September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    # 100 clown, genuinely stupid, now has decided to not reject all paleo evidence…

  2. #2 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @1 leper clown, your answer is wrong.

    Count the emoticons again, clown!

    My name is Berendaneke and I am cool :cool:, very cool :cool: :cool: :cool:,

    inifinitely cooler :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

    than you evil CAGW clowns :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

    from leper island of nihilism!

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

  3. #3 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #2 ,I count 29 emoticons and one halfwit. Clearly, your constant references to psych meds point to a dependency on your part. Going through them a little faster than Doc intended,’Moty?

  4. #4 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @3 leper boy :evil:

    could you engage in flawless punctuation: after a comma follows a space, fuckwit :evil:

    Further, you missed the total count of emoticons :lol: :lol:

    Therefore you have failed :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: !!

  5. #5 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #4, punctuation monitor is more your speed,I guess, Emoticon Kid…look at you,you’re such a mess…I’m starting to feel sorry for you…are you mixing the pills with other stuff?

  6. #7 Craig Thomas
    September 11, 2013

    El Gordo, do you not understand the meaning of the following progression:
    “likely” (2001)
    “very likely” (2007)
    “extremely likely” (2013)

    Seems fairly easily-comprehended to me. Maybe you are related to Spangled Drongo?

  7. #8 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @4 clown :devil:

    without further comment due to bullshit content of fuckwit :devil:

  8. #9 Bernard J.
    September 11, 2013

    Snork.

    From 50 minutes ago:

    Sophie Mirabella trails as 1003 missing votes uncovered

    by: John Ferguson
    From: The Australian
    September 11, 2013 2:17PM

    A mystery pile of 1003 votes misplaced by the electoral commission could seal Coalition industry spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella’s fate.

    The Australian Electoral Commission has found the votes at the Wangaratta pre-poll station in north-east Victoria.

    The votes go to Ms Mirabella’s opponent, the independent Cathy McGowan, the AEC has confirmed.

    It will mean, on current voting, Ms Mirabella will trail by 1773 votes, making her task of holding onto the seat increasingly difficult.

    An AEC spokesman said that scrutineers had discovered a disparity between the Senate vote and the House of Representatives vote.

    The spokesman said there was a 1003 vote difference between the houses and that a search had been undertaken.

    This had resulted in a pile of McGowan votes being discovered which will be added to her total this afternoon.

    The discovery of the votes will be a huge setback for Ms Mirabella, who is struggling to hold onto a seat that was until Saturday a safe Liberal electorate.

    Ms Mirabella held the seat with a two party-preferred margin of 9 per cent until the weekend.

    The exact lead held by Ms McGowan is not known because the AEC hasn’t updated the numbers in the seat of Indi, which covers a large swathe of north-eastern Victoria, for several hours.

    Ms McGowan’s previous lead was 770 votes. Liberals have been hoping that Ms Mirabella will be able to pick up a majority of postal votes, which are still being counted.

    But if Ms McGowan’s lead has blown out by a further 1000, it will become increasingly difficult for Ms Mirabella to claw back the numbers.

    If elected, Ms Mirabella is odds-on to be made a key member of Tony Abbott’s Cabinet and inner sanctum.

    If one had to choose one conservative to boot out Mirabella would be on the short-list.

    It seems that Sou will get her wish…

  9. #10 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    I wish Mirabella all the best to wihstand Oz green eco fundamentalism insanities :evil:

  10. #11 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013

    “I am just looking at the “big-picture” using all available data while considering feedbacks that have been incorrectly considered (or unidentified) and in the context of abrupt changes that are CLEARLY documented in climate paleorecords.

    I really hope I’m wrong folks but I just don’t see it any other way. Time will tell…”

    http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease

    lol………..time told him :)

    sheeezzz…. sierraclub…..barbeque sausage fucks :) lol

  11. #12 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #10 know-nothing infant, Mirabella is deeply unpopular with her electorate because she is incompetent and lazy. She has been losing her margin since she was given what used to be a safe seat. On LOCAL issues she is a failure, and her conservative electorate have had enough of her arrogance and poor performance as a local member. Green issues have nothing to do with it. She has been outcampaigned by a committed local candidate who has the backing of many figures who by ordinary political persuasion would be Coalition voters.

