November 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 FrankD
    November 29, 2013

    I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.
    That’s according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

    And Stu2’s equivalency is valid because, just like in the studies we are deglaciating from Snowball Earth conditions.

    “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!”
    Wolfgang Pauli

  2. #2 bill
    November 29, 2013

    ‘Not even wrong’ indeed! If you imagine you’re making a point, Stootoo, you’re not.

    Explicate or surrender!

  3. #3 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    Stu 2 is not even honest, never mind not even wrong.

    Why hasn’t he picked one of the two mutually exclusive statements yet?

    1/

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Or:

    2/

    in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

    Come on, Stu 2. Pick one. And no more stupid lies about them not being mutually exclusive please. Even you must have felt a bit sick about that one.

    * * *

    That’s according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

    What paleo evidence for SE deglaciation below 10,000ppm CO2, Stu 2? I’m moderately familiar with this topic and I don’t know what you are referring to. Please be specific.

    As for Quaternary deglaciations, chek and FrankD are correct: there is no valid comparison. NH glaciations to ~30 degrees latitude are minor affairs compared to the SE ‘white planet’ albedo. Your attempted comparison is meaningless (and desperate).

    * * *

    As this couldn’t really be much worse, Stu 2, why don’t you do what any reasonable person acting in good faith would do and concede the point? Admit that you are wrong and accept that Snowball Earth deglaciation is triggered once CO2 increases beyond a threshold value >10,000ppm but probably not higher than 100,000ppm. Why is is so difficult for you to admit that CO2 is required to terminate SE states?

  4. #4 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    Typo – should be:

    NH glaciations to ~40 degrees latitude

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    November 29, 2013

    …in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
    Which is not particularly different to my comment…

    It’s the precise opposite of your comment.

    I’m quite happy for you to say you misspoke or were misinterpreted, and then to clarify the matter. That’s what reasonable people do. But pretending that black is white is simply not reasonable.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    November 29, 2013

    The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

    OK. the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.

  7. #7 Mack
    November 29, 2013

    ” OK the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.” Looney Lionel applies his brain to some high school fizzics. Like carbonated water fizz- icks. .

  8. #8 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    ” OK the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.” Looney Lionel applies his brain to some high school fizzics. Like carbonated water fizz- icks. .

    Oh no you don’t. You have too many outstanding questions to answer. You can’t just scuttle away and then pop up a few days later demanding that others jump through your hoops.

    Start here:

    1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

    2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

    3/ If, as you claim, CO2 has a cooling effect and there is no positive WV feedback, why was it so hot ~50Ma (Eocene Climatic Optimum)? CO2 was ~1000 – 1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. This appears to falsify both your hypotheses.

    PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (F=~1W/m^2) since then as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

    Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2008).

  9. #9 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    Cue further physics denial, aka pathological denial aka mental illness.

  10. #10 Wow
    November 29, 2013

    “OK. the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.”

    Pedals, obviously.

    God is pedalling a water cycle and that causes warming from God’s body and the rain is His sweat.

    Actually, if this were spots’ assertion, it would be one of the most coherent one it has tried.

  11. #11 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    Isn’t a Divine Blowtorch involved somewhere? Or perhaps the Divine Flatus (arf, arf) get’s torched somewhere along the line?

  12. #12 BBD
    November 29, 2013

    Eh? “gets”. FFS.

  13. #13 Wow
    November 29, 2013

    HA! Apostrophe in the wrong place!

    THAT PROVES AGW is a conspiracy!!!!

    (pants on head, pencils up nostrils, “Wibble Wibble!”)

  14. #14 Lionel A
    November 29, 2013

    Isn’t a Divine Blowtorch involved somewhere?

    Ha! Yes. Something like that. :-)

    If awake lacklustre MackaYack you would have first seen that suggestion here, is that what happens?

    I did first write “OK. the hydrological cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force. but thought that big word would go over MackaYack’s head and get lost, when in the event the simpleton’s version went straight through it ’cause there was nothing to stop it.

  15. #15 rhwombat
    November 30, 2013

    I see that the Mackspotty finger is firmly back in the ‘Karen’ sock – or what my 14 year old daughter refers to as the creepy old man hiding behind the sock of a twittery adolescent girl.

  16. #16 John
    Beechboro Perth
    November 30, 2013

    According to the local climate skeptic (denier) Paul Murray in the West,The American meteorological Society has poo pooed the idea that 90% of climate scientists agree with anthropological climate change so he says.
    They say 52% and a lot of that is political views,Murray also has a go at Flannery and Steffen also Karoly who he says is making it up.
    In WA which is a one newspaper town The West who Murray worked for as editor before being removed he now writes opinion pieces for the West,now on 6PR as shlock jock talk back in Mornings.
    Now shifted to Afternoons as the paper is owned by K Stokes,I looked for article online at American meteorological Society but no joy.
    Maybe some other WA people on here can read it and clarify things as this kind of thing does nobody any favors
    hope some one can help,

  17. #17 BBD
    November 30, 2013

    John

    The AMS survey was of meteorologists and not climate scientists – there’s some overlap, but not enough for conflation. So the claim that “the American meteorological Society has poo pooed the idea that 90% of climate scientists agree with anthropological climate change” is simply false.

