December 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 pentaxZ
    December 5, 2013

    Now, here you have some really interresting to read. Pay especially attention to the 42000 year long reconstruction and reflect what it tells you.

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20global%20satellite%20temperature

  2. #3 Jeff Harvey
    December 5, 2013

    As expected, our scientifically illiterate right wing munchkin starts off the December thread with links to a climate change denial blog – not a peer-reviewed scientific study.

    And he expects us to stoop to his puddle-deep level of discussion on the link. My advice is to send him a box of crayons and a coloring book next.

  3. #4 BBD
    December 5, 2013

    It tells us that the orbital dynamics responsible for previous interglacials were different to those that triggered the Holocene. This is utterly uncontentious. What is your point, Pentax?

  4. #5 BBD
    December 5, 2013

    And pentax, there is a typo in your #1 – the temperature record shown is 420,000y (420ka) reconstruction from the Vostok core (Petit et al. 2001). Are you perhaps confused?

  5. #6 bill
    December 5, 2013

    But Pentup needs that other Zero (point) for his perpetual motion machine…

    + My capacity to ‘reflect’ things is rather limited. Then again, human speech, and all that…

    Troll inaugurates thread with semi-digested link-spamming effort. Now, there’s a surprise!

    Perhaps Pentup would care to enlighten us as to the date of the ‘present’ depicted in that GISP chart, for a start.

  6. #7 BBD
    December 6, 2013

    Not forgetting that the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet isn’t a proxy for global temperature…

    But carry on in context and … oops.

  7. #8 BBD
    December 6, 2013

    And what does all this dramatic variability tell us about climate sensitivity? Does this look like an insensitive climate system? One where feedbacks net negative and damp down the response to changes in forcing?

    Surely all that variability wouldn’t be possible?

  8. #9 chameleon
    December 6, 2013

    Congratulations!
    You figured out it was December.
    Nothing else has changed :-)
    Still arguing over the same stuff.
    The world has moved on deltoids.

  9. #10 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2013
  10. #11 BBD
    December 6, 2013

    A storm in a teacup that has exactly nothing to do with the scientific basis for emissions-forced climate change.

    Deniers do love their distractions from the core issue, I know, but then distractions are all they’ve got.

    In order to challenge the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW you need an evidence-based, robust scientific argument. None such exists, so all this flapping and fussing and handbagging and rhetoric and lying is presented instead.

    How anyone can imagine that all the posturing and grandstanding and lies amounts to a robust, evidentially-supported scientific argument is a mystery.

    The best explanation for the behaviour available is that it is akin to religion. Personal convictions give rise to a faith-based belief system at odds with physical reality.

  11. #12 BBD
    December 6, 2013

    While you are here, Olaus, what is your response to #8?

  12. #13 Wow
    December 6, 2013

    Whistling tunes,
    He hides in the fumes
    In the jungle.

  13. #14 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2013

    BBD, I’m not the one claiming that the temp is rising faster and faster….

    :-)

  14. #15 Jeff Harvey
    December 6, 2013

    Olaus has the gall to paste a comment about character assassination from WUWT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Talk about pot calling the kettle black. The climate change denial and broader anti-environmental lobby have mastered the art of ‘character assassination’ and ‘smears’. Its a topic I discuss in many of my lectures, and instead of the one puny example Olaus cites, I give many much better examples.

    What a bunch of slimy hypocrites the anti-science army of deniers are…..

  15. #16 Wow
    December 6, 2013

    ” I’m not the one claiming that the temp is rising faster and faster”

    Indeed you’re not.

    What, however, is your response to #8, which doesn’t rely on you having claimed the temp is rising faster and faster?

  16. #17 BBD
    December 6, 2013

    As Wow notes, you have avoided the question, which was “what does paleoclimate variability tell us about climate sensitivity?”

    Do try, Olaus. Otherwise people will think you are a featherweight clown.