  12. #13 Jeff Harvey
    September 11, 2013

    “My name is Berendaneke and I am cool , very cool”

    All psychopaths are narcissists, Berendaneke. You think you’re cool, but the truth is you’re a complete fruitcake. And your English is utterly appalling.

  13. #14 chameleon
    September 11, 2013

    Bernard!
    Snork away all you like :-)
    It makes very little difference to the overall result of the election. Nick is correct that Mirabella has become unpopular locally. McGowan is supported by conservative votes. You appear to be clutching at straws with that snork. :-)

  14. #15 chameleon
    September 11, 2013

    Good grief moderator/s! !!!!!!!!
    What’s the point of moderating comments from me on a rambling open thread????????

  15. #16 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Limits in detecting acceleration of ice sheet mass loss due to climate variability

    “The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates1, 2. If sustained, this accelerating mass loss will result in a global mean sea-level rise by the year 2100 that is approximately 43 cm greater than if a linear trend is assumed2.

    However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future3.

    Here we compare mass loss trends and accelerations in satellite data collected between January 2003 and September 2012 from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment to long-term mass balance time series from a regional surface mass balance model forced by re-analysis data.

    We find that the record length of spaceborne gravity observations is too short at present to meaningfully separate long-term accelerations from short-term ice sheet variability.

    We also find that the detection threshold of mass loss acceleration depends on record length: to detect an acceleration at an accuracy within ±10 Gt yr−2, a period of 10 years or more of observations is required for Antarctica and about 20 years for Greenland.

    Therefore, climate variability adds uncertainty to extrapolations of future mass loss and sea-level rise, underscoring the need for continuous long-term satellite monitoring.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/abs/ngeo1874.html

    This para is worth repeating……………
    “However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future”

    :)

  16. #17 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Mass Balance of Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992 to 2008 from ERS and ICESat:

    Gains Exceed Losses

    — Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard, USA

    http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/en/events/2012/ISMASS/AntarcticIceSheet.html

  17. #18 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    “…at present there is no scientific consensus whether these reported accelerations result from etc….” The question posed is: is observed short-term acceleration a reflection of a long term loss trajectory or is it natural variability superimposed on a steady ice loss trend? We want to know because we want to estimate future loss and SLR.

    There is consensus that Antarctica is losing mass due to climate change,and the evidence is ample in the lit. and mechanisms explained up thread.

  18. #19 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “Our SMB reconstructions indicate that the SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and that the current SMB is not exceptionally high compared to the last 800 yr. High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.”

    http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.html

    And the LIA wasn’t global :)
    “High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s.”

    “However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.”

    “and mechanisms explained up thread.” you mean shit dribbling … lol

  19. #20 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #17 moron, higher snow accumulation periods in a supercold environment will occur with warming climate,at elevation while at sea level SMB can fall…it may as well be shit dribbling to slow types like yourself,it’s all the same to you: too complex.

    Snow accumulation at altitude in the WAP was seen to increase with rise in atmospheric moisture,even while coastal shelves collapsed and lower glaciers accelerated and lost surface height. It’s a dynamic system not some two-dimensional sketch.

  20. #21 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Karen

    Yet another paper you have not understood! Wouters et al. is about detecting an acceleration in ice mass loss. Nobody – and I do mean nobody – disputes that there is a substantial and ongoing ice mass loss from both the GIS and the WAIS. The critical question here is that it is difficult to say if it is now accelerating because the observational data only exist for short periods.

    Now, here’s the thing. Most glaciologists think that the rate of ice mass loss *is* accelerating, but being good scientists, they need to demonstrate the acceleration rigorously. At present, this is not really possible because you can argue that some sort of natural variability is responsible for the *apparent* acceleration. Longer observational data sets required.

    You also fail to understand the Zwally study. You have conflated the WEST Antarctic Ice Sheet with the EAST Antarctic Ice Sheet. The former is losing mass at a rapid (and probably accelerating) rate while the latter is gaining mass because of increased precipitation, widely accepted to be a consequence of AGW. Zwally points out that increasing mass loss from the WAIS will initiate a contribution to SLR within the decade. This is a near-universal expectation. When, not if.

