September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @98 shup up, you copy paste idiot so far away from science.

    You are no scientist, therefore your crap is irrelevant.

    Piss off you fuckwit from this blog as your crap is worthless

  2. #2 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    you tell em Berendaneke :)

  3. #3 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @BBD, you belong to the uemployed poor and compensate here your leper existence. piss off, fuckwit

  4. #4 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Karen “Fluffy” Sock

    At least I know the difference between the Eemian and the GIS, you silly goose, you!

  5. #5 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘So the CET is clearly a highly accurate reconstruction that represents the entire globe. Who could deny that?’

    Noice attempt at humour.

    No, the CET is just regional warming and cooling in a very small area, going back a long way, yet an imperfect reconstruction because of the reasons given.

    So in many respects its valueless and should never be taken too seriously.

  6. #6 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Freddy “The Sausage” Kai

    But you did rather make a quivering heap of arse-meat out of yourself over the “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR” hilarity the other day!

    Surely you aren’t trying to *deny* that!

    Who’s a frotting, frothing, know-nothing lunatic then?

    :-)

  7. #7 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    #6 Gordy

    You… you aren’t admitting having learned something here are you?

    Or is this a Poe?

  8. #8 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR”

    correct

  9. #9 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #100 abusive little Emoticon Kid! He swings between babbling unjustified gloating and to towering rage! And he’s pretending to be a scientist,is he?

  10. #10 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @8 oh the clown again, more crap please, you show so wonderfully how stupid the alarmists are. More crap please, clown

  11. #11 chek
    September 10, 2013

    Gordon @ #4

    So in many respects its valueless and should never be taken too seriously.

    You do realise you’ve just committed denier heresy and denied the cornerstone of the MWP myth? I suspect you don’t, but I like surprises.

  12. #12 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #9, you brought the crap,Emoticon Kid–I just read you witterings back up thread–you really know how to present an argument,don’t you? That’s actually a question:do you know how to do so,you fake?

    #93,no idea,question is best asked on a pet care blog,I guess.

  13. #13 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    UAH V5.6 Global Temperature Update for August, 2013: +0.16 deg. C

    point one six :)

    brrrrrrr, turn on the heater

  14. #14 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    zero point one six

    lol………….co2 izn doin its job too goodly :)

  15. #15 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @11 clown, please more crap, moron

  16. #16 chek
    September 10, 2013

    lol………….co2 izn doin its job too goodly

    Or more likely yet, you haven’t a fucking clue what you’re talking about ( a ‘+’ sign means ‘not cooling’) or the faintest clue about cumulative effects.

  17. #17 chek
    September 10, 2013

    Duh Spamkan a ‘+’ sign means it’s getting wamer, not cooling.

  18. #18 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #14…well that’s not much of a start, is it, ‘Moty Boy. Got anything to offer,you snivelling neo-lib suck-hole pretend scientist? Anything more than ‘everyone’s deluded ‘cept me,and my pal Tony will make climate change disappear by defunding the CC’ Yep,strong stuff. Well argued….

  19. #19 adelady
    September 10, 2013

    I think some of these people must have horrible car repair bills. Waddya mean that noise sounds like trouble? If I take it to a garage those clowns will just tell me it’s something that costs a lot of money. My mate reckons it’s just one of those one week wonders, it’ll all settle back just nicely if you give it a bit of time.

    And then the persistent rattle does something truly devastating and you find yourself needing a new transmission or a whole cooling system or a new engine block – all because you couldn’t believe those blokes at the garage and your mate, who’s always reliable, reassured you all was OK. And now it’s costing you thousands rather than hundreds of dollars. Mates who agree with you on everything are not the best people to rely on when something looks to be wrong to everyone else around you.

    Substitute climate for car, then flood or drought or wildfire for transmission or engine block, and it all sounds too boringly familiar.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    September 10, 2013

    And no, they don’t “seek” heat.

    Indeed they don’t. Not much heat coming from a hand held 3 volt NATO standard torch (flash-light to some) which is precisely what we used for testing the target acquisition capabilities of Firestreak and Red Top IR (big clue there for the scientific illiterates here) missiles on Sea Vixen aircraft.

  21. #21 Lionel A
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD [Eddy, 1976]).’

    Not to mention the episodes of plague that swept over much of the agriculturally active northern hemisphere resulting in a slow down in the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and an increased draw-down of CO2 as forests made a come back. Ruddiman 2010 ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate‘.