    Second, it’s important to read the abstract to the AMS survey closely. Meteorologists are asked their views on climate change and a clear pattern emerges. Poor topic knowledge and political orientation are strongly correlated with rejection of the scientific consensus and a contrarian view:

    In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated – and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated – with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related.

    No surprise at all there: politics and contrarianism, as ever, as always.

    More from Media Matters here.

    Hope this helps.

  18. #18 Craig Thomas
    December 1, 2013

    Notice that those with the least credentials exhibit the most Denial.

    DK.

  19. #19 Stu 2
    December 1, 2013

    BBD and Lotharrson,
    It was not necessary for me to pick a statement because I disagree that
    a) In context , they are mutually exclusive or
    b) that it is the exact opposite.
    Further BBD; I am not arguing that these studies show that CO2 needs to be at least 10,000ppm (as long as there is a thick dust layer and clay drapes) before it would play a *significant* role in deglaciation.
    The observation remains that deglaciation occurs with CO2 ppm way under these levels.
    You are attempting to lay smoke and mirrors or construct an odd type of chicken and egg argument.
    Read your comments through this thread and notice how you discount any other likely triggers and levers in favour of CO2.
    These studies do not conclude that CO2 is the only or even necessarily the most likely *significant* forcing that predicated deglaciation.
    Perhaps I have misinterpreted you?
    Lionel.
    As well as being a lever, the *hydrological* cycle (also well known as the water cycle) creates a *forcing*. This also gets assisted by the inclusion of dust and particulates on the surface of the ice and snow which then includes the albedo effect.

  20. #20 bill
    December 1, 2013

    Schnooooooorrrrreeee, whoooooooo…. Schnooooooorrrrrrreee, whoooooooo…. sorry, must have dropped off… you’re still here, Stootoo?

  21. #21 chek
    December 2, 2013

    What it is Bill, I don’t think it’s sunk in that the cretin level of anything-but-CO2 argument is analogous to insisting that automobiles require a pedestrian with a red flag to walk ahead to warn the unsuspecting populace lest they take an attack of the vapours.

    The world has moved on from S2’s level of comprehension decades ago – cranks, paid liars and their stooges excepted of course..

  22. #22 bill
    December 2, 2013

    As usual, better trolls, please.

    While we’re waiting, Farage sacks Monckton! Say it isn’t rooooooeeee!

  23. #23 bill
    December 2, 2013

    Whoops, trooooooeeeeee…..

  24. #24 Stu
    December 2, 2013

    Wait wait wait, 2…. I might have missed a few comments here.

    Are you saying that the hydrological cycle ended snowball earth?

  25. #25 bill
    December 2, 2013

    Yes. Yes he is.

  26. #26 Stu
    December 2, 2013

    No. I mean, seriously, no. REALLY?

  27. #27 Stu 2
    December 2, 2013

    Actually that is a strange question Stu.
    I was merely pointing out to Lionel that the water cycle does not simply behave as a lever, it too creates *forcings* in the climate.
    Are you now perhaps suggesting that the water cycle has nothing to do with deglaciation and the unlocking of snowball earth?

  28. #28 Stu
    December 2, 2013

    That was not the question. Christ, do you all have to be such transparent, ignorant, pathetic weasels?

    You have implied, so far, that it was NOT CO2, and from there have implied it was the hydrological cycle. You got called on it. Now you’ve already backpedaled to a sad “something to do with it”. You’re no longer allowed to use the word “forcing” until you take the twenty seconds to look it up.

    You should have taken my advice and cut your losses. You SUCK at this. You are ignorant. You wouldn’t know a logical argument if it teabagged you for a fortnight, physics if it donkey punched you or climate science if you married it.

  29. #29 chameleon
    December 2, 2013

    Nope Stu, you asked a stupid question and got exactly what you deserved.
    Chucking a tantrum doesn’t change that :-)

  30. #30 Stu 2
    December 2, 2013

    Stu,
    Your question was simply ridiculous.
    I answered with a similarly structured question.
    Clearly, you don’t like that any better than I do!
    I was simply pointing out to Lionel that the water cycle is both a lever and a *forcing*.
    Maybe you should go back and reread the thread?
    I linked the Abbot et al paper as relevant research.
    Maybe you could read that as well?
    BBD is obsessing over one sentence that has been taken out of context.
    I don’t regard that as my problem, but if you want to argue that it is, you go right ahead.
    It doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t prove anything but maybe it makes you feel better somehow?

  31. #31 Wow
    December 2, 2013

    Maybe the deniers’ anthem ought to be “I’m walking back wards, for Christmas”…

  32. #32 Stu
    December 2, 2013

    Christ, you’re a stupid liar.

    In case you got confused, you entered the topic with

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Which is idiotic, not backed by current research, yet after being corrected you doubled down with this (glaring non sequitur aside, since you’re wrong in either era)

    The current CO2 ppm is not anywhere near the lowest required estimate for it to make any significant contribution. The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

    These are from your first two comments on the subject…. so either this was a different “Stu 2″, or you’re full of it.

