January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    January 2, 2014

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

    Taking the available observations at face value implies a most likely climate sensitivity of about 4 °C, with a lower limit of about 3 °C. Indeed, all 15 of the GCMs with ECS below 3.0 °C have an LTMI [lower-tropospheric mixing index] below the bottom of the observational range

    If the ECS result corroborated, this is not good news. If human emissions continue under a BAU scenario for 85 more years to 2100 (~800 ppm at 2100 under BAU) it would be eventually all over Red Rover for humans and a huge swathe of the biosphere.

    I doubt that such a point would actually be reached (there are too many points of failure to navigate in our socioeconomic system before that time), but even going half-way to there from where we are now would put the kibosh on future Western civilisation and at least 75-90% of the current human population.

    Alarming? Yes. Alarmist? No – unless one refuses to consider the numbers and the lessons of science.

  2. #2 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Dear Bernard,

    crystal balls are not something to navigate by:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

    Hopefully the melting-ice-watchers will be rescued today. I’m starting to get really worried.

  3. #3 ianam
    January 2, 2014

    Roy Spencer thinks 5 years is a long time because, um, http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

  4. #5 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    What’s the “hmmm” for, doggie?

    Where do you expect to get sea ice and boats?

  5. #6 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    “crystal balls are not something to navigate by:

    http://www.drroyspencer

    Neither are stone age myths, dearie.

  6. #7 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    I was of the impression that the penguines, especially the emperor kind, suffered from sea ice loss. You mean it’s only Jeff that suffers?

    I hope they get the boats going though.

  7. #8 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    I was of the impression that the penguines, especially the emperor kind, suffered from sea ice loss.

    Ho! Hum! TweedleDum.

    It is polar bears and pinnipedia and suffer from the result of sea ice loss in the Arctic and WRT penguins it could be that with the Antarctic an increase in sea ice causes problems by increasing journey times to the ocean and back to the roost, this with the Emperor.

    Also Adélie Penguin is suffering from the effects of warming in the Antarctic Peninsula. Look up The Ferocious Summer: Palmer’s Penguins and the Warming of Antarctica for more on this.

  8. #9 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Lionel, I know that you climate scientology knowledge is great:

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/716340.shtml

    ;-)

  9. #10 chek
    January 2, 2014

    crystal balls

    scientology

    etc., etc.

    A moron in two languages isn’t impressive Olap.

  10. #11 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Chek, you are refering to Lionels double speak, I presume? The emperor penguins are endangered by sea ice loss and sea ice gain.

    Clear as crystal (balls). ;-)

  11. #12 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2014

    Olaus is again trying to keep the debate in the benthos. He clearly has never read a scientific article in an ecology/global change journal in his life; certainly nothing that gives him even a rudimentary understanding of ecology or environmental science. I cringe when I read some of this ‘contributions’… but he thinks he is actually informed.

    Incredible.

  12. #13 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    Woof woof woof, Olap.

  13. #14 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    Remember, gentles all, Olap doesn’t know what it speaks of, even if it brings it up of its own “free will”.

    Not knowing the difference between a polar bear and a penguin is, relatively, small potatoes compared to the cherished ignorance of the yappie little pork-pie dog.

  14. #15 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    “The emperor penguins are endangered by sea ice loss and sea ice gain.”

    Woof woof woof?

    (Dog to English translation: You have proof?)

  15. #16 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2014

    The emperor penguins are endangered by sea ice loss and sea ice gain.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    That’s not what Lionel said, as anyone can plainly see.

  16. #17 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    Chek, you are refering to Lionels double speak…

    Only a buffoon of your calibre could consider my statements at #8 double speak.

    Arctic v Antarctic, polar bears and pinnipedia v penguins.

    Get it now do you, he of poor comprehension?

  17. #18 Douglas McClean
    January 2, 2014

    “The emperor penguins are endangered by sea ice loss and sea ice gain.”