    Now el gordolocks might like to ponder on why those plagues were so fierce. This book The Dreadful Judgement may also give you clues and give you something to ponder WRT the LIA also.

  22. #22 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Karen

    I say: “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR” and you responded (#7):

    correct

    Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!

    The mechanism by which the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is destabilised isn’t surface melting!

    As we know, but you obviously don’t, it is *subsurface* melting by advected warm water which causes embayed ice shelf collapse which in turn speeds the outflow rate of major glaciers draining the ice sheet. At the same time, seawater begins to penetrate further beneath the edge of the WAIS, which is a marine ice sheet, meaning that it is grounded below sea level. What’s more, it has a retrograde grounding slope (google it) and is therefore highly unstable. This is presumably why the WAIS has collapsed many times in the past (the last time around was the Eemian interglacial when it was the major contributor to at least 5m increase in mean sea level).

    You clearly know absolutely nothing at all about this topic! Worse still, this comment was posted on page 1 of this thread so you have almost certainly read it, which makes you a dishonest fuckwit!

  23. #23 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Lionel A

    Still no sign of Ruddiman’s latest book, at least not on Amazon – any luck elsewhere?

    * * *

    It was predictable, but still amusing, to see the Clowns trot out a reference neither of them had read, never mind tried to understand. I wonder which denier chum-ladler fed them Miller et al. ?

    Did you notice how neither Clown reacted to my initial point here, which is that Miller et al. is simply another study demonstrating that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation?

    The sheer depth of incomprehension never ceases to amaze me. The only thing still more astonishing is that this abysmal ignorance is coupled with such absolute certainty that they are right and the standard scientific understanding is wrong.

  24. #24 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    BBD, the master of incomprehension requires comprehension from others! Poor clown without scientific background, no education in meteorology. You are fuckwitted, clown!

    Examination of your ignorance: how many stations are covered in the GHCN database? Answer required, clown!

  25. #25 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @17 too cheap crap, do better next time

    Tony will let you suck, clown

  26. #26 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    #23 Sausage

    Depends what you want to know. What a pointless and stupid question.

    What we *all* know is that you cannot read a graph and cannot understand that strong agreement between results obtained by two different instrument types and two separate methodologies means increased confidence in those results, and that you know exactly nothing about ice sheet dynamics, sea level rise projections and paleoclimate.

    Or indeed, anything else. In summary, you are an ignorant fuckwit!

    And a nutter, and a sock!

  27. #27 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Sausage

    Now you remind me, you still haven’t answered this question:

    If CO2 is an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism produced the PETM?

    Answer required, or it’s the barbecue for you!

  28. #28 Berendaneke
    September 10, 2013

    @25, 26 clown

    your answer is crap, you know nothing, what an ill informed reply. “… depending on what …”, bullshit, clown, the answer is not depending on anything but your ignoramus wisfom, clown.

    I don’t believe in any paleodata coz of AGW cherrypicking “scientists”. MTOY or whatever did not exist, has nothing to do with CO2, and any climate changes were always natural variability, you leper sucker.

  29. #29 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Further proof that you literally cannot read a graph. The answer to your question will depend on whether you are asking about North America, where the vast majority of the GHCN stations are (obviously), or about the global coverage. It will depend on whether you are asking about daily or monthly reporting, about Tmin/Tmax or precipitation, or specifically snowfall/snow depth.

    Get a clue, fuckwit.

    I don’t believe in any paleodata

    Bit of a glaring argument from incredulity there, Sausage! Logical fallacy means Sausage isn’t saying anything, just making the usual shrieking sounds!

    What a ridiculous figure you are!

  30. #30 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    When our insane shrieking Sausage is asked this:

    If CO2 is an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism produced the PETM?

    It screams:

    MTOY or whatever did not exist, has nothing to do with CO2

    There it is: a completely clueless, truly insane denier.

    What a great advert for your team you are, Sausage! They should put your carious, spittle-flecked mouth on a poster!

  31. #31 Lionel A
    September 10, 2013

    BBD

    Lionel A

    Still no sign of Ruddiman’s latest book, at least not on Amazon – any luck elsewhere?