    Friendly advice: your pathetic waffling and frantic backpedaling does not work when people can look up what you actually said.

  33. #33 BBD
    December 2, 2013

    Stu 2’s nonsense isn’t worth further bother. He’s yet another dishonest denier ignoramus who is either too stupid or too mendacious (or both) to concede that his ‘argument’ is junk.

    Instead of disappearing – which would have been wiser – he’s just making an irritating noise. It’s all he has left. Actually, it’s all he started with.

  34. #34 BBD
    December 2, 2013

    BBD is obsessing over one sentence that has been taken out of context.
    I don’t regard that as my problem, but if you want to argue that it is, you go right ahead.

    You are a liar many times over.

    And a measure of your craven dishonesty is that you still haven’t answered the original question. A pitiful, unpleasant spectacle. Where is your shame? Have you not one shred of integrity?

  35. #35 Lionel A
    December 2, 2013

    As well as being a lever, the *hydrological* cycle (also well known as the water cycle) creates a *forcing*.

    So in an ice locked world, with not water vapour in the atmosphere, what supplies the force(ing)?

  36. #36 BBD
    December 2, 2013

    The hydrological cycle is a feedback to solar forcing.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    December 2, 2013

    BBD

    Yes I know. I was wondering if the troll would wake up and see that.

    The typo here may have made you think that I was confused:

    ‘So in an ice locked world, with not water vapour….’

    should be ‘no water vapour’.

  38. #38 BBD
    December 2, 2013

    I wonder if Stu 2 is so desperate because he knows that if he accepts the fact that CO2 forcing is required to break out of the albedo-locked icehouse, the remorseless nature of physics compels him to accept a lot more besides.

    For instance that GHG forcing is required to explain hyperthermals and has emerged as the best explanation for the slow cooling over the last ~50Ma. All of which neatly sets the stage for some more standard climate science: ECS/2xCO2 is about 3C and we have a very serious problem on our hands.

    Our little CO2 deniers can’t stand the thought of that, can they? Hence the endless outpouring of utterly mediocre ‘reasoning’ and pig-stupid physics denial, eg. this thread.

  39. #39 Stu 2
    December 2, 2013

    BBD,
    It’s not necessary to answer your question because it was a question that obsessed over a single sentence that you have taken out of context.
    You have chosen to ignore any other comment or observation by me in favour of that single obsession. You have also structured your questioning in a similar manner to Stu.
    So ironically, you are correct, it isn’t worth bothering about.
    Your assumptions about my character and intelligence are at best, very amusing to read but, again ironically, actually reveal more about you than anything else.

  40. #40 bill
    December 3, 2013

    Ah, why is it no denier can ever admit they’re wrong, mo matter how blatantly obvious the case?

    Shorter StooToo: I am as dim as a sack of coal. And I am full of myself, as well as of it.

  41. #41 rhwombat
    December 3, 2013

    And, on a more hopeful note: Lawson runs away screaming that they forced him to do it.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/03/dangerous-rubbish-afr-letters-ed-lashed-for-contrarian-climate-paper/
    and
    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hunter_response.pdf

    Question: do we know Parker/Boretti by another name?

  42. #42 bill
    December 3, 2013

    Snap – I was just about to link to that! Sometimes the Crikey! subscription isn’t just about FDotM…

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2013

    On a less hopeful note, Australia’s Peter Christoff is not exactly optimistic about the future:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

    Christoff’s comments are measured and informed, and his observations on the effect of late action should have any genuine leader sitting up in his or her seat.

    In light of these comments I cannot believe the obstinate idiocy of the Coalition, who are willing to destroy their grandchildren’s world for whatever passes as thought in their minds. And they can’t ever say that they weren’t told, because we’re telling them over and over and over again.

    And for those trolls who would shout “alarmist!”, it’s only alarmist if the warnings are overblown. The warnings from science are certainly alarming but they are also conservative and that means that they are most definitely not alarmist.

    What is alarmist is the nonsense that we “can’t afford to act”. Humanity cannot afford to not act, and it cannot afford to not act immediately.

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2013

    Dang, missed a closing tag…

    On a less hopeful note, Australia’s Peter Christoff is not exactly optimistic about the future:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

    Christoff’s comments are measured and informed, and his observations on the effect of late action should have any genuine leader sitting up in his or her seat.

    In light of these comments I cannot believe the obstinate idiocy of the Coalition, who are willing to destroy their grandchildren’s world for whatever passes as thought in their minds. And they can’t ever say that they weren’t told, because we’re telling them over and over and over again.

    And for those trolls who would shout “alarmist!”, it’s only alarmist if the warnings are overblown. The warnings from science are certainly alarming but they are also conservative and that means that they are most definitely not alarmist.

    What is alarmist is the nonsense that we “can’t afford to act”. Humanity cannot afford to not act, and it cannot afford to not act immediately.

  45. #45 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    More desperate and risible lies from Stu 2.

  46. #46 chameleon
    December 3, 2013

    That’s hilarious BBD! :-) :-) :-)
    Stu 2 is not the one who looks desperate.
    That would be you :-) :-) :-).