    It’s also worth noting that the latest research suggests that parts of the EAIS (Wilkes Subglacial Basin) are much more sensitive to warming than previously thought, which provides the so-far elusive physical mechanism for early/mid-Pliocene sea level highstands at least 10m above present levels.

    See Cook et al. (2013) No relation.

  21. #22 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Nick

    The fuckwit is getting all this from Climatedepot etc. It understands nothing. Just spews out other peoples’ misrepresentations.

  22. #23 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Karen

    And the LIA wasn’t global

    No, it wasn’t global and synchronous. Lots of episodes of regional cooling, offset by simultaneous episodes of regional warmth elsewhere. Pointing to two decade-long periods in the past when SMB increased briefly is evidence of nothing at all except increased *regional* precipitation over Antarctica. SMB isn’t even a proxy for cool temperatures, you dozy muppet.

    Read the words, plankton.

  23. #24 chek
    September 11, 2013

    It understands nothing. Just spews out other peoples’ misrepresentations.

    That’s its job. All that carefully crafted propaganda is useless if only the gormless peanut brains see it.

  24. #25 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “We find that data from climate model reanalyses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27±29 Gt yr−1—is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise. ”

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1627.short

    lol………..I suppose that snow is a recent phenomenon in Antarctica :)

  25. #26 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year. ”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5730/1898.short

  26. #27 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Yes that’s exactly right fuckwit. Any further understanding on your part is entirely wasted. They should know not to use words with more than one syllable

  27. #28 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Karen

    If only you had a clue.

    The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

    So what might balance the sea level budget? Obviously more thermosteric SLR and/or more glacial melt contribution.

    You don’t *see*. You don’t understand anything.

    Now go back to #19 paragraph 3 read the words again.

    Karen, I know you are sitting there with ClimateDepot or similar, just clicking through the tags for “Antarctic” or similar and spamming. I *know* this. Just as I know you are stupid, ignorant and insane.

  28. #29 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    What “Karen” is too stupid to understand is that this is a *dynamic* process (see Nick #18). SMB gain in parts of the EAIS interior is currently possible because outflow glaciers are plugged by embayed ice shelves or firmly grounded. But this is already changing.

    Advected warm water is increasing the rate of basal melting of ice shelved right around the continent. Rates differ, but this is the shape of things to come because the laws of physics say so. See here.

    Once the ice shelves begin to break up, the rate of drainage by outflow glaciers increases very rapidly, and the dynamics of SMB gain and IMB loss reverse.

    Poor Karen, lost in spam and lies, cannot understand the basic concept.

  29. #30 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    “Karen” will probably continue to spam the thread with links from ClimateDepot that “she” has neither read nor understood. The rest of us can go and have a nice cup of tea.

  30. #31 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “Advected warm water is increasing the rate of basal melting of ice shelved right around the continent. Rates differ, but this is the shape of things to come because the laws of physics say so. See here.”

    so this has never happened before ?

    lol…. the nuttery is astounding, bbd did you just find that at dotearth?

  31. #32 chek
    September 11, 2013

    It’s a process SpamKan.
    The kind of stuff it’s not thought worth acquainting you with at Spam Central, because it would come dangerously close to actually beginning to educate you.

  32. #33 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    so this has never happened before ?

    It’s happened time and again, Karen.

  33. #34 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    did you just find that at dotearth?

    No, of course not, you idiot. We aren’t all know-nothings like you. Can’t you tell? Really?

  34. #35 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “It’s happened time and again, Karen.”

    Thank you BBD :)

  35. #36 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    #32 BBD

    I think you did just get it from dotearth, I read that when it came out and thought at the time that some numptie, like yourself, would try to blame basal melting on co2.

  36. #37 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    BBd, maybe I can organize funding from exxon for you, would you be willing to scuba dive at several locations around Antarctica with a temp gauge to gather water temp data ?

    Don’t worry the water is supposed to be warm :)

  37. #38 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘No, it wasn’t global and synchronous.’

    It was global but not in sync.

