Thanks Tim – and Jeff
Hmmm – risking a double post -I’m still getting a lot of time-outs and can’t connect 500 errors here. so I don’t think the troll’s finished with us just yet.
National Day of Climate Action! Sunday November 17th.
Not just in capital cities, but in towns right across the nation.
Lloyd’s says Lindzen, Curry and gang are nuts:
Trevor Maynard, Lloyd’s head of exposure management, is dubious on whether there has been a pause in warming over the past 15 years as some have claimed.
“The sceptics are just trying to push the debate and they start at 1998, which was one of the hottest years on record,” he explains. “It’s a bit like someone breaks the world record for running 100 metres and then in the next ten races people say, ‘Runners are getting slower’.”
One of Jeff’s buddies has taken action.
Yep, as usual 10,000 peer reviewed papers prove nothing, but this guy’s putting a book out…
And, MikeH, I’ve already donated. I hope this goes as well as the revamped Climate Commission.
Unfortunately I’m already booked in to a field survey that weekend…
Craig, your analogy isn’t any good. A better one is that everytime you see somone run a 100 dash, you ignore the clock and only “feel” that s/he ran faster then anyone has before. And the feeling is the scientific tool, right. 😉
And that’ the real criticism. For 15 years (give or take) any heatwave has been viewed as a evidence that the GMT is rising faster than ever. Yet it didn’t. IMHO that’s amazing. 😉
The last decade is the hottest in the instrumental record. Extreme heat events are now statistically more common than ever before. This has been unequivocally demonstrated by post hoc analysis, eg Hansen, Sato & Ruedy (2012):
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.
Real, analytical science. Not rubbish posted by deniers on blogs.
If you can’t be bothered with the actual paper, you can *see* the shifted distribution in HSR Fig 1.
At least click that link and *look*.
Gee whiz, just when we free ourselves of one loony (Joe and his guises) another (Olaus, part of the Swedish troll collective) wades in with his kindergarten-level science.
Re: Jim Steele: the guy has hardly published anything in the empirical literature. When he claims that Polar Bears have benefitted from a reduction in Arctic ice he is nominally correct, but, as in keeping with myopic neophytes, his argument assumes that the ice will remain in stasis from hereafter. But of course both extent and thickness continue on their ‘death spiral’, meaning that Polar Bears are in deep, deep trouble.
Thing is, Olaus, you and your acolytes will dredge up any opinions from people on the academic fringe if it supports your own pre-determined views. Steele is one such guy. There are so few of them that they are technically an endangered species. The vast majority of really qualified environmental scientists wouldn’t touch Steele’s opinions with a barge pole.
BBD, like you I had never been taller than before when I was 14 years old. I was alarmed at the time, but I got over it. 😉
The interesting part is that the GMT has not followed the predicitions. In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want) yet “we” have ascribed any warm weather event as a proof of rapidly rising GMT. And if anyone suggested that it might be weather, not climate, s/he was called a denier.
98% of the crystal balls failed. That’s impressive. 😉
Hooked on a feelling, anyone? Love the song, especially the Swedish version that became a no. one on the American Bill Board list 1974. Enjoy.
For more post hoc analysis (real science!) that you need to read instead of posting rubbish on the Internet see Coumou et al. (2013):
The last decade has produced record-breaking heat waves in many parts of the world. At the same time, it was globally the warmest since sufficient measurements started in the 19th century. Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming. This implies that on average there is an 80 % chance that a new monthly heat record is due to climatic change. Large regional differences exist in the number of observed records. Summertime records, which are associated with prolonged heat waves, increased by more than a factor of ten in some continental regions including parts of Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Amazonia. Overall, these high record numbers are quantitatively consistent with those expected for the observed climatic warming trend with added stationary white noise. In addition, we find that the observed records cluster both in space and in time. Strong El Niño years see additional records superimposed on the expected long-term rise. Under a medium global warming scenario, by the 2040s we predict the number of monthly heat records globally to be more than 12 times as high as in a climate with no long-term warming.