  17. #18 BBD
    December 6, 2013
  18. #19 Stu 2
    December 7, 2013

    BBD @ # 8
    That was actually a good question even though I’m guessing that you believe there is only one answer.
    You’re arguing that CO2 is a major forcing agent and that the climate is highly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. Further, you argue that the extra CO2ppm that is contributed by human activity is alarming and dangerous. Your attempted bullying of me at the last thread was based primarily on that argument, even though the Abbot et al papers that were put up point out that ppm CO2 levels need to be very high (at least 10,000ppm) and be accompanied by layers of dust or clay drapes before CO2 plays a role, which also does mean BBD that deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role.
    Here is one answer to your question I have recently seen from Dr Martin Hertzberg, PhD
    But before I quote that comment, here are a couple of links that explain involvement and qualifications:
    http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
    I’m reasonably confident that people here will respond with personal abuse, sneering and attempts to slur rather than dealing with the actual point that is being made, but anyway, it does provide one answer to your question but it is not necessarily the only answer or even the totally right answer.
    —————————————————————————–
    “Our common experience with hurricanes, tornadoes thunderstorms, blizzards, floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions should lead to the common sense conclusion that weather and climate are controlled by natural laws on an enormous scale that dwarfs human activity. Those laws engender forces and motions in our atmosphere and oceans that are beyond human control. Weather and climate existed long before humans appeared on Earth, and will continue to exist in the same way long after we are gone.
    Those forces and motions are driven by the following: First, the motions of the Earth relative to the Sun: the periodic changes in its elliptical orbit, its rotation about its polar axis, changes in the tilt of that axis, and the precession of that axis. Second, the variation in solar activity that influences the radiant energy reaching the Earth and modulates cosmic ray activity which controls cloudiness. Third, the distribution of land and water on the Earth’s surface; which controls its temperature distribution, moisture availability, monsoon effects, hurricanes, and other storm tracks. Fourth, the topography of the Earth’s surface which causes copious precipitation on the windward side of mountains and aridity on the leeward side. Fifth, the fluid motions within the Earth’s oceans that determine moisture availability and ocean surface temperatures (El Nino and La Nina cycles). Sixth, volcanic eruptions that throw large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, increasing the Earth’s albedo and periodically blocking portions of solar radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface.
    Water in all of its forms is a main agent through which those forces operate. It provides vapor in the atmosphere, heat transport by evaporation and condensation, and the enormous, circulating mass of the ocean whose heat capacity dominates. And finally it provides the cloud, snow, and ice cover that control the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
    While the presence of 0.04 % of CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and motions, is absurd”
    ——————————————————————————
    And Pentax, that Climate 4 You site that you have linked is an interesting site.
    I was quite shocked by the venom and the hubris in Jeff Harvey’s comment about that link. The qualifications and experience of the blog owner look OK:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
    He has even been published in peer reviewed journals.

  19. #20 Mack
    December 7, 2013

    Nice posting Stu 2 #18.

  20. #21 chameleon
    December 7, 2013

    I agree Mack. I suspect that Stu 2 is correct and the knifing is about to ensue :-)
    And it will probably happen while my comment languishes in moderation.

  21. #22 bill
    December 7, 2013

    Wow, a Slayer! Gains the admiration of sockpuppets!

    And playing the pre-emptive tone-troll card again, the poor lamb.

    deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role

    What, for snowball earth, the point in discussion?! Give me a break! Even you don’t believe you…

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2013

    I knew moons ago that Stu 2 was a climate change denier. he tried to veil his anti-scientific musings with what he thought was reasoning, but in the end his true colors bleed out.

    Here he’s trying to dismiss the views of a huge body of empirical literature with the views of a couple of scientists on the academic fringe. I yawn when I read this kind of thing. Stu 2 also makes a fatal error: he tries to positon someone as simple and vile as Pentax in the ‘middle’, when if he’s read many of P’s posts over the years he’d find that the guy routinely smears scientists (including me), makes utterly preposterous comments about socialist political agendas and the like.

    Stu 2, now take this the right way: you are almost equally as vacuous as Pentax so I will forgive you for your utterly simple stupidity. Like Lomborg, you are discussing topics well over your head, leaving nothing except alternate agendas that drive your arguments. To suggest that a guy who runs a blog downplaying AGW and who has some published papers in journals must, by definition be a good scientist whose views matter is farcical in the extreme. Of course, as I said above, there are outliers. Not many of them, of course, but a few. I could list a number of others who have some papers in the peer-reviewed literature but whose arguments with respect to GW are well out of the mainstream. I even know of one or two scientists in my own field (population ecology) who have written articles either downplaying human threats to biodiversity or current extinction rates. A couple of these people actually write a paper arguing that predation (I assume they meant via trophic cascades) is the biggest threat. I laugh out loud when I read this kind of crap, but then again one of the authors has published a number of papers in the empirical literature.

    Its also known that some allegedly qualified scientists have also defended the use of tobacco or have repeatedly downplayed the health risks of smoking. According to your rather myopic views these scientists should be taken seriously. Or should they? You decide.