    1250 AD increasing icebergs in the north Atlantic
    1300 AD Pacific Ocean cools markedly
    1370 AD high accumulation Antarctica

    There does appear to be a cool lag.

  38. #39 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Hi chekie :)

    How tall are you ?

  39. #40 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #33

    Karen

    Past climate change isn’t all determined by CO2. This is just denialist fuckwittery. *You* are confused.

    Let’s take the Eemian. Orbital dynamics made the Eemian warmer than the Holocene – but not by much. Global average temperature was ~1 – 2C warmer but MSL during the Eemian was *at least* 5m higher than the Holocene. Where did all that extra water come from?

    The GIS and the WAIS. People who *know* about this know that the latest work (NEEM) suggests that the GIS contributed *no more* that ~2m to the MSL highstand, so the rest came from the WAIS (where else – an alternative universe?).

    WAIS collapse during the Eemian is demonstrated. Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 – 2C above Holocene.

  40. #41 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    PS – I don’t read DotEarth.

  41. #42 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Measured in inches, very likely still exceeding your IQ SpamKan.

  42. #43 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Hi el :)

    The global and synchronous thingo is like a skeleton in the closet, very embarrassing to them.

    shhh, don’t tell :)

  43. #44 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    I think you did just get it from dotearth, I read that when it came out and thought at the time that some numptie, like yourself, would try to blame basal melting on co2.

    Educate yourself, fuckwit. Read.

    Pritchard et al. (2012). Antarctic ice-sheet loss driven by basal melting of ice shelves.

    I can’t do it for you.

    NB: it’s not simple. It’s zonal wind speeds modulating upwelling and so basal melt of ice shelves, not CO2-forced warming of subsurface waters.

  44. #45 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Not Found

    The requested URL /~broek112/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2012_Pritchard_Nature.pdf was not found on this server.
    Apache/2.2.22 (CentOS) Server at http://www.staff.science.uu.nl Port 80

  45. #46 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #41

    Compare and contrast: two denialist fuckwits frotting each other on a blog vs the latest, multi-author research:

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

    You two are pathetic beyond belief.

  46. #47 chek
    September 11, 2013

    It was global but not in sync.

    Yes, we can see what you desperately want it to mean, but that doesn’t work, Gordon.

    It’s either global or it’s not. ‘Partially’ isn’t ‘global’.
    But your desperation and enthusiasm for orwellising the langauage in pursuit of your goal is duly noted

  47. #49 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Google it, you lazy shit:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7395/abs/nature10968.html

    Sorry if you don’t have journal access. Shame.

  48. #50 Rednose
    UK
    September 11, 2013

    Most of the new cars have climate control sweety

    LOL :-)

  49. #51 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Oh fuck off, “Karen”. Just… fuck off.

  50. #52 Karen
    September 11, 2013
  51. #53 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “Oh fuck off, “Karen”. Just… fuck off.”

    hahahahaha

  52. #54 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    No, Karen. Don’t bray. Read. Try to be *less* of a fuckwit, not more of one.

    What you are doing here is just thrashing around in your own stupidity.

  53. #55 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880,”

    lol

    sorta like now there is global warming, but not in Antarctica, but, really trooly woolie it is global :)

    even though zilch for 17 yrs ?

  54. #56 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Notice how Karen The Fuckwit totally blanked #38.

    Notice that.

  55. #57 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    sorta like now there is global warming, but not in Antarctica

    East Antarctica is thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, fuckwit. The West Antarctic Peninsula is not. The WAP is warming up at a cracking pace, as is well known except amongst denialist buffoons.

  56. #58 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    And now back to #38, which Karen is going to deal with, like it or not:

    Past climate change isn’t all determined by CO2. This is just denialist fuckwittery. *You* are confused.

    Let’s take the Eemian. Orbital dynamics made the Eemian warmer than the Holocene – but not by much. Global average temperature was ~1 – 2C warmer but MSL during the Eemian was *at least* 5m higher than the Holocene. Where did all that extra water come from?

    The GIS and the WAIS. People who *know* about this know that the latest work (NEEM) suggests that the GIS contributed *no more* that ~2m to the MSL highstand, so the rest came from the WAIS (where else – an alternative universe?).