    According to John Mashey here it is due out next fall, whether that is about now or next year I am not sure. Although in my copy of Ruddiman’s ‘Earth’s Climate: Past and Future’ there is the enigmatic dedication ‘To Ginger, for surviving another one‘. I wonder…?

  32. #32 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Earth Transformed is supposedly due for release now…

    Ginger best be tough – 3rd edition of Earth’s Climate P&F due out in December!

  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    September 10, 2013

    Stu 2,

    Your response is rubbish. If McIntyre, Nova, or Watts were, IMHO, honest brokers, they’d take their ‘science’ to a broader arena. Blogs are not peer-reviewed or scrutinized in any way. Like other sources of (dis)information, anything can be written up on the internet. Its is deregulated by design. That means a lot of good stuff ends up on here, but a lot of utter drivel as well. There’s a reason that climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists – indeed, many who downplay a variety of human-mediated threats to the biosphere – are typically relegated to blogs. Its because most of their science is shit. Pure and simple. It wouldn’t – indeed doesn’t – withstand scrutiny amongst the leading experts in the field. But on blogs they can say whatever the hell they like. They can deny, deny, deny and spew out bilge in buckets.

    A lot of the people you say have ‘chosen’ alternative routes to academia have not actually ‘chosen’ this route, as far as I am concerned. They are cranks and have been booted out (or never made it into) academia. Even amongst those few that have made it nominally in, their publication records are often very poor. And the fact that many of them openly align themselves with corporate front groups or right wing think tanks is further evidence of their clear bias and they are nothing more than advocates.

    Try harder, Stu 2. What don’t like about people like you is you appear to camouflage their political affiliations with a thin veneer of science, but when push comes to shove, you come out with nonsense like that in your response to a post I made earlier.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    September 10, 2013

    I have just spotted this over at Climate Progress New Study: Climate Change To Help Spread West Nile Virus-Carrying Mosquitos which is something I was only reading about this morning whilst waiting to see the doc. I was into ‘What Has Nature Ever Done for US?’ by Tony Juniper (highly recommended) where on pages 136-138 he discusses how dilution of species, i.e. fewer distinct animal species in an area can result in human infections from such diseases as West Nile and Lyme becoming more prevalent. The law of unintended consequences kicks in again as it does with destruction of ‘cloud forests’. Those who have missed the importance of these latter go look it up.

    Could the UK badger cull have an effect here, I wonder? This as the incidence of Lyme disease, tick borne, is increasing in Southern England and the New Forest. Ticks are something we got used to looking out for in Scotland, another deer countryside, indeed two of our party discovered ticks on theme, fortunately before they drew blood. There is a special tick remover, like a fine pair of pincers, available so best to have one handy if in such terrain.

  35. #35 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Or is this a Poe?’

    No, the fact that they kept the early thermometers in house means the data was corrupted.

  36. #36 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘You do realise you’ve just committed denier heresy and denied the cornerstone of the MWP myth?’

    We don’t need the CET to confirm the MWP and LIA.

  37. #37 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Not to mention the episodes of plague that swept over much of the agriculturally active northern hemisphere resulting in a slow down in the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and an increased draw-down of CO2 as forests made a come back.’

    This is unacceptable, Lionel.

  38. #38 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    #35

    Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA” means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained – with references and relevant quotation – several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

    #36

    Why unacceptable? Just because you haven’t got a fucking clue what the Ruddiman Hypothesis is doesn’t make it “unacceptable”. You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as usual. Twin logical fallacies.

  39. #39 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained – with references and relevant quotation – several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

    #36

    Why unacceptable? Just because you haven’t got a fucking clue what the Ruddiman Hypothesis is doesn’t make it “unacceptable”. You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as usual. Twin logical fallacies.

  40. #40 chek
    September 10, 2013

    Gordon, you do know that if not for the Lamb graph in FAR, none of you self-appointed experts would have heard of the MWP?

  41. #41 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘f McIntyre, Nova, or Watts were, IMHO, honest brokers, they’d take their ‘science’ to a broader arena. Blogs are not peer-reviewed or scrutinized in any way.’

    Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy, unlike peer reviewed AGW which has had a profound influence on political thinking.

  42. #42 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    Alright, so what about the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period? They were clearly warmer than the MWP.

  43. #43 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy

    Bollocks. Wegman used M&M’s junk science to lie to policy makers. Get a fucking clue. This is actually serious.

  44. #44 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    # 41

    Really? You have evidence for a global and synchronous RWP and MiWP?

