March 2014 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    March 14, 2014

    The hiatus is there.

    That’s why you can’t point it out on a graph without cherrypicking, either a thin slice of the data, or a thin slice of space or an inappropriately thin slice of time, right? (What was that about how “skeptics” always understood “the importance of scale” again?)

    If you’re serious, it’s impressive how self-deluded you must be to think that readers here are not on to you. If you’re trying to clown-troll, you’re a lightweight – Sunspot was much better at it.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus,

    The ‘ittle bunker’ you refer to is >95% of the scientific community. I gave a lecture to a large group last evening at Amsterdam University in which I spent some time discussing climate change denial as well as other anti-environmental themes. The talk was very well received.

    Truth is, the bunker mentality is the purview of the climate change denial community. Their latest desperate meme is the hiatus, which presupposes that there was arming in the first place. But alas, this same bunch of losers formerly argued that there was no warming. So essentially what we have here s a bunch of uneducated non scientists who are liars and shift the goalposts at will.

    As Bernard said, Olaus simply pretends that the questions just aren’t there, as well as the many studies I have discussed showing ongoing biotic responses to ongoing climate warming. This ostrich mentality and behavior allows this teflon crowd to avoid the real issues on blogs, whereas in face-to-face debates they’s be eaten alive.

    We can start calling Olaus now Cobb or ‘Tex’ on the basis of the pummeling he is taking here (the fact that e refuses to answer our challenges is proof positive that he s being hammered). Why he persists is anyone’s guess. Most of the other deniers who come in here either have long taken their willful ignorance elsewhere, have been rightfully banned or only try the hit-and-run method.

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeffie, the 95% is no tabout doom-and gloom. That’s your fantasy. The real 95% doesn’t disregard the CO2-hypothetis, (and believe humans impact the climate). So do I, you self-loving parrot.

    The unscientificness is the political and ideological garbage you lot contaminated the CO2-hypotheis with. That’s why you can’t differ weather from climate, and science from cult. You turned climate science into portentolgy, and now it starts to bite you in the ass.

    I’m sure it feels worse than you thought. :-)

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus, please answer the questions posed to you by Bernard and me. And at the same time please tell us what special scientific skills and qualifications you possess? What is your day job? From what I can gather, you work in some stuffy boring office shuffling papers. Clearly you aren’t within a light year of a university or research institution.

    I wonder how you, of all people, a pen-pusher, can have the audacity to say that hundreds of studies by scientists published in peer-reviewed journals are ‘unscientific’. Please enlighten me. If anyone is a self-righteous arrogant, self-loving buffoon, it is you. My scientific qualifications shit all over yours (not hard: I have 137 papers and now 3,468 citations of my work and you have 0 and 0 respectively) and yet you write in here as if you know more than anybody else.

    I blew your 150 year quip out of the water. No response from you. Just more vacuous jibes and a desperate appeal to your own authority. “Trust me”!!!! you bleat. “There is a hiatus!” Forget the fact that there’s ample evidence from nature that there is no such thing, we are all supposed to believe an uneducated (in terms of science) Swedish blow-hard who has delusions of grandeur and parrots insults from other deniers (now there’s some hypocrisy, you of all people calling me a parrot).

    The truth is, Olaus, you are an intellectual lightweight. You don’t understand even the most basic environmental science, as evidenced by some of your responses yesterday. You should be flattered that people who are scientists- meaning me, Bernard etc.. – actually bother to respond to your puerile garbage. The only reason I do that is to prove to anyone who might pass by here just how insidiously stupid the anti-environmental movement is, based on their rank-and-file membership (you included).

    Well done Olaus. I can add you to the list of morons I have encountered during my scientific career.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus

    Why are you still not answering two simple questions? Whatever can be the problem? To help you along, here are some graphs:

    First, the short-term trend comparisons:

    GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 – present

    That’s with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.

    Now, let’s add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:

    As above, but with linear trend 1979 – present

    Finally, expand the view to 1900 – present:

    GISTEMP 1900 – present linear trend; 1979 – (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 – present linear trend

    The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.

    * * *

    The very obvious evasions on your part are now acutely embarrassing. Stop wriggling and answer the questions:

    Do you understand the following:

    – Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)

    – Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)

    Just indicate Yes or No.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    BBD, he won’t answer them because he can’t. This is one of the perils of blogs – dopes like Olaus can spew out their crap here and never have to answer devastating rebuttals. The song remains the same for them. One of the most prescient questions – one we also asked another know-nothing, Poptech, but which was never answered – was how total intellectual lightweights with no scientific expertise whatsoever can have views of climate science that are at odds with >95% of the scientific community including the people doing the actual research.

    This is like an accountant, having read a few popular books or blogs on medicine, arguing that 95% of professional experts who agree on some medical procedure are wrong. of course this makes absolutely no sense at all except in the light of politics. Olaus believes what he does because it fits in with his political ideology which, though he won’t admit it, is at the far end of the political right/libertarian. Almost without exception, the right wing political views of deniers cannot be hidden. They wear it on their sleeves. And its this and this alone that forces them to wade into fields beyond their competence in a feeble attempt to camouflage their brazen political ideologies. Although this is blatantly obvious, they rarely, if ever, admit it. Expect Olaus to come back in here with more nonsense about a hiatus and to ignore any mention of socio-political agendas – except to claim that 95% of climate scientists are lefties or communists or whatever.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeffie, I’ sure you win all your battls in the little bubble of yours. :-) But deep inside something is itching: the knowledge that you are barking up the wrong tree (I’m sure that’s the story of your life) and that your fear-mongering portentology going out of fashion, thanks to reality.

    And you still live in the fantasy that you know what the 95% say om your doom-and-gloom. Fascinating! :-)

    Your analogy is also very poor, like everything else you come up with. I’m sure 99% of the MDs would disagree with a group of colleagues finding agressive forms of cancer in every patient they examine. That doesn’t mean that they (99%) deny the existence of cancer.

    You belong to the 1%, ergo the activistic loud mouths seldom workning with real climate science.