    WAIS collapse during the Eemian is demonstrated. Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 – 2C above Holocene.

  57. #59 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘It’s either global or it’s not.’

    It was global but at different times, unlike AGW which has had an impact on the whole world at once. Hopefully the hiatus will be over soon.

  58. #60 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 – 2C above Holocene.”

    problemo……….you don’t know what the high temp of the holocene was, for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.

  59. #61 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘… for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.’

    Good point Karen.
    ————————

    BB the Holocene would have been as warm as the Eemian except for the intrusion of the Younger Dryas, which acted as a damper.

  60. #62 chameleon
    September 11, 2013

    Hopefully it will be over soon? ?????????
    So you do now say there is a hiatus?
    Why are you hoping it will be over BBD?
    SUUUURRRRREEEELLLLYYYYY it would be better if all the doomsday predictions/projections are incorrect??????

  61. #63 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #57 at the climate scale,what hiatus? Oh, of course, that little daft meme of yours.
    #58,the ‘stooopid reason’ being the state of the cryosphere and organic matter revealed across the NH by glacial retreat. Ignorant /play dumb Kaz.

  62. #64 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #59, reference for the damping effect of the YD on optimum Holo temps plz

  63. #65 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “The WAP is warming up at a cracking pace”

    Rothera Point

    http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89062.html

    lol

    Mean Temperature Average -22 °C

    Today Partly Cloudy -21 °C

    2 x lol :)

  64. #66 chameleon
    September 11, 2013

    Crap! Sorry! el gordo said that, not BBD.
    My bad, sincere apologies :-)

  65. #67 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “the NH by glacial retreat. Ignorant /play dumb Kaz.”

    is not gwowbell

  66. #68 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #62,well that proves it’s not warming: one data point in early spring…yes I think we can dismiss all the thousands of other data points,this ones a cracker! Very Steve Goddard of you Kaz, the shucks-its-a cold-day counter…only available to the cream of the absolute idiots.

  67. #69 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #63,I just am not up to speed on glacial organic remnants in the SH, where glaciers are secretly [to you apparently] retreating at_a_cracking_pace. Let me apologise for not doing your work for you,dimwit.

  68. #70 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #58 Karen

    problemo……….you don’t know what the high temp of the holocene was, for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.

    Too stupid for words. See Marcott et al. (2013):

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

    Eemian GAT was ~1 – 2C above Holocene *average*. Idiot.

  69. #71 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #59 Gordy

    BB the Holocene would have been as warm as the Eemian except for the intrusion of the Younger Dryas, which acted as a damper.

    Utter fucking bollocks. Go away and do some reading. Start with orbital dynamics. Then move on to causes of the YD. Then look at climate dynamics. Try to understand what “quasi-equilibrium” actually means. How could an event like the YD depress GAT for the rest of the Holocene? Physical mechanism… oh don’t bother. Idiot.

  70. #72 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Gordy and Karen are beyond parody.

  71. #73 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #68,Gordy’s Gambit was priceless..the first ‘original’ material I’ve seen from him….though it does smell a bit like something you’d see in a Jo Nova thread. Or Monckton might blurt that sort of thing out before a suitably moronic audience.

  72. #75 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    “The allegedly “vulnerable” West Antarctic Ice Sheet [WAIS] surface mass balance has not changed in 150+ years.”

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vKC7n0PbkjI/USTuGYPZwLI/AAAAAAAAE7Q/aC_dtyzbbAc/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B2202013%2B73027%2BAM.jpg

  73. #76 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

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

    Ever heard of the concepts of orogeny and isostatic rebound el gordolocks? Clearly not.

    Charles Darwin recognised these for their roles in evolution in turn building on the work of Charles Lyell. Indeed Darwin had a copy of Lyell’s ‘Principles of Geology’ with him on HMS Beagle, I trust you have some knowledge of Darwin and the Beagle. Indeed Lyell’s book gave Darwin valuable insights when the Beagle stopped at St Jago, now Santiago in the Cape Verde Islands (Portugal)

    Once again you are caught spouting crap from a position of ignorance. When will you stop doing this and start broadening your education.

