionist. For that is what they have become ‘illusionists’, not scientists.

    If that wasn’t enough Lindzen is now colluding with Morano at Climate Desperate.

    More on Lindzen’s London Capers here> and and here too.

    Lindzen has made a career out of being wrong thus Lilley has drawn from a polluted information stream one doubtlessly assisted in this case by the GWPF – Lawson’s bunch of repeatedly debunked opinion peace writers who know as much about climate as Melanie Phillips, another fruitcake who likes to pronounce above her wit and knowledge.

    And McIntyre – don’t get me started with that piece of work. All you have to do is look around here, at Deltoid, to see what a devious operator he is.

    As I remarked above, not only are you ignorant of climate science but also of the methods used to keep you that way.

  47. #47 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    # 42

    No, and I think you are probably Boris/Kai/Freddy/Berendwanker.

    This is a risk I know, but I have a feeling.

  48. #48 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    @#32 Jeff Harvey

    Hmmm. Starts off (#19) wittering about clouds – that’s “Boris”-like.

    Says: “In case yes” – that’s Mitteleuropeanish.

    I think you might be correct.

  49. #49 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    All note how Rednoise has vanished when asked a few direct questions.

    He will be asked again, if he reappears.

  50. #50 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Typically most Argo floats in our present database reach a maximum observed depth of 1970 m. Thus, theseprofiles only extend down to the 1750 m standard depth level of our analyses. Our temperature anomaly fields could be considered to be more representative of the
    0–1750 m layer of the

    To answer my own question earlier on the number of readings at 2000m:
    Yesterday, very few apparently.
    54 years ago even less.

    As to the precision of each reading 54 years ago:

    In the 1960s, more ships were out at sea: from Fisheries Laboratories, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now NOAA), and research institutions at Scripps (La Jolla, Calif.), Woods Hole (Massachusetts), Miami, and Texas A&M (in the Gulf of Mexico). The British sailed the new Discovery, the Germans the new Meteor, and there were small ships sailing from Denmark, Japan, and France. Many cruises were dedicated to the geophysics of the sea floor, where deep-ocean casts for water and temperatures were few and far between.

    Surface water samples were taken routinely, however, with buckets from the deck and the ship’s engine-water intake valve. Most of the thermometers were calibrated into 1/4-degrees Fahrenheit. They came from the U.S. Navy. Galvanized iron buckets were preferred, mainly because they lasted longer than the wood and canvas. But, they had the disadvantage of cooling quickly in the winds, so that the temperature readings needed to be taken quickly. I would guess that any bucket-temperature measurement that was closer to the actual temperature by better than 0.5° was an accident, or a good guess. But then, no one ever knew whether or not it was good or bad. Everyone always considered whatever reading was made to be precise, and they still do today. The archived data used by Levitus, and a plethora of other oceanographers, were taken by me, and a whole cadre of students, post-docs, and seagoing technicians around the world. Those of us who obtained the data, are not going to be snowed by the claims of the great precision of “historical data found stored in some musty archives.”

    Quoted by Dr R Stevenson in 2000

    Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. A member of the scientific advisory board of 21st Century, he is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.

    So the estimate is -/+ 0.5C from someone who witnessed the early measurements being taken

    -/+ 0.5C estimated error on the early infrequent readings used to determine a temperature rise of 0.09C

    Isn’t modern statistics wonderful.

  51. #51 rhwombat
    October 1, 2013

    Jeff@#32 & BBD@#46: I concur. I suspect he’s desperately trying to control his NPD, but it will slip. I’m not as sure about the mitteleuropean bit: from the Olaf sock that he pulled over his smelly digits at RC, I’m wondering if he’s a fully fledged (downed?) member of the Scandinavian Troll Collective (Breivik Brigade). Still, whack-a-troll passes the time, even if pushing doddering old Tory meme merchants like Rednoise off their commode chairs of crap probably contravenes several animal cruelty bylaws. Isn’t a Spam free thread pleasant?