The problem you and your chums face is that there is no sane way of denying this stuff any longer. Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness. The truly horrible part of what is happening is the way amoral corporate self-interest is using the mentally ill for its own ends. That really is sickening to behold.
The interesting part is that the GMT has not followed the predicitions. In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want) yet “we” have ascribed any warm weather event as a proof of rapidly rising GMT.
Nobody *predicted* a monotonous rise in GAT, Olaus. That is a denier lie – dishonest framing. Nobody ever said natural variability would stop. A transient slow-down in the rate of surface warming doesn’t mean anything – especially not with OHC continuing to increase rapidly.
You have utterly ignored the demonstration at #9 that you are spouting bollocks. Read it again, and then read #12.
Don’t skip the rebuttals to your silly lies when you are talking with me – dishonest shittery goes down badly as you well know.
I will help you here: your rubbish has been destroyed, so now it is time for you to depart.
“Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness”
Correct, BBD, with one added caveat: short-term profit drives it. At the same time, it is air-brushed out by those who know that they need deep PR cover to maintain the status quo. That cover is manifested through the constant use of fear: fear of socialism, fear of big government, fear of control, fear of eroding freedoms, fear that our western lifestyle is under threat.
As it turns out, our lifestyle is very well threatened by excess. Nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. Climate change, in concert with other human-mediated assaults across the biosphere, will undermine our overly-consumptive lifestyles at some point. It’s just that those with vested interests in short-term profit don’t care.
In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want)
I’m fed up with this crap as well. Stupid media pundits and even scientists who should know better are responsible for sloppy terminology distorting the facts.
What is happening is a slowdown in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming not a pause, hiatus or plateau. A slowdown in the rate of warming.
Let’s get it straight. Now we can consider the ongoing increase in OHC which demonstrates unequivocally that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system (which is mainly composed of the world ocean) exactly as expected.
If deniers would simply take the trouble to *understand* the science and the facts they would become aware that their reliance on rhetoric and misrepresentation is absolute. They have no scientific argument of any kind whatsoever.
Jeff, we crossed.
Exactly so: fear is the key. The deniers are frightened, hence their retreat into denial. It is part of their nature (hence their right-wing politics). So it is *easy* and logical for the manipulators to play on fear of socialism, taxes, government etc, etc. Inchoate Big Fear is the key to the psychology of the typical denier. It’s what makes them what they are. And because they are in denial, they cannot see it.
I think scienceblogs is being ddos’d and fubar’d. All sorts of weird shit.
Probably kai-the-asshole and friends.
So what if there’s a pause, a zero trend even?
Pick one number. Trend: zero. Proves nothing.
What deniers *want* to imply is proven is that the predictions are wrong.
However, to do THAT you don’t find a line that includes zero and go “that proves it’s not warming” because that’s not what you’re testing. The null hypothesis here for deniers is not “is it zero?” but “Could the IPCC be right?”.
And to do that you have to prove that the trend over the last 15 years or whatever cherry is picked precludes the IPCC estimate.
It does not.
Yes – it’s been going on for a while and yes, some here think Kai is responsible (including me). It tends to get worse when his latest sock has just been banned – as now.
Agreed – denialist false framing. It all hinges on a very simple fact: nobody ever said that natural variability would stop post-2000. And it hasn’t. End of story. Transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, atmospheric optical depth, solar output etc – none of this “falsifies” AGW.
Yes that Lloyd’s story was brought up at Climate Crocks: Lloyd’s of London Latest Insurer to Warn on Warming, Mocks Deniers yesterday.
Those familiar with threads over there would have come across another obnoxious commenter who oft’ complains about Ad hominems but does not draw back from, e.g. calling others cretins. I don’t thin it necessary to name him as he sticks out like a sore thumb. Nonetheless I am always left shaking my head as he digs deeper and deeper, he having outdone himself with this latest display. Christopher Arcus in comment nails it exactly.