    I’m sure the above went way over your bicorne though. :-)

  8. #8 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    No answers Olaus.

    You lose.

    Time you fucked off now.

  9. #9 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    BBD, my analysis is better than urinanalysis. ;-)

    It’s fun watching you squirm in the silt you claimed was settled science.

  10. #10 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    BBD, my analysis is better than urinanalysis.

    It’s fun watching you squirm in the silt you claimed was settled science.

    Charney Report 1979

    Answer the questions or fuck off, Olaus.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus, take BBDs advice. No answers from you. Only more of your right wing bullshit,. In terms of science you cannot stand in the same room as anyone here. Certainly, as I have said, its clear you are a neophyte, And an obnoxious one at that. 95% (that’s being conservative) of scientists agree that humans are forcing climate. The seriousness of this is proven by the joint positions of every major scientific body on Earth; every National Academy in every country. The recent joint National Academy of Science-Royal Society report, which backs up the IPCC, is just further evidence of the seriousness of the predicament.

    You are a first rate idiot, Olaus. Like your brothers in arms who have waded in here with your profound ignorance. And my analogy stands. You are the equivalent of a self-taught hack who presupposes he knows more than most of the scientific community. Pure Dunning-Kruger, like the other similarly brain-dead deniers who pound their chests in here. None so more than your pants-wetting hero, Jonas. They don’t come much more self-righteous than him, what with his zero publications in anything scientific.

    Which reminds me Olaus: since you will not and cannot answer a string of scientific questions thrown at you, at least answer this simple inquiry:

    What are your professional scientific qualifications again? Where can I look your web site up with its many publications, grants, keynote lectures, and scientific conferences attended?

    We all know the answer to this. El zippo. Nix, None. Back to pen pushing for you, Olly. In science you are a nobody. Bugger off.

  12. #12 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Climate science has known that variability in ocean heat uptake will modulate surface warming for decades. You were shown this on the previous page and STILL you repeat your lies and nonsense. So here, again, is the evidence that you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

    Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979) Charney et al. Report to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council:

    One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well-mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so. It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

    Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.

  13. #13 chek
    March 14, 2014

    Olap, what you are too stupid to realise is you’re being kicked around like a soggy football, and any squirming – should it even exist – is of the same type of embarrassment as you’d get witnessing a nine stone weakling insisting on doing the full ten rounds against Mike Tyson. But I like watching fatuous munchkins getting hammered – figuratively speaking – so no squirming here.

    You’re just pouring out meaningless words that are a product of your own unhinged fantasy thought processes.

    If they weren’t unhinged and you had at least some connection to reality, you’d have the data, but you don’t. That’s why you’re avoiding every question put to you.
    Every Single. One.

    Hopefully your denier cult friends find your attempts to achieve God-knows-what here as funny and baffling as I’m sure most here do.

  14. #14 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Let me repeat for emphasis: the Charney Report was published in 1979. That was thirty-five years ago. Three and a half decades.

    Yet you act as though the slight and transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming is a surprise that overturns “settled science”.

    You are wrong again, Olaus. As you always are.

    Now, back to the questions you are too cowardly and dishonest to answer:

    Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    Answer the questions Olaus, or fuck off.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    BBD, he won’t answer them, because he’s a dolt. A simpleton. Self-educated on right wing blogs. That’s it. He’s not clever, witty, smart, or even original. He doesn’t understand basic environmental science, as evidenced by some of the shite he has pasted up here in recent days. I particularly liked his 150 year/territory quip, which claim straight from a comic book or an anti-environmental blog. I mentioned this last night at my talk to biology students and lecturers in Amsterdam and it drew howls of laughter followed by an incredulous question: ‘there are people out there who truly think like this?’. My response: Yup. Sadly there are. And what’s worse, they think they are clever.

    We have quite a bit of demographic data on many plants, verts and inverts over the past century in Europe. Certain groups – like in the Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Lepidoptera are very well studied in this regard; many passerines as well. What the data unambiguously show is that many species began shifting their ranges in the mid to late 1980s northwards or to higher elevations. It began then; not 150 years ago. Moreover, we are also finding changes in voltinism and community re-assembly as a result of recent warming that is ongoing. Its all there in the journals that the Swedish meathead doesn’t read and probably wouldn’t understand if he did.

    He cannot dispute stuff he doesn’t read. But he tries. that’s the hilarious part. He tries to cover up his ignorance by retreating to discredited memes. He lost the debate here eons ago but his arrogant pride keeps him lingering like a bad smell.

  16. #16 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    What I truly loathe about these vermin, Jeff, is the dishonesty.

    You show them that they are flat-out fucking *wrong*, point by point, and they just repeat the same shite again without batting an eyelid.

    It’s in the hazy area between extreme dishonesty and actual mental illness.

    Anyway, fuck Olaus. Things to do.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    BBD, absolutely. Calling them vermin may be actually too kind. I am flabbergasted by the crap Olaus and his ilk write. Its beneath contempt.

  18. #18 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeffie, if you stopped inventing what others claim and actually read what the say, I’m sure you would feel a lot better. :-)

    And for your unique change plant demographics from the 80s, I would be happy to read the vast bulk of empircal studies on the period ca 1910-1940. Care to share?

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    *Sigh*

    Where to begin dismantling this latest remark from Mr. Meatball?

    I am busy right now revising two manuscripts and starting another. I can see that Olaus expects me to do his homework for him. He might start by checking up on species distributions circa 1960 and earlier, and then more recent research. For instance: in Europe Oak and Pine Processionary caterpillars are native to central and southern Europe. Historical records suggest that the OPC was never common in northern Europe, whereas the PPC was never here, or not at least in any old records. Both species began well documented range expansions in the late 1980s. The OPC arrived in Benelux around 1990 and then spread to the cover the entire country pretty well by 2008. Their numbers are still increasing. The PPC is now in northern France and expanding towards Benelux. Both species are thermophilic and limited in their ranges by the number of frost-days in winter (they overwinter in the egg stage). As these have been decreasing linearly since the 1980s, this is a very strong correlation between this parameter and their range advancement. There are many other examples. Butterflies are responding in the UK to warmer conditions, changes which began in the 1980s. That appears to be the critical decade. Ranges are always labile but only in the 1980s and thereafter have marked changes been noted for many. Some did expand earlier, but these are dwarfed in number by many biota since the 1980s. What is so significant abouyt that decade? That’s when AGW became manifest.