  47. #47 Stu 2
    December 3, 2013

    BBD,
    In the interest of restoring a genuine discussion, can I suggest that you try asking a different and better question?

  48. #48 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    In the interest of a genuine discussion, can you please answer my original question*s* (all of them) and demonstrate some good faith?

  49. #49 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    Because what you are doing here is vile. You are trapped by your own lies, and now try to present this as a failing on my part.

    Fuck off with that, Stu 2. It will not stand.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    December 3, 2013

    It was not necessary for me to pick a statement because I disagree that
    a) In context , they are mutually exclusive or
    b) that it is the exact opposite.

    Sigh. We know.

    I have indicated out that it’s very very difficult to honestly interpret the two statements as not being mutually exclusive. You have utterly failed to show how a plausible reading could render them not mutually exclusive. You’ve done a bit of waffling and hand waving in your own inimitable style, complete with some red herrings about the water cycle, but you simply haven’t shown why everyone but you is wrong about the mutual exclusivity of the statements in question.

    I can only hope that in your own mind you think you have actually shown this so the failure is one of miscommunication or misinterpretation rather than mendacity.

    The observation remains that deglaciation occurs with CO2 ppm way under these levels.

    Which observation? If you’re referring to the papers in question, then the quotes BBD gave from those papers say the opposite.

  51. #51 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    If you’ve ever wondered why you remain in moderation, Chameleon, you need only read your last half-dozen “contributions” here.

  52. #52 Stu 2
    December 3, 2013

    BBD et al.
    You have apparently misinterpreted and then obsessed over one sentence.
    Considering your continuing obsessive behaviour I would be inclined to guess that it is a wilful misinterpretation.
    You are now resorting to personal attacks and abuse that include making completely unsupported statements that have absolutely nothing to do with establishing anything other than your own opinions.
    There is a name for this type of behaviour:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hubris.asp

  53. #53 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    You have apparently misinterpreted and then obsessed over one sentence.

    No we haven’t, you lying clown. You flat-out denied that CO2 plays any role in Snowball deglaciations and you were wrong. You said this:

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    That is the exact opposite of what the references say. You might initially have made this error because you are stupid but persisting in it for so long proves that you are also a liar.

    * * *

    What paleo evidence is there for Snowball Earth deglaciation below 10,000ppm CO2? I don’t know what you are referring to. Please be specific. Link to papers. Or admit that you have no evidence and admit that you are wrong.

    * * *

    Finally, there is no valid comparison between Snowball Earth and Quaternary NH glaciations to ~30 degrees latitude. The latter are minor affairs compared to the Snowball Earth ‘white planet’ with its massively dominant and hyper-chilling albedo. Once again, you are simply wrong.

    * * *

    Why don’t you do what any reasonable person acting in good faith would do and concede the point? Admit that you are wrong and accept that the evidence suggests that Snowball Earth deglaciation is triggered once CO2 increases above 10,000ppm but probably not higher than 100,000ppm. Why is is so difficult for you to admit that CO2 is required to terminate SE states?

    Why do you deny this with such ludicrous, credibility-annihilating tenacity and desperation?

  54. #54 BBD
    December 3, 2013

    What the fuck is wrong with these people?

  55. #55 bill
    December 3, 2013

    Stootoo, when your only ally is Chebbie, even you must know you’re toast. Face up to being wrong, or sod off. Or both.

  56. #56 Stu 2
    December 3, 2013

    Flatly denied BBD?
    Where have I denied that the minimum figure of CO2 according to these papers is 10,000ppm?
    Where have I exhibited that I am a CO2 ‘denier’?
    I concede I may have misinterpreted you and you may not be claiming (as you have appeared to do at this thread) that CO2 ppm is the ONLY plausible explanation for deglaciation.
    The papers find that CO2 can contribute at those hypothesised levels ALONG with other well known contributors.
    They do not conclude, as you appear to be arguing, that it is ALL because of CO2.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2013

    Following on from my post at #44, Matthew England also talks about “Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World” and about the consequences of the warming that are in train… and about which we’re currently not only not doing anything, but about which the Coalition government is actively seeking to avoid any genuine action at all:

    http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s3904315.htm

    Listen and weep for your children and grandchildren.

  58. #58 bill
    December 4, 2013

    what do you mean, can contribute? jeebus wept! are we talking historical events here, or what?

    it’s not hard: Q what ended snowball earth?

    A: this didn’t require CO2 to occur

    B: this required a significant amount of CO2

    pick one

    claims of ‘squirrel’ and ‘look, something shiny’ will not be accepted

  59. #60 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    Yet another open thread. A dead blog populated by CAGW ghosts. Hillarious, dead people who don’t realize they’re dead.

  60. #61 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Now the attempted backdown:

    They do not conclude, as you appear to be arguing, that it is ALL because of CO2.

    This is a stupid, blatant lie. Just go back and read my comments. I *never* made this argument – on the contrary I was at pains to point out that other factors modulate the amount of CO2 required to trigger SE deglaciations.

    That is why I referenced the Abbot studies in the first place.