    Is there some reason this should be surprising? Most life is limited in the extent to which it can adapt to change of living parameters in both directions. I’d be just as dead after a day in a freezer as I would after a day in an oven. Floods and droughts both kill. Overcrowding and isolation both kill. Overeating and starvation both kill. It’s not at all uncommon for substances to be both an essential nutrient and a deadly poison to the same organisms. Sometimes the difference in dose can even be quite small, have you ever known someone on coumadin therapy?

    It seems that you have an a priori assumption that the research results are absurd, which you are using to conclude that they are absurd. Hardly convincing to anyone else.

  18. #19 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    Another Arctic (well nearly) canary sings: Iceland’s Vanishing Ice Threatens Culture, Society.

    Icelandic culture and society joining an long list of others trampled by free market economics. Just don’t mention the cod, which had me modifying hairyplanes.

  19. #20 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Lionel, I have no problems with making difference between emperor penguines and polar bears. You have though:

    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-sea-ice-threatens-emperor-penguins.html

    ;-)

  20. #21 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Lionel:

    “WRT penguins it could be that with the Antarctic an increase in sea ice causes problems by increasing journey times to the ocean and back to the roost, this with the Emperor (Note to readers: not Jeff).”

    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-sea-ice-threatens-emperor-penguins.html

    ;-)

    And why are you talking about the Arctic?

  21. #22 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    What you are missing OP is that I was pointing out that Emperor Penguins can also be affected by an increase in sea ice in the manner suggested.

  22. #23 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Lionel, I didn’t miss anything. Loss and gain is a threat and all thanks to global warming, or more correct: the rapidly increasing GMT. ;-)

  23. #24 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    “I have no problems with making difference between emperor penguines and polar bears.”

    Woof Woof Bark Woof, Olap.

  24. #25 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    Hmmm.

    Seems Olap Dawg here is going for the “Say something that says nothing” method of shitting on the path.

    Dirty little shitzu.

  25. #26 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    Indeed. Yap, yap, yap.

    But then the fact that ECS/2xCO2 is ~3 and may be higher isn’t something the deniers are going to let pass (see #1 this page). So they all leap about squawking about something else entirely.

  26. #27 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    Amusingly, Olaus jumps in with that discredited and deliberately deceptive graph cooked up by Christy.

    Hey, Olaus, what does Christy show under the label “satellite data”? What is it?

  27. #28 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    GMT! WTF has Greewich Mean Time to do with this?

    Given that you like crowing about increasing Antarctic Sea Ice I had this in mind:

    Females lay a single egg and then promptly leave it behind. They undertake an extended hunting trip that lasts some two months! Depending on the extent of the ice pack, females may need to travel some 50 miles (80 kilometers) just to reach the open ocean…

    and

    During this two-month bout of babysitting the males eat nothing and are at the mercy of the Antarctic elements.

    When female penguins return to the breeding site, they bring a belly full of food that they regurgitate for the newly hatched chicks. Meanwhile, their duty done, male emperors take to the sea in search of food for themselves.

    from:

    Nat. Geo. on Emperor Penguin.

    Given that double, double journey for the parent pair, small increases in distance between roost and ocean can have profound effects. This in the knowledge that Antarctic sea ice has varied by different amounts at different positions on the periphery over recent decades (see NSDIC and NASA presentations on this) then these birds can have a very tough time.

    Also the fact that you and your ilk also like to crow about Antarctic Sea Ice growth as Arctic Ice declines then I detect more than a whiff of hubris in your posts on this subject particularly your last at #23.

  28. #29 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2014

    “Lionel, I have no problems with making difference between emperor penguines and polar bears”

    Ya coulda’ fooled me, Olaus. As I said earlier, you’re so thick you can’t tell a cricket from an elephant. You rely on a few web logs for your ecological ‘information’ regarding climate change; its clear you’ve never read a relevant scientific journal in your life.

