December 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    December 9, 2013

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

    We don’t find the lies and misrepresentations of a politicised gardener even vaguely amusing, Betty. Your dishonesty and stupidity got tedious long ago.

  2. #2 chek
    December 9, 2013

    What you have to remember is that Betty’s intellectually stimulated sufficiently just by the scraping sounds his knuckles make.

    Attempting to explain anything more complex than that and … well, the (stupefying) results are there in his own words.

  3. #3 Betula
    December 9, 2013

    “Your dishonesty and stupidity got tedious long ago”

    C’mon Deadeye, you can’t even be honest with yourself. Calling someone dishonest and stupid for exposing the hypocrisy of the Deltoidians is what you live for…it’s obvious. All one needs to do is just scroll through the comments day after day, month after month to see this is true…you never go away. Tedious? What would you do outside the confines of your fantasy Deltoid world? How would you cope? Besides hoping to get a glimpse of an indiscriminate beating of course…
    The least you can do is be honest to yourself about your dishonesty.

  4. #4 BBD
    December 9, 2013

    You lie, Betty. You just accused us of hypocrisy.

    Here are a few facts to calibrate your take on reality:

    – We know what we are talking about because we have taken the trouble – the considerable trouble – to find out

    – We know the contrarian narrative on climate change is horse-shit from end to end

    – We are not dishonest.

    – You are.

  5. #5 BBD
    December 9, 2013

    And Betty, based on your own commenting history and that of others here, I now have two working assumptions:

    – You are (all) all mentally ill (see previous thread)

    – Your absence was due to institutionalisation and was involuntary.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    December 9, 2013

    Betty’s clear inability to grasp even the basics is illustrated when he wades back in here claiming the AGW is unsupported on the basis of a short cold weather snap in the eastern US. This coming after it has been explained time and time again that weather and climate cannot be conflated. I might as well say its been very mild over here in Europe the past few weeks with no sings of winter in much of the continent.

    Betty tries to give the impression of being clever, this AFTER once arguing that North American ecosystems were doing well on the basis of three utterly absurd examples. I am still waiting for him to publish his massive wisdom on the state of North American ecosystems somewhere. Like in a three page pamphlet.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    December 9, 2013

    oopss – now I am singing… signs for all.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    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?

    Nature knows the difference between ‘mean’ and ‘variance’.

    After years of the provision of education, you still do not.

  9. #9 bill
    December 9, 2013

    Batty is stultifyingly dull. In fact, the entire Denier ‘brains trust’ here ought to be under administration…

    Climate Bogans!

  10. #10 Stu
    December 9, 2013

    Bernard: mean/variance? The clod doesn’t know weather from climate.

  11. #11 chek
    December 9, 2013

    Do you think that somewhere there’s a think tank PhD going – OMFG (or equivalent) that diurnal versus climatic difference is actually getting legs? Some clod named Betyhula is actually fucking running with it!!!
    How stupid do you have to be, etc. etc. Crank it down another two notches for the next meme, guys.

  12. #12 Stu 2
    December 10, 2013

    BBD @ # 91 previous page.
    If I sift through the irrelevant accusations, I think your answer to my questions are:
    * No; you can’t see a flaw in your “only plausible” assertions and why those assertions are not in the research and;
    * No; I did not perhaps misinterpret you and you are indeed saying that CO2 is the major controller of and major player in climate and weather ?

    Ianam @ # 88 previous page; your comment about human industry here:
    ” denying the role of human industry”.
    What does that mean?
    Do you perhaps mean that human activity produces CO2? Why would anyone deny that?
    Also, considering the bulk of the commenting was related to the research of SE and deglaciation, what role does the supposed denying of human industry play in that?

  13. #13 Stu
    December 10, 2013

    Name the assertions that are not in the literature, 2. Right now.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    December 10, 2013

    Liberal senator Ian MacDonald says that human-caused climate change is like the Y2K problem, and in so doing demonstrates that he understands nothing about either subject:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/10/climate_change_is_like_y2k_oz_senator/

    In the corporate sphere this sort of ignorance would surely be an example of criminal negligence, and probably criminal recklessness.

    And of course MacDonald seems to know nothing about acidification…

  15. #15 bill
    December 10, 2013

    Maximum tidal variation in my section of the coast already ranges some 2-3 m, and nothing bad happens. So what difference could an average sea-level increase of 1m make?

    Also, they keep telling us sea-level is rising, but we had a really low tide last week. How do you explain that, eh?

    Yes, Batty, you really are that stupid. Next.

  16. #16 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    Brrr…new record – Coldest temperature ever recorded:

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cold-dis-comfort-antarctica-set-record-1358

    “It does speak to the range of conditions on this Earth, some of which we haven’t been able to observe,”

  17. #17 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    BBD @5….is there a thought in your head that’s not assumed?

    I will refer your assumptions to bill @15 who is currently having an imaginary conversation with himself while believing he is me…

  18. #18 Stu 2
    December 10, 2013

    Stu @ # 13:
    Already done; previous page.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2013

    More ‘real science’ just out in Nature Climate Change to vanquish the deniers on Deltoid…

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2065.html

    Note the reference to unprecedented extreme weather events. This ties in with the Insurance Industries, NONE of which doubt the actuality nor seriousness of climate change (its costing them big bucks in compensation). And note how when I posted that article up a couple of weeks back not a single denier on Deltoid- Pentax Z, Mack or Stu 2 – made a peep about it. That’s because they cannot counter it, so their best strategy is to avoid the topic. AGW is a happening folks. There’s no two ways about it. And the prognosis of business-as-usual is dire.

  20. #20 Trikeabout
    December 10, 2013

    In the comments to the post Bernard J. @#14 linked to at The Register (an astonishing hive of denialism which I wouldn’t go near if it didn’t have IT reporting relevant to me…) there’s a link to this publication by “Australasian Power Technologies Publications” that has a hefty dose of flat-out rubbish.
    http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

    Be interesting to know how influential this publication is. It looks like one of those that’s merely there to act as a vehicle to sell advertising and the content is filler. I wonder who backs it…?