    Before you spout off about the merits of certain theories and then cite one or two fringe academics to support your arguments I want to say that I’ve encountered lots of people like you during my scientific career. They are all big in appealing to authority when citing arguments by one or two contrarians like Singer, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Carter, Plimer, et al. but then routinely deride the qualifications of scientists with much better pedigrees – meaning people who have many more publications and citations. And the bottom line is that the people you mention, most of whom as I said are on the academic fringe, are vastly outnumbered by those on the other side. It just so happens that as a working scientist with 136 publications so far and over 3300 citations I take the views of the majority on climate change very seriously. Any anyone who dismisses C02 as a ‘trace gas’, given the inescapable link between historical concentrations of this gas and climate in my view does not deserve a platform.

  23. #24 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2013

    And how many peer-reviewed papers has Martin Herzberg written that contradict AGW?

    0

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=201

    Stu2: if this is one of the best of the experts that you can ‘scrape up’ then your side really is in deep, deep trouble.

  24. #25 Mack
    December 7, 2013

    Z z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  25. #26 bill
    December 7, 2013

    Gee, among the intellectual midgets I’d have picked him as Dopey rather than Sleepy!

    If only any of these clowns was capable of being Bashful…

  26. #27 Olaus Petri
    December 7, 2013
  27. #28 bill
    December 7, 2013

    I reckon Oily’s got a crush!

  28. #29 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Stu 2

    You’re arguing that CO2 is a major forcing agent and that the climate is highly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. Further, you argue that the extra CO2ppm that is contributed by human activity is alarming and dangerous. Your attempted bullying of me at the last thread was based primarily on that argument, even though the Abbot et al papers that were put up point out that ppm CO2 levels need to be very high (at least 10,000ppm) and be accompanied by layers of dust or clay drapes before CO2 plays a role, which also does mean BBD that deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role.

    I didn’t bully you. You lied and I called you out over it. And still you pretend that the fault is mine. As I said to you previously, you can fuck off with that. It will not stand.

    You are either a cretin or you are still desperately misrepresenting Abbot. What those studies hypothesise is that CO2 forcing can overcome the massive albedo-driven cooling of a fully-glaciated SNOWBALL EARTH when partial pressure exceeds ~10,000ppm. This is the special case for SNOWBALL EARTH. It does not apply to Quaternary glaciations when the NH ice sheets only reach ~40 degrees north latitude. Here, orbital forcing (increased summer insolation at 65 degrees north latitude) is sufficient to trigger a cascade of positive feedbacks – including GHGs (CO2 and CH4) – sufficient to terminate the glacial.

    You appear to have absolutely zero understanding of this topic so why you persist in arguing it and making an arse out of yourself in public is a mystery to me.

  29. #30 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    To be absolutely clear – CO2 is *required* to terminate both SE states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver. Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

    If you respond, can you indicate whether or not you understand this?

  30. #31 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Oh, and Stu 2, the clay drapes are the deposits left *after* deglaciation. They are the remnants of the surface dust deposits hypothesised to have reduced equatorial albedo.

    You haven’t got a fucking clue.

  31. #32 Mack
    December 7, 2013

    The massive albedo-driven cooling of the Snowball Earth was overcome by the huge and powerful greenhouse forcing of CO2. Yep, if you say so BBD. It’s volcanoes, bugs and snow-mobiles wot done it.

  32. #33 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    Stuck my nose in here after many months to see if the boys of the continuous loop thread are maintaining status quo.
    Just as I thought, same old same old, Barney Fife and lying Hardley spewing the same old crap…verbatim.
    Hope you Deltoidians are keeping warm, we’re freezing our arses off over here in the U.S…

    http://news.yahoo.com/massive-winter-storm-wallops-texas–much-of-the-midwest-143009580.html

    http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

    Merry Christmas.

  33. #34 FrankD
    December 7, 2013

    Betula feels the need to tell us that in winter, some places get winter storms?

    Well, fuck me drunk – I’d never have guessed that. What other revelations do you have for us, Bircher? No, let me guess – water is wet?

  34. #35 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    “Betula feels the need to tell us that in winter, some places get winter storms?”

    Actually, it’s still Fall, as Winter starts December 21st…but that’s as irrelevant as your comment.
    There’s a chill in the air over here Franky, and I was simply hoping you and yours were staying warm….and wishing you a Merry Christmas.

  35. #36 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Thought you were dead Betty. Oh well.