    The same pattern is repeated in biomes across the planet. Its no accident. The planet is warming and nature is responding.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    As I said earlier, over much of Eurasia this has been one of the five warmest winters on record. Here in Holland we only had about 5 frost nights over the winter period (December-March). This is unbelievable. The coldest night temperature was about -2 C. This was a Mediterranean winter. The growing season here is about 4 weeks ahead of schedule. Some annul plants that do not normally grow until summer are already in full leaf (e.g. Brassica nigra). I’ve never seen anything like it in my two plus decades of science. Its beyond exceptional.

  21. #21 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeffie, always the evasive. :-)

    Something from the vast bulk of research comparing the “speed of change” during the warming periods 1910-1940 and ca 1975-1998 will do.

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    And now one is argueing that the latest decade is the warmest sin satlellite records started. How thick are you Jeff?

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Meatball, ecology only became a mainstream science in the 1970s. I explained to you – and it clearly does not sink in – that recent studies have focused on range expansions that have occurred since the 1980s. They do this – now read it and try and understand it – because existing data (based on older observations) reveals that many taxa are now spreading into areas from which it is known that they were formerly absent. The processionary caterpillars I mentioned were either very rare or absent in northern Europe before 1980 (this includes 1910-1940). But they began moving northwards in the 1980s and also increased (and are still continuing to increase) in areas from which they were historically absent. Being ectotherms that survive within well-established thermal windows, there is no doubt that climate warming has played a major role in their recent range expansion. In the past decade a wide range of arthropod taxa have become established well to the north of their historic ranges. In marine ecosystems, warm-water species are now found far to the north of where they were just two decade ago, and again records indicate no evidence of them at all in these habitats before the 1980s and 1990s. And the ranges of many species continue to expand polewards. Why? Because its warming!!!!!! Geddit?

    How much do I have to drum this into your head? You just want to believe in the tooth fairy meatball.

  24. #24 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    I get it Jeffie, as I have all along. It’s warmer in 2000 than in 1960 and “nature itself” has adapted to it. As always you argue against strawman.

    What I was interested in, however, was refs to empirical research comparing the two mentioned periods wrt speed. Do you have some of these up your sleeve, that I can read?

    AND ONE MORE TIME: It’s warmer in 2000 than in 1960 and “nature itself” has adapted to it.

    In other wrds: You don’t need to state the obvious one bore time. OK?

  25. #25 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus

    Why have you STILL not answered those two simple questions? We are trying to establish just what you do – and do not – understand about the basics. You pretend to great knowledge yet won’t even engage on the most straightforward matters. This is very odd.

    So, once again:

    Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I’d stop pissing around and answer now.

  26. #26 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    This is a particularly stupid (and IMO wilful) misdirection:

    Something from the vast bulk of research comparing the “speed of change” during the warming periods 1910-1940 and ca 1975-1998 will do.

    The ecological damage will (not may, will) be done in the C21st and thereafter if warming continues unabated. Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions.

    Yes, nature is resilient, up to a point.That point is about to be reached. Ecologists – scientists who are experts in this field are in unanimous agreement on this point. Palaeontology indicates mass extinctions during previous strong warming events. There is no expert dissenting argument.

    Just you. And as Jeff correctly asks: where are your credentials?

  27. #27 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Some further questions for Olaus (I’m going to put them in a numbered list for ease of reference as we go on):

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    TBC…

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Nature has ‘responded’ to warming is very different than saying nature has adapted to it, you clot. And there’s no use drawing a line at 2000 as nature continues to respond. Some species are most certainly NOT adapting to recent warming (there’s a pile of empirical literature on that, too).

  29. #29 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeff, it’s totally OK to say that there are no such studies, if that’s the case, :-)

    Yet you know so much about it…:-) By first hand knowledge, I presume?

    You are a sitting duck, as always. Making stuff up is the story of your life Jeffie.

  30. #30 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    #23

    #23

    #23

    #23

    #24

    #24

    #24

    #24

    ?

  31. #31 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014
  32. #32 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    “Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I’d stop pissing around and answer now.”

    #23

    #23

    #23

    #23

    #24

    #24

    #24

    #24

    ?

  33. #33 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    “Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions.”

  34. #34 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

    What matters is another century of warming

  35. #35 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    ******

  36. #36 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Hello Olaus.

    Are you there?

    “Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions.”

  37. #37 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Hello Olaus

    Remember this?

    “Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I’d stop pissing around and answer now.”

    Ignorant moron or lying scum?

  38. #38 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    Think, Olaus. Think ever so carefully.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    March 14, 2014

    Notice all lurkers all the dishonest grinning idiot can come up with is spam like #28.

    If Olaus is a stupid boxer absorbing punches he can only do that because his brain is already liquid i.e.

    is an aqueous solution of greater than 95% water, with the remaining constituents, in order of decreasing concentration urea 9.3 g/L, chloride 1.87 g/L, sodium 1.17 g/L, potassium 0.750 g/L, creatinine 0.670 g/L and other dissolved ions, inorganic and organic compounds.

  40. #40 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    @BBD

    Apologies BBD couldn’t help noticing, but there seems to be something wrong with your brain- it’s got stuck. Perhaps if you ran it under the cold tap for a while it might right itself? Bit of a long shot, but it’s probably your best bet in the short/medium term; get you thru the weekend at least.

  41. #41 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    GSW

    Feel free to help poor Olaus out. He seems to be screwed.

  42. #42 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    In fact why not? The more the merrier.

    GSW, your answers please:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    You fancy yourself as a bit sciencey, IIRC. So let’s see what you are made of.