    One of the main things I see on Deltoid – and which is probably evident on other weblogs – is that dopes like Olaus and other anti-environemtal types like him fail to answer many of the ripostes to their nonsense. They think they can slip and and slither their way through discussions by only responding to a tiny number of the challenges to their posts. F’rinstance, earlier today, Olaus asked me to provide evidence of the many arguments I have put forward regarding the harmful effects of warming and other human-mediated processes of biodiversity. I’ve listed many examples over many previous months, but I did link to thousands of studies with tens of thousands of citations which have addressed these issues. Olly’s response: as expected, silence. He can’t answer this, so he goes on to discuss Emperor Penguins, as if there are only a few studies which have examined the effects of climate change on biodiversity.

    This is why twits like Olaus never venture into the public arena where they would be eaten alive. On blogs they can say what they like, ignore what they like, and feel they have achieved some kind of intellectual victory. And they can remain anonymous to boot.

    As I said, there are literally hundreds of studies reporting: changes in the phenology of multitrophic interactions as a result of warming, and the declines of species as a result; distributional and altitudinal shifts of species in response to warming, with some populations declining markedly where physical barriers act as an impediment to their dispersal; increases of winter survival of major insect pests in regions to the north (or south in the southern hemisphere) due to more frost free or milder winters. Winter is a major biological control agent.

    These topics are well described in many top journals I described on the december thread. Olaus doesn’t read scientific journals, but instead reads abut penguins and polar bears on WUWT. There and on other blogs is where he gets his world view on climate science.

    So how will he respond now? Either with some vacuous quip (meaning he is out of his depth) or by claiming that I am boasting a bout my CV (meaning he is out of his depth) or by not responding at all (meaning he is out of his depth). heck Olly, do you even know what the words ‘multitrophic’ and ‘phenology’ mean?

  29. #30 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Lionel, I was more interested in the very scientific jeffiefact that emperor penguins are endangered due to the escalating global warming’s ability to both increase and decrease antarctic sea ice.

    We can talk about the Arctic another time.

    :-)

  30. #31 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    dopes like Olaus and other anti-environemtal types like him fail to answer many of the ripostes to their nonsense. They think they can slip and and slither their way through discussions by only responding to a tiny number of the challenges to their posts.

    By an odd coincidence, Jeff articulates exactly the problem I am having at the moment with Betty.

    Since we are now onto a fresh thread, I will repost (for the nth time) the question Betty is going to great lengths to avoid answering:

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    Weather or climate?

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

  31. #32 Lionel A
    January 2, 2014

    More waffle around the same block from OP:

    emperor penguins are endangered due to the escalating global warming’s ability to both increase and decrease antarctic sea ice

    .

    Now what do you think I have just pointed out to you. Yes, strange as it may seem that whilst the Antarctic is warming up sea ice can expand in some places and shrink in others due to local changes in oceanic and air currents with those areas moving with changing conditions, in other words warming is causing climate change.

    Now consider that as the glacier ice streams speed up with release of the floating ice shelf dams then the water around Antarctic freshens. Now what freezes at the highest temperature fresh water or salt water?

    You gotta work harder at this.

  32. #33 Olaus Petri
    January 2, 2014

    Expand in some places Lionel? There has never been so much sea ice recorded in the Antarctic region. But the the escalating global warming gets the emperor penguins either way, correct? ;-)

  33. #34 Wow
    January 2, 2014

    Woof, Olap.

  34. #35 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    Olaus

    From a quick overview of the topic you should have been able to find in a couple of minutes if you had looked:

    This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010).

    To further complicate this picture, we find this net increase actually masks strong declines in particular regions around Antarctica, such as in the Bellingshausen Sea, which are on par or greater than those in the Arctic.

    So while there is much greater attention given to the Arctic decline and the prediction of “ice-free summers” at the North Pole this century, Antarctic climate scientists still have their work cut out to understand the regional declines amidst the mild “net” expansion occurring in the southern hemisphere.