  36. #37 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    SunSock:

    The massive albedo-driven cooling of the Snowball Earth was overcome by the huge and powerful greenhouse forcing of CO2. Yep, if you say so BBD. It’s volcanoes, bugs and snow-mobiles wot done it.

    Sigh.

    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).

  37. #39 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    “Thought you were dead Betty. Oh well.”

    Nah, all those indiscriminate beatings you have been hoping for haven’t occurred yet, besides, it’s been too cold to stand around and watch.
    And unlike you Barney, I don’t plan my day around a dying (open thread) blog…I can walk away anytime knowing you will still be here to laugh at months and years down the road.
    It’s comforting.

  38. #40 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Actually, it’s still Fall, as Winter starts December 21st…but that’s as irrelevant as your comment.

    Wrong, as usual. Meteorological winter starts 01 Dec.

  39. #41 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Rubbish Betty. You got hammered on here so hard you ran away. And it will happen again.

  40. #42 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    luminous beauty

    Thanks for the link to Masson-Delmotte et al. whose fig. 3 panel (b) neatly illustrates that modern GIS SAT has now reached or surpassed temperatures during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Early/mid Holocene warmth was the consequence of higher NH insolation (orbital forcing).

  41. #43 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    @38…

    Barney…
    I reread Frankies comment @32 and noticed it looked different than the first time I read it….??

    “Betula feels the need to tell us that in “meteorological” winter, some places get “meteorological” winter storms”

    And this is why you are stuck on this site Barney, the impertinent, irrelevant minutia that you spew gives you a much needed inflated self worth….

    Laughable.

    Meanwhile, just outside the Deltoid zone…in the real world:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519364/Death-toll-rises-Americas-big-freeze-Tens-thousands-warned-power-weeks-ice-storms-bring-cables.html

  42. #44 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Betty

    You were wrong. Stop being silly prat about it.

    Re the rest of your stuff about cold NH winters, why not get off your lazy arse and read the second link luminous beauty posted at #36? There are only a few words, the bulk is two video clips, so you won’t even have to break sweat. And you will learn something that you won’t like but which will improve your lamentable topic knowledge considerably.

  43. #45 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    BTW, what’s this “Barney” thing? Can you explain? When I call you Betty-John it’s a simple play on your screen name and the right-wing nutters of the John Birch society, but it makes sense. There is a reason. Can you fill in the blanks here?

  44. #46 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    The link @ 36 is irrelevant. This is just normal winter weather…jeez Barney, didn’t you read Frankie @32?

    “Betula feels the need to tell us that in “meteorological” winter, some places get “meteorological” winter storms”….and water is wet etc.

  45. #47 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    “BTW, what’s this “Barney” thing?”

    Because Barney, you are the deputy of Deltoid….the overseer of the law, the protector of the local alarmists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM

  46. #49 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    The link @ 36 is irrelevant.

    Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, Betty. You are also retreating into evidence denial.

    WRT Barney, I have nothing to do with our esteemed host. We have never communicated. I’m no more than any other commenter – certainly not a “deputy” in any conceivable sense of the word. I think you need to try for something else. Be witty.

  47. #50 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    Pentax

    #4?

    #5?

    #8?

    I would welcome your responses and views.

  48. #51 BBD
    December 7, 2013

    the protector of the local alarmists.

    I can’t really leave this unremarked either. None of the sane regulars here need me to protect them from anything. You don’t come to an effectively unmoderated climate blog if you are a shrinking violet.

  49. #52 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    Barney,

    The link @36 is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant to the post at #31, based on the comment by fellow alarmist Frankie @ 32….

    According to Frankie, there is no big revelation here with these “meteorological” winter storms….none whatsoever. And water is wet…

  50. #53 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    Barney….

    “I have nothing to do with our esteemed host”……I didn’t say you did. you are self assigned in your mind.

    “I’m no more than any other commenter”…..you’re practically the only commenter.

    “certainly not a “deputy” in any conceivable sense”…..Not true, you are in the bungling sense. Bungling Barney…Deputy.

    “I think you need to try for something else”…..spoken like a true deputy.

  51. #54 Betula
    December 7, 2013

    PentaxZ @ 46…

    That was hysterical.

  52. #55 bill
    December 7, 2013

    I notice Stootoo hasn’t reappeared since outing himself as a Slayer.

    I remind you that your position is so ludicrously extreme even Watts and Monckton denounce it.

    And Pentup’s crush video is the same one being exposed here.