    Let’s see it. All I hear is argument from assertion, and from ignorance. Twin logical fallacies.

    Back your shit up, or withdraw it. I’m getting very tired of your antics, Gordy.

  45. #45 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    Post Normal Science has had no influence on Australian policy development, although obviously the new PM must have been talking to someone of a contrarian nature when he told school children that the world was a warmer place ”at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth”.

  46. #46 Luke
    September 10, 2013

    “who downplay a variety of human-mediated threats to the biosphere ” you’re just a cossetted academic wanker Jeff. Like putting bogus GCM recent into shitty eco/extinction models. The real world doesn’t run like your luxury little university. “oooo it’s the end of the world”. Fuck off Jeff.

    “Oh those wascals – it just isn’t cricket – they wouldn’t play by the Queensbury rules”. “ooooo oooo Martha the rapscallions”

    Jeff – McIntyre has SHREDDED vast amount of shonky practice. The establishment hates him. Fuck the rules. And fuck your shitty closeted science cabal. GET OVER IT and do better or be eaten alive by the hordes.

    If you’re that wussy weak that you can’t do a few rounds at Nova’s without pissing your pants and assuming the foetal position that’s your problem. Don’t go over there guys – they’ll rip your balls off and feed them to their dogs.

    Agree Watts is a shit hole and wouldn’t waste any time on it. The whole site needs to be nuked from space.

    The trouble with you Jeff is that your mates are aligned with too many left green front groups with massive amounts of lobbyist funding. How can YOU be trusted. Fucking watermelons.

  47. #47 Luke
    September 10, 2013

    OK El Gordo – I gave you and answer on your ENSO, STR, SAM thingy – so wassup?

  48. #48 chek
    September 10, 2013

    Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy

    Oh you innocent child Gordon. Do you seriously think that armies of intellectually corrupted morons and numpties being groomed by fakes and demagogues is just some unforeseen by-product of t’internet and not the product of someone spending hard cash to achieve a political end?

    Look at your own fantasy beliefs – on life-support only within your own bubble. There’s nothing there that withstands critical examination.

  49. #49 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    BB do you accept Marcott et al?

    “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.”

  50. #50 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘I gave you and answer on your ENSO, STR, SAM thingy – so wassup?’

    I need to know in layman’s language what is happening to our weather and a couple of simple pars will be more than adequate.

  51. #51 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Luke

    Don’t go over there guys – they’ll rip your balls off and feed them to their dogs.

    They are as stupid and mad as you are, and many are worse. As well as tediously repetitive you are a hypocrite. You repeatedly raised a bogus argument about computational replicability but never went over to Stoat’s to argue your bollocks with the experts. So fuck off with your crap about Nova. She’s a shill, you are twat and that’s the end of it.

  52. #52 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    #48

    Why should I not? Since I’m not a shill or an idiot, I didn’t have any problems with M13.

  53. #53 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Gordy

    Will you please answer my question.

    Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained – with references and relevant quotation – several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

  54. #54 Craig Thomas
    September 10, 2013

    el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Climate change is forced.’

    No, AGW is supposedly forced.

    Oh dear, not content with failing to progress, it appears El Gordo is actually going backwards in his understanding.

    Here is a simple explanation of what we mean by, “climate forcing”:

    A climate forcing can be defined as an imposed perturbation of Earth’s energy balance. Energy flows in from the sun, much of it in the visible wavelengths, and back out again as long-wave infrared (heat) radiation.

    An increase in the luminosity of the sun, for example, is a positive forcing that tends to make Earth warmer.
    A very large volcanic eruption, on the other hand, can increase the aerosols (fine particles) in the lower stratosphere (altitudes of 10–15 miles) that reflect sunlight to space and thus reduce the solar energy delivered to Earth’s surface.

    These examples are natural forcings.

    Human-made forcings result from, for example, the gases and aerosols produced by fossil fuel burning, and alterations of Earth’s surface from various changes in land use, such as the conversion of forests into agricultural land. Those gases that absorb infrared radiation, i.e., the “greenhouse” gases, tend to prevent this heat radiation from escaping to space, leading eventually to a warming of Earth’s surface.

    The observations of human-induced forcings underlie the current concerns about climate change.

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=6

    Hopefully El Gordo can now understand why his previous post was meaningless?

  55. #55 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means?’