  35. #36 chek
    January 2, 2014

    There has never been so much sea ice recorded in the Antarctic region.

    Classic meaningless, unspecified marketing spiel, formulated to convince 9 out of 10 morons

    Yep, woofing for its fellow vermin.
    But actually parading its idiocy for attention.

  36. #37 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    And Olaus, re #27

    Have you found out what Christy did with the satellite data he used for that graph yet?

    Things to explore (you are a sceptic, remember?):

    – Are there known issues with the middle-troposphere (MT) data?

    – What happens when you average two data sets when one has a trend 3x larger than the other?

  37. #38 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    There has never been so much sea ice recorded in the Antarctic region.

    And there has never been so much recorded net ice mass loss from the continental Antarctic ice sheets:

    The results of the IMBIE 2012 experiments showed that the agreement between mass balance estimates from radar and laser altimetry, gravimetry and the input-output method is good in all ice sheet regions.

    In combining the datasets we generated a 19 year time series of ice sheet mass balance from 1992 to 2011. Over this period, we found that the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets together lost mass that equated to a global rise in sea level of 11.1 +/- 3.8 millimetres.

    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.

  38. #39 Stu
    January 2, 2014

    And Olaus, please knock it off with the fake concern for the trapped scientists You brought it up because you’re absolutely delighted and will milk this daily until they are freed. You’re being obnoxious, asinine and are not fooling anyone, you pathetic, miserable little troll.

  39. #40 BBD
    January 2, 2014

    That day appears to have arrived. I’m sure we are all united in our pleasure that everyone is safe and sound.

  40. #41 chek
    January 2, 2014

    Hear hear!
    To the real heroes who venture into dangerous and inhospitable places to advance the sum of human knowledge.

    Compare and contrast to fat-arsed Caifornian and Coloradan fakes swallowing oil money by the barrel and spending 10 years at home to find out what was already known.

    The latter being the “heroes” to their fellow fakes and vermin worldwide.

  41. #42 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    And still silence on #31.

  42. #43 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    ” I’m sure we are all united in our pleasure that everyone is safe and sound.”

    But what if someone on board is a denier? Shouldn’t they be beaten and left behind?

  43. #44 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “To the real heroes who venture into dangerous and inhospitable places to advance the sum of human knowledge”

    The tourists?

  44. #45 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “But then the fact that ECS/2xCO2 is ~3 and may be higher isn’t something the deniers are going to let pass (see #1 this page).”

    Well, it is a fact that it’s an estimate, however, an estimate doesn’t make it a fact.

  45. #46 chek
    January 3, 2014

    The tourists?

    You’ll need to explain your “reasoning” there Betty, though I don’t believe vermin could.

  46. #47 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “And still silence on #31″

    Did you mean #32? Because it’s a jackass question that I have already responded to…just not to your liking. The question is insignificant in relation to me, other than the fact that I pointed out that Hardley was a hypocrite for his posting of weather events to make a point about climate.
    This is a perfect example of deputy Deltoid attempting to direct the message in a certain direction…too obvious.
    Now deputy, if you really want to ask a question that involves averaging 1/12 of one type of measurement from many different climates at many different latitudes throughout the earth, derived from an evolution of measuring techniques over a very small time scale in terms of history, then I would suggest you ask Hardley.

  47. #48 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    The tourists?

    Were there not tourists on board risking their lives?

  48. #49 chek
    January 3, 2014

    Oooooh Betty.
    Your inability to process even the simplest of information fully explains your fucked-in-the-head incapability of understanding anything discussed on this blog.

  49. #50 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    But chek, why aren’t the tourists who were on board and advanced into this dangerous and inhospitable place real heros? Weren’t they partying alongside the scientists?

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

  50. #51 chek
    January 3, 2014

    Totally incapable, even when the information required for comprehension is there in plain sight and plain English.
    I rest my case.