With OP’s appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?
Strewth, I though I was going to get another intertube Raspberry when posting the above, took ages and nothing amiss with my connection as I monitor this in real time with a record of any packet drops and latency.
“With OP’s appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?”
It’s a bit like Godwin, isn’t it?
The longer a thread goes on on a climate science thread the higher the chance of OP and the swedetroll slug hoard appearing becomes until it eventually reaches unity.
For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:
• There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. None.
• Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None.
• Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. Always.
Unfortunately johnl, you’re being rational.
More unfortunately, experience has proven that doesn’t work towards winning over the Brethren of Denial.
Good try though. Logical, thoughtful, not copy’n’pasted – I like that.
And before you ask I have no idea what would. They’ll pick up any outlier regardless of how anomalous or irrelevant to the mean and run with it as if it proves (i.e. shows however fleetingly) whatever today’s point is.
They’re all Freddyborisjoekaiboehners’s to one degree or another. All of them.
Well, I’ve tried everything, as I’m sure we all have. Reason, referenced argument, polite restraint, referenced argument, snark, referenced argument, dismissive abuse*, referenced argument…
But to no avail. They process information idiosyncratically with a persistence that is fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.
* * *
* Deltoid kindly provided the forum for testing the bare-knuckle approach to destruction. Which was fun, but predictably failed in its turn. Nevertheless, I can honestly say I have tried everything.
BBD, I share your angish.
Let’s face it, no amount of evidence is sufficient to enlighten those who wish not to be enlightened. Which is probably the cue for linking once more to one of my favourite metaphors:
BBD @ 25 – It may be more worthwhile thinking of your own and others efforts here in terms of the effects on “the undecided” rather than on the nutjobs.
It seems unlikely that the committed deniers are going to change their minds, given the energy they put into reality-avoidance, no matter how persuasive the evidence and the argument.
That may be the point, however – the increasingly obvious refusal to accept reality means that more and more casual observers see the true nature of the denialist position, and fewer and fewer people can stomach supporting it.
Whether or not this will be enough to head off the worst impacts of AGW and CC is an almost irrelevant question at this point – people need to understand and take stronger action as soon as possible, and the arguments put forward here in support of the science are one way to help achieve this.
There aren’t any undecided.
20 years ago, there could be people who didn’t know or only knew “something, something, research needed”.
10 years ago, you could be unwilling to decide.
Today, you’re only undecided if you’ve decided it cannot be.
There is one group, maybe, that have reason to be undecided. Kids too young to follow this.
They don’t go on blogs much and look to get educated thereon. We prefer to use teachers for that.
Wow @ 28 I agree in part – it seems almost unbelievable that anyone who could summon the intellectual energy to breathe would now sit on the fence on this issue – but I know otherwise thinking people who do. I’m related to some of them, malheureusement.
The denialist brigade have been very effective over the past decade outside scientific circles at amplifying the relatively insignificant things that can be identified as uncertainty, and minimising everything else.
Anything (including submissions to these sorts of blogs) that can counter some of the bs has to be a net gain (even if small), in my opinion.
No, I seriously doubt that they’re undecided.
“I’m not refusing to accept you, I know you and know you aren’t a liar.” requires either changing their view or “finding a reason” to explain how.
The problem is that you need to get them to reach the conclusion themselves and from an external point of view, there’s ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be said that cannot be taken offence at.
The best you can do is let them know you know it’s rationalisation rather than rationality and that you know that they are smart enough to work this out if they’re willing to consider their stance in light of that.
It is entirely possible (though it’s possible there really IS a Santa Clause who doesn’t manage to reach ALL children any more because there’s so many of the buggers) that they can explain what leaves them *genuinely* undecided.
However, when they get to that point, if you don’t know the answer *and that answer remaining unsolved is a rational reason to remain undecided* you can go to SkS or your local Met Org and ask.
I didn’t want this in the same message since it’s completely orthogonal.