  43. #43 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    @BBD

    Looks like you going to have to take more drastic action than the cold tap BBD.
    Enjoy!
    ;)

  44. #44 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    So fuck-all from another clueless and intellectually dishonest denier.

    Shocked, I tell you.

  45. #45 chek
    March 14, 2014

    It’s being dishonest and clueless wot makes them deniers.
    I can’t think of any exceptions.

  46. #46 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    More on the flailing Climate alarm industry,

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/3/14/a-peer-reviewed-josh-263.html

    The Josh version at least ;) with accompanying material (Matt Ridley)

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/3/12/the-works-of-lord-deben.html

    “the recent “hiatus” in temperatures;

    the likelihood that medieval temperatures may have been as high as today’s;

    the unpredicted increase in Antarctic sea ice;

    that 111 of 114 models had predicted too much warming over recent years”

    Oh dear.
    ;)

  47. #47 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    “the recent “hiatus” in temperatures

    Oh FFS read the previous page of the thread. Not going through all that again. Check out the pretty pictures at #2 this page while you are at it.

    the likelihood that medieval temperatures may have been as high as today’s

    So climate sensitivity pretty high then…

    And some crap about Antarctic sea ice extent which is increasing because of increasing zonal windspeeds quite possibly linked to AGW… and is in any case no evidence against AGW… yawn

    And some crap about CMIP5 which doesn’t even merit a response because it will be a distortion of the facts *and* you can derive S from paleoclimate behaviour.

    What a piss-poor troll you are, GSW.

    Now answer the fucking questions or sod off:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

  48. #48 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    chek

    These two are absolutely crap. Even worse that karenmackspot and that other twat.

    It’s not even sport.

  49. #49 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    Also from GWPF today

    http://www.thegwpf.org/reasons-environment-movement-losing-battle-hearts-minds/

    ““Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket,” Eric Hoffer wrote more than 40 years ago.”

    (for business/racket read climate alarm industry, those who profit from “Doom awareness”; suzukis, flannerys, karolys etc)

    “This has led environmental journalist Keith Kloor to ask: “Are environmental groups on the verge of extinction? Not exactly. But unless they do something to broaden their appeal, their days are numbered as a meaningful presence in American culture and politics.””

    Oh dear (2)
    ;)

  50. #50 chek
    March 14, 2014

    You’re projecting like a seasick dog, Griselda. Right wing think tanks and journalists (Kloor the denier enabler, FFS!) are Twainishly greatly exaggerating.
    As indeed they might well, seeing as how their best brains can only confect “the hiatus” which – like it’s twin brother ‘1998 was the hottest year (tee hee, no longer) – has been disproved so many times already.
    But it’s all you’ve got, as the US law makers start to awaken.

  51. #51 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    GSW

    Standard daft conflation of physical climatology with “environmentalism”.

    Yawn.

    No answers to the questions yet. Come on. What are you afraid of? Have a go!

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

  52. #52 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    More for those based in Holland/dutch speakers,

    http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2014/03/het-klimaatconflict-waar-gaat-dat-eigenlijk-over

    (translation http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Thoenes-The_Subversion_of_Democracy.pdf)

    “The IPCC is not a scientific but a political institution. The final report will be determined by representatives of the participating governments, i.e. politicians and officials. According to the skeptics, the IPCC has insufficient scientific authority.”

    “I see this situation as a serious undermining of democracy. It has been the basis for totally misguided government policies that cost taxpayers billions each year. In these times of additional cuts it is absurd that this waste of money is continuing.”

    Dick Thoenes is emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Technical University in
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

    Oh dear (3)
    ;)

  53. #53 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    GSW, did you notice how upset BBD got when he understood that Jeffie could back up yet another of his silly claims? :-)

    Poor Jeff in his stupid bicorne. :-)

  54. #54 chek
    March 14, 2014

    Another great big yawn – the IPCC is a political body – Hold the front page! It’s report chapters however are prepared by lead authors who are scientists, not politicians.
    Scratch another desperate denier red herring.

    And another yawn – Canadian think tank promotes report by another retiree in an unconnected discipline.

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Griselda.

    So much effort for nothing. It’s already well recognised that corporate power is the greatest subversion of democracy yet seen which is why it’s being fought on many fronts.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    March 14, 2014

    Poor Matt Ridley, a once respected popular science writer (who’s books, the one I have, I am re-evaluating because it is clear he cannot be trusted with facts) reduced to making posts on the likes of WUWT and now Bishop Shrill.

    For Ridley to complain that there are no, what he calls ‘sceptics or lukewarmers’ on the ‘Committee on Climate Change’ makes it clear that it is they are beginning to feel the heat of being on the wrong side of the debate with false balance in the media brining exposure as more and more high profile companies start accepting the fact that climate change is well and truly here and that we are mostly responsible.

    It is interesting that our protagonists here have to resort to feeding at the poisoned trough of denial, that long list in Nova site right hand side provides clues, this I mentioned up thread.

    An indication that Bishop Hill’sCardinal Puff’s site is childish pants, appeared in the sidebar

    I await with some trepidation the near certainty that @LibDemMEPs will move to legislate on underpants colour. @julianhuppert

  56. #56 chek
    March 14, 2014

    GSW, did you notice

    No, I – along with other readers here – were too busy noticing your continued inability to answer the many, many questions put to you that slaughtered your position, and which you could only remain dumb (in both senses of the word) about.

  57. #57 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    @Olaus

    Hi Olaus ;) I don’t know if ‘upset’ is the right word, “gibbering” certainly.

    Is Joff still trying to measure temperatures with spiders? Doesn’t he know that thermometers are much more reliable? I sort of imagined that with his zoology training he’d be much au fait with “standard practice”.

    “How to take a calf’s temperature”
    http://www.infodairy.com/infodairy_upload_files/Cows_heifers_calves/Calves/0122how%20to%20take%20a%20calf%20temp.pdf

    Would love to see how it would turn out with joff sticking a spider up it’s arse, as in his view it was a much better indicator!
    ;)

  58. #58 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    It’s almost, but not quite, funny watching GSW and Olaus demonstrate their pathological intellectual dishonesty by refusing to answer questions:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    * * *

    How, how low, how low can you go?