    Tell us about those melded graph’s scales and termination dates, Penty?! And the ‘Greenland is the whole world, no really’ thing?! Well, you won’t, and, in fact, you simply can’t, because you’re an organic spambot, having mastered only ‘copy/paste’. You simply cannot discern the content of your regurgitations!

    Let’s just point out that someone who actually pointed out the obvious (to thinking people, that is) over at Watts’ got their comment snipped and replaced with ‘[it is humor, get over yourself - mod]‘.

    So, it’s only ‘sciencey’ to the credulous, petal: i.e. it’s just a joke, Penty! As are you…

    And Batty’s rest cure clearly didn’t work…

  53. #56 Stu 2
    December 7, 2013

    Bill. This may come as a shock to you but I don’t spend much time on blogs. I haven’t returned here since my comment @ # 27.
    I’m finding the responses to my comment amusing and, as I guessed earlier, entirely predictable.
    Abuse, sneering, name calling and slurring with no attempt to actually objectively address the issue.
    In short, meaningless drivel that focuses on irrelevant nit picking and unsubstantiated personal comments.
    If you’re wondering why this once interesting site has lost its mojo, look no further than the style of comments made by JH, BBD and yourself.
    Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements that purport to show expertise about another commenter’s character, affiliations, politics and education.
    It reveals or proves virtually nothing about the accused but plenty about the accusers.

  54. #57 chek
    December 7, 2013

    That was hysterical.

    Yes, you are.
    And neither is ‘context’ a word that’s ever bothered your fake, fantasy riven head. In a remarkable symmetry with your Scandinavian collaborators here.

  55. #58 chek
    December 7, 2013

    Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements that purport to show expertise about another commenter’s character, affiliations, politics and education.
    It reveals or proves virtually nothing about the accused but plenty about the accusers. accuser.

    Self awareness isn’t one of your areas of interest, is it Stu-hypocrite-2?

  56. #59 Stu 2
    December 7, 2013

    Chek.
    What an incredibly ironic and predictable comment from you.
    ‘Self awareness isn’t one of your areas of interest, is it Stu-hypocrite-2?’

  57. #60 bill
    December 8, 2013

    Remains a fact, though, doesn’t it?

    Slayers are crazy, Stuart. You’re with the Creationists and astrologers now…

  58. #61 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements

    To be absolutely clear – CO2 is *required* to terminate both SE states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver. Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

    If you respond, can you indicate whether or not you understand this?

  59. #62 Stu 2
    December 8, 2013

    BBD,
    Maybe the info posted below will help?
    It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.
    The GHG feedbacks are mostly due to the water cycle.
    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.
    As you said at the earlier thread, the Abbot et al studies hypothesised CO2ppm levels that were plausible, but the minimum was 10,000ppm as long as there were thick layers of dust, and clay drapes from volcanic activity and previous glacial activity.
    :
    The Quaternary Period follows the Neogene Period and extends to the present. The Quaternary covers the time span of glaciations classified as the Pleistocene, and includes the present interglacial period, the Holocene.

    This places the start of the Quaternary at the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation approximately 2.6 million years ago. Prior to 2009, the Pleistocene was defined to be from 1.805 million years ago to the present, so the current definition of the Pleistocene includes a portion of what was, prior to 2009, defined as the Pliocene

    https://notendur.hi.is//~oi/quaternary_glacial_history_of_antarctica.htm
    http://www.clim-past.net/6/245/2010/cp-6-245-2010.pdf

  60. #63 bill
    December 8, 2013

    What does the word ‘required’ mean, muppet?

    So: do you understand this: yes or bloody no? is the question. And you’re saying ‘no’. Just not directly, because that would never do.

    The rest is just so much ‘sciencey’ gibberish… love the definitions of the ages; yeah, thanks for that. Padding and obfuscation, much?

    And don’t bother with any further tone-trolling; anybody who makes up their mind on this issue on the basis of squeamishness is a lost cause anyway.

  61. #64 Stu 2
    December 8, 2013

    here you go Bill,
    Hope this helps?
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/require
    I assumed because you can use words like sophistry that you would have known the meaning of require?

  62. #65 andyuk
    December 8, 2013

    stu 2. when did they repeal the laws of physics. if more energy from the sun enters a system (like the biosphere) than leaves, it will inevitably warm. and we know that atm, it does. wtf are you arguing about. are you an imbecile?

  63. #66 Wow
    December 8, 2013

    ” the protector of the local alarmists.”