  52. #52 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Neliol
    So you agree with the latest re presentation misrepresentation of the IPCC between their models and observations as shown by McIntyre

    If you cannot hit the barn door, make it bigger.

  53. #53 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    #50
    How long did you have to pose on those jugs for your mate to take the picture?

  54. #54 chek
    October 1, 2013

    Redarse @ #48

    Isn’t Aren’t modern statistics wonderful?.

    The interesting thing is that even – as the widely disseminated on denier blogs but with no original source quotes from Dr Stevenson would have us believe – if the pre-Argo data are discarded, the trend slope remains essentially the same.

    So the answer to your rhetorical question is ‘yes, they are’.

  55. #55 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    #48

    You have still not answered the three questions asked above.

    Will you stop fucking me around and do so, please.

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

    Yes/No?

    3/

    (a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

    (b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

    (c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

    You are scratching around desperately. It really makes no odds whether the depth profile is 1750m or 2000m.

    If it makes you happier, we can start in 1970. Here are the data with error bars. Please note that the decadal trend is larger than the margin of uncertainty for every decade in the series.

    You really are on a hiding to nothing here. Read Levitus and answer question (3). You cannot critique that which you do not understand and know *nothing* about. That’s just denialism and intellectual dishonesty. Get a fucking grip, please.

    And not one single more quote without a link to the source. Strikeout will follow if you do that again.

    Up your game. Stop being evasive. Answer the questions.

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

  56. #56 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    #49 RHW

    He could indeed be Scandi – or even Dutch. The only two things I am sure of is that English ain’t his mother tongue and that he’s barking mad. And I wholeheartedly agree – with sincere thanks to Tim Lambert here – a lunacy-free thread is a huge improvement. Whack-a-troll is one thing; having excrement flung at you by escapees from the locked ward is quite another…

  57. #57 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Shrek#52

    if the pre-Argo data are discarded

    ,

    Then we have just 10 years of data and about 1/5th the claimed OHC rise corresponding to a temperature change of about 0.001-0.002C.

    Should your claimed trend slope be increasing noticeably to account for all the swallowing up of the global warming for this time
    And this has been repeated so often on this blog, 10 years is too short a time to show a trend.:-)

  58. #58 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    # 55

    Stop fucking about, Rednoise.

    #53

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

  59. #59 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    And this has been repeated so often on this blog, 10 years is too short a time to show a trend.:-)

    Enough, you fucking dishonest trolling sack of shit. Read the fucking words at #53 before spewing out more lies. We can readily take the trend from 1970 and it makes no difference. Everything you are doing here is intellectually dishonest, right up to ignoring/skipping me every time I point out that you are being intellectually dishonest.

    I’m getting mighty fed up with your antics, scum, and not for the first time.

  60. #60 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

    Yes/No?

    3/

    (a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

    (b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

    (c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

  61. #61 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    1. Read #34
    2. What papers do you have in preparation
    3 Read #48
    4. Piss off with your demands.

  62. #62 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    spewing out more lies

    Has this been repeated on this blog or
    is 10 years long enough to show a trend?

  63. #63 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    We can readily take the trend from 1970 and it makes no difference

    But the ocean is suddenly swallowing up the global warming to account for the “HIATUS” in surface temperatures.

    Yet your trend is flattening just as the hiatus starts.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NODC_2000.png

  64. #64 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Anyway, lovely chatting but gotogo.

  65. #65 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    You can’t answer me you fucking worm. So best go, and best stay away. If you come back, we will start again.

  66. #66 chek
    October 1, 2013

    But the ocean is suddenly swallowing up the global warming to account for the “HIATUS” in surface temperatures.

    We know that’s the case from the collapse of the Arctic sea ice hitting two historic lows in 2007 and 2012, the same for the West Antarctic Peninsula and the ten warmest years on record are all .since 1998 – and all after your fake denier ‘hiatus’.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    Ho! Hum! That Jabberwocky (aka RedNoise) creature speaks again:

    …and the slithy tove
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe

    Down the Rabbit hole we go with,

    To answer my own question earlier on the number of readings at 2000m..