    (Public Enemy Night of the Living Baseheads)

  59. #59 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    GSW, did you notice how upset BBD got when he understood that Jeffie could back up yet another of his silly claims?

    Nope. Irritated because of Olaus’ ignoring this:

    “What matters is another century of warming

    While refusing to answer this:

    “5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?”

  60. #60 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    FFS:

    Dick Thoenes is emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Technical University in Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

    So not a climate scientist, not an energy expert and not an economist then. Of course we should take this emeritus chemist seriously!

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    “Doesn’t he know that thermometers are much more reliable?”

    If you truly believe this gormless, then you are much more stupid than even I thought. And I thought you were abysmally stupid to begin with. Clearly, your hole gets deeper. Being in academia, I meet all kinds, but I have to admit that some of the morons I have encountered on Deltoid (like gormless and Olaus) really push the limits of ignorance to an entirely new level. And what’s worse, they think they are smart, informed, and worst of all, correct… the mind boggles. I’ve met mediocre BSc students who know many times more than these two.

    You won’t find a scientist on Earth who would claim that thermometers or other devices are more accurate long-term measures of abiotic conditions, such as temperature, than biodiversity (ectotherms and endotherms). Well, I will add a caveat: at least those who haven’t been bought and paid for by industry. Species are continuing to exhibit shifts poleward and to higher elevations; moreover, we are seeing ongoing shifts in communities as thermophilic species in some instances displace species adapted to colder ambient conditions, changes in seasonal phenology, increases in the number of generations and more. Now, since neither gormless or Olaus know diddly squat about environmental science, all they can do is dismiss the biotic evidence. This is no argument; its assertion by ignorance.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    As another example of gormless’s rank stupidity, he cites something from Dick Thoenes of all people. Living in Holland, I am well aware of Thoenes and a few other people like him.

    Let me just say this: nothing more needs to be said. If these are the kinds of ‘experts’ that deniers rely upon, then this shows how really desperate they are. By the way gormless, I am a Professor too in case you hadn’t noticed. Oh, and one with many times more publications and citations than most of those you dredge up as ‘experts’ on ‘your side’.

    You really are a joke. Why you, like Olaus, write in here is anybody;s guess. When I gave an evening lecture to students last night in Amsterdam, I quoted Olaus and soem of his kindergarten-level comments about ecology (territories/150 years). Following the laughter, I was asked by one student if it was really true that people could be this stupid. Sadly I replied, yes, it is true. And Olly isn’t alone. He’s got you at his side.

  63. #63 Stu
    March 14, 2014

    Mr. Petri, I am very interested in this “hiatus” you speak of. Could you share a link that demonstrates that there has been a hiatus in global warming recently?

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeff, any signs of the piles of studies comparing “demografic speed of plants”? Prefarably the 1910-1940 period with 1975-1998? :-)

    GSW, Jeff usually takes global temps from the top of a mountain, standing against the wind while holding a first hand spider in his raised other hand. :-)

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    …and this is only the beginning; the tip of an iceberg of studies. Too bad Olly and gormless neither read nor understand it. They are too busy living on denier weblogs.

    Study covering the years 1960-2010 showing very significant phenological changes in a range of species and interactions in Russia as a result of climate change. And, to counter Olly’s vacuous remark about ‘adapting’, it only shows biotic shifts, not long-term adaptations. Given the non-linear nature of responses which are association-specific in many instances, its clear that the net result will be the simplification of food webs and communities less resilient to other anthropogenic stresses.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/29/1305533110.full.pdf+html

  66. #66 chek
    March 14, 2014

    Before sodding off out for a night of debauchery, it struck me as worth observing that the Skantroll contingent of Olap and Griselda find the pointing out of their intellectual and moral bankruptcy amusing, without any conception that such behaviour may cause indignation to honest folk who abhor the dishonesty of liars promoting the lies of charlatans and their vested interests.

    As Olap and Griselda prove, it’s not as if they even understand either what they’re attempting to belittle, or what they’re cheering for

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    Talk abut shooting himself in the foot. Meatball makes a vacuous quip just before the first of many studies is linked. Ouch! That’s gotta hurt, meatball. Given that you can count the number of allies you have on Deltoid now with one finger, all that you can do is appeal to gormless to share in your brainless attempt at humor. You are amazingly dense, you know that meathead?

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014
  69. #69 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    @Olaus

    ” Jeff usually takes global temps from the top of a mountain, standing against the wind while holding a first hand spider in his raised other hand”

    Yeah, you need to get the angle just right with the rising sun otherwise the result can be as unreliable as reading tealeaves apparently (joff will have more on this having transcended using mere thermometers for measuring temperature apparently)

    @chek, BBD, stu
    No need to bother chaps, your bit was recorded earlier,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcHZ9yH3j8
    ;)

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-007-9153-1#page-1

    More tomorrow. Its just too bad that I have to do the homework for the louts here. Like all deniers, they refuse to look for studies themselves. And, they use their rank ignorance as a strategy to claim that there is no evidence for a process. As I said, type in keywords like ‘phenology’ and ‘climate change’ or other words like ‘extinction’ and ‘climate change’ etc. into Web of Science search engine and there are thousands of hits. The studies are there. Its just that the deniers don’t like to read them. And, to be fair, given they have no relevant scientific education, they wouldn’t understand them anyway. So that leaves only to possible responses: admit the truth and have done with it, or else camouflage your ignorance by either belittling the studies or their authors, or ignoring them entirely.

    What’s most amazing here is that Olaus seriously thinks he has the upper hand in this debate. No kidding. Its almost pathological, a form or insanity, an extreme kind of narcissism. Olly believed the same about Poptech, all while he was getting soundly thrashed here (Poptech had me on the floor with his statement that the US is not a plutocracy but a ‘Constitutional Republic’. I could here a collective cheer from the ruling elites when they read that. They must have been proud that, though the corporate media they control, that they have so dumbed-down the population that they’ll believe almost anything they are told. I am sure thatv gormless believes the US is a healthy, functioning democracy too.