  51. #52 peterd
    Melbourne
    January 3, 2014

    Apparently off-topic but….. Fairfax has just published an article by John McLean, complete with tendentious cartoon by Spooner, commenting on aspects of the IPCC, the UNFCCC, and their processes. They’ve closed off the comments underneath in double-quick time. Perhaps someone realised that they were on a hiding to nowhere with this article. McLean has claimed that the UNFCCC, “…at its inaugural meeting in 1992… declared that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were causing significant and dangerous climate change” and that this statement had “no factual basis”. I have surveyed, rather quickly, the document in question at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf and can find no reference to the words used by McLean. Is McLean guilty of precisely the kind of exaggeration of which e accuses others?

  52. #53 Olaus Petri
    January 3, 2014

    Prior to the trip to the Antarctic Prof. Turkey was preparing himself in a Russian boot camp specialized in vanishing ice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz-sO0YEYtY#t=33

  53. #54 Jeff Harvey
    January 3, 2014

    As I was saying, BBD, people like Olaus keep the discussion of climate change at kindergarten-school levels. They focus on single prominent species (e.g. Emperor Penguins, Polar Bears) without a basic understanding of effects that global change mediates on complex adaptive systems – species interaction networks, food webs, trophic chains, and indirect feedback loops. If we are to understand the longer term ecological effects of warming, there’s no use in using ‘flagship species’ except for PR purposes. Systemic properties in which these species are embedded must be examined – hence why ecologists are intensively studying the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. This involves a stupendously complex array of interactions involving organisms in food chains and webs, from the soil to the above-ground compartments. For instance, from the work of ecologists like Neo Martinez and Jordi Boscompte:

    http://ecoplexity.org/model_complex_foodweb

    In this freshwater food web we still notice an amazing array of interactions involving the first, second and third trophic levels; all are tightly connected and, as Martinez points out, “This means that invasions, extinctions, and biodiversity loss may affect many more species than previously thought, because so few species will be far enough apart not to be affected> Now overlay this into the Antarctic coastal marie and Arctic marine food webs. The fate of species occurring toward the end of food chains there – the penguins and polar bears (nominally leopard seals are in the fourth trophic level of the Antarctic chain and the penguins in the third, but I am trying to keep it simple) – hinges on effects across a myriad of species in the chain – what we ecologists refer to ‘bottom up trophic cascades’.

    As the seminal work of McCann, Pimm, De Ruiter, and others has shown, the strength and resilience of food chains – ‘stability’ if you prefer – hinges on the fate of many tightly interacting species, and not necessarily on one (although we could get to keystones or drivers later). Most food webs are strictly bottom-up regulated – meaning the abundance of top level predators is critically determined by the health of the primary producers, then the first order level consumers and so on. Top-down mediated trophic cascades are also important, but evidence for these is based mostly on simple, homogeneous systems which lack structural or chemical complexity.

    So the bottom line is this: species interactions across variable spatial and temporal determine the fate of species in a changing world. Climate change threatens to unravel food chains through disproportionate effects on species (indeed, on genetically distinct populations) in different trophic levels. hence the invocation of the term ‘phenology’, which has became a central theme in climate change-ecology research:

    Here is an example of a larger scale analysis showing the effects of differing species of migratory birds responses to climate change:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571031/

    As I said yesterday, the scientific journals are full of these kinds of studies. There are many thousands of them in the pages of dozens of journals with high impact factors. The deniers, for the most part, do not read them and/or do not understand what they read because they lack the professional training. These are the kinds of courses given at universities. I have barely scratched the surface. And I simply do not have the time to educate all of the climate change deniers who inhabit the internet. Its up to scientists to get out of the labs more to do this, and for us somehow to crack the media that rarely write about ecological complexity.

  54. #55 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2014

    Lionel, I didn’t miss anything.

    ROFL!

    Keep digging. There’s no limit to how negative your credibility rating can go, and you’re already at fairly impressive levels.