    You are either unbelievably stupid with the reading comprehension of a child or a liar.

    Either way I am sick of your nonsense. Time you took a hike.

  61. #62 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Where have I denied that the minimum figure of CO2 according to these papers is 10,000ppm?

    Where have I exhibited that I am a CO2 ‘denier’?

    This is you, liar:

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    And that has been your underlying stance all the painful way through this ridiculous exchange. And now you try to deny it.

    Pathetic.

  62. #63 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Bernard J #57

    Yes, I read that last night. Just wonderful news. And whiny little Stu 2 wonders why he gets zero tolerance these days. Another deluded imbecile thinks that those of us who understand enough science to realise what is happening are the walking dead. He is quite terribly mistaken. As I have said before, the voluble deniers are the ones digging their own graves with their bare hands.

  63. #64 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    What uneducated lay denier wingnuts like Pentax cannot get though their thick heads is that the evidence for AGW as well as the weight of scientific opinion behind it is very far from being ‘dead’. The recent IPCC report reinforces this; now read what the Insurance companies believe:

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1385712193.html

    Essentially, it boils down to the fact that the AGW deniers are shrinking in terms of number and their only recourse is to cover their eyes and ears and to bleat like Pentax.

  64. #65 Mack
    December 4, 2013

    Yes , the living dead here Pentax. Time for some more open thread for the zombies, particularly the one blubbing for the children.

  65. #66 chameleon
    December 4, 2013

    Geeze you lot.
    To quote Bill, what planet. . .?

  66. #67 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    Yes jeffie. Nowadays ipcc is 95% sure that man is responsible for the warming that hasn’t occoured for the last 17 years. Clown.

  67. #68 chameleon
    December 4, 2013

    And BTW it’s DECEMBER!

  68. #69 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    jeffie dear, how would you say the VIP party went in Warsaw? What did they agree on? What did they accomplish beside a substantial amount of CO2? Which countries committed to exactly what? You know, cry wolf long enough without any wolf to be seen, people eventually stop taking you seriously. And they become, like you, a joke.

  69. #70 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Yes jeffie. Nowadays ipcc is 95% sure that man is responsible for the warming that hasn’t occoured for the last 17 years. Clown.

    Not this lie *again*. How can you be so dishonest?

    Even the incomplete surface temperature record disproves your claim.

    The recently enhanced surface temperature record confirms that your claim is false.

    It was always rubbish anyway because the troposphere isn’t the climate system, just ~2% of it. The vast majority is ocean and the ocean is heating up as predicted – see OHC 0 – 2000m.

    You have been told this again and again and again and still you lie.

    What kind of immoral refuse does that make you?

  70. #71 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Sunspot

    Yes , the living dead here Pentax. Time for some more open thread for the zombies, particularly the one blubbing for the children.

    You have questions to answer. Get on with it.

    1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

    2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

    3/ If, as you claim, CO2 has a cooling effect why was it so hot ~50Ma during the Eocene Climatic Optimum? CO2 was ~1000 – 1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. Explain this.

    PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (F=~1W/m^2) across the Cenozoic as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

    Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2001; 2008).

  71. #72 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    BBD, you hit the nail on the head when you say, “You (Pentax) have been told this again and again and again and still you lie”.

    But of course they lie. This is because they aren’t remotely interested in science, but in bolstering a political and economic agenda. None of the deniers who have written into Deltoid have anything remotely resembling a basic scientific education or relevant qualifications. Yet they spew forth their bilge here as if they are veritable experts.

    And of course, they avoid links like the one I put up, showing that the insurance industry takes AGW very seriously because they are the ones underwriting the costs. They are well aware that climate related disasters are indeed rising and they are the ones who are having to cough up the money to compensate those who suffer losses because of it. But those benefiting from the status quo – the fossil fuel and automobile lobbies by and large – are the ones expending most efforts in denial.

    Pentax, Mack (and Stu 2) are just simpletons stuck in their own myopic political mindsets. I am still waiting for an AGW denier to show up on Deltoid with a reasonable scientific pedigree. I can tell you one thing: its gonna be a long, long wait.

  72. #73 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    “The recently enhanced surface temperature record” meaning tampered with to promote CAGW. What a joke.

    And again jeffie, what did the coctail party in Warsaw come up with? What committments did they reach?

    Open threads after open threads on Deltoid, nothing substantial at all populated by walking dead regulars. Hillarious!

  73. #74 Mack
    December 4, 2013

    Then there’s this “educated” lycra clad cycling zombie Jeff Harvey who says you’ve not got enough scientific pedigree , Pentax. What scientist with any “pedigree” would come to this lunatic asylum (no offence Tim) and face a DK afflicted fuckwit like you Jeff Harvey.

  74. #75 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    “The recently enhanced surface temperature record” meaning tampered with to promote CAGW. What a joke.

    The scientific evidence proves you are a liar many times over – and your only response is denial.

    This is mental illness.

  75. #76 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Then there’s this “educated” lycra clad cycling zombie Jeff Harvey who says you’ve not got enough scientific pedigree , Pentax. What scientist with any “pedigree” would come to this lunatic asylum (no offence Tim) and face a DK afflicted fuckwit like you Jeff Harvey.