How about this deal with deniers:
We agree to do something about the climate according to the science and we see in 30 years if it’s working or not? We can use the models to project what we agree to do worldwide to what those models expect to happen.
This will work out long-term good if this is actually all a scam because it will be shown to be pointless to do as requested, pulling the rug from under the scam, and those savings will go back to those who *deserve* it.
If it gets better quicker than expected under that scenario then we will ascribe that to “natural cycles control the climate” and can stop in 30 years time pretending we are affecting the climate.
If it gets worse, then we were in for destruction anyway, so adaption can be undertaken without worrying about mitigation any more: we did a good bit of mitigation and now something else needs to be tried.
Rather than do nothing and state that the climate will get better “any day now” or waiting for that “final nail”, and waiting to see if the models pan out and show us heading to failure, why not do something and see if the models correctly predict the human actions’ results.
Heck, we can put the entire codebase for one of the models to be used and the starting values that cover “what we could be measuring if we had a measurement there” and stick with that model, therefore ensuring that the models cannot be “tuned to prove AGW” any more.
Moreover, that code could be run by anyone with computing power and expertise to verify the model following the measurements: all that would be needed are the datasets of measurements to be made equally available.
#30 St Cyr
The denialists are dangerous because they appeal to the denier in us all. Ordinary and otherwise well-educated people really don’t want to accept the full implications so they are vulnerable to the siren song of crypto-denial (lukewarmer rhetoric).
You can see it readily enough. Most people don’t really have a clue and they prefer it that way. Scratch the surface of many people’s “acceptance” of the physical science and possible consequences of BAU emissions and you hit denial pretty quickly. The enabling mechanism is ignorance of the facts. It’s easy to indulge in crypto-denial by simply not knowing (or caring to find out) anything about the problem. That seems to be where most people stand. Engage and they pretty quickly start to reject – “oh surely it won’t be that bad”; “yes but it’ll take centuries” etc.
And they listen to comforting lies emanating from the do-nothing-it’s-fine crowd. Only decent topic knowledge enables you to see the fakery and rhetoric and pseudo-science for what it really is.
Service again unavailable
I just stumbled upon an appalling article by Craig Loehle and (guess who?) Willis Eschenbach in Diversity and Distributions which climas extinction rates are over-estimated. The paper is, IMHO, pure garbage, in keeping up with the usual trash spewed out by Loehle and Eschenbach. Note how WUWT fave the latter a platform to spew out bilge about the merits of his study; in the WUWT piece, Eschenbach starts of with an ad-hom attack on Harvard ecologist Edward O. Wilson, stating that Wilson is an expert on ants but not on extinctions (clearly Eschenbach has his ego stuffed up his a**, because Wilson co-formulated the theory of island biogeography with Robert McCarthur (highly relevant in estimating extinction rates) and also supervised a number of grad students on projects testing it. More relevantly, Eschenbach has the unmitigated gall to smear Wilson when he himself has NO formal background in any ecological field.
Its just too bad that Eschenbach apparently does not appear to read much of the empirical ecological literature. How the paper got through peer-review is anyone’s guess; the authors hilariously suggest that the biggest threats to biodiversity are ‘hunting and predation’.
I do now know where to begin deconstructing their arguments. First of all, they claim that virtually all recorded extinctions came from islands. Certainly that is correct, but they conveniently are unable to demonstrate the ecological difference between an extinct species and one which has been reduced to a tiny percentage of its original abundance. What I mean by this is that many species are technically extant but have been reduced to a small fraction of their early numbers and, more importantly, are too rare to contribute to important ecological processes. A species thus loses its economic and ecological value long before it is officially declared extinct.