    You missed this bit Duffer:

    …however we have compared the
    OHC1750 and OHC2000 and find no difference between
    them. We hope to acquire additional deep ocean data from
    research cruises so we have opted to present results for the
    0–2000 m layer.

    Now what do you think OHC2000 is about?

    Now for that Stevenson quote, come on citation please – other than from one of the denier blog’s where it may be found although not at the Nova link I followed to a Global Warming disproved post.

    Somebody with selective quoting again, that is all we get from such as you.

    I noted how Craig Thomas was treated there too. Dismissed out of hand, for being late to the thread. If it is still open for comments WTF? I guess she recognised him as somebody dangerous to her Daily Prophet style of propaganda.

    BTW I thought that you said Nova was attractive. Hum! That photo’ in the masthead reminded me of that house elf that befriended Harry Potter, but then I guess when she works for The Ministry of Magic Climate what can one expect.

    And no I don’t agree with McIntyre whatever garbage he produced for he has not engaged in climate science – doing a bit of munging around with stat’s alone is not climate science. Drop over to Tamino’s if you don’t believe me, one who happens to be a true scientist with credible papers to his name.

    That is the problem for your sources – credibility which is for your pundits in a spiral of decline – self triggered at that.

  68. #68 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    Yet your trend is flattening just as the hiatus starts.

    Of course the scum is lying. Desperately now.

    So desperately that he links to data that directly contradict his lies. Perhaps he thinks we won’t notice! But we already know. We *know* that the full NODC 0 – 2000m data show no flattening trend.

    Perhaps the desperation is augmented by sheer bloody incompetence. As we have seen before, several times, Rednoise cannot read graphs.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    Anyway, lovely chatting but gotogo.

    As ever, the ‘roach comes in here, stirs the pot and then foxtrot oscars when it gets sticky! Back before long with more drive by drivel and evasion.

    Something of the cad about him,

    as someone once remarked about Admiral Sir David Beatty.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    Yep. BBD I looked at that graph too and thought WTF?

    And WTF was he on about with jugs and pictures @ #51

    I thought thought this one a right ‘roach fart:

    ‘Piss off with your demands.’

    Translation:

    ‘I haven’t a clue how to answer your questions so how dare you ask! I am now preparing to bugger off and sulk.’

  71. #71 Rednose
    October 1, 2013

    Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003. Look harder.
    Repeated questions to you.
    1. Is 10 years to short to show a trend
    2. Has this been repeated on this blog

    As to that Stephenson quote i thought that was well known and there was no need for a link

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

  72. #72 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    As to that Stephenson quote i thought that was well known and there was no need for a link

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

    Not one for consistency are you, Stephenson or Stevenson?

    Whatever, I did note that url in a google return and passed it over as being from a disinfo site.

    So. How old is that Stevenson article?
    In what journal was it peer reviewed?
    To which Levitus paper is Stevenson referring?
    What relevance is the mention of Prof. Hubert H. Lamb?

    I decided to go for the Nova at the bottom of that page, thinking that was your likely source, of google hits and was promptly sickened by the sycophantic nature of many of the comments.

    Now be a good chap and read Levitus and pay attention to earlier papers by Levitus and to those cited in Levitus 2012.

    As for break in blue line at 2003 – you must have a fault with your screen, no such break seen here.

  73. #73 Stu
    October 1, 2013

    Wait, you’re asking questions now? Have you figured out the difference between temperature and heat yet?

  74. #74 Stu
    October 1, 2013

    Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003

    Wait, slowdown in growth is now a “break”? No wonder you keep braying about a “hiatus”… you’re too fucking stupid to read a graph. And here I thought they were just kidding about that…

  75. #75 chek
    October 1, 2013

    It’s no surprise to learn that 21st Century Sci and Tech magazine is a larouchie mag of denial from the more far-flung reaches of crackpottery..