  55. #56 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Did you mean #32? Because it’s a jackass question that I have already responded to…just not to your liking. The question is insignificant in relation to me, other than the fact that I pointed out that Hardley was a hypocrite for his posting of weather events to make a point about climate.

    No, Betty, I meant #31 and you have not answered the question.

    So you are a liar.

    How low can you go, Betty?

    Weather or climate?

    Come on.

  56. #57 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Vermin’s the word, chek.

  57. #58 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Olaus

    #35

    #37

    #38

    ?

    ?

    ?

    You aren’t even a lightweight.

  58. #59 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    peterd #52

    The only topic here is the intellectual dishonesty of climate change deniers, so you are right on the button. And yes, it does seem at first blush as though McLean lied. Misrepresentation of the UN is the speciality of our very own Betula. Perhaps he will engage on this.

  59. #60 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “And I simply do not have the time to educate all of the climate change deniers who inhabit the internet. Its up to scientists to get out of the labs more to do this, and for us somehow to crack the media that rarely write about ecological complexity.”

    You’re a broken record Hardley. Systems are complex, and everything affects everything else at every level…only you can never have a definitive conclusion, except that every interaction will be affected by another interaction, because systems are complex and everything affects everything else..

    And only you know this.

    And only you can speculate that if A, then B, and B can only be negative for all interactions.

    Keep up the good work.

  60. #61 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    Barney…another broken record.

    Now deputy, if you really want to ask a question that involves averaging 1/12 of one type of measurement from many different climates at many different latitudes throughout the earth, derived from an evolution of measuring techniques over a very small time scale in terms of history, then I would suggest you ask Hardley

  61. #62 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Come on Betty!

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Come on!!

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  62. #63 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Watch Betty wriggle!

  63. #64 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Watch Betty lie!

  64. #65 chek
    January 3, 2014

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    involves averaging 1/12 of one type of measurement

    – Betty @ #61

    As has been pointed out time and again, Betty is just too fucked-in-the-head incapable of understanding anything discussed on this blog.

  65. #66 Stu
    January 3, 2014

    But what if someone on board is a denier?

    Deniers don’t do actual research. They’re not being paid to. They can lie comfortably from their study, so why take the risk?

  66. #67 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    chek @66

    “involves averaging 1/12 of one type of measurement”

    I guess I wasn’t understanding this statement from Barney at #71 pg 10 Dec…”Let’s look at Novembers past and present”

    Or this one at # 77 pg 10…
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12

    Or this one at #78…
    “And I really should have said at the outset – it is of course all November global average temperatures from 1880 to 2013. Just Novembers”

    Or this one at #97 pg 10 …
    “November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013″

    Or this one at #54 pg 11..
    “oft-repeated and very simple question regarding November temperatures, weather and climate”

    And next time, please scrape off your shoes before you come in here.

  67. #68 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    Stu…

    Who said anything about tourists doing research? And are you saying the scientists on board all had their minds made up about the findings of their research before they left?

  68. #69 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Oh watch that Betty wriggle!!!

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Come on!!

    Why won’t you answer?

  69. #70 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    Barney..

    Rather than claim someone is lying, wouldn’t it be easier to post the lie? Unless of course, you are lying.

    Example:

    What you said at #72 Dec. thread:

    “I said that if people only realised what vested corporate interests (and the internet-infesting denier vermin who help them) were *doing* to their children’s future they would probably beat the more vocal deniers in the streets and I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it.”

    What you actually said:

    “The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

    You see Barney, that’s how you prove a lie.

  70. #71 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Where’s the lie, Betty? Those two paragraphs are consistent with each other. WTF?

    You are getting desperate.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Come on Betty!

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Why won’t you answer?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  71. #72 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Get it through your very thick, utterly dishonest little mind, John Birch [aka Betty]:

    – You have no basis for your claims

    – You lack the expertise to make them

    – You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

    – This makes you an enemy of mankind.

    Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.

  72. #73 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Oops. Link to the original for the context which Betty needs to hide in order to lie about me.