  21. #21 Wow
    December 10, 2013

    Wow.

    Antartica cold? Say it ain’t so? Where will I go for my summer hols now???

  22. #22 bill
    December 10, 2013

    Batty, you get a little more daft every day. Stick to the Bahco pole-saw, eh?

  23. #23 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Stu 2

    What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Why are you asking *me* about statements not supported by the literature? The problem here is that *you* have been making unsupported claims and serially refusing to reference them. Once again:

    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.

    Your claim was:

    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 at least twice. Please provide it.

  24. #24 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    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.

    Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010):

    Recent modeling results have raised doubts about the ability to deglaciate from a global glaciation at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are realistic for a Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth. Here we argue that over the lifetime of a Snowball event, ice dynamics should lead to the development of a layer of continental and volcanic dust at the ice surface in the tropics that would significantly lower the tropical surface albedo and encourage deglaciation. This idea leads to the prediction that clay drapes found on top of Neoproterozoic glaciations should be thicker in tropical than extratropical regions. We test this idea by running the FOAM general circulation model (GCM) with an added tropical dust layer of different sizes and albedos and find that the tropical dust layer causes Snowball deglaciation at pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar in a reasonable regime of these parameters. We find similar, though more nuanced, results from a limited number of test casesusing National Center for Atmospheric Research’s CAM GCM.

    * * *

    Abbot et al. (2012):

    According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, the entire ocean was covered with ice during these events for a few million years, during which time volcanic CO2 increased enough to cause deglaciation. Geochemical proxy data and model calculations suggest that the maximum CO2 was 0.01–0.1 by volume, but early climate modeling suggested that deglaciation was not possible at CO2 = 0.2. We use results from six different general circulation models (GCMs) to show that clouds could warm a Snowball enough to reduce the CO2 required for deglaciation by a factor of 10–100. Although more work is required to rigorously validate cloud schemes in Snowball-like conditions, our results suggest that Snowball deglaciation is consistent with observations.

    This means that deglaciation occurs in the range CO2 = 0.01 – 0.1 bar (10,000 ppm – 100,000 ppm). This is the range consistent with geochemical proxies. This range is consistent with earlier work (see above).

  25. #25 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    bill

    Batty, you get a little more daft every day. Stick to the Bahco pole-saw, eh?

    As noted on the previous thread, the “sceptics” here are all demonstrably mentally ill.

  26. #26 bill
    December 10, 2013

    And just to rub in how pole-axingly dim you really are, dummy, here’s the NASA press release.

    “We had a suspicion this Antarctic ridge was likely to be extremely cold, and colder than Vostok because it’s higher up the hill,” Scambos said. “With the launch of Landsat 8, we finally had a sensor capable of really investigating this area in more detail.”

    “By causing the air to be stationary for extended periods, while continuing to radiate more heat away into space, you get the absolute lowest temperatures we’re able to find,” Scambos said. “We suspected that we would be looking for one magical site that got extremely cold, but what we found was a large strip of Antarctica at high altitude that regularly reached these record low temperatures.”

    The study is an example of some of the intriguing science possible with Landsat 8 and the TIRS instrument, which was built at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Since its launch Feb. 11, Landsat 8 has captured approximately 550 scenes per day of Earth’s land surface. USGS processes, archives and distributes the images free of charge over the Internet.

    But don’t just take their word for it – read the University of Colorado’s release (just ask a grownup for help with the big words!)

    And switch off Fox, eh?

    Goose.

    *It’s actually very interesting science, and it must be sad for you clowns to be cut off from this world because it’s not ideologically correct enough for you.

  27. #27 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Betty doesn’t understand the adiabatic lapse rate. Nor does he know why RSS doesn’t use the satellite data ~70 degrees south latitude in its TLT product (hint, Betty, it’s supposed to be an *atmospheric* product, not measuring surface T). Mean elevation of most of Antarctica is ~2000m above the datum.

    How anyone with the intellect to clean his own teeth in the morning can think that low temperature at high altitude in Antarctica has the slightest imaginable bearing on AGW is beyond me. As I said, mentally ill.
    By a happy coincidence, RSS’s Carl Mears commented on this very topic just recently here.

  28. #28 Mack
    December 10, 2013

    Why are the poles so cold? Could it be that the sun just does this for a week in midsummer.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcafg-meJA
    Not exactly beating down from above like Whyalla eh Bullshit for brains Bill. Oh yeah , that’s right ,we’re in the land of looneys here where CO2 drives climate.

  29. #29 Wow
    December 10, 2013

    “Why are the poles so cold?”

    Was that rhetorical, or do you REALLY not know, spots?

  30. #30 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Sunspot running the “Mack” sock

    Why can’t you answer the questions I have asked you at least half a dozen times now? You deny that CO2 is an important driver of climate and state that it is lunatic to claim that it is. But you can’t defend your assertion when it is directly questioned with relevance to known paleoclimate behaviour.

    That makes you guilty of the most blatant intellectual dishonesty imaginable.

    Either that or you are mentally ill.

  31. #31 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    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).

  32. #32 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2013

    …”land of looneys here where CO2 drives climate”

    Given that about 95% of the scientific community agree that C02 is a very important climate driver, then Mack is saying that he and a few other illiterates have got it right whereas most of the qualified experts have got it wrong.

    This is the kind of insidious ignorance which characterizes so many in the climate change denial community.

  33. #33 bill
    December 10, 2013

    SunSpam, you’re denser than Batty.

    And that’s really, really, reaaaaaaaaaalllyy dense.

  34. #34 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    “How anyone with the intellect to clean his own teeth in the morning can think that low temperature at high altitude in Antarctica has the slightest imaginable bearing on AGW is beyond me.”