    Answers please. Stop the pathetic evasions, man up and engage like an adult.

    If you can’t then leave.

  76. #77 Wow
    December 4, 2013

    “But of course they lie. This is because they aren’t remotely interested in science, but in bolstering a political and economic agenda.”

    Oh, they’d tell the truth.

    If it had any aid to their cause.

    Or could recognise it.

  77. #78 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Actually, I mis-spoke. Pentax isn’t just indulging in denial, he is advancing a conspiracy theory. So, yes, he is mentally ill, but it’s not simply pathological denial. He’s a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy crank who actually believes that the global scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to fool the world’s politicians about climate change.

    This is swivel-eyed lunacy. But at least we are getting down to the basic truths. Sunspot is mentally ill, Pentax is mentally ill, Stu 2 is probably mentally ill…

    A pattern is emerging here.

  78. #79 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    Mack, the Deltoid regulars are nothing else than the scrape of the booth. They actually think hand waving, (maked up) concensus and manipulated data is science. Clowns.

  79. #80 Wow
    December 4, 2013

    “This is swivel-eyed lunacy.”

    Yeah, you’ve understood panties.

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    The reason know-nothings like Mack and Pentax deride academic qualifications is simple: because they haven’t got any. Note also their sheer hypocrisy: when they try and exaggerate the importance of a lone study questioning the 97%+ of published studies that support AGW, they will use big words like ‘peer-reviewed’ to try and give the study some credibility, and to describe the author as a ‘leading scientist’ or that he has a ‘PhD’or some such similar argument. But when its pointed out to them that the vast majority of researchers publishing in the field of climate science support the AGW theory and that many of them have very excellent pedigrees (e.g. Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Mahlmann, Santer etc), then the smear knives come out.

    Note also how they come out with their knives when I post here. Given their scientific arguments are vacuous and intellectually bankrupt, only a few deniers occasionally trickle through here these days – most have had to be banned because they are outright lunatics. But clearly Pantie and Mack and his numerous sock puppets loathe the fact that I am a qualified scientist. Expect some witless comment from Olaus any time, followed by Jonas and his brainless admirers over in the asylum thread to chirp in with their worthless musings.

    I have repeatedly asked every denier who has ever written in here what qualifications they possess in any field of science that has endowed them with some strange mystical wisdom that has eluded the majority of trained professionals in climate research. And I get the same response every time: silence. A refusal to answer a simple question, generally followed by witless smears. Since these clots are anonymous, they won’t be giving away their identities by saying what their day jobs (if any) are. But they never do. Which is an answer all in itself. It means that all of them have no formal training in anything remotely scientific. That’s fine, but then to come on weblogs ranting as if they are renowned experts who know more than those working in the field for years really does take a remarkable amount of hubris.

    Note again that neither Pantie not Mack et al. have dared to question why the insurance industry is strongly converted to the scientific fact of AGW. Why are insurers not denying its existence either? The reason is simple: because they are well aware of AGW and of its consequences for their industry in terms of costs.

    Yet, despite being repeatedly debunked, and several recent studies which have been published showing that, far from a hiatus, when the data from more stations is incorporated, it is warming as rapidly as ever, we still have dingbats like Pantie writing in here with their ‘it stopped warming in 1996′ crap. What’s worse is that they don’t provide any scientific basis to support it; instead, the rest of us are supposed to believe a non-entity with no scientific training without hesitation and then to just shut up.

    This has been one of their many strategies all along. Say something without a hint of empirical support and then to ridicule any one who dares question it.

  81. #82 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    BBD: they are ALL mentally ill. I am still waiting – after more than 10 years – for someone questioning the veracity of AGW theory to come on Deltoid and to put forward solid theoretical and empirical arguments.

    I am still waiting. Pretty well every denier who has come on here is a far-right libertarian wack job who never hesitates to smear scientists they don’t like whilst putting forward some of the most appallingly simple arguments one can imagine. Its clear that every AGW denier – without exception – falls into the category of arguing on the basis of their own pre-determined political/economic world views. The fact that they don’t see a connect between the fossil fuel industries and lobbying as an important factor is just one piece of evidence for this. They won’t even try and explain why the insurance industry has a very different view. That is because they can’t. So its back to the same puerile arguments; a few years ago it was a doomsday myth, then it was due to the sun, and now the warming has stopped (which acknowledges that it was warming after all, something the same people denied during the time that is apparently was warming).

    For deniers, the goalposts are forever mobile. If they are forced to admit that its warming again, then it will be due to the sun again. Or water vapor. Or the gravitational pull of Ganymede. Or a supernova towards the middle of the galaxy. There will always be some reason to excuse humanity. And as long as they can do that the status quo is retained and the fossil fuel industries will continue to determine our relationship with ecosystems across the biosphere. And in the end, it will drag our civilization down the drain.

  82. #83 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    “…and that many of them have very excellent pedigrees (e.g. Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Mahlmann, Santer etc), then the smear knives come out.”