    You’ll notice, BBD, that anyone who doesn’t let them get away with it is called this at some point in their posting history.

    It really means “PLEASE STOP POSTING SO I CAN HAVE FREE REIN!”.

    After all, in their diseased minds, free speech is only for goodfact from solid respectable people like them.

  64. #67 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.

    Read. The. Words:

    CO2 is *required* to terminate both Snowball Earth (SE) states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver while Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

    Try to understand this before responding.

    * * *

    I know what the Quaternary is. Why are you posting totally redundant definitions?

    You need to concentrate on understanding what this conversation is about. Notably that Snowball Earth deglaciation and Quaternary deglaciations are completely different things.

    You are still clueless. Why are you continuing this? You have been absolutely discredited and yet you keep on and on and on with more hopeless nonsense. Are you one of these tedious little nutters who simply cannot admit error? That’s the feeling I’ve been getting for – oh, the last week or so.

  65. #68 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

    NO! This is completely WRONG. Go back and read the Abbot studies properly. Both studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm.

    I am absolutely fed up with your incessant misrepresentation of these papers. I can’t determine if you are doing this because you are an idiot or because you are a liar. But either way, it needs to stop. Go and read. Properly this time. If you need a clue, I provided the relevant quotes on the previous thread. Read the words.

  66. #69 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

    Reference required.

  67. #70 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    as long as there were thick layers of dust, and clay drapes from volcanic activity and previous glacial activity

    Why won’t you just read the words? Are you doing this on purpose?

  68. #71 Stu
    December 8, 2013

    Oh FFS.

    It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.
    The GHG feedbacks are mostly due to the water cycle.
    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

    That’s three bald assertions. Backed up by 0 evidence and contradicted by all available evidence.

    Why do you think you can get away with this? Again, you suck at this. You look like a moron because you are one. What earthly good do you think you are accomplishing by continuously embarrassing yourself this way?

  69. #72 bill
    December 8, 2013

    I reckon it’s because he is indeed ‘one of these tedious little nutters who simply cannot admit error’.

    Slayers are boring. It’s like arguing with creationists, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, and astrologers – because they’re all species in the same genus. And not being able to understand anything you don’t want to when – allegedly – ‘reading’ really helps…

    I mean, StuartToo, what are the odds? You’re right (and I’m including your entire motley tribe here), or more than 150 years of physics? You’re right, or 97% of the world actual climate scientists? You’re right, or all the world’s academies of science?

    I’ll end with my favourite quote from Damon Runyon: ‘The race may not be to the swift, nor yet the battle to the strong, but that’s how the smart money bets!’

  70. #73 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    It’s interesting that nobody on the contrarian side wants to talk about how we get hyperthermals *without* GHG forcing.

    But no doubt that’s why we are having all this trouble with the requirement for CO2 forcing to get us out of an albedo-locked icehouse.

    If you admit one bit of physical climatology is correct, then everything else must follow. And that would never do. Oh no, no, no, no, noes, not at all.

  71. #74 Stu 2
    December 8, 2013

    BBD,
    ” Both studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm. ”
    Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.
    Your use of swearing, words like nutter, clueless etc and obsessing and nit picking over comments and words that you appear to be wilfully misinterpreting is totally irrelevant.
    You may be a really nice bloke and I realise that you are passionate about this topic, but your behaviour at present makes you appear to be some type of strange combination of teacher’s pet and schoolyard bully.
    I am questioning what appears to be your key assertion that CO2 is the major evil culprit and that we are all doomed if it rises above an unspecified ppm. The Abbot et al papers do not support that assertion.
    But as I have already said, it is possible I have misinterpreted you.

  72. #75 bill
    December 8, 2013

    Though I’d argue for 90% of those we encounter the obtuseness is genuinely organic.

    I admit I was wrong about Stootoo being a sophist – that requires a level of sophistication (yes, it’s the same root) that it’s transpired is completely lacking. He’s just thick.

    Regulars may recall previous ‘greatest hits’ in perverse insistence in the face of all evidence and reason. Chebbie and the ‘James Delingpole agrees with me about Flannery and the snow’ incident? Our old friend and the ‘nitrogen and oxygen are the real greenhouse gases’ thing?

  73. #76 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    Stu 2

    Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.

    Yes you did:

    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

    How can you keep this up?

    * * *

    1/ CO2-forced deglaciation of Snowball Earth states is a splendidly extreme example from Earth’s climate history of the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

    2/ Hyperthermals, eg the PETM, ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are both associated with high levels of GHGs (CO2; CH4) and apparently inexplicable without them. Further demonstration of the efficacy of GHG forcing.