    Yet, here you are Barney, imagining that I mentioned AGW somewhere on my post @16…

    So now, along with Bill talking to himself while imagining he’s me @15, we have Barney imagining I wrote something that is beyond him @26…

    These are the sad stragglers of a dwindling Deltoid blog.

  35. #35 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    Hardley’s link @19…

    Titled: “Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere”

    Three lines into the abstract: “The underlying mechanisms that link the shrinking cryosphere with summer extreme weather, however, remain unclear”

    Same old Hardley, the nutty professor.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2013

    Batty,

    Glad that you, who’ve never published a paper in your life, can dismiss a study in a major journal in a single sentence. Its great that you don’t do science; I’d be scared to death to see the crap you’d produce. As it is, you think that the status of white-tailed deer populations, wild turkey re-introductions and coyote range expansions are all indicative of healthy, functioning ecosystems in eastern North America.

    Its this kind of kindergarten level understanding of science and ecology that makes you such a daft brush. So easy to ridicule. Keep it up bats; I am waiting for more pearls of wisdom gleaned from your day job.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2013

    Just for Batty:

    I know this stuff is over his head, but I keep trying. Is it warming? Yes, it certainly is.

    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/287
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01610.x/full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298949/
    http://www.ace-eco.org/vol5/iss2/art1/
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2012.12061?uid=30902&uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=30901&uid=62&sid=21103182321393
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571031/
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-birds-cats-wind-turbines-climate-change-habitat-loss-science-united-states/
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15945846-scientists-blame-climate-change-for-decline-in-migratory-birds
    http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2013/11/13/climate-change-responsible-for-changes-to-bird-migration-patterns

    Watch Batty skim cursorily through this body of research to desperately downplay the findings. Most importantly, North American passerines are most certainly NOT doing well. Climate change of course is only one causal factor, but the fact remains that Batty’s examples are appalling and more importantly his understanding of the field is virtually non-existent.

    Species that were once ubiquitous have undergone demographic meltdowns: Rufous Sided Towhees, Eastern Meadowlarks, Loggerhead Shrikes, Bewick’s Wrens, Cerulean Warblers, Rusty Blackbirds, Bachman’s Sparrows Bobwhites and many others have seen populations fall precipitously since the 1980s. Mean body sizes of tropical migrants are falling, and it is many of these species which are udner the greatest threat.

    But old Barmy Batty will tell us that in his business he can tell us all about the population trends of various native North American mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and birds and that they’re all thriving. Heck I am sure he’ll tell us he heard some leopard frogs and spring peepers in his pond this past spring, evidence that nature is doing very well in the Nearctic realm.

    This is the intellectual level we are dealing with here, folks.

  38. #38 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    A laugh a minute Hardley….the nutty professor who claims to have witnessed climate change first hand while his friend was getting frostbite…only to later claim that “of course he couldn’t” witness climate change first hand because the ground was frozen, then, when called out on his lie, backtracked to say he did witness climate change first hand because he saw……wait for it……a spider.

    Now, @19, we have the nutty professor posting a link to “vanquish the deniers”.
    This deserves a second posting it’s so comical…

    Titled: “Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere”

    Three lines into the abstract: “The underlying mechanisms that link the shrinking cryosphere with summer extreme weather, however, remain unclear”

    And Poof!, just like that….vanquished.

  39. #39 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Yet, here you are Barney, imagining that I mentioned AGW somewhere on my post @16…

    Oh, pretending that the underpinning of your discourse isn’t AGW denial now Betty?

    And Betty, denying your denial is the end of the line. Where do you go from there?

  40. #40 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Betty

    Just because the exact mechanisms by which Arctic sea ice loss is intensifying NH mid-latitude winters are still being explored does not mean that there is no causal connection. This is – or should be – obvious.

    If you want to find out more about the proposed mechanisms then I suggest you read Cohen et al. (2012) Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling.

    Denying stuff you don’t even begin to understand is infantile stupidity.

  41. #41 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    Hardley @19…

    “This ties in with the Insurance Industries, NONE of which doubt the actuality nor seriousness of climate change (its costing them big bucks in compensation)”

    Wow Hardley, all of a sudden you’re a big capitalist taking the side of greedy corporations and clinging to the scientific consensus of insurance agents. You’re like some sort of cross between a Capitalistic Pig and a Chameleon….a Pigmeleon. Completely different from the mythical Pygmalion, in part because in this case you would fall in love with a statue of yourself.

    Anyway, here is a little blurb from your link explaining the big bucks the insurance companies are doling out….

    “In 2011, the costliest year ever for loss claims thanks to floods in Thailand and the earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster, the 40 largest reinsurers made pretax profits of $5.4 billion (U.S.)”

    Ouch.

    And here’s another part from your link you seem to have overlooked:

    “That said, anthropogenic climate change doesn’t explain everything. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues that there is no meaningful trend in insured losses from extreme weather events. “The accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas is and will always remain by far the most important driver of future economic disaster damage,” he wrote in his blog, quoting a scientific paper.”

    “Indeed, building in low-lying coastal and riverine areas is asking for trouble. More construction, more economic losses, end of story. (Lloyd’s notes that more than three billion people live within 200 kilometres of a coastline, a number that is likely to double by 2025.) “In the last 20 years, losses have gone up, but GDP and population have gone up too,” says Paul Kovacs, executive director for Western University’s Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction”

    Look! ̶A̶ ̶S̶q̶u̶i̶r̶r̶e̶l̶!̶ A Spider!

  42. #42 Betula
    December 10, 2013

    Barney…
    “Oh, pretending that the underpinning of your discourse isn’t AGW denial now Betty?”

    “And Betty, denying your denial is the end of the line.”

    I love it. Spoken like the true Deputy of Deltoid….”the end of the line”.

    Do you see what’s going on here Barney? You are now at the point where you are imagining that I denied what you consider to be an underpinning of denial…

    Wouldn’t it be easier and less embarrassing for you to just show us the comment # you are referring to, with the denial text, so then the denial you imagined is available for all to see?

    Just saying.