    Priceless, absolutely priceless! Pedigree of what? Cheating, distorting data, lying, alarming? What a usefil idiot you are, jeffieboy.

    “only a few deniers occasionally trickle through here these days”

    Propably because there really isn’t any need for it any longer and people just don’t care about unsupported alarmism. As said, you are walking dead. Like the japanese soldiers who didn’t know the war was over. It,s quite funny to pop in from time to time and check for the regular loons here. The world is changing away from alarmism, but the deltoids persist. To the last drop I presume.

  83. #84 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    And by the way jeffieboy, repeating pure nonsens and puking words doesn’t by any means help your case. It just shows that you are completely out of real world arguments. Beware, dead man walking, dead man walking!

  84. #85 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    Pentax, you can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag. But that is hardly surprising. You are sick. There is no alternative explanation. Its pathological.

    For my information please provide proof of your allegations against any or all of the scientists I listed above. These are serious allegations indeed. None of them have any substance, of course. If they did, then we’d have seen the fossil fuel lobby – who ostensibly determine policy in the USA – having their allegations tried in a court of law, But of course, they are baseless. So its left up to a pathologically twisted army of morons to repeat them ad libitum. Its all you have left, as I said. No science. No arguments. Just this kind of infantile behavior.

    But no need to worry. Again, we have Pentax, with his sandbox level discourse, making things up and expecting the rest of us to swallow it. He doesn’t like these exceptional scientists, so they are, in his opinion, liars frauds etc. But to be fair to Panty, he is not alone in doing it. They ALL do it. By ‘all’ I do not even refer to the very few qualified scientists who deny AGW. I mean their army of uneducated acolytes. They leave this sordid lot to make the smears because their are no repercussions for them. Pantax is an anonymous nothing. So he can get away with it. Nobody gives a damn what he things or says, so he can say the moon is made of cheese and that any scientist who disagrees is a liar, a fraud, a cheater. And nobody will care.

    Panty, it doesn’t work that way. Try harder. Because you proclaim something does not make it remotely true. In fact, given your track record, one should consider anything you say to be an actual reversal of the truth. But if this is the best you can do, then keep at it. You look more and more like a complete idiot with each post. I enjoy watching you squirm and writhe and sink further into the mud of your won making. Its amusing.

    And it makes some of my university lectures more amusing when I anonymously quote some of the stuff people like you write. It gets good laughs out of my students. Its only when i tell them that there are real people who write and think like you and other deniers that they go quiet. They then begin to realize what a mess we are in when there are those who actually think and believe the stuff you write.

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    Addendum: please excuse typos in my last message. I am dividing time between answering Panty’s witless histrionics and having a scientific meeting with colleagues in the US by phone. Talk about a contrast. Serious science versus kindergarten science with Panty.

  86. #87 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    It just shows that you are completely out of real world arguments.

    No, that’s another lie.

    When presented with scientific evidence, you are reduced to conspiracy theories and pathological denial. These are both indicative of mental illness.

    You haven’t produced a single “real world argument” yet. Just the crazy and the old, long-debunked lies.

    It is a marvel how absolutely detached from reality you are. But then, you are clearly mentally ill, so this goes with the territory.

  87. #88 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Jeff

    Its only when i tell them that there are real people who write and think like you and other deniers that they go quiet. They then begin to realize what a mess we are in when there are those who actually think and believe the stuff you write.</blockquote.

    I have had broadly similar experiences when attempting to convey the flavour and in some cases the detail of the lunatic discourse of deniers. Most people are incredulous – as well they might be. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't witnessed so much at first hand.

    Still, as you say, your students went quiet. Most people can't believe their ears. That's good. This lunacy is the frothings of a minority of people who are ill, not a majority position. It is not a reflection on the general human condition.

  88. #89 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    jeffieboy, it must be a real important “science”meeting since you at the same time are surfing an alarmistic blog. Really proffessional I must say. And you want to be taken for serious? What a joke you are.

    Now, let’s hear, what countries committed to exactly what at the expensive coctailparty in Warsaw? And how is it going to battle the alledged CAGW? And can you do so without an plethora of nonsens word diarrhea?

  89. #90 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    Panty, I am senior editor of a new journal, hence the phone meeting. My writing in here was to just amuse myself with your vacuous waffling. Your grammar is utterly appalling, but your logic is comedy gold. You’ve never put forth a single scientific argument for anything on this blog, except to express your own opinions, which sadly are benthic and made up on the spot. You actually think that you can spar with me on an equal footing. That in itself is quite utterly hilarious.

    As for Warsaw, its hardly surprising when most countries are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporations that ‘own’ them. I don’t deny that corporations have won. They determine our relationship with nature, and in the US at least both parties are totally beholden to them, effectively rendering their citizens impotent.

    However, as I discussed above, the insurance industries have quote a different view because they are the ones whose profits are being eaten away by the symptoms of warming. of course you do not address this because it is quite far above your shallow head. What is your profession again by the way? Oh… of course… we are not allowed to know because it will be a huge embarrassment for you. Just like it would be for Mack, Jonas, and your other ‘ allies’ on here.