    It’s no surprise that Stevenson’s sea surface temperature collecting anecdotes has been twisted to apply to all the data including the deeper Nansen bottles and bathythermograph data. Which is to be expected of course, deniers being the inveterate liars they are.

    Stevenson’s conclusion:”For the past two decades [which would be 1980 - 2000] at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;” – is so ludicrously and well known to be wrong I’m not even linking to the graph that even denier’s dogs must know by now.

    I did a search to see if Levitus et al had responded, but I guess they don’t read (or get their ‘information’) from crank sources, no matter how ‘well known’ Redarse supposes they are.

  76. #76 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    Yack, yack, yack, Rednoise.

    But in amongst all the noise, there are no answers. What the fuck are you doing back here without answering the necessary questions?

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

    Yes/No?

    3/

    (a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

    (b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

    (c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

  77. #77 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003. Look harder.

    What are you on about, you buffoon? The blue line is the pentadental average (clue – READ LEVITUS YOU ARSE). The line you should be looking at is the three month running mean IN RED. That is the informative representation of the most recent TREND.

    It’s exactly like I said: you cannot understand and read graphs.

    So what in the name of Beelzebub are you doing commenting on a climate blog? Eh? Seriously? WTF do you think you are playing at, you fucking clown?

    * * *

    Stop wriggling with your evasion about 10 year trends. I am pointing you directly at data extending back to 1970, where we see a decadal slope that exceeds the margins of uncertainty for every decade since.

    Do you even understand what this means? I don’t think you do, actually. That’s why “discussing” climate data with you is like talking to the fucking cat.

  78. #78 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    chek & Lionel A

    Thank you for debunking the Stevenson crap. LaRouche. Well, well, well.

    That’s another 15 minutes of life I owe you. We will have to establish an exchange rate, eg 250ml of warm shandy per 15 minutes of existence lost to hunting down denialist bollocks.

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    October 1, 2013

    OMG, now Rednose is citing articles in the LaRouche rag!!!! Do these idiots have no shame? 21st Century S & T has to be about the most wretched source of information there is. Heck, it makes Nova’s blog and WUWT look good – and that’s saying a helluva lot.

    Its time to get Rednose booted out of here as well. He’s flunked with honors.

  80. #80 BBD
    October 1, 2013

    Let’s hold Rednoise down to one question. Arguably the only one that really matters as it establishes a line between the nutters and the rest of us:

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    Now watch the dishonest little shit wriggle…

  81. #81 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    When it comes to Steve (copped out on Marcott et. al. and many other things) McIntyre, the ever tireless Sou has it nailed: Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts fail climate modeling 101.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    October 1, 2013

    Serendipity and all, how you find unexpected stuff in other places, this is another blog I sometimes visit where I found an interesting and apposite link in this post to this item:

    What Is Ecological Scarcity?.

    Food for thought? Or not as the case may be.

  83. #83 Craig Thomas
    October 2, 2013

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/bbc-betrayed-values-carter-scorn-ipcc

    Comment is free

    The BBC betrayed its values by giving Professor Carter this climate platform

    How can letting a geologist appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the IPCC report be in the public interest?

  84. #84 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    The imbecile Tristrams screw it up again. A pattern is emerging.

  85. #85 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    Mind you, you don’t have to be a seasoned player of Games to understand what’s going on.

    Here is the Environment Secretary providing a brightly polished window into right-wing thinking on climate change here in the UK:

    Speaking on the fringes of the Tory party conference, Mr Paterson said that a major UN report into climate change published on Friday suggested the threat of global warming had been overstated and indicated his confidence that humans would be able to adapt to its consequences. “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,” he said.

    “Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas. I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase [in temperatures], half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two-and-a-half degrees.”

    Mr Paterson, who is in charge of “adaptation” – the process of preparing Britain for the effects of climate change, added: “I see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on. What it is saying is that it is something we can adapt to over time, and we are very good as a race at adapting.”

    And this is the Environment Secretary FFS. Looks like the GWPF has plenty of friends in high places.