  43. #43 Olaus Petri
    December 10, 2013

    Betula, be gentle with Litlle Napoleon and his scientific reading disabilities. :-D

  44. #44 BBD
    December 10, 2013

    Betty

    You know you are a denier. We know you are a denier. Don’t be such a wretched little disputant. Own your denial like a man. Wear it like a loincloth. With pride and with passion.

    Or we will be forced to conclude that underneath it all, you are simply a worm.

  45. #45 bill
    December 10, 2013

    Wear it like Clownshoes, more like…

  46. #46 chek
    December 10, 2013

    Wear it like Clownshoes, more like…

    Betty and Olly have always been size 30 clownshoes. Except when they’re attempting condescension, when they slip on the size 50s for extra comic effect.

  47. #47 Stu 2
    December 11, 2013

    Betula @ # 39
    I was also wondering why Jeff appears to believe that insurance companies would be a trustworthy and authoritarian source.
    In the last few days it has been all over the news how very poorly the insurance company for the Catholic Church behaved in Australia.
    Insurance companies sell products and make profits. Jeff doesn’t appear to understand that insurance companies steer well clear of any products that lose them money and promote products that make them (repeat them!) money. They look for reasons why premiums might need to go up, not down.
    The main reason we are getting more storm damage in terms of current dollars is because we have more things for storms to damage and not because storms are behaving remarkably differently. People like to live and work on the coastal fringes, despite the fact that it is well known that coastlines erode, land sinks and that destructive storms form over the oceans and wallop coastlines.
    Jeff appears to be avoiding the obvious here. It is far more lucrative for insurance companies to blame the weather instead of being involved in the management and rebuilding of real estate.
    Blaming the weather means many more areas will not (repeat not!) be able to access affordable insurance.
    Go ask anyone who lives near a flood zone about their flood insurance.
    Go ask any farmer about their weather insurance :-)
    Managing industrial, commercial and residential property development means actually having to do something that can be measured and accountable which is not the MO for insurance companies.
    They profit nicely by that ‘act of God’ clause.

  48. #48 Stu 2
    December 11, 2013

    Apology to the moderator. I mistyped my email address:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Betula @ # 39
    I was also wondering why Jeff appears to believe that insurance companies would be a trustworthy and authoritarian source.
    In the last few days it has been all over the news how very poorly the insurance company for the Catholic Church behaved in Australia.
    Insurance companies sell products and make profits. Jeff doesn’t appear to understand that insurance companies steer well clear of any products that lose them money and promote products that make them (repeat them!) money. They look for reasons why premiums might need to go up, not down.
    The main reason we are getting more storm damage in terms of current dollars is because we have more things for storms to damage and not because storms are behaving remarkably differently. People like to live and work on the coastal fringes, despite the fact that it is well known that coastlines erode, land sinks and that destructive storms form over the oceans and wallop coastlines.
    Jeff appears to be avoiding the obvious here. It is far more lucrative for insurance companies to blame the weather instead of being involved in the management and rebuilding of real estate.
    Blaming the weather means many more areas will not (repeat not!) be able to access affordable insurance.
    Go ask anyone who lives near a flood zone about their flood insurance.
    Go ask any farmer about their weather insurance :-)
    Managing industrial, commercial and residential property development means actually having to do something that can be measured and accountable which is not the MO for insurance companies.
    They profit nicely by that ‘act of God’ clause.

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    Stu2,

    Enough of your patronizing waffle. As I said before, and as has been explained by James Hansen, only 0.1% of the planet’s surface experienced extreme weather conditions annually in the early 1960s; that is now almost 10%. Climate change does effect changes in the number of extreme events – storms, heat waves and the like. And as I explained above, it is warming. Biotic proxies don’t lie: they respond. By now we have enough evidence that species and populations are moving to higher elevations or polewards to prove that. The question is: how much of this is due to human activities and what is the prognosis? Well, the bulk of the scientific community agrees that the human fingerprint is all over the current warming episode, and predictions – however fraught with uncertainty – argue that business-as-usual scenarios could have dire results. As a scientist that s more than enough evidence for me to say that we should be doing everything in our power to counter the effects of warming. Natural ecosystems sustain humanity in a myriad of ways and yet we seem content to continue experimenting on them in ways that both simplify them and will potentially lead to their collapse. This is not at all prudent in my view.

    Lastly, insurance companies are a reliable source because their profits depend to a large extent on the payouts they make in response to claims. Large claims eat into their profits and force them to put up their premiums.

    One last point: note how Batty didn’t even try to counter a single study I pasted up yesterday providing definitive proof of declines of passerines in North America – several of which where climate change have been implicated. I could paste many, many more, but unlike the rest of the deniers here I am a professional scientist who does scientific research. Batty’s the only one here who has said what his day job is and in that he does nothing remotely scientific (managing a tree shearing operation does not suffice). Olaus, Pentax, Mack, Stu2 all shy away from answering what it is they do professionally. Yet they do not hesitate to try and suggest that they are qualified to comment on areas of immense complexity. Well at least except Olaus, who has not provided a single snippet of anything remotely scientific since he began posting here a couple of years ago. He’s not even original: he just copies smears from his acolytes.

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    One final point I wish to make to Batty and Stu 2: both are so closed minded that they don’t understand the point I made about insurance companies. That is that they don’t deny it. Read that again: not a single insurance company denies the reality of AGW. This has nix to do with their ability to profit from it or not; just whether it is happening. There’s a difference, of course. Batty and Stu2 are climate change deniers, or at eh very least ‘skeptics’ (being polite). I’ve argued that one industry – the insurance industry – is almost complete agreement over AGW. The I provide several scientific studies and articles showing how AGW s affecting biodiversity, focusing on North American passerines.

    So how do they respond? Of course, ignore the scientific studies, for one thing. Then attack my argument about the insurance industries NOT on the basis of whether they believe that AGW is real but on the basis of whether they profit or not from it.

    Talk about losing an argument.