    3/ This brings us to the present, where a demonstrably efficient climate forcing is steadily increasing.

  74. #77 BBD
    December 8, 2013

    Your use of swearing, words like nutter, clueless etc

    Is a response to your sustained display of intellectual dishonesty.

  75. #78 bill
    December 8, 2013

    Speaking of Flannery – The Climate Council’s new bushfire report is out.

  76. #79 Stu
    December 9, 2013

    Stu 2: your pathetic attempt at diversion through tone trolling is duly noted. It also makes you even more pathetic.

    Just. Go. Away. You are to stupid to engage on this topic.

  77. #80 Betula
    December 9, 2013
  78. #81 Stu 2
    December 9, 2013

    BBD,
    It is these sort of statements by you that I am questioning:
    BBD Nov 12th
    CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states
    BBD Nov 16th
    This leaves accumulating CO2 from volcanism, unable to leave the atmosphere because all the carbon sinks are shut down beneath the ice. Over millions of years, concentrations inevitably rise and the forcing inevitably increases until eventually sufficient to overcome even the extremely powerful albedo cooling effect and the Snowball state terminates. This is the only plausible physical mechanism for terminating Snowball climate states.

    I’m wondering if you can see the flaw in your assertions and why the Abbot et al research does not support your “only plausible” assertions?
    But as I said, perhaps I have misinterpreted you?

  79. #82 Stu
    December 9, 2013

    Question why? BACK UP YOUR BALD ASSERTIONS, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

  80. #83 bill
    December 9, 2013

    Batty, your ability in argumentation hasn’t improved! Perhaps you’d care to look up ‘hottest spring, Australia’, hottest 12 months, Australia’, hottest summer, Australia’?

    Well you won’t, of course. So you just cling to your weather, pet…

  81. #84 bill
    December 9, 2013

    Arguing with Slayers only leads to frustration and hypertension. They are impervious to your mere reality. You might just as well conduct a debate with yeast, or teach the cat to play the grand piano…

  82. #85 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2013

    Bill, the difference is that that a cat can actually learn to play some rudimentary piano, but the chance of a Denialatus learning even a whisker of some rudimentary science is vanishingly small.

  83. #86 Marco
    December 9, 2013

    Oi, bill, cat’s definitely can play the piano!
    http://norathepianocat.com/
    They’re smarter than a slayer…

  84. #87 bill
    December 9, 2013

    Well, live and learn! I just tried to show the tabby hulk some of that footage to demonstrate to him that some other cats might be a bit less, well, crap, but he just seemed bored and then demanded more biscuits…

    Still smarter than a Slayer, mind!

  85. #88 ianam
    December 9, 2013

    I am questioning what appears to be your key assertion that CO2 is the major evil culprit and that we are all doomed if it rises above an unspecified ppm.

    You aren’t questioning it, you are a priori committed to believing it is false — you are absolutely certain of that, as made clear by your mocking terms like “evil culprit” and “we are all doomed”. That make you, like all deniers, a pathetic intellectually dishonest coward.

    Because you enter the discussion from an ideological, not scientific, stance, with an a priori commitment to denying the role of human industry, your comments are predictable and irrelevant.

  86. #89 ianam
    December 9, 2013

    From Betula’s link:

    Snow is not a freak event in southern Australia in the warmer months. A small dusting usually appears on the higher parts of the Australian Alps at least once each summer.

    Hey Betula, do you have any idea why they’re called the Alps, you fucking cretin?

  87. #90 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2013

    Ianam.

    This exact subject came up last year, although I don’t recall if it was Betula or another numpty such as Mackulatus.

    I responded then by pointing out something to the effect that snow in summer was not especially unusual in Australia, and most especially in the southern states. Indeed, we’ve had snow at Christmas. Having said that it’s not nearly as frequent these days as it used to be.

    It seems that the difference between weather and climate still eludes the denialist numpties here – who, by the way, have some bizarre point to prove that means that they can’t keep away, not matter how many months and years of humiliation to which they are exposed…

  88. #91 BBD
    December 9, 2013

    I’m wondering if you can see the flaw in your assertions and why the Abbot et al research does not support your “only plausible” assertions?

    These are not “my assertions” but the state of knowledge. You have spent two weeks failing to understand this and failing to demonstrate any flaws in it. You are now just wasting everybody’s time.