  86. #86 Joe
    October 2, 2013

    Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, 80, of Princeville, Kauai, died at Wilcox Memorial Hospital in Hawaii on Sunday, Aug. 12, of cancer. He was born in Fullerton, Calif., on Jan. 15, 1921. He was a resident of Del Mar, Calif., from 1970-1999.

    Stevenson was a retired oceanographer and had served as the director of the branch Office of Naval Research (ONR) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in La Jolla, Calif., from 1970 to 1988. He received numerous awards during his career, including the Meritorious Civilian Service Award from the Department of the Navy, “for consistently maintaining a high level of scientific achievement while serving as Scientific Liaison Officer, ONR, SIO.”

    Stevenson was a World War II veteran, serving in the United States Army Air Corps. He was navigator of a B-17 and completed 29 missions in the European theatre. His unit, the 306th bomb group, flew first over Germany and flew two missions on D-Day. During the Korean War, he worked in Alaska on classified photo reconnaissance as a squadron commander.

    Stevenson received a Ph.D. degree in oceanography from the University of Southern California in 1954.

    Career Highlights:

    1953-59 Director of Inshore Research, Hancock Foundation, USC

    1959 Special Research Oceanographer, U.S. Office of Naval Research, London, England

    1961-63 Research Scientist in the Dept. of Oceanography and Director of the Marine Lab, Texas A&M University

    1963-65 Research Scientist, Oceanographic Institute, and Associate Professor, Depts. of Geology and Meteorology, Florida State University

    1965-70 Assistant Laboratory Director and Acting Laboratory Director, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biological Laboratory, Galveston, Tex.

    1970-85 Scientific Liaison Officer, Office of Naval Research, SIO, La Jolla

    1985-88 Scientific Liaison Officer and Deputy Director, Space Oceanography, ONR, SIO, La Jolla

    From his NASA-Gemini days in the 1960s to the present time, Stevenson served as an oceanographer consultant to many astronauts.

    Dr. Paul Scully-Power, director of Space Exploration for Australia, said, “Bob Stevenson was the Father of Space Oceanography. He instructed each and every one of them [the astronauts] in the greatest of all endeavours looking at Mother Earth and understanding what they saw, and recording that which was new. In this sense, he is singularly responsible for one of the greatest treasure troves of knowledge that we have today of the Earth.”

    In 1987 Stevenson was appointed the Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO) and served an eight-year term. In this position, he brought oceanographers from around the world together to share knowledge in support of oceanographic research. He organized and conducted two major International Scientific Oceanographic Assemblies as part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, in Vienna in 1991, and in Honolulu in 1995. In addition to working as Secretary General for IAPSO, Stevenson continued to work as a consultant to NASA instructing astronauts on earth observation from space.

    At the time of his death, he was writing an instructional CD-ROM on space oceanography for astronauts, co-authored with Scully-Power.

    Stevenson is survived by his wife, Jeani Stevenson of Princeville; and two sons, Robert K. Stevenson of Fullerton, Calif., and Michael G. Stevenson and his wife, Mary, of Alexandria, Va.; a granddaughter, Caprice; and numerous cousins.

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    October 2, 2013

    This illustration sums up pretty well why its easy to convince the general lay public that climate change is not an important issue:

    http://www.medialens.org/images/stories/climate_change_graphic.jpg

  88. #88 Joe
    October 2, 2013

    Deniers simply dominate because they are closer to the truth than alarmists. That’s logical.

  89. #89 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    #84

    He was an old man stuck in denial. Remember, he wrote that article in 2000, years into retirement. Here is his explicit rejection of the science:

    By their desire to enhance their lives, human beings were increasing, untenably, the CO2 content of the Earth’s “greenhouse.” I was frankly surprised by this claim, and believed it not one whit.

    Who gives a stuff what he “believed”? Radiative transfer determines the surface warming. Surface warming modulates the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer. That modulates the rate of ocean cooling.