    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/09/how-the-insurance-industry-is-dealing-with-climate-change/

  51. #51 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Stu 2

    So the sea level rise data are faked?

    The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Greenland Ice Sheet and world glaciers aren’t losing ice mass?

    An ever-warmer climate won’t melt ever-more ice and warm the ocean and so increase sea level rise, increasing general coastal inundation and storm surge flooding?

    Are you seriously denying all this?

  52. #52 Mack
    December 11, 2013

    This sanctimonious,boring, academic asshole Jeff Harvey, who’s spent his life sucking on the Canadian govts.tit, has got a lot to lose here, hence his persistant, stultifying, ivory-tower clad, head in the sand, AGW bullshit prattle here. He’s still quoting Jimmy Hansen !! I feel sorry for the Canadian kids who’ve had the ignorance of this toffee-nosed total tosser foisted upon them.
    You could water-board this fuckwit in the fount of knowledge but he still wouldn’t drink.

  53. #53 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    This sanctimonious,boring, academic asshole Jeff Harvey, who’s spent his life sucking on the Canadian govts.tit, has got a lot to lose here, hence his persistant, stultifying, ivory-tower clad, head in the sand, AGW bullshit prattle here. He’s still quoting Jimmy Hansen !! I feel sorry for the Canadian kids who’ve had the ignorance of this toffee-nosed total tosser foisted upon them.
    You could water-board this fuckwit in the fount of knowledge but he still wouldn’t drink.

    We could waterboard you at the found of knowledge and you still wouldn’t be able to justify your denialism. You can’t even begin. Your pathetic avoidance of some very basic questions demonstrates that unequivocally.

    And Hansen is right, you bozo:

    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.

  54. #54 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    Mack, you exemplify exactly what I am saying. You routinely smear some of the most esteemed scientists you don’t like and bolster the reputations of those on the academic fringe whom you do. Clots like you forever try to give the impression that you are ‘defending science’ when the vast majority of scientists disagree vehemently with you and are in broad agreement over the causes of GW and of the serious repercussions of inaction. You almost appear to believe that the scientific community by-and-large is made up of AGW deniers. But then again on blogs you can say any shit and expect the readers to believe it.

    As it turns out, Mack, I was educated at university and live and work in Europe. I have nix to do with Canada and haven’t since the early 1980s. Furthermore, to reiterate, you must loathe 95% of the scientific community, because that’s how many of us believe the evidence for AGW is beyond reasonable doubt. So why don’t you write a long winded message to every Academy of Science in every country on Earth – all of which agree that humans are driving climate change – telling them that their members have their “stultifying, ivory-tower clad, heads in the sand”.

    But of course you wouldn’t do that because you are a spineless coward and in doing so you’d have to admit that science and scientists are against you.

    Know what Mack? You are a bonafide idiot. But then again, you already knew that. Why you write into Deltoid is anyone’s guess – certainly not to educate anyone. By the way, what are your scientific qualifications? Oh, yeh, sorry, you don’t have any. My bad.

  55. #55 bill
    December 11, 2013

    SunSpam, you are dreck.

  56. #56 Mack
    December 11, 2013

    Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong… I’m not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I’ll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance.
    Btw being a scientist or having a university degree doesn’t preclude you from false and wacko theorising, nor does it preclude wacko group-think among a number of qualified “experts”. You go right ahead and cling to every word your “esteemed” scientists tell you . That’s how science works for you gullible believers. Years of parroted institutionalised ignorance.

  57. #57 Wow
    December 11, 2013

    Jeff, it’s more than 95%. Quite a bit more. There’s likely less than 1% that *disagree* with the evidence for AGW. Most of the “around 5%” that “don’t agree” actually aren’t disagreeing with the evidence, just aren’t convinced that it concludes most of the warming is human caused.

    And to a degree, that may be right: if the feedbacks make a 1.2C per doubling of CO2 3C of total change, then most of that is not from anthropogenic CO2.

    However, it would hardly be correct to claim it was not a result of the CO2.

    But a dislike of the consequence of the conclusions and that little bit of wiggle room for self justification and you can get people who will say it’s mostly natural for that reason and think themselves “reasoned”.

    But most of that “about 5%” don’t disagree with the evidence, they are not as convinced or have a different conclusion from it.

    Spots, meanwhile, is in deep denial.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 11, 2013

    Spots, you’re a clueless moron with a completely undeserved egotistical bent to self-aggrandisement and a pathological hatred of anyone better educated than you.

  59. #59 bill
    December 11, 2013

    Christ, look at that clown rabbit on: every irony meter on the planet just shorted out.

  60. #60 pentaxZ
    December 11, 2013

    About Nature and Science. Bitchslap big time! Hillarious!

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

  61. #61 bill
    December 11, 2013

    Anyone give a damn about Pentie’s posts? Didn’t think so…

  62. #62 Wow
    December 11, 2013

    Nah, only panties cares.

    The rest of the deniers will swallow any shit if it smells like denial, mind.

  63. #63 pentaxZ
    December 11, 2013

    Bazhinga! Hahaha.

  64. #64 pentaxZ
    December 11, 2013

    And jeffie still is going on about the 98% meme! Hillarious! What a wacko.

  65. #65 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Sunsock

    Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong… I’m not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I’ll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance.

    But as we’ve already exhaustively established, you cannot even answer three basic questions about the role of CO2 in paleoclimate behaviour.

    Yet you seem to believe that all the world’s scientists and academies are flat-out wrong.

    This is as clear a demonstration of delusional behaviour from you as we have yet seen. You really do need to seek help, because these conditions deteriorate unless treated. I don’t know if you have dependants, but if you do, think of their welfare.

    Get help.

  66. #66 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Pentax

    For once, I half-agree with you. Scientific publishing needs a hefty kick up the arse and it needs it now. Where we part company is in the absurd implication that climate science is distorted by the scientific publishing sector.

    To illustrate the cosmic daftness of that claim, let us try a simple test:

    Please answer the following three questions with direct reference to the influence of the scientific publishing sector on the laws of physics over long time-scales:

    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.