    Its not universal? But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

  56. #56 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #48 It’s extraordinary Marcott dismays science rejectors! No one could have anticipated that.!! For instance,at #27, Emoticon Boy “reject[s] all palaeodata” based on the rigor of his untreated paranoia,his Liberal Party donor status, and his demonstrated and comprehensive ignorance of the field. Pretty much identical to #45s deluded ranting.

  57. #57 Craig Thomas
    September 10, 2013

    Karen
    September 10, 2013

    “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR”

    correct

    They positively revel in rolling in ignorance the way a dog will roll in shit, don’t they?

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html

    The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

  58. #58 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #55 “Roman harbors that are now dry” and Roman harbor infrastructures that are under water…isn’t the world baffling?

  59. #59 Luke
    September 10, 2013

    BBD – Stoat isn’t a climate scientist and has very little in the peer reviewed literature – a secondary authorship perhaps? So I used your rules. I preferred the PEER REVIEWED paper. Don’t over to Novas you chicken. You’re simply not up to it.

    BBD – by now it’s apparent that you’re hiding here as you wouldn’t make it over on Novas – I dare you to go over and rage war.

    Chooky chooky chooky …. squark !

  60. #60 Craig Thomas
    September 10, 2013

    el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means?’

    Its not universal? But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

    Here’s the thing, El Gordo – Are there Roman Harbours that are “high and dry”?
    Ask yourself – where do you get that information from?
    Be sceptical – Find the primary research, ensure your understanding has a sound basis in observation and science.

    So – at the conclusion of your personal study of reliable primary sources, do you find that sea levels in Roman times were higher than today’s?

  61. #61 el gordo
    September 10, 2013

    ‘Roman harbor infrastructures that are under water…’

    Link?

  62. #62 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #59, they have not the faintest whiff of an overview of the state of study of SLR or the cryosphere past and present,and fully intend to maintain that purity of mind….

  63. #63 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Gordy

    But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

    And as usual, you are completely wrong. Much apparent or *relative* sea level change is regional because it is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land relative to the sea. Is there anything that you *do* know anything about?

    Now dig out your examples and do some background – bet you they are the result of local geology on the move… But you can do the work, Gordy, because I’m fed up with debunking your crap.

  64. #64 Nick
    September 10, 2013

    #60, you are sitting in front of a computer,no? Honestly, how hard is it, maintaining your act?

  65. #65 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Luke

    I preferred the PEER REVIEWED paper.

    Which you failed to understand or indeed probably even read. Why not get your mouthy little self over to Stoat and read the comments there by people who actually understand this issue? Then you might – eventually – come to recognise that this is a deliberate denier confusion of no relevance as a critique of model performance generally.

    Fuck but you are clueless for such a bigmouth, Luke!

    Now piss off and get a clue – fourth time of asking.

  66. #66 BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Why is it that fuckwits like Luke, who know little and understand less, are so prone to the Galileo delusion? Not to mention paranoia and grandiose fantasies wherein they are credentialled experts with hot links into the modelling community – not to mention personal riches and a portfolio of mining shares… And to cap it all, this prat repeatedly describes *others* as Walter Mitty types! Self-awareness is just not there, is it, Luke?!

    * * *

    All together now: it’s always projection!

  67. #67 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    #18 adelady
    “Substitute climate for car, then flood or drought or wildfire for transmission or engine block, and it all sounds too boringly familiar.”

    Most of the new cars have climate control sweety :)

  68. #68 Karen
    September 10, 2013

    #21 BBD
    “I say: “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR” and you responded (#7):

    correct

    Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!

    The mechanism by which the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is destabilised isn’t surface melting!”

    I was correct bbd, so your statement “Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!” applies to yourself, so get your hand off it!

    As for the theory…..

    “As we know, but you obviously don’t, it is *subsurface* melting by advected warm water which causes embayed ice shelf collapse which in turn speeds the outflow rate of major glaciers draining the ice sheet”

    Yes I have read that meme before and I am aware that there must be some sort of boogy man scare story for the non melting Antarctic….lol

    So why not hide the boogy man under the ice, I mean alarmists would believe it, those suckers are still trying to tell us that co2 is going to melt the planet :)

    one day, trooolie wooolie :)

  69. #69 chek
    September 10, 2013

    Yes I have read that meme before and I am aware that there must be some sort of boogy man scare story for the non melting Antarctic….lol

    lol yourself, fuckwit

    In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of 26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.