The authors, of course, play on the ‘known’ versus ‘unknown’ gambit (just as Donald Rumsfeld did) in order to downplay biodiversity loss. In other words, many species have probably become extinct without being formally classified, because there are too few qualified taxonomists to have described more than a small percentage of the planet’s species richness. Furthermore, it is much easier to say a species exists than it doesn’t; many species have not been seen in the wild since the 1960s but are not yet formally classified as being extinct because the IUCN is very conservative and requires that an organism is not seen for at least 50 years before classifying it as extinct. We certainly know that a very large number of species fall into this category, especially along the Atlantic tropical forests of Brazil, for example. Many others are teetering on the edge of extinction anyway.
The authors are completely wrong to claim that only 6 continental birds have become extinct; 5 species are gone from North America and a few more are hanging on by the skin of their beaks (e.g. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, Black-Capped Vireo etc) whilst others are in population free fall. And, most importantly, habitat loss is by far the greatest threat to biodiversity, far exceeding hunting and predation. What the hell do the authors mean by ‘predation’ anyway? Human predation? Certainly trophic cascades do not drive extinctions unless mediated by some anthropogenic stressor.
I would not waste any more of my time on what is IMHO garbage by Loehle and Eschebach. Sadaly, Anthony Watts shows what an utter hypocrite he is by plugging a new book by biologist Jim Steele which downplays climate change as a factor driving extinctions; however the author does, to his credit, argue that habitat loss is a major threat. On the other hand, Watts promotes the drivel of Eschenbach and co. who claim that extinction rates are exaggerated.
Jeff, is it the rapidly rising GMT that makes you behave so normal?
OK. That’s not Jeff, it’s Mr Narcissistic Personality Disorder 2013, the ClownSockTroll out of Montreaux (AKA Kai, Freddy, Boris, Berendaneke, Joe & Enterobius vermicularis).
I suppose Guiseppe thinks he is so clever, but what a sad loser to have to resort to such low trickery.
Get a life.
Get a job.
Get somebody who might, just, love you.
Otherwise see a trick cyclist.
…aaand the persistent botfly Olouse the Scandinavian Troll (AKA Polygonoporus giganticus), shows its usual discriminating intelligence.
A petition to spread and sign: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/keep_Australias_commitment_to_Carbon_reduction/?eIazJfb
It never ends, does it.
Honestly, before I logged on I was planning to write a brief message about how nice it was to have ….. not this crap.
adelady @3/#62: No. NPD is a lifelong illness with no chance of effective treatment or recovery. All that can be done is to avoid, institutionalise or ostracise the sufferer from communities (unlike narcissistic sociopaths who tend to get to the top of corporate financial piracy operations, energy companies or local government before being deposed, often with pitchforks).
The Swiss angle is interesting, as the CSTs whole schtick is a bit like one of the stories from ‘Strewwelpeter’, the 19th C German cautionary tales for children “Die Geschichte vom bösen Friederich” (The Story of Bad Frederick) : a violent boy terrorizes animals and people. Eventually he is bitten by a dog, who goes on to eat the boy’s sausage while he is bedridden – which puts BBD’s parody of the CST’s mating call (“BBQ sausage fuck!) in a new and very Freudian light.
As its periods grow shorter, and its fantasy world collapses around it, the onanist accelerates towards psychosis. The last posts (p3#55-61) have a word-salad quality, so it may be schizoid, rather than just a hopeless case of NPD, after all. Schizoid psychosis is more amenable to treatment than NPD, so I wonder if the (Underpants?) Gnome of Montreaux has the resources, insight or relationships to get help and/or haloperidol. Somehow I doubt it.
Tim, is it possible to rescue Jeff’s good name from the depredations of CST (AKA The Gnome of Montreaux)?
Tb@3#43: signed and spread. Let’s not let the CST win.
OH NO: I WANT TO INFORM EVERYONE THAT BORIS/KAI/FREDDY/JOE HAS RETURNED USING MY NAME. How utterly pathetic. This person is seriously deranged. I don’t know he we can get Tim to block all of his guises.
To Joe/Boris etc. I have notified Tim of your using my name on Deltoid. Your use of my name will be a short one. God only knows who you will impersonate next but you are a truly deranged, sick individual. I don’t know who you are intending to reach out to here but if you think that any rational people think that you are intelligent and funny, then you must really be sick.