    NB – 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).

    * * *

    I do hope this clarifies for you just how incontinently daft your argument is.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 11, 2013

    “Yet you seem to believe that all the world’s scientists and academies are flat-out wrong. ”

    Even more amusingly, spots thinks that the proof of this is that they were educated and he wasn’t…!

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    “Mack shows how utterly out of touch when he writes, “Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong… I’m not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I’ll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance”

    So, in other words, a guy with no scientific pedigree whatsoever (meaning Mack, who refuses to tell us his day job, proof positive of my assertion) confidently claims that all of the scientific academies have got it wrong, as well as the vast majority of the scientific community (meaning those with professional training in the relevant fields) WHEREAS HE, WITH NO QUALIFICATIONS HAS IT RIGHT. THEN HE CLAIMS THAT I (AND BY ASSOCIATION MOST SCIENTISTS) ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE D-K SYNDROME..

    Now I don’t know whether this is just pure insanity on Mack’s part, or whether he really believes what he writes. One thing for sure: its bullshit.

    What really annoys the real D-K acolytes here (meaning those who have no training in science whatsoever but who have inflated opinions of their knowledge – meaning Mack, Betula, Pentax etc) is that they cannot come to grips with the views of most scientists. They try and smear me as if my views fall outside the academic mainstream, but none of them are academics and they do not interact with scientists. In my scientific career spanning more than 20 years I have met very few climate change skeptics at work, conferences, universities, workshops, or elsewhere where scientists meet. AGW is taken as a ‘given’ by the vast majority of my peers. On the other hand, the deniers on Deltoid and other blogs for the most part don’t go anywhere near any of the venues I listed above. Their opinions are gleaned almost wholsale from denier blogs and the people who write into them, as well as from climate change skeptics who write for the corporate media.

    On this basis they think they are ‘informed’ and that they can lecture me on the views of scientists. Trouble is, I am one and I work with scientists. I meet them every day at work and elsewhere. And like it or not, very few are AGW deniers. As I said, in my career, I’ve met maybe 3 or 4. Against that the number of peers I have met who acknowledge AGW runs into the many hundreds, if not thousands.

    They can’t debate the science (biotic proxies prove its warming) and thus they have to try and isolate my opinions as if they fall outside the mainstream. They don’t.

    End of story. Try harder guys.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    One last thing: I’d trust the views of 95% or more of the experts in a scientific field over some clueless morons writing into blogs. All Mack can do is to claim – with nary a shred of evidence – that the experts must be wrong because of ‘group think’. This is it. Thus, we are supposed to believe a tiny handful of skeptics, most on the academic fringe, and their army of untrained followers.

    My gosh, if this is the level of their debating’ skills’ then no wonder they are laughingstocks.

  70. #70 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Jeff

    Now I don’t know whether this is just pure insanity on Mack’s part, or whether he really believes what he writes. One thing for sure: its bullshit.

    All these possibilities are mutually compatible…

  71. #71 Betula
    December 11, 2013

    pentaxZ…

    That’s an interesting link you posted at #57…

    Schekman (a Nobel Price winner)…” said pressure to publish in “luxury” journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash”

    Wasn’t Hardley an editor of one such Journal? Can you imagine someone with his ideological biases being an editor?

    There may be something to what Schekman says…in any case, it certainly can’t be argued by Hardley, since Schekman’s credentials are so much better…

  72. #72 Betula
    December 11, 2013

    Hardley @46….

    “note how Batty didn’t even try to counter a single study I pasted up yesterday providing definitive proof of declines of passerines in North America – several of which where climate change have been implicated”

    Where did you post this?

  73. #73 Betula
    December 11, 2013

    Hardley @51…

    “the serious repercussions of inaction”

    Which actions over what time frame will correct which repercussions at which specific location on earth? Please be specific. (where’s the deputy when you need him)

    I’m just curious, because I was reminded of this quote from Australia’s former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery:

    “If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

    I thought it might be relevant since his credentials also appear to be much better than yours…

  74. #74 chek
    December 11, 2013

    Which actions over what time frame will correct which repercussions at which specific location on earth? Please be specific.

    Oh, please fuck off you tedious dolt.
    Why are you even here if you’re not aware of the global effect of on-going rising temperatures that have been published and presented in venues such as the 4 degrees Climate Conference

    Denial does not stop simple physics in its tracks, no matter how many fossil fuel and billionaire funded blogs declare it to be so..

    And Tim Flannery’s observation (in light of no as yet unforeseen techno-superfix that will remove and sequestrate CO2 making itself available anytime soon) is readily understood by the simple analogy of ceasing to pour yet more petrol on a fire. The fire still burns and will still take time to extinguish, but it’s not getting any worse.

    And what’s with this new denial of your denial? You’ve quiacked, waddled and shat like a denier for so long now have you forgotten you’re a fucking duck?

  75. #75 Wow
    December 11, 2013

    Oh, check, you don’t realise!

    Betty Boo is doin’ the do.
    And you are through.
    And there’s nothing you can do.
    Betty Boo.
    Betty Boo is doin’ the do.

  76. #76 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Betty

    That’s an interesting link you posted at #57…

    See response at # 63, which you bizarrely ignored.

    Have a go. Or is it a wee bit to hard for you?

  77. #77 Turboblocke
    December 11, 2013

    #70 Frack me, that Flannery quote is from March 2011. Has it only just sunk in?

  78. #78 pentaxZ
    December 11, 2013

    Hehe…spot on, JoNova!

    “We also won’t mention that many of the records depend entirely on our adjustments. All those old thermometers kept reading too high. We had to fix that. Strange how it took 70 years to “correct” those readings. (Measuring temperatures wasn’t too rigorous back in the days of the Atomic Bomb and Moon Landing, scientists couldn’t be expected to do something as complex as measuring air temperature accurately without a computer model.)”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines-in-their-leaked-synopsis-97-of-models-fail/

  79. #79 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Are we faking Arctic sea ice extent too, Pentax?