    Here, he demonstrates that he is simply unaware of the primary mechanism driving vertical transport of warm water to depth (emphasis as original):

    So, it is not surprising that those modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

    It does not happen!

    The increase in subtropical wind speed spins up the subtropical gyres and drives huge volumes of warm surface water down below the 700m layer. Hence the enhanced mixing at depth over the recent period.

    He was out of touch. So there’s exactly zero point in quoting him.

  90. #90 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    See above, “Joe”. You are grossly delusional.

  91. #91 Rednose
    October 2, 2013

    The increase in subtropical wind speed

    Link please

  92. #92 Mack
    October 2, 2013

    Now who should I believe about the oceans and their heat circulation….A man who has spent almost his entire life as an oceanographer studying this, or this pommie commie AGW brainwashed fuckwit BBD whose sole purpose in life is to sit on a blogsite and just abuse the crap out of everybody. It’s a toughie..

  93. #93 Wow
    October 2, 2013

    You should fucking find out yourself, you moronic pissant.

  94. #94 chek
    October 2, 2013

    Are we seeing deniers trying on the old argument from authority schtick?

    In which case I’ll see your retired and dead right wing crank and raise you by AR5 with hundreds of currently working world-leading scientists.

    Sightly different to your one-dimensional framing, eh Mackspot?

  95. #95 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    #89

    You need to answer a question before you go asking any:

    1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

    Yes/No?

    * * *

    Link please

    For a literature review see AR5 WG1 Ch 3 3.6 Changes in ocean circulation

  96. #96 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    Mack

    Now who should I believe about the oceans and their heat circulation….A man who has spent almost his entire life as an oceanographer studying this

    He was wrong and out of date and in denial. I don’t give a fuck who you believe, but the *facts* are set out above.

  97. #97 BBD
    October 2, 2013

    Presumably the “Karen” sock has finally been banned, so Sunspot now manifests as “Mack”.

  98. #98 Rednose
    October 2, 2013

    Not sure where the evidence showing “increases in subtropical wind speeds” is in that lot but came across this, which reinforces my question earlier concerning
    “How many temperature measurements made at 2000m in the 60s and 70s.
    Answer: Not a lot.
    remember this IPCC 5

    Early measurements of temperature were made using reversing thermometers and Nansen bottles that were
    lowered from ships on station (not moving). Starting in the 1960s conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD)
    instruments with Niskin bottles gradually gained dominance for high-quality data and deep data collected on
    station during oceanographic cruises. From at least 1950 through circa 1970, most subsurface measurements
    of ocean temperature were made with mechanical bathythermographs, an advance because these instruments
    could be deployed from a moving ship, albeit a slowly moving one, but these casts were generally limited to
    depths shallower than 250 m. Expendable bathythermographs (XBTs) that could be deployed from a rapidly
    moving ship and sampled to 400 m came into widespread use in the late 1960s, and those that sampled to
    700 m became predominant in the 1990s, greatly expanding oceanographic sampling,

    Kinda reinforces what old delushioned Stevenson was muttering on about earlier.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    October 2, 2013

    Mack #90

    Alfred Wegener, a much admired, and rightly so, geophysicist proposed a theory of continental drift which was fundamentally flawed. However, out of that and later in the 20th Century, the science of plate tectonics which is now recognised as more closely encompassing all know data became the accepted theory, theory in the scientific and not populist sense.

    The message is, things move on, the science of climate change being no different. Case in point is the research and papers of HH Lamb, a justifiably renowned climatologist but who’s research remit encompassed a limited data set applicable to the mooted MWP in England only. This is why he is cited so often by those who cannot, or will not, grasp the bigger picture. Possibly because of contaminated information feed from the Idsos, Sallie Baliunas and also Willie Wei-Hock Soon.

    Much of what Stevenson wrote has a grain of truth but in hindsight it is rather like the ‘curate’s egg’.

  100. #100 Rednose
    October 2, 2013

    Should be “delusioned” Lol

Current ye@r *