OH NO: I WANT TO INFORM EVERYONE …
Jeff, seriously, we can tell the difference mate…don’t sweat it. Until such time as Tim actually blocks this version, I suggest we simply ignore, since he’s moved from the tendentious to the tedious to the completely irrational. It doesn’t take too long to simply skim past the chocolate starfish avatar he has this time, and read the sensible posts.
The twerp’s posts indicate a big helping of ‘sour grapes’ because he feels wider society has ostracised him. If he has displayed comparative behaviour in society then that should be no surprise and those affected should be on their guard.
Meanwhile we are also left with a running sore.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that this mentally unstable character will present a real danger to the wider community where he happens to be residing. I consider that, aside from having his IP blocked, he should have an enforced visit from those in authority before it is too late.
You may find this interesting,
Who is Willis Eschenbach?
As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.
He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).
“A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach…”
We already knew that (see up-thread), you are late to the party and a gatecrasher to boot.
Hail to Tony Abbott who stops all climate insanities in Oz
Well maybe then the god Abbott having come to the end of his first month on the throne can help stop this sort of thing happening. .
I see Jeff is in the eco-mood again. Nothing new at Deltoid.
#88 One of the Jeff Harveys
Some of this seems vaguely familiar. Lol
Jeff @3#70, Frank @3#71 & Lionel @3/#73:
Absolutely – particularly Frank’s suggestion of just ignoring the Underpants Gnome of Monteaux (UGM), which I will try to do – after indulging myself with a little back-burning.
Given that this is a virtual environment, no physical intervention is possible in any jurisdiction (and no treatment save forensic isolation works for NPD anyway) until UGM manifests its behaviour in public – like Breivik. The technical terms for what is happening are intensification and transference. Online, UGM demonstrates a reactiveness to particular technical terms which betrays a familiarity with the problems & therapeutic interventions that I have seen many times in general and psychiatric hospital practice for decades. He has not been able to control his behaviour since early adolescence, and has probably been institutionalised before. I suspect that his whole life is as sad & pathetic as his psychotic trolling indicates. We can ask Tim to ban him, but he will move heaven & earth to return, because otherwise his delusions of adequacy consume him.
Like herpes, lifelong suppression of NPD is impractical, so the only option is to avoid it. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) does occasionally cause a lethal encephalitis, so the analogy is apt. The UGM does have a peculiar fascination with syphilis, which can lead to a paranoid delusional state termed GPI, but we have been able to treat that for 50 years, so I doubt that it is what afflicts the UGM. NPD is a better bet, though the herpes troll fits.
Here in coastal NSW, the hot northeasterly winds of climate change have not only driven fires that destroyed hundreds of homes months before our usual fire season, but have also blown in a wave of flies to plague the survivors. ecosystems bite back. I note the analogous pests of the virtual world, Olouse & Poptart have been blown in on the hot wind of Toady Rabbot’s close friend & advisor the herpes troll.
Rednoise@3#93: …and another of Beelzebub’s minions buzzes in on the wings of The Herpes Troll’s delusions.
So the Herpes Troll uses one of the stolen UEA emails. Wonder if it was involved in the stealing?
Sou has (another) excellent observation of the Fundamentalist Deniers at HotWopper: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/the-evangelical-science-denier-and.html . Koch dollars at work.
Lionella, the Desmogblog post does not include most of the information in the one I provided, I suggest reading it,
Tim has come to the rescue again. Thanks Tim! I have no idea under what monicker Kai et al. will try and enter here under next; just glad his attempt to smear me, at least for the time being, is over.
As for Olaus’s comment, I am, after all, a population ecologist. And the lousy paper by Loehle and Eschenbach not only tries to downplay the threat of AGW to biodiversity, but a range of other anthropogenic threats that are known to have an adverse affect on biodiversity. The conclusion of their paper is lamentable, to say the least.