    You could start with Darwin’s’ ‘Voyage of the Beagle’ and ‘Origin…’ if you have not already. Bill McGuire’s ‘Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes‘ contains much enlightenment and some food for thought.

  74. #77 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #70, any further development is now at the whim of the shareholders of fossil fuel companies. So far they are more interested in keeping their asset bubble afloat until they cash out.

  75. #78 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @70 clown from leper island :evil:

    you envy rich people their money: admit the truth, clown :evil:

  76. #79 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @70 sorry el Gordo, I have meant of course the clown #73 :evil:

  77. #80 Nick
    September 11, 2013

    #74,I am a rich person, you moron. You on the other hand just gave your last five bucks to your friend Tony Abbott LOL

  78. #81 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘Ever heard of the concepts of orogeny and isostatic rebound?’

    Yeah but thermal expansion seems the more likely cause of SLR during the RWP.

  79. #82 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    Nick, some (all) of your posts are a bit rich…lol

    How much are you worth honey :)

  80. #83 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

    Yeah but thermal expansion seems the more likely cause of SLR during the RWP.

    Now think carefully about your original statement,

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

    ,

    which prompted that reply of mine. Now what have you got wrong?

  81. #84 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #79

    :-)

    As I said, beyond parody.

  82. #85 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #70

    You are changing the topic in order to avoid acknowledging your utter bollocks about the YD “cooling down” the Holocene.

    Not just a fuckwit, but a dishonest fuckwit.

  83. #86 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    The reality is that the Murdocracy is fair and balanced on CC…

    ROFLMAO!

    And on a blog with a tag called “The Australian’s War On Science”, no less.

    Oh, wait…you meant the Fox News propaganda-ish definition of “Fair and Balanced”. Right you are. Carry on!

  84. #87 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    You have now claimed twice that I have misinterpreted you…

    …and explained how, to no avail. Interesting.

    Are you capable of understanding the distinctions I draw between how you interpret what I write and what I write, but choose to pretend they don’t exist? Or do you genuinely not see the differences?

    If you feel that people are misinterpreting you then maybe you could reconsider the way you write.

    Or I could clarify in a subsequent comment where the misinterpretation lies, as people generally do in conversation…

    None of what you write either proves or disproves anything that I have written.

    This is patently false, as pointed out at least twice now, hence this claim is another misinterpretation.

    I’m beginning to suspect there’s a pattern here.

  85. #88 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    Lionel… Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR.

    BB the CO2 content in the atmosphere remained steady during the Younger Dryas, so we can safely assume temperatures fell sharply and rose again without any assistance from carbon dioxide.

  86. #89 Lotharsson
    September 11, 2013

    …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.

    I don’t think you and Jeff are using the term the same way.

    a) Jeff’s comment was talking about blog posts by the blog owners (and those they choose to invite to write posts).

    You are drawing a false equivalence by comparing that with commenters here, and a small subset of commenters here at that.

    b) In addition Jeff appears to be using “advocacy blog” to describe one that advocates for particular (policy or political) position, often cloaking itself in pseudo-science in an attempt to mislead many of their readers that their positions are derived from science.

    Referring back to point (a), the blog posts here aren’t doing that (and weren’t even doing that back when the posts consisted of more than Open Thread posts)

    And moving past (a) to look at the commenters here, the only commenters doing that kind of advocacy and claiming (pseudo-scientific) support for it here are the self-styled “skeptics”. You skipped right over their “advocacy” and instead focused on Jeff based on his use of certain words with political connotations. You have not shown that he is engaging in advocacy based on pseudo-science – and you can’t, because he is careful to cite the mainstream science, especially in areas outside of his own scope of scientific competence. So once again you’ve drawn a false equivalence.

  87. #90 chameleon
    September 11, 2013

    Geeeze you’re a crashing bore Lotharsson.

  88. #91 johnl
    September 11, 2013

    From Zeke H. at the YaleForum:

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

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

  89. #92 Karen
    September 11, 2013

    OH MY GAWD !!!!!!

    Bumbling BBD won’t shut up about Zettajoules now !!!