    * * *

    I notice that as usual, you fail to acknowledge being caught in a lie:

    I said that both the Abbot studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm.

    You claimed:

    Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.

    But you were lying again:

    Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

    I have already asked you for a reference supporting this assertion. Please provide it.

    * * *

    1/ CO2-forced deglaciation of Snowball Earth states is a splendidly extreme example from Earth’s climate history of the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

    2/ Hyperthermals, eg the PETM, ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are both associated with high levels of GHGs (CO2; CH4) and apparently inexplicable without them. Further demonstration of the efficacy of GHG forcing.

    3/ This brings us to the present, where a demonstrably efficient climate forcing is steadily increasing.

  89. #92 Betula
    December 9, 2013

    ianam…
    Jeez, somehow posted the wrong link, not sure how that happened. Let’s try again….

    @78…..“The Climate Council’s new bushfire report is out”:
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bush-fuel-is-to-blame-for-nsw-blazes-not-united-nations-climate-change-theory-experts-say/story-fni0cx12-1226744870197

  90. #93 pentaxZ
    December 9, 2013

    “…that the guy routinely smears scientists (including me),”

    Wrong, jeffie. I only smear crazy alarmists, never real, honest scientists!

  91. #94 pentaxZ
    December 9, 2013

    Now jeffie, I wonder if you can help me with a question? Untill two days ago we had a cosy 5-6 deg c here in middle sweden. Then, suddenly there was a drop in temperature to -8 deg c and a blizzard. Now to my question: If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?

  92. #95 Lionel A
    December 9, 2013

    If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?

    Are you really this dumb? One factor is duration. If YOU were to fall into water at 5C after what time would your body be picked up lifeless?

    Here to give you some idea Hypothermia: How long can someone survive in frigid water?.

    You could also research on the survivors from HMS Glorious after she was sunk by gunfire from Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940.

    But of course, as Jeff would quickly point out, there is far more to this than that noted above. Not only is duration important but also intensity (as in the Glorious episode) and timing with respect to reproductive and symbiotic processes of diverse organisms especially those separated by geographic, geological or other natural phenomena factors.

  93. #96 Wow
    December 9, 2013

    “If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?”

    Because it goes to sleep under warm blankies.

    Sleeping for 100 years would be very bad for the human body, and civilisation as a whole.

    Unless you believe in the fairy story of a prick who sent a princess to sleep…

  94. #97 Betula
    December 9, 2013

    pentaxZ…

    Don’t you get it?
    Nature can’t hypothetically survive a speculative slow rise in what would be considered an average world temperature over an assumed period of time because we know for a fact that Rumplestiltskin can get hypothermia when exposed to cold water.

  95. #98 BBD
    December 9, 2013

    a speculative slow rise

    The CO2-forced warming is not “speculative”. It is a consequence of the laws of physics and clearly demonstrated in paleoclimate behaviour. The effects will not be “slow” – they will occur effectively instantaneously on the timescales on which natural adaptation occurs.

    Your comment is a stupid, mendacious misrepresentation.

  96. #99 Wow
    December 9, 2013

    Isn’t a common root of speculative and its synonyms “observed in the future”, i.e. prediction? Therefore, under that root, speculative could be right.

    But according to deniers, this year should have been nearly a full degree cooler. Wasn’t that speculation by the “science” of deniers wrong? Indeed. Well beyond the limits of accuracy.

    Now, how has the speculation of the climatologists gone? Any trend proposed has, since around the 1960’s, never been shown false. Because of the limits of accuracy.

    But it now appears that betty really just doesn’t believe it’s a problem because THEY are not going to be harmed by it.

    Rather psychopathic of them, isn’t it.

  97. #100 Betula
    December 9, 2013

    Let’s summarize what we’ve learned so far this month from our resident Deltoidians:

    1. @34 FrankD speculates that the severe cold in the U.S is as normal as water being wet…

    2. @38 Lumy links us to an article while speculating that this cold is actually due to a change in the jet stream…

    3. @95 and 96 we have Lionel and Wow combining their brain power to tell us that, in the long run, they can speculate that nature is in trouble because a person can die if left in cold water for a given time or covered with a blanket for 100 years…

    4. @98, We have Barney telling us that a continued slow rise in temperature is not speculative…

    5. And finally @99 we have Wow, in referring to Barney’s post @98, tell us that perhaps speculative is the right word after all…

    And that is why every so often it is fun to come back….for the laughs.

1 2 3 11

Current ye@r *