Oh for fucks’ fucking sake.
OK, i concede that it IS worse than herpes.
AND Beelzebub’s minions.
AND Dicks Cheney & Nixon.
AND dead Maggie Thatcher.
AND Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvil.
AND Eva Braun’s boyfriend.
But not as bad as the Jabberwock.
OK, so it IS worse than the Jabberwock, because it’s not imaginary.
Clearly cut & paste from the Village Idiot who does not have the command of knowledge let alone language to splurge such crap in industrial strength quantities. Similar inanities as those spewed by the likes Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Morono, Delingpole, Bolt and Rose.
Oh and PT – you missed the point!
Meanwhile, in the world of sane mortals a number are taking down the efforts of science dis-informers (others would put a more serious note on this behaviour) to counter the IPCC VAR with their NIPCC concoction of fabrications.
Tamino has had a go, see link above, as has Sou at Hot Whopper.
I suspect that wee can expect the usual round of piffle and waffle from the usual suspects around here.
And on that so called ‘Pause’ that some keep bringing up then the antidote is here..
Consider, if you ease off the accelerator has the car stopped?
OMG, this is never ending insanity…. I thought we’d got Kai/Boris/Berendaneke/Joe booted out of here once and for all and bingo! The madman slips in again. Sure his comments will be sponged out by tomorrow, but still….
The NIPCC tripe is pathetically transparent. And as Tamino notes, this shite is supposed to be the best “sceptical” argument there is. But it’s just laughably dishonest bollocks.
Fuck off, banned, vile, insane troll.
You are scum. Nobody wants your foul breath in their face. So clear off.
When is this pullulating anus going to be removed from here?
You never use someone else’s screen name. Never.This is way past being funny. This loathsome and deranged little shitsmear needs banning now..
Just foxtrot oscar you dim Swiss roll, or is it a Danish pastry made into a Swiss role? Whatever, the IR is about the same.
What a sad little person you are. Won’t anyone else play with you and pull your ting-a-ling?
Stop using JH’s name, scum.
I didn’t read the above tripe. I will *never* read it. I scroll down until it vanishes off the top of the screen.
Try to understand: there’s no point plastering the thread with your copy/paste garbage.
You are wasting your time.
Try to understand that nobody is interested in the yattering of a fool who understands nothing. What could an idiot with mental health issues like you possibly have to say to us?
The truth is that you peaked with “barbecue sausage fuck”. You haven’t even come close to topping that in all the many weeks since you said it.
Not much to show for all your strenuous trolling efforts, is it?
And stop using JH’s screen name, scum.
BBD twerp, you are fully and more given back your “bare nuckle misusive”
You are fantasising again, my little Swiss nutter. And only the profoundly insane would imagine that their diseased imaginings could alter the laws of physics.
Now stop using JH’s screen name, you filthy little troll!
That’s beyond out of order.
Pay attention, troll. Nobody reads your copy/paste rubbish so there is no point in slapping it up here yet again.
No matter how often you repeat this rubbish, nobody will read it. You have nothing whatsoever of merit to say, and so everyone now ignores your yattering.
Let me remind you what you have achieved so far:
* You have shown us that you are stupid
* You have shown us that you are *also* ignorant
* You have convinced us that you are a fantasist and a liar with severe mental health problems
* By incessantly demonstrating all the above, you have made yourself unreadable. Nobody looks at your screeds of copy/paste any more.
Nice work, Kai.
Now stop using JH’s name, you frothing madman.
I know I said I wasn’t going to respond to Kai’s copy/pasting but this is too good to pass up:
In the words of Evan et al. (2013),“stratocumulus (Sc) cloud cover is a persistent feature of the subtropical North and South Atlantic,” and that “it is well known that Sc cloud cover increases with decreasing temperatures of the underlying sea surface and that an increase in cloud cover will cool the surface temperatures via increasing the local albedo, otherwise known as the Sc feedback.”