  90. #93 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    2nd admonition: clown BBD :evil:

    Admit that you don’t know how many stations are covered by the GHCN database, clown :evil: !!

  91. #94 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    @74 clown from leper island :evil:

    How much is “rich” for you leper island inhabitant :evil::

    a) a 3-digit Oz dollar amount of own property?
    b) a 4-digit Oz dollar amount of own property?
    c) even a 5-digit Oz dollar amount of own property (I would bet that this is impossible)?

    You cannot be “rich” as an inhabitant :evil: of CAGW leper island where all mainstream idiots who believe in AGW scientology live

  92. #95 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #84

    <blockquote.

    Lionel… Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR.

    BB the CO2 content in the atmosphere remained steady during the Younger Dryas, so we can safely assume temperatures fell sharply and rose again without any assistance from carbon dioxide.

    Gordy, you haven’t spotted your own idiocy yet! Go back and look at #79.

    If thermosteric SLR raised sea levels *universally* as you claim, then we should see global evidence of a sharp fall in MSL – everything – not just a couple of Roman harbour, should be “high and dry”. Idiot.

    Second point. I asked you for evidence for a global and synchronous Roman Warm Period. You haven’t provided *any*. Ditto for this supposed “Minoan Warm Period”.

    Now, I’ve got Gornitz here in front of me, and nowhere in all its 1000 pages is there a reference to the “Minoan Warm Period” or the “Roman Warm Period”. Nowhere.

    But if I google these terms, lots of disinformer blogs pop up. Lots of liars and shills and idiots. Now that ought to tell you something important about just how far from mainstream paleoclimatology this all is. You are living in a fantasy world created by liars and shills and idiots. Wake up, Gordy.

    Third point. You, like the abysmally stupid “Karen” are clinging with all your might to a strawman. *Nobody* is claiming that all past climate change was caused by CO2. That is why I asked you to get off your lazy arse and find out about the causes of the YD. Which you obviously haven’t bothered to do, preferring instead to post fuckwittery on the Internet.

    Get the mess in your head sorted out.

  93. #96 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #88

    Sausage

    For the last time, I don’t care how many fucking stations there are. It is utterly fucking irrelevant. If I wanted to know I would find out, in under 30 seconds, but I can’t even be bothered. Especially since you are mithering me about it.

    You have been shown up to be utterly clueless on topics that *do* matter, over and over again. You cannot read graphs. You cannot understand basic scientific modes of thinking. You deny evidence. You deny physics.

    You are a worthless pile of lunatic shite bubbling away in a cellar somewhere. Sane people aren’t interested in your lunatic gibbering.

    Fuck off!

  94. #97 Ian Forrester
    September 11, 2013

    Fatso once again shows his ignorance about anything connected to climate change, sea level rise, basic geology etc. etc:

    Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR

    Anyone who studied geography in early high school years knows about isostatic rebound (especially in Scotland where it is a well known phenomenon). He doe not realize that it is the land which is rising during isostatic rebound, not the sea.

    What a fool.

  95. #98 Bernard J.
    September 11, 2013

    Lionel A.

    Fatso’s struggling with sea level rise reminds me of Spangled Drongo’s similar difficulty, reinforced as it was by
    John Daly’s demonstrably illogical nonsense.

  96. #99 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #92 Ian Forrester

    Not just a fool. Dishonest.

    I explained his nonsense to him on the previous page. But here he is, over a hundred comments later, still repeating debunked crap.

    Lies, lies, lies. And so it goes on with these scum.

  97. #100 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

    Up today at DesmogBlog in ‘Dealing in Doubt: Greenpeace Report Exposes Fossil Fuel Funded Climate Denial Machine‘ pointing to information on the denial machine with some right-on graphics across the top of every page, with Joseph Bast in the line up at left and Richard Lindzen at right. Lindzen must be proud to be so aligned with Bast – the pinnacle of a scientific career, what!

    This latest report is an expanded and updated one since the last in 2010, just in case you think you already have it.

    There is also a pertinent article on Marc Morano Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano’s History of Bullying Scientists seeing as our usual suspects seem to be muddying their boots by dragging there feet through that source then coming here and trying to dump.

    Anybody know of a whack-a-mole emoticon?