  73. #74 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Oh look, I had another crack at it a few comments later:

    You seem to be having trouble reading the words:

    – You have no basis for your claims

    – You lack the expertise to make them

    – You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

    – This makes you an enemy of mankind

    You are contemptible and in time, fake sceptics will come to be regarded with the universal loathing and contempt they deserve. I hope you are young and healthy enough to live to see that day, and remember me telling you it was coming.

    I wonder how vocal you will be in your misrepresentations of the seriousness of AGW in a few decades time, if you last that long.

    My son is likely to as he is not yet six, which is why I regard you, and those you serve, as vermin.

    I think the first one was better, really.

  74. #75 chek
    January 3, 2014

    Bettyfuckedinthehead still can’t differentiate between the 134 Novembers from 1880-2013 and the 345th consecutive month of above average global temperatures without squirming in a puddle of his own stupidity.

    He’s making Olap look like the smart kid, if such a thing could ever be possible..

  75. #76 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    It’s difficult to tell, chek. He may, but he is so fucking dishonest that he won’t answer the question anyway.

    Watch Betty wriggle.

  76. #77 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    1. “deniers would be beaten in the streets”

    2. “they would probably beat the more vocal deniers”

    Why the suttle change in words Barney? They would or they probably would? And why is it now only the more vocal deniers?

    3. “and I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it.”

    4. “would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

    And why the intentional softening of words Barney? Where’s the angry Barney that’s wants to see people Beaten because in his view, somebody may not agree with his speculated vision of future events?

    Maybe you should add the word “probably” in front of “wouldn’t lift a fucking finger” to give yourself a softer, kinder image.

    Face in Barney, you’re an angry liar.

  77. #78 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    And let’s not forget this:

    Barney..
    Rather than claim someone is lying, wouldn’t it be easier to post the lie? Unless of course, you are lying

  78. #79 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    No, Betty. The two paragraphs at #70 are consistent. You are now desperately trying to get off the hook. And the stench is truly foul.

    But by all means let’s keep reading the original thread:

    I am simply getting angrier and angrier with the stupid amorality of denialism. The absence of any recognition by vocal science deniers like Betty that they are simply shilling for vested corporate and political interests that will, eventually, bugger up the planet.

    The sheer unacceptability of this behaviour is not sufficiently emphasised in public debate. Deniers have, to some extent, managed to normalise their shilling and lies simply by persistent repetition. Given the potential consequences, this should not be tolerated.

    Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:

    – what relevant expertise do you have to deny the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW?

    – demonstrate a robust scientific counter-argument that substantively challenges the scientific consensus on AGW

    If they have no expertise and no scientific argument (eg John Birch, serially, above), then it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants.

    It’s interesting to see that when the true nature of their behaviour is held up in front of them, deniers generally start denying that they are deniers. Thus demonstrating just how morally bankrupt and contemptible they really are.

    We will come back to the question of weather or climate later.

  79. #80 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Why the suttle change in words Barney?

    Because I was quoting from memory, you fuckwit. But thanks for focussing attention on what was really said on the original thread.

  80. #81 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “Because I was quoting from memory”

    So in your mind you envision a less angry, softer, kinder Barney viewing a beating?

  81. #82 Stu
    January 3, 2014

    Who said anything about tourists doing research? And are you saying the scientists on board all had their minds made up about the findings of their research before they left?

    Two sentences. Willful misinterpretation, willful misrepresentation, a moronic red herring and two category errors.

    Betty, I repeat. You are too damned stupid to pull this off. Nobody’s laughing WITH you, sweetheart.

  82. #83 Lionel A
    January 3, 2014

    Here is a hint that Betula and OP are as bright as Donald Trump’s non-hair.

    Trumps non-hair says:

    This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice

    What was I saying about pre-empting deniers on the Arctic Blasts as the jet stream sticks.