  70. #70 Luke
    September 10, 2013

    BBD – pissing his pants- too scared to go over to Novas – prefers to live on leper island screaming authority. I say fuck the authority. Earn it and answer the questions you grubby little fucker.

    Chooky chooky chooky

    (and remember Luke’s axiom – first person to mention Galileo, Feynman or Dunning-Kruger loses)

    Mining shares – says fucking BBD – the hypocrite sitting at a computer full of rare earths probably mined in some Mongolian shithole in 4th world conditions and you’d like to lecture about first world mining practice. Fuck off you hypocritical watermelon cunt.

  71. #71 chek
    September 10, 2013

    What a bitter creep you are The Lukes.

    Shilling for yet another of Heartland’s ex-(long, long ago)minor TV poppet heads trying to drum up click-thru to some shit-swamp ghetto where they rail against a reality they neither comprehend nor understand. Fucking authority like only adolescent regressed geriatric nihilists can.

  72. #72 adelady
    September 10, 2013

    Well, this explains a lot even if it’s a bit depressing.

    From the abstract,

    Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence?
    ….. and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science.
    … polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased.
    … predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. …

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

  73. #73 Stu 2
    September 11, 2013

    Lotharsson and Jeff Harvey,
    In no way was I attempting to elevate one type of scientist or intelligent person over another. I don’t think that any one branch of science or any area of research can claim it holds the crown of knowledge or it is where all magic answers will come from.
    I was actually criticising you for claiming something like that.
    You both did it again as Luke rather crudely highlights.
    Your left wing/ right wing/ think tank/ libertarianism/ capitalism comments just confirm that this has turned into an advocacy blog.
    As I previously said, judging scientists by your criteria means that a lot of very intelligent and very clever people would get locked out of any contribution.
    And Jeff Harvey, you are highly critical of what you call “right wing libertarianism”. I have seen you throw that out a few times. That is just petty name calling and politicking like calling people “deniers”. I could easily claim that you must therefore be a “left wing authoritarian” which proves absolutely nothing about the weather, the climate or the environment. Neither does it indicate who cares about what is happening politically or environmentally.

  74. #75 Craig Thomas
    September 11, 2013

    BBD
    September 10, 2013

    Gordy

    But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

    And as usual, you are completely wrong.

    Let’s give El Gordo a headstart – sea level rise since 2000 years ago has averaged 0.65mm/decade.
    Since the start of the industrial revolution, sea level rise has averaged 1.6mm/year.
    Since 1980, sea level rise has averaged 3.2mm/year.

    See a pattern there, El Gordo?

  75. #76 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘See a pattern there, El Gordo?’

    The Roman Warm Period was coming to a close and SLR had slowed.

    The Modern Climate Optimum only peaked in 2000 so it may take a few more years to see much of a slowdown in SLR.

  76. #77 Craig Thomas
    September 11, 2013

    I’m not sure what this “Roman Warm Period” is that you refer to, El Gordo – sure you haven’t swallowed something you should have been more sceptical of?

    I’m not sure what the rest of what you wrote is all about – would you have any link to any science that describes what you mean?

    In the meantime, the following graphic seems to show where sea level was at by ROman times:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

  77. #78 Craig Thomas
    September 11, 2013

    There doesn’t appear to have been any peak in sea levels around the time El Gordo mentions:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/fig_hist_2.jpg

    What has made him imagine there was?

  78. #79 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #74 example of the tedious tit-for-tat of these much- diminished human beings…article features Sen. George Brandis saying that Bracks had no “obvious qualifications for the job”. I expect that Brandis will therefore reject any such post-politics role for the same reason…it has to be asked what are the ‘obvious qualifications for the job’ of any of the minor lawyers/deadbeat businesspeople/party flunkies holding portfolios? Nothing these people say is of any worth, but their seeking and possession of power is frightening.

  79. #80 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #76…two simply wrong claims.

    The ‘Modern Climate Optimum peaking in 2000′ is feebly provocative wishfulness.