  71. #71 GSW
    March 14, 2014

    @joff

    Apologies, didn’t mean to leave you out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hil0xCAmWUM

    Your contribution gets a special merit for effort!
    ;)

  72. #72 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Okay, climate science experts, if you can’t answer the other questions, here’s one GSW trolled with earlier: MCA as warm as present.

    How do you square this with a low climate sensitivity?

    Which brings us back to:

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

  73. #73 Stu
    March 14, 2014

    Mr. Petri, I am very interested in this “hiatus” you speak of. Could you share a link that demonstrates that there has been a hiatus in global warming recently?

  74. #74 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Olaus, unless you answer the questions, you are simply making a noise. Why not try to defend your position?

    You would do that by answering these questions:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you disagree, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?

    So come on, argue your case, point by point.

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2014

    By the way, Olaus, Gormless, please tell me again how many scientific publications you have accumulated, and other relevant aspects of your amazing scientific credentials. Just wondering.

    Thus far what we have learned is that both of you have zero publications and no relevant qualifications whatsoever. Oh, I stand corrected; gormless has a third rate BS degree in chemistry.

    Now expect meatball to make a quip about me boasting about my CV. But alas – didn’t gormless try and legitimize vacuous commentary by Dick Thoenes by pasting up his qualifications? Poptech was big on that. In a feeble attempt to legitimize the opinions of known shills, he plastered lengthy descriptions of their qualifications. What we have here is rank hypocrisy. If your opponent is a qualified scientist, and says so, he is ‘waving his CV’. If someone you agree with has any qualifications, no matter how thin, you blow them out of all proportion. This is the denier mindset.

    More hyppcrisy: the reason I made my qualifications clear here in the first place was when one of the deniers here – thankfully I cannot remember who – demanded to know what qualifications I had to challenge him. When I responded, then the new tactic (honed by meatball) was to attack me for waving my CV. This is how these people operate. They belittle someone’s expertise, then when that is presented, they accuse them of narcissism.

    What a sordid lot they are. THANKFULLY this blog is populated by very few of them (right now its only a few).

  76. #76 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Stu, look at what the hiatus boys will not even acknowledge (pasted in from upthread):

    * * *

    GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 – present

    That’s with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.

    Now, let’s add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:

    As above, but with linear trend 1979 – present

    Finally, expand the view to 1900 – present:

    GISTEMP 1900 – present linear trend; 1979 – (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 – present linear trend

    The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.

    * * *

    They go on and on about satellites and thermometers but when you show the data… They go blind.

  77. #77 Stu
    March 14, 2014

    But Mr. BBD, Mr. Petri speaks of it often, and with much confidence. His spectacular scientific credentials are only bolstered by his liberal use of emoticons and spelling akin to a drunk Albanian sailor.

    So it should be no problem for him to produce one graph that shows a recent hiatus in global warming, I feel. I eagerly await his teachings.

  78. #78 Olaus Petri
    March 14, 2014

    Jeff, thanks for the articles, but non of them compares the “speed of plant demgraphics” during the mentioned periods.

    I know your hate-saturated conspiracy brain is thick, but please stop telling me stuff I have no problem with. Why is that you always invent what others think or claim? Of course “nature itself” changes (use what term you like if it pleases you) when it gets warmer. I have told you this many times, you know. :-)

    So, the “speed”-thing, then. Can I please see one or two from the other high stack, the one with studies comparing the “speed och plant demorgraphic” in 1910-1940 period with the 1975-1998 period.

    Without such studies it’s impossible for me (and for you) to see if the change NOW is faster than BEFORE. Witnessing spiders first hand doesn’t count in my book, sorry!

    Surprise me Jeffie! ;-)

  79. #79 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Hey Olaus

    You forgot to make an argument. The problem lies ahead, not behind.

    You ignore this:

    “What matters is another century of warming

    While refusing to answer this:

    “5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?”

    You have a logic problem. You need to explain yourself and defend your position.

    Why won’t you do this?

  80. #80 BBD
    March 14, 2014

    Stu

    Mr Petri has a problem and he doesn’t seem able to fix it. English is not Mr Petri’s first language, so we can ignore the spelling and grammar. What we can’t ignore is the absence of an argument and the refusal to engage substantively.

    Mr Petri is making a noise. Like a whoopie-cushion.

  81. #81 Stu
    March 15, 2014

    English is not Mr Petri’s first language, so we can ignore the spelling and grammar.

    It isn’t mine either, but I am aware of the existence of spell-checking software at the very least. I think there’s a law against that in denier circles though… Jonas was congenitally incapable of going an entire comment without an egregious error as well.

  82. #82 Stu
    March 15, 2014

    Mr. Petri, why are you not linking to a simple graph proving the existence of the hiatus in global warming you continue to speak of?

  83. #83 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    It isn’t mine either

    Then chapeau, Stu.

  84. #84 BBD
    March 15, 2014

    And they called him Jonarse for a reason.

  85. #85 Stu
    March 15, 2014

    Thank you BBD, but ask cRR and Jeff how magical I really am.

  86. #86 Stu
    March 15, 2014

    By the way — if these troll threads have proven anything… being coherent is not language-dependent.

  87. #87 Olaus Petri
    March 15, 2014

    It seems that Jeff got lost in the pile of literature. :-)

  88. #88 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    No Olaus, I got sick and tired of responding to people (you and gormless) whose education in the relevant fields is less than elementary. In other words, we are on very different intellectual planes, and its not worth my valuable time as a qualified scientist to deal with people whose understanding falls below undergraduate level.