So Sc is a positive feedback that amplifies SST cooling. The denier source Kai is parroting here simply fails to grasp the obverse: Sc acts as a positive feedback and amplifies warming as SSTs increase. So he’s actually highlighted a really nice example of positive cloud feedback. Something of an own goal, I’d say.
Kai, obviously, is too feeble-minded to spot this which is why I couldn’t resist pointing it out so we can all laugh at him some more.
Since he persists in being here, he might as well at least provide a source of amusement.
This IS computer trespass and now goes into fraud (assuming the identity of another).
Pass this on to the authorities and get them to look this nutjob up. Trust me, they WILL be wanting to have a word with him when they see the shit he’s doing.
It’s interesting that when one gets past the topsy-turvy world of denialist reality inversion, we see that models generally *underestimate* positive cloud feedback. Interestingly, the only model that seemed to get it about right was HadGEM2-ES (UK Met Office). Unsurprisingly, HadGEM2-ES demonstrates a relatively high sensitivity.
See Clement et al. (2009) Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback
Feedbacks involving low-level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. This issue was addressed by examining changes in low-level clouds over the Northeast Pacific in observations and climate models. Decadal fluctuations were identified in multiple, independent cloud data sets, and changes in cloud cover appeared to be linked to changes in both local temperature structure and large-scale circulation. This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. The observed relationships between cloud cover and regional meteorological conditions provide a more complete way of testing the realism of the cloud simulation in current-generation climate models. The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a positive low-level cloud feedback.
I hesitate to give the compulsive attention seeker oxygen, but it’s worth noting that his denialist mates have not said anything to oppose him. Not one word between them.
It says a lot about both the lack of strength of their ‘case’ and about their ethics.
Actually Bernard (@3/#87post Herpes Troll) I think that what happened to the herpes troll was part of the greater counter-Denialist movement. The trolls are trapped into either actively identifying and supporting with a visibly deranged virtual Breivik, or running away (or, for the obvious suspects, both). The process has not gone unnoticed. The analogy to backburning is quite apposite in the current environmental disaster in NSW: hard, dirty work with the potential to flare, but absolutely essential to control mindless destructiveness.
Yep, there’s no denier behaviour so deranged that these valiant ‘skeptics’ won’t whistle and look the other way.
Stupid AND pathetic moral cowards!
…what did you do in the troll wars, Daddy?
It really is a bad time to be a denier. No wonder they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel!
SMH letters editors = LA Times letters editors:
Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts… On that basis, a letter that says, “there is no sign humans have caused climate change” would not make the grade for our page.
BBD – Tim is clearly scrubbing the stain off the carpet, if you would just restrain yourself a little. Any attention is good attention, for some, and you are feeding him. Indeed, if you reread your comments now that his chocolate starfish posts are gone, its *you* who comes off as the nutter, so for heavens sake, take Lisa Simpson’s advice and “just don’t look”. M’Kay?
Bernard raises an interesting point. While we-all fingered Mr NPD as deranged quite a while ago, O-louse, GSW, the several socks of Mr Duff, KarenMackSpot and a few drivebys all fed him with smilies and vigourous head-nodding, supportive of his “substance” and “style”.
If there are any left here who cheered him on – that is the twat representing *YOU*. I hope you are proud of your associates, clearly insane as they are?
Can it be that Jeff Harvey has been banned now?
Harry @3#93: (hopefully) not the real Jeff, only the pathetic loser who usurped his identity.
A quick skim through the above reveals the real Jeff Harvey’s comments are all still there.
If it gets awkward but the blog still wants to be run, then whitelist commenters.
Not on the list? Don’t get in.
No, I hopefully haven’t. Tim told me that the imposter tried to use both of my email accounts to get access. How pathetic.
Well, you had to be there. And you weren’t. Also please see #84 and #86. Not really the work of a nutter.
I don’t care if I’m not on the list: the blog has nothing on it and nothing for a long time.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.