    SL was drifting downwards from Mid-Holocene highstands 6 to 8000 y back,to about 2 to 3000 y, stabilised then has risen dramitically recently. Plenty of SLR recons have detected this shape in the record. RWP and MWP regional climate bumps do not perturb the SLR record much if at all. Nothing like what we see now. Any shuffling about of a Roman harbor here or there is local geological factors: the sinking Nile Delta has put whole Roman harbor zones well under water, the silting of estuaries in an area subject to post-glacial rebound has pushed former waterside villages inland in the UK,EL G

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy,…

    Bullshit.

    It has an obvious influence on the political discourse, which in turn has an influence on who is elected (see: Australia, 2013), which in turn has an influence on policy.

    You’re really not thinking, el gordo. But then your posts aren’t about trying to understand reality, are they?

  81. #82 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    Chooky chooky chooky …. squark !

    Says the guy who daren’t answer any of a host of questions he’s been asked here, and doesn’t take his questions about models to a forum with actual modelling expertise, and so forth.

    Is he too stupid to understand that we’ll notice this and hence respond with all together now: … or so hubristic that he thinks he’ll pull the wool over our eyes?

  82. #83 adelady
    September 11, 2013

    There doesn’t appear to have been any peak in sea levels around the time El Gordo mentions:

    For a really interesting take on sea levels, check out this talk by Jerry Mitrovica. There are three main features (from my perspective).
    1. He states that his interest in pursuing these lines of enquiry was provoked by the most frequent SLR questions and statements by sceptics / deniers. So they should be interested.
    2. The Roman fish tanks – start around 2.00 – a really fascinating combination of apparently unimportant archaeology with earth science.
    3. The uneven SLR (and falling sea levels) caused by ice sheet melting. From about 12.00 onwards.

  83. #84 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @80 clown from leper island: wring dirt, all unsubstantiated speculation, leper sucker

    SL was drifting downwards from Mid-Holocene highstands 6 to 8000 y back,to about 2 to 3000 y, stabilised then has risen dramitically recently. Plenty of SLR recons have detected this shape in the record. RWP and MWP regional climate bumps do not perturb the SLR record much if at all. Nothing like what we see now. Any shuffling about of a Roman harbor here or there is local geological factors: the sinking Nile Delta has put whole Roman harbor zones well under water, the silting of estuaries in an area subject to post-glacial rebound has pushed former waterside villages inland in the UK,EL G

    piss off, clown

  84. #85 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    adelady troll: “unimportant archaeology”

    Is archaeology for you “unimportant” if unrelated to CO2???

    Answer required, fuckwit!

  85. #86 adelady
    September 11, 2013

    Answer? I said “apparently unimportant” because – if you were to watch the talk – Jerry says that’s what he was told. There are lots of these things and none of them is protected.

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    Your left wing/ right wing/ think tank/ libertarianism/ capitalism comments just confirm that this has turned into an advocacy blog.

    Huh? What’s an “advocacy blog”? Is it any blog where anyone mentions anything with a hint of political perspective? If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim’s posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. And the fact that politics underlies many attacks on climate science is rather pertinent.

    And secondly, that observation does not mean that science isn’t discussed here. You seem to be indulging in binary thinking – a blog is either one thing or the other, and never the twain shall meet – or perhaps you want to pretend the scientific discussion didn’t happen or isn’t valid if there’s anything you can label “advocacy”.

    That’s not very smart.

  87. #88 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #84,your ignorance is noted Emoti-boy. “Unsubstantiated speculation”, you poor dumb redneck? You “reject all palaeo-evidence” as a matter of dogma, which is not good for knowing its content, you know-nothing fraud.

  88. #89 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    In no way was I attempting to elevate one type of scientist or intelligent person over another.

    I didn’t claim you were doing that. (Start with this: your claim is impressively universalised, a universalisation that I took pains not to engage in. Continue with this: I took care to separate the validity of the claims from the credentials or lack of credentials of the claimant. You did not, for reasons that are becoming obvious.)

    I don’t think that any one branch of science or any area of research can claim it holds the crown of knowledge or it is where all magic answers will come from.

    Another red herring, at least as far as what I wrote. And also very sloppy thinking, again due to inappropriate universalisation.

    If we’re talking about a specific field of inquiry, then the appropriate branch of science for that set of inquiries is where the best understanding will be found. No-one is generalising it to say one branch of science has “all the answers” for every field of inquiry (except you and your strawman).

    But we are rejecting your (implied?) claim that knowledge from outside the scientific process is likely to be better or add to the understanding. The scientific process is clearly a far better method for figuring out what’s what for scientific questions than paying attention to various and sundry claims made outside of that process and hoping one of them is valid.