    Pentax, take some advice. You couldn’t spar intellectually with a child in grade 1. You are bereft of anything remotely resembling an argument. And you appear to be happy to see humanity sending the planet’s life support systems down the drain. I am sure that future generations will admire your contribution to the predicament.

  90. #91 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    What a joke you are.

    Amusing coming from a conspiracy theorising nutter who actually believes all the scientists are plotting to usher in world socialism or whatever lunacy it is you endorse.

    Get to a mirror, you fool.

  91. #92 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    What’s worse is that they don’t provide any scientific basis to support it; instead, the rest of us are supposed to believe a non-entity with no scientific training without hesitation and then to just shut up.

    You’d have to be mentally ill to do that.

  92. #93 pentaxZ
    December 4, 2013

    Hahaha, you’re so funny jeffie. I suppose the stone age people also had future generations in mind when they decided to stop using stone in their daily life. Just in case, so future generations wouldn’t ran out of it.

    Where is the catastrophe? Nobody seems able to find it. Even the infamous IPCC admits that there hasn’t been any warming the last decade and a half. Bogger, catastrophe, where are you?

  93. #94 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    That’s right, look back over a decade instead of forward to the end of the century and pretend that the climate system isn’t warming up. Even though I showed you the evidence that it is just upthread and you are *still* lying about this.

    Which bit of “the troposphere is only ~2% of the climate system” don’t you understand?

    Or put another way, how can you be this stupid and operate a computer?

  94. #95 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    Gee, I guess the crippling heat waves that gripped Russia in 2010 and the USA in 2012, the unprecedented droughts that have hit the Amazon basin, hurricane Sandy and the scale 6 typhoon that battered much of the Philippines don’t count in Pentax’s science illiteracy handbook. Not to mention the old problem of temporal lags in cause and effect relationships when studying processes encompassing very large scales.

    But, given Pentax and the other brainless denialist twerps on Deltoid haven’t been to a science class outside of school, its a small wonder they don’t understand what the vast majority of trained scientists do. Not to mention the insurance industries that I linked to earlier but which Panty doesn’t dare try and counter.

  95. #96 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2013

    My friends on Media Lens (UK) have a pretty simple but graphic series of figures to illustrate the scale of the current predicament. Humans are pushing systems towards critical tipping points. We cannot say that society has not been warned. But since Pentax is a good example of one of societies ‘mindless sheep’ whose consent has been ‘manufactured’ (with kudos to Walter Lippman), its no small wonder that he sees a left wing conspiracy under every rock.

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1380791888.top

  96. #97 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Jeff

    Thanks for the MediaLens graphic. Allow me to return the favour.

    You often speak of perspective and scale. Here we have Pentax using a very crude strawman based on the wrong time-scale: “What, no catastrophe *yet*? Then it must all be rubbish!”

    Here is a visualisation tool that provides a centennial perspective on various emissions scenarios and their effects on GAT. Pick one, eg RCP 6.0, and see the present in centennial context.

    If only Pentax could stop lying to himself for the few seconds it takes to use this tool, he might finally grasp why his previous comment was so horribly self-deluding and foolish.

    Apologies if you have seen this before.

  97. #98 Stu 2
    December 4, 2013

    I’m not sure why I’m bothering (as I will no doubt set of another cacophony of obsessive abuse) but anyway:
    Pentax:
    Although I think you’re overly harsh in your criticism of Jeff Harvey, I do essentially agree with your observation that Deltoid has lost its way and that the political agenda that is still being advocated here is probably a failing ‘grand experiment’.
    Professor Aynsley Kellow, in ‘Science and Public Policy: The virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science’ uses examples, including climate change science, that show how a fascination with computer models and an over arching set of values has resulted in a preference and a focus for virtual data over observational data.
    Despite the pretence otherwise, academia is a ruthless environment because fragile egos and research grants are on the line. Affiliations help academics survive and thrive in publish-or-perish university milieus.
    Apparently Jeff believes that employed academics who are published and cited are the only trustworthy sources of information.
    Anyone else, even if they possess excellent qualifications and experience are suspect.
    Perhaps Jeff could look up those definitions of hubris that I posted for BBD and consider his comments in light of those?

  98. #99 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    You are still a liar, Stu 2. Nothing can change that, certainly not whining and belatedly pretending that it was all a misunderstanding. Your accusing of hubris is truly silly. I don’t think you have a clue what the term means.

    Nor are self-serving ideologues like Kellow of the least relevance here. His book – which I have read – is clever but hollow propaganda. The old lie about models subverting the empirical is a fine example of Kellow’s misrepresentation of climate science. You should read climate scientists instead of polemicists like Kellow. You might learn something important and true.

    Here is well-known climate model sceptic James Hansen on the way it really is:

    TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

    Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that’s not the principal basis for our concern. It’s the Earth’s history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they’re not the primary source of our understanding.

    TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

    Hansen: Oh, yeah, that’s intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that’s the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it’s supplementary. It’s not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth’s history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

    And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth’s history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it’s misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

  99. #100 BBD
    December 4, 2013

    Lies will haunt you on the internet, Stu 2.

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Everybody can see what you really said.

Current ye@r *