    But I will give you this, although it won’t sink in. There are many historical records of plants and animals found in Eurasia and North America that go back 100-200 years at least. This is thanks to the diligent work of amateur collectors as well as professional taxonomists. Given that ecology really didn’t enter the radar until after the writings of Aldo Leopold, G. Evelyn Hutchinson and then Robert MacArthur (eminent scientists the Swedish meatball has clearly never read or even heard of), it wasn’t interpreted in terms of local and wider community-level dynamics. Only in the 1960s with the seminal Hairston et al paper and then the works of Wilson and MacArthur did population and community ecology become a full blown discipline, which enabled us to chart demographic changes in ecological communities at various spatial and temporal scales. The works of Gleason earlier helped us to understand patterns of community structure, and the seminal models of Lotka-Volterra and Nicholson-Bailey were important in understanding the population dynamics of species, but until the 1960s we knew little about the role of abiotic and biotic factors in determining species ranges and local abundance. Following me Olaus? Of course, given your understanding of environmental science is grade-school, Imam trying to keep this simple. I won’t even start talking about neutral models, asymmetric intra- and inter specific competition, island biogeography, Hubbell’a theories etc, or the green world hypotheses as all of this will be well above your pointy little head.

    What we do know on past data sets is whether species were in a given location of not, and, importantly, to some extent how abundant they were. For instance, records of certain insect groups and orders in many European countries are excellent and go back a century and a half (at least). Ditto for plants. As a single example, we know that the ground beetle Ophonus signaticornis is a largely thermophilic species that is confined to open habitats in central and southern Europe (as far north as central Germany). Here, in Holland, where the Carabidae have been well studied and collected, there were three single records of this beetle here – only three specimens, beginning in 1880 with the last in 1958. In 2001, hundreds were collected from a single site in Gelderland, Holland, showing that they had established well north of their historical distribution. There are many similar records of insects in especially well studied and collected orders – the Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Hymenoptera – being collected in large numbers in areas far to the north of their historical ranges during the period 2000-present. Most importantly, they were NOT here until recently, including the time periods meatball refers to. Their spread northwards is a very recent phenomenon. What caused it? Climate warming almost certainly. These are ectotherms with very specific thermal requirements.

    Some of the research I am involved in is also looking at range expanding plants that are colonizing and increasing in areas well to the north of their historic ranges. There are floral atlases for many countries in Europe that have excellent records for the local abundance of annual, biennial and perennial plants going back more than a century. What these records again unambiguously show is that many plants are moving into habitats well north of their historical ranges where there are NO records of them. In our research we are studying the ecological consequences of climate-warming induced range shifts in plants with known congeners that are native locally. The research involves detailed analyses of soil and above-grund communities associated with the range expanders and their related natives, as well as the ecological consequences of community re-assembly. The plants are based on data of known historical distributions and covers a range of families including phylogenetically unrelated species.

    So there you have it. I am sick and tired of having to deal with the vacuous comments of people like meatball whose understanding of the relevant science is sophomoric at best and falls way below university-level thresholds. Given the vacuity in his knowledge base, the only explanation one can make on his opinions re: climate change is that they are politically driven. If the meatball was honest he’d finally come out and admit it, and save everyone here their valuable breath demolishing his arguments (as I, BBD, Bernard and others are doing). The questions he has posed to me are childish ones, speaking as a qualified scientist. We know that AGW is driving shifts in species interactions and communities, and that the consequences for these communities are uncertain and likely to be serious if the warming – as is predicted – continues.

  89. #89 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    To reiterate what I said: there was very little change before meatball. This is amply proven by historical records of species presence/abundance in various parts of their ranges. Rapid changes are a recent phenomenon.

    What’s cleat is that you didn’t read the studies I posted, especially the one in PNAS. Or, more likely, you didn’t understand them. Most hilariously, you calling me ‘thick’ has to be the ironic statement of the year, given my qualifications in the relevant fields put yours back in the Carboniferous.

  90. #90 Olaus Petri
    March 15, 2014

    Jeff, I told you it was perfectallly OK to say that you have no idea of how fast the “speed of plant dempgraphics”, etc were during the 1910-1940. :-)

    The PNSA-article didn’t contain anything of the sort. You must have picked the wrong article in the high stack of PNSA-articles on your desk. :-)

    I know it’s almost impossible for self-loving first hand portentologists to understand the concept of scale and what is proven or what is not.

    SAY AFTER ME JEFF: “I REALLY HAVE NO CLUE IF THE SPEED OF THE PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC (etc) IS FASTER TODAY THAN DURING 1910-1940 PERIOD. THANKS OLAUS FOR MAKING ME UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST MADE IT UP.”

    You are welcome Jeff! :-)

    And again, like you Dr. Bicorne, I’m sure nature itself reacts to a warming climate, spiders, plants, and so on. At any rate that’s what your articles claim.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    March 15, 2014

    Well Olas the Undone, maybe you should try getting lost in a pile of literature, here is a starter for ten.

    What could be the effect of climate change on the ratio of protandrous/protogynous individuals in **** populations?

    Come on, stop this dishonest weaving and ducking and start answering questions.

    You might care to find ‘Ecological responses to recent climate change’ and note the date of that.

    For more let Google be your friend..

    The paywall is still a barrier to those not in academe but enough can be found to throw down your Tower of Babel Olaus.

    Pay attention to Jeffs knowledgeable words,

    There are many historical records of plants and animals found in Eurasia and North America that go back 100-200 years at least. This is thanks to the diligent work of amateur collectors as well as professional taxonomists.

    One of the leading fictional characters in Patrick O’Brian’s excellent ‘Master and Commander’ sequence of novels was one such amateur and O’Brian clearly knew about the role of Sir Joseph Banks, a real life naturalist of considerable renown see here Natural History Museum: Historical collections.

    Now look all this out Olaus and stop pissing about.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    March 15, 2014

    Olaus is such a dick he cannot get the letters PNAS in the correct order. The grinning idiot (GIT) Olaus strikes again.

    Did you bother to read the words here?