    I was actually criticising you for claiming something like that.

    Then you need to go and re-read what I claimed because I claimed nothing of the sort. The specific qualifications I used and distinctions I made matter. You can’t just strip them out and pretend I never made them and be expected to be taken seriously.

    You both did it again as Luke rather crudely highlights.

    Er, no, I’m pretty sure you are incorrect on that front too, at least as far as what I wrote. You’ll have to do much better than “you did so” and “Luke says so” (especially since Luke is frequently wrong when relaying what other people say). How about providing an accurate quote with appropriate context that supports your claim?

    That is just petty name calling and politicking like calling people “deniers”.

    That’s really sloppy thinking. Calling people “deniers” is accurately labelling behaviour. It is not “name calling” and it is most certainly not “politicking”.

    As I previously said, judging scientists by your criteria means that a lot of very intelligent and very clever people would get locked out of any contribution.

    And as I pointed out, you are completely wrong. Repeating your falsehood doesn’t change its falseness. To reiterate:

    a) The criteria are useful and proven shortcuts to filter out a mountain comprised almost entirely of bullshit.

    You are advocating that people wade through that, especially people who don’t have the skills to distinguish gold from bullshit. Your agenda is starting to show.

    b) “They” can contribute if they choose to participate in the scientific process. “Locked out” is a lie that seeks to serve the concept that their un-reviewed claims should be put on a par with peer-reviewed claims.

    You seem to have a clearer and clearer agenda on this front.

  89. #90 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘It has an obvious influence on the political discourse’

    You give far too much credit to Nova and the other Australian sceptical blogs. The reality is that the Murdocracy is fair and balanced on CC, while the Fairfax stable has been pro AGW, along with the ABC.

    When the AR5 comes out I expect Aunty to cover it fairly, pointing out that the models are wrong and the IPCC is lowering their alarmist tone.

    I would ask Greg Hunt did he know that …

    ‘The IPCC’s 2001 Summary for Policymakers Report (TAR) stated: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    ‘The IPCC’s 2007 report (4AR) said: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    ‘And now, a leaked draft of the new 2013 (5AR) is expected to conclude: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

    Forbes

  90. #91 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @88 paleo-boy from leper island

    listen, clown:

    paleo is:

    1. long ago

    2. nobody was there

    3. extremely unrealiable results which please the leper boy

    4. undefinable error bars for numeric, constructed data

    piss off, clown and eco retard

  91. #92 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @88 leper boy

    tpThe only thing paleo shows is that most of the time during OFEA it was warmer than today, clown

  92. #93 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    Translations of scientific content to laymen level (Lotharsson, BBD, leper boy etc.) regularly is misunderstood or wrongly misinterpreted and falsely communicated further by these clowns.

  93. #94 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    BBD clown cannot understand AND answer the simple question:

    How many stations are covered by the GHCN database?

    Try again, clown Ignoramus

  94. #95 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #91 paleo is long ago? Who knew? You reject all paleo evidence,clearly because it pleases you to do so, is that not obvious to you ? I’m not the one taking refuge in ‘unreliability’. You’re some kind of real arbiter of the field? No, you’re some kind of volatile half-wit with an axe to grind. Why would anyone ‘listen’ to you, Emoti-boy?

  95. #96 Stu 2
    September 11, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    You have now claimed twice that I have misinterpreted you and then you have used that assertion to compose a lecture.
    None of what you write either proves or disproves anything that I have written.
    If you feel that people are misinterpreting you then maybe you could reconsider the way you write. It must be ambiguous.

  96. #97 Stu 2
    September 11, 2013

    And additionally lotharsson @#87, go to Jeff Harvey’s comment @#2 previous page and you will discover that he introduced the complaint about blogs being ‘advocacy blogs’. I was just pointing out that this blog is an advocacy blog too.

  97. #98 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @95 leper boy: some kind of volatile half-wit with an axe to grind. Why would anyone ‘listen’ to you

    Wrong perception, idiot! The correct one is: Why should one listen to leper boys on psycho meds?

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Count further emoticons, leper boy, and report the results, clown!

  98. #99 Bernard J.
    September 11, 2013

    …paleo is long ago…

    How do you know? Nobody was there.

  99. #100 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @99 clown, pseudo-intelligent