    And sea level data from satellite altimetry? And ice mass loss data from GRACE and volumetric change data from Cryosat? Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You are off with the conspiracy fairies again, aren’t you? Get a grip.

  80. #80 BBD
    December 11, 2013

    Why is all this ice melting and why is sea level rising Pentax?

    Ice melts because it is getting warmer. Sea level rises because the ice is melting and the sea is warming and expanding.

    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    This is what is actually happening in reality – in the real physical world – and you are denying it. That’s diagnostic of mental illness, Pentax.

    Get help.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    Betty “….a Nobel Price winner”

    Priceless.

  82. #82 Betula
    December 11, 2013

    Turdblock @74…

    ” Frack me, that Flannery quote is from March 2011″

    Which is why I said… “I was reminded of this quote”

    Consider yourself fracked.

  83. #83 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    So Schekman won’t publish in – or should I more correctly say submit papers to – Nature, Science or Cell any more, and this is supposed the be the ‘bottom line’ according to the deniers on this blog. They are happy to espouse the merits of papers is journals like Energy and Environment.

    The man is entitled to his opinions. But I am sure that many other acclaimed scientists would disagree with him. I would have liked him to provide examples. And he is incorrect that the editors of Nature are not scientists. They most certainly are.

    As for having ‘better credentials’ than me, well that is utterly hilarious. In his field of research he most certainly does. But in mine he most certainly doesn’t. And, most importantly Betty, you have no credentials at all. Zero publications and zero citations. I at least have 136 and 3,300 respectively. My guess is that Schekman would take my comments a lot more seriously than yours.

  84. #84 chek
    December 11, 2013

    Hehe…spot on

    … sayeth the PantieZ, not realising that Codlers has said nothing specific whatsoever, but only thrown out the suggestion of juicy chum to the bottom feeders who can fill in their own gaps according to their own taste, wishful thinking and (lack of) intelligence.

    Maybe she’ll do a NZCSET, say something actually substantial, and thus end up paying a shitload of costs like Treadgold’s sorry crew who ended up believing their own cobblers from the very same vein, were tested and found to be miserable, incompetent and misguided failures.

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2013

    Studies on avian declines in North America and elsewhere (below). There are many, many more. Climate change and other factors are implicated. Most importantly, they utterly rebuke Betty’s assertion that North American ecosystems and their biodiversity are doing well. And remember that these declines relate to birds only; the story is equally grim for other vertebrate groups.

    ttp://missoulian.com/news/local/um-study-links-climate-change-decline-in-songbird-populations/article_5ed6a08e-464f-11e1-8d5e-0019bb2963f4.html

    http://www.ace-eco.org/vol5/iss2/art1/

    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/64

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16195.short

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1685/1259.short

    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1650/7131

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070600070X

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140050514?LI=true

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01751.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00575.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Eastern_Songbirds.html

    http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2257/20130604/songbird-population-decline-associated-early-spring.htm

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-birds-cats-wind-turbines-climate-change-habitat-loss-science-united-states/

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/abs/nature05829.html

    http://birds.audubon.org/common-birds-decline

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/52/18042.long

    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/63

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=F2BDAA4C-1

    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/pressure?gclid=CIXn5LiuqbsCFcNF3godLjkANg

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1202/p13s01-sten.html

  86. #86 Betula
    December 12, 2013

    Hardley…

    “I at least have 136 and 3,300 respectively.”

    Which further proves Schekman’s point…. the system is flawed.

  87. #87 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2013

    Which further proves Schekman’s point…. the system is flawed.

    Seriously? Do you understand what you’re saying?

    I’ve been spending a considerable time lately wading in publication processes and statistics and I can tell you that Jeff’s are absolutely credible, as is the work with which he is associated.

    You have absolutely no understanding of what really happens in science do you? Just as you have no effective capacity to be able to judge the import of the content and implications of scientific output.

    I think I’ve told this story before in response to your drek, but it’s worth repeating again. Back in the 80s one of my social circle tried to tell us that she was a computer programmer, when all she did was type letters for her boss using Windows 2.X. She couldn’t understand why she wasn’t a computer programmer – just as you can’t understand why your tree surgery is not a passport to scientific acumen.

    Grow a brain Betula. You’re a part of society that will be regarded by the future as biocidal criminals, and you don’t have a clue why.

  88. #88 bill
    December 12, 2013

    Let’s face it, about 80% of Denial is ‘The Revenge of the Dumb Kids’.

    (And the other 20% is ‘Truly Ruthless Bastards Exploit the Terminally Dumb to Further Their Agenda.’)

  89. #89 Betula
    December 12, 2013

    Try and defend Hardley all you want Bernard (again), but after years of viewing his comments along with off and on conversing… it wouldn’t take an acclaimed scientist to figure out that he is an egotistical ideologue who’s biases consume his every thought.
    I can’t imagine it would be possible for him to attack a research project or give a lecture without these traits affecting his conclusions in some preconceived way.

    It is what it is.

  90. #90 bill
    December 12, 2013

    he is an egotistical ideologue who’s biases consume his every thought

    It is, indeed, always projection with the muppets. In this case, black hole chastises kettle. Get back to your ARS extension pole, Bircher Boy, it’s the greatest height you’re ever likely to achieve…

  91. #91 chek
    December 12, 2013

    It must seem inconceivable to Betty that someone, having studied and researched a subject for years, and to have acquired sufficient understanding that the effect of the wrecking ball that is global consumer civilisation’s impact on whole ranges of natural systems are unwise, unsustainable and yet by and large unintended consequences.

    To then dismiss those drawing attention to those consequences and the remedies those effects demand as non-existent problems and merely some ideology shows yet another facet of the mental illness that is denial at its most nihilistic and ignorant.