    Climate change may disrupt interspecies phenological synchrony, with adverse consequences to ecosystem functioning. We present here a 40-y-long time series on 10,425 dates that were systematically collected in a single Russian locality for 97 plant, 78 bird, 10 herptile, 19 insect, and 9 fungal phenological events, as well as for 77 climatic events related to temperature, precipitation, snow, ice, and frost. We show that species are shifting their phenologies at dissimilar rates, partly because they respond to different climatic factors, which in turn are shifting at dissimilar rates. Plants have advanced their spring phenology even faster than average temperature has increased, whereas migratory birds have shown more divergent responses and shifted, on average, less than plants. Phenological events of birds and insects were mainly triggered by climate cues (variation in temperature and snow and ice cover) occurring over the course of short periods, whereas many plants, herptiles, and fungi were affected by long-term climatic averages. Year-to-year variation in plants, herptiles, and insects showed a high degree of synchrony, whereas the phenological timing of fungi did not correlate with any other taxonomic group.

    In many cases, species that are synchronous in their year-to-year dynamics have also shifted in congruence, suggesting that climate change may have disrupted phenological synchrony less than has been previously assumed. Our results illustrate how a multidimensional change in the physical environment has translated into a community-level change in phenology.

    The evidence for climate related disruption is growing by the day, from many regions. Wherever you are get involved in local natural history or environmental projects and LEARN.

  93. #93 Olaus Petri
    March 15, 2014

    Lionel, I have no problems with paywalls, but you, like dr. Bicorne, have a hard time finding any research establishing the “speed of change” during the 1910-1940 period.

    SAY AFTER ME JEFF AND LIONEL: “I REALLY HAVE NO CLUE IF THE SPEED OF THE PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC (etc) IS FASTER TODAY THAN DURING 1910-1940 PERIOD. THANKS OLAUS FOR MAKING ME UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST MADE IT UP.”

    I’m sure Jonas will be proud of you. ;-)

  94. #94 Olaus Petri
    March 15, 2014

    Lionel, # 89, yes, what about it?

  95. #95 Lionel A
    March 15, 2014

    WRT #90 Olas the Undone,

    You clearly didn’t understand the message. Now read this bit again and think about what it means:

    Plants have advanced their spring phenology even faster than average temperature has increased, whereas migratory birds have shown more divergent responses and shifted, on average, less than plants.

    getting it?

  96. #96 chek
    March 15, 2014

    What’s with Olap demanding answers to his questions when he ha so very many of his own outstanding questions awaiting an answer?

  97. #97 Lionel A
    March 15, 2014

    Oh! Poor Matt Ridley, how sad that he will be remembered as a self serving contrarian rather than as a gifted science writer as he rides off into the sunset of denial. Denial not only about the human impact on global warming but of the fallacies in his own truth stretching bluster, bluster so prominent in that Bishop Shrill piece.

    Matt Ridley’s House of Lords speech probably followed the script he laid out in the WSJ (see below) and at WUWT, which has been nicely taken apart here:

    Matt Ridley in denial about being in denial.

    Skeptical Science has over recent years carried much that demonstrates that Ridley is trying to muddy the waters, at best and is likely having his strings pulled from behind the scenes as he entices his readers down the yellow-brick road.

    John Abraham has countered Ridley a number of times including in this article:

    John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal

    and then Ridley has the gal to exhibit faux concern about the disadvantaged in the world with this egregious section:

    Deben himself is frequently highly critical of any sceptics, often mischaracterizing them as “deniers” or “dismissers”, but has never to my knowledge been heard to criticize anybody for exaggerating climate alarm and the harm it can do to disadvantaged people.

    Ridley, take a trip, if only by proxy, to Alaska, the Andes, the lower reaches of the Himalayas’ rivers, the increasingly arid lands in Africa, those hit by storms and heavy rains across the world to see how real climate change is having an effect here and now. There is nothing exaggerated about the science that underpins the IPCC reports, if anything political pressure tends to water them down.

    As for being smeared as a denier, if you don’t like it then Ridley look in the mirror, recognise the condition and stop acting like one.

  98. #98 Lionel A
    March 15, 2014

    What’s with Olap demanding answers to his questions when he ha so very many of his own outstanding questions awaiting an answer?

    And with Olap’s self declared ‘no problems with paywalls’ he has no excuse for not answering ALL of those questions.

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    Olaus, you moronic idiot: if there are NO records of species in certain locations until after circa 1980-1990, THEN THEY WEREN’T THERE EARLIER. Do you want me to repeat that for you?

    Its now warmer in most parts of the planet than it was circa 1910-1940. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1998. Therefore, ITS NOT SURPRISING THAT WE ARE NOW SEEING HITHERTO UNPRECEDENTED SHIFTS IN SPECIES MOVEMENTS POLEWARDS, TO HIGHER ELEVATIONS, AND IN SEASONAL PHENOLOGY.

    Now we know the swedish meatball is profoundly ignorant, but why does this not sink in?

  100. #100 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2014

    To continue from my last post: THE ABSENCE OF MANY SPECIES FROM ANY RECORDS UNTIL AFTER 1980-1990 IS PROOF THAT CURRENT WARMING EXCEEDS ANYTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED IN CENTURIES, AND CERTAINLY MORE THAN 1910-1940.

    Good grief, the stupidity exhibited by meatball is exasperating. I’ve answered his bloody stupid question; again, species distributions and local abundance were fairly constant up until about 1980. Many declined due to habitat losses or changes mediated by human activities (excluding AGW) whereas some generalists benefitted. However, climate change only began to generate large-scale range shifts in the past 20-30 years, a fact which is in no dispute whatsoever. And its not disputed because surface temperatures are now higher than at any time in recorded history. This is NOT rocket science. But Mr. meatball is so uneducated in the field that I am forced to lower myself to utterly basal levels of discourse.

    This debate is now over; kaput. Current demographic changes in biodiversity, caused by AGW are unprecedented. Ranges are shifting faster now than at any time since records were kept (for many biota that is around 150-200 years). Given the magnitude of the warming we are probably talking about many, many centuries. Species now occurring in Benelux, for example, that are native in southern Europe, have never been here before or else are more abundant now than ever before. There are many examples from across the biosphere. I have presented several. The empirical literature has many more.

    Case closed. Shut up now Olaus and go away.

1 3 4 5 6 7 12

Current ye@r *