  83. #84 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “We will come back to the question of weather or climate later”

    If you have any questions about the difference between weather and climate, ask Hardley…he is the expert. After all, he personally witnessed climate change over a 23 day period in Algonquin….and we know that, just like you, he wouldn’t lie….wink wink.

  84. #85 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    #81

    You can read the words as well as everyone else Betty. All the re-posts above.

  85. #86 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The question was put to you Betty. To you.

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Why won’t you answer?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  86. #87 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    Looks like someone’s having a hyperthermal….

  87. #88 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “What was I saying about pre-empting deniers on the Arctic Blasts as the jet stream sticks”

    Lionel, you seem disappointed that we are experiencing extremely cold weather here. You should be happy, maybe this will help a bit in lowering the monthly GAT. That’s good right?

  88. #89 Betula
    January 3, 2014

    “All the re-posts above”

    Is this because you want people to know how proud you are to be angry enough to want watch a beating and do nothing?

  89. #90 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    That really was pathetic, Betty. Do at least try to remember that everyone else can read the actual words too.

    You have been shown up in the worst imaginable light, yet again. Your comical refusal to answer the weather or climate question is now added to the stack of your recent evasions, which includes an inability to explain Snowball Earth terminations, hyperthermals or Quaternary deglacitions under orbital forcing without invoking a combination of effective GHG forcing and net positive feedbacks. You have also laughably refused to admit that your IPCC conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory despite this being self-evident.

    Not even you can be unaware of the fact that you have behaved dishonestly, evasively and mendaciously ever since you were released from wherever you were detained for the last few months and resumed posting here.

    Why do it, Betty? Do you enjoy being shredded and despised for your vile behaviour? Why come back?

  90. #91 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Now watch Betty wriggle some more.

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Why won’t you answer?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Did I say vermin? Why so I did. Several times, in fact.

  91. #92 chek
    January 3, 2014

    Betty gets ever more nauseating.

    Perhaps, instead of whining like a spoilt child over a hypothetical, Betty could clearly explain to us why anyone should feel compelled to assist dishonest sacks of shit like him having hypothetical local difficulties with his neighbours?

    In your own time, brat.

  92. #93 Lionel A
    January 3, 2014

    Betula, you seem unable to understand the words others write, or grasp that the cold spell in the US is from a climate change from warming related jet stream wobble.

    If this pattern persists, and remember the drought and flooding extremes are from much the same reason thus a pattern is emerging, then is it weather or climate change?

    And do answer BBDs question, you slithy evasive tove.

  93. #94 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    It’s funny how we here so much from the deniers about the cold in Canada and the US, but not a single peep about the colossal heat anomaly right across central Asia. Just look at that thing.

    Source: NOAA November global temperature.

  94. #95 Lionel A
    January 3, 2014

    Betula & co. cannot cope with a paradox.

  95. #96 Lionel A
    January 3, 2014

    Just so happens Peter Sinclair is one of those onto this It’s That Time Again. The Willful Ignorance of Right Wing Snow Trolling. .

    BTW another interesting article on climate sensitivity just up at Real Climate, with a link to earlier good stuff on same.

  96. #97 BBD
    January 3, 2014

    Lionel A

    That’s how we got started! See Bernard J #1 and my #26.

    But I don’t think we’re going to be allowed to talk about that topic – others appear very determined to direct the conversation in any other direction they can.

  97. #98 Lionel A
    January 3, 2014

    How will our weather in the UK shortly, after weeks of pounding, flooding high winds and tides, be related to what is happening in the US right now:

    How US snow will cause more rain in UK and note nearby links to more.

    This mostly for the Betulas and Olaps. Is it not time for Rednoise and Duffer to put in an appearance?

  98. #100 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    You may not believe me but I laughed out loud all the way through. Better than the usual tripe. At almost random, 2:42:

    Where is all the heat going to? The IPCC were supposed to hide the decline… Not the fucking heat!!!

1 2 3 13

Current ye@r *