  92. #92 pentaxZ
    December 12, 2013

    “Why is all the ice melting bla bla bla…”

    In the west Antarctic? Shifting focus now because the Arctic won’t comply? And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before. You alarmiztas really are the experts of cherry picking, or perhaps more accurate, you are in panic grabbing the last straw. Dumbass!

    And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

  93. #93 pentaxZ
    December 12, 2013

    “…I can tell you that Jeff’s are absolutely credible…”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Get out of here, bernie! We should just take your word for it? Because you said so? What a joke! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

  94. #94 Mack
    December 12, 2013

    Apologies for calling you an asshole at # 49 Jeff Harvey. I must have unthinkingly lapsed into Deltoid venacular.
    Your typical content free, self agrandious, boring prattle @# 65 was your usual long, sleep inducing diatribe. You can talk the hind leg off a dog. Hopefully your students might fall asleep, avoiding all the AGW bullshit you inject in your lectures.

  95. #95 Jeff Harvey
    December 12, 2013

    Pentax et al. Since you’ve never read a scientific study I have done, and wouldn’t understand the science even if you did, since when are you able to judge on my abilities as a scientist? That’s a bit like asking a guy who shovels manure for a living to judge the work of a scientist who does biomedical research. None of you understand basic science or (with the exception of Betula who has admitted his science comes from sticking s finger to the wind) have told us here what you do for a living. Which means that none of the deniers have any scientific qualifications. If they did, oh yes, we’d hear all about it. They do not hesitate to blow out of all proportion the bonafides of a few deniers who run blogs or who have published half a dozen papers, but note how the smears come out for the scientists they hate (me, and any number of climate scientists like Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, Ramsdorff, etc). Mack called Hansen ‘Jimmy’ in a post yesterday, a clear vernacular attempt to denigrate him.

    The snide comments here from the usual band of deniers is because they hate scientists who deviate from the views they hold on AGW. And since none of the usual suspects has any qualifications remotely scientific, its even more indicative of the D-K state of things that they all never hesitate to claim that AGW is bullshit even when they don’t understand the basics of atmospheric science.

    The more vile they become, the more desperate they are. All of them claim the Deltoid is a dead blog, yet they all write in here time and time again. And Mack actually brought up D-K yesterday. Oh the irony……..

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    December 12, 2013

    Batty clearly did not understand the gist of Schekman’s article, which was aimed at scientists, and not birch tree pruners. In fact, reading the article, I pretty much agree with everything Schekman says, But his article was not attacking the reputations f other scientists at all but the pressure of young scientists to publish to top tier (or high impact) journals at the expense of sound science.

    But since Batty is not an insider and wouldn’t know an impact factor from birch bark and doesn’t understand the way in which journals operate, its clearly ridiculous for him to comment on my qualifications as if this is what Schekman was talking about. His article was not at all an attack on fellow scientists but on the pressure to publish in certain journals and their practice of rejecting most submissions. That was it.

    Its amazing how utterly ludicrous some of the comments are from the likes of Batty, Muck, Pantie etc here when none of them understand the basics of how science operates.

  97. #97 BBD
    December 12, 2013

    Pentax

    In the west Antarctic? Shifting focus now because the Arctic won’t comply? And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before. You alarmiztas really are the experts of cherry picking, or perhaps more accurate, you are in panic grabbing the last straw. Dumbass!

    And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

    So much rubbish in so few words! Bravo, clown!

    West Antarctic ice mass loss rate is increasing. Artcic summer sea ice extent is accelerating (you are the idiot if you try to make claims based on a single year instead of the full time-series).

    Sea level has *not* risen steadily since the beginning of the Holocene as you claim. You trot off and find me a reference or five for that, eh? Good luck.

    You are cherry-picking and grabbing a straws – and projecting like a poisoned dog.

    * * *

    So, back to the facts.

    December 11, 2013

    Why is all this ice melting and why is sea level rising Pentax? Answer the fucking question this time.

    Ice melts because it is getting warmer. Sea level rises because the ice is melting and the sea is warming and expanding.

    Are you denying these basic facts? Seriously?

    That would be crazy, Pentax. Loony tunes. Are you a nutter, Pentax?

  98. #98 BBD
    December 12, 2013

    Oops. Missed a bit of your rubbish, Pentax.

    And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before.

    I linked to this at #48 and again at #77 but you clearly didn’t bother to look at the latest scientific measurements, preferring blabbering denial instead.

    Here is what we now know about West and East Antarctica and Greenland:

    Examining the ice sheet regions individually we show that the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic ice sheets have all lost mass over the past two decades, whilst the East Antarctic ice sheet has undergone a slight snowfall-driven growth. The Greenland ice sheet has lost the largest mass and accounts for about two-thirds of the combined ice sheet loss over the study period. In Antarctica, the largest mass losses have occurred in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, despite occupying just 4% of the total ice sheet area, the Antarctic Peninsula has accounted for around 25% of the Antarctic mass losses.

    We created charts of mass change (see figure below) for each geographical region, and these confirm known signals of imbalance. Mass loss from the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheets has increase over time. In Greenland, rates of mass loss were modest during the 1990’s but have sharply accelerated since then due to episodes of ice acceleration (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Joughin et al.,2004) and decreased surface mass balance (van den Broeke et al.,2009; Ettema et al., 2009). The rate of mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet increased substantially over the study period, with losses occurring mainly due to glacier acceleration in the Amundsen Sea Sector. The Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet was close to balance in the 1990’s, but since then significant mass losses have occurred as a result of ice shelf collapse (Rott et al., 1996;De Angelis and Skvarca, 2003) and calving front retreat (Cook et al., 2005; Pritchard et al.,2009). Overall our time series of mass change show that the combined losses from Greenland and Antarctica have increased over time and the ice sheets are now losing almost three times as much ice as they were in the early 1990’s.

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2013

    And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

    How about we put the straw man aside.

    What is the contemporary rate of sea level rise, and what will it be for the next few centuries?

    And what are the consequences of the ansers to the previous question?

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2013

    …answers…

Current ye@r *